I know I should be blogging more but I have an excuse. I have fallen into another dimension where 52% of the population have lost their marbles. The surreal life.
I was stunned when 52% of this country's voters would pick a political newb with socialistic tendencies to run the Republic. I put more faith in the voters that came to the polls and definitely more faith in those that stayed home.
Right before the election, the Dems and Hank Paulson handed us the biggest October surprise ever - an economic crisis half created to gain the upper hand in the election. (I bet they are glad they let the genie out of that bottle - not!.)
Then the election. Okay we screwed it up. Obama stayed on his vapid message while we became the poster children for ADHD politics...we bounced and only came together with Sarah.
Next the bailout, then the other bailout. Then corrupt politicians and no one seems to care in the media. They're still too busy talking about Sarah's clothes.
Tell me this truly isn't reality but some bad reality based, hidden camera tv show.
Tell me we are getting punked......please?
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
When you go to vote, just remember the following
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear."
Cicero Marcus Tullius106-43 BC
h/t to Tac at conservababes.com
Cicero Marcus Tullius106-43 BC
h/t to Tac at conservababes.com
Friday, October 03, 2008
Blue Star Families For Obama in Virginia
A recent letter to the editor of our local paper had a Blue Star mom supporting Obama for President. I salute her family's service however, with a further bit of digging, I found she was Deputy Director of Policy for Blue Star Families For Obama.
Let me give a bit of history of voting and the military spouse in Virginia.
About 3 1/2 years ago, a startling bit of information popped up. Technically military spouses and dependents could not legally vote in the Commonwealth. The wording of the law stated that residents must be able to swear to live in Virginia for an unlimited amount of time. That is next to impossible for a military spouse. We go where we are told and when we are told, bottom line.
Because of the distinct possibility of being disenfranchised, we began a very protracted battle to get the law changed in Virginia. Delegate Mark Cole championed the HB138 and introduced legislation to correct this antiquated law. The results can be viewed here.
When HB 138 was introduced and sent to the Special Elections & Priviledges (House) the vote for referral was opposed by 5 Democrats.
The House voted and opposition came in the form of 15 Democrats, many from areas of heavy military concentration such as Norfolk, Chesapeake, and Northern Virginia.
The bill was then referred to Senate Committee - Elections and Special Privledges. In all fairness, the bill referred for vote 15-0. I attended that hearing in case I was needed to speak. I must give props to not only Mark Cole but the representatives from the State Board of Elections. Russ Potts asked the inane question "how do we know that they won't vote in two places?" The Election Commission rep made it very clear that this was not a problem indicative of the military.
The Senate then votes on the bill and you guessed, the only opposition came in the form of two Democrats voting no.
My question is why would you vote for a candidate of a party that, less than two years ago, didn't want you to vote at all?
Let me give a bit of history of voting and the military spouse in Virginia.
About 3 1/2 years ago, a startling bit of information popped up. Technically military spouses and dependents could not legally vote in the Commonwealth. The wording of the law stated that residents must be able to swear to live in Virginia for an unlimited amount of time. That is next to impossible for a military spouse. We go where we are told and when we are told, bottom line.
Because of the distinct possibility of being disenfranchised, we began a very protracted battle to get the law changed in Virginia. Delegate Mark Cole championed the HB138 and introduced legislation to correct this antiquated law. The results can be viewed here.
When HB 138 was introduced and sent to the Special Elections & Priviledges (House) the vote for referral was opposed by 5 Democrats.
The House voted and opposition came in the form of 15 Democrats, many from areas of heavy military concentration such as Norfolk, Chesapeake, and Northern Virginia.
The bill was then referred to Senate Committee - Elections and Special Privledges. In all fairness, the bill referred for vote 15-0. I attended that hearing in case I was needed to speak. I must give props to not only Mark Cole but the representatives from the State Board of Elections. Russ Potts asked the inane question "how do we know that they won't vote in two places?" The Election Commission rep made it very clear that this was not a problem indicative of the military.
The Senate then votes on the bill and you guessed, the only opposition came in the form of two Democrats voting no.
My question is why would you vote for a candidate of a party that, less than two years ago, didn't want you to vote at all?
