Can we no longer ask questions???

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, you did us all a great service. You spoke to power, you questioned your leaders, and in the finest traditions of a democracy you stood up and put it to ‘em.

Because of this brave act I now know how much you made in 2006, that you are divorced, you wouldn’t have been all that affected by Obama’s tax plan, you’re not a papered plumber in Ohio, and you’re 34. You can thank the media for this, personally I never cared. But for standing up and speaking to power your private life has been plastered all over the United States.

 

Gone is the discussion over Progressive Taxes. Gone is the discussion of Obama’s policies and what they really mean for an economy and culture like America’s. Gone is the discussion of how Obama’s philosophy applies to American reality.

Joe, your story isn’t sad because of you, it’s sad because the best Republican Party strategists trying to get McCain elected were trumped by a 34 year old plumber who asked a simple question.

And it’s really sad when a regular, private citizen exercising his right to question his leaders is rewarded by having his private life barfed up all over the MSM, his integrity and honour made the issue instead of the policy of the would be ruler.

I do not care how much you made in 2006. I do not care that you aren’t papered in Ohio. I do not care, and can’t even imagine the relevance, that you are divorced.  You scared the American media, who are (almost) totally in the Obama camp, so they went out and got all the information they could, sent it to press and violated your right to privacy. If there is no legal violation, certainly there is one in spirit.

I wouldn’t be surprised, and would totally understand, if you never wanted to question another politician in your life. The media decided to make you the issue, even though the issue you raised with Obama is the one that directly relates to them and the country.

Joe, do you know what is really scary about your story? It’s that the media doesn’t understand the damage it’s doing to itself by pillorying citizens who question their leaders. If the people are too scared to stand up and question their politicians for fear of having their private lives exposed all over the media then the people will stop questioning and we’re one step closer to complete political apathy – glassy eyed citizens blindly accepting what the government – or any power structure – says.

In such a world, even if the media does do its job and exposes a corrupt government, would we even care? They helped turn us into docile subjects and in the process diminished all value they used to bring to our culture.

By creating a climate of fear, those who would speak to power won’t, and our shared value of questioning our rulers will be diminished.  ‘The Devil’ is that much closer to his goal, and all thanks to the media. 

Their error is self destructive. The media is supposed to be an institution we rely on. The more they contribute to a process that makes private citizens scared to question their leaders, the more destruction they do to their own foundations.  

But just as worse is the response from the Biden and Obama camp.  They are now in the process of mocking Joe the Plumber.  Insulting him personally and questioning the legitimacy of the man who would dare question Obama; the very Obama that sought out Joe for questioning.

“A plumber is the guy he’s fighting for,” Obama sneered. The word “plumber” was delivered as if he were saying “crap” or some similar adjective. The crowd hoots and jeers.

Then Obama lies when he intimates that Joe is making $250,000 a year.

“How many plumbers you know making a quarter million dollars a year?” Obama asked.

Well, of course Joe never said he made $250,000 a year but rather that he wanted to buy a company and hoped to make $250-$280 thousand.

What a jerk!  So tell me again how the Democrats are fighting for the little guys?  It sounds like they are only fighting for Democrats.  Unity huh???

Why the attacks on “Joe the Plumber” are important

The star of the final Presidential debate Wednesday night was not Barack Obama or John McCain. It was Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher from Ohio. Joe the Plumber came to the attention of the candidates when a video of him questioning Obama about his tax policy made news. Video of Obama’s response that when you “spread the wealth around” it’s good for everybody, spread like wildfire across the internet, to some cable news shows, and to John McCain’s attention. Since Joe was a big focus of the debate, and a big hit with Republicans, the Obama thugocracy (as tagged by Michael Barone) wasted no time targeting him.

