So the debate is on. But how necessary is it? These candidates have been campaigning for well over a year and I would imagine their positions are fairly well known and understood. But is that the case?
Here's a fun little test provided by ABC News, designed to help you understand which candidate you intuitively line up with.
Take it and then see if, or how, your views change over the course of tonight's debate.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Economic Fundamentals According to Obama
Yesterday was a black day for our nation's economy, and what was McCain's response? While acknowledging the crises, he continued to opine that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." Obviously, his campaign realized his error in judgement, because later he began to backpedal, claiming that by "fundamentals" he was referring to the American workers (now, that's a stretch). By this morning, he was making no bones about it: The economy is bad, very bad.
Well, I'm not about to vote for a presidential candidate with that much of a learning curve. Here's Obama's lesson on economic fundamentals, delivered in a speech this morning in Golden, Colarado. It's well worth reading every word:
Obama’s Remarks on “Confronting an Economic Crisis”
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama—as prepared for delivery
Confronting an Economic Crisis
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008
Golden, Colorado
Over the last few days, we have seen clearly what’s at stake in this election. The news from Wall Street has shaken the American people’s faith in our economy. The situation with Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions is the latest in a wave of crises that have generated tremendous uncertainty about the future of our financial markets. This is a major threat to our economy and its ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills, save for their future, and make their mortgage payments.
Since this turmoil began over a year ago, the housing market has collapsed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to be effectively taken over by the government. Three of America’s five largest investment banks failed or have been sold off in distress. Yesterday, Wall Street suffered its worst losses since just after 9/11. We are in the most serious financial crisis in generations. Yet Senator McCain stood up yesterday and said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.
A few hours later, his campaign sent him back out to clean up his remarks, and he tried to explain himself again this morning by saying that what he meant was that American workers are strong. But we know that Senator McCain meant what he said the first time, because he has said it over and over again throughout this campaign – no fewer than 16 times, according to one independent count.
Now I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for all of the problems we’re facing, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. Because the truth is, what Senator McCain said yesterday fits with the same economic philosophy that he’s had for 26 years. It’s the philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down. It’s the philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise. It’s a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people.
We’ve had this philosophy for eight years. We know the results. You feel it in your own lives. Jobs have disappeared, and peoples’ life savings have been put at risk. Millions of families face foreclosure, and millions more have seen their home values plummet. The cost of everything from gas to groceries to health care has gone up, while the dream of a college education for our kids and a secure and dignified retirement for our seniors is slipping away. These are the struggles that Americans are facing. This is the pain that has now trickled up.
So let’s be clear: what we’ve seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed. And I am running for President of the United States because the dreams of the American people must not be endangered any more. It’s time to put an end to a broken system in Washington that is breaking the American economy. It’s time for change that makes a real difference in your lives.
If you want to understand the difference between how Senator McCain and I would govern as President, you can start by taking a look at how we’ve responded to this crisis. Because Senator McCain’s approach was the same as the Bush Administration’s: support ideological policies that made the crisis more likely; do nothing as the crisis hits; and then scramble as the whole thing collapses. My approach has been to try to prevent this turmoil.
In February of 2006, I introduced legislation to stop mortgage transactions that promoted fraud, risk or abuse. A year later, before the crisis hit, I warned Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke about the risks of mounting foreclosures and urged them to bring together all the stakeholders to find solutions to the subprime mortgage meltdown. Senator McCain did nothing.
Last September, I stood up at NASDAQ and said it’s time to realize that we are in this together – that there is no dividing line between Wall Street and Main Street – and warned of a growing loss of trust in our capital markets. Months later, Senator McCain told a newspaper that he’d love to give them a solution to the mortgage crisis, “but” – he said – “I don’t know one.”
In January, I outlined a plan to help revive our faltering economy, which formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress. Senator McCain used the crisis as an excuse to push a so-called stimulus plan that offered another huge and permanent corporate tax cut, including $4 billion for the big oil companies, but no immediate help for workers.
This March, in the wake of the Bear Stearns bailout, I called for a new, 21st century regulatory framework to restore accountability, transparency, and trust in our financial markets. Just a few weeks earlier, Senator McCain made it clear where he stands: “I’m always for less regulation,” he said, and referred to himself as “fundamentally a deregulator.”
This is what happens when you confuse the free market with a free license to let special interests take whatever they can get, however they can get it. This is what happens when you see seven years of incomes falling for the average worker while Wall Street is booming, and declare – as Senator McCain did earlier this year – that we’ve made great progress economically under George Bush. That is how you can reach the conclusion – as late as yesterday – that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.
Well, we have a different way of measuring the fundamentals of our economy. We know that the fundamentals that we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great –that America is a place where you can make it if you try.
Americans have always pursued our dreams within a free market that has been the engine of our progress. It’s a market that has created a prosperity that is the envy of the world, and rewarded the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon of science, and technology, and discovery. But the American economy has worked in large part because we have guided the market’s invisible hand with a higher principle – that America prospers when all Americans can prosper. That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest.
Too often, over the last quarter century, we have lost this sense of shared prosperity. And this has not happened by accident. It’s because of decisions made in boardrooms, on trading floors and in Washington. We failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.
Let me be clear: the American economy does not stand still, and neither should the rules that govern it. The evolution of industries often warrants regulatory reform - to foster competition, lower prices, or replace outdated oversight structures. Old institutions cannot adequately oversee new practices. Old rules may not fit the roads where our economy is leading. But instead of sensible reform that rewarded success and freed the creative forces of the market, too often we’ve excused an ethic of greed, corner-cutting and inside dealing that threatens the long-term stability of our economic system.
