Posts Tagged ‘Charles Schumer’

Schumer, Democrats Goose-Stepping To Their Fuhrers’ Marching Orders

March 31, 2011

When Charles Schumer’s caucus gives marching orders, Charles Schumer knows exactly how to proceed: “Jawohl, mein Fuhrer!”

Even the New York Times of all sources affirms this was  an incredibly stupid display.  But it is an incredibly stupid act that reveals that the Democrats are strickly a Big Brother-style operation.  And that Republicans are their Immanuel Goldstein.

March 29, 2011, 12:30 pm
On a Senate Call, a Glimpse of Marching Orders
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
4:58 p.m. | Updated Um, senators, ever heard of the mute button?

Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process.

After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how to cut spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”

A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.
Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.

“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny federal financing for Planned Parenthood and for government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Carper continued with the theme, referring to some House Republicans’ “right-wing extremist friends.” Mr. Cardin decried Mr. Boehner’s giving into “extremes of his party.” Mr. Blumenthal closed by speaking of the “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” who are “an anchor” dragging down the budget negotiation process.

How news is made . . .

Update: Later in the day, Mr. Schumer’s spokesman, Brian Fallon, issued this statement about the senator’s remarks: “There’s nothing wrong with reporters overhearing him calling the House Republicans’ [position] extreme, because that’s what it is. He had just given a speech on the Senate floor saying the same thing. The sooner Speaker Boehner abandons the Tea Party’s extreme demands, the sooner there can be a bipartisan deal on the budget.”

So’kay, Republicans are “extreme right wing.”  But you guys are nothing more than a bunch of Nazis, goose stepping to your fuhrers’ marching orders.

The “relatively small extreme group of ideologues” just won the largest landslide election in 70 years, while Democrats – the “mainstream” in their warped view – just LOST the largest landslide election in 70 years.  What is wrong with this picture?

The Republican House is trying to fulfill the campaign pledge that won them victory in that landslide.  The are trying to cut a MERE $61 billion out of a $1.65 TRILLION deficit.  Democrats falsely and deceitfully claim they want to reduce the deficit when literally everything the Republicans propose to do so is “extremist.”

Let’s talk “extremist”:  When Democrats took over, Republicans had left them with a deficit of $161 billion (the deficit in the Republican-passed FY-2007 Budget).  The very next budget, and the first budget passed by Democrats (FY-2008), contained a $459 billion deficit – nearly three times larger than the previous year’s GOP budget.  If that seems crazy, consider their next budget, the FY-2009 budget that had a $1.4 TRILLION deficit – which again virtually tripled their previous tripling of the deficit.  Then there was the Democrats’ FY-2010 budget with a deficit of $1.6 trillion.  And even with total control over the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate, Democrats – caught like cockroaches with the kitchen lights turned on – couldn’t pass a budget at all prior to the election that threw them out of that total control.

Thanks to the Democrats, the United States is adding $4 billion to the deficit every single day this year. 

Now, you need to decide that either THAT is “extreme,” or Republicans trying to cut just a tiny fraction – just 1.5% – of that deficit, is “extremist.”

Republicans are the extremists?  Again, what is wrong with this picture???

Let us see who has used this tactic of unrelenting blame in the past:

Hitler wrote his Mein Kampf.  He blamed the Jews for pretty much everything that was wrong with Germany.

Hitler seized power after blaming the Reichstag fire on a communist conspiracy.

Hitler launched his Anschluss in Austria claiming that he was “protecting” the Austrian people from a Communist uprising (i.e., he blamed the communists).  For the record, both Nazi fascism and Soviet communism were both socialist and both left wing (“Nazi” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party”).  The Nazis were “rightwing” only in that they were the far right of the extreme left.

Hitler demanded the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia after blaming the Czechs for oppressing the Volkdeutsch (ethnic Germans) there.

Hitler invaded Poland after fabricating the Gleiwitz incident which provided him with the pretext to blame the Poles.

The tactic of demagogic blame has worked for fascist socialists many times before.  Only an evil people falls for this tactic.

It remains to be seen whether it will work this time.

The Nuclear Option Defined: Just What IS ‘Reconciliation’?

February 28, 2010

We keep hearing about the term “reconciliation.”  What is it?  What effect would it have on the nation if it were employed?

Let’s see how it has been defined:

  • It is “a change in the Senate rules” that “would change the  character of the Senate forever.”
  • It is “majoritarian absolute power” which is “just not what the founders intended.”
  • It is “the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis.”
  • It evaporates “the checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic.”
  • It is “almost a temper tantrum.”
  • It is the abandonment of the concept of “a check on power” and an     abandonment of that which “preserves our limited government.”
  • It is something that “will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority.”
  • It “is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power.”
  • It “is a fundamental power grab.”
  • It “is a tyranny of the majority.”
  • It is “where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power.”
  • It is a “naked power grab.”
  • It is to “change the rules, break the rules, and misread the Constitution so that they will get their way.”
  • It is “The Senate … being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the   precedent to ignore the way our system has worked, the delicate balance   that we have obtain that has kept this Constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President.”
  • It is “the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel.”