Some liberal bloggers went after Joe the Plumber saying he didn’t even make $250,000 and that he would receive a tax cut under Barack Obama’s plan, supposedly proving “Joe the Plumber” was a Republican lie. Here is what Joe said in the exchange with Obama: “I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes about 250, 270-80 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan is going to tax me more isn’t it?” So much for the Republican lie. Joe told Obama that he was planning on buying a company, which he hoped would put him in that $250,000 or more income range in the future, which prompted Obama’s response about spreading the wealth around. By choosing that line of attack, those on the left proved what many of us on the right already believed – that they don’t “get” the basic concept of the American dream.

The American “dream” is about aspiring to improve your lot – to take advantage of the freedoms this country affords those who are willing to work hard, invest time and energy and often to take risks, to achieve success. In the response of liberals trying to blunt the effect of Obama’s spread the wealth comment they revealed their inability to understand that basic concept. Obama did the same in the full response he gave to Joe’s question. Obama stressed over and over again not what his tax plan would do to those who have begun to experience the success of the American dream, but only what it would do for those behind them. The idea that increasing taxes on the rich could negatively impact the not yet rich is a completely foreign notion.

In addition to those who tried to make hay out of the fact that Joe doesn’t yet make $250,000 (which they would have known if they had actually listened to his question), the Obama thugocracy went after him any other way they could. First they questioned Joe’s political affiliation, some saying he had given to Republicans in the past and others saying he was not registered to vote at all. Then they moved to his personal financial and legal records – first digging up a tax lien against him, then pointing out that he didn’t have a specific license (something required for commercial work, not residential).

Joe “not the plumber” Biden, evidently listening to the talking points and not to Joe the Plumber’s question, thought that Joe the Plumber made $250,000 and therefore wasn’t really a “real” plumber at all. On NBC’s Today show Biden said, “John [McCain] wants to cling to the notion of this guy Joe the plumber. I don’t have any Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year. The Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood, the Joe the cops in my neighborhood, the Joe the grocery store owners in my neighborhood, they make, like 98 percent of the small businesses, less than $250,000 a year.” God love’em.

On Good Morning America in an interview with Diane Sawyer, Joe the Plumber said Obama’s plan to take more money from those who are successful is “scary” and a “very socialist view” and a “slippery slope.” If he continues to talk like that, and if he continues to resonate with Americans, there is no telling what we will learn next about Joe Wurzelbacher. Is he Trig Palin’s baby daddy? Does he wear silk undergarments? Is he really bald? The point those on the left now trying to destroy Joe the Plumber don’t get is that it doesn’t matter. Not only do their nasty attacks on him discourage anyone else from becoming involved in public political debate, but nothing they could dig up on him would matter anyway.

Whether Joe the Plumber is a Republican or a Democrat, a decided or undecided registered or unregistered voter, gay or straight, a wearer of boxers or briefs, a huge GOP donor or even the secret love child of John McCain doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t change what Barack Obama said. Of his own free will, Obama admitted that he believes his tax plan is a good thing because when you “spread the wealth around” it’s good for everybody.

Those of us who have believed Obama’s policy proposals to be a socialist redistribution of wealth had everything we believed confirmed, straight from the horse’s mouth. That is what was so shocking about the video exchange between Obama and Wurzelbacher — what Obama said.

Obama told Joe that it is okay to soak those making more than $250,000 because then you can “spread the wealth” around and everyone will benefit. That is redistribution of wealth – taking from the rich (and from the kinda rich) and giving to the not so rich and the poor. And Obama admitted it. Out loud. On video.

Joe the Plumber is not going to be making tax policy (unfortunately), so even if he was a plant or a liar or Trig Palin’s daddy or John McCain’s love child doesn’t matter because it would not change what Barack Obama said. If the scenario described by Joe was real or fabricated would not even change the fact that Obama, the man asking to be allowed to reshape America’s economic policies, said out loud what his philosophy on taxes is and it amounts to redistribution of wealth.

James Pethokoukis at U.S. News and World Report said that in Obama’s statement he was “playing into the most extreme stereotype” of the Democrat party “that is infested with socialists.” He pointed to what he called McCain’s best line in the debate, “Now, of all times in America, we need to cut people’s taxes. We need to encourage business, create jobs, not spread the wealth around.”