It happened in the 1980s, when we loosened restrictions on Savings and Loans and appointed regulators who ignored even these weaker rules. Too many S&Ls took advantage of the lax rules set by Washington to gamble that they could make big money in speculative real estate. Confident of their clout in Washington, they made hundreds of billions in bad loans, knowing that if they lost money, the government would bail them out. And they were right. The gambles did not pay off, our economy went into recession, and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. Sound familiar?
And it has happened again during this decade, in part because of how we deregulated the financial services sector. After we repealed outmoded rules instead of updating them, we were left overseeing 21st century innovation with 20th century regulations. When subprime mortgage lending took a reckless and unsustainable turn, a patchwork of regulators systematically and deliberately eliminated the regulations protecting the American people and failed to raise warning flags that could have protected investors and the pensions American workers count on.
This was not the invisible hand of the market at work. These cycles of bubble and bust were symptoms of the ideology that my opponent is running to continue. John McCain has spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers. In fact, one of the biggest proponents of deregulation in the financial sector is Phil Gramm – the same man who helped write John McCain’s economic plan; the same man who said that we’re going through a ‘mental recession’; and the same man who called the United States of America a “nation of whiners.” So it’s hard to understand how Senator McCain is going to get us out of this crisis by doing the same things with the same old players.
Make no mistake: my opponent is running for four more years of policies that will throw the economy further out of balance. His outrage at Wall Street would be more convincing if he wasn’t offering them more tax cuts. His call for fiscal responsibility would be believable if he wasn’t for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and more of a trillion dollar war in Iraq paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China. His newfound support for regulation bears no resemblance to his scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement. John McCain cannot be trusted to reestablish proper oversight of our financial markets for one simple reason: he has shown time and again that he does not believe in it.
What has happened these last eight years is not some historical anomaly, so we know what to expect if we try these policies for another four. When lobbyists run your campaign, the special interests end up gaming the system. When the White House is hostile to any kind of oversight, corporations cut corners and consumers pay the price. When regulators are chosen for their disdain for regulation and we gut their ability to enforce the law, then the interests of the American people are not protected. It’s an ideology that intentionally breeds incompetence in Washington and irresponsibility on Wall Street, and it’s time to turn the page.
Just today, Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book – you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem. But here’s the thing – this isn’t 9/11. We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that gets us out. I’ll provide it, John McCain won’t, and that’s the choice for the American people in this election.
History shows us that there is no substitute for presidential leadership in a time of economic crisis. FDR and Harry Truman didn’t put their heads in the sand, or hand accountability over to a Commission. Bill Clinton didn’t put off hard choices. They led, and that’s what I will do. My priority as President will be the stability of the American economy and the prosperity of the American people. And I will make sure that our response focuses on middle class Americans – not the companies that created the problem.
To get out of this crisis – and to ensure that we are not doomed to repeat a cycle of bubble and bust again and again – we must take immediate measures to create jobs and continue to address the housing crisis; we must build a 21st century regulatory framework, and we must pursue a bold opportunity agenda that creates new jobs and grows the American economy.
To jumpstart job creation, I have proposed a $50 billion Emergency Economic Plan that would save 1 million jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure, repairing our schools, and helping our states and localities avoid damaging budget cuts.
I worked with leaders in Congress to create a new FHA Housing Security Program, which will help stabilize the housing market and allow Americans facing foreclosure to keep their homes at rates they can afford. Going forward, we need to replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as we know them with a structure that is focused on helping people buy homes – not engaging in market speculation. We can’t have a situation like the old S&L scandal where its “heads” investors win, and “tails” taxpayers lose.
That’s going to take ending the lobbyist-driven dominance of these institutions that we’ve seen for far too long in Washington.
To prevent fraud in the mortgage market, I’ve proposed tough penalties on fraudulent lenders, and a Home Score system that will ensure consumers fully understand mortgage offers and whether they’ll be able to make payments. To help low- and middle-income families, I will ease the burden on struggling homeowners through a universal homeowner’s tax credit. This will add up to a 10 percent break off the mortgage interest rate for 10 million households. That’s another $500 each year for many middle class families.
Unlike Senator McCain, I will change our bankruptcy laws to make it easier for families to stay in their homes. Right now, if you’re a family that owns one house, bankruptcy judges are actually barred from helping you keep a roof over your head by writing down the value of your mortgage. If you own seven homes, the judge is free to write down any or all of the debt on your second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh homes. Now that may be of comfort to Senator McCain, but that’s the kind of out-of-touch Washington loophole that makes no sense. When I’m President, we’ll make our laws work for working people.
But as we’ve seen the last few days, the crisis in our financial markets now reaches well beyond the housing market. That’s why it’s time to do what I called for last September and again this past March – and it is only more overdue today.
Our capital markets cannot succeed without the public’s trust. It’s time to get serious about regulatory oversight, and that’s what I will do as President. That starts with the core principles for reform that I discussed at Cooper Union.
First, if you’re a financial institution that can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision. When the Federal Reserve steps in as a lender of last resort, it is providing an insurance policy underwritten by the American taxpayer. In return, taxpayers have every right to expect that financial institutions with access to that credit are not taking excessive risks.
Second, we must reform requirements on all regulated financial institutions. We must strengthen capital requirements, particularly for complex financial instruments like some of the mortgage securities and other derivatives at the center of our current crisis. We must develop and rigorously manage liquidity risk. We must investigate rating agencies and potential conflicts of interest with the people they are rating. And we must establish transparency requirements that demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counterparties. As we reform our regulatory system at home, we must address the same problems abroad so that financial institutions around the world are subject to similar rules of the road.
