Kim Strassel wrote an interesting piece in last Friday's Wall Street Journal regarding the reason Harry Reid added the infamous "public option" to his HarryCare bill.
It may be cynical, but Strassel thinks he added it as a diversion, so people would sort of forget the bigger, simpler issue of just not wanting the basic HarryCare bill at all.
Specifically, the idea that, in order to allow US consumers to spend less on health care, you don't need to: reform tort law, allow interstate purchase/marketing of health insurance, or level the tax-preference basis of health insurance between those who receive health insurance as a pre-tax benefit, and those who purchase it with after-tax dollars.
Instead, HarryCare will ignore all of that, and offer the dubious claim that his bill will 'fix' health care, with or without the public option.
Very reasonably, and not alone, Strassel argues that Reid can now say he tried for the uber-liberal goodie, the public option, and thus shed responsibility for whatever happens next. At moderates, if it passes, he can thumb his nose, while, if it doesn't, he can explain it was never his idea anyway. Liberals pushed him to it.
But as Strassel points out, Harry has now gotten everyone squabbling over this frill, and perhaps they'll forget the big elephant to which it is attached.
She notes that he's Senate Majority leader for a reason, and it's not because he's stupid.
Perhaps so.
Perhaps today's two gubernatorial and the special upstate NY Congressional elections will give liberals pause.
Or it may make them accelerate the damage they can do before they lose the House next November and end the Reign of Wonderboy for good.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Modernity vs. Liberal Democrats & Progressives
There were a pair of excellent editorials in recent Wall Street Journal editions concerning how out of step with modern practice and technology in the US.
On Thursday, Daniel Henninger wrote "Obama and the Old Hat People," deriding the liberal Democrat Senate oldsters.
Henninger points out that young American voters thought they were getting a youngish, cool black dude for President, when what they actually got was "old hat" in the form of Chuckie Schumer, Pat Leahy, Chris "Doddering" Dodd and Harry Reid, ol' vinegar himself.
As Henninger puts it so well,
"Our out-dated political software can't recognize trial and error. What ObamaCare is doing with health care' the "public option"- may be fine with the activist left, but I suspect it's starting to strike many younger Americans as at odds with their lives, as not somewhere they want to go. Wait until EPA's ghost busters start enforcing cap-and-trade.
People thought something small, agile and smart was coming to government, but so far it's turning out to be just big-box politics."
Henninger captures an aspect of public disaffection for Wonderboy's evolving political mess and failure that I have yet to see in polls or in the media. That is, the techno-culture of young Americans is very much at odds with the old liberal Senate bulls' view of government control of everything in sight.
Henninger closes with this observation,
"So long as the Democratic Party is the party of the Old Hat People, dependent on public-sector unions with Orwellian names like the Service Employees International Union, it will remain yoked to a pre-iPhone political model that will increasingly strike average everyday American voters as weird and alien to their world."
As it to provide the perfect support to his views, Friday's Journal carried an editorial by Republican Senators Jim DeMint (SC) and Orrin Hatch (U), extolling the virtues of non-"net neutrality."
Their point was simple and clear. Nevermind what the complicated meanings of the term or the proposed regulation entail.
We have a vibrant, free, useful internet and tens of thousands of "apps" springing up for iPhones, texting, etc., on a medium which has been totally free of government intervention.
Why spoil that? How can government "help" improve anything?
They note how the large, blundering entities which are linked to the federal government, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM and Chrysler have done recently.
Orrin Hatch is no spring chicken. Yet, he provides a wonderful counterpoint to Harry Reid.
And this editorial, these two GOP Senators, perhaps illustrate the beginning of an awareness that could build among young Americans.
That is, the GOP isn't "against" good things. Rather, it's "against" getting government's messy, slow, cumbersome, dumb hands all over your personal life and so many precious, private, individualistic things about it.
Thus, the GOP approach to health care reform isn't to pass a total redesign of the existing system, with government taking control.