If reconciliation is what these statements say it is, it is truly a fascist tactic that would only be employed by the most fundamentally unAmerican of totalitarians.

Only a genuinely evil and depraved political party would use such a despicable tactic.

Who said this about reconciliation?

Every single statement comes from Democrats as a result of Republicans merely discussing using the tactic to overcome a filibuster of a Bush judicial nomination.  Every single one.

This is how the Democrats themselves have defined what they are about to do in the coming weeks to ram health care down the throats of the American people.

Interestingly, Dianne Feinstein describes a progression which would start from a bad thing to an incredibly bad thing:

Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: The nuclear option if successful will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments and then legislation.

The current batch of Democrats skipped the executive appointments and went straight for the legislation where they could most directly impose their will upon the American people.

That’s what reconciliation is.

When you think about absolute power; when you think about the arrogance of power; when you think about a naked power grab; when you think about the tyranny of the majority; when you think about a Constitutional crisis; when you think about the way democracy ends: when you think about these things, you think about the Democrat Party.

Charles Schumer Crawls Out Of Hole To Talk About Airline Security

January 4, 2010

Yesterday Charles Schumer came out with this:

Schumer: Penalize foreign airports that have lax security
By Tony Romm – 01/03/10 03:05 PM ET

The United States should penalize countries that fail to implement tough screening standards at their airports, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Sunday.

Moreover, U.S.-based airlines should threaten not to fly into those airports either, in order to send a strong message about the importance of international passenger safety, he added.

“You don’t have to be Albert Einstein to realize that flights that originate in foreign countries pose a greater danger,” Schumer said during a press conference Sunday, according to CBS.

“What’s crucial is that we immediately send many more of our [Transportation Security Administration] agents to the airports to check on their compliance,” he added.

Only I couldn’t help but remember this:

December 16, 2009 2:22 PM
Schumer “Regrets” Slur of Flight Attendant
Posted by Brian Montopoli

New York Senator Chuck Schumer was reportedly waiting to take off on a flight from D.C. to New York Sunday when a flight attendant told him to turn his phone off.

According to the Republican aide who was apparently sitting nearby and told the story to Politico, both Schumer and his seatmate – fellow New York Democratic senator Kirsten Gillibrand – kept talking on their phones regardless.

Then the flight attendant came by again and told Schumer that everyone on the flight was waiting for him to turn off his phone.  He asked to finish his conversation but was told he could not; he then hung up and, according to the GOP aide, argued about the rule banning him from speaking on the phone.

When the flight attendant walked away, the aide told Politico, Schumer turned to Gillibrand and referred to the woman as a “bitch.”

Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon seems to be confirming the story; he told Politico that Schumer “made an off-the-cuff comment under his breath that he shouldn’t have made, and he regrets it.”

Perhaps the best detail of the story? The aide claims the phone rang again after Schumer finally hung up.

“It’s Harry Reid calling,” he said, according to the aide. “I guess health care will have to wait until we land.”

The problem with Charles Schumer talking about airports with lax security is that he should pretty much be treated like a terrorist, himself.

So I propose a compromise: how about if we boycott any foreign airport that has lax security, and any airline – whether foreign or domestic – that allows a loathsome toad like Charles Schumer to fly with them?

Just my humble way of trying to be bipartisan.

Major Democrat Charles Schumer Shows What He Really Thinks About Working Women

December 17, 2009

When Democrats reveal what they really think about us.

For me the money quote is this one, even more than Schumer calling the flight attendant a “bitch”:

Then the flight attendant came by again and told Schumer that everyone on the flight was waiting for him to turn off his phone. He asked to finish his conversation…

Imagine an entire plane full of passengers waiting for Charles Schumer to finish his telephone conversation.

That has to be the quintessential essence of an arrogant, elitist Democrat S.O.B.  He’s more important than everybody else in the world combined.  The whole universe revolves around him.  And nobody else matters in the slightest.

December 16, 2009 2:22 PM
Schumer “Regrets” Slur of Flight Attendant
Posted by Brian Montopoli

New York Senator Chuck Schumer was reportedly waiting to take off on a flight from D.C. to New York Sunday when a flight attendant told him to turn his phone off.

According to the Republican aide who was apparently sitting nearby and told the story to Politico, both Schumer and his seatmate – fellow New York Democratic senator Kirsten Gillibrand – kept talking on their phones regardless.

Then the flight attendant came by again and told Schumer that everyone on the flight was waiting for him to turn off his phone. He asked to finish his conversation but was told he could not; he then hung up and, according to the GOP aide, argued about the rule banning him from speaking on the phone.

When the flight attendant walked away, the aide told Politico, Schumer turned to Gillibrand and referred to the woman as a “bitch.”

Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon seems to be confirming the story; he told Politico that Schumer “made an off-the-cuff comment under his breath that he shouldn’t have made, and he regrets it.”

Perhaps the best detail of the story? The aide claims the phone rang again after Schumer finally hung up.

“It’s Harry Reid calling,” he said, according to the aide. “I guess health care will have to wait until we land.”

