Senator John McCain from the floor of the Senate, October 1, 2008:
Last week I suspended my campaign and both my opponent and I raced back to Washington to craft a bill to solve a very real crisis. Again today we find ourselves back here in the Senate confronting the same crisis . . . but with a much worse bill.
I cannot support this bill as it is currently written because it stands for everything I’ve stood against since I came to Washington more than two decades ago.
While the previous package that President Bush, Secretary Paulson, Senator Obama, and myself worked on was not a perfect piece of legislation, it at least was confined to the bare essentials: It provided the credit market with a much-needed infusion of cash that would prevent the tailspin dive that our economy is about to enter. I hated that it was necessary. After all it was a bailout plan–and let’s stop the spin, this is a bailout and not a rescue–for the millions of Americans who bought houses they knew they couldn’t afford and the bankers who got rich knowing that they made loans to those who could never afford to pay them back. But most of all it was a bailout plan for this Congress that wrote the legislation that encouraged this kind of behavior.
The actions of this body have been shameful. The Administration and a Republican-controlled House Banking Committee warned four years ago that current regulations meant that too many people were borrowing too much money that they couldn’t pay back, while the bankers were happy to lend them more because we promised that if they got into trouble the American taxpayer would bail them out. That legislation was stopped. I said the same thing in 2006, and even with the backing of former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, my legislation was shot down by the Senate. Well, exactly what what we warned against was exactly what happened.
The warning flags didn’t just come from the Republican side of the aisle. Democrat Representative Maurice Hinchey warned that Freddie and Fannie were being allowed to operate in a manner that almost guaranteed their failure. President Clinton warned this as well, as did my opponent earlier this year. The New York Times in 1999 argued that the rule changes that benefitted the leaders of these organizations put the taxpayers at risk. When even the New York Times demonstrates more business sense than Congress then you know that Congress is irreparably broken.
While the danger to the economy today is very real, the actions of this Congress in the last few days have been shameful. In the House, member of both parties, with good conscience voted against the earlier $700 billion bill because they thought it was wrong to burden the taxpayers of the future with even more debt. Well it is wrong. Wrong, but necessary, I would argue.
Since then members of my own chamber, I am sad to say, and from both parties, have compounded that wrong by adding $112 billion in earmarks and giveaways to lobbyists and cronies. This is truly an economic emergency. How dare you treat it as just another opportunity to add more pork. Is it any wonder that Americans don’t believe us when we warn of the catastrophe that could befall our entire economy even while we behave like Washington as normal: taking this extemely important bill as just another opportunity to make hyperbolic partisan attacks against each other and to add billions of dollars to a pricetag that is already too large?
Our economic crisis is a crisis of trust in America’s economy. How can Washington restore trust in America’s economy if Americans have no trust in Washington? After what I’ve seen this past week, I have no trust in this city either.
I will be voting no until this bill is stripped of excess and oversight is restored.
A reader notified Michael Ledeen that there might be some discrepancies between the actual words uttered by the candidates and the official transcript provided by the official debate committee. The reader was right. Here is one such error that changed the meaning of Gov. Palin’s words:
“And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I’m going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.”
Years ago I used to enjoy watching Chris Matthews. Sure, he’s a liberal Democrat that I didn’t often agree with, but I thought then that he was usually fair and would take the opportunity to attack both sides when either exhibited a chink in their armor.
I was wrong. To see just how wrong I was you just have to read Mary Katherine Ham’s side-by-side comparison of Matthews discussing Palin’s performance last night with Obama’s just one week ago. There isn’t even a thin veneer of objectivity any more.
The debate transcript is here. Twelve hours later and there are some remarks that I’m not hearing a lot of people talking about. So lets remark about them here.
Palin: But for a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future, there’s just too much finger-pointing backwards to ever make us believe that that’s where you’re going.
It is a previously unremarked upon truism that while the Obama-Biden campaign likes to frame their’s as a campaign for the future, its two biggest rhetorical devices are to rely upon the “mistakes of the last eight years,” and especially the decision to send forces into Iraq in 2003. Palin called them out on it. Twice.
Palin: Can we talk about Afghanistan real quick, also, though?
Here was the foreign policy neophyte begging to dig more deeply into a foreign policy debate. This was a moment when my wife and I looked at each other. It showed confidence.