Pethokoukis then pointed to something from a Gallup poll from June: “When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today’s consumer, Americans overwhelmingly – by 84% to 13% — prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.”

That attitude may have changed a bit since June, considering the recent credit crisis and anger toward Wall Street fat cats. But even if it is not still an 84-13% split, it is almost certainly still a substantial majority. No wonder those on the Left have decided Joe the Plumber must be destroyed. What they don’t get is that he is not what will cost them votes – Obama’s own words are.

Poor Joe the Plumber

Thank God we live in a free country, where you can speak your mind on public issues, without fear that those who disagree will respond by exposing anything you’ve ever done that you regret or that could embarrass your family.

Oh, wait, never mind. We have to know, according to some (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Joe_not_a_licensed_plumber_McCains_enthusiasm_not_diminished.html?showall), about Joe the Plumber’s tax lien, and how he doesn’t have a license – which, if the smear artists bothered to check the law, he only needs (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4740) for commercial work, not residential work.

This is the way our opponents operate now. Destroy anyone who stands in your way. Humiliate them. Make sure that anyone else who ever wants to skeptically question Barack Obama knows that every last bit of their dirty laundry will be aired for all the world to see. Bristol Palin, Trig Palin, — hey, it’s all fair game. They’ve got to make an example of them. Show them that this sort of dangerous speech won’t be allowed in the New America.

Robin Hood Obama

Obama laid out his rescue plan for the middle class (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/a_rescue_plan_for_the_middlecl.html). Yep, the middle class. These are the people that are going to get our economy going again, that are going to provide the jobs for you, the ones that have been paying too much in taxes while the evil rich fail to pay their fair share.

So here are some of the highlights of Obama’s great plan to save the middle class. Oh and by the way, this will be paid for increasing taxes on people making over $250,000 a year, closing tax loopholes and imposing windfall taxes on oil companies. So let me get this straight, you are going to tax the high achievers in this country to pay for a plan to ‘rescue’ the middle class? Sounds like class warfare to me. But what do I know?

Here’s the menu:

-A tax credit for businesses who hire new employees. How about lowering taxes on these businesses from the get go? Let them keep more of their money and perhaps they’ll start creating jobs again.

-Eliminating all capital gains taxes on investments in small businesses and start ups. Again .. why not eliminate all capital gains taxes? Here’s a little secret. Most investments in small businesses are made at the personal level in one’s own business .. and capital gains taxes aren’t a part of the picture. This is a meaningless solution that sounds good to the government educated dumb masses.

-Fast track loan guarantees for the auto industry so they can build energy-efficient cars. In other words … sort of a bailout. How long did the automakers see this coming? Let the marketplace chose the winners and losers here .. not the government. If they fail, someone will step in to fill their shoes. Also, we get rid of a lot of union labor this way.

-Save jobs by creating another government program: a Jobs and Growth Fund, which will give money to states and local communities for pork barrel projects. No comment needed here.

-Cut taxes for 95% of workers (we’ve been through this one) and pass a plan to send out those welfare checks ASAP. Classic class warfare based on wealth envy.

-Extend and expand unemployment benefits and stop making them pay taxes on unemployment insurance benefits. I agree with the no taxes on benefits part … but at what point do we stop the free ride?

-No fines or penalties to withdraw up to 15% from your IRA or 401k. This is McCain’s idea. Glad Obama is on board.

-Cities thinking of raising property taxes to pay for services, no need to worry … the federal government (taxpayers) will be there to make sure you don’t hike up taxes or, god forbid, be forced to adhere to a budget. Sounds like more centralization of government to me.

-A three month moratorium on foreclosures (something that Obama once called a “disastrous” plan). Look, many of these homeowners need to be renters. Get them out of their homes and into an apartment somewhere.

