E!! The True Conservative Story™

I was recently encouraged, by the executives of an organization that shall go unnamed so I can keep my day job, to write a letter to my Congressman touting the benefits of the Fix Housing First Proposal.

Here’s my letter.

Dear Congressman (or woman)(or Dina Titus):

Rumor has it that you are considering additional action in re: to the housing market.  As I understand it, the Fix Housing First proposal consists of the following:

1.        The federal government will offer a gi-normous and historically unprecedented supercalifrajalistic tax credit to anyone buying a house in 2009, and anyone who took last year’s lesser tax credit or bought their house prior that can bite the proverbial Big One because they aren’t getting doodleley squat.  In essence, those retards who had the poor sense to purchase a domicile before you and your Wall Street pals f***cked the economy into a coma are SOL:  too bad, so sad, cry me a Hudson River, etc.

2.   In addition – and again, this is only for those bless’d and priveleged few who choose to buy homes in 2009 – the federal government will guarantee a super-sweet taxpayer-subsidized loan at a low, Low market rate of 2.99 or 3.99.  Those who were short-sighted enough to finance their homes at 5, 6, or 7% – what a bunch of losers!! – will just have to continue at those rates and hope that sometime in this millenium, they or their unfortunate descendants can break even…or at least not have to file bankruptcy and sell special personal favors out behind the local WalMart.

Naturally, as someone who enjoys being regularly screwed over by my elected officials, I support the Fix Housing First proposal.  In addition to priveleging a few citizens over the vast majority and attempting to artificially stimulate an entire industry with the taxpayer dollars OF that majority, it will effectively grind into dust my last vestiges of faith in fairness, equity, and the American Way. 

I now realize that virtues such as these are for fools and idealists, and I thank you for freeing me from the naïve weltanschauung that has enslaved me for the better part of my life.  Now instead of wasting my time aspiring to liberty and justice for all – what crack-smoking maniac thought up THAT ridiculous concept? – I can now embark on a life filled with bitterness, vitriol and rage and go to my grave cursing both man and God, as is only befitting of an enlightened person of the twenty-first century.

Congratulations on your confirmation into Congress, and if you pass the Fix Housing First bill, may your earthly blessings be exceeded only by super-special surprises stored up for you in the Seventh Circle of Hell.

Sincerely,

Citizen Sue

I didn’t mention Dean Heller’s congressional race in my prediction blurb because he’s going to crush Democrat Jill Derby and I assumed everyone knew that.

NV Congressman Dean Heller is holding his lead over challenger Jill Derby. 

Heller voted against the $700 bailout bill (twice) and has consistently complained about the spendy RINO (Republicans in name only) in D.C.  Heller represents our second district, which encompasses most of rural Nevada.  A little history:

Heller announced his run for the House in 2005.  He won the GOP primary for the seat being vacated by Jim Gibbons who was then running for governor.  In the primary, Heller received 24,781 votes to Sharron Angle’s 24,353 (squeaker!) and, interestingly, to Dawn Gibbons’ (yes THAT Mrs. Gibbons) 17,328.

In the general election, Heller defeated U of NV regent and Dem candidate Jill Derby by about 5%.  Although he lost Washoe County/Reno, he won in the rural areas by a margin of over 2-1 and took the election by over 12,000 votes.

I’m borrowing my post header from P.J. O’Rourke.  (VERY funny book if you have never enjoyed it.)

I do wish names would be Named, no matter the party affiliation:  who started and voted for all of the federal legislation, who harassed the lenders to conform, which lenders not only conformed but went above and beyond the call, and who made big bucks.

It won’t happen, of course, because they are all in bed together to some degree.

As Anne of Idaho quipped, “Someone needs to go to Washington and Wall Street and close down the whorehouses.”

The following letter was sent yesterday to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson:

September 24, 2008

The Honorable Henry Paulson
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20220

Dear Secretary Paulson:

As you continue to craft a financial stabilization plan with Congressional policymakers, I wanted to once again urge you to consider a move that could be executed unilaterally by the Treasury Department: indexing the basis of capital assets to inflation for purposes of calculating gain or loss.

There is a body of legal opinion which holds that the Treasury Department has the power to define “cost basis” when taxpayers calculate capital gain or loss. To date, Treasury secretaries of both parties have chosen to define “cost” as nominal purchase price.