Palin: Well, first, McClellan did not say definitively the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. Certainly, accounting for different conditions in that different country and conditions are certainly different. We have NATO allies helping us for one and even the geographic differences are huge but the counterinsurgency principles could work in Afghanistan. McClellan didn’t say anything opposite of that. The counterinsurgency strategy going into Afghanistan, clearing, holding, rebuilding, the civil society and the infrastructure can work in Afghanistan. And those leaders who are over there, who have also been advising George Bush on this have not said anything different but that.
While many are remarking on the McKiernan vs McClellan mistake (aside: this General McClellan is arguably the worst senior uniformed officer in American history, so mention of that name made me grimace), what is unremarked is her grasp of the principals of counterinsurgency operations. She nailed it. No wonder she wanted to discuss Afghanistan.
Biden: . . . let’s go back to John McCain’s strategy. I never supported John McCain’s strategy on the war. John McCain said exactly what Dick Cheney said, go back and look at Barack Obama’s statements and mine.
“Who is Dick Cheney?,” I ask rhetorically. It’s bad enough that Obama-Biden are running against George Bush in 2008 (another backward-thinking example), but it’s even worse that Biden makes reference only to the bottom of the ticket. Here’s a bit of truth that anyone who watches Leno should know: Right now people know who the two candidates for Vice President are, but after one of them is sworn in on January 20, a large number of Americans won’t be able to tell you who the actual veep is. (That will certainly be true if it’s Biden.) The point is that tying McCain to Cheney only resonates with the very liberal and politically active Left that Obama presumably already has wrapped up. It was a wasted attack. Worse still, he focused a second entire answer on Cheney again. Another wasted opportunity to score points with undecided voters.
Palin: John McCain who knows how to win a war.
I winced a bit when I heard that because my first thought was Vietnam. Of course, no-one can bring up that political point, but still, it made me wince. Luckily, she recovered very quickly talking of learning from mistakes.
Palin: A team of mavericks, of course we’re not going to agree on 100 percent of everything. As we discuss ANWR there, at least we can agree to disagree on that one. I will keep pushing him on ANWR. I have so appreciated he has never asked me to check my opinions at the door and he wants a deliberative debate and healthy debate so we can make good policy.
Professional politicians would probably say that it was a mistake for a veep candidate to bring up a major difference between her and the top of the ticket. But I think that she was right to do so. She has a difference with McCain and that’s okay. It was particularly refreshing after Biden had no response whatsoever about his differences with Obama.
Biden: So every major decision he’ll be making, I’ll be sitting in the room to give my best advice.
Did that come across as arrogant to anyone else? My wife and I both looked at each other when he said it and we cringed.
One other thing that has been remarked about has been the idea that Joe Biden answered the questions better while Sarah Palin gave answers to questions not asked. Watching it live I didn’t come away thinking that she was shirking the questions, but reading the transcript it does come across that way. So those making that accusation may have a point. However, just like those who in 1960 heard the presidential debate on the radio thought thatRichard Nixon “beat” Jack Kennedy, were right, it didn’t matter. A transcript is not how undecided voters saw this debate.
That’s because Katie’s Restaurant hasn’t been in business for about two decades. I seem to remember that the press tried to make a big deal about John McCain referencing Czechoslovakia, which has been out of business for a similar length of time. But I bet that Joe Biden gets a pass.
Did Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joe Biden just name “Obam”* as a country in the Middle East?
Oh, and Sarah Palin answer on Israel demonstrates that she is a master in the backhanded compliment.
2102 Central: She just cited, chapter and verse, the principals of Counterinsurgency Operations. Biden’s response: Well . . . . Umm. You’ll see this clip again. Or at least you will if the press is fair.
2107 Central: Obviously, being from Alaska, she’s a Northerner, but that’s more than obvious from the speed with which she answers questions. Being a Yankee transplant to the South myself, I’ve learned that others speak at a different tempo.* It probably won’t hurt her since she’s on a ticket that is going to win the South, but it’s certainly hurting Biden who is having trouble processing her answers.
*That’s not meant as an insult to Southerners. I think that those in the South savor conversation much like Mediterraneans savor dinner–they take a lot of time because they enjoy both.
BTW, great way to insert ANWR.
2115 Central: Biden: (paraphrasing) “Every serious decision he makes, I’ll be in the room.” Did that come across as arrogant to everyone else as it did to me?