-The Treasury should “help unfreeze markets” for individual mortgages. Oh and student loans. Oh and car loans. Oh and don’t forget credit card loans. How do you unfreeze? You buy up the bad loans. Nice plan.

This is the type of plan that comes from someone who believes that America is great because of government.

Didn’t Clinton say he would not raise taxes on the middle class too?

From today’s Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122333585431009523.html)

“It’s like déjà vu all over again.”

As John McCain heads into the second round of presidential debates tonight, Yogi Berra’s words come to mind. Mr. McCain could do worse than remind the middle class what happened to them the last time a charismatic Democratic candidate promised them a tax cut. While he’s at it, he might also remind them how much more expensive it will be to send Barack Obama to the White House at a time when his fellow Democrats will have a majority in both houses of Congress.

The Clinton years hold some good lessons on both these scores. Back when Mr. Clinton was campaigning for president in 1992, he made a pretty direct pitch: Raise taxes on people making more than $200,000, and use those revenues to fund tax relief for the “forgotten middle class.”

In an October presidential debate, then-Gov. Clinton laid out the marginal-rate increase he wanted and some of his plans for the revenue that would be brought in. He followed with a pledge:

“Now, I’ll tell you this,” he said. “I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs. If the money does not come in there to pay for these programs, we will cut other government spending, or we will slow down the phase-in of the programs.”

Mr. Clinton, of course, won that election. And as the inauguration approached, he began backtracking from his promise. At a Jan. 14, 1993, press conference in New Hampshire, he claimed that it was the media that had played up a middle-class tax cut, not him. A month later, he announced his actual plan before a joint session of Congress.

On page one of the New York Times, the paper described the fate of the middle-class tax cut this way: “Families earning as little as $20,000 a year — members of the ‘forgotten middle class’ whose taxes he promised during his campaign to cut — will also be asked to send more dollars to Washington under the President’s plan.”

In some ways, we are today reliving the campaign of 1992. As in 1992, the Democrat is promising a middle-class tax cut. As in 1992, the Democrat is hammering the Republican as a tool of the rich. And as in 1992, the Republican doesn’t seem to have an answer.

Give Sen. Obama his due. His patter is direct and easy to understand. (“I will cut taxes — cut taxes — for 95% of all workers and their families,” “if you make under $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes go up one dime.”) And his language about putting working families first is hard to attack as class warfare when his opponent is blaming our financial woes on Wall Street’s greed.

But this doesn’t have to be 1992 all over again. Not, at least, if Mr. McCain begins to direct his fire as much against the Democratic establishment on Capitol Hill as against Mr. Obama. For one thing, Congress is even less popular than the president. For another, the need for a Republican check on a Democratic Washington is a potent argument.

That was one of the lessons from the Clinton years. For the first two years of his first term — when Democrats controlled Congress — Mr. Clinton was a different president. With Democrats in control of Washington, the middle-class tax cut vanished, a massive tax hike was approved, and the political debate centered around HillaryCare.

Then came 1994, the “Contract with America” — and a reform-minded Republican Congress. Robert L. Bartley, the late great editor of this newspaper, liked to note the bracing effect the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress had on the market — and the Democratic president. After a few skirmishes, President Clinton would go on to embrace welfare reform, sign a cut in the capital gains tax, and even declare that “the era of Big Government is over.”

Barring divine intervention, a President Obama would not have a Republican Congress to worry about. Instead, he would be working with a Democratic speaker of the House who loaded billions in pork onto a bill meant to fund our troops; with a Democratic Senate majority leader who promised to change the way Congress spent but fought earmark reform; and with committee leaders such as Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who did so much to bring us the financial implosion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In this kind of Washington, the American taxpayer could use a Gary Cooper: the “High Noon” lawman willing to stand up for us when everyone else is ducking for cover. Marshal McCain, anyone?

Jobs and the campaign

Oy!

Obama likes to talk about the American people seeing “their jobs” sent overseas.

