Save The Auto Industry? Yes!

There are voices in the senate and the house that are raising concerns about saving what at least one member of congress has called a Dinosaur, the auto industry, and saying that infusing cash into the system will merely be giving that dinosaur whose day of reckoning is near a few months of life, merely postponing the inevitable. Now, I do not have a problem with calling the industry a dinosaur whose time has come, but to not make the attempt to keep the millions affected by it’s possible collapse, when we have already throw hundreds of billions to save the drowning dinosaur that is financial markets, why not throw 3% of the total amount earmarked to save the wall street dinosaur and save the automotive one?

There is still $410,000,000,000 left in the bailou…err rescue package. Using a mere 6% of that total, you can keep several large contributors in our economy afloat, and all the businesses that depend on or work with the big 3 automakers will be kept going. More on the ripple effect in a few. This bailou…err, rescue package money was meant, on the face of it, to help the financial markets, but in a broader sense, it was meant to help save us from the economic excesses that got us in trouble in the first place. In this instance, Original Intent is trumped by necessity. The areas that the auto industry inhabits would be devastated. You opponents of aid to the auto industry would turn large tracts of America into Ghost towns for your own petty political wants.

It should not surprise anyone that the Senator who made the statement in question, the “Dinosaur” comment, Senator Shelby from Alabama, has several thriving foreign auto makers building cars in his state, Namely Mercedes Benz, Honda and Hyundai. A healthy and robust GM, Ford and Chrysler in Detroit would create more competition for market share, and take a share of Honda and Hyundai’s sales from them. And Sen. Shelby would prefer those jobs stay in his district, so why not stifle competition by cutting off relief to help Detroit?

How much good would you be doing if you left this industry to die, to be liquidated, how many jobs does America lose, at a time it can ill afford to lose them? With Job Losses mounting, opponents of assistance seem to be saying that a few million extra unemployed in America, on top of the losses that have happened, and others that are expected to happen are fine by them. Do they really want to add millions more to that number? Are they TRYING to kill America and American Business?

I can hear the next argument coming. It is socialism to do this. Bankrolling Big Business is tantamount to creating Government run industry, and didn’t we fight and defeat communism? Yes we did, but that matters not one iota here.

Face facts, ladies and gentlemen, we aren’t the 100% free market economy that you think we are. That is a fiction, plain and simple, but we aren’t socialists either. When things are going great it’s winner take all, but as the past actions of the federal reserve, the treasury, and the current administration have shown, we are NOT a free market nation when the chips are down. We are protectionists, not socialists. When it comes down to it, we have as a fallback position, the use of public funds when the well of private funds dry up or freeze. This is not socialist, this is internal protectionism, plain and simple.

Back to the Legislation itself.

The plan here is pretty simple. Take a (relatively) small amount of the Tarp Funds, to help save an industry that has helped shape the face of America for over a century. This industry affects millions of jobs, and has a large effect on the economy, we need to something, and Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd thinks this is the best way to save this “dinosaur” and make it relevant again. Yes bad business practices have made the industry falter. Yes oil prices have negatively affected car sales, and they were down even before that. That is no reason to let the industry go the way of the dodo.

There is an alternate legislative direction that can be taken. There is $25,000,000,000 out there, that is earmarked for creating more fuel efficient cars. That money could be funneled to help out the auto industry. I don’t have a problem with this solution, the Bush Administration solution, but this should, to my mind, only be considered if it is certain that the Tarp funds re-allocation will not pass and reach the people in the industry who really need it. We do need more fuel efficient cars, but we need the auto industry in good enough shape to build them before we worry about that. At this point it’s any port in a storm, and if That’s the road we have to take, we take it. It is clearly the second best road to travel, but any road is better than letting the industry rot and die due to mismanagement from within and lack of forethought from without.

Supporters of the Automotive bailout package have even offered to make the package smaller to make it more palatable to those whom they are depending for help.

We “helped” Aig. We “helped” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We “helped” wall street. The least we can do is offer that same “help”, in that same spirit, to the auto industry. Millions of Americans are depending on it. Leaving the Industry to die would be proof that government is more interested it’s friends in The financial industry than in “We The People”.