Biden Lied 14 Times
Home Depot Joe stepped in it 14 times last night and lied. The MSM won't report this, it is up to the everyday person to tell the truth.
A hat tip to ALS at conservababes.com for bringing this to my attention.
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.
http://minx.cc/?post=274757
A hat tip to ALS at conservababes.com for bringing this to my attention.
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.
http://minx.cc/?post=274757
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
A Puzzled Look at The Bail Out
I am not an economist. I am a wife, a Mom, a small business owner. I balance my checkbook, use coupons, pay my mortgage on time, attempt to invest wisely and try very hard to live within my means. I respect the Constitution and have wearily watched administrations come and go.
This diaster on the economy has me - well it's a cross between puzzled, bewildered and angry.
First, let me start off with the Fed, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernake and the lot. I am puzzled because I thought that it was their jobs to make sure something like this didn't happen. So exactly what is their purpose? Didn't The Fed contribute heavily to the crash of 1929? Why are we taking advice from these yahoos? Obviously, they were asleep at the switch and failed to protect the American dollar and the economic system, why is it immediate we listen now?
Second, I have watched administrations come and go and I can remember back in the 1990s when there was a gigantic push by the Clinton administration to provide loans to lenders banks wouldn't touch. Shouldn't that have been the first clue? That banks wouldn't touch them? By no means are all Republicans lily white on this issue but I do remember Bush sounding the alarm about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being broken and needing to be fixed. That was in 2003 and in 2003 Barney Frank dismissed the concern as rhetoric. No bills made it past committee to address this situation and who was the Head of Banking? Why Chris Dodd. The man who has received more contributions from Fannie/Freddie than any other politician. The Republicans should have screamed more and more and more. But in typical Republican nature, that dog didn't hunt. In 2005, McCain attempted to address this issue and again, it was shot down by the ranking Democrats.
I was appalled when I saw the bonuses that Raines, Gorlick, Johnson, et al received from Congressionally chartered businesses. The way I view it, since the government has bailed out these agencies, those clowns owe the government millions of dollars to repair the damage they caused. I would like to have answers from Raines and Johnson, if they could stop being economic advisors to Obama long enough to answer them.
Now Paulson is screaming now or never. Um, why wasn't he screaming this a year ago. Is his vision in his capacity so short-sighted that this snuck up on him? What has he been doing with his time? This crisis was years in the making and yet he says we only have days? I think I would fire his ass for poor long term planning.
Another thing about the Treasury bailout, it includes converting billions in foreign loans to grants thus giving debtor countries a free ride on American taxpayer money. Can I get on this gravy-train?
So now Congress is scrambling but in true fashion, they never saw legislation that they didn't believe needed pork seasoning. This solution coming out of Congress not only bails out lenders, it bails out stupid people and absolves personal accountability to homeowners who can't make their mortgages. So not only do I get to pay their bill, I get to shoulder their share of accountability.
Congress has failed miserably at every institution they have meddled in. Medicare, Social security, on and on. Yet we are suppose to believe that their solution will save the day with minimized risk to the taxpayer. Oh yeah, you betcha.
What's a few trillion dollars between friends??
This diaster on the economy has me - well it's a cross between puzzled, bewildered and angry.
First, let me start off with the Fed, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernake and the lot. I am puzzled because I thought that it was their jobs to make sure something like this didn't happen. So exactly what is their purpose? Didn't The Fed contribute heavily to the crash of 1929? Why are we taking advice from these yahoos? Obviously, they were asleep at the switch and failed to protect the American dollar and the economic system, why is it immediate we listen now?
Second, I have watched administrations come and go and I can remember back in the 1990s when there was a gigantic push by the Clinton administration to provide loans to lenders banks wouldn't touch. Shouldn't that have been the first clue? That banks wouldn't touch them? By no means are all Republicans lily white on this issue but I do remember Bush sounding the alarm about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being broken and needing to be fixed. That was in 2003 and in 2003 Barney Frank dismissed the concern as rhetoric. No bills made it past committee to address this situation and who was the Head of Banking? Why Chris Dodd. The man who has received more contributions from Fannie/Freddie than any other politician. The Republicans should have screamed more and more and more. But in typical Republican nature, that dog didn't hunt. In 2005, McCain attempted to address this issue and again, it was shot down by the ranking Democrats.