First of all, let’s get this out of the way. American workers are not seeing “their jobs” go overseas. They are seeing their former employer’s jobs going away. The jobs belong to the employers, not to the workers. Workers don’t create jobs, businessmen and women do.

Now we have Barack Obama telling us that Obama is oh so very concerned about jobs. Well, if that’s so, they why is he talking so proudly about his plans to raise taxes on the very people who create and provide those jobs?

Right now about 70% of existing jobs in the American economy are in small businesses. Eighty percent of all new jobs are now being created by small businesses. If we want our economy to turn around we need these small business men and women to do the heavy lifting. These small business owners generally report their business income on their individual income tax returns.  So we have small businesses creating eight out of ten new jobs … and along comes Barack Obama who promises to raise income taxes on these people! This amazing super-human wants to bring back jobs by raising the taxes on the very people we will depend on to create those jobs!

Now Barack Obama knows he’s vulnerable here … so he cranks up the teleprompters and tells the people he is going to cut capital gains taxes on America’s small businesses. Well isn’t that just so very special? The problem is, these small businesses don’t pay capital gains taxes. They pay income taxes … the taxes The Chosen One wants to raise!

Tax breaks in the new bailout bill

Here is a list (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/earmarking_while_rome_burns_more_on_the_porked_up_bail_out_bill/) of just some of the ever-growing tax breaks that are essential enough to be included in this bailout bill. Who knows how big it will be by the time it passes:

Sec. 101. Extension of alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable personal credits.
Sec. 102. Extension of increased alternative minimum tax exemption amount.
Sec. 103. Increase of AMT refundable credit amount for individuals with longterm unused credits for prior year minimum tax liability, etc.
Sec. 201. Deduction for State and local sales taxes.
Sec. 202. Deduction of qualified tuition and related expenses.
Sec. 203. Deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers.
Sec. 204. Additional standard deduction for real property taxes for nonitemizers.
Sec. 205. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for charitable purposes.
Sec. 206. Treatment of certain dividends of regulated investment companies.
Sec. 207. Stock in RIC for purposes of determining estates of nonresidents not citizens.
Sec. 208. Qualified investment entities.
Sec. 301. Extension and modification of research credit.
Sec. 302. New markets tax credit.
Sec. 303. Subpart F exception for active financing income.
Sec. 304. Extension of look-thru rule for related controlled foreign corporations.
Sec. 305. Extension of 15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold improvements and qualified restaurant improvements; 15-year straight-line cost recovery for certain improvements to retail space.
Sec. 306. Modification of tax treatment of certain payments to controlling exempt organizations.
Sec. 307. Basis adjustment to stock of S corporations making charitable contributions of property.
Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 310. Extension of mine rescue team training credit.
Sec. 311. Extension of election to expense advanced mine safety equipment.
Sec. 312. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 313. Qualified zone academy bonds.
Sec. 314. Indian employment credit.
Sec. 315. Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian reservations.
Sec. 316. Railroad track maintenance.
Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
Sec. 318. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Sec. 319. Extension of work opportunity tax credit for Hurricane Katrina employees.
Sec. 320. Extension of increased rehabilitation credit for structures in the Gulf Opportunity Zone.
Sec. 321. Enhanced deduction for qualified computer contributions.
Sec. 322. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 323. Enhanced charitable deductions for contributions of food inventory.
Sec. 324. Extension of enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book inventory.
Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds.
Sec. 401. Permanent authority for undercover operations.
Sec. 402. Permanent authority for disclosure of information relating to terrorist activities.
Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.
Sec. 502. Provisions related to film and television productions.
Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
Sec. 504. Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation.
Sec. 505. Certain farming business machinery and equipment treated as 5-year property.
Sec. 506. Modification of penalty on understatement of taxpayer’s liability by tax return preparer.
Sec. 512. Mental health parity.
Sec. 601. Secure rural schools and community self-determination program.
Sec. 602. Transfer to abandoned mine reclamation fund.
Sec. 702. Temporary tax relief for areas damaged by 2008 Midwestern severe storms, tornados, and flooding.
Sec. 703. Reporting requirements relating to disaster relief contributions.
Sec. 704. Temporary tax-exempt bond financing and low-income housing tax relief for areas damaged by Hurricane Ike.
Sec. 706. Losses attributable to federally declared disasters.
Sec. 707. Expensing of Qualified Disaster Expenses.
Sec. 708. Net operating losses attributable to federally declared disasters.
Sec. 709. Waiver of certain mortgage revenue bond requirements following federally declared disasters.
Sec. 710. Special depreciation allowance for qualified disaster property.
Sec. 711. Increased expensing for qualified disaster assistance property.
Sec. 712. Coordination with Heartland disaster relief.
Sec. 801. Nonqualified deferred compensation from certain tax indifferent parties.