This creates a situation whereby an asset held for many years and later sold may generate a capital gains tax liability when much or all of that gain is purely from inflation. For example, a stock purchased in 1990 for $1000 and sold today for $1676 would face a capital gains tax liability on the $676 “profit.” But in reality, 100% of that “gain” is attributable to inflation.

If the Treasury Department were to re-define “basis” to discount the effects of inflation, it would have a timely and pertinent effect on the current financial challenges. Households and businesses would be able to sell assets, unlock liquidity, and pay a much lower level of taxes. This liquidity is badly needed by capital markets. Best of all, this can be done by you unilaterally, substituting Congressional permission in favor of mere consultation.

Sincerely,
Grover Norquist

– E!! says:  This is better than nothing, but I’d like it much more if we eliminated the capital gains tax altogether.  (Yes, I realize that is probably a pipe dream.  That being the case, Grover’s suggestion is excellent.)

Adapted by Elizabeth Crum - E!! - from “A kingdom for a stage” by William Shakespeare [from Henry V]

O for a Muse of moderation, that would ascend
The brightest netwave of invention,
A kingdom for a Sage, senators to act
And bloggers to behold the swelling scene!

Then should the warlike pol, like Reagan,
Assume the port of Mars; and at his heels,
Leash’d in like hounds, should dollar and dividend
Crouch for employment. And pardon not, O Blogivists,
The doltish congressmen who dare

On their unworthy stage to recommend forth
Their idiotic plans:  can that intellectual vacuum hold
The vasty notions of fiscal responsibility?  Or will we cram
Within this week the very blunders
That did affright the kings of Wall Street?

O, pardon! since a crooked politician may
Protest while pocketing a million;
So let us, Bloggers in this great sphere,
Type, click and upload on screens galore.

 Today within the corridors of Congress
We see confined two indistinguishible parties,
Whose egos are exceeded only by their greed
And perilous corruption splits all asunder:
Piece out their imperfections with your posts;
Into a thousand parts divide their rhetoric,
And make it clear to all who rules this realm:

The Blogosphere, in all its glory rides

Printing our apt remarks i’ the receiving Web;
For ’tis our thoughts that now shall thump our kings,
Chase them here and there; Twittering and
Turning the empty accomplishment of many years
Into pithy posts:  for the further supply of which
Welcome us Bloggers to this great Webstory;
We pundit-like your online reading pray,

Bookmark our blogs, and kindly judge our daily Play.

-

Since hearing word of widespread support (Paulson, Congress and the President) for the latest, greatest Bailout I’ve been feeling increasingly dejected.  And concerned.  And angry.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has a “plan” which will “shift” $700 billion in obligations from private companies to the American taxpayer.  Apparently he sees this as the only Way and has 9,000 wizards on stand-by to make it so.  (The same Wall Street wizards that got us into this mess, no doubt?)

And evidently most members of Congress are spellbound and preparing to waft more money New York’s way.

One can only imagine what Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (the largest beneficiary of political funds from Fannie & Freddie) will dream up as he joins hands and sings Tra La La La La with Reid and Pelosi.  I’m not sure how it ends, but I’m pretty sure the working title is Nightmare on Wall Street and that we are barely ten minutes in.

Setting the typically wrong-headed Paulson aside for a moment, how is it that Bush and Congress care so little about protecting the American taxpayer?

And why all the insistence on a quick solution?  This mess was not created in a week, yet Paulson and our illustrious Congressional geniuses think they can solve it by this Thursday?  Does it not occur to anyone that we need to take a deep breath, wade in, and calmly and pragmatically work our way through our many economic and financial problems in a careful and measured manner?

As Newt blogged today (thank God for Mr. Gingrich), between the crisis of liquidity on Wall Street, the crisis of bad energy policy that transfers $700 billion a year to foreign nations, the crisis of Sarbanes-Oxley that cripples entrepreneurs/start ups and drives banks and businesses from New York to London, and the crisis of a high corporate tax rate…we are in some very deep Doo Doo.

Newt proposes a ”non-bureaucratic solution that would stop the liquidity crisis almost overnight and do it using private capital rather than taxpayer money.”  He suggests four reforms that would do the trick without the bureaucracy and additional tax burden.  I suggest you read his blog post as it is well worth the time, but in summation they are:

#1  Stop the mark-to-market rule which is forcing companies into unnecessary bankruptcy. If short selling can be suspended on 799 stocks, the mark-to-market rule can be suspended for six months and then replaced with a more accurate three year rolling average mark-to-market. 