Don’t let The Auto Industry fail.

That’s my two cents. What do you think America? Do you think it makes sense to save Detroit, or do you think it hurts America to make this bailout happen? Drop me a line and let me know!

Uncle Mikey

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

You may notice a few changes around here as time goes on. Since this is election-coverage.com, and the election is over, it makes sense to me that I move in a different direction. And in that spirit I will go to covering the government in general, be it legislation, supreme court rulings, executive decisions, and news-worthy events that are either affected by, or have an effect on our democracy and it’s governance.

Another thing you may notice is that the regular 5:30 am postings are going to alter a little bit. The constraints of a regular 5:30am posting, with my schedule as it currently exists is a bit much. I will be posting later in the day, and will in all likelihood not post as frequently as I have in past. I may, in lieu of just regular news also post some pieces on political philosophy…I am sure you noticed something of that bent in my character anyway, and I am going to give it more voice. This will make for, I think anyway, longer pieces. I hope my regular readers don’t mind these changes too much.

In that spirit, I am going to go off on a tangent here for a bit. I am going to talk about something near and dear to a great many people, liberals, conservatives, and myself as well. Being a left leaning libertarian, I find the concept of Small government a truly beautiful one, but utterly impossible in this day and age, and i will show you why.

Government, to my mind, is something that should be small enough to not be overly obtrusive, yet strong enough to protect the public from the predations of an unscrupulous world preying upon the people. I am not a true minarchist, a true government minimalist, because I do in fact think that there are things that the government should do for the betterment of the citizens.

But what is a (by and large) Pro-Small government believer to do in this day and age? The fact that our Government is perhaps the largest single employer in The United States, should tell you about what our government believes about “Small Government” Almost 20 million people work in government agencies on one level or another. That is HUGE. To shrink a bureaucracy that large without seriously damaging the economy is to my mind impossible. This is going with the latest figures i can get my hands on, from 2006.

The Numbers themselves are of only slight interest. The government actually employed more people in 2001 than it does now, but it seems the cuts were on the local level, not state or federal. There was no drop in that period for federal or state employees. The numbers were, at that point, approximately 20.9 million total employees. With the exception of those local losses in 2001, and overall that paring down was relatively small, there has been no paring down in any way of the size of government, employee/infrastructure wise, since WWII. In fact it has more than tripled in size since WWII.

But I digress. Numbers themselves are not the point, though they do work effectively to illustrate a point. Numbers almost always skew up, not down. And that makes sense, seeing how a growing population will have greater need of existing programs and government agencies, due simply to increased population, and government, needing to keep up with demand, would, by necessity, need to increase in size to meet demand.

Which brings up a question. What exactly is the need for existing government agencies and programs? Are there not programs that we could do away with? “HELL YEAH!!!” I hear you say. And I would throw a few programs out that would meet my personal idea of what is wrong with government, and I could name several, but i will not….not today anyway. I will argue here that there is no way to just cut a program out without cutting thousands of people from all walks of life deeply and making their lives more difficult, and in some cases unlivable. And what of those employed in the food stamp program? How many jobs would be lost? How much damage to the economy, both on a local and national level?

Sure, cutting programs would minimize the size of government, and reduce the amount of annual expenditure on government, but I must ask you, at what price? Yes cutting (to pick one program at random) Food stamps would no doubt cut billions of dollars in government expenditure, and no doubt force those who cheat the system to find an honest way of getting by, but for every cheat burned by cutting this, how many single mothers do you burn as well? How many widows living on a pension that wasn’t large enough to make ends meet when the “breadwinner” was still alive. For every bad person you burn, you burn 20 people who are simply down on their luck and who have need of such help.

Now I know that, in the view of some, government is not in the business of charity. But I would point to the preamble of the constitution. Do the words “Promote the General Welfare” mean nothing? What do you think they meant by “Insure Domestic Tranquility”? Do you think they gave themselves the power to tax so they could prop themselves up? No. It was meant for the good of the people. All the people, as delineated in the Constitution. And the size of the government is a direct result of the interpretation of these and other concepts within the documents put forth by our founding fathers.