Something else that has come to our attention. Section 117 (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2008/10/02/green-alert-hidden-carbon-tax-provision-paulson-s-bailout-2-0) of this monster bill in for a “carbon audit of the tax code.”  Hmmm sounds like the global warming scam is creeping into our laws.

Spirituality in politics

From Michael Medved, a syndicated radio host (http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2008/10/01/democrats_make_false_promises_of_spiritual_repair?page=1)

For people who feel lost and lonely, what’s the best way to work your way back to home and wholeness? Does it make more sense to rely on faith or politics?

In this autumnal season of electoral fever – and of the Jewish high holy days – the choice between God and government significantly divides right and left, Republicans and Democrats.

At their Denver convention, the Democrats adopted the most unabashedly liberal platform in the party’s history, including the following remarkable promise: “We will provide immediate relief to working people who have lost their jobs, families who have lost their homes and people who have lost their way.”

While one can imagine frenzied Democratic efforts to muster “immediate relief” for lost jobs and lost homes, how, exactly, do they propose to assist those who have “lost their way”? For all the messianic pretensions of the Obama campaign, the junior senator from Illinois has not yet, to my knowledge, proclaimed himself “the way, the truth, and the life.”

Nevertheless, the candidate’s most devoted acolyte, Michelle Obama, has repeatedly suggested that the purpose of the campaign isn’t just to transform our politics and to heal our earth, but to rescue shattered and stricken souls. On February 3, 2008, she told a rapturous crowd at UCLA: “We have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.” The next week she expressed similar sentiments to an audience in Green Bay, Wisconsin, declaring: “We are dealing with a basic hole in our soul of the nation- we are lost.”

In other words, the wife of the presidential candidate echoes the Democratic Party platform in openly defining the campaign’s goals in spiritual and not just political terms. Is it any wonder that the movement behind Barack Obama has taken on some of the weird, zombie-like trappings of a trendy religious cult? In promising the repair of broken souls and showing the way to those who are lost, this campaign has undertaken tasks usually reserved for religious institutions.

In the Jewish tradition, the fall season is devoted to repentance, prayer and restoration of the soul, even more than campaigning for your favorite candidate. Rosh HaShannah – the Jewish New Year which began on Monday night – introduces the “ten days of repentance” culminating with the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), which falls this year on October 9th. The Hebrew word for repentance – “t’shuvah” – literally means “return” and the whole purpose of the sacred season is to bring back lost souls (all of us, in actuality) to the Godly and honorable path we are meant to walk. Despite the sad fact that most American Jews feel passionately committed to liberal causes, our liturgy and tradition never suggest that we rescue the lost and repair our souls through supporting specific candidates or government policies, no matter how worthy. The process of slate-cleaning and fresh starts that we undertake every year at this time requires an intensive effort of self-examination and personal change, not the easier (and shallower) immersion in sweeping social movements

For religious Jews and committed Christians, real change demands a commitment to God and His law, not just volunteer efforts for an inspiring politican. The very idea that government and politics can accomplish the work of spiritual renewal counts as a ludicrous insult, an obamanation. When it comes to the job of “fixing souls” or showing the way to lost sheep, the right response for any presidential candidate would be: “That’s beyond my pay grade.”

