E!!

Clever.  And sobering.

Excerpted and condensed from an email from Erick Erickson at RedState:

Obama has proposed sending the International Monetary Fund (IMF) billions of dollars as a quasi-bailout for European banks. 

The word is, House Republicans are going to vote in a block to oppose this, which means around thirty Democrats are needed to defeat the bill.   Blue Dog Dems are the key, along with Dems in districts that tilt Republican.  

Call 202-224-3121. Ask for the members of Congress below and tell them to oppose H.R. 2346, the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Bobby Bright AL-02
Parker Griffith AL-05
Ann Kirkpatrick AZ-01
Suzanne Kosmos FL-24
Walt Mitnick ID-01
Frank Kratovil MD-01
Glenn Nye VA-02
Tom Perriello VA-05Travis Childers (MS-01)
Harry Mitchell (AZ-05)
Gabby Giffords (AZ-08)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Bill Foster (IL-14)
Baron Hill (IN-09)

If you can stomach it, Americans for Tax Reform has a recap of all the major fiscal and tax-related events since Inauguration Day.

Title:  Obama’s First 100 Days:  Higher Spending. More Debt. New Taxes. Broken Promises.

Yep, that about sums it up.

Just a snippet:

Day 1 — January 20: In his Inaugural address, President Obama makes a noteworthy commitment to the American taxpayer:
 
“And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

Or two:

Day 41 — March 1: The Obama administration foreshadows another broken promise when Peter Orszag, appearing on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, claims the 8,000 earmarks in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 are “last year’s business. We just need to move on.” The statement by Orszag in not consistent with Obama’s campaign promise made in the first presidential debate:
 
“And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” (Sept. 26, 2008. First Presidential Debate, Oxford, Miss.)

RTWT.

Check out this web ad on Harry Reid’s back room dealings re: the protection of AIG bonuses.

Reid appointed himself to the Stimulus Conference Committee and masterminded the deal – and now refuses to talk about it.

Call Harry Reid and tell him you know what he did – and that you will be contributing money to defeat him in 2010:

1-866-SEN-REID

Steve Forbes chimes in.

(That header’s a Transformers movie reference, for all you old folks.  And hermits.  And monks.)

(And I refuse to add a “Stimulus” subject category on my blog because this is NOT a stimulus bill.  I will not bow to the Label Lords of the Left!!)

Stephen Spruiell & Kevin Williamson @ NRO list and detail the 50 most outrageous items in the stimulus package.  This is the best, most comprehensive sum-up I’ve seen.  Read it and weep call your senator today.

Yesterday 18 free market and limited government leaders released a letter urging the Senate to reject “the Bill.” 

And Rasumussen reported that more Americans oppose the $1.2 trillion (including intest) bill than support it.   Here are some blurbs:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

Meanwhile Congressional Republicans doubt whether the bill will save or create the 3 to 4 million jobs Obama and the Dems claim.

The bill is full of pork and nonsense and needs to be scrapped.

Leslie Carbone, on tomorrow’s Stimulus anti-Stimulus vote in the House, that is.

I was recently encouraged, by the executives of an organization that shall go unnamed so I can keep my day job, to write a letter to my Congressman touting the benefits of the Fix Housing First Proposal.

Here’s my letter.

Dear Congressman (or woman)(or Dina Titus):

Rumor has it that you are considering additional action in re: to the housing market. As I understand it, the Fix Housing First proposal consists of the following:

1. The federal government will offer a gi-normous and historically unprecedented supercalifrajalistic tax credit to anyone buying a house in 2009, and anyone who took last year’s lesser tax credit or bought their house prior that can bite the proverbial Big One because they aren’t getting doodleley squat. In essence, those retards who had the poor sense to purchase a domicile before you and your Wall Street pals f***cked the economy into a coma are SOL: too bad, so sad, cry me a Hudson River, etc.

2. In addition – and again, this is only for those bless’d and priveleged few who choose to buy homes in 2009 – the federal government will guarantee a super-sweet taxpayer-subsidized loan at a low, Low market rate of 2.99 or 3.99. Those who were short-sighted enough to finance their homes at 5, 6, or 7% – what a bunch of losers!! – will just have to continue at those rates and hope that sometime in this millenium, they or their unfortunate descendants can break even…or at least not have to file bankruptcy and sell special personal favors out behind the local WalMart.