Third, we need to streamline our regulatory agencies. Our overlapping and competing regulatory agencies cannot oversee the large and complex institutions that dominate the financial landscape. Different institutions compete in multiple markets - Washington should not pretend otherwise. A streamlined system will provide better oversight and reduce costs.
Fourth, we need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are. Over the last few years, commercial banks and thrift institutions were subject to guidelines on subprime mortgages that did not apply to mortgage brokers and companies. This regulatory framework failed to protect homeowners, and made no sense for our financial system. When it comes to protecting the American people, it should make no difference what kind of institution they are dealing with.
Fifth, we must crack down on trading activity that crosses the line to market manipulation. The last six months have shown that this remains a serious problem in many markets and becomes especially problematic during moments of great financial turmoil. We cannot embrace the administration’s vision of turning over the protection of investors to the industries themselves. We need regulators that actually enforce the rules instead of overlooking them. The SEC should investigate and punish market manipulation, and report its conclusions to Congress.
Sixth, we must establish a process that identifies systemic risks to the financial system like the crisis that has overtaken our economy. Too often, we end up where we are today: dealing with threats to the financial system that weren’t anticipated by regulators. We need a standing financial market advisory group to meet regularly and provide advice to the President, Congress, and regulators on the state of our financial markets and the risks they face. It’s time to anticipate risks before they erupt into a full-blown crisis.
These six principles should guide the legal reforms needed to establish a 21st century regulatory system. But the change we need goes beyond laws and regulation. Financial institutions must do a better job at managing risks. There is something wrong when boards of directors or senior managers don’t understand the implications of the risks assumed by their own institutions. It’s time to realign incentives and CEO compensation packages, so that both high level executives and employees better serve the interests of shareholders.
Finally, the American people must be able to trust that their government is looking out for all of us - not the special interests that have set the agenda in Washington for eight years, and the lobbyists who run John McCain’s campaign.
I’ve spent my career taking on lobbyists and their money, and I’ve won. If you wanted a special favor in Illinois, there was actually a law that let you give campaign cash to politicians for their own personal use. In the State House, they called it business-as-usual. I called it legalized bribery, and while it didn’t make me the most popular guy in Springfield, I put an end to it.
When I got to Washington, we saw some of the worst corruption since Watergate. I led the fight for reform in my party, and let me tell you – not everyone in my party was too happy about it. When I proposed forcing lobbyists to disclose who they’re raising money from and who in Congress they’re funneling it to, I had a few choice words directed my way on the floor of the Senate. But we got it done, and we banned gifts from lobbyists, and free rides on their fancy jets. And I am the only candidate who can say that Washington lobbyists do not fund my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am President of the United States. That’s how we’re going to end the outrage of special interests tipping the scales.
The most important thing we must do is restore opportunity for all Americans. To get our economy growing, we need to recapture that fundamental American promise. That if you work hard, you can pay the bills. That if you get sick, you won’t go bankrupt. That your kids can get a good education, and that we can leave a legacy of greater opportunity to future generations.
That’s the change the American people need. While Senator McCain likes to talk about change these days, his economic program offers nothing but more of the same. The American people need more than change as a slogan– we need change that makes a real difference in your life.
Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it. I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America. I will eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups – that’s how we’ll grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.
I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. My opponent doesn’t want you to know this, but under my plan, tax rates will actually be less than they were under Ronald Reagan. If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime. In fact, I offer three times the tax relief for middle-class families as Senator McCain does – because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.
I will finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don’t, you’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And I will stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most
I will create the jobs of the future by transforming our energy economy. We’ll tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I’ll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I’ll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy – wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced.
And now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. I’ll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. But in exchange, I will ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American – if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.
This is the change we need – the kind of bottom up growth and innovation that will advance the American economy by advancing the dreams of all Americans.
Times are hard. I will not pretend that the changes we need will come without cost – though I have presented ways we can achieve these changes in a fiscally responsible way. I know that we’ll have to overcome our doubts and divisions and the determined opposition of powerful special interests before we can truly reform a broken economy and advance opportunity.
But I am running for President because we simply cannot afford four more years of an economic philosophy that works for Wall Street instead of Main Street, and ends up devastating both.
I don’t want to wake up in four years to find that more Americans fell out of the middle-class, and more families lost their savings. I don’t want to see that our country failed to invest in our ability to compete, our children’s future was mortgaged on another mountain of debt, and our financial markets failed to find a firmer footing.
This time – this election – is our chance to stand up and say: enough is enough!
We can do this because Americans have done this before. Time and again, we’ve battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other’s success. That’s why our economy hasn’t just been the world’s greatest wealth generator – it’s bound America together, it’s created jobs, and it’s made the dream of opportunity a reality for generation after generation of Americans.
Now it falls to us. And I need you to make it happen. If you want the next four years looking just like the last eight, then I am not your candidate. But if you want real change – if you want an economy that rewards work, and that works for Main Street and Wall Street; if you want tax relief for the middle class and millions of new jobs; if you want health care you can afford and education so that our kids can compete; then I ask you to knock on some doors, and make some calls, and talk to your neighbors, and give me your vote on November 4th. And if you do, I promise you – we will win Colorado, we will win this election, and we will change America together.