The leftwing tendency to view politics as a substitute for religion will properly worry more Americans than the right’s habit of allowing faith commitments to impact political positions. It’s true that social conservatives sometimes feel such fervent religious enthusiasm that we allow our faith to spill over into the political realm. On the other hand, liberals nurture the sort of political intensity and fervor that not only invades the religious domain but often takes the place of organized faith. Liberal denominations regularly describe their chief mission as “social justice” – meaning the agitation for redistributionist and activist government policies long advocated by the left. My friend, columnist Mona Charen, memorably described Reform Judaism (the most “progressive” branch of our ancient faith) as “nothing more than the Democratic Party with holidays.”

If there’s one message of this season’s real holidays, it’s that no movement, no political campaign, no public initiative can fill “holes in the soul” as effectively as nurturing a private relationship with the Creator. As Rabbi Daniel Lapin trenchantly observes, people will either worship “the big G” – God, or else they will worship “the little g”—government.

The adulation and embrace of government will undermine devotion to God, just as subservience and love for God will dilute the authority of government. That’s why totalitarian systems of every sort distrust and suppress authentic religious faith.

This year, the month of October brings both political frenzy and religious reflection. In the dual spirit of this season, may we help to return the lost from their wandering and restore all broken souls, finding the strength and the insight to uphold the right “G.”

Lobbyists: Who is buying who???

Every so often, check out who is donating to whom in politics.  While Democrats like to brand the Republican party as the party of Wall Street, it is actually the Democrats who get most of Wall Street’s political donations.  They also get a lot of money from an industry I plan to start calling “Big Mouth”: lawyers, actors, entertainers, advertisers, consultants, etc..  These Big Mouth industries far out-give Big Oil and other industries that produce tangible goods.  I used OpenSecrets  to find the latest data.

Only two of the top 20 corporate donors in the 2008 election cycle lean Republican .  Of the top 100, only 15 lean Republican.  As we go through a housing and banking crisis, note the following top donors and how much they gave to Democrats (listed by rank).

2.  Goldman Sachs, 72%

 

3.  Citigroup Inc, 61%

 

4.  JP Morgan Chase & Co, 59%

 

5.  Morgan Stanley, 57%

 

8.  National Association of Realtors, 59%

 

12. Lehman Brothers, 64%

 

20. Bank of America, 56%

None of the top 15 industry sectors leans Republican .  Only three of the top 20 do.  We knew that Democrats draw money from Lawyers (ranked #2, 75% to Democrats), Education (ranked #9, 79%) and TV/Movies/Music (ranked #10, 75%).  But did you know that Securities/Investment firms ranked #3 and gave 56% to Democrats?  Business Services (advertising, public relations, consulting) ranked # 7 and gave 61% to Democrats.

Who gave to Republicans?  Oil & Gas (#16, 74%), General Contractors (#17, 65%) and Miscellaneous Manufacturing and Distribution (#19, 57%).

I notice a couple of things here.  One is that the industries that produce or build real things (that you could, say, weigh or bump your head on) give to Republicans.  Democrats, on the other hand, receive their money from people who make money with their mouths: lawyers, actors, advertisers, etc.

The other thing to notice is the ranking.  Teachers, those poor, underpaid souls, give more than the dreaded “Big Oil” industry.  As does the entertainment industry.  And lawyers give more than almost anyone (coming in second only to “retired”, listed as “on the fence” in political donations).  Lawyers give more than seven times as much as Big Oil.  Securities and Investment firms give over five times as much.

All in all, the money raised by politicians at the national level in 2008 came in as follows.

 

                        Democrats:                   Republicans:

 

House:              $377,710,329              $312,026,381

 

Senate:             $152,830,271              $140,374,312

 

President:         $770,624,902              $271,193,166

 

Total:                $1.3 B                          $0.7 B

As you can see, Democrats have raised a lot more money than Republicans in this election cycle.

