 |
 |
Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Cheyenne, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, questioned Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner at a hearing today about the plan to use public money and private investors to clear toxic assets off the books of banks, and about executive compensation.
Hat tip: The Oklahoman’s “Inside the Beltway” blog:
Related:
Wilson Research Strategies: Who Takes The Blame For The Bonus Backlash?
“This is not a road to recovery. This is a recipe for disaster.” -Tom Cole (R-Okla.)
With all eyes focused on how the Pelosi-Reid-Obama “stimulus” plan spends money, there’s been less attention paid to where government will get the money — and with what consequences.
It must come out of someone’s pocket. The decision by “stimulus” sponsors? Borrow the money, mostly from foreign economies. America already borrows heavily from other countries — especially the Chinese. But we should remember that whoever pays the piper gets to call the tune. Foreign lenders aren’t inclined to whistle “Yankee Doodle!”
But foreign economies are not an infinite source of credit. They have their own troubled economies to worry about. And when they go looking for overseas investment opportunities, they’re going to be looking for the best deal. Read more…
Related
AP: 4 of 5 Oklahoma reps vote against economic bill
“Boren, D-Muskogee, said he supported the bill because Congress needed to take “bold, swift action” to avert a worsening of the economic downturn.”
[Oklahoma Democratic Congressman Dan] Boren said Obama “missed an opportunity” for the stimulus bill to be bipartisan.
“It was a good thing for the president to meet with Republicans. The previous administration never met with Democratic members of Congress.
“The problem is that it became a Democrat bill and not an American bill,” Boren continued, “because he didn’t use any of the Republican ideas.”
Oklahoman Horizon TV visit with Phil Smith, national political director of the Concord Coalition, about what can be done to our federal budget deficit.
Hat tip: OklahomaHorizonTV
The American people are waking up. The behemoth Obama-Pelosi “stimulus” bill rampaging through Congress is just another bailout: this time to rescue big government from its own misbehavior.
From an entertainment standpoint, the biggest problem is finding a proper name. The bill deserves Hollywood treatment because it included such special goodies for Hollywood (at least until Sen. Tom Coburn (R- OK) played Grinch and got them removed). But it’s a cacophony of ideas that only “Mad Men” could love.
It could be named “CSI” — “Congressional Stimulus Inefficiency.”
Either that or “Ugly Betty.”
It’s time to drop the “stimulus” and “economic recovery” terms and call the legislation by its proper description: The Mother of All Government Bailouts. Read more…
Hat tip: NewsmaxTV
Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe tells Newsmax TV items in the trillion dollar stimulus bill that will do nothing to stimulate the economy, like giving refunds to people who don’t pay any taxes. He notes the House version would even give money to illegal aliens. Also, hear the Republican lawmaker explain why closing Gitmo is a very dangerous and foolish idea. He hasn’t given up the fight to keep it open and explains why.
Last week, President Obama issued an executive order closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which houses hundreds of suspected terrorists and enemy combatants. I was shocked by this announcement, but even more concerned by the fact that the President had no plans as to what would happen next.
Where would these prisoners, terrorists who are intent on harming Americans, go? Would we release them on American soil? Transport them to American prisons? Return them to their country of origin? And if they stay in this country, what rights would be afforded to them?
If they are released or transferred to another country, we cannot ensure they will not return to the battlefield or attempt to attach Americans or our allies. In fact, according to the Pentagon, 61 detainees who were released from Guantanamo have returned to terrorist activities. Read more…
Pat Campell, of KFAQ 1170 in Tulsa, interviews former Oklahoma Congressman Ernest Istook, now with The Heritage Foundation. Mr. Istook discusses the auto industry bailout and the fact that there ARE profitable automakers in the country. You’re just not hearing about them.
Click here to listen to podcast
Related:
Bloomberg.com: GM, Chrysler May Accept Bankruptcy
By Ernest Istook
Whose fingerprints are on the weapon that murdered the U.S. economy?
Multiple culprits deserve blame, but the Clinton administration stands out as a ringleader for diverting billions of dollars into junk sub-prime mortgages. Those loans have fouled the economy and siphoned away the capital needed by businesses and families today.
Government created a quota system that required lending to people who lacked the ability to repay.
Clinton’s HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) decreed that big chunks of mortgages must be issued to borrowers with poor finances. It started at 12 percent of all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages in 1996. By 2008, that proportion had more than doubled, to 28 percent.
Because Fannie and Freddie dominated the mortgage market, holding about $5 trillion in mortgages, they effectively dictated mortgage standards. The result: Their misguided practices rippled through lenders across the country. If banks made a sub-prime loan, they could re-sell it to Fannie and Freddie. And unless banks made those loans, there was a limit to other loans that would be bought.
As HUD wrote in a 2004 report, explaining its post-1996 quotas:
HUD’s … Regulation imposes no requirement for the total number of home purchase mortgages that a GSE [Government-Sponsored Enterprise] must buy. Rather, the rule provides that, however many home purchase loans in metropolitan areas the GSEs buy, a certain percentage must be in each goal category. For example, if a GSE buys 1 million home purchase mortgages in metropolitan areas in 2005, then 450,000 of these mortgages would need to be for low- and moderate-income families. Read more…
Related:
The Oklahoman’s “Inside the Beltway” blog: Istook’s Legal Fees
Rep. Jason Murphey
Because of my point of view about the massively inappropriate nature of lobbyist influence over policy makers, I have closely observed the mind set of those who benefit from lobbyist funding. I have come to believe there are a sizable number of elected officials who use a special type of situational ethics logic to excuse their acceptance of this money.
If you have ever attended a political forum where a politician was forced to field questions about the influence of lobbyists, you may have made these same observations. The politicians usually defend the status-quo by talking about the important role the lobbyist play in “educating” policy makers. Rarely will the lawmaker talk about the involvement of the lobbyist’s checkbook in funding his/her campaigns for office, and it is especially interesting to observe the lawmaker’s defense of the very inappropriate practice of accepting personal gifts from the special interests.
In recent days, the US Congress has been debating taking steps that I believe will inappropriately involve the federal government in matters that should be left to the free market. This recent economic turmoil has reminded me of a recently released book (a fascinating read) by hedge fund manager David Einhorn entitled, Fooling Some of the People All of the Time. Read more…
Related:
Competitive Enterprise Institute’s “Bailout Watch” blog
AP: (via Durant Daily Democrat) Oklahomans sound off on bailout plan