Well, I'm not about to vote for a presidential candidate with that much of a learning curve. Here's Obama's lesson on economic fundamentals, delivered in a speech this morning in Golden, Colarado. It's well worth reading every word:
Obama’s Remarks on “Confronting an Economic Crisis”
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama—as prepared for delivery
Confronting an Economic Crisis
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008
Golden, Colorado
Over the last few days, we have seen clearly what’s at stake in this election. The news from Wall Street has shaken the American people’s faith in our economy. The situation with Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions is the latest in a wave of crises that have generated tremendous uncertainty about the future of our financial markets. This is a major threat to our economy and its ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills, save for their future, and make their mortgage payments.
Since this turmoil began over a year ago, the housing market has collapsed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to be effectively taken over by the government. Three of America’s five largest investment banks failed or have been sold off in distress. Yesterday, Wall Street suffered its worst losses since just after 9/11. We are in the most serious financial crisis in generations. Yet Senator McCain stood up yesterday and said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.
A few hours later, his campaign sent him back out to clean up his remarks, and he tried to explain himself again this morning by saying that what he meant was that American workers are strong. But we know that Senator McCain meant what he said the first time, because he has said it over and over again throughout this campaign – no fewer than 16 times, according to one independent count.
Now I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for all of the problems we’re facing, but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. Because the truth is, what Senator McCain said yesterday fits with the same economic philosophy that he’s had for 26 years. It’s the philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down. It’s the philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise. It’s a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people.
We’ve had this philosophy for eight years. We know the results. You feel it in your own lives. Jobs have disappeared, and peoples’ life savings have been put at risk. Millions of families face foreclosure, and millions more have seen their home values plummet. The cost of everything from gas to groceries to health care has gone up, while the dream of a college education for our kids and a secure and dignified retirement for our seniors is slipping away. These are the struggles that Americans are facing. This is the pain that has now trickled up.
So let’s be clear: what we’ve seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed. And I am running for President of the United States because the dreams of the American people must not be endangered any more. It’s time to put an end to a broken system in Washington that is breaking the American economy. It’s time for change that makes a real difference in your lives.
If you want to understand the difference between how Senator McCain and I would govern as President, you can start by taking a look at how we’ve responded to this crisis. Because Senator McCain’s approach was the same as the Bush Administration’s: support ideological policies that made the crisis more likely; do nothing as the crisis hits; and then scramble as the whole thing collapses. My approach has been to try to prevent this turmoil.
In February of 2006, I introduced legislation to stop mortgage transactions that promoted fraud, risk or abuse. A year later, before the crisis hit, I warned Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke about the risks of mounting foreclosures and urged them to bring together all the stakeholders to find solutions to the subprime mortgage meltdown. Senator McCain did nothing.
Last September, I stood up at NASDAQ and said it’s time to realize that we are in this together – that there is no dividing line between Wall Street and Main Street – and warned of a growing loss of trust in our capital markets. Months later, Senator McCain told a newspaper that he’d love to give them a solution to the mortgage crisis, “but” – he said – “I don’t know one.”
In January, I outlined a plan to help revive our faltering economy, which formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress. Senator McCain used the crisis as an excuse to push a so-called stimulus plan that offered another huge and permanent corporate tax cut, including $4 billion for the big oil companies, but no immediate help for workers.
This March, in the wake of the Bear Stearns bailout, I called for a new, 21st century regulatory framework to restore accountability, transparency, and trust in our financial markets. Just a few weeks earlier, Senator McCain made it clear where he stands: “I’m always for less regulation,” he said, and referred to himself as “fundamentally a deregulator.”
This is what happens when you confuse the free market with a free license to let special interests take whatever they can get, however they can get it. This is what happens when you see seven years of incomes falling for the average worker while Wall Street is booming, and declare – as Senator McCain did earlier this year – that we’ve made great progress economically under George Bush. That is how you can reach the conclusion – as late as yesterday – that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.
Well, we have a different way of measuring the fundamentals of our economy. We know that the fundamentals that we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great –that America is a place where you can make it if you try.
Americans have always pursued our dreams within a free market that has been the engine of our progress. It’s a market that has created a prosperity that is the envy of the world, and rewarded the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon of science, and technology, and discovery. But the American economy has worked in large part because we have guided the market’s invisible hand with a higher principle – that America prospers when all Americans can prosper. That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest.
Too often, over the last quarter century, we have lost this sense of shared prosperity. And this has not happened by accident. It’s because of decisions made in boardrooms, on trading floors and in Washington. We failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.
Let me be clear: the American economy does not stand still, and neither should the rules that govern it. The evolution of industries often warrants regulatory reform - to foster competition, lower prices, or replace outdated oversight structures. Old institutions cannot adequately oversee new practices. Old rules may not fit the roads where our economy is leading. But instead of sensible reform that rewarded success and freed the creative forces of the market, too often we’ve excused an ethic of greed, corner-cutting and inside dealing that threatens the long-term stability of our economic system.
It happened in the 1980s, when we loosened restrictions on Savings and Loans and appointed regulators who ignored even these weaker rules. Too many S&Ls took advantage of the lax rules set by Washington to gamble that they could make big money in speculative real estate. Confident of their clout in Washington, they made hundreds of billions in bad loans, knowing that if they lost money, the government would bail them out. And they were right. The gambles did not pay off, our economy went into recession, and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. Sound familiar?
And it has happened again during this decade, in part because of how we deregulated the financial services sector. After we repealed outmoded rules instead of updating them, we were left overseeing 21st century innovation with 20th century regulations. When subprime mortgage lending took a reckless and unsustainable turn, a patchwork of regulators systematically and deliberately eliminated the regulations protecting the American people and failed to raise warning flags that could have protected investors and the pensions American workers count on.