Naturally, as someone who enjoys being regularly screwed over by my elected officials, I support the Fix Housing First proposal. In addition to priveleging a few citizens over the vast majority and attempting to artificially stimulate an entire industry with the taxpayer dollars OF that majority, it will effectively grind into dust my last vestiges of faith in fairness, equity, and the American Way.

I now realize that virtues such as these are for fools and idealists, and I thank you for freeing me from the naïve weltanschauung that has enslaved me for the better part of my life. Now instead of wasting my time aspiring to liberty and justice for all – what crack-smoking maniac thought up THAT ridiculous concept? – I can now embark on a life filled with bitterness, vitriol and rage and go to my grave cursing both man and God, as is only befitting of an enlightened person of the twenty-first century.

Congratulations on your confirmation into Congress.

Sincerely,

Citizen Sue

I highly recommend this long but excellent piece, “Wall Street Lays Another Egg,” by Niall Ferguson in Vanity Fair. You’ll be smarter if you read even half.

Hat Tip: Ralph Hancock on the Postmodern Conservative blog @ Culture11

I think this will be the E!! last word on the GM thing:  what Jim Manzi says.

David Frum urges us not to bailout automakers on Marketplace.publicradio.org.

And then on NRO, he posts this:

Time was when General Motors alone ranked among the largest employers in the United States.

Today, UPS employs almost four times as many people as the two big U.S. companies, Ford and GM, combined. While the Big Two decline, Toyota USA, Nissan USA, BMW, KIA are all expanding — and not asking for any bailout.

The Big Two remain important employers. Their troubles are felt up and down the manufacturing supply chain. But of course that is true for every industry.

Last week, the stock of Las Vegas Sands Corporation collapsed. Bankruptcy seems a real possibility. Indeed, the whole casino gambling industry in Nevada is facing the worst crisis in at least a generation, maybe ever. Casino gambling directly employs more people than the domestic automobile industry. Add in the supply chain for both industries, and casinos still employ almost half as many people as the automobile sector.

So what about a bailout for the casino industry? Ridiculous! Right? But why right?

Unfreakinbelievable.

Brace yourself and then then read Larry Kudlow’s post on Paulson today, various bailout stuff, and the auto industry.

Setting aside the fact that Paulson has changed the whole bailout game, is Obama’s first policy decision really going to be a GM bailout? Maybe, because apparently a UAW rescue is favored by Pelosi and Reid.

Before you decide what you think, consider this amazing stat:

Total compensation per hour for the big-three carmakers is $73.20. That’s a 52 percent differential from Toyota’s (Detroit South) $48 compensation (wages + health and retirement benefits). In fact, the oversized UAW-driven pay package for Detroit is 132 percent higher than that of the entire manufacturing sector of the U.S., which comes in at $31.59.

At $73 per hour, GM ain’t gonna be competitive no matter what is done. Let them cut their wages to industry norms.

An open letter to the newspapers of America by Orson Scott Card.  A little long but full of facts and well worth the read.

Here’s the opening:

I remember reading All the President’s Men and thinking: That’s journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn’t come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It’s a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can’t repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can’t make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It’s as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn’t there a story here? Doesn’t journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren’t you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefitting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

Read the rest when you have the time.

Hat Tip:  The Venerable Mr. Crum (thanks, honey!)

Blood Pressure Threat Level:  Extreme

On the heels of the financial and credit market bailout and the approval of federally backed loans for U.S. auto makers, the already heavily subsidized ethanol industry – yes, I said ETHANOL – may soon be receiving a bailout as well.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said the feds are considering payouts of as much as $25M to help ethanol plants.  Seems they are struggling since the price of corn has spiked

I agree with NM Congressman J. Flake:  Not only should we not give them money, all tax breaks and credits for ethanol producers should be repealed.

Using crops for fuel on any sort of large scale is a bad, BAD idea.

H/T:  Iain Murray on The Corner

In re: to Sen. Dodd’s claim that he thought his Countrywide VIP status was a “courtesy” and didn’t mean he was getting anything that special, check out this WSJ piece. 

A former Countrywide Financial loan officer, Robert Feinberg, has come forward saying Dodd knowingly saved thousands on his 2003 re-fi’s as “part of a special program the California mortgage company had for the influential.” 

He says he’s in possession of internal company docs proving Dodd knew full well he was getting very preferential treatment as a “Friend of Angelo” Mozilo, Countrywide’s then-CEO. 