Apparently, Charles Schumer sees himself rather like Superman with the whole planet at risk, and no telephone booth in sight.  Health care is going to have to wait because a bunch of maggot passengers and a “bitch” flight attendant think their lives somehow matter.

Democrats like Charles Schumer tell us that they are laboring mightily to pass health care for the ordinary American.  But they don’t give one damn about us, and it’s time people understood that.

Who REALLY Exploded Your Economy, Liberals Or Conservatives?

August 3, 2009

From Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny, pages 67-71:

From where does the Statist acquire his clairvoyance in determining what is good for the public?  From his ideology.  The Statist is constantly manipulating public sentiment in a steady effort to disestablish the free market, as he pushes the nation down tyranny’s road.  He has built an enormous maze of government agencies and programs, which grow inexorably from year to year, and which intervene in and interfere with the free market.  And when the Statist’s central planners create economic perversions that are seriously detrimental to the public, he blames the free market and insists on seizing additional authority to correct the failures created at his own direction.

Consider the four basic events that led to the housing bust of 2008, which spread to the financial markets and beyond:

EVENT 1: In 1977, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to address alleged discrimination by banks in making loans to poor people and minorities in the inner cities (redlining).  The act provided that banks have “an affirmative obligation” to meet the credit needs of the communities in which they are chartered.1 In 1989, Congress amended the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requiring banks to collect racial data on mortgage applications.2 University of Texas economics professor Stan Liebowitz has written that “minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications, but the overwhelming reason wasn’t racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.”3 Liebowitz also condemns a 1992 study conducted by the Boston Federal Reserve Bank that alleged systemic discrimination.  “That study was tremendously flawed.  A colleague and I … showed that the data it had used contained thousands of egregious typos, such as loans with negative interest rates.  Our study found no evidence of discrimination.”4 However, the study became the standard on which government policy was based.

In 1995, the Clinton administration’s Treasury Department issued regulations tracking loans by neighborhoods, income groups, and races to rate the performance of banks.  The ratings were used by regulators to determine whether the government would approve bank mergers, acquisitions, and new branches.5 The regulations also encouraged Statist-aligned groups, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, to file petitions with regulators, or threaten to, to slow or even prevent banks from conducting their business by challenging the extent to which banks were issuing these loans.  With such powerful leverage over banks, some groups were able, in effect, to legally extort banks to make huge pools of money available to the groups, money they in turn used to make loans.  The banks and community groups issued loans to low-income individuals who often had bad credit or insufficient income.  And these loans, which became known as “subprime” loans, made available 100 percent financing, did not always require the use of credit scores, and were even made without documenting income.6 Therefore, the government insisted that banks, particularly those that wanted to expand, abandon traditional underwriting standards.  One estimate puts the figure of CRA-eligible loans at $4.5 trillion.7

EVENT 2: In 1992, the Department of Housing and Urban Development pressured two government-chartered corporations – known as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – to purchase (or “securitize”) large bundles of these loans for the conflicting purposes of diversifying the risks and making even more money available to banks to make further risky loans.  Congress also passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act, eventually mandating that these companies buy 45% of all loans from people of low and moderate incomes.8 Consequently, a SECONDARY MARKET was created for these loans.  And in 1995, the Treasury Department established the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which provided banks with tax dollars to encourage even more risky loans.

For the Statist, however, this was still not enough.  Top congressional Democrats, including Representative Barney Frank (Massachusetts), Senator Christopher Dodd (Connecticut), and Senator Charles Schumer (New York), among others, repeatedly ignored warnings of pending disaster, insisting that they were overstated, and opposed efforts to force Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to comply with usual business and oversight practices.9 And the top executives of these corporations, most of whom had worked in or with Democratic administrations, resisted reform while they were actively cooking the books in order to award themselves tens of millions of dollars in bonuses.10

EVENT 3: A by-product of this government intervention and social engineering was a financial instrument called the “derivative,” which turned the subprime mortgage market into a ticking time bomb that could magnify the housing bust by orders of magnitude.  A derivative is a contract where one party sells the risk associated with the mortgage to another party in exchange for payments to that company based on the value of the mortgage.  In some cases, investors who did not even make the loans would bet on whether the loans would be subject to default.  Although imprecise, perhaps derivatives in this context can best be understood as a form of insurance.  Derivatives allowed commercial and investment banks, individual companies, and private investors to further spread – and ultimately multiply – the risk associated with their mortgages.  Certain financial and insurance institutions invested heavily in derivatives, such as American International Group (AIG).11

EVENT 4:  The Federal Reserve Board’s role in the housing boom-and-bust cannot be overstated.  The Pacific Research Institute’s Robert P. Murphy explains that “[the Federal Reserve] slashed rates repeatedly starting in January 2001, from 6.5 percent until they reached a low in June 2003 of 1.0 percent.  (In nominal terms, this was the lowest the target rate had been in the entire data series maintained by the St. Louis Federal Reserve, going back to 1982)….  When the easy-money policy became too inflationary for comfort, the Fed (under [Alan] Greenspan and the then new Chairman Ben Bernanke at the end) began a steady process of raising interest rates back up, from 1.0 percent in June 2004 to 5.25 percent in June 2006….”12 Therefore, when the Federal Reserve abandoned its role as steward of the monetary system and used interest rates to artificially and inappropriately manipulate the housing market, it interfered with normal market conditions and contributed to destabilizing the economy.

