 |
 |
Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul debates former U.S. representative Ernest Istook on the highly debated issue of legalizing Marijuana.
Hat tip: ITSkylineBlogNews
From Examiner.com:
“Specter enjoys being the center of attention. There has probably been more money spent to influence his vote on this issue than on any other vote, from any other senator, at any other time.” -Ernest Istook, Chair Save Our Secret Ballot
As President Obama’s socialist agenda winds its way through Congress, it’s refreshing to see at least one plank of that agenda face a significant roadblock. Sen. Arlen Spector (R? PA) co-sponsor of the so called “Employee Free Choice Act,” announced yesterday that he will be voting against cloture and against the more appropriately named “card check” legislation. African American Republican blogger and activist Rev. Isaac Hayes of Chicago says that the Republican party is finally “beginning to stand up for regular Americans.”
“This is not a road to recovery. This is a recipe for disaster.” -Tom Cole (R-Okla.)
With all eyes focused on how the Pelosi-Reid-Obama “stimulus” plan spends money, there’s been less attention paid to where government will get the money — and with what consequences.
It must come out of someone’s pocket. The decision by “stimulus” sponsors? Borrow the money, mostly from foreign economies. America already borrows heavily from other countries — especially the Chinese. But we should remember that whoever pays the piper gets to call the tune. Foreign lenders aren’t inclined to whistle “Yankee Doodle!”
But foreign economies are not an infinite source of credit. They have their own troubled economies to worry about. And when they go looking for overseas investment opportunities, they’re going to be looking for the best deal. Read more…
Related
AP: 4 of 5 Oklahoma reps vote against economic bill
“Boren, D-Muskogee, said he supported the bill because Congress needed to take “bold, swift action” to avert a worsening of the economic downturn.”
[Oklahoma Democratic Congressman Dan] Boren said Obama “missed an opportunity” for the stimulus bill to be bipartisan.
“It was a good thing for the president to meet with Republicans. The previous administration never met with Democratic members of Congress.
“The problem is that it became a Democrat bill and not an American bill,” Boren continued, “because he didn’t use any of the Republican ideas.”
The American people are waking up. The behemoth Obama-Pelosi “stimulus” bill rampaging through Congress is just another bailout: this time to rescue big government from its own misbehavior.
From an entertainment standpoint, the biggest problem is finding a proper name. The bill deserves Hollywood treatment because it included such special goodies for Hollywood (at least until Sen. Tom Coburn (R- OK) played Grinch and got them removed). But it’s a cacophony of ideas that only “Mad Men” could love.
It could be named “CSI” — “Congressional Stimulus Inefficiency.”
Either that or “Ugly Betty.”
It’s time to drop the “stimulus” and “economic recovery” terms and call the legislation by its proper description: The Mother of All Government Bailouts. Read more…
The proposed Obama-Pelosi “economic stimulus” would end the era of merely big government and replace it with leviathan government.
“It’ll never go away,” says Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), calling the plan “a permanent increase at a time when we are in the worst financial shape we’ve ever been in.” He adds, “None of this is going to stimulate anything.”
However, President Barack Obama says size doesn’t matter. As he said at his inaugural, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” Read more…
From Examiner.com:
Two Of Oklahoma’s politicians – one current and the other former – weigh in on the Employee Free Choice Act, or as it’s better known “card-check”. The measure would allow the formation of unions without a secret vote if a majority of employees sign authorization forms.
From The Hill:
“It inspires both our grass roots and our business allies, so for us it’s a dream issue,” said former National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.).
The issue “incentivizes businesses to invest in the NRCC and in the [NRSC],” Cole said. “It’s stuff particularly your small donors love, and it reminds business why there needs to be a viable Republican Party.”
Pat Campell, of KFAQ 1170 in Tulsa, interviews former Oklahoma Congressman Ernest Istook, now with The Heritage Foundation. Mr. Istook discusses the auto industry bailout and the fact that there ARE profitable automakers in the country. You’re just not hearing about them.
Click here to listen to podcast
Related:
Bloomberg.com: GM, Chrysler May Accept Bankruptcy
Campaign promises often wilt after the election. Tax-cut promises are a frequent casualty.
By backtracking on tax-cut pledges even before the election, Barack Obama threatens to break Bill Clinton’s speed record. It wasn’t until a week before his first inauguration that Clinton openly reneged on his promise to cut taxes for the middle class.
There’s another similarity. Candidate Clinton and Candidate Obama both promised to raise taxes, too, but only on “the wealthy.” And both proceeded to widen the definition of “wealthy” to encompass more and more taxpayers.
During his campaign, Clinton said, “The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year.” After the election, he proceeded to raise taxes across-the-board.
Less than a month into his presidency, the Washington Post headlined, “Clinton Asks Middle Class to Pay Higher Taxes; President Issues `Call to Arms’ To Restore Economic Vitality.” After Clinton’s Jan. 14, 1993, news conference, the Post wrote that Clinton “complained that it was only the press, not voters, who considered that issue [tax cuts] important.” Read more…
By Ernest Istook
Whose fingerprints are on the weapon that murdered the U.S. economy?
Multiple culprits deserve blame, but the Clinton administration stands out as a ringleader for diverting billions of dollars into junk sub-prime mortgages. Those loans have fouled the economy and siphoned away the capital needed by businesses and families today.
Government created a quota system that required lending to people who lacked the ability to repay.
Clinton’s HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) decreed that big chunks of mortgages must be issued to borrowers with poor finances. It started at 12 percent of all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages in 1996. By 2008, that proportion had more than doubled, to 28 percent.
Because Fannie and Freddie dominated the mortgage market, holding about $5 trillion in mortgages, they effectively dictated mortgage standards. The result: Their misguided practices rippled through lenders across the country. If banks made a sub-prime loan, they could re-sell it to Fannie and Freddie. And unless banks made those loans, there was a limit to other loans that would be bought.
As HUD wrote in a 2004 report, explaining its post-1996 quotas:
HUD’s … Regulation imposes no requirement for the total number of home purchase mortgages that a GSE [Government-Sponsored Enterprise] must buy. Rather, the rule provides that, however many home purchase loans in metropolitan areas the GSEs buy, a certain percentage must be in each goal category. For example, if a GSE buys 1 million home purchase mortgages in metropolitan areas in 2005, then 450,000 of these mortgages would need to be for low- and moderate-income families. Read more…
Related:
The Oklahoman’s “Inside the Beltway” blog: Istook’s Legal Fees