#2  Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It failed with Freddy, Fannie, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG. It is crippling our entrepreneurial economy. One San Jose firm told Newt they would bring more than 20 companies public in the next year if the law was repealed. It’s Sarbanes-Oxley’s $3 million per startup annual accounting fee that is keeping these companies private.

#3  Go to a zero capital gains tax like China and Singapore.  Private capital will flood into Wall Street (at no cost to Joe Taxpayer) and lead to an increase in federal revenue through a larger, more prosperous economy.

#4  Pass an “all of the above” energy plan designed to bring home $500 billion of the $700 billion a year we are sending overseas. With that much energy income, our economy would boom.

E!! endorses these proposals (a fact I’m sure Newt is happy to hear) and strongly advises against implementation of the Paulson plan which by all reasoned accounts is going to be a total Mess.

In closing, I’ll be waiting to see what McCain says and does about all this.  If he doesn’t reject the Paulson/Bush/Congressional plan and closely align himself with much of what Newt said here, I may not be able to vote for him after all.

(Note:  To those who have heard me joke that I am going to “get drunk and vote for McCain,” consider this my semi-official back-peddle…pending the outcome of this mess and McCain’s stand on things.  Let’s see how Maverick-y the self-proclaimed maverick is when it really counts.) 

With the takeover of AIG, the federal government has wangled its fourth major bailout and taken control of its very first insurance company.  

Both McCain and Obama have called the bailouts of AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns “necessary measures.” McCain blames greedy Wall Street tycoons while Obama blames failed GOP policies.
 
Most sensible folks agree that the government’s implicit guarantee to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a license to lenders to run rampant.  Fannie and Freddie were able to buy bundles of home mortgages and/or mortgage-backed securities in massive quantities without contemplation of the financial risks.

  
Some economists blame the regulators/regulations.  I disagree.  The financial industry is heavily regulated.  It was the government’s guarantee of Fannie and Freddie that emboldened lenders to put together dicey loans and encouraged undisciplined financial endeavors.

Government policy laid the foundation of the mortgage crisis more than three decades ago when Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The law forced banks to loan money to low-income borrowers in order to meet the “needs” of the local community.

No worries, though.  The banks knew they could sell off those loans to Fannie or Freddie, and F & F knew they could buy those loans with little regard for the risk.

I’m reminded of the past weekend here in Las Vegas when a few enthusiastic friends (first time visitors) went out and hit the blackjack tables. 

A young man playing two hands was dealt four sevens.  A friend advised him to split and play four hands.  Pondering the risks, he hesitated – but the helpful friend offered to cover his losses and let him keep all the chips if he won. 

What do you suppose that young man did?

He behaved as anyone would:  he played all four sevens.  And, unfortunately, lost on all.

So it goes on the tables of Sin City.  So too, in Congressional corridors and bank board rooms. 

Had a good conversation with a conservative friend this weekend re: government spending and Republican Rep. Jon Porter’s apparent affinity for it (despite his claims to the contrary – especially, my friend noted, when he is looking for campaign contributions).

This convo occured before I read John Ralston’s column in the Las Vegas Sun yesterday, in which he noted that although Porter has a new ad slamming Democrat challenger and former state senator Dina Titus for voting for the largest tax hike in Nevada’s history back in 2003 - which she did – Porter likely would have voted for it, too.  

In light of Jon Porter’s record of voting for pork bills in Congress, including this year’s scandalous Farm Bill, Ralston’s assumption is fair.

Does Jon Porter really think he can sell himself as a fiscal conservative at this point?  And even if he tries, why on earth would we believe him? 

Hospital nurse Jill Stanek – the woman who held that late-term Downs Syndrome baby in her arms for 45 minutes as it suffered and took its last breath and then later testified before the Illinois state Senate and Congress – was on Hannity & Colmes last night. 

She said that in her experience, babies survive 10 to 20% of all late term abortions and could survive if given the proper medical care.

And she said that even after hearing her detailed testimony about what had gone on in this hospital, Obama still spoke out against the Born-Alive law in no uncertain terms.

