Dingo Nation

Arnold Stumps for the Big Mac

If you didn’t catch Arnold Schwarzenegger’s recent appearance at the Ohio McCain rally, here he is. Some good lines in this speech.

Technorati Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ohio rally

Easy Rider

The unprecedented 600+ million dollars that Obama has raised, in turn, should (but doesn’t, at least in MSM) raise questions about popularly held assumptions.

Democrats’ constant cry that they are the party of the poor & oppressed doesn’t exactly correspond to the obscene amount of funding raised for Barack Obama. Look at the million plus funds (mostly from out-of-state donors) raised in a matter of hours for MN’s Michele Bachmann’s democratic opponent.

Just where is all this money coming from? You might ask Barack Obama or David Axelrod, but even they couldn’t tell you. Apparently, the Obama campaign subscribes to a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when it comes to receiving money. They can’t tell you if the money is from non-citizens, from foreign or domestic terrorists, or from sources that have exceeded the legal donor limit.  At best, this is willful ignorance that reinforces Obama’s glib disposition to deal “without precondition.” It’s time we think about the consequences of such an approach. See the New York Post article on the source of Obama’s Campaign Money: DUBIOUS DONATIONS

Technorati Tags: campaign finance, donations

Obama WGN Radio Interview

Excerpts from Obama’s radio interview while he was part time state senator, part time lecturer. What is interesting here is that Obama takes wealth redistribution as a matter of course, and that the real question is how best to bring redistribution about - through judicial or administrative channels. Obama doesn’t question that wealth redistribution is not a fundamental principle of the founding fathers. Instead, Obama apparently sees wealth redistribution as the next step in a continuing civil rights movement. The Obama tax plan for Americans clearly represents this wealth redistribution philosophy.

Technorati Tags: civil rights, Joe the plumber, judicial system, wealth redistribution

Economic Agenda, Mortgage & Housing

Going though all the documentation on Obama’s campaign website is not unlike watching Obama give a speech or during a debate; word-smithing & pretty presentation abound in Obama’s platform documents. Obama tells us what he thinks people want to hear - like all politicians - but you don’t have to read between the lines to recognize that Obama’s opinion of the average American is pretty low.

Here’s a look at the Economic Agenda - Mortgage & Home-Ownership, published by Obama:

(1) Create a government entity to track & regulate the mortgage industry -

• Problem: Democrats notoriously blocked Fannie & Freddie examination & oversight, leading to this very problem. That Obama can create an entity that appropriately regulates the mortgage industry is pretty doubtful, especially with Pelosi & Reid at the helm.
• Corollary: Another big spending idea (over $100 million) of Obama’s.
• Cost: Set-up another government agency & maintain national database, according to Obama, about 200 million.

(2) Mandate that every loan should come with a clear-cut schedule of borrower payments to lenders (“HOME”=Homeowner obligation made explicit). Only those buyers who wish to remain blissfully ignorant of what they will owe every month can ignore the numerous mortgage calculators readily available on mortgage websites, or simply don’t ask their lender (if the lender hasn’t spelled it out for them already).

• Problem: This doesn’t weed out speculators. And besides, this idea of HOME already exists. A lot of people who signed ARMs with interest rates that would increase after a couple years did so thinking that they would re-finance their ARM mortgage to a conventional mortgage. Problem was, after a couple years, market values decreased & re-financing was impossible. These homeowners knew that they would have to pay more when the rate increase kicked-in, they just incorrectly bet on the real estate market continuing its upward trend.
• Cost: Enforcing this as part of the Stop Fraud Act (100s of millions).

(3) Create a Foreclosure Emergency Fund - A government fund to pay mortgages for “innocent” homeowners. Really, Obama lays it on thickly here. “Barack Obama will establish policies to help Americans currently facing foreclosure through no fault of their own”?? Clearly, Obama doesn’t believe in personal responsibility, and (to him) Americans are as innocent - and ignorant - as when they were born. Constantly referring to Americans as “innocent homeowners” and “victims” isn’t only fallacious, it’s insulting.

• Problem: Obama even suggests that your neighbor’s foreclosed home will increase the likelihood that you will be driven to foreclosure too. A foreclosed home may drive down market values, but as long as you’re paying your mortgage, you won’t go through foreclosure! We can only suppose that Obama believes birds of a feather flock together - that you are just as ignorant & vulnerable as your neighbor. Obama is playing victim by association with us (but didn’t he discount this association argument where Wright/Ayers are concerned?).