Instead, it's to remove barriers to: tort reform, interstate marketing of health care insurance, mandates, and differential tax treatment of health insurance premiums.
It's a beautiful point. Everyone, especially the new voters who flocked to Wonderboy last year, value and prize their technologically-based freedom and individuality.
How will they like having the Old Hat crowd, with our First Rookie's leadership, take all of that away?
On Thursday, Daniel Henninger wrote "Obama and the Old Hat People," deriding the liberal Democrat Senate oldsters.
Henninger points out that young American voters thought they were getting a youngish, cool black dude for President, when what they actually got was "old hat" in the form of Chuckie Schumer, Pat Leahy, Chris "Doddering" Dodd and Harry Reid, ol' vinegar himself.
As Henninger puts it so well,
"Our out-dated political software can't recognize trial and error. What ObamaCare is doing with health care' the "public option"- may be fine with the activist left, but I suspect it's starting to strike many younger Americans as at odds with their lives, as not somewhere they want to go. Wait until EPA's ghost busters start enforcing cap-and-trade.
People thought something small, agile and smart was coming to government, but so far it's turning out to be just big-box politics."
Henninger captures an aspect of public disaffection for Wonderboy's evolving political mess and failure that I have yet to see in polls or in the media. That is, the techno-culture of young Americans is very much at odds with the old liberal Senate bulls' view of government control of everything in sight.
Henninger closes with this observation,
"So long as the Democratic Party is the party of the Old Hat People, dependent on public-sector unions with Orwellian names like the Service Employees International Union, it will remain yoked to a pre-iPhone political model that will increasingly strike average everyday American voters as weird and alien to their world."
As it to provide the perfect support to his views, Friday's Journal carried an editorial by Republican Senators Jim DeMint (SC) and Orrin Hatch (U), extolling the virtues of non-"net neutrality."
Their point was simple and clear. Nevermind what the complicated meanings of the term or the proposed regulation entail.
We have a vibrant, free, useful internet and tens of thousands of "apps" springing up for iPhones, texting, etc., on a medium which has been totally free of government intervention.
Why spoil that? How can government "help" improve anything?
They note how the large, blundering entities which are linked to the federal government, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM and Chrysler have done recently.
Orrin Hatch is no spring chicken. Yet, he provides a wonderful counterpoint to Harry Reid.
And this editorial, these two GOP Senators, perhaps illustrate the beginning of an awareness that could build among young Americans.
That is, the GOP isn't "against" good things. Rather, it's "against" getting government's messy, slow, cumbersome, dumb hands all over your personal life and so many precious, private, individualistic things about it.
Thus, the GOP approach to health care reform isn't to pass a total redesign of the existing system, with government taking control.
Instead, it's to remove barriers to: tort reform, interstate marketing of health care insurance, mandates, and differential tax treatment of health insurance premiums.
It's a beautiful point. Everyone, especially the new voters who flocked to Wonderboy last year, value and prize their technologically-based freedom and individuality.
How will they like having the Old Hat crowd, with our First Rookie's leadership, take all of that away?
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Peggy Noonan Almost Hits the Mark
Peggy Noonan almost got it right this weekend in the Wall Street Journal when she opined,
"This is historic. This is something new in modern political history, and I'm not sure we're fully noticing it. Americans are starting to think the problems we are facing cannot be solved.
Part of the reason is that the problems- debt, spending, war- seem too big. But a larger part is that our government, from the White House through Congress and so many state and local governments, seems to be demonstrating every day that they cannot make things better. They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths- spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally. And in the long term everyone- well, not those in government, but most everyone else- seems to know that won't work. It's not a way out."
Noonan actually refutes herself by the end of that second paragraph. If she had simply added the phrase,
"by our increasingly professional, lifetime political class"
to that last sentence in the first paragraph, she'd have hit the mark exactly.