True, their is in no place within any of our great documents which say government must insure the health and well-being of all it’s citizens except in the spirit of it, as I previously mentioned. But should the government be heartless? How long would those voted in to lead us last in office if they were? They like their jobs and know it is a popularity contest, and will not fight the will of the people unless they know that can win. And I don’t think they can win a fight like this, and by their actions, neither do they.

As much as it pains me to say it, there is no way that I can see that a major and effective paring down of the government can happen in this day and age. The needs of the people, mixed with the will of the government to help those in need, to be humane, while keeping themselves in their jobs, has brought together a toxic, yet necessary largess to government.

If you want smaller government, you will have to legislate it in. You could try to pass laws forcing the government to keep to a particular size and strength, or outlawing some particular type of entitlement, or all of them, but I am not sure you would get any legislator to pass it. Every program you cut would kill of thousands off jobs, and further damage an already damaged economy. The only way I can see to do it is to have a constitutional convention, as stated in article five of the constitution. This is something that could be a remedy to this particular situation, but only if enough dreamers like myself and other minarchist-types who have been set adrift in a sea of large government would populate the convention.

Good luck with that. I would like to see it, but I won’t hold my breath.

I’ll See you all on Monday. Tell me what you think of the changes. Tell me what you think about the size and effectiveness of our government. What would you change? Cut out? Leave in, and maybe even grow? Drop me a line and let me know, America!

Uncle Mikey

Why, You of Course! I’m sorry, I should not give away the ending like that, but since you knew the answer before I told you what money I was talking about, I decided to not beat around the Bush/Cheney.

There seems to be no end in site for America’s financial woes. Since last Friday, two banks, including one run by the man who created the Mortgage backed security (there IS justice, see?!) have been bought out by the FDIC, and Circuit city has gone belly up, declaring bankruptcy, and there is much talk of General Motors going the same route. The banks were the 18th and 19th to need such a buyout by the FDIC this year. AIG has needed an additional infusion of cash, above and beyond what was needed initially, due to having to pay off credit default swaps, which ate up most of the money they were initially handed by the Feds.

We the people signed off on one stimulus package to stimulate the economy, to no avail. We the people, signed off on a $700,000,000,000 bailou…err rescue package, and the economy has seen almost no real benefit. In Fact the economy seems to have worsened since this Forced “generosity” of the public was brought to the fore. And now not only is the fed not telling us about an additional 2 trillion dollars in funds that has been handed out, but there is talk of a second stimulus package, and another bailou…err rescue package, this one for the Automotive industry.

One wonders exactly how much affect the countermeasures are having or can really have.

This is how it looks from this writer’s perch. I’m not sure that anything they do will fix the economy as a whole, even if they manage to catch pieces of it as it falls apart. They saved AIG, it was “Too Big to Fail”. Nice, there goes $150,000,000,000. I do not know how much it would have cost to simply let it fail, and let the market pick up the pieces, but i cannot picture it costing much more than that. I would not mind talking to a financial expert or two about this subject here, the more minds weighing in on this the better. The Jobs saved were important, but where was the fed when Lehman went belly up? And what help can over 1,000,000 people who lost jobs get?

The Stock prices on everything are getting positively KILLED, and the bailou…err, rescue plan hasn’t helped, no stimulus plan will make that better anytime soon. The volatility is only amplified by governmental interference, because the market sees that the government, despite it’s best efforts, is just not knowledgeable enough here to do any real good. Sure, they’ll take the money, wouldn’t you if someone offered you a free bank vault full of cash? Why do you think American Express decided to become a bank? It’s because of the FREE MONEY, that’s why!

If the government had only played a more limited role here, i think things would be less volatile now.

What we need is a small but consistent governmental role in this economic crisis. Save GM, like you saved AIG, because 2,000,000 jobs lost and millions of pensions up in smoke if GM goes the way of the dodo would be too large a strain on an already weakened economy. But AIG doesn’t need all the extra cash free and clear from us. The one variable no one thinks of is the strain on the General Public.

If AIG is too big to fail, What about the United States of America? Aren’t we “To Big to Fail” too? Who’s gonna Bail Us out? Who’s going to rescue us? China? The Republicans? The Democrats? Can our government help us, and do they really know what they are doing?