I was appalled when I saw the bonuses that Raines, Gorlick, Johnson, et al received from Congressionally chartered businesses. The way I view it, since the government has bailed out these agencies, those clowns owe the government millions of dollars to repair the damage they caused. I would like to have answers from Raines and Johnson, if they could stop being economic advisors to Obama long enough to answer them.
Now Paulson is screaming now or never. Um, why wasn't he screaming this a year ago. Is his vision in his capacity so short-sighted that this snuck up on him? What has he been doing with his time? This crisis was years in the making and yet he says we only have days? I think I would fire his ass for poor long term planning.
Another thing about the Treasury bailout, it includes converting billions in foreign loans to grants thus giving debtor countries a free ride on American taxpayer money. Can I get on this gravy-train?
So now Congress is scrambling but in true fashion, they never saw legislation that they didn't believe needed pork seasoning. This solution coming out of Congress not only bails out lenders, it bails out stupid people and absolves personal accountability to homeowners who can't make their mortgages. So not only do I get to pay their bill, I get to shoulder their share of accountability.
Congress has failed miserably at every institution they have meddled in. Medicare, Social security, on and on. Yet we are suppose to believe that their solution will save the day with minimized risk to the taxpayer. Oh yeah, you betcha.
What's a few trillion dollars between friends??
What's That Sound? A Big Chunk of Pennsylvania and Other Coal Producing Regions Falling Off the Obama Support Train
So it's bad enough that The Dems think people cling to guns and religion. Now, according to Biden, they are lieing to the coal producers in America.
Ah yes, Bobbling Biden has stated "no coal mines" in America.
Are you sure you aren't working for the Republicans, Joe?
Ah yes, Bobbling Biden has stated "no coal mines" in America.
Are you sure you aren't working for the Republicans, Joe?
Monday, September 22, 2008
NY Times Update - Gosh, we're not biased
After Steve Schmidt called the New York Times on the carpet for bias, the Gray Lady responded with the following:
"Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said in a statement of response: "The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively. It's our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisors. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it's what our readers expect and deserve."
Obama's press secretary cited over 40 probing stories the NY Times did about Obama.
Let's take a look at just the titles alone:
1. In Law School, Obama Found Political Voice [New York Times, 1/28/07]
Gee, this doesn't sound very hard hitting. In fact, it reads like a "Here's why we gush", puff piece".
2. So Far, Obama Can’t Take Black Vote For Granted [New York Times, 2/2/07]
Nope, I don't see anything that indicated vetting of the candidate just a cuddley warning for him not to get too comfy.
3. Obama Had Slaveowning Kin [New York Times, 3/3/07]
I don't even know what the point of this piece is. Are they rekindling the Civil War?
4. Disinvitation by Obama Is Criticized [New York Times, 3/6/07]
How is this hard hitting?? To me they seem outraged that he was disinvited.
5. Obama, in Brief Investing Foray In '05, Took Same Path as Donors [New York Times, 3/7/07]
So they are defending his investments. Very hard hitting piece there.
6. Obama Says His Investments Presented No Conflicts of Interest [New York Times, 3/8/07]
See above
7. Charisma and a Search for Self In Obama's Hawaii Childhood [New York Times, 3/17/07]
Sorry, but there is no such thing as a hard, investigative vetting of a candidate that begin with the words "charisma" and "search for self".
8. Clinton Camp Challenges Obama on Iraq. [New York Times, 3/22/07]
Big whoop, he was wrong on Iraq and the surge and just about everything else. If they are so interested in hard hitting, why didn't they report his demands to the Iraqi government to delay troop withdrawl?
9. After 2000 Loss, Obama Built Donor Network From Roots Up [New York Times, 4/3/07]
Gushing about what a hard worker he is. Did they talk about his Resko donations and others? Did they investigate the 14 million dollars of housing "favors" Resko and crew got for supporting The Chosen One? Nope.
10. A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith [New York Times, 4/30/07]
Again, no hard hitting piece begins with the header "search for faith". Did they question how he sat in a church 20 years and didn't hear this stuff? Or how he threw Wright under the bus for political expedience?
