Sayonara Saturn

Fox News.com is reporting that General Motors will phase out the Saturn Division after a deal to sell it fell through.

Fox reported:

General Motors Co. said Wednesday it would shut down its Saturn brand after an agreement with Penske Automotive Group Inc. to acquire it fell apart.

Penske, citing concerns of whether it could continue to supply vehicles after a manufacturing contract with GM ran out, ended talks with GM Wednesday to acquire the brand.

GM CEO Fritz Henderson said in statement that Saturn and its dealership network will be phased out.

Let's see, the government under King Barack I took over GM in exchange for bailout money. GM tried to sell Saturn to Penske, but that fizzled. So, the government-owned GM has to close down their Saturn division. The closure of Saturn will cause about 15,000 workers to lose their jobs.

Is this the "hope and change" you expected? Didn't think so.

GM: Now Government Motors

General Motors, once the dominant automobile manufacturing company, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy early this morning. This was a move that they should have done a year or two ago, and it wouldn't have required a bailout of over $26 billion of taxpayer money. They stand to receive another $30 billion of taxpayer money on top of that. Welcome to Government Motors!

According to the Wall Street Journal.com:

In bankruptcy, the auto maker will split apart into two companies: a leaner new GM and a so-called old GM, which will include the pieces that will be wound down. GM intends to accomplish the split through a Section 363 sale, which would transfer the new GM assets to an entity owned by the U.S. and Canadian governments, the United Auto Workers union and the company's unsecured creditors.

14 GM assembly plants will close by 2011. Those are jobs lost, not jobs saved!

Basically, the government now owns over 60% of GM. Welcome to Government Motors.

California Voters: "Up yours!"

California voters yesterday sent a very loud and clear message to the politicians who have bankrupted the state: no more taxes!

It wasn't just "no," it was "hell no." Not since Proposition 13 in 1978 has California voters made clear that they don't like the tax and spend policies of the state's government.

The voters defeated Propositions 1A through 1E that were backed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Democrat legislature, labor and teachers unions. Only Proposition 1F, that will freeze legislators' salaries during hard times, passed.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Schwarzenegger has called for cuts that would hit every corner of the state. He announced plans to lay off 5,000 of the state's 235,000 workers and has proposed slashing education by up to $5 billion, selling state properties, borrowing $2 billion from local governments and potentially reducing eligibility for healthcare programs.

Schwarzenegger said the voters' message was, "Don't to come to us for extra help. That was the message. And you know something. I appreciate that when you hear that from the people. It gives us a chance to go and adjust, and say 'OK, we went in the wrong direction. Now lets go in the right direction and lets go do what the people want.'"

This is not a good omen for Barack Obama and the Democrats. First it was the tea parties that were organized in response to the massive spending and bailouts of Obama and the Democrats in Washington. Now it is the California voters rejection of more taxes. This is a prairie fire that is sure to build to a big climax in 2010.

Will the state make meaningful cuts? Or will they hope for a Washington bailout and let taxpayers from other states carry the burden of paying for California's excesses? We shall see.

The Misdirected AIG Outrage

The Misdirected AIG Outrage

It is amusing to watch politicians in Washington beat their breasts in outrage over the retention bonuses paid at insurance giant AIG. These bonuses were exempted in the spendulous/stimulous/porkulous bill by Sen. Christopher Dodd. Now he's joined the chorus of "outrage" over the bonuses. They've known for months that these were in the works. This is just a deflection from the failures of the Obama Administration.

The Wall Street Journal notes that the outrage over AIG is misdirected and that the real outrage should be over what AIG did do with the bailout money they received.

The WSJ.com website editorialized today:

President Obama joined yesterday in the clamor of outrage at AIG for paying some $165 million in contractually obligated employee bonuses. He and the rest of the political class thus neatly deflected attention from the larger outrage, which is the five-month Beltway cover-up over who benefited most from the AIG bailout.

Taxpayers have already put up $173 billion, or more than a thousand times the amount of those bonuses, to fund the government's AIG "rescue." This federal takeover, never approved by AIG shareholders, uses the firm as a conduit to bail out other institutions. After months of government stonewalling, on Sunday night AIG officially acknowledged where most of the taxpayer funds have been going.