————————————————————————————————

1 Howard Husock, “The Trillion-Dollar Shakedown that Bodes Ill for Cities,” City Journal, Winter 2000.

2 Stan Liebowitz, “The Real Scandal,” New York Post, Feb. 5, 2008.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Howard Husock, “The Financial Crisis and the CRA,” City Journal, Oct. 30, 2008.

6 Liebowitz, “The Real Scandal.”

7 Husock, “The Financial Crisis and the CRA.”

8 Ibid.

9 Editorial, “Fannie Mae’s Patron Saint,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10, 2008; Joseph Goldstein, “Pro-Deregulation Schumer Scores Bush For Lack of Regulation,” New York Sun, Sept. 22, 2008; Robert Novack, “Crony Image Dogs Paulson’s Rescue Effort,” Chicago-Sun Times, July 17, 2008.

10 Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, “Report of the Special Examination of Freddie Mac,” Dec. 2003; Office of Federal Housing Oversight, “Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae,” May 2006.

11 Lynnley Browning, “AIG’s House of Cards,” Portfolio.com, Sept. 28, 2008.

12 Robert P. Murphy, “The Fed’s Role in the Housing Bubble,” Pacific Research Institute blog.

The government links from footnote 10 have been purged (and I COUNT on left-leaning “news” sources to purge stories that reveal the left for what it is), but there is plenty of evidence that a) Fannie and Freddie were firmly in the hands of Democrats; b) that Democrats and Fannie/Freddie at least twice resisted reforms by President Bush and Republicans; and c) that Fannie and Freddie executives – who were deeply involved with Democrat activismactively cooked the books to obtain huge bonuses prior to the disastrous crash.  We can also demonstrate d) that Barack Obama and Chris Dodd were involved with corrupt Fannie and Freddie (and Obama and Dodd were also receiving large contributions from corrupt Lehman Bros. even as Obama was getting a sweetheart mortgage deal from corrupt Tony Rezko while Chris Dodd was getting sweetheart mortgage deasl from corrupt Countrywide) right up to the tops of their pointy little heads.

When one examines the actual factors that led to the housing mortgage meltdown (as Mark Levin documents), when one examines the Democrat’s patent refusal to even accept that there was even a problem with Fannie and Freddie – much less allow any regulation – prior to the ensuing disaster, and when one examines the record to see which politicians were receiving money from the parties most responsible for the disaster, there is clearly only one party to blame: the Democrat Party.

And they are right back to all their old tricks.  It was rampant and insane spending that got us into this financial black hole – and they want MORE on top of MORE spending.  Meanwhile, Democrats such as Barney Frank are hard at work trying to create the NEXT massively destructive housing bubble, ACORN is trying to seize houses from rightful owners in the name of the “poor,” liberals are making moral hazard that rewards recklessness and irresponsibility and punishes frugality and responsibility official government policy , even as the Obama administration is creating “solutions” to the foreclosure issue that have abjectly failed.

Obama’s “New New Deal” Will Redistribute Wealth Of Shrinking Economy

November 14, 2008

The last couple weeks may well be a harbinger of things to come, as the people Obama promised to tax heavily continue to pull out of the market.  On November 4, the Dow closed at 9,625; today, it was at 8,497.  That means that the market has lost nearly 12% of its value since Obama became President-elect.  Hardly a measure of confidence.

The market spoke rather clearly on November 5:

NEW YORK, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Wall Street hardly delivered a
rousing welcome to President-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday,
dropping by the largest margin on record for a day following a U.S.
presidential contest.
 The slide more than wiped out the previous day's advance, the
largest Election Day rally ever for U.S. stocks.

Now, this wasn’t at all unexpected.  On October 24, I wrote an article titled, “Investors Ready For Dramatic Sell-Off If Democrats Win.”  A few days before that, I wrote an article pointing out that “Actual Job Creators Favor McCain 4-1 Over Obama,” which – among other things – points out that “74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.”

The people who invest, and create job opportunities, and build the economy, don’t want to have their wealth redistributed.  Would you want your wealth redistributed?

Democratic apologists point out that Obama promises on a meager jump in the top federal tax rates from 36% to 39%.  But that “insignificant” 3% comes right out of peoples’ profits.  It sounds a lot worse when the reality is understood: when businesses that had been making an 11% profit are now reduced to an 8% profit.  Or an 8% profit reduced to a 5% profit.  And Obama promises to increase capital gains taxes and several other taxes that will impact upon businesses and the investment climate that supports business.  How hard are job creators willing to work to experience a diminishing return on their time, labor, and risk?