11. An Obama Patron and Friend Until an Indictment in Illinois [New York Times, 6/14/07]
Yeah, after every other news agency in the world was covering it. Again, no deep investigation into the matter, just gloss.
12. In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd. [New York Times, 7/30/07]
Was that pragmatic and shrewed when he left the Illinois taxpayers holding the bill for bad housing? Nope, it was showing how smart their guy has been.
13. In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama. [New York Times, 9/9/07]
Is that street wise as in "I blew up the Capitol and the Pentagon and I intended to kill soldiers at Ft. Dix (and their dates) and I am not repentent Ayers?
14. Loyal Network Backs Obama After His Help. [New York Times, 10/1/07]
Another hard hitting tough journalistic piece (not). The title tells you all you need to know, the guy has loyal followers. So did Atilla The Hun.
15. Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say. [New York Times, 10/30/07]
Hey! They started but they made sure that Barry got the explanation in. Did they offer the same to McCain or Palin. Nope. More Barry adoration.
16. It’s Not Just ‘Ayes’ and ‘Nays’: Obama’s Votes in Illinois Echo. [New York Times, 12/20/07]
Oh puh-leeze! That echo, NY Times, is the vast emptiness of the lack of impact his 130 "present" votes amounted to.
17. Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate [New York Times, 2/3/08]
No hard hitting piece again, just proving their adoration for the man by saying "he was tested".
18. Daschle Uses Senate Ties To Blaze Path for Obama [New York Times, 2/5/08]
How is this vetting or hard hitting. In fact, by providing this list, they are proving that Steve Schmidt is right. Jeez.
19. Old Friends Say Drugs Played Bit Part in Obama’s Young Life [New York Times, 2/9/08]
Notice the word "Young". Explained away and he's learned his lesson. Had he been a Republican, he would have been vilified. Puff, puff - as in piece, not toking.
20. Seeking Unity, Obama Feels Pull of Racial Divide [New York Times, 2/12/08]
They blew it on the title. They laud him seeking unity. Nothing to see here, folks, just more fawning.
21. Obama Walks a Difficult Path as He Courts Jewish Voters [New York Times, 3/1/08]
Poor Barry, a tough road to court Jewish voters since the Times is so absolutely certain that Jews should vote for him. They didn't mention his flip flop on his Israel positions.
Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role [New York Times, 3/9/08]
How is this critical of Obama. He's their "Supah-Stah"
22. A Free-Spirited Wanderer Who Set Obama’s Path [New York Times, 3/14/08]
Which Free Spirit? Ayers? Resko? Wright? Flagel? You failed again NY Times.
23.cPastor Defends His Predecessor at Obama’s Chicago Church [New York Times, 3/17/08]
Yeah, we know how this one turned out. Did they ask The Chosen One how he could attend a church for twenty years and have no clue about the pastor's vitrolic leanings? Did they ask which Sundays he attended? No, no - they sugarcoated it.
24. Obama’s Narrator [New York Times, 4/1/07]
Would that be Saul Alinsky, William Ayers? Didn't think so.
25. Wright Remains a Concern for Some Democrats [New York Times, 5/1/08]
Not after you failed to investigate this thoroughly. Not a big whoop now. You managed to bury it.
26. A Strained Wright-Obama Bond Finally Snaps [New York Times, 5/1/08]
I guess throwing someone under the bus would strain a relationship. The Times SUCKED at this article.
27. A Pulpit-and-Pews Gulf on Obama’s Ex-Pastor [New York Times, 5/2/08]
This explains away Barry's throwing Wright under the bus.
28. A Fiery Theology Under Fire [New York Times, 5/4/08]
Yah, think? Another failure to properly investigate the relationship thoroughly.
29. Obama Secret Service Agent Tied To Sex Joke [New York Times, 5/15/08]
I'm not even going to comment on this idiocy.
30. The Story of Obama, Written by Obama [New York Times, 5/18/08]
And as reported by Surrogate Obama - The New York Times.
31. Following Months of Criticism, Obama Quits His Church [New York Times, 6/1/08]
Now he's driving the bus. The Times again failed to investigate it thoroughly.
32. Many Blacks Find Joy in Unexpected Breakthrough [New York Times, 6/5/08]
This is hard hitting, how??