Obama stated (and I heard the sound byte played this morning, exactly as she represented it) that having another doctor come in to evalute and save a born-alive baby after a botched abortion is “too cumbersome because…it burdens the original decision” i.e. it overrides the mother’s decision to abort.

In other words, Obama knew exactly what had happened – and would happen again – without the passage of the Born-Alive Act and he still voted against it when not one other member of the Senate did.

Obama has given us (at least) four explanations for his vote and still has not admitted the truth.  Clearly, he realizes that what he knew, when he knew it, and why he did what he did is so unthinkable to the average person that it is basically political suicide to admit it. 

Focus group studies on this issue have shown that even people who are “pro-choice” are repulsed and sickened by the thought of someone standing by and doing nothing while a living, breathing baby dies.  The average person possesses a primary, deep-seated instinct to help a suffering, dying creature and cannot understand or relate to someone who would not do so if given the chance.

Obama once said his definition of “sin” was to be “out of alignment with my own values.”  This past Sunday at Saddelback, he lamented that we do not do enough to live out the value of doing well unto “the least of these.”  (As you have done unto the least of these, so you have done unto Me.”  Matthew 25:40)

When all this has passed, I hope Obama contemplates his present failures and the grave errors which preceded them, that he feels the sting of shame and remorse, and that he begs mercy from the Maker he says he believes in…for doing nothing to stop the suffering and dying of “the least of these.”  For who is more powerless and helpless than a tiny baby unwanted and abandoned by its own mother?

Asked on CBN about his past opposition to an Illinois bill protecting babies born after surviving botched abortions, Obama replied, “I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”

Someone IS lying, but is it “folks” or is it Obama?  Here are the facts:

In 2000, when Congress took up legislation clarifying that infants born alive after abortions are Persons under the law, the bill passed the House 380 to 15…yet in 2001, when Obama was in the Illinois state Senate, he verbally opposed and then voted “present” – effectively a ”no” – on a similar bill. 

(Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, a present vote effectively functions as a “no” vote because only “yes” votes count toward the passage of a bill. Legislators vote “present” rather than “no” for a variety of reasons, including making it harder for political opponents to use their votes against them in campaign advertisements.)

In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a “neutrality clause” saying it didn’t affect Roe one way or another. The bill unanimously passed the House and Senate and was signed into law…yet in 2003, back in Illinois, Obama still opposed the state version of the law.

Obama has been saying he voted against that bill because it didn’t include the same “neutrality clause” as the federal form – but the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has now found documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted against it anyway.

Confronted about this, Obama said the NRLC was lying…but his campaign has since admitted Obama is “mistaken.”  Once again, Obama either doesn’t know his own record or is so comfortable lying that falsehoods roll off his tongue with ease.

When asked by Pastor Rick Warren @ Saddelback when a baby has rights, Obama said, “I’m absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue.”  Apparently Obama’s predictable equivocating is exceeded only by his ability to state the obvious with all the seriousness of a self-styled Socrates. 

In that same forum at Saddleback, Obama said that deciding when a baby gets the rights of Personhood is “above his pay grade.”  But shouldn’t our chief executive have an opinion about the legal definition of a Person…especially if he says he is willing to permit abortions in ANY circumstance? 

Put another way, what kind of morally bankrupt and moronic person says he realizes there is a serious ethical aspect to an issue, and then says it is beyond the scope of his capabilities to decide the matter, but then goes ahead and makes a choice anyway?  I mean, doesn’t any sane and reasonable person stay neutral on issues of which he is unsure?

One would think so, but in 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation he’d sign into law as our president. The act would end ALL current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the federal funding of abortions.

I usually avoid name-calling here on E!! but today I make an exception.

Barack Obama is either an Idiot or Pathological Liar or Both.  I cannot think of any candidate in recent times who was/is less deserving of the presidency.

AFF is on Reid’s case again, this time via the radio airwaves in Nevada.  Here’s part of the transcript:

How’s Harry Reid using his position as Majority Leader to help lower gas prices?  Reid and Congress just took a five week vacation – instead of working to lower gas prices. Congress found time to pass National Apple Month, but Reid continues to block votes to explore for energy in America.

America has huge energy reserves, but Congress has placed up to 85 percent of them off-limits. Reid repeatedly blocks efforts to lift the moratorium on safe exploration off our coasts. Reid opposes exploring a tiny portion of Alaska – less land than the Las Vegas airport – and he’s against developing our massive oil shale reserves.

Call Harry Reid: 702-388-5020. Tell him his vacation should end and the Senate should vote on S. 3202.”

Hat Tip:  PolitickerNV

Some House Republicans are still carrying on their protest on the floor of the House.  The White House says they will not answer the call for a Special Session because the majority leadership still sets the agenda and no one can force them to do an up-down vote on energy/offshore drilling.

Call, email or write to your House Democrat(s) now and demand that they return to D.C. and put offshore drilling (and other sound energy policy) to a vote.

Not sure if anyone else caught Laura Ingraham’s interview with Danielle Bologna on her radio talk show last week?  This is the San Francisco woman whose husband and two sons were brutally murdered last month by Edwin Ramos, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador.  Thanks to the policies of America’s most famous “Sanctuary City,” authorities failed to place an immigration hold on Ramos despite TWO prior convictions on gang-related FELONIES…AND an arrest on gun charges in March.

Click here to contact San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome’s office and let him know what you think about this!  You can also contact your Senator and/or Congressman with your thoughts about illegal immigration.

My three cents:  ALL illegal immigrants – not just those who violate ADDITIONAL laws after breaking our immigration laws to get here - should be reported and deported on “first contact” with a U.S. citizen and/or our authorities.  Our immigration laws are not (and should not be treated as if) they are casual suggestions. 

For an example of the proper care and handling of illegal immigrants, see this story re: a major raid and dozens of arrests in northern Nevada last fall and this follow up story describing the consequences for a company’s failure to comply with immigration law:  a Reno McDonald’s franchise owner was ordered to pay $1M in fines for knowingly employing illegal immigrants.

A couple of Nevada lawmakers are trying to get a bill passed that will do something about illegal immigration in Nevada – but unfortunately there does not seem to be wide support in the Nevada Assembly.

The Hill is reporting that the Senate just passed the 2008 Fannie & Freddie Prop Up bill (72-13).  The monster housing bill will now go to the White House for W’s Johnny Hancock.  For what it’s worth, all 13 ’no’ votes were GOP-ers.  Senator DeMint (R-SC) had delayed the bill over objections to F & F lobby rights, but in the end the R’s struck a deal with the Dems and passed it.  

The bill will allow re-fi’s of up to $300 billion in distressed mortgages, give tax breaks galore in order to help the market, tighten future oversight of F & F – and (this is the real kicker) give the Treasury temporary authority to approve an unlimited line of credit for F & F.  Now isn’t that sweet?!  We, the taxpayers, are going to foot the bill for a bottomless pile of cash for two government-sponsored enterprises being run by people of questionable judgment.

If you wish to see this in a positive light, just read the first paragraph of today’s Washington Post story which says, “In a rare weekend session, the Senate today ended months of legislative wrangling and gave final approval to a sprawling housing bill that seeks to halt the steepest slide in home prices in a generation, rescue hundreds of thousands of families from foreclosure and restore confidence in the nation’s largest mortgage finance firms.”

(GAG!!)

Why-oh-why is it the job of Congress to interfere with the natural forces of the market, rescue people from foreclosure because they financed over-priced houses with adjusable-rate mortgages they now cannot afford, and restore confidence in two companies that probably deserve to fail due to poor management?  Where in the Constitution does it say that the State is responsible for protecting its citizens from the natural consequences of their own poor judgment?!!

The Nanny State gets fatter while our dependence upon her grows…

Gallup is reporting the lowest Congressional job approval rating since Gallup started polling 34 years ago.  This dismally low number reminds me of…hm…Something…oh Yes!  It’s Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently saying the following in re: to comments about a possible presidential veto by Senator Mitch McConnel (quoted from Mark Hemingway’s June 30 column @ National Review Online):

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “A veto by the President? Gee whiz, who would be afraid of him? He has a 29-percent approval rating. How in the world could anybody be afraid of him vetoing a bill?  I cannot imagine why anyone would care about that. . . .  I say to my friend and I say I don’t know how many people are up here for reelection, but I am watching a few of them pretty closely, I say to all these people who are up for reelection:  If you think you can go home and say, I voted no because this weak President, the weakest political standing since they have done polling, I voted because I was afraid to override his veto — come on.”

So, Senator Reid… If a 29% presidential approval rating renders W. “weak,” what does a 14% approval rating render you and your feeble Congressional pals?