The First Debate

For me, last night’s debate between John McCain and Barak Obama was anti-climatic.   The debate highlighted the stark differences between the two candidates, but these differences were already readily apparent to most observers.   If you preferred McCain and his philosophy before the debate, you probably still do.   If you preferred Obama and his philosophy before the debate, you probably still do.   I cannot understand how anyone could still be undecided, but if you were undecided before the debate, you are probably still undecided and more confused than ever.  Since I do not believe the debate changed many minds, I would have to characterize it as a draw, with neither candidate emerging as the clear winner. 

The economic portion of the debate was most remarkable for what was not said by either candidate.   We are in the midst of a major meltdown in the financial markets, but neither candidate offered any solutions to the problems we are facing.   Obama, of course, blamed the Republicans, the Bush Administration and an anti-regulation culture for the problems.  McCain talked about greed and lack of responsibility, but he failed to respond effectively to Obama’s charges about the cause of the problems, and he failed to mention that the Democrats played a leading role in establishing the laws and regulations that led to the subprime mortgage crisis, which in turn led to many of the other financial problems we are facing.   To my dismay, both candidates failed to show leadership by taking a stand on what should be done to deal with the crisis.  Both candidates dodged the difficult issues currently being debated in Congress. 

McCain was successful in showing that he, unlike Obama, has a strong record as a fiscal conservative.   McCain also came across to me as having much more knowledge and experience in matters involving foreign policy and national security and as being more prepared than Obama to serve as Commander-in-Chief.   

The biggest surprise in the debate for me was Obama’s demeanor.   I have always viewed Obama as being very likeable, very personable and extremely polished.   Last night, I thought Obama’s conduct when McCain was speaking reflected anger and impatience and bordered on being rude.   He repeatedly interrupted McCain or murmured comments under his breath when McCain was speaking.    Obama’s demeanor last night was different from the pleasant demeanor I have observed in the past.  

McCain’s style during the debate was not without fault.   He came across as arrogant and condescending when he repeatedly said, “Senator Obama does not understand that….”   I suppose the statement could be true, but it is more likely that McCain and Obama simply disagree, and a disagreement is not the same as a lack of understanding. 

Foreign Policy and National Security

In my opinion, the single most important responsibility of the President of the United States—and the federal government itself—is to provide for the safety and security of the nation and its citizens.   All other issues are irrelevant when terrorists or foreign powers are threatening to take away our safety, security and freedom, not to mention our lives.  

The first debate between John McCain and Barak Obama is scheduled to take place today.   At the time of this writing, it is still not clear if the debate will occur as scheduled.   If it does occur, the focus of the debate is supposed to be foreign policy and national security.   Each candidate will attempt to convince us that he is best qualified to establish the country’s foreign policies and to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces.   Although I am very interested in the debates, my decision about who is best qualified to protect the country will be based primarily on the records of the candidates and the parties they represent rather than on their campaign promises.   I place a heavy discount on campaign rhetoric and campaign promises. 

It is especially important at this critical time in our nation’s history to have a President who has the proven judgment and experience to establish the country’s foreign policies and to protect the country.   Terrorism continues to be a major threat to Western civilization.  Russia is flexing its muscles.   Iran and North Korea have developed or are developing nuclear bombs.  I believe McCain clearly has the judgment and experience to deal with these critical issues and to serve as an outstanding Commander-in-Chief.   I think Obama has shown some signs of good judgment, but he also has demonstrated that he is somewhat naïve when it comes to foreign policy, and he lacks the experience that I would prefer in a Commander-in-Chief.   More importantly, I cannot evaluate McCain or Obama as a potential Commander-in-Chief without associating them with the political parties they represent and the positions taken by their parties during the last seven years. 