Tell me what you think America! Is the government making things worse through sheer mismanagement? Do they have a clue? Is Big business taking advantage of us? Drop me a line and tell me what you think!

Uncle Mikey

This is the Question du Jour in the days after the Election Of Barack Obama as our next President. There are a few names that are bouncing around, and since this person, whoever it is, will be guiding our fiscal ship through some really choppy waters, I think we all need to take a close look at the possibilities for this post closely.

The First name I heard for Treasury Secretary I heard only a few hours after I watched Barack Obama win the Presidency. He is current New Jersey Governor, Former senator and CEO of Goldman Sachs Jon Corzine. Corzine has been something of a free spender in his political campaigns, is a liberal democrat who saved Goldman Sachs after it nearly collapsed in 1994 Later in Corzine’s tenure as CEO of Goldman he was asked to help compose a rescue package Long Term Capital Management, a large hedge fund that nearly collapsed in the fall of 1998. When he decided to help this company, which the Treasury department had decided was too big to fail (sound familiar?) He was replaced at the head of Goldman, leadership at the firm was actually seized from him by…. Hank Paulson.

Small World. He has in past served on the U.S. Treasury department borrowing committee as well.

The Next Big Name on the List is award winning economist Larry Summers. Larry has actually had the Job before, from July 1999, to Jan, 2001, the final Treasury Secretary of the Clinton Administration. He has also been the World Bank’s Chief Economist. Summers is on record as saying that he thinks the Economy will get back on track by late 2009, but it won’t be in any way near as good a shape as it was when he was Treasury Secretary. Much of what Mister Summers has said is in line with the beliefs and stated goals of President-Elect Barack Obama.

One other name to look at is Timothy Geithner, The Current President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He has served with both Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, and has also worked as Director of the Policy Development and Review Department in the international monetary fund. Rather than give you a biography of the man, I think it best to just let you read about him yourself right here.

Since this may be the most important position the President-Elect will have to fill, it is important for us to know something about them. Do you think these men can do the job that is necessary to fix the economy and set the right policies in place to make that easier? Tell me what you think about our financial future in an Obama Administration with any of these men at the helm of the Treasury, America! Drop me a line and talk to me!

Uncle Mikey

Get Out And Vote!

As dawn creeps in on a normally chilled November New York morning, 41 degrees as of this writing, I am hoping that everyone will head out to vote, and if you live in the any of the early voting states and you have voted already, America thanks you. I’ll be heading out to do My civic duty around 10:00 AM or so, it should be slow then and the lines should be short. Regular off days in the middle of the week do, on occasion, have some advantages.

I am hoping everyone gets out and votes because this election has taken on a tenor I have not ever seen in my life. With The Nation struggling economically in a way it hasn’t in over 70 years, with a President who may be the most reviled man to hold the office in living memory, and with the world in chaos, we Americans have it within our grasp to change it all, with the push of a button, the pulling of a lever, the writing of a name. With the choosing of a new President, you will be helping to choose the path this nation takes for years to come, and will help to pull the nation out of it doldrums and help restore it’s tarnished greatness. The good you do now will echo deep into the future and help make or break a world in chaos. Everyone running for office has an idea of what they want to do for you, America, and they all think they are the best for the job. The plans and dreams of untold millions will be made or broken on the choice you Make today.

Choose Wisely.

America needs you. It doesn’t matter who you vote for. Vote because you love your country. Vote because you think the country is moving in the wrong direction and you want change. Vote because you think the country is moving in the right direction and you want things to remain the same. Vote to stop someone you dislike from getting to the white house. Vote to put someone you admire in a position to get into the white house. Vote because you think your voice is important. It does not matter the reason. America Needs you. Let America Know what you think.

Clean house in the House of Representatives. Create the Senate you want to see. Make the White House your house. Show’em who’s boss. Do Your Civic Duty. Vote.

I will probably drop a few blogs here today as things happen, from whatever stories of election fraud and irregularities that occur, to concession and victory speeches, and everything in between. I will, like I said yesterday, be on twitter for as much of the day as I possibly can. Look for miketherhino.

