www.nationalview.org and Note From a Madman brought to you by
for your Information Technology needs
owned and operated by Noah "The Madman" Greenberg
This Is What Democracy Looks Like
Today's Note From a Madman
April 14, 2008
McCain's Fix for the Economy: Ask Bush
Leave it to the McCain campaign to screw up something as simple as "reporting"
about an economic roundtable which he spoke before. Here's how it reads from
JohnMcCain.com:
"Remarks By John McCain On The Economy At Brooklyn Small Business Roundtable
"April 10, 2008
"ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain will deliver the following remarks as
prepared for delivery at a small business roundtable in Brooklyn, New York,
today at 12:45 p.m. EST:"
-from JohnMcCain.com
Did they move Brooklyn to Virginia? I don't remember reading about it in the New
York Post. And what about "reporting" on their candidate's remarks before their
candidate ever makes those remarks? Much like his would-be predecessor, George
W, Bush, I guess there's not a lot of chance that the new GOP flag-carrier would
veer off of any course at all.
"Thank you for joining me here today. It is a real pleasure to be participating
in this roundtable with so many accomplished entrepreneurs and small business
owners,"
-JohnMcCain.com
What would have happened if no one in Brooklyn (that's in New York City, which
is located in New York State, by the way) had showed up at McCain's Bushies
roundtable? Just what would Senator McCain have said then and would his campaign
had changed the web site?
Anyway...
In McCain's talk-which-had-yet-to-come to Brooklyn (NY) small business owners,
he outlined his short-term plans to get the economy going again.
"I have a plan of action to get the American economy back on track. My plan is
comprised of two parts: First is a tangible, near-term plan to address and
relieve some of the serious problems that Americans are facing right now. The
second part of the plan is to create the right medium and long-term environment
for our economy to rebound and thrive.
"Let me discuss the short-term challenges and actions first."
So I read on and what I saw began to sound familiar. And as I kept reading, I
noticed that the reason it all sounded familiar was because the words used by
McCain in his about-to-be-spoken speech were near-identical to the thoughts and
(mis)deeds of George W. Bush. It began with an outline of the obvious "here's
what's wrong" stuff which we in the diminishing middle class know all too well.
For three paragraphs, McCain goes on to tell his near-audience that the housing
bubble burst and gas prices are high. And like the current (part time) resident
at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, he blames us, the American people for the housing
woes.
"Some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising prices
would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates,"
-JohnMcCain.com
McCain did place some of the blame on the greed-and-feed predatory mortgage
lenders as well, but failed to recognize the inaction and the complacency of the
Bush administration who fiddled while Rome burned. McCain also failed to mention
the apathetic Congress which, under the leadership of his party, had let
investors, bankers and mortgage lenders set their own terms.
"Let's start with the housing challenges. There is nothing more important than
keeping alive the American dream to own your home, and priority number one is to
keep well meaning, deserving home owners who are facing foreclosure in their
homes,"
-McCain
So, even though his own words tell us of those who should not have been given
loans, McCain's answer is to keep those people in their homes. Even though he
all-but called those homeowners foolish in their endeavors to own their own
homes, McCain wants to allow them to keep their homes rather than to allow those
homes to go on the open market, which would lower the inflated prices of
everyone's home being sold (appropriately so) and force the lenders, who were
irresponsible in the first place, to take their lumps along with the rest of us.
Oh no - that's not McCain's "plan", is it?
McCain believes that MORE debt will make America's economy better. The statement
above ("Some Americans bought homes they couldn't afford, betting that rising
prices would make it easier to refinance later at more affordable rates") tells
that story. It appears that Senator McCain believes that had the housing market
kept on rising, as the lenders would have preferred, those Americans who
borrowed too much money to purchase their homes could have borrowed even more
money so they could have paid their bills as well. The logic of higher housing
prices leading to these new homeowners being able to borrow even more money to
make ends meet boggles the mind. Surely even John McCain couldn't believe such a
Bush administration line like that - could he?