33. Where Whites Draw The Line [New York Times, 6/8/08]
This is their attempt to impose White Liberal guilt into the election equation.
34. Obama’s Organizing Years, Guiding Others and Finding Himself [New York Times, 7/7/08]
The Times failed for the nth time. He even admits he was a failure as an organizer. But, hey! Their headline is annointing.
35. As a Professor, Obama Enthralled Students and Puzzled Faculty [New York Times, 7/30/08]
This is flat out stupid. Obama was a visiting lecturer, not a professor. Nice research.
36. Delicate Obama Path on Class and Race Preferences [New York Times, 8/3/08]
Big whoop. Again the Grey Lady playing the guilt card to get votes for their Messiah.
37. Big Donors, Too, Have Seats at Obama Fundraising Table [New York Times, 8/6/08]
But, but, he likes the little people first. Just not the ones with the bibles and guns.
38. Is Obama the End of Black Politics? [New York Times, 8/10/08]
I didn't even bother to read this piece. LWG at its finest.
39. Obama’s 2003 Stand on Abortion Draws New Criticism in 2008 [New York Times, 8/20/08]
This one ALMOST made it into the hard hitting column but it seemed to justify the chosen one's stance.
40. Obama Aides Defend Bank’s Pay to Biden Son [New York Times, 8/25/08]
Um, the headline says it all boys. You are reporting HIS defense, not an objective journalistic approach.
41. Once a Convention Outsider, Obama Navigated a Path to the Marquee [New York Times, 8/27/08]
Lights, Camera, Action! Our guy has made it!! Whoo-Hoo the Gray Lady's in control!
42. Obama Looks to Lessons From Chicago in His National Education Plan [New York Times, 9/10/08]
Yeah this one gets me because he was PART OF THE PROBLEM IN CHICAGO. But the Times isn't going to rain on Barry's parade.
When The Times does an investigative piece that doesn't fluff over things in Obama's credentials or past, when they strike with the same poisoned fangs that they have used on McCain and Palin, only then will they begin to even have an iota of credibility.
Until then, The National Enquirer is one up on them for the Edward's story.
"Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said in a statement of response: "The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively. It's our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisors. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it's what our readers expect and deserve."
Obama's press secretary cited over 40 probing stories the NY Times did about Obama.
Let's take a look at just the titles alone:
1. In Law School, Obama Found Political Voice [New York Times, 1/28/07]
Gee, this doesn't sound very hard hitting. In fact, it reads like a "Here's why we gush", puff piece".
2. So Far, Obama Can’t Take Black Vote For Granted [New York Times, 2/2/07]
Nope, I don't see anything that indicated vetting of the candidate just a cuddley warning for him not to get too comfy.
3. Obama Had Slaveowning Kin [New York Times, 3/3/07]
I don't even know what the point of this piece is. Are they rekindling the Civil War?
4. Disinvitation by Obama Is Criticized [New York Times, 3/6/07]
How is this hard hitting?? To me they seem outraged that he was disinvited.
5. Obama, in Brief Investing Foray In '05, Took Same Path as Donors [New York Times, 3/7/07]
So they are defending his investments. Very hard hitting piece there.
6. Obama Says His Investments Presented No Conflicts of Interest [New York Times, 3/8/07]
See above
7. Charisma and a Search for Self In Obama's Hawaii Childhood [New York Times, 3/17/07]
Sorry, but there is no such thing as a hard, investigative vetting of a candidate that begin with the words "charisma" and "search for self".
8. Clinton Camp Challenges Obama on Iraq. [New York Times, 3/22/07]
Big whoop, he was wrong on Iraq and the surge and just about everything else. If they are so interested in hard hitting, why didn't they report his demands to the Iraqi government to delay troop withdrawl?
9. After 2000 Loss, Obama Built Donor Network From Roots Up [New York Times, 4/3/07]
Gushing about what a hard worker he is. Did they talk about his Resko donations and others? Did they investigate the 14 million dollars of housing "favors" Resko and crew got for supporting The Chosen One? Nope.
10. A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith [New York Times, 4/30/07]
Again, no hard hitting piece begins with the header "search for faith". Did they question how he sat in a church 20 years and didn't hear this stuff? Or how he threw Wright under the bus for political expedience?