Uncle Mikey.

        This story is about fixing the political process.  From the media coverage of it to alterations to laws affecting third Party candidates.

     One.  Media Coverage.  No political commercials of any kind on any network that does not dedicate a significant portion of it’s regularly scheduled programming to Politics.  Mandate the creation of several stations, along the lines of C-Span, perhaps under their purview, that would specialize in one party and one party alone, and would be paid for by funds from within said party.  This includes third parties, either individually or en masse.  These networks would, by law, have to be carried on all cable and satellite providers as part of the basic package.

     Two.  Electors.  When we vote for The President, we do not actually vote for the President, we vote for electors who then vote for president.  Can you name the elector who will cast the vote for you?  Me either.  This MUST change.  I want to know the names of the people who I am entrusting with my choices LONG before I vote.  These people need the spotlight, and if it takes legislation to make that happen, then so be it. There needs to be transparency here so we can know who and what we are dealing with in our electors.

      Three. Independent choice of Electors.  I believe that rather than having a “winner take all”  popular vote pick all electors in a state, the people should be able to pick electors individually, by district.  If you live in a Democratic state, but in a Republican district within that state, I think you should be able to pick a Republican to represent you and place your districts vote for president.  This decision would have to be made by the states, as it is written into the constitution. Unless we change the constitution.  More on that later.

    Four.  Review the redistricting process.  And take it out of the hands of Political parties and put it in the hands of Non partisan entities.  Redistricting (AKA Gerrymandering) can and has disenfranchised tens of thousands of people all over this great land of ours.  And if the provision I laid out in section three ever comes about, this would be of paramount importance to keep Partisan wrangling of districts from radically altering the electoral map in one party’s favor.

    Five.  Third Parties. Ballot access should be made easier for third parties.  Now I know that Article One section 4 of the Constitution makes ballot access laws a product of state and local governments, but every pressure should be brought to bear to make it easier for other parties, outside of the federal government, of course. Unless we change the constitution…

     An America with more choices will make better choices if they know about them and are made to feel that those choices have a realistic and viable chance of having an impact on America for the better. Point one has an affect here, because if there is readily available access, through the media, to the knowledge base of third parties, they will become more of a viable force on the political scene.

     Six.  Finally, and Most Importantly, a federal constitutional right to vote….

     I can hear the crickets out there.  I know what you are thinking.  “Umm…Mike? we DO have a right to vote” 

    No you don’t.  Read your constitution carefully.  There are amendments that prohibit discrimination in granting the franchise, but there is nowhere in the constitution where it is mandated that you’re vote means anything.  A quote from the Supreme Court ruling “Bush V. Gore“    

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution.

      This, while constitutional, is to me, and to a great many other people, wrong.  There is a great need to fix this in some way shape or form.  But how do you fix a problem that exists on the state level that has such a drastic affect on the entire Government, indeed the entire world?   

     The time has come to fundamentally alter the constitution.  A Federal voting rights Amendment is in order.

     What do you think of the suggestions I have put forward here?   I am not the only one to say these things, but until the system better represents us as a people, these things need to be suggested and thrown out there for people to see. 

     Are there any things you would do to change the system?  Is the constitution Inviolate, or is this a living document, subject to radical overhauls when the people so require?  Drop me a Line  and let me know, America!

     Uncle Mikey

Norma Leah McCorvey is perhaps the most important woman you(may) never have heard of. You do know her by a different name. Jane Roe.

Yes, That Roe. Roe V. Wade

In Dallas County Texas in 1970, a 21 year old Norma McCorvey, Represented By Attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington filed a class action suit in U.S. District court in Texas. She claimed she was raped (an allegation she would later refute) and said she wanted a safe legal abortion, as well as granting an injunction against the antiquated Texas abortion law that stated that only if the mother’s life was in danger was abortion legal. Illegal abortions could put you in jail for as much as 5 years per procedure. She was granted the legal right to have said abortion, but the injunction was not granted. The initial decision was based upon rights granted by the ninth amendment, a basic reservation of rights not otherwise enumerated by the constitution.