How is it she could write "well, not those in government, but most everyone else- seems to know that won't work," but claim we are dispirited and feel overwhelmed by our problems?
Nobody I know, with a brain, thinks our problems are overwhelming us.
They think the problems are overwhelming power-hungry professional pols who just want lifetime sinecures and more power.
Sensible Americans understand that we must spend less via government, trim entitlements, reverse 60 years of deficit spending, and focus on defining objectives for our current combat situations, then achieve the objectives.
These problems are far from insoluble by Americans who want to go about their business unhampered by government.
But for too-long-sitting Senators and Representatives with half a dozen years in office and dreams of as many more, or one of their state's Senate seats, those solutions don't sound like fun.
Less power. More accountability. Fewer lush promises made with other peoples' taxes.
Maybe Noonan's friends are too set in their government ways, and, by extension, so is Noonan.
She almost had it right.
But not quite.
She knows the right answer, but, like so many careerists in and around national politics, she can't bring herself to say it.
Term limits. Less federal power. No more professional politicians.
It's that simple. Solving that problem might be overwhelming. But not debt and spending. Not even war.
"This is historic. This is something new in modern political history, and I'm not sure we're fully noticing it. Americans are starting to think the problems we are facing cannot be solved.
Part of the reason is that the problems- debt, spending, war- seem too big. But a larger part is that our government, from the White House through Congress and so many state and local governments, seems to be demonstrating every day that they cannot make things better. They are not offering a new path, they are only offering old paths- spend more, regulate more, tax more in an attempt to make us more healthy locally and nationally. And in the long term everyone- well, not those in government, but most everyone else- seems to know that won't work. It's not a way out."
Noonan actually refutes herself by the end of that second paragraph. If she had simply added the phrase,
"by our increasingly professional, lifetime political class"
to that last sentence in the first paragraph, she'd have hit the mark exactly.
How is it she could write "well, not those in government, but most everyone else- seems to know that won't work," but claim we are dispirited and feel overwhelmed by our problems?
Nobody I know, with a brain, thinks our problems are overwhelming us.
They think the problems are overwhelming power-hungry professional pols who just want lifetime sinecures and more power.
Sensible Americans understand that we must spend less via government, trim entitlements, reverse 60 years of deficit spending, and focus on defining objectives for our current combat situations, then achieve the objectives.
These problems are far from insoluble by Americans who want to go about their business unhampered by government.
But for too-long-sitting Senators and Representatives with half a dozen years in office and dreams of as many more, or one of their state's Senate seats, those solutions don't sound like fun.
Less power. More accountability. Fewer lush promises made with other peoples' taxes.
Maybe Noonan's friends are too set in their government ways, and, by extension, so is Noonan.
She almost had it right.
But not quite.
She knows the right answer, but, like so many careerists in and around national politics, she can't bring herself to say it.
Term limits. Less federal power. No more professional politicians.
It's that simple. Solving that problem might be overwhelming. But not debt and spending. Not even war.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Glenn Beck's Flawed Argument
Earlier this week, I believe on Wednesday evening, Glenn Beck went through a fairly complex explanation of how the US unwisely intertwined federal housing policy, low interest rates and excessive spending to arrive at our current debacle.
He then, understandably, discussed the folly of depreciating the US dollar in order to repay creditors with cheaper currency. Again, understandably, he cited the failed German Wiemar Republic.
But then he veered into dangerous and, unfortunately, intellectually wrong territory. Beck began to suggest that, like the Germans in the 1920s and '30s, the US might issue land-backed debt, because so many mortgages are held by Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and, though he didn't mention it them by name, the FHA and VA mortgage programs.
In a rare misstep, Glenn said that the government "owns" these mortgages, and implied that, therefore, the feds can just claim them as assets, against which to issue dollar-denominated debt.
But that's not true. Not by a long shot.
Here's how things would have to work for that to be true. Mortgages backing a specific Fannie or Freddie debt issue would have to default. Upon default, it's possible that the owners of the GSE-issued securities might choose to take possession of the properties. But the details here are very important.
