House Republican Leadership supports sulking

The Republican House leadership couldn't exercise leadership and keep their promise to bring half their caucus to vote for the bailout bill...and somehow, it's Pelosi's fault?

Apparently she's made the first partisan speech in the history of Congress? Frankly....I don't care if Pelosi said bad things about their mamas. You don't punish the entire country (and the whole world economy) just because your feelings are hurt. This has got to be the lamest excuse for a leadership failure I have heard.

Just who is it that is leading the Republican party? Is it Bush? McCain? Apparently not, since they can't get their share of the votes on the bailout bill they support.

You know, I'm not happy about the bailout bill either. The idea that we should fix the results of the unchecked greed and speculation on Wall Street on the backs of the poor, the middle class, and our children really makes me angry.

However....

The market dropped about 777 points yesterday. Now, for me, from a retirement perspective, that's probably not as bad as it seems to be. I have a long time before retirement. Some people, particularly those close to retirement and those already retired, are taking a brutal hit due to inaction. For those people, this isn't a loss on paper. This is a "do I have to start subsisting on cat food?" kind of loss.

From a job market perspective, the market drop yesterday is horrible. Many companies, and in particular, financial services companies, make much of their profits through investments. When their investments aren't making money....they lay off employees in an attempt to reduce expenses to boost their profit margin. Unemployment was already high prior to this mess. The more unemployment there is....the more foreclosures and bankruptcies there will be. The more foreclosures and bankruptcies there are, the more home prices will drop and the credit market will freeze up.

And if you are lucky enough to not lose your job, perhaps you just won't get paid in a timely manner.

This bill, or something like it, needs to pass, and it needs to pass very soon. Sulking is not acceptable.

Coleman's new "don't blame me" ad

Jeff Rosenberg at The Twin Cities Daily Liberal has a hysterical post about Norm Coleman's latest ad. You can see the post, and the ad, here.

I couldn't decide what was funnier - the sappy guitar music in the ad, or the "please don't attempt to assign blame (to me) pleading in Norm's voice.

Palin - not prepared to answer questions - not prepared to lead

I have yet to see a single instance where someone actually defends what Palin has said in an interview, or a response to a question, etc. The litany of excuses is staggering.

• "Oh, it's the elite liberal mean media's fault."
  
• "It's a gotcha question."
  
• "McCain's campaign staff aren't letting her be herself."
  
• "She isn't a Washington insider."

Whatever.

I'd love to see a Palin apologist actually defend her comments. Tell me why it's okay that she didn't give the same answer about Pakistan that McCain did. Tell me why it's okay that she rambled vaguely and aimlessly about health care reform, tax relief, and job creation when Couric asked her why the bailout wasn't directed at individuals instead of Wall St. firms. Tell me why it's okay that she apparently has no idea what John McCain's record on deregulation is other than one bill he cosponsored in 2005. Tell me why it's okay to have a potential VP who seems astounded by the idea that a democratic election in a Muslim country may result in a government that is anti-democracy and anti-US.

Frankly, it's condescending and sexist not to expect her to be able to answer questions like she's competent. The fact is she's been sent only to handpicked interviewers and she still can't handle it. The fact is that she's answered maybe 10 questions from the press since being nominated, and flubbed most of them.

McCain's judgment in choosing Palin was terrible. He made a gamble that her gender would pull in women voters, and her social conservative bona-fides would pull in the base.

Now McCain is comparing Palin to Clinton and Reagan. He claims she's being underestimated because she's a governor.

Um....I hate to break it to you, John. She's being viewed the way she is because she can't answer questions in a way that is coherent, consistent with her prior positions, and consistent with your positions. She's being viewed the way she is because she's flubbed her interviews and the questions she's actually been allowed to answer. She's being viewed the way she is because the only fully functional sentences that have left her mouth since the day you announced her nomination have been the ones that were written for her convention and stump speeches by other people.

First Debate - Reactions

If you didn't have the opportunity to watch the debate last night, I highly suggest you do so. You can find the full version of the debate here. Likewise, I'm not going to fact check the debate. You can read factcheck.org's view on the accuracy of the candidates here. As expected, McCain's inaccuracies were more, well, inaccurate, than Obama's.

I would just like to give my initial general impressions of the debate overall.