Since September 16, AIG has sent $120 billion in cash, collateral and other payouts to banks, municipal governments and other derivative counterparties around the world. This includes at least $20 billion to European banks. The list also includes American charity cases like Goldman Sachs, which received at least $13 billion. This comes after months of claims by Goldman that all of its AIG bets were adequately hedged and that it needed no "bailout." Why take $13 billion then? This needless cover-up is one reason Americans are getting angrier as they wonder if Washington is lying to them about these bailouts.

This is what people and politicians should be outraged about, not over some piddly bonuses.

To read the full WSJ editorial, go here.

Before they received their bailout, AIG was heavily into giving campaign contributions to our favorite politicians. Sen. Christopher Dodd was the top recipient:

Dodd, Chris (D-Conn): $280,238

To see the list of politicians and what they received from AIG, go here.

UPDATE:

Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group (AIG) bonus recipients so the government could recoup some or all of the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. Within hours, the idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus tax.

The move represents somewhat of an about-face for the Senator.

While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.

To read the full article, go here.

UPDATE (3/18/09): Senator Christopher Dodd finally admitted he was instrumental in allowing the AIG bonuses.

From the Stamford (CT) Advocate:

U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd for the first time Wednesday acknowledged he was instrumental in creating legislation that cleared the way for disgraced executives at taxpayer-rescued AIG to walk away with more than $100 million in bonuses.

And the Connecticut Democrat had to explain the receipt of more than $100,000 in campaign donations in the last presidential cycle from AIG workers, vowing to return any tainted contributions from company executives.

But the campaign contributions issue will be dwarfed by whether Dodd eased the way for huge executive bonuses at AIG. In an interview Wednesday afternoon, the senator said he had hoped that an amendment he had drafted to limit executive pay under last year's Targeted Asset Relief Program would have ruled out hefty bonuses.

"I thought we covered that," Dodd said of the bonus issue. His amendment had passed the Senate but was later relaxed by the conference panel that works out differences between versions of legislation passed in the two chambers of Congress.

But later Wednesday, Dodd told CNN that he had agreed to change his amendment -- at the request of the Obama administration -- to ensure that previously enacted bonus contracts would be honored despite billions of dollars awarded to bailout beneficiaries.

"The alternative was losing the amendment entirely," he told the network. Administration officials feared that without the language the bailout measure would be deluged with lawsuits, Dodd said.

GOP Response: Next Time, Let Rush Do It!

GOP Response: Next Time, Let Rush Do It!

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana gave the Republican response to President Obama's speech before a joint session of Congress Tuesday night. The reviews have been mixed, albeit on the negative side.

Naturally, one can expect the Democrats to pan Jindal's speech with Republicans praising it.

On substance, Jindal was just fine. It was his delivery that was not what the occasion called for.

I listened to his response on the radio and it sounded to me like he was imitating "Mr. Rogers." He sounded as if he were talking to children, not as a political leader speaking before adults. He may have been over-coached and may have done better had he spoken before a live audience in the same room.

If you really want fireworks and something memorable, I would suggest tapping talk-show king Rush Limbaugh to give the GOP response. Yes, Limbaugh considers himself more of a conservative instead of a Republican, but he would be able to get right to the point and fire off some juicy zingers at Obama and the Democrats.

Also, he would come right out and lay before the American people the cause of this recession and the mortgage meltdown that caused it.

Another annoying thing, I was listening to Governor Jindal's speech and the station I was listening to, KFI-AM in Los Angeles, cut in for a station break right in the middle of Jindal's speech. Ridiculous! Bad call KFI!

In a nutshell, Jindal gets an "A-" (more could have been said) on substance, and a "C-" on style and delivery. And KFI gets an "F" for cutting in Jindal's speech.

AIG Wants More Money!

AIG Wants More Money!

The insurer American International Group (A.I.G.) is seeking more government (i.e., taxpayers) money.

They are now claiming that they are out of money.

According to the New York Times:

Among the plans being discussed include swapping some or all of the $40 billion in preferred shares held by the government into a form of capital A.I.G. can use to ward off collateral calls from its trading partners. The government has already lent A.I.G. $150 billion.

A.I.G. is already effectively majority-owned by the federal government.

From FoxNews.com:

American International Group Inc. is seeking an overhaul of its $150 billion government bailout package that would substantially reduce the insurer's financial burden, while further exposing U.S. taxpayers to its fortunes, people familiar with the matter say.

Under the plan, the government loan of up to $60 billion at the heart of the bailout would be repaid with a combination of debt, equity, cash and operating businesses, such as stakes in AIG's lucrative Asian life-insurance arms. AIG and the government have been discussing the changes since December and plan to announce them by Monday when the insurer is expected to report fourth-quarter results, the people said.