This was not the invisible hand of the market at work. These cycles of bubble and bust were symptoms of the ideology that my opponent is running to continue. John McCain has spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers. In fact, one of the biggest proponents of deregulation in the financial sector is Phil Gramm – the same man who helped write John McCain’s economic plan; the same man who said that we’re going through a ‘mental recession’; and the same man who called the United States of America a “nation of whiners.” So it’s hard to understand how Senator McCain is going to get us out of this crisis by doing the same things with the same old players.
Make no mistake: my opponent is running for four more years of policies that will throw the economy further out of balance. His outrage at Wall Street would be more convincing if he wasn’t offering them more tax cuts. His call for fiscal responsibility would be believable if he wasn’t for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and more of a trillion dollar war in Iraq paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China. His newfound support for regulation bears no resemblance to his scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement. John McCain cannot be trusted to reestablish proper oversight of our financial markets for one simple reason: he has shown time and again that he does not believe in it.
What has happened these last eight years is not some historical anomaly, so we know what to expect if we try these policies for another four. When lobbyists run your campaign, the special interests end up gaming the system. When the White House is hostile to any kind of oversight, corporations cut corners and consumers pay the price. When regulators are chosen for their disdain for regulation and we gut their ability to enforce the law, then the interests of the American people are not protected. It’s an ideology that intentionally breeds incompetence in Washington and irresponsibility on Wall Street, and it’s time to turn the page.
Just today, Senator McCain offered up the oldest Washington stunt in the book – you pass the buck to a commission to study the problem. But here’s the thing – this isn’t 9/11. We know how we got into this mess. What we need now is leadership that gets us out. I’ll provide it, John McCain won’t, and that’s the choice for the American people in this election.
History shows us that there is no substitute for presidential leadership in a time of economic crisis. FDR and Harry Truman didn’t put their heads in the sand, or hand accountability over to a Commission. Bill Clinton didn’t put off hard choices. They led, and that’s what I will do. My priority as President will be the stability of the American economy and the prosperity of the American people. And I will make sure that our response focuses on middle class Americans – not the companies that created the problem.
To get out of this crisis – and to ensure that we are not doomed to repeat a cycle of bubble and bust again and again – we must take immediate measures to create jobs and continue to address the housing crisis; we must build a 21st century regulatory framework, and we must pursue a bold opportunity agenda that creates new jobs and grows the American economy.
To jumpstart job creation, I have proposed a $50 billion Emergency Economic Plan that would save 1 million jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure, repairing our schools, and helping our states and localities avoid damaging budget cuts.
I worked with leaders in Congress to create a new FHA Housing Security Program, which will help stabilize the housing market and allow Americans facing foreclosure to keep their homes at rates they can afford. Going forward, we need to replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as we know them with a structure that is focused on helping people buy homes – not engaging in market speculation. We can’t have a situation like the old S&L scandal where its “heads” investors win, and “tails” taxpayers lose.
That’s going to take ending the lobbyist-driven dominance of these institutions that we’ve seen for far too long in Washington.
To prevent fraud in the mortgage market, I’ve proposed tough penalties on fraudulent lenders, and a Home Score system that will ensure consumers fully understand mortgage offers and whether they’ll be able to make payments. To help low- and middle-income families, I will ease the burden on struggling homeowners through a universal homeowner’s tax credit. This will add up to a 10 percent break off the mortgage interest rate for 10 million households. That’s another $500 each year for many middle class families.
Unlike Senator McCain, I will change our bankruptcy laws to make it easier for families to stay in their homes. Right now, if you’re a family that owns one house, bankruptcy judges are actually barred from helping you keep a roof over your head by writing down the value of your mortgage. If you own seven homes, the judge is free to write down any or all of the debt on your second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh homes. Now that may be of comfort to Senator McCain, but that’s the kind of out-of-touch Washington loophole that makes no sense. When I’m President, we’ll make our laws work for working people.
But as we’ve seen the last few days, the crisis in our financial markets now reaches well beyond the housing market. That’s why it’s time to do what I called for last September and again this past March – and it is only more overdue today.
Our capital markets cannot succeed without the public’s trust. It’s time to get serious about regulatory oversight, and that’s what I will do as President. That starts with the core principles for reform that I discussed at Cooper Union.
First, if you’re a financial institution that can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision. When the Federal Reserve steps in as a lender of last resort, it is providing an insurance policy underwritten by the American taxpayer. In return, taxpayers have every right to expect that financial institutions with access to that credit are not taking excessive risks.
Second, we must reform requirements on all regulated financial institutions. We must strengthen capital requirements, particularly for complex financial instruments like some of the mortgage securities and other derivatives at the center of our current crisis. We must develop and rigorously manage liquidity risk. We must investigate rating agencies and potential conflicts of interest with the people they are rating. And we must establish transparency requirements that demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counterparties. As we reform our regulatory system at home, we must address the same problems abroad so that financial institutions around the world are subject to similar rules of the road.
Third, we need to streamline our regulatory agencies. Our overlapping and competing regulatory agencies cannot oversee the large and complex institutions that dominate the financial landscape. Different institutions compete in multiple markets - Washington should not pretend otherwise. A streamlined system will provide better oversight and reduce costs.
Fourth, we need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are. Over the last few years, commercial banks and thrift institutions were subject to guidelines on subprime mortgages that did not apply to mortgage brokers and companies. This regulatory framework failed to protect homeowners, and made no sense for our financial system. When it comes to protecting the American people, it should make no difference what kind of institution they are dealing with.