11. An Obama Patron and Friend Until an Indictment in Illinois [New York Times, 6/14/07]
Yeah, after every other news agency in the world was covering it. Again, no deep investigation into the matter, just gloss.
12. In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd. [New York Times, 7/30/07]
Was that pragmatic and shrewed when he left the Illinois taxpayers holding the bill for bad housing? Nope, it was showing how smart their guy has been.
13. In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama. [New York Times, 9/9/07]
Is that street wise as in "I blew up the Capitol and the Pentagon and I intended to kill soldiers at Ft. Dix (and their dates) and I am not repentent Ayers?
14. Loyal Network Backs Obama After His Help. [New York Times, 10/1/07]
Another hard hitting tough journalistic piece (not). The title tells you all you need to know, the guy has loyal followers. So did Atilla The Hun.
15. Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say. [New York Times, 10/30/07]
Hey! They started but they made sure that Barry got the explanation in. Did they offer the same to McCain or Palin. Nope. More Barry adoration.
16. It’s Not Just ‘Ayes’ and ‘Nays’: Obama’s Votes in Illinois Echo. [New York Times, 12/20/07]
Oh puh-leeze! That echo, NY Times, is the vast emptiness of the lack of impact his 130 "present" votes amounted to.
17. Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate [New York Times, 2/3/08]
No hard hitting piece again, just proving their adoration for the man by saying "he was tested".
18. Daschle Uses Senate Ties To Blaze Path for Obama [New York Times, 2/5/08]
How is this vetting or hard hitting. In fact, by providing this list, they are proving that Steve Schmidt is right. Jeez.
19. Old Friends Say Drugs Played Bit Part in Obama’s Young Life [New York Times, 2/9/08]
Notice the word "Young". Explained away and he's learned his lesson. Had he been a Republican, he would have been vilified. Puff, puff - as in piece, not toking.
20. Seeking Unity, Obama Feels Pull of Racial Divide [New York Times, 2/12/08]
They blew it on the title. They laud him seeking unity. Nothing to see here, folks, just more fawning.
21. Obama Walks a Difficult Path as He Courts Jewish Voters [New York Times, 3/1/08]
Poor Barry, a tough road to court Jewish voters since the Times is so absolutely certain that Jews should vote for him. They didn't mention his flip flop on his Israel positions.
Obama in Senate: Star Power, Minor Role [New York Times, 3/9/08]
How is this critical of Obama. He's their "Supah-Stah"
22. A Free-Spirited Wanderer Who Set Obama’s Path [New York Times, 3/14/08]
Which Free Spirit? Ayers? Resko? Wright? Flagel? You failed again NY Times.
23.cPastor Defends His Predecessor at Obama’s Chicago Church [New York Times, 3/17/08]
Yeah, we know how this one turned out. Did they ask The Chosen One how he could attend a church for twenty years and have no clue about the pastor's vitrolic leanings? Did they ask which Sundays he attended? No, no - they sugarcoated it.
24. Obama’s Narrator [New York Times, 4/1/07]
Would that be Saul Alinsky, William Ayers? Didn't think so.
25. Wright Remains a Concern for Some Democrats [New York Times, 5/1/08]
Not after you failed to investigate this thoroughly. Not a big whoop now. You managed to bury it.
26. A Strained Wright-Obama Bond Finally Snaps [New York Times, 5/1/08]
I guess throwing someone under the bus would strain a relationship. The Times SUCKED at this article.
27. A Pulpit-and-Pews Gulf on Obama’s Ex-Pastor [New York Times, 5/2/08]
This explains away Barry's throwing Wright under the bus.
28. A Fiery Theology Under Fire [New York Times, 5/4/08]
Yah, think? Another failure to properly investigate the relationship thoroughly.
29. Obama Secret Service Agent Tied To Sex Joke [New York Times, 5/15/08]
I'm not even going to comment on this idiocy.
30. The Story of Obama, Written by Obama [New York Times, 5/18/08]
And as reported by Surrogate Obama - The New York Times.
31. Following Months of Criticism, Obama Quits His Church [New York Times, 6/1/08]
Now he's driving the bus. The Times again failed to investigate it thoroughly.
32. Many Blacks Find Joy in Unexpected Breakthrough [New York Times, 6/5/08]
This is hard hitting, how??