Time Magazine – a publication that has gushed over Obama for months – has a new gushing cover:

It should frighten you.  FDR was no “moderate.”  He presided over a terrible time for the country, and – while he was a popular figure because of what he tried to do – his actual economic administration has been widely recognized by economists to have been a failure.  Studies have demonstrated that the average depression lasted only four years; but for some reason the Great Depression dragged on and on and on under FDR’s governance.  By 1938, after more than four years of FDR, the effects of the Depression were actually much worse than they had been when he first took office.

As an example of the new realizations regarding the 1930s, UCLA economists argue:

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

Even the common man’s sense has largely been that World War II had more to do with getting us out of the Depression than FDR’s New Deal.  It certainly did get men who had been standing in bread lines put to “work.”  And as the nation coalesced together and began to pour resources into building weapons, factories that had been idled came back on line, and innovation increased to match the technological development of our enemies.  And certainly, the fact that, when hostilities ended, the United States alone was not reduced to rubble had a great deal to do with helping our economy surge forward.

But by that thinking, anyone who criticized President Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is correct only insofar as we need an even BIGGER war.  For Obama to truly be like FDR, we need to have a devastating Depression that drags on for 12 years while incompetent liberals continue to tinker, and then we need slug it out in World War III against Russia and China.

So pardon me for looking at the “New New Deal” FDR-lookalike Barack Obama and shuddering down to the marrow of my bones.

We’re watching the market beginning to go down the slide.  It’s going to go down a lot more.  And fear over Barack Obama’s policies is going to have a lot to do with the lack of confidence that keeps investment from pouring back into the economy.

The picture is far more frightening than the story the media is telling: there are more than $700 trillion in derivatives in the global economy.  That’s far more than the total currencies of all the governments in the entire world.  As one writer puts it, “In other words, every dollar of insurance on bonds issued by some deadbeat governments and corporations is leveraged 200 times!”  We’ve got a time bomb waiting to explode.  And we put a lot of the people who created that time bomb in the first place in charge of fixing the mess they themselves created.  People like Obama’s National Finance Chair, Penny Pritzker, who was at the epicenter of the subprime loan scandal and once paid $460 million to stay out of jail.  People like Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Jamie Gorelick, who pocketed over $300 million from Fannie and Freddie while juggling the books so they could get their bonuses.  People like Barney Frank, who claimed that nothing was wrong with Fannie and Freddie and the housing market they supervised, and repeatedly fought off President Bush’s efforts to regulate them at time when the crisis we are currently experiencing could have been averted.  People like Charles Schumer, who exemplified the sheer hypocrisy of the Democratic Party with his blaming others for what he himself did.  People like Joe Biden, whom two major studies said shared direct blame for the foreclosure disaster because of legislation he championed as the Senator from banking-capital Delaware.  And people like Barack Obama, who embraced more contributions from Fannie and Freddie – and from scandal-plagued finance institutions such as Lehman Brothers than anyone during his short time in the Senate.  Now all these people have been entrusted with fixing a mess of literally global proportions; a mess that they in large part created in the first place.

And Barack Obama wearing the “New New Deal” mantle of FDR’s Panama hat, glasses, and fancy cigarette is not going to make that time bomb go away.  In fact, it may be the very thing that brings the whole house of cards come crashing down.

Democrats Hypocritically Call On John McCain To Mediate

November 5, 2008

The most essential ingredient of a Democrat is hypocrisy.  And not just a pinch of hypocrisy; they dump it into the mixture of their mixed-up psyches by the cup-full.  Case in point – the following story:

Democrats say McCain can help mediate standoffs

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press
PHOENIX – Before resting from the grueling presidential race, John McCain began discussing with senior aides what role he will play in the Senate now that he has promised to work with the man who defeated him for president.

Democrats, who padded their majorities in the House and Senate, have a suggestion: McCain can mediate solutions to partisan standoffs on key legislation as he did to help avert a constitutional meltdown over judicial confirmations in 2005.

“There’s a need for the old John McCain, a leader who worked in a bipartisan way,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday.

It’s unfortunate that the AP story doesn’t mention the way Democrats called on John McCain to help mediate the bailout package vote, only to viciously turn on him and demagogue his efforts once he got there.  The same Chuck Schumer who said, “There’s a need for the old John McCain” not very long ago attacked that same “old John McCain” with the following rant:

Charles Schumer was among the many Democrats jumping on the hard-core partisan Democratic bandwagon to attack John McCain for trying to help:

Schumer also requested that Bush get the House Republicans in line. “We need President Bush to take leadership. We need President Bush, first and foremost, to get the Republican House members to support his plan or modify it in some way to bring them on board,” he said.

He added, “When you inject presidential politics into some of the most difficult negotiations under normal circumstances, it is fraught with difficulty. Before McCain made his announcement, we were making great progress. Now after his announcement, we are behind the 8 ball. We have to put things back together again.”

The Associated Press article portrays Democrats as being bi-partisan and noble in calling for John McCain’s help in the upcoming administration.  It fails to mention how deceitful, disingenuous, hypocritical, and mean-spirited the little demagogues were the LAST time they called for John McCain’s help.  Schumer lied when he said they were making “good progress” during the bailout package negotiations prior to McCain’s arrival.  There was no deal on the table.  House Republicans had been shut out of any negotiations.  There was only a cheap political ambush waiting for John McCain when he showed up.