GSE's (Fannie, Freddie, as well as non-publicly owned VA and FHA programs) buy mortgages from originating institutions. To do that, they issue debt, with the implied backing of the US Treasury. Then they package the mortgages into pools and sell bonds backed by the income from the pools of mortgages.
The money they receive for these bonds goes to buy more mortgages. When the GSEs wish to expand, they issue more debt.
But they don't "own" a vast collection of mortgaged homes. They typically only "own," which is to say, hold, home mortgages for seasoning and packaging into bonds.
And, to reiterate, Fannie or Freddie wouldn't even "own" the homes connected to those mortgages securing their bonds if the borrowers defaulted. The bondholders would, or could, own them.
It's a nuanced point to many, but I think important. What Beck went on to contend, on the back of assuming the federal government simply "owns" the homes bought by mortgages which may eventually have secured Fannie or Freddie bonds, would simply be unrealistic.
Because this sort of misunderstanding of the actual mechanics by which all of these mortgages could be held, and the underlying homes and land owned by the federal government, and used to back other bonds, could materially damage Beck's credibility.
He then, understandably, discussed the folly of depreciating the US dollar in order to repay creditors with cheaper currency. Again, understandably, he cited the failed German Wiemar Republic.
But then he veered into dangerous and, unfortunately, intellectually wrong territory. Beck began to suggest that, like the Germans in the 1920s and '30s, the US might issue land-backed debt, because so many mortgages are held by Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and, though he didn't mention it them by name, the FHA and VA mortgage programs.
In a rare misstep, Glenn said that the government "owns" these mortgages, and implied that, therefore, the feds can just claim them as assets, against which to issue dollar-denominated debt.
But that's not true. Not by a long shot.
Here's how things would have to work for that to be true. Mortgages backing a specific Fannie or Freddie debt issue would have to default. Upon default, it's possible that the owners of the GSE-issued securities might choose to take possession of the properties. But the details here are very important.
GSE's (Fannie, Freddie, as well as non-publicly owned VA and FHA programs) buy mortgages from originating institutions. To do that, they issue debt, with the implied backing of the US Treasury. Then they package the mortgages into pools and sell bonds backed by the income from the pools of mortgages.
The money they receive for these bonds goes to buy more mortgages. When the GSEs wish to expand, they issue more debt.
But they don't "own" a vast collection of mortgaged homes. They typically only "own," which is to say, hold, home mortgages for seasoning and packaging into bonds.
And, to reiterate, Fannie or Freddie wouldn't even "own" the homes connected to those mortgages securing their bonds if the borrowers defaulted. The bondholders would, or could, own them.
It's a nuanced point to many, but I think important. What Beck went on to contend, on the back of assuming the federal government simply "owns" the homes bought by mortgages which may eventually have secured Fannie or Freddie bonds, would simply be unrealistic.
Because this sort of misunderstanding of the actual mechanics by which all of these mortgages could be held, and the underlying homes and land owned by the federal government, and used to back other bonds, could materially damage Beck's credibility.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
HarryCare's Surprises
Surprise, surprise!
Harry Reid has managed to stuff the public option back into his HarryCare Senate bill. I erred in my prior post when I stated that a House-Senate conference was underway. In fact, it was simply the numerous Senate committees' Democrats caucusing to stitch together their Frankenstein of a health care bill- HarryCare.
Under Nevada Democrat Harry Reid's mis-leadership, the Democratic gang in the Senate have concocted a concept- because, to date, there is still no available written version of this- called a 'modified public option opt-out.'
Apparently this is Reid's attempt to have his health care cake and eat it, too. He's allowed for a public option, but states can choose not to avail themselves of it. Thus, if he has to surgically remove it, he can say he tried, placating his liberal colleagues.