It should be obvious that the “branding” of the parties is exactly backwards.  The GOP is branded as the party of Wall Street and big money.  In fact, it is the Democrats who get most of Wall Street’s money and who raise more money, especially from the biggest special interest groups.

Oh, I forgot.  Campaign Finance Reform got money out of politics.

Bush and the Mae & Mac problem

Bush was actually way ahead of everybody, asking a reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae back in 2003.  But as usual, the Democrats, led by Barney Frank, said that this was a political move and that there were no problems at all here.  Just as a reminder, Mac & Mae gave the most campaign contributions to: Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton in that order.  The candidate of hope and change!

From the Investors Business Daily (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306632135350949):

President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

Here’s the lead of a New York Times story on Sept. 11, 2003: “The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.”

Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.

“These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Rep. Barney Frank, then ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

It’s pretty clear who was on the right side of that debate.

As for presidential contender John McCain, just two years after Bush’s plan, McCain also called for badly needed reforms to prevent a crisis like the one we’re now in.

“If Congress does not act,” McCain said in 2005, “American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole.”

Sounds like McCain was spot on.

But his warnings, too, were ignored by Congress.

To hear today’s Democrats, you’d think all this started in the last couple years. But the crisis began much earlier. The Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas.

Age-old standards of banking prudence got thrown out the window. In their place came harsh new regulations requiring banks not only to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, but to do so on the basis of race.

These well-intended rules were supercharged in the early 1990s by President Clinton. Despite warnings from GOP members of Congress in 1992, Clinton pushed extensive changes to the rules requiring lenders to make questionable loans.

Lenders who refused would find themselves castigated publicly as racists. As noted this week in an IBD editorial, no fewer than four federal bank regulators scrutinized financial firms’ books to make sure they were in compliance.

Failure to comply meant your bank might not be allowed to expand lending, add new branches or merge with other companies. Banks were given a so-called “CRA rating” that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was.

It was economic hardball.

“We have to use every means at our disposal to end discrimination and to end it as quickly as possible,” Clinton’s comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, told the Senate Banking Committee in 1993.

And they meant it.

In the name of diversity, banks began making huge numbers of loans that they previously would not have. They opened branches in poor areas to lift their CRA ratings.

Meanwhile, Congress gave Fannie and Freddie the go-ahead to finance it all by buying loans from banks, then repackaging and securitizing them for resale on the open market.

That’s how the contagion began.

With those changes, the subprime market took off. From a mere $35 billion in loans in 1994, it soared to $1 trillion by 2008.

Wall Street eagerly sold the new mortgage-backed securities. Not only were they pooled investments, mixing good and bad, but they were backed with the implicit guarantee of government.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew to become monsters, accounting for nearly half of all U.S. mortgage loans. At the time of their bailouts this month, they held $5.4 trillion in loans on their books. About $1.4 trillion of those were subprime.

As they grew, Fannie and Freddie grew heavily involved in “community development,” giving money to local housing rights groups and “empowering” the groups, such as ACORN, for whom Barack Obama once worked in Chicago.

Warning signals were everywhere. Yet at every turn, Democrats in Congress halted attempts to stop the madness. It happened in 1992, again in 2000, in 2003 and in 2005. It may happen this year, too.

Since 1989, Fannie and Freddie have spent an estimated $140 million on lobbying Washington. They contributed millions to politicians, mostly Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (No. 1 recipient) and Barack Obama (No. 3 recipient, despite only three years in office).

The Clinton White House used Fannie and Freddie as a patronage job bank. Former executives and board members read like a who’s who of the Clinton-era Democratic Party, including Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and current Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

Collectively, they and others made well more than $100 million from Fannie and Freddie, whose books were cooked Enron-style during the late 1990s and early 2000s to ensure executives got their massive bonuses.

They got the bonuses. You get the bill.