• Cost: Unknown - likely billions of dollars, judging from other relief funds.

(4) Give Bankrupt Homeowners Protection from Mortgage Payments - Revise law toward decreasing/eliminating mortgage payments of bankrupt homeowners.

• Problem: Bankruptcy protects you from creditors & outstanding debts - it wasn’t designed to provide a free ride/free home for you. Who is going to cover the cost of the unpaid mortgage? You can already walk away from your mortgage without being held accountable for the amount outstanding (other than a credit report ding). Obama calls the current law a “bankruptcy loophole” - but this idea encourages bankruptcy filings to stay in the house payment-free. This only exacerbates the current housing crisis.
• Cost: Unknown - hundreds of millions? Makes the housing crisis worse.

(5) Refundable Universal Mortgage Credit - Obama plays more class warfare: “like so much in our tax code, this [itemized mortgage interest tax deduction]tilts the scales toward the well-off.” Are Americans on two opposite sides? Obama would have us think so.

• Hitch: A mortgage interest tax deduction is pretty basic, something rote to a filer from H&R Block, but perhaps Obama thinks a $50 filing fee is only for the wealthy.
• Cost: Ultimately, this is another $500 refund check going to 10 million people - that’s 5 billion dollars…but it’s just a drop in the well compared to his tax plan. See the next installment on Obama’s Plan for the middle class.

Technorati Tags: Foreclosure, Housing, tax policy

Obama at the Alfred E. Smith Roast

Obama came on just after McCain (make sure you see McCain’s intro of Obama in my previous post). Funny too, but McCain is clearly the one you want roasting you at your charity dinner (unless you’re Barack Obama - his smile appeared rather forced at times during McCain’s shtick, and no wonder).

Part 1:

Part 2:

Technorati Tags: Alfred E. Smith, Roast

McCain Roasts Obama, Press at Alfred E. Smith Charity Dinner

Move over Tina Fey! McCain at the Alfred E. Smith Charity Dinner roasts Obama, the Clintons, & the media. A nice dose of hilarity, especially in the last weeks of the campaign.

McCain’s complete speech is separated, unfortunately. Watch both - they’re worth it.

From the top:

and through to the end:

Technorati Tags: Alfred E. Smith, Funny, Roast

Obama’s Glory Bursts out of Kid’s Choir

Watch the video of kids singing (pretty well) about how Obama will Change the world. A homespun affair? Rather doubtful. But it is definitely a product of Obama’s effective propaganda machine. The brainwashing sincerity of these kids - and adults - as they sing gives us more pause than the opus of Obama kool-aid songs out there. Apparently, Obama isn’t content with convincing this generation of voters that he’s a legend - he’s already laying down groundwork to cement his biblical status for generations to come.

Technorati Tags: Kids, Kool-aid, Obama song, Propaganda

Economic Crisis, Act II

McCain & Obama’s differing attitudes toward tackling the economic crisis has kept the country, already reeling from the financial saga, focused on the presidential race. Act II of this saga: McCain’s risky, indeed maverick, move to delay the first debate is considered by liberal MSM & polled voters as a mistake, while conservative proponents view his decision to focus on the economy as presidential and verification that McCain does indeed put “Country First.” Obama remains focused on his campaign (easily able to handle both debate & legislation to save the economy), quick to voice caution, and reluctant to return to Washington (though he did come back for a meeting today at the behest of the current President).

Right now, the Presidential Debate Commission says the Friday debate is still on, and whether it’ll turn into an Obama stump speech is definitely possibility. Is this crisis really important enough for either Obama or McCain to postpone their campaigns, or does the crisis merit more discussion (i.e. debate) from the candidates for voters to better determine how they would act as President?

Brookings published simple explanation of the crisis in “A Brief Guide to Fixing Finance”

1. The bubble in home prices, fueled by the ready availability of credit, resulted in an underestimate of the risks of residential real estate;
2. The peaking of residential home prices in 2006, combined with lax lending standards were followed by a very high rate of delinquencies on subprime mortgages in 2007 and a rising rate of delinquencies on prime mortgages;
3. Losses thereafter on the complex “Collateralized Debt Obligations” (CDOs) that were backed by these mortgages;
4. Increased liabilities by the many financial institutions (banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and hedge funds) that issued “credit default swaps” contracts (CDS) that insured the CDOs;
5. Losses suffered by financial institutions that held CDOs and/or that issued CDS’s;
6. Cutbacks in credit extended by highly leveraged lenders that suffered these losses.