If it passes, he'll probably claim that there's no need for added CBO scoring, since states can 'opt out.' And he'll use that, in all likelihood, to claim to other Senators that it isn't really a public option.
You know, like a fully-federalized, hobnail-booted mandate.
Trouble is, Harry has already lost at least two Senate Democrats and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is so adamantly against the public option, in any form, that he promised to side with the GOP Senators to filibuster the bill.
Meanwhile, Olympia Snowe delivered on her promise and backed off of any support, and was joined by Nebraska's Blanche Lincoln.
Funny thing about the health care mess. When Democrats, as Reid did this week, continually claim Republicans would not 'work' with them, but, in fact, keep ignoring GOP calls for interstate health insurance purchasing, tort reform, and the dropping of mandates, they look silly and lacking in credibility.
Instead of trying the simplest measures, maybe in several states, then waiting a few years to see the results, these Congressional morons insist on ignoring these sane, simplifying ideas, and going for a total redesign of the US health care system.
Nobody with a brain thinks this will work, or save anyone any money.
How is it Democrats can't understand that? Or do they just not want to understand it?
Harry Reid has managed to stuff the public option back into his HarryCare Senate bill. I erred in my prior post when I stated that a House-Senate conference was underway. In fact, it was simply the numerous Senate committees' Democrats caucusing to stitch together their Frankenstein of a health care bill- HarryCare.
Under Nevada Democrat Harry Reid's mis-leadership, the Democratic gang in the Senate have concocted a concept- because, to date, there is still no available written version of this- called a 'modified public option opt-out.'
Apparently this is Reid's attempt to have his health care cake and eat it, too. He's allowed for a public option, but states can choose not to avail themselves of it. Thus, if he has to surgically remove it, he can say he tried, placating his liberal colleagues.
If it passes, he'll probably claim that there's no need for added CBO scoring, since states can 'opt out.' And he'll use that, in all likelihood, to claim to other Senators that it isn't really a public option.
You know, like a fully-federalized, hobnail-booted mandate.
Trouble is, Harry has already lost at least two Senate Democrats and Joe Lieberman. Lieberman is so adamantly against the public option, in any form, that he promised to side with the GOP Senators to filibuster the bill.
Meanwhile, Olympia Snowe delivered on her promise and backed off of any support, and was joined by Nebraska's Blanche Lincoln.
Funny thing about the health care mess. When Democrats, as Reid did this week, continually claim Republicans would not 'work' with them, but, in fact, keep ignoring GOP calls for interstate health insurance purchasing, tort reform, and the dropping of mandates, they look silly and lacking in credibility.
Instead of trying the simplest measures, maybe in several states, then waiting a few years to see the results, these Congressional morons insist on ignoring these sane, simplifying ideas, and going for a total redesign of the US health care system.
Nobody with a brain thinks this will work, or save anyone any money.
How is it Democrats can't understand that? Or do they just not want to understand it?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Why Is Glenn Beck So Popular?
I have had a few discussions recently with a colleague about Glenn Beck's sudden popularity. Since coming to Fox News, Beck has vaulted into the number one position at 5pm, at least among all cable programs, if not network, as well.
Last year, before changing networks, I believe Beck was on CNN. I'd see him occasionally while channel surfing. To me, he was this guy with a crew cut and an old-style radio microphone sitting at a desk. Usually proclaiming loudly and in a surprised voice.
Now, Glenn Beck has a much different approach. An approach my colleague, a well-educated, very intelligent businessman finds off-putting. To him, Beck is too high-voltage, simplistic and animated.
However, as I contended in a recent conversation with my friend, that is precisely why Glenn Beck is now so popular.
Simply put, Glenn Beck knows how to appeal to a large audience, on television, about fundamental political and philosophical topics. He takes dry topics and animates them in a disarmingly simple fashion.
A few years ago, I was a guest on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News program. During a break in taping, due to an equipment malfunction, O'Reilly began to critique the comments and responses to his questions that we had just taped. He found my approach to be a bit too esoteric for his audience.