The earnings report is expected to underscore AIG's worsening condition with its total loss for the quarter likely to top $60 billion, these people said.

This time the government should "just say no" to AIG.

Rush Limbaugh: Brad Sherman "A Dolt!"

Rush Limbaugh: Brad Sherman "A Dolt!"

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh referred to my congressman, Brad Sherman, as "a dolt" for harping on private jet use by bailed-out bank CEOs by asking if their companies still “own or lease” private planes. Only one (Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankenfein) out of eight did not raise his hand.

SHERMAN: I’d like you to raise your hand if your company currently owns or leases a private plane. Let the record reflect that all the hands went up except the gentleman from Goldman Sachs. Gentleman, we know that it’s extremely expensive to operate the planes. You could sell them and generate capital for your company, and that capital could be used to repay taxpayers immediately.

Limbaugh pointed out that achievers are being singled out and that capitalism in general is under assault by liberals. He also pointed out that jobs are created by companies who manufacture private jets, their engines, their maintenance and come up with new technologies for improving private jets. Sherman doesn't seem to understand the basic fact that the "little guy" is gainfully employed for these services.

Sherman seems to think that he and fellow congress members can dictate to banks what they can or cannot do because they accepted bailout money. Well, they can easily point out that it was Democrats in Congress who forced them to extend mortgage loans to people who had no realistic means to pay off the loans. Congress put these financial institutions into this position.

Sherman is worse than a "dolt," he's a grandstanding imbecile.

Obama's Stock Market Begins

Obama's Stock Market Begins

The Stock Market tumbled sharply after Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner unveiled the Obama administration's latest bailout plan.

From CNBC.com:

US stocks fell sharply Tuesday in a broad-based decline as the government announced details of its latest bailout plan.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down more than 300 points after Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner revealed details of the bank-bailout plan. Earlier, the blue-chip index was down less than 100 points.

Gee, thanks Tim!

Specter's An Idiot; Obama's A Liar

Above, three GOP defectors.

Two things ticked me off today concerning the stimulus/porkulus bill now before the U.S. Senate.

First, I was listening to Sean Hannity's show on the way to work and he had Sen. Arlen Specter, R-PA call in. Despite many excellent arguments given by Hannity against the bill, Specter said he is "independent" and believes that the government "has to act". Otherwise, he said, the economy would be headed for disaster. He refused to even reconsider his support for the bill. He seems to think that it's either this bill or nothing at all.

At the end of the interview, Hannity was incredulous and I was angry. Specter is up for election next year, and he's got to go!

Second, I caught President Barack Obama's first prime time press conference. I noticed that he only picked reporters who'd give him softball questions. What really got to me was that he attributes the current economic mess to the policies of "the last eight years." He blamed it on the Bush tax cuts. No mention was made of the fact that the mess was caused by lenders, led by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who provided mortgages to people who were unqualified for them under pressure by Democrats led by Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd.

Hugh Hewitt saw the press conference like this:

But when he distorted the GOP opposition as wanting to do nothing he lost the game. The American people are tuned into this debate and know very well that the GOP is committed to a large but balanced stimulus plan that puts tax relief and immediate infrastructure spending to work to immediately surge the economy. They have listened closely to the arguments made on the Senate floor and know that the president's bald mischaracterization of those positions is just false.

Obama told another whopper when he said the stimulus bill contains "no earmarks." Practically the whole thing is an earmark, with goodies to satisfy forty years of liberal desires!

Obama also said that he hopes to gain the trust of Republicans, even if there's disagreements. If he wants the trust of Republicans, he should stop lying about the cause of the mortgage meltdown and blaming it on the previous administration.

Rush Limbaugh Responds To President Obama

Source: FreeRepublic.com

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh responded to President Barack Obama's comment to GOP leaders to not "listen to Rush Limbaugh." He responded via Byron York at National Review Online.

Limbaugh replied in part:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:

"If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town."

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

To read Limbaugh's full response, go here.

Related story from the London Telegraph.

Read The Stimulous!

The Democratic Congress is rushing to pass a "stimulous package." Unfortunately, it is larded with fat.

A new website has been set up so that citizens can read the components of the bill. It would be wise if as many people as possible read the proposed package and contact their representative to provide their input.

Remember, it is $850 billion of your tax money!

Go to: Read The Stimulous!