McCain characterized the consequences of these actions in his address yesterday (my bolding),

We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted.

Many have called for the debate to go on and believe that is political suicide for McCain to suspend his campaign. Perhaps so. McCain has made clear, political stratagem or no, that he is going to live up to his pay grade and develop an appropriate solution and build congressional consensus behind economic legislation.

Obama’s statement on the economy urged congress to focus on the “broad principles” that he & McCain put forth (my bolding).

There are times for politics, and then there are times to rise above and — politics, and do what’s right for the country.

So, in my mind, actually, it’s more important than ever that we …try to describe where we want to take the country and where we want to take the economy, as well as dealing with some of the issues of foreign policy that were initially the subject of the debate.

Indeed, in this statement, Obama highlights just how much he speaks,

I have been in constant contact with leadership in Congress. I have talked to Secretary Paulson just about every day. I spoke to him twice today…

I have spoken to congressional leaders every day this week. I have spoken to Secretary Paulson every day this week.

But, keep in mind, again, I’m talking to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the congressional leadership, Hank Paulson, I’m talking to them every single day.

We have an economic crisis with the potential to financially cripple millions of lives - the absence of liquidity in the markets has serious ripple effects that must be addressed. Congress must submit a timely, appropriate solution signaling confidence in the market system to prevent companies from artificial or premature collapse (from investor panic and liquidity calls).

The difference between the two candidates is starkingly clear. McCain is a man of action & risk (indeed as a military officer, he had to quickly assess the situation and act - or else face death). Obama feels the need to “describe” the issue to convince voters of how he would act - a step shy of acting himself. Voters need to decide if the saying, “actions speak louder than words,” really has merit after all.

To be continued in Act III.

Technorati Tags: Economy, McCain, Obama, Presidential Debate

How Obama Responds to Poverty

With the issue of race inevitably comes the question of poverty. Obama is a self-described champion of people “afflicted” by poverty, and as a “citizen of the world,” understands the moral call to eradicate global poverty. Why is it, then, that Barack Obama’s half brother, George Obama, still lives in a Kenyan slum?

Despite numerous reports, from Vanity Fair to CNN, that found George in a Kenyan slum and several charity funds (www.helpgeorgeobama.org, George Obama Compassion Fund, etc.) established in George Obama’s name, Barack’s half-brother has not moved out of his slum nor has Barack Obama made any ostensible gestures to George since these reports have surfaced.

George Obama, reportedly living on $1/month (Vanity Fair), was further questioned about his living conditions. He apparently reconsidered, saying

They say I live on a dollar a month, but this is all lies by people who don’t want my brother to win…I was brought up well. I live well even now. They exaggerated everything.

That “they” (Vanity Fair, CNN) are considered as anti-Obama media is rather doubtful. But it’s worthwhile to listen to George himself:

Seems that though he seems content with his quality of life (indeed, this is the norm for him), George Obama clearly recognizes that his circumstances could be better and that Barack Obama moves in another stratum. Also interesting is George’s statement that Barack will win the Presidency, not because his brother is the better contender, but because Barack wants to win.

Obama’s answer to improve George Obama’s circumstances is to get the taxpayer to fund it. In 2008, Obama re-introduced the “Global Poverty Act of 2007″ which aimed to aid George Obama by

eradicating extreme hunger and reducing hunger and malnutrition, achieving universal education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, ensuring environmental sustainability, and achieving significant improvement in the lives of at least 100,000,000 slum dwellers.

This Global Poverty Act (note the bill hasn’t gone beyond its introduction) perhaps reflects Barack’s general response mechanism. Instead of addressing George’s very real straitened circumstances, Barack Obama has turned them into a global cause, with taxpayers footing the bill. As was clearly seen at the Saddleback Forum, Barack Obama has a habit of talking around the issue with his “nuance” and “intellect.” The question remains whether this presumptive philosopher king can put the talking aside and actually tackle the issues.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, George Obama, Global Poverty, nuance

Economic Crisis and Upward Mobility

No response to the financial market turmoil has provided a quick and easy answer to quell the general apprehension out on the street. Obama and McCain stuck to their brands, with varying and questionable success.