And that's not even the worst part of McCain's line of thinking. Many of these
loans made to those who couldn't afford those loans were made as interest-only
loans where the first five years of the mortgage payment is artificially low
because the lender is only paying on the interest and none of the principle. So
after those five years, the homeowner would have paid what amounts to rent on
"their home", plus the real estate taxes. If the borrower didn't sell the home
for at least what they paid for it, the lender would then gain a more valuable
home in foreclosure.
And McCain thinks that's a good enough plan to make his own.
"I believe a more robust, timely and targeted effort is my HOME plan. It offers
every deserving American family or homeowner the opportunity to trade a
burdensome mortgage for a manageable loan that reflects the market value of
their home. This plan is focused on people. People decide if they need help,
they apply for assistance and if approved the government under my HOME Program
supports them in getting a new mortgage that they can afford,"
-McCain
To go along with McCain's plan to allow low-rated borrowers to borrow more is
his HOME plan which would allow homeowners to decide to apply for aid in order
to pay for those same homes they shouldn't be in in the first place. And we,
those of us who are living within our means, are going to pay for it.
If you add to this new McCain "plan" the fact that those of you who played by
the rules are suffering because the homes they would have bought under normal
circumstances are now unaffordable, it's even worse.
McCain was right when he told the Wall Street Journal, "I'm going to be honest:
I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy
issues. I still need to be educated."
We don't have four years to allow him to get that education - not when his
teacher is George W. Bush.
-Noah Greenberg
VOTE, VOTE, VOTE
by Victoria A. Brownworth
copyright c 2008 Journal Register Newspapers, Inc.
The Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd will be one of the most important in
decades. At issue: How we begin to reconfigure the nation after two terms of one
of the most disastrous presidencies in U.S. history.
Pennsylvanians have three choices on April 22nd: The Republican candidate, Sen.
John McCain (R-AZ) and the two Democratic candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton
(D-NY) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Independents cannot vote in the primary,
nor can voters cross parties: You can only vote within the party for which you
are registered.
In March, Pennsylvanians went to register or change their registration in
droves. Thousands of Republicans and Independents–mostly women–switched parties
to vote Democrat. When the deadline to register or change registration was
reached on March 24th, the state had the largest number of registered Democrats
in its history–4 million. Nearly double what it was in 2004.
Of the three candidates, I believe only two are worthy of consideration. It’s
certainly true that John McCain has served his country admirably in the
military. He is a decorated Vietnam veteran and former POW. McCain is also known
for maverick moves in the Senate over the years, many of which have benefited
the nation. He was even John Kerry’s first choice for vice president in 2004.
But McCain’s current policies are far too conservative and his stance on the war
and the military far too reactionary and protectionist to warrant his being
considered for the presidency in 2008. Those who assert that McCain does not
represent a third Bush term are correct. He represents a more determined, more
focused, more militaristic and more dynamically conservative agenda than Bush
ever has. McCain is not Bush lite, as some suggest. McCain is Bush on steroids,
the Jose Conseco of conservativism.
There has been a strong, vibrant and exciting Democratic primary between two
candidates who are far better suited to running the country than any Republican.
Both Clinton and Obama have strengths and weaknesses, and each has done what no
other Democratic candidate has been able to do since Bill Clinton. Both have
rallied and excited voters and made them believe we can actually secure the
presidency and wrest it from a Republican Party so corrupted and insular that it
is not only out of touch with the American people, but it is out of touch with
the world.
Much has been made of Obama’s eloquence. He is the best speaker the Democrats
have had since Bill Clinton. Obama has run on a platform of hope and change and
many of us are eager–ravenous even–for both.
Clinton has run a more tempered campaign based on her 35 years of experience in
public service. Even a scant look at the state of Washington after the wreckage
caused by the Republicans and the Bush Administration clarifies how much we need
a good clean-up crew in the White House come January 2009.