2129 Central: Her closing statement seems like she is just talking. It sounds unrehearsed although it probably is. I think that comes across well. Biden’s statement is definitely scripted, focus-grouped and well, boring. I get the sense that if both veep candidates just talked like who they are most Americans would like both of them. Both would make mistakes, to be sure, but it woudl be a much better debate.
See you at Belmont.
Postscript: I’m half-watching Britt Hume’s analysis of the debate and I agree with the woman on the panel who said that Biden did what he needed to do. All he had to do was to not fail. Given the condition of the race, that is all Obama and Biden need to do for the next five weeks. It’s a prevent defense. While it’s politically smart from a tactical perspective, I wonder if it’s too far out to play prevent.
Frank Luntz’s focus group:
“Smart,” “intelligent,” “Main Street.” Everybody was impressed . . . well, except for Richard. Everybody thought she exceeded expectations. Everybody is fed up with Washington. If McCain had given my speech last night, combined with Palin’s performance today, Obama would be struggling to get out of the 30s with independents.
UPDATE
* I’ve gone back to the video and found the moment when I thought I had hear Biden reference “Obam.” Instead, he was talking about “a bomb.”
Has there ever been a longer continuing resolution in the history of the United States?
It seems like almost every year there are at least a few budget bills that remain incomplete when the new fiscal year begins on October 1st. This year all twelve individual appropriations bills remain to be passed. Worse than that, the bill approved over the weekend is the longest continuing resolution I can ever recall. It delays decisions about the 2009 budget until nearly halfway through the year. At that point, what’s the point? Which brings up another question:
Has there ever been a more dysfunctional Congress?
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
As I understand it, any bill containing a change to the tax code is passed through the House and then brought to the Senate for debate. At that point the Senate can alter the bill, but it then must go to conference committee to resolve the differences between the bills and then back in identical form to both houses for a final vote. That’s not how this bill came to the Senate. Is it invalid even if now the House concurs?
Well, not exactly . . . but if the former President rebuffs Obama’s calls for him to denounce the use of his words in a McCain ad, then we’ll all know who Clinton really supports for President.
Byline: bob | Category: Economy | Posted at: 9:42 am
To test Nancy Pelosi’s hypothesis that after eight years of President Bush the economy is in far worse shape than it was under President Clinton at a time of “budget surpluses,” I went to Lending Tree to see what kind of mortgage terms I could get to buy my first home today.
It was the spring of 1996 and I was newly stationed at Fort Hood, Texas along with my very pregnant wife who was one month away from delivering our first child. We found the home we wanted to buy in Harker Heights, just a few miles east of post. The purchase price was $110,000, and because we were only going to be there a few years, a 30-year loan made little sense. So we bought the home on a 15-year fixed-rate VA mortgage of 8.0%, zero points and zero down. If I remember correctly, the monthly payment ended up being $1,211.
So what kind of offer did I get today in the midst of this horrible financial crisis? I got four offers, the lowest of which was a 15-year fixed-rate VA mortgage of 6.0%, zero points and zero down, yielding a monthly payment of $948.20. Yes, that’s right, as bad as everyone says the economy is today, I can get the same mortgage as I had twelve years ago for about $250 a month less than I was paying 12 years ago in the midst of a “great” economy.
But what about the rise in prices of real estate, you might argue? Good question. So I checked Realtor.com to see what my old house might cost today. While that particular home isn’t currently on the market, another home with the same floorplan and in the same subdivision is listed at $139,000. Plugging that amount into the 6.485% effective annual percentage rate of the mortgage I was offered today and I could buy my old home again today for $1,209.69 a month–about a dollar less than what I was paying for the same home in 1996.
A little perspective is in order. Maybe that’s why, while politicians are in disarray, Drudge reports that “calm returns” to Wall Street. Could the people be smarter than the politicians?
UPDATE:
Welcome Instapunditeers! Take a look around. I’m back online after a hiatus in Baghdad. Take a look around and stop by from time to time.
Byline: bob | Category: Economy | Posted at: 5:55 am
There seems to me to be a fundamental flaw in the bailout plan recently defeated. At its very heart, our current financial problems are a crisis in the confidence in credit, and yet the government’s proposed response is to prop up bad credit with even more debt.
A restoration in confidence in credit is not going to come from the borrowing of more money but through an infusion of capital. That is why proposals like cutting the capital gains tax and the corporate tax rate make inherently more sense than the additional borrowing of the equivalent of the entire GDP of the Netherlands.