From the WSJ piece:

“People are referred into that department as ‘very important people.’ You’re told that your loan is priced from Angelo. As the ‘Friends of Angelo department,’ [the department] has to give them a sense of importance and explain the reduction of fees and the rate as a result of being a ‘Friend of Angelo,’” [Feinberg] says. According to a report by Dan Golden in Condé Nast Portfolio in August, other VIPs included Senator Kent Conrad. Mr. Golden reported that “Countrywide also offered special discounts to congressional staffers involved in housing issues.”

As to Mr. Dodd, Mr. Feinberg says he spoke to the Senator once or twice and mostly to his wife and that like other FOAs Mr. Dodd got “a float down,” which means that even after he had a preferred rate, when the prevailing rate dropped just before the closing, his rate was reduced again. Regular borrowers would pay extra for a last-minute adjustment, but not FOAs. “They were aware of it because they were notified and when they went to the closing they would see it,” Mr. Feinberg says, adding that he “always let people in the program know that they were getting a very good deal because they were ‘Friends of Angelo.’”

And:

One indicator of [Dodd's] influence is the $165,400 in campaign contributions — more than to any other politician — that Fan and Fred have given him since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. These contributions are legal.

But favors like those Mr. Dodd is alleged to have received may not be.

Mr. Feinberg says he went public with his story because when he heard Senator Dodd on TV talking about predatory lending, he felt it was “hypocritical” and he says, “I just thought, ‘This is wrong.’”

Victor Davis Hanson is always worth the read.  Today’s column is on the basic lessons we can learn from the financial mess.

An excerpt:

The new national gospel became charge now/pay later and speculate, rather than put something away in case of a downturn. To provide more goodies that we hadn’t earned, politicians ignored soaring annual budget deficits and staggering national debt and kept spending.

The lessons:

First, cash really is king. For all the talk of a trillion here or billions there, when the crunch came, many of these investment houses and their once-strutting managers found themselves with a minus net worth. They were desperate to find liquidity — any money anywhere they could find it. Pedestrian passbook savings accounts proved wiser investments than all the clever hedge funds, derivatives, and sub-prime schemes put together.

And:

Second, wisdom and blue-chip college educations are not quite the same thing. The fools in Washington and New York who blew up Wall Street had degrees from our finest professional schools.

And:

Third, we as a nation need to relearn the old notion of shame — as in “shame on you!” Firms like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were once responsible Wall Street institutions, built up over decades by sober men. But their far-lesser successors in just a few months have bankrupted these venerable brokerage houses — with seemingly no shame at what they have done to the image of Wall Street.

Americans used to pay their debts. Somewhere in all the blame-gaming about the crooks and liars in New York and Washington, we never hear that real people borrowed real money that they should not have. And they then defaulted on what they owed to others. Walking away from debts may have been understandable, but it was also a violation of trust — and wrong.

 Just received a press release (statement) from the Titus campaign.  Here are some excerpts:

Titus: Bailout Package Is One More Example of How Washington Is Broken

1.  Titus fails to mention that the government policies which birthed the Fannie/Freddie financial crisis were enacted in the Carter and Clinton administrations with the approval of both Ds and Rs in Congress, so she’s either uninformed or being deliberately dishonest.

2.  Titus says Bush and Porter are to blame for the lack of oversight when nearly everyone including the present Democratic leadership was complicit in looking the other way, so she’s either uninformed or being deliberately partisan.

3.  Titus rips Porter for being in favor of the imperfect bailout bill, but then says “with so many critical tax breaks” for Nevada she would have “reluctantly” voted for the inadequate bill also, so she’s either very confused…or being hypocritical.

Porter voted for the bill.  Titus bloviates at length – and then says she would have voted for the bill.  When all the ranting and raving is done, what in Sam Hill is the difference?!

Neither the guy who’s in, nor the gal who wants to BE in, has the gumption to stand on principle and fight for good policy when there are special tax credits to be had.  Of course:  how else could they ingratiate themselves to the voters?  Just look at all they’ve done for you!!

That’s a REAL example of how Washington is broken – and Nevada, too. 

E!! sends enthusiastic kudos to Nevada Congressman Dean Heller.  He voted against the bailout bill earlier this week AND voted against the dressed-up version again today. 

Two thumbs down to Nevada Congresswoman Shelley Berkley who switched her earlier “no” to a “yes.”  Ditto downers to NV Senator Ensign and Rep. Porter who also voted “yes.”

See this post at Politico for a list of vote switchers in other states.  The vote was 263-171.

It sickens me to think this bill was the best Congress could manage to give us after working on nothing else for over a week.

Economic expert John Lewis (D-GA) said about his ‘yes’ vote, “I have decided that the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing something.”