Like him or not, President Bush, in my opinion, deserves great credit for protecting the country since 9/11.  McCain has generally agreed with and supported Bush’s anti-terror and foreign policies, although he has disagreed with Bush on many issues, including the use of torture and the early conduct of the war in Iraq.    Democrats will try to convince you that Bush and McCain have never had a disagreement and that Bush’s policies have made the country less secure.   In my opinion, this claim is simply an effort by the Democrats to deflect attention from their own conduct since 9/11 and to keep Bush from getting the credit he deserves for keeping the homeland safe. 

When it comes to security for you and your family, do you want results or partisan political rhetoric?   Let’s look at the records of both parties to see which one has the most credibility when it comes to national security.   During the seven years since 9/11, we have not suffered another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.   I don’t think anyone, Democrat or Republican, thought this would be possible during the days and weeks following 9/11.  In addition, although Osama bin Laden has not been captured, he has been hiding in a cave for the last seven years, and Al Qaeda, his terrorist organization, has been severely crippled, but unfortunately not destroyed.   In short, President Bush has been very aggressive to protect the country, and he has been successful.   

Unless you are Rip van Winkle, it should be clear to you, if you are honest with yourself, that the Democrats have fought virtually every step taken by Bush to protect the country, just as they have fought Bush in every other way during his Presidency.  For sure, some of Bush’s policies went too far and needed to be modified in order to protect the civil liberties of innocent citizens, and the Democrats deserve credit for their efforts to bring needed balance to some of those policies.   Nevertheless, the Democrats have consistently come across to me as being more interested in opposing Bush than in protecting the country.  Now they want to convince you and me they are the ones who will protect the country better than the Republicans. 

Daniel Henninger, a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, recently wrote:  “To vote for Sen. Obama is to also vote for a Democratic Party that consumed most of the political system’s available oxygen for seven years fighting a U.S. president harder than they did the perpetrators of September 11.”   Henninger also wrote, “Political struggle is ever with us, but given the realities that 9/11 revealed (as did the terror bombings in Europe), the relentless scale of the Democratic opposition to the Bush administration’s anti-terror policies is hard to square.” 

All of us have to decide what is most important to us.   If your answer, like mine, is the safety and security of the country, you then have to decide which candidate is most likely to make the country a safer place for our children and grandchildren.   For me, it’s no contest.    Based on the Democratic Party’s intense opposition to policies designed to protect the country, it would be very difficult for me to place my trust in its nominee for President.    You have the right to disagree, and I am sure many of you will.

 

The Culture of Blame and Victimhood

Let’s say I decide to buy a house I can’t afford.   My decision is based on the following two assumptions:   (1) my income will keep going up, and (2) the house will appreciate in value.   If my assumptions are wrong, then you may think I made a bad decision for which I should accept responsibility.  I say, however, that my inability to repay the loan that I obtained to buy my house is the bank’s fault.   I am a victim of the bank.   The bank should have known I couldn’t afford the house and should have refused to make the loan that allowed me to buy it. 

But the bank president says, “It’s not my fault.   Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to make loans to borrowers who couldn’t afford to repay them.   In addition, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were willing to purchase the bad loans from me, so why shouldn’t I make them?   If my bank had refused to make loans to unworthy borrowers, then the bank regulators would have withheld approval for me to open new branches or do other things for which I needed their approval.”  

Well, then, it must be the fault of Congress.   Congress not only passed the Community Reinvestment Act, but it also created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and encouraged them to buy subprime loans from the banks so that the banks would have the funds to make more subprime loans.   The intentions of Congress were pure.  Congress simply wanted to make “affordable housing” available to everyone.   In the dictionary used by members of Congress, “affordable housing” means housing you cannot afford. 

So who should we blame in Congress?   As you would expect, the Democrats are blaming the Republicans, and the Republicans are blaming the Democrats.   The Democrats say we need more regulation, even though they ignored repeated warnings of the need to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and they voted against Republican-sponsored legislation in 2005 and 2006 to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.   The Republicans say the problem is not too little regulation but too many bad regulations, including regulations supported by Democrats to promote “affordable housing”.   Both sides blame the other for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which allowed mergers of commercial and investment banks, and which was approved by a Republican-controlled Congress and proudly supported and signed by President Clinton, a Democrat. 

Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress also blame the Federal Reserve Board, one of the few federal agencies over which Congress has no control, and greed on Wall Street.   The Federal Reserve kept interest rates too low for too long, which made it possible for financial institutions to borrow money at unreasonably low rates and to incur too much debt.  The financial institutions blame the banks for making so many bad mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford to repay them, and they blame the Federal Reserve for making it too easy for them to borrow money.   Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, blames “a global savings glut”. 

If it wasn’t already obvious to you, it should be now.  We live in a culture where there is no individual responsibility.  Someone else is always responsible for anything bad that happens.   We are all victims.   But there’s no need to worry because the government will take care of us and protect us against our bad decisions.   This gives me great comfort until I remember that the government’s money comes from the taxpayers—victims like you and me.

 

 

The Road to Socialism

It has been apparent to me for some time that the United States has been sliding down the road to socialism.   This slide has continued in both Democratic and Republican administrations.  Large numbers of people, perhaps even a majority, want the government to provide for them in every way, and our politicians are more than happy to accommodate them.   Politicians who promise the most are the ones who get elected.   Our politicians clearly recognize the wisdom of George Bernard Shaw who said, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”   

Even before the current crisis in the financial markets had resulted in widespread panic,  Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina made the following comments at an event sponsored by the Heritage Foundation:   “I'm afraid that America is sliding towards socialism.  Government is now the nation's largest property owner (controlling nearly 1/3 of the land mass), it effectively owns more than 1/3 of the profits of all businesses and more than 1/3 of the incomes of most working Americans.   Government controls the majority of education and healthcare services in America.   It owns the primary retirement income plan for most Americans (Social Security).   The federal government, through a burdensome regulatory system and undecipherable tax code, effectively controls a significant portion of the nation's economic development and business activity.”  

During the few short weeks since Senator DeMint made those comments, our slide toward socialism has accelerated dramatically.   In the last few weeks alone, the U.S. government has (i) nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which means that the government now stands behind $5 trillion of mortgages, or nearly half of all home loans outstanding, (ii) taken over control of American International Group, Inc., the country’s largest insurer, (iii) guaranteed $29 billion of distressed assets in order to induce J.P. Morgan Chase to purchase Bear Stearns, (iv) encouraged the sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America,  (v) agreed to guarantee $3.4 trillion in money market mutual funds, and (vi) requested Congress to authorize the government to purchase up to $700 billion in distressed mortgage-related assets from private firms.

This is scary.   In the past few weeks, the U.S. taxpayers have incurred real or potential liabilities of trillions of dollars to bail out private businesses.   All of these dramatic steps have been taken or recommended by a Republican Administration and by two men, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who were previously known for supporting free trade and for their belief in limited government involvement in private business.   According to The New York Times, Mr. Paulson explained his shift in thinking by saying, “There are no atheists in foxholes and no ideologues in financial crises.”

Although there are disagreements over the details, Republicans and Democrats alike, with a few exceptions, seem to agree that the recent steps taken by the government have been necessary in order to prevent an even worse crisis in the financial markets.  In a few years, with the benefit of hindsight, we will know whether these steps were effective in reducing the impact of the current crisis on the overall economy.  For now, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke remind me of a coach who is forced to call a play with 10 seconds remaining in a national championship game.   If the play works, the coach is a genius.   If it doesn’t, he’s an idiot.    History will treat Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke as geniuses or as idiots.

Aside from the current financial crisis, my primary concern today is that we will never be able to turn back the clock and reverse the country’s slide toward socialism.    Over the years, I have observed that politicians and government entities are always trying to expand their power and authority over individuals and businesses.   They never want to relinquish power they already have.  I am confident they will not want to give up their recently acquired powers even after the current crisis is over.  If the government refuses to give up its new powers, our slide toward socialism will continue, and the freedoms I have enjoyed during my lifetime will not be available to my children and grandchildren.