The ideological differences between Clinton and Obama are slight. This is not
1984 or 1976 where the differences between the Democrats running are defining.
Clinton’s health care plan is more generous than Obama’s and her foreign policy
ideas more succinct. Both want to withdraw the troops from Iraq and pump up the
number of troops in Afghanistan. Clinton wants to begin withdrawing troops
within 60 days of taking office; Obama has altered his perspective on his own
troop withdrawal plans recently and said it will depend on the situation on the
ground. Both are pro-choice, both are devoted to education, both want tax breaks
for the middle class.
So what are the differences? Does it matter which candidate you vote for?
I believe so. Barack Obama may be the best speaker the Democrats have, but
Hillary Clinton is the best fighter the Democrats have. I would still prefer to
see both candidates on the ticket come November, but without doubt, I believe
Clinton should head that ticket.
Here’s why: Clinton has a broader comprehension of the issues at hand in
Washington at this critical moment. Obama’s message of hope and change is
compelling – and half the electorate voting Democrat has thus far supported him,
just as the other half has supported her.
But a deconstruction of what Obama’s message means has yet to be conducted and
after the primary is decided it will be too late. Change requires that others
change with you. There may be few ideological differences among Democrats, but
it won’t just be Democrats voting in November.
On April 10th, while at a fundraiser among his core constituency–wealthy and
highly educated–in San Francisco, Obama addressed why mainstream Democrats have
not voted for him and why small-town Democrats have flocked to Clinton. “It's
not surprising they [small-town Democrats] get bitter. They cling to guns or
religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment
or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
In 2000, voters perceived Al Gore as too aloof. In 2004, voters perceived John
Kerry as both aloof and arrogant. Both were viewed as elitist candidates, not
populists. Both lost. American history shows that when Democrats win the White
House, they win running as populists who can reach the people in ways
Republicans–the actual elitist party–cannot. It’s also true that the majority of
two-term Republicans have been men who were viewed as somehow “of the
people”–like Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Or John McCain.
Obama’s major problem as a candidate has consistently been his inability to deal
with people one-on-one. He speaks predominately to the wealthy middle and upper
class voters who have been his core constituents and he speaks to large crowds.
He does not address the poverty issues Clinton addresses, his health care plan
does not cover all Americans, he has been off-handed or outright dismissive of
women’s issues and other minority concerns, like lesbian and gay rights. His
stance on the economy has been too little, too vague and come far too late in
the election process. These problems will haunt him if he is the nominee.
In response to Obama’s comments, Clinton said, “People don’t need a president
who looks down on them. They need a president who stands up for them.”
Both Mayor Nutter and Gov. Rendell agree that Clinton is that candidate. Both
were early supporters of Clinton and have been adamant that she’s the best
candidate for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and America. They both assert that her
concern for real people with real problems makes her attuned to the nuances of
the current problems facing our city and our country.
We have an historic choice on April 22nd–for the first time in 24 years
Pennsylvania will help determine the Democratic candidate for president.
*Both* candidates represent a fundamental if not tectonic change: a woman
candidate and a man whose father was African and whose mother was a white
American. The Republicans are offering the status quo: a warmongering white guy.
The Democratic candidate will face the fiercest struggle yet in a nation that
has been divided down the middle in the past two elections over ideological
differences. Washington, like the nation, is divided and divisive; talking about
uniting people is not enough. George Bush ran on being a uniter, not a divider.
The Democrat who wins the nomination will need to have the fortitude to
withstand the Right’s swiftboating attacks between the convention and the
general election. And the Democrat will have to defeat John McCain’s maverick
image and “just plain folks” repartee.
America needs a tough strategist for our country’s imminent future. A nation in
crisis needs a strong and passionate advocate to fix the mess the Republicans
have made. That person is definitely not John McCain.
Vote on April 22nd–for history, for America and for an end to the Bush legacy.
Choosing Clinton or Obama will send a message all America will listen to.
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com
-Noah Greenberg