Skip to content

Monthly Archives: September 2008

Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder - George Washington

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Congressman Barney Frank in a hearing from September 2003 on an administration proposal to alter the regulation of GSEs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two government sponsored enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury.”

“The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn’t bail them out.”

In the 2008 election cycle, the list of the top recipients of donations from the financial services, insurance and real estate sector included the leading presidential candidates.

Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama took in $22.5 million, followed by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton with $21.5 million. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, was close behind with $19.6 million.

Money also rained down on the top members of Congress. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), a candidate for president during the primaries, received $6 million. His counterpart in the House, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), received $720,000 this year.

The No. 2-ranking Democrat on Frank’s House Financial Services Committee, Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, collected $755,000, and ranking Republican Spencer Bachus of Alabama took in $704,000.

Are you surprised we are in this mess?  Stop the partisan bickering and blame game.  Our political leaders are held hostage by their corporate donors who finance their obscene lust to get re-elected.   What are YOU going to do to make a difference?  Do you honestly believe either McCain or Obama will represent change?  What would George do?

Rate this:
2.8 (1 person)

Warning! Danger! Oil prices falling!

The majority of Americans are now supportive of the concept of US Energy Independence. It is one of the few topics that all of the candidates are in general agreement. The various methods and strategies to achieve that independence differ, but everyone realizes that we have to stop the massive transfer of wealth from our country to that of countries that are run by non-democratic dictatorships.

What is the current biggest risk in our ability to reach that goal in the next ten years? Falling oil prices. Seriously, that is our biggest risk. If oil prices fall, consumers will quickly forget the pain, investors will stop pouring money into alternative energy, car companies will crank up the SUV assembly lines, and politicians will start talking about the next new “crisis”. You say that can’t happen? Check your history books, as that is exactly what happened after the late 70’s oil crisis. The oil cartels felt the reduction in oil demand; they saw the new investment into solar and got scared. OPEC’s back was broken, new supplies came online in the North Sea and Alaska, and cheap oil returned.

We cannot allow that to happen again. With oil prices dipping to close to $100 a barrel, Congress should immediately call for a price floor on foreign imported oil. Any oil purchased over-seas at less than $100 a barrel would receive a tariff that made up the difference. Any oil that was produced in the US would remain tariff free, enabling US oil companies to invest in new fields, knowing that their oil could always be sold for a stable price. That price would never be undercut if OPEC and other oil-exporting companies suddenly increased supply.

The government could announce that, as part of a comprehensive energy strategy, it will henceforth not allow the price of foreign purchased oil to fall below $100 per barrel. If high oil prices continue, the proposal would have little impact and cost nothing, either politically or financially. If prices fell below that level, the added tariff would be sent to Washington to help fund alternative energy investment, tax refunds for hybrids, etc.

If consumers and industry knew that the price of a barrel of oil would never again fall below $100 a barrel, they could make long-term investment and consumption decisions with the knowledge that vastly lower oil cost will not under-cut those decisions. Americans will not buy fuel-efficient automobiles, create distribution networks for alternative fuels, or invest in technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells, flex-fuel vehicles or wind power unless they know that a future sharp fall in oil prices will not undercut them.

Would you support a price floor? If not, why?

Rate this:
3.7 (1 person)

C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre

With the conventions behind us, it seems as if the actual campaign will finally start.  I am looking forward to the debates, an opportunity to see the candidates head-to-head.  It should be interesting to see how they do when facing each other on the same stage.  Will McCain’s temper get to him and cause him to come across as a mean old man?  Will Obama be able to maintain his image as eloquent and articulate if he stumbles and trips over his words while trying to find the “safe” words to a direct question?

I was hopeful that Obama would take up McCain’s offer to do weekly town-hall style debates.  In my opinion, it is worrisome when a candidate tries to minimize his appearances with the other candidate.  How do you feel about the upcoming debates?  Would you like to see more, or are you already sick of the campaign and just want the election to be over?

Rate this:
3.8 (2 people)