So comforting to know we have geniuses like Lewis looking out for us in Washington.

“I understand the impulse to obsess over the pain and potential catastrophe staring us in the face, but what if the wages of drastically altering the capitalist system that has been our engine of freedom are decidedly worse?” — Andy McCarthy

NOTE:  There is nearly NO commentary about this on conservative/libertarian blogs yet.  I surmise everyone has logged off and is headed to their favorite bar to drown their sorrow (and disgust).

Double Ketel One and cran, please.

From the CNN op-ed page (emphasis mine):

Commentary: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer

Well, we now have proof positive that hanging out at the New York Times will muddle up anyone’s brain.  David Brooks, once a semi reliable conservative thinker, has penned a lamentation (“Revolt of the Nihilists”) so full of hand-wringing angst that, as Laura Ingraham quipped this morning, “it makes my hair hurt.”

Brooks says the failure of the “rescue package” (that’s an Obama-ism, BTW, and does nothing to endear me to the concept since I abhor victim mentalities of all kinds) means our political leaders have ”failed utterly and catastrophically to project any sense of authority, to give the world any reason to believe that this country is being governed.”

Apparently for Brooks, defeat of this bill equals de facto anarchy in America.

Brooks then makes a few apt remarks (ok, so he has not completely lost it), but quickly disappoints again:

And let us recognize above all the 228 who voted no — the authors of this revolt of the nihilists. They showed the world how much they detest their own leaders and the collected expertise of the Treasury and Fed. They did the momentarily popular thing, and if the country slides into a deep recession, they will have the time and leisure to watch public opinion shift against them.

No:  they showed the world that they were willing to listen to the people who elected them, the constituents in their own districts, who bombarded their offices with variations of “vote no” via email and telephone because they (we) don’t trust the “leaders,” and the “experts” at the Treasury and the Fed.  And why the heck should we, after a colossal failure of social engineering the likes of which this nation has never seen…?!

House Republicans led the way and will get most of the blame. It has been interesting to watch them on their single-minded mission to destroy the Republican Party. Not long ago, they led an anti-immigration crusade that drove away Hispanic support. Then, too, they listened to the loudest and angriest voices in their party, oblivious to the complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds.

Good freaking grief, Mr. Brooks!  These House Republicans (and the 95 Democrats who voted with them) are the ONLY people standing up for proper conservative principles, including taking a careful, pragmatic approach to complex problems rather than giving people like Paulson a blank check. 

And nobody on the right led an “anti-immigration crusade”:  they just asked the U.S. government to enforce its own laws (what nerve, ay?!)  As for your take on the ”complicated anxieties that lurk in most American minds,” stick with the op-eds because a gifted psychoanalyst you’re not.  The only anxiety we’re having is over whether this bill will really fix what’s wrong, and whether anyone in D.C. is willing to do the hard work of making sure it does.

Now they have once again confused talk radio with reality. If this economy slides, they will go down in history as the Smoot-Hawleys of the 21st century.

So now we’re all just mindless sheep who totter zombie-like after Rush and Laura who are themselves out of touch with real life?  Do you have any idea how elitist and left wing that sounds?  Perhaps you’d like to come out in favor of the Fairness Doctrine also so we can get a dose of “reality” and not be hypnotized by the likes of the evil Limbaugh?

I can’t quote the rest of your op-ed, because frankly, my hair hurts.  My advice to you is stop wringing your pretty little hands and give it some time.  A bill will be passed; the markets will not collapse; and all will be well, if a little dicey for a time. 

And please stop calling it a “rescue” because that’s one of the words that is turning us off out here in Sheepville.

I’m borrowing my post header from P.J. O’Rourke.  (VERY funny book if you have never enjoyed it.)

I do wish names would be Named, no matter the party affiliation:  who started and voted for all of the federal legislation, who harassed the lenders to conform, which lenders not only conformed but went above and beyond the call, and who made big bucks.

It won’t happen, of course, because they are all in bed together to some degree.

As Anne of Idaho quipped, “Someone needs to go to Washington and Wall Street and close down the whorehouses.”

If no bailout bill is passed and no other/better solution can be agreed upon, I am just fine with having us (and the rest of the world) go into a recession where everyone becomes more financially conservative and/or moderate. 

If I personally have to lose a little in the short term, so be it.  It’s what is best and wisest in the big picture that matters.  “Principle over pain.”