I wrote about the incredibly disengenuous way the Democratic leadership called for John McCain’s involvement, and then attacked him for involving himself the moment he suspended his campaign to try to exercise his leadership within the Republican Party for the common good.

The American people want bipartisan cooperation.  But Democrats sure don’t.  And they haven’t for years.

Hopefully, John McCain has finally learned his lesson.  Unlike Barack Obama – who has basically never reached across the political divide to conservatives the way McCain routinely did with liberals (e.g., Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy), McCain has too often been with Democrats the way Charlie Brown was with Lucy and the football.

The Democratic leadership is watching the stock market sink nearly 500 points on the day after the election, and they know if they say what they really want to do, it will go down like the air pressure of a car tire following a blowout. And now all the economic woes that Democrats like Chuck Schumer earlier delighted in stirring up are on THEIR watch.  But they want to compromise with Republicans the way wolves want to compromise with deer fawns.

Hopefully, John McCain will tell Charles Schumer what to go do with himself.

Democrats Refused To Regulate GSEs, Created Financial Tsunami

September 29, 2008

Over the past several days, the airwaves have been flooded with statements by Democrats and by the media “intelligentsia” that the financial crisis was created due to the atmosphere of deregulation that dominated during the last 8 years of the Bush administration and Republican rule.  It sounds right – Republicans generally DO favor fewer regulations which all too often stagnate business and reduce our competitiveness in a global marketplace – but in this case it is simply false.  And Democrats who point the finger of blame at Republicans over deregulation of the finance industry are lying to you.

We can begin by looking at leading Democrat Charles Schumers’ incredibly disingenuous and patently demagogic statements blaming Republicans for “a lack of regulation”:

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York says a lack of regulation by the Bush administration is responsible for the current economic troubles. The New York Sun reports Schumer says, “Eight years of deregulatory zeal by the Bush administration, an attitude of ‘the market can do no wrong,’ have led us down a short path to economic recession.”

But Schumer fails to mention he has been a leading voice of deregulation. The Sun reports he championed the repeal in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act, the law which separated commercial and investment banking.

He also wrote an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal in 2006 which warned about what he called “overzealous regulators” and opposed a bill in 2005 that would have transformed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from large investment funds into “conduits” that only bought mortgages, packaged them into securities and sold them on the market.

We can go back to 2003 to see just how fallacious the Democrats charge against Republicans are.  In 2003, President Bush tried to implement regulatory reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were at the epicenter of the current housing financial crisis.  In the words of a New York Times story:

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

”The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,” said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ”Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie’s operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.”

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

Notice that Barney Frank – in an effort to stave off Republican efforts to regulate the housing finance industry, claimed that there was no problem.

And Barney Frank, the Chairman of the powerful House Finance Committee, and a key player in the Democrats’ effort to shape the bailout package now, represented the Democrats’ philosophical opposition to reform or regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

The strategy of presenting themselves to Congress as the champions of affordable housing appears to have worked. Fannie and Freddie retained the support of many in Congress, particularly Democrats, and they were allowed to continue unrestrained. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass), for example, now the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, openly described the “arrangement” with the GSEs at a committee hearing on GSE reform in 2003: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role in helping to make housing more affordable . . . a mission that this Congress has given them in return for some of the arrangements which are of some benefit to them to focus on affordable housing.” The hint to Fannie and Freddie was obvious: Concentrate on affordable housing and, despite your problems, your congressional support is secure.

The effort failed with Democrats in lock-step effort against the Republicans efforts to implement regulatory reform of the Housing Finance industry.

Again, in 2005, there was yet another Republican-led effort: the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.  Four Republicans’ names were on the Senate version of the bill, and twenty Republicans’ names were on the House version.  The bill was killed because Democrats in the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs unanimously voted against the bill, and Senate Democrats signaled their intent to filibuster its passage.

John McCain, in vigorous support of the 2005 effort to regulate an increasingly out-of-control industry, said in part:

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

Franklin Raines, a Democrat and a Clinton appointee, misrepresented $11 billion in Fannie Mae’s accounting system in order to game the system so that he and other senior executives could collect multi-million dollar bonuses.  Fannie Mae was fined some $500 million for the violations.  Raines paid a $25 million fine for his role in the corruption.   Leland Brendsel – yet another Democrat – had earlier been forced out as Chairman of Freddie Mac under a similar cloud of suspicion.

We learn that, in the fall of 2004:

At a dramatic hearing in Richard Baker’s subcommittee, Fannie’s chair, Franklin Raines, stood by the company’s accounting, claiming that Fannie was being victimized by an overzealous regulator.