Fifth, we must crack down on trading activity that crosses the line to market manipulation. The last six months have shown that this remains a serious problem in many markets and becomes especially problematic during moments of great financial turmoil. We cannot embrace the administration’s vision of turning over the protection of investors to the industries themselves. We need regulators that actually enforce the rules instead of overlooking them. The SEC should investigate and punish market manipulation, and report its conclusions to Congress.
Sixth, we must establish a process that identifies systemic risks to the financial system like the crisis that has overtaken our economy. Too often, we end up where we are today: dealing with threats to the financial system that weren’t anticipated by regulators. We need a standing financial market advisory group to meet regularly and provide advice to the President, Congress, and regulators on the state of our financial markets and the risks they face. It’s time to anticipate risks before they erupt into a full-blown crisis.
These six principles should guide the legal reforms needed to establish a 21st century regulatory system. But the change we need goes beyond laws and regulation. Financial institutions must do a better job at managing risks. There is something wrong when boards of directors or senior managers don’t understand the implications of the risks assumed by their own institutions. It’s time to realign incentives and CEO compensation packages, so that both high level executives and employees better serve the interests of shareholders.
Finally, the American people must be able to trust that their government is looking out for all of us - not the special interests that have set the agenda in Washington for eight years, and the lobbyists who run John McCain’s campaign.
I’ve spent my career taking on lobbyists and their money, and I’ve won. If you wanted a special favor in Illinois, there was actually a law that let you give campaign cash to politicians for their own personal use. In the State House, they called it business-as-usual. I called it legalized bribery, and while it didn’t make me the most popular guy in Springfield, I put an end to it.
When I got to Washington, we saw some of the worst corruption since Watergate. I led the fight for reform in my party, and let me tell you – not everyone in my party was too happy about it. When I proposed forcing lobbyists to disclose who they’re raising money from and who in Congress they’re funneling it to, I had a few choice words directed my way on the floor of the Senate. But we got it done, and we banned gifts from lobbyists, and free rides on their fancy jets. And I am the only candidate who can say that Washington lobbyists do not fund my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am President of the United States. That’s how we’re going to end the outrage of special interests tipping the scales.
The most important thing we must do is restore opportunity for all Americans. To get our economy growing, we need to recapture that fundamental American promise. That if you work hard, you can pay the bills. That if you get sick, you won’t go bankrupt. That your kids can get a good education, and that we can leave a legacy of greater opportunity to future generations.
That’s the change the American people need. While Senator McCain likes to talk about change these days, his economic program offers nothing but more of the same. The American people need more than change as a slogan– we need change that makes a real difference in your life.
Change means a tax code that doesn’t reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it. I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America. I will eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups – that’s how we’ll grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.
I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. My opponent doesn’t want you to know this, but under my plan, tax rates will actually be less than they were under Ronald Reagan. If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime. In fact, I offer three times the tax relief for middle-class families as Senator McCain does – because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.
I will finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don’t, you’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And I will stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most
I will create the jobs of the future by transforming our energy economy. We’ll tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I’ll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I’ll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy – wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced.
And now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. I’ll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. But in exchange, I will ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American – if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.
This is the change we need – the kind of bottom up growth and innovation that will advance the American economy by advancing the dreams of all Americans.
Times are hard. I will not pretend that the changes we need will come without cost – though I have presented ways we can achieve these changes in a fiscally responsible way. I know that we’ll have to overcome our doubts and divisions and the determined opposition of powerful special interests before we can truly reform a broken economy and advance opportunity.
But I am running for President because we simply cannot afford four more years of an economic philosophy that works for Wall Street instead of Main Street, and ends up devastating both.
I don’t want to wake up in four years to find that more Americans fell out of the middle-class, and more families lost their savings. I don’t want to see that our country failed to invest in our ability to compete, our children’s future was mortgaged on another mountain of debt, and our financial markets failed to find a firmer footing.
This time – this election – is our chance to stand up and say: enough is enough!
We can do this because Americans have done this before. Time and again, we’ve battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other’s success. That’s why our economy hasn’t just been the world’s greatest wealth generator – it’s bound America together, it’s created jobs, and it’s made the dream of opportunity a reality for generation after generation of Americans.
Now it falls to us. And I need you to make it happen. If you want the next four years looking just like the last eight, then I am not your candidate. But if you want real change – if you want an economy that rewards work, and that works for Main Street and Wall Street; if you want tax relief for the middle class and millions of new jobs; if you want health care you can afford and education so that our kids can compete; then I ask you to knock on some doors, and make some calls, and talk to your neighbors, and give me your vote on November 4th. And if you do, I promise you – we will win Colorado, we will win this election, and we will change America together.
Monday, September 8, 2008
McCain's Acceptance Speech
I'm late in posting this, but here is John McCain's Acceptance Speech at the Republican Convention. The actual speech begins about 3:46 in to the video (after all the cheering). It was a good speech, though inaccurate in parts, and particularly personal. I believe his campaign wants the narrative to stay focused on personality (POW, maverick, reformer...at least in the past) and avoid really taking on the issues as much as possible. There's not much in the speech about how exactly he will make America better. He's just basically asking us to trust him.
McCain and Palin Campaigning
Okay, there are less than 60 days until the election. You would think that each presidential and vice-presidential candidate would use every opportunity to explain their positions. If a potential voter approached and asked a substantive question, don't you imagine they would get at least some semblance of a substantive answer?
Well, check this out for one voter's experience the other day in Albuquerque, NM when he spoke with each candidate on the Republican ticket. (Yes, he turned out to be an Obama supporter, but even had he not been, I imagine this experience would have made up his mind for him.)