New Corporate Logos

Category: Humor

A friend sent me an email of what some corporate logos will look like after the current financial crisis is over.

3M seems to have lost one of its Ms:



Adidas took a bad step:



Apple Computers seems have been nibbled away:



Best Buy is hoping for some customers:



Chrysler may not have fared too well:



I'd think twice before investing with Citigroup:



Dell may not have done too well and went to hell:



Ferrari's horsepower ain't what she used to be:



Ford didn't seem to be helped too much by the government:



This sums it up for Goodyear:



Nike was caught flat-footed:



Nokia got a wrong number:



Xerox's fortunes seems to have faded:



Yahoo didn't have anything to cheer about:



This summed up the year for Warner Bros. and many other
corporations:

Bailout Car Ad

I saw this car ad parody at a forum I belong to. It hits the nail right on the head!



This is what I call "truth in advertising!"

GOP Wrecks UAW Bailout

The U.S. Senate shot down the United Autoworkers bailout that is disguised as a bailout of the big three U.S. automakers, GM, Ford and Chrysler.

According to FoxNews.com:

GOP objections stalled the measure in the Senate Thursday night. Republicans put pressure on the powerful autoworkers union as they tried to squeeze out concessions in exchange for their support.

"This was just simply subterfuge on the part of the minority in the Republican Party who wanted to tear down any agreement that we came up with," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said at a press conference, declaring "the auto industry around the world is in peril."

Intense negotiations broke down over the union's refusal to meet GOP demands for wage cuts. Corker, the architect of the Republican counterproposal to the House-approved bill, told FOX News that negotiators were "just three words away from a deal."

Corker rejected the accusations, telling FOX News the union simply refused to offer a date by which they could be competitive with foreign automakers who have plants in the United States.

"I was stunned that they would walk away from a deal to put these companies on an incredible footing, a healthy footing for their employees for years to come," Corker said.

The senator complained that the UAW pay scale is "far higher" than at other plants in the United States, particularly those of foreign automakers.

In terms of hourly wages, the pay scales are similar. For instance, General Motors says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78, while Toyota says it pays about $30 per hour.

The difference is in the benefits, however. GM's hourly labor costs (including pensions and health care) total $69 for active workers. Toyota's total about $48 per hour at older U.S. plants.

This does not even mention the benefits that thousands of retired autoworkers are receiving. The UAW is unwilling to make any cuts until 2011. Sorry, but if this really were a crisis, then they should be willing to make cuts now.

Hugh Hewitt wrote in today's Townhall.com blog:

Now Senator Reid has announced he's giving up and going home --one of those moves that makes me wonder about the whole premise of the exercise. If a real crisis is at hand, does the Congress go home for a month?

Since no input by the GOP was allowed by the Democrat majority, so small wonder the Republicans in the Senate voted against this bailout of the UAW.

It is about time the GOP showed some backbone. If the Democrats continue to refuse to negotiate for terms favored by the Republicans, then this bailout is good as dead.

It's Official: We're In A Recession! Duh!

As if we didn't know this already, but it is now official: We're in a recession! Well, duh!

From FoxBusiness.com:

The National Bureau of Economic Research declared Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since last December.

While it may now be official, the announcement hardly came as news to economists and consumers.

“We’ve been saying this since February or March,” said Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics at Moody’s Economy.com. “It’s been pretty obvious for a while.”

Faucher cited as evidence payroll employment numbers that have been falling every month since January. Private sector employment payroll figures have declined every month since last December, he added.

These figures have been indicating for months “that firms are cutting back and that they are producing less,” said Faucher.

A recession is traditionally defined as two consecutive quarters of economic contraction.

The NBER, a private group of leading economists, also cited declining employment numbers as a key indicator that the recession began nearly a year ago.

Hell, I could have told you that. I was laid off last November and found that insurance claims work job offerings have been sparse at best. I did land a position as an independent contractor for an independent adjusting company last February, but claim assignments have been few and far between. Luckily, I maintained my security permits that I obtained years ago when I worked in armed private patrol. I was able to get a job working as a field supervisor for a company who contracts with Los Angeles County.

I have landed a job this week with another independent adjusting company. This one looks to be more promising. If things work out as I hope, I will just concentrate on that.

It is not surprising that insurance claims positions are sparse, as AIG problems has shown, insurance carriers are very much tied to the financial markets through investments. Since the mortgage meltdown, insurers have had a tough time because of bad investments, and by people cutting back on buying insurance. We can thank Sen. Chris Dodd, Rep. Barney Frank and others for this mess.