Notice that Raines – who as already shown was later proven to have committed fraud – blamed Republican regulators for misrepresenting the health of GSEs that we now known were on the verge of a disaster.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, supporting the Republican-led effort to place the very sort of regulations that Democrats now claim that Republicans prevented, said:

“If [Fannie and Freddie] continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road.” He added, “Enabling these institutions to increase in size–and they will, once the crisis, in their judgment, passes–we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”

Peter Wallison wrote in a May 2005 article describing Democrats’ opposition at the time:

The sudden appearance of this new threat changed the attitude of the GSEs toward the legislation. Although they had begun 2005 offering conciliatory statements and suggesting that they had no serious problems with the regulatory proposals that Congress was then contemplating, the GSEs were clearly alarmed by the idea that their portfolios might be limited or reduced. Fannie and Freddie and their constituent support groups–the homebuilders and the realtors, among others–made clear that they would fight limitations on GSE portfolios, and Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats made clear that they, too, would oppose any effort to limit this aspect of the GSEs’ operations.

Wallison also stated:

Under these circumstances, allowing Fannie and Freddie to continue on their present course is simply to create risks for the taxpayers, and to the economy generally, in order to improve the profits of their shareholders and the compensation of their managements. It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.

A Bloomberg article describes how the lack of timely reform created an economic tsunami:

Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street’s efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn’t make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Keven Hasset concludes an article titled, “How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis“, concludes by saying:

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Debate Back On: Democrats Ambush McCain With ‘Presidential Politics’

September 26, 2008

John McCain suspended his campaign to return to Washington to help achieve a deal to resolve the financial crisis.  Harry Reid immediately objected to McCain’s involvement:

“It would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation’s economy. If that changes, we will call upon them. We need leadership; not a campaign photo op.”

But it is amazing how Reid unashamedly contradicts himself merely to place plame and score cheap political points.  As noted by the Politico, Harry Reid had earlier said:

“I should mention how glad my fellow Democrats and I were to have our nominee for president here to vote on these important bills. Senator Obama has come to work and taken tough stands. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Senator McCain,” Reid said. “Perhaps taking tough stands on important issues is not part of Senator McCain’s campaign strategy. Perhaps he’s just too busy on the campaign trail to do his day job.”

And only the day before McCain announced he was suspending his campaign to help attain a deal, Harry Reid had this:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is watching Republicans in both chambers, one after another, criticize the Wall Street bailout, but he says he’s not going to let them off the hook by passing the bill and letting the GOP cast soft “no” votes against the plan.

“This is a Republican proposal, and we need some Republican votes,” to help it pass. “At this stage we [Democrats] are working with ourselves.”

Reid went on to say in the same statement:

“We now need Republicans to stand up,” Reid said. “We need the Republican nominee for president to say what he’s for.”

Now, given Reid’s documented pandering, lying, hypocrisy, and political gamesmanship, it should be little wonder that Harry Reid would come out and say this:

“John McCain did nothing to help. He only hurt the process.”

And:

“Senate Democrats, House Democrats, and Senate Republicans agree those principles laid out by Senator Obama are the ones that must be implanted with regards to the issue, what’s called the ‘principles of fairness.’ … The insertion of presidential politics has not been helpful. It’s been harmful … A few days ago I called on Senator McCain to take a stand, let us know where he stands on this issue … But all he has done is stand in front of the cameras. We still don’t know where he stands on the issue.”

Charles Schumer was among the many Democrats jumping on the hard-core partisan Democratic bandwagon:

Schumer also requested that Bush get the his House Republicans in line. “We need President Bush to take leadership. We need President Bush, first and foremost, to get the Republican House members to support his plan or modify it in some way to bring them on board,” he said.

He added, “When you inject presidential politics into some of the most difficult negotiations under normal circumstances, it is fraught with difficulty. Before McCain made his announcement, we were making great progress. Now after his announcement, we are behind the 8 ball. We have to put things back together again.”

But first of all, can you not see that these tactics themselves are nothing more than naked presidential politics?  Reid and Schumer and all the other Democrats stuffing this “presidential politics” talking point are engaging in presidential politics themselves.   They are cynically and despicably putting presidential politics ahead of the nation’s vital business.

Harry Reid and Charles Schumer deceitfully and disengenuously claimed that a deal was on the table before John McCain arrived, and McCain had ruined it.  As Reid claimed:

“We had [Republican] Senator [Bob] Bennett, a high ranking official, who said these are the principles,” Reid said of the early potential compromise on the $700 billion package. “And then, guess who came to town? And it all fell apart.”

But that isn’t even close to being true; House Republicans had not been allowed to take part in the discussion (which you can even see by way of Reid’s omission of House Republicans above).

House Republicans are balking at horrible elements of this deal, such as giving billions of dollars to the control of voter-fraud organization ACORN.  That was came out in the Senate Republican meeting.

Sen Lindsey Graham: ‘There was never any agreement on a bailout bill – Dems lied’ (Dems want money to go to ACORN – Updated):

Lindsay Graham on Fox Now. Says there was never any agreement on bailout bill between dems and Repubs. Best nugget: Dems have inserted provision into their bill to give several billion (with a “b”) dollars to ACORN. ACORN is probably the most corrupt organized crime organization involved in voting fraud and intimidation.

There is no bill. Rep. Barney Frank was on MSNBC wailing about Repub treachery and bad-mouting all the Repubs who met today with Bush. Chris Dodd said, “I’m going home” and walked out.

My sense is that the Dems tried to bully McCain into supporting the Dem bill. When he refused, they had a tantrum.