33. Where Whites Draw The Line [New York Times, 6/8/08]
This is their attempt to impose White Liberal guilt into the election equation.
34. Obama’s Organizing Years, Guiding Others and Finding Himself [New York Times, 7/7/08]
The Times failed for the nth time. He even admits he was a failure as an organizer. But, hey! Their headline is annointing.
35. As a Professor, Obama Enthralled Students and Puzzled Faculty [New York Times, 7/30/08]
This is flat out stupid. Obama was a visiting lecturer, not a professor. Nice research.
36. Delicate Obama Path on Class and Race Preferences [New York Times, 8/3/08]
Big whoop. Again the Grey Lady playing the guilt card to get votes for their Messiah.
37. Big Donors, Too, Have Seats at Obama Fundraising Table [New York Times, 8/6/08]
But, but, he likes the little people first. Just not the ones with the bibles and guns.
38. Is Obama the End of Black Politics? [New York Times, 8/10/08]
I didn't even bother to read this piece. LWG at its finest.
39. Obama’s 2003 Stand on Abortion Draws New Criticism in 2008 [New York Times, 8/20/08]
This one ALMOST made it into the hard hitting column but it seemed to justify the chosen one's stance.
40. Obama Aides Defend Bank’s Pay to Biden Son [New York Times, 8/25/08]
Um, the headline says it all boys. You are reporting HIS defense, not an objective journalistic approach.
41. Once a Convention Outsider, Obama Navigated a Path to the Marquee [New York Times, 8/27/08]
Lights, Camera, Action! Our guy has made it!! Whoo-Hoo the Gray Lady's in control!
42. Obama Looks to Lessons From Chicago in His National Education Plan [New York Times, 9/10/08]
Yeah this one gets me because he was PART OF THE PROBLEM IN CHICAGO. But the Times isn't going to rain on Barry's parade.
When The Times does an investigative piece that doesn't fluff over things in Obama's credentials or past, when they strike with the same poisoned fangs that they have used on McCain and Palin, only then will they begin to even have an iota of credibility.
Until then, The National Enquirer is one up on them for the Edward's story.
Steve Schmidt Nukes The New York Times
I love Steve Schmidt. He hit this nail squarely on the head. In a recent poll, over 60% of people polled believed that there was media bias but only 9% of journalists polled thought there was a problem.
Back to Steve, he started the week right and I applaud him for saying so.
Hat tip to Redstate.com & Hotair.com
Back to Steve, he started the week right and I applaud him for saying so.
Hat tip to Redstate.com & Hotair.com
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Tell Me Again, Who Is Getting A Tax Break?
The fuzzy wuzzy, peace, hope and change game of Obama is reaching critical mass. His tax plan, wrapped in the sparkley veil of change and hope has some serious issues...like it doesn't add up that middle income citizens will be given tax relief.
Rightchange.com has presented 10 facts about the Obama plan that should scare the bejeepers out of all those people who believe he will relieve their tax burden.
Hat Tip to ALS from Conservababes.com for this information.
http://www.rightchange.com/issue_tax1.php
10 Things You Need to Know About Senator Obama’s Tax Proposals
Under the tax plans of Barack Obama and his Democratic friends in Congress, American families will only be left with… the change in their pockets.
In 2009, Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress have an idea for a bill. Well, really, it’s a lot of bills that will be paid for by nearly every American in the form of higher taxes and higher costs for food, energy and other products.
So if you have a retirement account, work in or shop at a small business, are close or in retirement, or even flip on a light switch, then there are a few things that you should consider.
Under that plan:
Small main street businesses would be forced to pay tax rates as high as 62.3% under Senator Obama’s tax proposals.(1)
Senator Obama’s tax plan would tax small businesses at a higher rate than Wal-Mart!(2)
Taxes on retirement income and savings could increase by at least 33%, hitting millions of seniors when they need these resources the most. (3)
4 million workers over the age of 50 – those eagerly looking forward to retirement – would be hit with increased tax bills. (4)
Millions of Americans would only keep 38 cents of every dollar that they earn. (5)
Senator Obama’s tax plan would reduce the after tax wages of millions of workers by 17.7%. (6)
It will take 227 days per year, nearly 8 months, just to pay your tax bill!7
97,065 carpenters, 110,908 police officers, 254,992 nurses, 208,562 postsecondary teachers and 237,000 dentists would see tax increases, if the earnings cap was successfully eliminated. (8)
10.3 million workers would see an average of $5,650 taken from their paycheck and given to government programs. (9)
Even YOU might be considered “Rich.”