Obama, ever cautious, deliberated — preferring to address the “worst financial crisis since the Great Depression” as a bench warmer. Obama’s nuanced views apparently rendered him incapable of providing his supporters with the “common sense, practical leadership, & economic stewardship” that they needed. His criticism of McCain & the Bush Administration - doing “nothing as the crisis hits” - would be leveled at Obama’s own reaction by conservative critics.

And McCain? His maverick persona may have gotten the better of him this past week. McCain certainly was no shrinking violet. And supporter or no, rightly or wrongly, McCain puts his position out there for voters to sink their teeth into - as many in the media did this past week.

As we all know, the financial crisis isn’t a band-aid fix, and taxpayers will bear the brunt of any solution passed. Therefore, it is especially vital to consider economic and tax policies of both candidates with the inevitable burden of the financial market bailout. NBC did a brief rundown earlier this year:

Obama’s fairness doctrine, which Biden famously muddied with patriotic language, is income redistribution and welfare advancement on a scale we haven’t seen in decades. But it’s nothing new - America has taken this pony ride before. Stephen Moore’s article looking at income mobility in America points out our past:

Q. Are high tax rates on the rich a good way to redistribute income?
A. No. History teaches us that high tax rates are the worst way to redistribute income to the poor and the middle class. I recently reviewed IRS tax return data by income group going back to 1972. The results are jaw-dropping. In 1972, when the highest tax rate on the rich was 70 percent and the top capital gains tax rate was 35 percent, the richest 1 percent of Americans paid 17 percent of the income tax burden. Today, with a top income tax rate of 35 percent and capital gains at 15 percent, they pay 39 percent. With higher income tax rates the rich shelter more of their income through tax carve-outs, they invest less in the United States and more abroad, and they work less. The Robin Hood strategy has almost always failed because it means less income, not more, to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Contrary to what Obama (and some Democrats) would have us believe, the “poor” are not stuck in poverty, and the “middle class” are not on the verge of collapse. Quality of life and consumption standards have improved across all economic strata.

Q. Have the income gains by the rich come at the expense of the middle class and the poor?
A. Since 1983, every income group has seen an advance in after-tax income (see graph 1). Yes, the gains of the very rich have increased the fastest. But that is in part because of a statistical illusion. When poor people earn more over time, they move into the middle class or the upper class and are no longer  classified as poor. Consider someone who was earning $20,000 a year and saw her income move to, say, $50,000 as she moved up the career ladder. That 150 percent gain in income isn’t apparent, because we no longer categorize her as poor. But every penny of income gain by a rich person is counted, because there is no higher income class she can move into.

Another problem with comparing the distribution of income from one point in time with another is that up to 1.5 million new immigrants enter the United States every year. A fairly high percentage of these immigrants start at the bottom of the income ladder, replenishing the people who are at the bottom rungs. This creates the impression that poor people do not make significant progress in the American labor force.

Q. Is there really a ‘war against the middle class’ in America as claimed by people such as CNN’s Lou Dobbs?
A. Well, if the middle class is fighting a war, they’ve been winning. Graph 2 shows the income range needed to be considered in the middle class in the United States (between the 40th and 60th percentiles in income for families). In 1967 the average middle-class pre-tax income was about $40,000; in 2005 it was about $60,000. And this does not include the increased generosity of non-wage and non-salary benefits such as healthcare, pensions, flexible workweeks, and more family leave, vacation, and holidays.

Most economists agree that when these income numbers are adjusted by a more accurate inflation measure—one that takes full account of the improved quality of the products we now have access to, such as cell phones, laptop computers, and new medical technologies, for example—the purchasing power of the American middle-class family is about one-third higher today than in the 1970s.

The Census Bureau family income data indicate that in 1967 one in 20 families had an income of $100,000 or more (in today’s dollars). In 2005 one in six families did. There are three times as many families earning more than $75,000 a year today than there were in 1967.

The challenge for the future administration is to provide real economic growth. The tax burden of the financial bailout cannot be alleviated through mere tax increases. In this fragile economic period and highly sensitive consumer confidence, the economy cannot afford to withstand the sophist’s “fair” and “patriotic” tax policy totally devoid of historical perspective.

Technorati Tags: class warfare, Economy, McCain, Obama, tax policy