The Supreme court, when ruling on the case, threw out the ninth Amendment premise and added it’s own 14th amendment argument. Quoting Justice Harry Blackmun:

the right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

Basically saying that the Due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which protects individuals against actions of the state that would invade their privacy, also protects a woman’s right to have a choice of what to do with her own body, that it cannot force her to have a child against her will.

That’s the nuts and bolts, in simplistic form, of Roe. V. Wade., and I said all that to say this.

There are those who would repeal this law in the name of morality. I cannot entirely speak to their view of morality. I do know that life is sacred, but I also know that the rights granted in the constitution are sacred as well. To throw out, as some conservative groups would, this law, would in effect be saying to America, “We have the right to tell you what to do”

Anywhere. Because if you cannot do as you please with you own person, what can you do? If they take that right away, what do they take next, in the name of morality? How much power do you really want to give the federal government? They have already weakened the fourth amendment, do you want them to whittle down the 14th as well? The ninth? Where would it end? This is in a nutshell, legalistically speaking, not about life, but about freedom and the right of an adult to do that which they think is best for them.

Mrs. McCorvey is now in her 60’s and living In Texas. She has found God, and become an anti-abortion spokesperson. I can wholeheartedly agree with wanting to, like she does, do away with abortion. But I will disagree with anyone who would willingly harm this nation of laws for the morality of one group within it’s borders.

The Child she was pregnant with at the time? A healthy bouncing baby girl, that was later adopted.

There are several states that have ballot initiatives regarding Abortion. South Dakota and Colorado want to bring back to those states the level of legal state intervention that existed in Texas in 1970 that created this entire issue in the first place.

Some things never change. The powers that be in those states want to take away your rights. Don’t let them. It’s not just about abortion, it’s about freedom, freedom that these states want to take away. And if you let them, other states will be emboldened and try the same thing.

Don’t let them steal any more of your freedom. They’ve taken enough, Dammit.

Drop me a Line if you want to talk about this.

Uncle Mikey, with hearty thanks for the people at ballotpedia, wikipedia, and touro college

This is the story of a man. A Man who started a whisper campaign, about 2 weeks after The 2004 Democratic National Convention, that Barack Obama was a “Secret Muslim”, a man who purposely concealed his religion. It was later picked up on and used by the right wing website “the free republic”, where it spread like wildfire and has now taken on a life of it’s own. Old news all of it, but the new bit about this is the man who started it all, Andy Martin, was on television last week spewing on Fox news.

He made a few accusations. Martin has said that no one wants to talk about Obama’s college years. The man said that Barack Obama’s early community organizing had virtually no impact except to lay the foundations for his future radical associations. He makes the claim that, In Barack Obama’s case, was a training ground for radical overthrow of the government. He said, and I quote:

“You really have to stretch to believe the story that he was living in New York City, he was earning 50 or 60 thousand dollars a year, and he left this to come to Chicago, to a city where he knew no one, to suddenly start, quote, organizing, unquote.”

And then follows this up with “Probably met William Ayers” in New York.

OK, Time for a few facts.

First off, I can point to a long and elaborate article on politico that talks at length about Barack Obama’s college associations, about the people that surrounded him at that time of his life, and I have to tell you, just from a human interest angle, His college story seems to me a compelling one. And it tells about a number of people he knew back then, and tells what they are doing now. Shoots a great many holes in that contention that Mister Martin makes. Andy was right on one point tho. He said there were people who didn’t want to talk about there association with Mister Obama, but for a valid reason, I think. They are Pakistani and Muslim, and don’t want to add to the “Muslim” tag that has been undeservedly placed on him, by Andy Martin. Read the Politico story here.

His Community organizing had no effect? Hmm… it got the city of Chicago up off of it’s ass about testing for asbestos in all city apartments, which it didn’t do prior to his community organizing there. That sounds like a fairly prodigious effect to me. Andy Martin cannot claim any such achievement, nor can I. Can you? Ask yourself that question. As for radical associations, I wrote about the Ayers/Obama connection yesterday. And I have written about Reverend Wright before, in several places. Neither one really worth mentioning. Both were wrong in what they did and/or said regarding America, I.E, God Damn America, and Domestic terrorism and the like, and the junior senator from Illinois has said as much. What else can the man realistically do?