Citations:
1 Michael Boskin, “A Closer Look at Obamanomics”
2 “Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut in Business Tax”, Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2008
3“Obama's War on Women”, The New York Sun, August 14, 2008
4 “Caps Off for Obama,” Investors Business Daily, 5/20/2008
5 Michael Boskin, “A Closer Look at Obamanomics”
6 Calcuation by RightChange.com based on figures detailed in Michael Boskin’s, “A Closer Look at Obamanomics”
7 RightChange.com calculation
8 “Obama's Social Insecurity Plan,” Investor’s Business Daily, 5/20/2008
9"Caps Off For Obama," Investor's Business Daily, 9/25/07
http://www.rightchange.com/issue_tax1.php
Rightchange.com has presented 10 facts about the Obama plan that should scare the bejeepers out of all those people who believe he will relieve their tax burden.
Hat Tip to ALS from Conservababes.com for this information.
http://www.rightchange.com/issue_tax1.php
10 Things You Need to Know About Senator Obama’s Tax Proposals
Under the tax plans of Barack Obama and his Democratic friends in Congress, American families will only be left with… the change in their pockets.
In 2009, Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress have an idea for a bill. Well, really, it’s a lot of bills that will be paid for by nearly every American in the form of higher taxes and higher costs for food, energy and other products.
So if you have a retirement account, work in or shop at a small business, are close or in retirement, or even flip on a light switch, then there are a few things that you should consider.
Under that plan:
Small main street businesses would be forced to pay tax rates as high as 62.3% under Senator Obama’s tax proposals.(1)
Senator Obama’s tax plan would tax small businesses at a higher rate than Wal-Mart!(2)
Taxes on retirement income and savings could increase by at least 33%, hitting millions of seniors when they need these resources the most. (3)
4 million workers over the age of 50 – those eagerly looking forward to retirement – would be hit with increased tax bills. (4)
Millions of Americans would only keep 38 cents of every dollar that they earn. (5)
Senator Obama’s tax plan would reduce the after tax wages of millions of workers by 17.7%. (6)
It will take 227 days per year, nearly 8 months, just to pay your tax bill!7
97,065 carpenters, 110,908 police officers, 254,992 nurses, 208,562 postsecondary teachers and 237,000 dentists would see tax increases, if the earnings cap was successfully eliminated. (8)
10.3 million workers would see an average of $5,650 taken from their paycheck and given to government programs. (9)
Even YOU might be considered “Rich.”
Citations:
1 Michael Boskin, “A Closer Look at Obamanomics”
2 “Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut in Business Tax”, Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2008
3“Obama's War on Women”, The New York Sun, August 14, 2008
4 “Caps Off for Obama,” Investors Business Daily, 5/20/2008
5 Michael Boskin, “A Closer Look at Obamanomics”
6 Calcuation by RightChange.com based on figures detailed in Michael Boskin’s, “A Closer Look at Obamanomics”
7 RightChange.com calculation
8 “Obama's Social Insecurity Plan,” Investor’s Business Daily, 5/20/2008
9"Caps Off For Obama," Investor's Business Daily, 9/25/07
http://www.rightchange.com/issue_tax1.php
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Bush Requested Oversight of Freddie & Fannie in 2003 - A Big FAT I Told Ya so.
Back in September of 2003, Bush requested oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Democrats pooh-pooh this idea saying nothing was wrong.
By the way, the Democrats have had two years to begin alleviating a broken situation, what legislation did they propose? Nada, zip, zilch.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.
The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.
The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.
After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.
''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.
At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.
Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.
After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.
''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.
Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.
Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''
The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.
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.
By the way, the Democrats have had two years to begin alleviating a broken situation, what legislation did they propose? Nada, zip, zilch.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.
The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.
The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.
After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.
''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.
''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.
At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.
Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.
After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.
''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.
Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.
Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''
The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