I cannot imagine either Obama or Biden responding (or not responding) in this fashion this late in the game. Now I truly do believe McCain's GOP handlers have convinced him his only way to succeed is to avoid the issues and keep it all focused on personality.
Well, check this out for one voter's experience the other day in Albuquerque, NM when he spoke with each candidate on the Republican ticket. (Yes, he turned out to be an Obama supporter, but even had he not been, I imagine this experience would have made up his mind for him.)
I cannot imagine either Obama or Biden responding (or not responding) in this fashion this late in the game. Now I truly do believe McCain's GOP handlers have convinced him his only way to succeed is to avoid the issues and keep it all focused on personality.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
One Alaskan's View of Palin
Granted, there will be a variety of opinions expressed among Alaskans as to their governor's name being placed on the Republican ticket, but I thought this one was fairly well-informed, being that she hails from Governor Palin's hometown and attended so many of the City Council meetings there:
> From Brad Smith to Anne Kilkenny:
> Dear Anne,
> Since you live in Wasilla where Sarah Palin was mayor please tell me about
> her as a person and public official. Did you know her personally? What
> observations can you share about Sarah Palin as she moved forward in Alaska
> politics?
> Regards, Brad
> --------------------------------------
>
> From Anne to Brad:
>
> I have known Sarah since 1992. Wasilla is a small town. Everyone here
> knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis.
> My son is a friend of her daughter Bristol. I also am on a first name basis
> with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings
> during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.
>
> She has matured a lot since her early days on the City Council. Thank God.
>
> She is enormously popular, having enjoyed approval ratings above 70%, and
> as high as 80%, as Governor. In every way she's like the most popular girl
> in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote
> for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe".
>
> She's smart and savvy, but her only real experience is as mayor of a city
> with a population of about 4,500 (at the time), and 1.5 yrs as governor of a
> state with under 700,000 residents.
>
> It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept
> her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for eight
> months.
>
> She is "pro-life" and she walks that talk. She recently gave birth to a
> Down's syndrome baby.
>
> She has terrific parents who have been there for her and lots of help
> raising her kids and managing her family. She has good kids. Like all
> politicians, she is a largely absent parent, and spends more time with her
> kids in public when there are cameras rolling than in private. Her family
> was slow to grasp the reality of political life and used to complain about
> her parenting.
>
> She is photogenic in spades. She is a good smiler. She is a former TV
> reporter and is comfortable behind the camera. She is a former beauty
> queen.
>
> She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.
>
> She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there"
> and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.
>
> She has taken on the Republican Party power-brokers in Alaska.
>
> Her husband works "2 on, 2 off" on the North Slope for BP and is a champion
> snowmobile racer. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon
> in Bristol Bay for a month in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination
> is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been
> anything like that of native Alaskans.
>
> Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters; her pro-NRA positions are not
> just political posturing.
>
> During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this
> small city was turned over to an administrator who she had been pushed to
> hire by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble
> over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall attempt.
>
> Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6 years
> as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During
> those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by
> 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced
> progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed
> even food. The tax cuts that she brags about benefited large corporate
> property owners way more than they benefited residents.
>
> The huge increases in tax revenues during her administration weren't enough
> to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too.
> She inherited a city with ZERO debt, but left it with indebtedness of over
> $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for?
> Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? No. $1m for a park.
> $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed
> through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear
> title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the
> lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the
> community but a huge money pit, not the profit- generator she claimed it
> would be. $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs
> without any borrowing. Meanwhile, the City still lacks a sewage treatment
> plant and other basic infrastructure.
>
> While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office re-decorated
> more than once.
>
> These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a small city (population at that
> time of about 4,500). Public indebtedness under her mayoral administration
> increased over $4000 per capita.
>
> As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in
> Alaska. Rather than invest it in technology that will make us energy
> independent and increase efficiency, she proposed distribution of this
> surplus to every individual in the state.
>
> SPEND AND BORROW. In this time of record state revenues and budget
> surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects,
> even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend
> today's surplus, borrow for needs.
>
> She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or
> compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or her
> staff. While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly
> respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing
> from the library some books that Sarah didn't like. City residents rallied
> to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at
> out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination
> letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her
> enemies list to this day.
>
> Sarah complained about the "old boy's club", so what did she bring Wasilla?
> A new set of "old boys", including Wasilla's worst-ever Public Works
> Director, the totally unqualified wife of a powerful person in state
> politics. She fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the
> City and as Governor she hired/elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people,
> creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally
> grateful, so fiercely loyal-- loyal to the point of abusing their power to
> further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of
> pressuring the State's top cop (see below).
>
> Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated" her, she told
> the press. Her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity
> about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire
> him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire
> him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper.
> Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than
> 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that
> she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to
> replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for
> sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew the
> nomination.
>
> She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help.
> The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing
> her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her
> first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal
> City Administrator; even people who didn't like the guy were stunned by this
> ruthlessness.
>
> Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything
> publicly about her. People fear her.
>
> When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah demanded
> the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of
> the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background
> in Oil & Gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid
> $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was
> told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work.
> A member of the Commission and the State Chair of the Republican Party was
> ethically challenged, by dramatically quitting and accusing him of ethics
> violations (for which he was fined) she solved all her problems in one fell
> swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as
> the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the status quo.
>
> She is solidly Republican. Her battles with the Republican party were not
> over philosophy. They were over ethics and power. She is no political
> maverick in terms of philosophy.