To paraphrase O'Reilly, he said something like,
'Listen, I'm not Neil Cavuto, and you're not on his show. My audience is different. The folks want things simple and direct. Keep it simple and clear.'
My subsequent, simpler answers and comments were just what O'Reilly wanted.
I think that, like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck knows exactly who his audience is. Most of the people who watch him aren't like my colleague.
They aren't as well-read, deliberative or educated. Whereas my friend would like to see the old-style Beck, engaging in deep discussions with a series of guests, the new Beck is much more lively and engaging.
What Glenn Beck has done, really, is move to an all-visual presentation style that appeals to his audience. Watch his show and look at his props.
The whiteboard on which he frequently scrawls his points. Or uses with magnetic-backed pictures of people to fill in points on some diagram of Wonderboy's administration.
He frequently plays videos again, and again, and again. Especially key clips from Wonderboy's campaign speeches. Like the one telling you to judge him by his advisers. Then Beck will play an embarrassing, revealing video of an Obama adviser over, and over, and over again.
Repetition is what makes such an impact on children. I saw my own children watch Barney or SpongeBob reruns more times than I could literally count.
Beck also uses a large video screen to project pictures topical to his comments.
The other day, as he was chiding South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, as a reply to Graham's dismissive remarks about Beck a few weeks ago, Beck pointedly had a large, clear, incredibly unflattering picture of Graham's face in a weird smirk, with one eye closed, left on his immense screen for about 3 minutes.
It was a priceless visual burning into viewers' brains that Graham is a goof-ball. Nothing like a silly picture to leave an image.
The other thing Glenn Beck takes to heart is that we learn best when offered multi-media inputs. Beck will talk while either working at his whiteboard, pointing to pictures, or running videos. There are almost always at least two media streams coming at you.
And, lastly, Glenn Beck is an entertainer. He has learned to entertain as he preaches and teaches. His shows are vibrant, and, in Marshall McCluhan's vernacular, very "hot."
Add it all up, and Glenn Beck behaves more like your favorite high school or college teacher than a dry television program anchor.
He's just as deep as the latter and, actually, deeper than most nowadays. But because he wraps everything in high-energy video, movement and dynamic action, even dry topics like the Constitution, Woodrow Wilson's Progressivism, and our Founding Fathers, come alive.
And that is why Glenn Beck is the most popular guy on television at 5pm.
Last year, before changing networks, I believe Beck was on CNN. I'd see him occasionally while channel surfing. To me, he was this guy with a crew cut and an old-style radio microphone sitting at a desk. Usually proclaiming loudly and in a surprised voice.
Now, Glenn Beck has a much different approach. An approach my colleague, a well-educated, very intelligent businessman finds off-putting. To him, Beck is too high-voltage, simplistic and animated.
However, as I contended in a recent conversation with my friend, that is precisely why Glenn Beck is now so popular.
Simply put, Glenn Beck knows how to appeal to a large audience, on television, about fundamental political and philosophical topics. He takes dry topics and animates them in a disarmingly simple fashion.
A few years ago, I was a guest on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News program. During a break in taping, due to an equipment malfunction, O'Reilly began to critique the comments and responses to his questions that we had just taped. He found my approach to be a bit too esoteric for his audience.
To paraphrase O'Reilly, he said something like,
'Listen, I'm not Neil Cavuto, and you're not on his show. My audience is different. The folks want things simple and direct. Keep it simple and clear.'
My subsequent, simpler answers and comments were just what O'Reilly wanted.
I think that, like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck knows exactly who his audience is. Most of the people who watch him aren't like my colleague.
They aren't as well-read, deliberative or educated. Whereas my friend would like to see the old-style Beck, engaging in deep discussions with a series of guests, the new Beck is much more lively and engaging.
What Glenn Beck has done, really, is move to an all-visual presentation style that appeals to his audience. Watch his show and look at his props.