House Republicans want to slow this down so that a bailout that is currently opposed by nearly 2/3 of Americans won’t be packed with wasteful and fraudulent spending that lines the pockets of people who don’t deserve the money, while failing to fix the crisis.

There is certainly no reason for John McCain NOT to go ahead with the debates.  When Democrats like Harry Reid repeatedly blast McCain for being THE problem – and for just just wanting to get in front of cameras (which is frankly weird, considering the fact that it’s been Harry Reid and NOT John McCain in front of all the cameras) –  there is little John McCain can do.  When Harry Reid’s are out literally hysterically attacking Republicans in the most politically partisan and demagogic way imaginable, McCain is wise to remove himself.

So go debate, John.  I’m hoping you can clean Obama’s clock tonight, and then return to Washington to help deal with this impending financial meltdown.

Dems Blame Bush For Deregulation: Just Another Day Of Astounding Liberal Hypocrisy

September 23, 2008

So Sen. Charles Schumer is the latest partisan Democrat ideologue to take yet another wild roundhouse swing at the Bush Administration and Republicans over the housing finance market meltdown.  But in this case, it would have served Schumer to recognize that when you point a finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you.

Fox News briefly tells the story as follows:

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York says a lack of regulation by the Bush administration is responsible for the current economic troubles. The New York Sun reports Schumer says, “Eight years of deregulatory zeal by the Bush administration, an attitude of ‘the market can do no wrong,’ have led us down a short path to economic recession.”

But Schumer fails to mention he has been a leading voice of deregulation. The Sun reports he championed the repeal in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act, the law which separated commercial and investment banking.

He also wrote an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal in 2006 which warned about what he called “overzealous regulators” and opposed a bill in 2005 that would have transformed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from large investment funds into “conduits” that only bought mortgages, packaged them into securities and sold them on the market.

And whatever one wants to say about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, it must be mentioned first that it was President William Jefferson Clinton who signed the 1999 law that repealed it.

The New York Sun goes into the real nitty-gritty detail over just what astounding hypocrites Democrats like Charles Schumer really are.

The article begins as follows (the whole thing is ever SO worth reading):

Pro-Deregulation Schumer Scores Bush for Lack of Regulation
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun | September 22, 2008

As Senator Schumer attempts to blame Wall Street‘s recent economic upheavals on a lack of regulation by the Bush administration, he may have some inconvenient facts to confront.

Until the current credit crisis, Mr. Schumer had been a leading voice for deregulation: He has championed the repeal of a Great Depression-era law that prohibited commercial banks from underwriting securities; he has written an opinion piece calling for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to be “re-examined,” and he has opposed a bill that sought to reduce taxpayer risk in the event of a housing market slowdown by requiring Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to sell their entire investment portfolios of about $1.5 trillion worth of mortgage assets.

The New York Sun article continues:

A spokesman for Mr. Schumer did not respond yesterday to a request for comment.

Mr. Schumer’s opposition to regulation is also beginning to come under scrutiny for the first time.

“He is responsible as one of the leading senators in the banking committee for much of the problems that we’re facing today,” a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Peter Wallison, a former general counsel to the Treasury Department under President Reagan, said of Mr. Schumer. “He failed to regulate where there was an opportunity to reduce the taxpayers’ liability.”

Too many people naively and frankly stupidly believe that the housing finance market meltdown is the Republicans’ fault because President Bush is in the White House and Republicans used to be in charge of Congress two years ago.  And this “They wanted to deregulate” lie is at the heart of that blame game. Republicans clearly do bear a share of the blame.  But this mess has Democrat written all over it, too.  Look at Joe Biden, Charles Schumer, Barney Frank – and yes, Barack Obama – along with a whole legion of Obama Democrats like Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and Jamie Gorelick who collectively took well over $300 million from Fannie Mae while cooking the books to do it.  And let us not forget Barack Obama’s National Finance Chair, Penny Pritzker, who was at the epicenter of the subprime scandal, and who paid $460 million dollars of her personal fortune to literally stay out of jail.

Barack Obama is second on the list of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign money recipients only after fellow Democrat Chris Dodd (who has also been identified taking a sweetheart deal from scandelized Countrywide); and he is second on the list of Lehman Bros’ campaign money recipients only after fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton.  And Obama, of course, got a sweetheart housing deal of his own, from convicted sleazeball Tony Rezko.

It needs to be realized that the Bush administration twice tried to regulate the housing finance industry in 2003 and 2005 – and both times were stymied by determined Democratic opposition.  John McCain joined President Bush in both efforts that would have saved our financial market, and was one of the four Republican sponsors of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.  In his statement supporting the 2005 bill, John McCain presciently foresaw the very disaster that has since overtaken the finance industry.   Democrats’ entrenched opposition to any reform that would have prevented people who could not qualify for a home loan from getting one anyway prevented both measures from succeeding.

Looking at Barack Obama’s personal exposure and the direct culpability of his closest advisers in the housing finance scandal, one thing is sure: voting for an Obama administration would be tantamount to giving the robbers the keys to the bank.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers