MORTGAGE CRISIS

There is so much blame to go around I don't believe there are too many involved who are not somewhat culpable. The Congress & the President, the Democrats and the Republicans, the lenders and the borrowers all are to blame for this problem.

Every four years we elect a President. He sells us on his vision for the country, how he will lead us on a road to better things. President Clinton believed that if people owned their homes they would better off than people who rent. All in all, a pretty sound thesis. The federal government pressured banks through the FDIC to make loans they normally would not. The current administration followed this same game plan to put even more in homes.

The mortgage brokers made the loans and immediately sold them off to the banks who in turn bundled them together and sent them off to Wall Street who did their manipulation and sold them off to investors in the form of bonds. No one cared what they were doing because each step along the way they made their money.

Through the federal government Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac financed many of the loans. The executives at these institutions made contributions to congressional leaders to keep them off their backs. The executives were paid bonuses for thier performances but they had to "cook the books" to reach their goals. In 2004 the unacceptable accounting practices were pointed out but congress wanted to continue to provide "affordable housing" so they proclaimed the report wrong. In a finance bill Sen. John McCain actually predicted the exact crisis we are experiencing but the Democrats fought any adjustment to business as usual. Now we are in a huge financial mess in this country and Congress is going to try to fix what the federal government helped create.

Mortgage companies were so anxious to make loans that the requirements became minimal. I even heard an advertisment claiming they would use your word for income verification. But even so, people should have an idea of what they can afford. Just because someone is willing to loan money doesn't mean the individual should borrow the money. Americans have become a society that lives for the moment that many people don't care about tomorrow as long as they can live the good life today.

Why should the federal government bail out Wall Street? The answer is, because our struggling economy will come to an abrupt halt if nothing is done. First, if all these homes foreclose the market will be flooded with homes and there will be a huge excess of supply which drive the home values even lower. Since no one will have equity in their homes the banks will not be able to make secured loans and credit will dry up. Second, if all these mortgages are not being paid the banks will be depleted of money and will not be able to make loans to businesses to invest in new capital to grow their businesses or in many cases to run daily operations.

Why did the supposed agreement fail? A couple of reasons, first, every member of the House is up for re-election and must face their constituents and these constituents are overwelming against the plan. So each member is putting their political career on line to fix the mess they helped create. The public is against the bailout because of the name, "bailout". Why should the American taxpayer bail out a bunch of Wall Street big wigs who have made their riches? The second reason I believe is that many congressmen were compromising their ideals in making this deal. Conservatives do not believe the government should meddle in the free enterprise system yet they were willing to vote for the bill for the good of the nation. Then Speaker Pelosi tried to mix politics into the equation and gain some political capital out of the mess and blame all the problems on the republicans which turned the bill into a negative for these "on the fence" conservatives. What was the purpose of her speach other than to stab in the back the ones who were helping her accomplish her goal of passing the bill?

The next question I want to pose is: Why did the democrats want the republicans to help pass this bill? They have enough members to pass a bill without GOP help. I think Speaker Pelosi wanted a scapegoat with the deal. Any fallout from the bill can be blamed on the republicans while the democrats, with the help of the media, can spin any problems on the back of the republicans.

I have always said that any problem the government tries to fix creates another problem. The government wants to help single mothers so they give them money and now it discourages them from getting married and encourages these women to have more children. The government wants more people to own homes and now we are in today's mess. Once again it becomes the responsible having to pay for the irresponsible, if not through our investments we ultimately pay through our taxes.

WAR ON TERROR

The War on Terror has been a central issue of this election. Criticizing the war and/or the handling of the war is what has incited the Democratic Party and vaulted them to positions of leadership in both houses of Congress. I think it is time to take a deeper look into this situation and the positions each candidate has taken and decisions they have made.

First, we are where we are and there is nothing going to change that so we need to address where to go from here. Although it is turning out that the situation in Iraq is presenting itself as a strong possibility many of the troops may be able to leave soon, this has only been possible because the surge in troops has allowed the Iraqi forces to get up to speed and will soon be able to provide security for its nation. Many Obama supporters will use this a proof that he was right about bringing the troops home but the success would not have been possible the other way around. The surge was supported by John McCain and denounced by both Obama and Biden as not a possibility of succeeding which proved to be wrong.

Leaving Iraq before the job was done and victory achieved would only embolden the enemy. This may sound like just a campaign phrase but it carries great meaning. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and were later repeled, by the help of the U.S., this embolded the Afghans. They realized the enemy could or would not be willing to sustain the casualties to bring about victory. Not only did that series of events strengthen the resolve against the Soviets it empowered them to believe they could expel any forces and especially the U.S. "If they can defeat the Soviets they surely can defeat the Americans, they do not have the stomach for a tough battle" is a mindset I heard to describe their resolve. With all the political postering here in the U.S. they were just about right. All that talk just strengthen their beliefs. Every time they hear American politicians or large groups of war protestors or movies made against our President they realize it is only a matter of time.

One of the major complaints about the way President Bush handled the situation in Iraq was that he was stubborn, unwilling to admit his mistakes and change course. Senator Obama was on the O'Reilly Factor recently and was asked about the surge. His response was that the surge was successful beyond anyone's wildest imagination but he was unwilling to admit he was wrong. First, if he possesses the same stubbornness as he and the Dems claim lead to the "failed policies" of Pres. Bush in Iraq why would we expect him to be any different? Second, it was not beyond anyone's wildest imagination. It wasn't even beyond any other candidate's wildest imagination. John McCain imagined it.

Barack Obama has the world hoping he will win this election. On a recent MTV awards show a Brittish comedian begged Americans to elect Barrack Obama and mocked the President. His great orator skills has persuaded the world that his demeanor will help the world deal with terror. The problem is the terroists, including Iran, hold positions that leave no room for negotiation. Eliminating evil zionists of Israel or the evil empire of the U.S. does not leave a starting point of negotiation.

I believe our national security is the most important issue of this election. It used to be our postion on the globe provided natural barriers to our enemies but no more. The U.S. is accessible to major terrorist damage and this must be the most important role of our federal government. Since 911 we have not been subject to any more attacks. President Bush has been so successful on this front it just might work against John McCain's biggest strength. American memories are short so their attentions have turned to our struggling economy.

Comparing the two candidates on our nation's security looks obvious. John McCain and Joe Biden have experience but Biden has made vital errors in judgement on several fronts. His plan in Iraq called for dividing it into 3 secular regions with a weak central government as well as opposing the surge. Biden's plan would have supported the Muslim's community claim we wanted to dismantle Iraq and prevented the success we have achieved today. Sarah Palin and Barack Obama have little to no foreign policy experience. This leaves the obvious observation that you can elect a candidate with great experience with a potential inexperienced backup or you can elect an inexperience leader with a potential experienced backup. Not sure if that is really a question. If you have any questions, just listen to Senator Biden.

Vice Presidents II

Last week Obama chose Senator Joseph Biden as his running mate and I am on record as saying that, for the most part, I think it was a good pick. I think in a debate against almost any other potential candidate on foreign affairs he will sound more informed, more passionate. His problems include a case of verbal diarrhea (talks too much until he sticks his foot in his mouth), he has been proven wrong on many of the foreign policy opinions (dividing up Iraq and the surge), as one of the longest running Senator's in Washington he deemphasizes Obama's claim for "change" and he acts as an admission of Obama's lack of experience

This week is McCain's turn to show his decision making ability. McCain's short list was dwindled down to a handful. Joe Lieberman, Independent Senator would have shown McCain's "Maverick" side by choosing a running mate from the other side of the party. This choice would have divided his own party. Governor Mitt Romney would have secured the conservative base but he has does nothing to excite the electorate. Governor Tim Pawlenty would have been another safe pick but maybe too safe and too boring. John McCain stepped back into his "maverick" role and chose a female running mate, Governor Sara Palin, another "maverick", from the great state of Alaska.

Sarah Palin does a lot for John McCain. She is not only a very capable woman, she is from a hard working middle class family, she was a member of a union and her husband is still in a union. These qualifications will resonate with the middle class voters in the key states of the Midwest. After the Democrats convention and the feeling of disrespect many of the Hilary supporters felt was shown her by the DNC and the Obama campaign, she offers an alternative choice of breaking the glass ceiling although her pro-life stance will hurt her with women. She ran on an anti-corruption platform and has done much to clean up the way the government runs in Alaska as well as appointing Democrats and Independents to her administration which will play well people who people fed up with the way Washington is run. She has tackled government waste and even got rid of the Governor's jet. She is conservative, more than John McCain, and is an avid hunter and is a pro-choice candidate, as stated earlier, which will go a long way in securing the base. She was an athlete, a working mom and very attractive which cannot hurt.

The negatives of this pick are few in my estimation and each have a positive spin in comparison. She has little experience in politics being only the Governor for only 2 years as compared to Obama who has been in the Senate for 3 ½ years (half of that has been spent campaigning) and Biden who has been there forever. Although limited, it is Executive experience which none of the other candidates can boast as well as the experience is outside of Washington and when the theme of campaigning this year is change, her experience has value. Her lack of foreign policy experience somewhat moots the McCain emphasis of Obama's inexperience. Another problem might be the recent revelation that her teenage daughter is pregnant out of wedlock. In a party that champions moral values her opponents will be attempt to spin this bad but that may backfire. Her daughter is not running for office and to challenge Palin's parenting because she works and her daughter got into a bit of trouble will play poorly with working women as well as parents of teenagers who almost all know is challenging. Finally, the incident with the Director of Public Safety's firing is a potential problem but we will have to see how it plays out.

Barrack Obama chose a running mate to strengthen his weaknesses while John McCain chose a running mate that secures his base with appeal to voters in demographics he needed help. Both made their ticket stronger. The way I see it, Palin is exactly what this country needs and is what both candidates are claiming they want to do for the country. I think the more we learn about her the more people will endure her qualities but it is up to how the media will spin her values. Clean up government and make it work for the people like it is supposed to not for the politician. Biden emphasizes the status quo of federal government politics, not change. In addition, Biden acts as an admission of Obama's lack of experience on foreign affairs. The Dems ticket is upside down, with experience on the bottom of the ticket.

NOW, let the race begin.