Is there a light at the end of the tunnel? I hope so, but right now I don't see it. Things may get worse before it gets better. But putting the same people in charge of the economy who denied problems with Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, et al is not boosting my confidence level any.

ADDENDUM: See How The Democrats Created The Financial Crisis by Kevin Hassett at Bloomberg.com.

Businesses Scramble For Bailout Cash

FoxNews.com is reporting that insurers, automakers and subsidiaries of foreign banks are clamoring for a piece of the bailout pie.

WASHINGTON — The bailout is now the hottest lobbying game in town.

Insurers, automakers and American subsidiaries of foreign banks all want the Treasury Department to cut them a piece of the largest government rescue in U.S. history.

The betting is that many with their hands out will be successful, especially with financial markets in a stomach-churning dive and predictions the economy is about to tumble into a deep recession.

These groups argue that the credit squeeze is so severe and the risks to the economy so dire that their industries need financial support as well.

The Treasury is considering requests from a variety of industries, but has not decided whether to expand the program, officials said Saturday.

Lobbying efforts are intensifying.

The Financial Services Roundtable wrote Treasury officials on Friday requesting that the initiative to buy $250 billion in bank stock grow to cover insurers, auto companies, securities dealers and U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, including banks. The Treasury's plan is intended to bolster banks' tattered balance sheets and get them to resume making loans.

As the Treasury now interprets it, these additional groups would not participate in the bank stock program. They could receive help from a separate part of the $700 billion rescue that will buy bad assets from financial institutions.

Steve Bartlett, the president of the Roundtable, urged the Treasury to broaden the definition of those eligible for the stock purchase program.

"The institutions that are excluded play a vital role in the U.S. economy by providing liquidity to the market," Bartlett wrote Neel Kashkari, the Treasury Department official running the bailout program.

Referring to U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, Bartlett said, "This is a global crisis and to not recognize the U.S. firms controlled by foreign banks or companies would create further impediment to the market's recovery."

A financial industry official said Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson met over the past week with various groups, including hedge fund managers, that were petitioning for assistance. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the Treasury has not made a decision.

Some insurers technically would be eligible for stock purchases now if they own subsidiaries that are savings and loan institutions regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Last month, American International Group, the country's largest insurance company, received an $85 billion loan from the Federal Reserve. Since then, it has gotten further support in an effort to withstand the biggest upheavals on Wall Street since the Great Depression.

Complicating the government's decision-making is that the Bush administration will not be in charge after Jan. 20. Paulson, who has said he has no intention of staying on the job, has pledged to consult with both campaigns on his bailout actions.

Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign said Friday it supported the effort by the auto industry to get money from the $250 billion made available for stock purchases. That would be in addition to $25 billion recently approved by Congress for low-interest loans to help the struggling industry retool and build fuel efficient vehicles.

The debate over expanding the bailout comes as the Treasury is rushing to get money out the door to the primary recipients: banks that sharply curtailed lending after suffering billions of dollars of losses on mortgage-related assets as home foreclosures soared in the housing slump.

Lawmakers are pressuring the Treasury to do more in the foreclosure area, as well.

Sheila Bair, head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., told Congress about efforts to provide government-backed loan guarantees for mortgages that are reworked to help homeowners in danger of default. That would give banks an incentive to speed up refinancing efforts because the government would back part of the reworked loan.

The Treasury also is moving ahead to get bank stock purchases approved. It announced on Oct. 14 that it was spending $125 billion to buy stock in nine of the largest financial institutions. An announcement was expected Friday about a second round involving 20 to 22 other banks.

But it was decided each bank would announce its own agreements with the Treasury, out of concern that excluded banks could suffer a stock sell-off from disappointed investors.

PNC Financial Services Group Inc. announced Friday it was acquiring National City Corp. for $5.58 billion, in what was the first instance of a bank using fresh investments from the bailout program to make an acquisition. PNC said it had received $7.7 billion in cash through selling stock to the government under the program.

I can personally vouch for the problems insurers are having. I was laid off last November from my claim adjusting job and it was blamed directly on the mortgage meltdown. It was explained that insurers were receiving fewer insurance premium dollars, therefore, my company had to downsize.

If the insurance industry is successful in receiving aid from the bailout, it could mean that insurers could begin hiring more people. We'll see. In the meantime, we'll just have to tough it out.