(Note to Chris Matthews on his statement that Dems “overwhelmingly” voted for the bailout bill:  sixty percent is not overwhelming.  In fact, I’d say it’s rather underwhelming.)

Roll Call is reporting that the House “voted 228-205 to reject the financial sector bailout bill crafted over the weekend by a bipartisan group of House and Senate negotiators. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) all had urged Members to support the bill. But House Republicans rejected it by a 2-1 margin, and more than 90 Democrats voted no.”

In re: to my Dodd comments and in the interest of fairness to the Ds and Rs (and with a hat tip to Jim Treacher who posted this a short while ago):

I’m reading accounts that Senator Chris Dodd’s weighty remarks and swelling ego nearly crushed a few innocent bystanders this morning as he bemoaned the Wall Street greed that got us into this mess.

The Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee uttered not one peep, though, re: his acceptance of $165K in contributions from failing Fannie and Freddie (presumably as payback for his opposition to properly overseeing and regulating them).

No mention either, that he benefitted from VIP insider discounted loans from the (now defunct) Countrywide Financial.

K-Lo just posted this, from Jim DeMint’s office:

We’ve just been alerted that despite House Democrats relenting on extending bans on offshore drilling and oil shale in the continuing resolution (CR) appropriations bill, Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid has decided to sneak an extension of the oil shale ban through as Congress fights over the financial bailout. Oil shale in America’s West is estimated to hold be between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil — that is more than three times the proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia alone.

Here is the text of Reid’s proposed new ban on oil shale, that he is trying to add as an amendment to the CR or move seperately as a “stimulus” package, or we should say an anti-stimulus package if this is included.

Sec 1602 continues ban on oil shale. The language follows:

SEC. 1602. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 152 of division A of H.R. 2638 (110th Congress), the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, the terms and conditions contained in section 433 of division F of Public Law 110–161 shall remain in effect for the 19 fiscal year ending September 30, 2009.

It would be an insult to all Americans if Senate Democrats worked to bailout Wall Street while damaging our future prosperity by banning development of vast energy reserves in oil shale.

 I keep reading commentary, even in respected conservative forums, that Paulson’s gigantic bailout plan is bad, and admittedly un-conservative, but that we must do “something” and the alternative is too dreadful to contemplate.

 As Colonel Potter used to say, “Horse-hockey!”  

  Protecting the long-term value of the American dollar is more important than a quick fix.  So is teaching our bankers, traders and lawmakers that the government is not going to bail them out of future messes.  If there’s a pot of government gold at the end of every financial rainbow, what’s to stop everyone from chasing the green leprechaun again?

  Federal action is warranted, but the focus should be less on debt and more on protecting present and future capital.  If we go about this rationally and take this opportunity to promote pro-growth policies and tax reform, investors will respond to the prospect of higher future returns.  It’s that simple.

  Conservatives:  we cannot abandon our principles in times of crisis. We must remain steady at the wheel.

The following letter was sent yesterday to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson:

September 24, 2008

The Honorable Henry Paulson
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20220

Dear Secretary Paulson:

As you continue to craft a financial stabilization plan with Congressional policymakers, I wanted to once again urge you to consider a move that could be executed unilaterally by the Treasury Department: indexing the basis of capital assets to inflation for purposes of calculating gain or loss.

There is a body of legal opinion which holds that the Treasury Department has the power to define “cost basis” when taxpayers calculate capital gain or loss. To date, Treasury secretaries of both parties have chosen to define “cost” as nominal purchase price.

This creates a situation whereby an asset held for many years and later sold may generate a capital gains tax liability when much or all of that gain is purely from inflation. For example, a stock purchased in 1990 for $1000 and sold today for $1676 would face a capital gains tax liability on the $676 “profit.” But in reality, 100% of that “gain” is attributable to inflation.

If the Treasury Department were to re-define “basis” to discount the effects of inflation, it would have a timely and pertinent effect on the current financial challenges. Households and businesses would be able to sell assets, unlock liquidity, and pay a much lower level of taxes. This liquidity is badly needed by capital markets. Best of all, this can be done by you unilaterally, substituting Congressional permission in favor of mere consultation.

Sincerely,
Grover Norquist

– E!! says:  This is better than nothing, but I’d like it much more if we eliminated the capital gains tax altogether.  (Yes, I realize that is probably a pipe dream.  That being the case, Grover’s suggestion is excellent.)

I like Jim Henley’s one-liner: “Wouldn’t it save administrative costs if I just started giving my money to random rich people?”

(H/T:  Outside the Beltway)