>
> Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They
> don't call her "Saint Sarah"; they call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her
> unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. When Sarah's mother-in-law
> ran for Mayor, Sarah endorsed the person who was running AGAINST her
> mother-in-law who was a highly respected member of the community and
> experienced manager.
>
> McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President. It scares the heck
> out of me to think that someone as inexperienced as Sarah Palin could become
> President. There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more
> knowledgeable and experienced than she.
>
> However, there's a lot of people who have under-estimated her and are
> regretting it.
> From Brad Smith to Anne Kilkenny:
> Dear Anne,
> Since you live in Wasilla where Sarah Palin was mayor please tell me about
> her as a person and public official. Did you know her personally? What
> observations can you share about Sarah Palin as she moved forward in Alaska
> politics?
> Regards, Brad
> --------------------------------------
>
> From Anne to Brad:
>
> I have known Sarah since 1992. Wasilla is a small town. Everyone here
> knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis.
> My son is a friend of her daughter Bristol. I also am on a first name basis
> with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings
> during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.
>
> She has matured a lot since her early days on the City Council. Thank God.
>
> She is enormously popular, having enjoyed approval ratings above 70%, and
> as high as 80%, as Governor. In every way she's like the most popular girl
> in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote
> for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe".
>
> She's smart and savvy, but her only real experience is as mayor of a city
> with a population of about 4,500 (at the time), and 1.5 yrs as governor of a
> state with under 700,000 residents.
>
> It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept
> her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for eight
> months.
>
> She is "pro-life" and she walks that talk. She recently gave birth to a
> Down's syndrome baby.
>
> She has terrific parents who have been there for her and lots of help
> raising her kids and managing her family. She has good kids. Like all
> politicians, she is a largely absent parent, and spends more time with her
> kids in public when there are cameras rolling than in private. Her family
> was slow to grasp the reality of political life and used to complain about
> her parenting.
>
> She is photogenic in spades. She is a good smiler. She is a former TV
> reporter and is comfortable behind the camera. She is a former beauty
> queen.
>
> She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.
>
> She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there"
> and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.
>
> She has taken on the Republican Party power-brokers in Alaska.
>
> Her husband works "2 on, 2 off" on the North Slope for BP and is a champion
> snowmobile racer. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon
> in Bristol Bay for a month in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination
> is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been
> anything like that of native Alaskans.
>
> Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters; her pro-NRA positions are not
> just political posturing.
>
> During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this
> small city was turned over to an administrator who she had been pushed to
> hire by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble
> over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall attempt.
>
> Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6 years
> as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During
> those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by
> 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced
> progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed
> even food. The tax cuts that she brags about benefited large corporate
> property owners way more than they benefited residents.
>
> The huge increases in tax revenues during her administration weren't enough
> to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too.
> She inherited a city with ZERO debt, but left it with indebtedness of over
> $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for?
> Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? No. $1m for a park.
> $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed
> through to build on a piece of property that the City didn't even have clear
> title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the
> lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the
> community but a huge money pit, not the profit- generator she claimed it
> would be. $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs
> without any borrowing. Meanwhile, the City still lacks a sewage treatment
> plant and other basic infrastructure.
>
> While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office re-decorated
> more than once.
>
> These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a small city (population at that
> time of about 4,500). Public indebtedness under her mayoral administration
> increased over $4000 per capita.
>
> As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in
> Alaska. Rather than invest it in technology that will make us energy
> independent and increase efficiency, she proposed distribution of this
> surplus to every individual in the state.
>
> SPEND AND BORROW. In this time of record state revenues and budget
> surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects,
> even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend
> today's surplus, borrow for needs.
>
> She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or
> compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or her
> staff. While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly
> respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing
> from the library some books that Sarah didn't like. City residents rallied
> to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at
> out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination
> letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her
> enemies list to this day.
>
> Sarah complained about the "old boy's club", so what did she bring Wasilla?
> A new set of "old boys", including Wasilla's worst-ever Public Works
> Director, the totally unqualified wife of a powerful person in state
> politics. She fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the
> City and as Governor she hired/elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people,
> creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally
> grateful, so fiercely loyal-- loyal to the point of abusing their power to
> further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of
> pressuring the State's top cop (see below).
>
> Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated" her, she told
> the press. Her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity
> about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire
> him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire
> him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper.
> Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than
> 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that
> she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to
> replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for
> sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew the
> nomination.
>
> She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help.
> The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing
> her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her
> first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal
> City Administrator; even people who didn't like the guy were stunned by this
> ruthlessness.
>
> Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything
> publicly about her. People fear her.
>
> When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah demanded
> the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of
> the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background
> in Oil & Gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid
> $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was
> told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work.
> A member of the Commission and the State Chair of the Republican Party was
> ethically challenged, by dramatically quitting and accusing him of ethics
> violations (for which he was fined) she solved all her problems in one fell
> swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as
> the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the status quo.
>
> She is solidly Republican. Her battles with the Republican party were not
> over philosophy. They were over ethics and power. She is no political
> maverick in terms of philosophy.
>
> Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They
> don't call her "Saint Sarah"; they call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her
> unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. When Sarah's mother-in-law
> ran for Mayor, Sarah endorsed the person who was running AGAINST her
> mother-in-law who was a highly respected member of the community and
> experienced manager.
>
> McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President. It scares the heck
> out of me to think that someone as inexperienced as Sarah Palin could become
> President. There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more
> knowledgeable and experienced than she.
>
> However, there's a lot of people who have under-estimated her and are
> regretting it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