As for the Training ground statement, and the statement about probably meeting Bill Ayers In New York, it’s pure speculation from a man who was said to have a:

“moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character.”

And that statement comes from Illinois bar association, which blocked his admission to the bar.

As for the Final point left to write about, about questioning Barack leaving New York for Chicago….

I live in New York. I have lived here all my life. Those of you who don’t may not know it but living here is EXPENSIVE. Even back then it was hard to live in Manhattan and make ends meet. $50,000 or $60,000 then equates to maybe $100,000 or so a year now. Think about this. Small apartments in Manhattan nowadays are insanely expensive, and small condominiums cost in the Millions. There are well established lawyers at the firm I work at now who make considerable more than that who do not live in Manhattan because it is so expensive. $50 thousand isn’t enough to live there now, and then it would have been difficult living back then, and Chicago would have definitely seemed cheaper and easier to deal with.

I make all those points to make this one. If you want to measure how serious you should take talk of Barack Obama as a Muslim, take a measure of the man who first made the accusation, and the truth of the other things he has spoken. Once put in the light of truth, you can see that there is no truth to anything this man has said about Sen. Obama. And if he was wrong and merely speculating on the flimsiest of evidence on all the other points, should we not also then conjecture that he is just as wrong about the “Secret Muslim” thing?

Andy Martin is full of crap. The Secret Muslim thing is Bogus. If you buy either Martin’s take on things, or the “Secret Muslim” accustion, you are out of your tiny little mind.

That’s my two cents on this issue, America. Tell me what you think. Is Mister Martin right, and Is it me who is off base? Do you really think Obama is a “Secret Muslim”? A Radical? Bad for America? Drop me a line and let me know!

Debate reaction tomorrow!

Uncle Mikey

The ramifications of this bill will reverberate throughout this nation for years to come in every sector imaginable. This breakdown will look at the Treasury department’s legislative proposal, not the actual final bill. That will not be out for a little while. I will get to you any changes that may occur within this legislation as it arrives.

The legislation as it is written gives broad powers to the Treasury Secretary. Immensely broad powers. A snippet of section 2, paragraph A, of the proposed legislation:

“The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase… mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.”

Now I fervently hope that this portion of the bill will change. Just amend the part about “the Secretary” to read something like “The President, and the Secretary, with the tacit agreement of the Congress” or “The Congress, acting with knowledge of, and in the name of The President” for one Simple reason. To put that Much financial buying power, unchecked, into the hands of one man, and a man who has been at the helm of the Treasury for two+ years, seems a bit ludicrous to me. I am not sure any one man should have that much power. This would give Hank Paulson too much power without proper oversight. If we don’t like too much power in the hands of an elected official, like, say, The President, why the hell would we give that much power to a man who ISN’T elected?

That doesn’t make sense.

The Bill is filled with mentions of “The Secretary” in this manner. I am sure there are sections where it may be necessary to give some power to the Treasury Secretary. I submit for your perusal the following. Section 2 subsection b of said legislation, in it’s entirety:

Necessary Actions.–The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation: (1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties; (2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts; (3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them; (4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and (5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

Again, the question arises, who oversees what this man, who was elected by NO ONE, will do with $700,000,000,000 worth of bad debt as he sees fit? Why has he been given the power to sign contracts “without regard to any other provision of law”? This might be standard legalese, but it is unacceptable here.

At least this hasn’t been passed. It needs revisions to create additional oversight by the federal government. Normally I am for smaller government, but fiscal governance by one man over that much debt in so many places when that governance didn’t exist last week, one sole arbiter of what is good and right just sounds like a truly, monumentally bad idea.

The legislation involved here does have provisions whereby the Secretary reports after three months and then “semi-annually” to congress. I would prefer more than “semi-annually” after the first three months. Put it in stone that it should meet every quarter, or every four months to go over and evaluate job performance. Just because he is reporting to several agencies doesn’t mean he can’t do it with some frequency greater than “semi-annually”. I am guessing that this portion will change and that a more precise term will be placed therein.