The whiteboard on which he frequently scrawls his points. Or uses with magnetic-backed pictures of people to fill in points on some diagram of Wonderboy's administration.
He frequently plays videos again, and again, and again. Especially key clips from Wonderboy's campaign speeches. Like the one telling you to judge him by his advisers. Then Beck will play an embarrassing, revealing video of an Obama adviser over, and over, and over again.
Repetition is what makes such an impact on children. I saw my own children watch Barney or SpongeBob reruns more times than I could literally count.
Beck also uses a large video screen to project pictures topical to his comments.
The other day, as he was chiding South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, as a reply to Graham's dismissive remarks about Beck a few weeks ago, Beck pointedly had a large, clear, incredibly unflattering picture of Graham's face in a weird smirk, with one eye closed, left on his immense screen for about 3 minutes.
It was a priceless visual burning into viewers' brains that Graham is a goof-ball. Nothing like a silly picture to leave an image.
The other thing Glenn Beck takes to heart is that we learn best when offered multi-media inputs. Beck will talk while either working at his whiteboard, pointing to pictures, or running videos. There are almost always at least two media streams coming at you.
And, lastly, Glenn Beck is an entertainer. He has learned to entertain as he preaches and teaches. His shows are vibrant, and, in Marshall McCluhan's vernacular, very "hot."
Add it all up, and Glenn Beck behaves more like your favorite high school or college teacher than a dry television program anchor.
He's just as deep as the latter and, actually, deeper than most nowadays. But because he wraps everything in high-energy video, movement and dynamic action, even dry topics like the Constitution, Woodrow Wilson's Progressivism, and our Founding Fathers, come alive.
And that is why Glenn Beck is the most popular guy on television at 5pm.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Edolphus "Ed" Towns' Hand Is Forced On Countrywide Investigation
Last week I wrote this post concerning Edolphus "Ed" Towns (D-NY) shameful squelching of his committee's members' push to investigate the so-called "Friends of Angelo" VIP mortgage progam.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal reported that Democratic Representatives Mike Quigley, of Illinois, and Paul Hodes, of New Hampshire, broke party ranks and joined California Republican Darrell Issa to force Towns to issue the relevant subpoenas to Bank of America for the Countrywide records.
Covering any federal and state officials, plus those at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the subpoenaed records should finally cast light on the truth of denials by Democratic Senators Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd that they never knew they received special treatment.
Of course, Towns' foot-dragging might save Dodd, who is in the fight of his life to retain his Senate seat.
But, having heard and seen both Dodd's and Conrad's sanctimonious denials, it's going to be fascinating to see what evidence emerges from the Countrywide files, phone and email records.
Oh, and let's not forget Ed Towns, either. Remember, he, too, denied receiving any special treatment on his Countrywide mortgages.
I suppose it's way too much to hope that Quigley's and Hodes' votes presage a wholesale return to Congressional members voting and acting for the public good. But maybe it's a small start.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal reported that Democratic Representatives Mike Quigley, of Illinois, and Paul Hodes, of New Hampshire, broke party ranks and joined California Republican Darrell Issa to force Towns to issue the relevant subpoenas to Bank of America for the Countrywide records.
Covering any federal and state officials, plus those at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the subpoenaed records should finally cast light on the truth of denials by Democratic Senators Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd that they never knew they received special treatment.
Of course, Towns' foot-dragging might save Dodd, who is in the fight of his life to retain his Senate seat.
But, having heard and seen both Dodd's and Conrad's sanctimonious denials, it's going to be fascinating to see what evidence emerges from the Countrywide files, phone and email records.
Oh, and let's not forget Ed Towns, either. Remember, he, too, denied receiving any special treatment on his Countrywide mortgages.
I suppose it's way too much to hope that Quigley's and Hodes' votes presage a wholesale return to Congressional members voting and acting for the public good. But maybe it's a small start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