• At worst, this debate was a tie. And what that really means is a loss for McCain. According to the McCain campaign, McCain should have wiped the floor with Obama. However, Obama was informed, coherent, measured, and certain throughout the entire debate. Obama only had to prove to be "good enough" on foreign policy. With as much as McCain has been bragging about foreign policy and his credentials, McCain should have been the clear winner and he was not.
• Initial polling suggests that Obama was viewed as the winner of the debate, both overall, and by uncommitted voters. That is very bad news for McCain.
  
• McCain's inability to even look at Obama, coupled with his hunched posture, sighing, and grimacing, may hurt his standing with some voters.
  

Regulation did not cause the sub-prime crisis

I've recently read a lot of chatter on the blogosphere that implies that, somehow, regulation was the cause of the sub-prime crisis. Usually, the blame is shifted on the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which was originally enacted in 1977. The basic goal of the CRA was to require banks to stop the practice of redlining. (Basically the practice of refusing to offer credit to, or increasing the cost of credit to, individuals and businesses located in poor or minority neighborhoods.) The CRA did not require that credit be offered to un-credit-worthy individuals - just that credit be offered to credit-worthy individuals even if they lived in a poor or minority neighborhood.

The idea that the CRA caused the sub-prime crisis is completely false. Robert Gordon wrote an excellent article about this issue on April 7, 2008. It's called "Did Liberals Cause the Sub-Prime Crisis?"

Some key points from the article:

• About 50% of the sub-prime loans made were made by independent mortgage companies that are not required to follow CRA guidelines.
• Another 25-30% of the sub-prime loans made came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, and they do not have to fully follow CRA guidelines.
• Institutions that do not have to comply with CRA made sub-prime loans at twice the rate of CRA-compliant institutions.

Conservatives need to recognize that deregulation is what got us into this mess. CRA has been around since 1977, and in fact, a study published in January of this year suggests that

• CRA deterred irresponsible lending,
  
• CRA institutions sold fewer of the sub-prime loans they did make onto the secondary market,
• Sub-prime loans made by CRA institutions were not as damaging (i.e., had lower interest rates) as sub-primes loans made by non-CRA institutions, and
• Foreclosure rates were lower in metropolitan areas with higher concentrations of CRA lenders.

Quite frankly, conservatives need to QUIT BLAMING THE POOR AND MINORITIES for the results of the greed of the wealthy. They need to take a little of the "culture of personal responsibility" for themselves.

Putin's head rearing into Alaskan airspace

A snippet from Palin's latest disaster of an interview with Katie Couric.

Couric: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It’s funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don’t know, you know … reporters.

Couric: Mocked?

Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that’s the word, yeah.

Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

Palin: We don’t have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe … that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That’s not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.

Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.

Seriously. She sounds like she's high. This is who is supposed to be ready, day one, to step into the role of the presidency.

The more I see of Palin, the more I understand why they pretty much don't let her answer any questions from the media, and why they have been severely restricting her appearances on talk shows, and why they're trying to move tonight's debate to the VP debate date and "delay" the VP debate. This woman is an embarrassment every time she opens her mouth.

I shock myself by agreeing with the Taxpayers League

For any readers not from Minnesota, I will provide a little background. The Taxpayers League of Minnesota is a conservative group that wields a great deal of influence over Republicans, in particular, in Minnesota. Their basic philosophy is that taxes are bad. Tax increases of any sort, for any reason, are down right evil. Tax cuts are always good. Spending cuts are always good, and government should not be providing most services they provide. Their talking heads like to use words like "socialist" and "liberal" when describing Democrats. They push candidates for office to take "no new taxes" pledges.

There will be a proposed amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution this November on the ballot. The amendment proposes an increase in the state sales tax by 3/8 of a percent. The money will be dedicated to projects for "helping the outdoors" and "the arts."

This has got to be one of the silliest things I have heard. Why on earth would we want to dedicate, by way of constitutional amendment, revenue to specific areas? And why that particular combination?

In addition, I think sales taxes are a particularly punitive tax for the poor and middle class. The poor, and much of the middle class, must spend most or all of their income just to provide for basic living expenses. Sales taxes are regressive. And unfortunately, Minnesota has recently had several sales tax increases - .25% for transit, .15% to buy a new baseball stadium for a billionaire, plus some additional sales taxes imposed only in certain cities.

I think flexibility is a great thing in a budget. This proposal makes no sense to me, and I will be voting no on the proposal.