I have been bitching up a storm here, but to be truthful, there is a good base here for actual legislation. Take out the two things mentioned, The oft repeated mention of the Secretary which gives him vast powers, and the term “semi-annually” and most of the first three sections are otherwise well crafted pieces of legislation. The rest of the bill is dead on good.

Those provisions include a sunset clause that terminates this law 24 months after passage, necessitating a second look at how things are going at that point before re-upping, a very wise choice. The temporary increase of the statutory limit on public debt to account for all the money spent on this bad debt is a good idea. Things might get hairy and push our debt high than it is, and inflating the debt ceiling to account for expenditures only makes sense. It also makes sense to not include any debt incurred after 9/17 of this year, because it makes any stupidity that occurs after that date in the banking industry or anywhere else that creates massive debt that would be covered by this legislation the sole business of the businesses involved, and not coverable by “We The People”.

I think this bill will greatly effect the election. The electorate, as well as the next president, will have to deal with the ramifications of this bill, in whatever form it takes, well into his administration. I do not know for certain which man would be more capable of handling the constraints of this bill and this bailout, but I will say this. I think taxes WILL be going up next administration, regardless of the wishes of the winner of this election, and there had BETTER be some protection FOR the taxpayer against abuse and against paying for golden parachutes of ANY company Involved in this handout given BY the American Taxpayer.

What do you think America? Good bill? Bad bill? Which candidate will be more capable of dealing with the Huge debt we have incurred here? Drop me a Line and let me Know!

Uncle Mikey

I watched The Saddleback “Civil Forum on the Presidency” hosted by Pastor Rick Warren on Saturday, and I have to tell you, I was riveted. It was truly a well put together affair. There were no REALLY difficult questions, but there really weren’t any easy ones either.

I’m not going to go over every word Mister Obama said, and i’m not going to go in any particular order. I am going to give a quote or two and then an Impression of what I thought of the man and how i feel about his answers. His answers were Long and thoughtful, the antithesis of Senator McCain’s responses. Here are a few.

He was asked who were the three wisest people in his life. His Answer: He could not keep it just 3 people. He said on a personal level it would be his wife and grandmother, and drew a chuckle when he said his wife was the type to get in your face when he makes a mistake, to which Pastor Warren said, You too? Funny. He said he thought the best Foreign policy people he could rely on would be Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar, and also mentioned Tom Coburn and Ted Kennedy as others he thought fit that standard.

When he was asked what the greatest moral failure in his life was, he spoke of his experimenting with drugs and alcohol when he was a teenager.

He waffled on the Abortion question, when asked at what point does a baby get human rights, he said he could not answer with specificity, that it was “Beyond his pay scale” He did defend admirably I think his belief in Roe V. Wade, and said that he wanted to work to lower the amount of unwanted pregnancies in this country, a number which has not gone down despite a Pro-life President in the White House the last 8 years.

He handled the Tax/Wealth question with comparative ease. After joking with the Pastor about how rich he was, he said that any over $250,000, while not on easy street, you are in the top 3 or 4% and are doing well. He added that anyone who makes $150,000 or less will get a tax decrease, and anyone over $250,000 will get a modest tax increase.

He made points with the crowd during this segment by mentioning that it was irresponsible to have a war that costs $10,000,000,000 a month and have no way to pay for it.

He answered less questions than John McCain, because his answers were more in-depth than Sen. McCain’s answers were. But the answers he gave, in fact gave the impression that he cared a great deal about the plight of those he spoke about, whether it was the plight of orphans worldwide, or teachers not getting enough pay for their work.

I dislike the waffling on the Abortion Issue, but other then that I am fairly well pleased with the man’s performance tonight. He reached out to the crowd, which at times seemed unwilling to reach back to him, particularly on the abortion issue, but in the end, won them over with a flair for speaking to people, and speaking directly to their needs and making it known that he’ll work for them and with them.

A video of the event for your viewing pleasure:

Do you think Barack Obama has what it takes to be the next President of the United States of America? What do like most about him? What is least appealing to you about him? Drop me a line and let me Know!

Uncle Mikey