McCain Letter Demanding Action on Fannie/Freddie Released

A 2006 letter signed by John McCain and other Republican U.S. Senators demanding action on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been released. Note that no Democrat senators signed the letter. Click on the image to see the full size.

McCain's Albuquerque Remarks Excerpt

Here's an excerpt from John McCain’s remarks as prepared for delivery today in Albuquerque, New Mexico:

Source: Time Magazine

My opponent has invited serious questioning by announcing a few weeks ago that he would quote — “take off the gloves.” Since then, whenever I have questioned his policies or his record, he has called me a liar.

Rather than answer his critics, Senator Obama will try to distract you from noticing that he never answers the serious and legitimate questions he has been asked. But let me reply in the plainest terms I know. I don’t need lessons about telling the truth to American people. And were I ever to need any improvement in that regard, I probably wouldn’t seek advice from a Chicago politician.

My opponent’s touchiness every time he is questioned about his record should make us only more concerned. For a guy who’s already authored two memoirs, he’s not exactly an open book. It’s as if somehow the usual rules don’t apply, and where other candidates have to explain themselves and their records, Senator Obama seems to think he is above all that. Whatever the question, whatever the issue, there’s always a back story with Senator Obama. All people want to know is: What has this man ever actually accomplished in government? What does he plan for America? In short: Who is the real Barack Obama? But ask such questions and all you get in response is another barrage of angry insults.

Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes?

This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who could not afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress, and abetted by Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed. But the truth is I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place.

Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. As recently as September of last year he said that subprime loans had been, quote, “a good idea.” Well, Senator Obama, that “good idea” has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

To hear him talk now, you’d think he’d always opposed the dangerous practices at these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. He was surely familiar with the people who were creating this problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him, and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other senator in history, with the exception of the chairman of the committee overseeing them. Did he ever talk to the executives at Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them the stronger oversight I proposed? If Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulation, why didn’t he support these regulations that could have prevented this crisis in the first place? He won’t tell you, but you deserve an answer.

…

Who is the real Senator Obama? Is he the candidate who promises to cut middle class taxes, or the politician who voted to raise middle class taxes? Is he the candidate who talks about regulation or the politician who took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and turned a blind eye as they ran our economy into a ditch?

Is he the candidate who promises change, or is he the politician who has bought into everything that is wrong with Washington? We can’t change the system with someone who’s never fought the system.

Washington is on the wrong track and I’m going to set it right. The American people know my record. They know I am going to change Washington, because I’ve done it before. They know I’m going to reform our broken institutions in Washington and on Wall Street because I’ve done it before. They know I’m going to deliver relief to the middle class, because that’s what I’ve done.

Barney Frank's "Broke Bank Mountain"

Barney rubble

Per Mark Steyn at National Review Online:

It turns out the entire planetary meltdown is due to Congressman Frank's sex life:

Unqualified home buyers were not the only ones who benefitted from Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to deregulate Fannie Mae throughout the 1990s.

So did Frank’s partner, a Fannie Mae executive at the forefront of the agency’s push to relax lending restrictions... Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie...

Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress.

"I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus," Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. "On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover."

The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses "helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."

Critics say such programs led to the mortgage meltdown that prompted last month’s government takeover of Fannie Mae and its financial cousin, Freddie Mac. The giant firms are blamed for spreading bad mortgages throughout the private financial sector... Three years later, President Clinton’s Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose a new regulation on Fannie, but was thwarted by Frank. Clinton now blames such Democrats for planting the seeds of today’s economic crisis.

Alec Baldwin Blames Democrats For Wall Street Mess

Actor Alec Baldwin, a noted liberal activist, finally got something right for a change.

He appeared on HBO's "Real Time" and said this about the Wall Street debacle:

The, the thing we have to remember, a friend of mine who is very close to the financial community in New York pointed out that Democrats have a lot of the responsibility for this as well. I mean, it was Clinton who killed the Glass-Steagall, and it happened under a Democratic president. Barney Frank and his committee, they, they kept propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac saying everything's fine, everything's fine, everything's good. And it was his job to know everything wasn't fine. And Barney Frank let you down and let us down as well. And so, but I want to say there's blame to go both ways. But I will say, I want to, I maybe keep beating this to death, but I still think anyone in this Congress who voted to add $140 billion to that bill, they should be ashamed of themselves. That is a disgrace. It's a disgrace. This Congress is a disgrace, Democrat and Republican.

If a guy like Alec Baldwin can recognize the Democrats' culpability, then why can't the MSM?