Gingrich Calls On The Conservatives
Yoohoo, anybody home? From NRO Online:
...Because this gigantic power shift to Washington and this avalanche of taxpayer money is being proposed by a Republican administration, the normal conservative voices have been silent or confused.It's time to end the silence and clear up the confusion.
Congress has an obligation to protect the taxpayer.
Congress has an obligation to limit the executive branch to the rule of law.
Congress has an obligation to perform oversight.
Congress was designed by the Founding Fathers to move slowly, precisely to avoid the sudden panic of a one-week solution that becomes a 20-year mess.
There are four major questions that have to be answered before Congress adopts a new $700 billion burden for the American taxpayer. On each of these questions, I believe Congress's answer will be "no" if it slows down long enough to examine the facts.
Question One: Is the current financial crisis the only crisis affecting the economy?
Question Two: Is a big bureaucracy solution the only answer?
Question Three: Will the Paulson plan be implemented with transparency and oversight?
Question Four: In two months we will have an election and then there will be a new administration. Is this plan something we want to trust to a post-Paulson Treasury?
As he says, the answer is no to each, but he explains in greater detail at the link.
Oh, and yoohoo, Congress, it's called Congressional oversight, not overlook. Newt gets into what's been keeping Congress busy here. A few of points:
•In the name of economic security the Congress passed a Sarbanes-Oxley law which is driving companies from public scrutiny into private ownership, driving new companies out of New York and into London for financing and slowing down dramatically the development of new companies. Let me be very clear, Sarbanes Oxley has failed. It failed to warn about Fannie Mae. It failed to warn about Freddie Mac. It failed to warn about Bear Stearns. It failed to warn about Lehman Brothers. It failed to warn about AIG. And yet, while being a total failure in every big case, it adds $3 million dollars a year to the cost of a startup company having to hire accountants and take care of paperwork when they actually should be focused on growing, hiring people, and being productive. The result has been in the second quarter of this year, we had zero new public offerings by new companies, and in the third quarter we had one. We used to have thirty or forty every quarter. That's how bad Sarbanes Oxley is weakening this economy.•In the name of national security Congress adopted a visa law which cripples America's ability to attract successful people, crippled our international tourism business, and weakened our ability to attract first class students in math and science.
•Congress insists on education policies which prop up failed bureaucracies, trap children in institutions which destroy their future -- and in some neighborhoods making prison much more likely than college. These failed policies guarantee the continuing decay of America in both economic and national security competition with China and India.
•Americans still put up with a failing healthcare system. They still pay too much for too little quality, too little choice, and too little convenience. Congress has thus far failed to improve safety by investing in electronic health records, failed to crack down on fraud, and failed to find a way through tax credits to make sure everyone can have health insurance.
•In the name of limiting legal immigration while ignoring the millions of illegal immigrants in America, the Congress refuses to adopt policies to increase the number of smart, educated and successful people who can come to America to work. This refusal leads to high value jobs being exported to, India, China, Canada, and elsewhere while low paying illegal jobs grow in the United States.
•For too long, Congress has failed to stop the practice of using surplus Social Security funds for other purposes, including pork barrel spending. This continued raid on Social Security makes it more and more difficult to achieve real reform for Social Security.
Congress compounds our long term weakness in economic competition by sustaining the world's second highest corporate tax rate (three times higher than Ireland's), sustaining a legal system which is the most economically destructive on the planet, and taxing capital gains. All this while the world's best competitors encourage savings and investment with low corporate tax rates and zero taxes on capital gains.
How about we all compromise and get rid of Obama, McCain, Biden and Palin and put Newt in the Presidency? Oprah can be vice president, to keep everyone else happy.
Eric at September 23, 2008 10:01 AM
Heaven forbid we should ever address the points he brings up. Let's make some snarky comment instead.
I don't think Newt has all of the answers. In particular, it's Congress that helped us into this mess with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by refusing to exercise appropriate oversight. I'm no John McCain fan, but it looks like he was right when he co-sponsored S190...
I do like Newt's questions, and I'm finding it impossible to believe that anyone would take seriously the idea of letting the anyone, anywhere spend up to 700 billion dollars of our money without any oversight or review. If there's 3000 million of us in this country, that's over $2000 each. Would you sign that IOU? I would not, even if it were Mother Theresa holding it.
MarkD at September 23, 2008 11:29 AM
over 300 million... Preview is my friend...
MarkD at September 23, 2008 11:30 AM
Ron Paul had some great things to say on CNN, too.
Pirate Jo at September 23, 2008 11:33 AM
There is only one or two person, who can get us of this trouble.
Napoleon or Hitler. Take your pick.
He will clean out this mess made by this too much democratic society by arresting all of the Congress members. A lot of them would be imprisoned without trials.
Everyone needs to sacrifice. There will be no dance party between 9 and 5. Everyone has to take a bus to work. The gas and food will be rationed. One child per family.
However, if the national budget is not balanced in five years, Napoleon or Hitler will be required to perform Hara-Kiri in front of the Thomas Jefferson's grave. If it is balanced, he needs to be assassinated by a guy like McVeigh. And the whole cycle will start again. Hopefully, we learned a lesson through this experience.
Chang at September 23, 2008 1:01 PM
Congress created this regulatory nightmare. Fucking hell.
The Administration wants to exercise budgetary authority without Congress, but the constitution grants Congress sole authority and responsibility for the budget. Fucking hell.
We've just accepted that the government owns everything and that constitutional limits on the Branches is void. Fucking hell.
Jeff at September 23, 2008 1:03 PM
These are the people you're bailing out:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/04/predatory_lending_or_mortgage.html
Scary.
Conan the Grammarian at September 23, 2008 1:19 PM
Chang,
Hitler was a socialist and I'm not sure of Napoleon's credentials. The US is up shit-creek (so to speak) precisely because individuals in the gov't decided they knew better than the markets did (and are still deciding unfortunately). Dictators destroy their countries economies, they don't improve them. And before you say China is doing great thanks to dictators ... think again ... the only reason China is pulling itself from deep poverty is thanks to the liberalization of its markets. You certainly do not need a dictator for that.
Charles at September 23, 2008 1:20 PM
OK, i saw Hillary Clinton on the CBS morning show today talking about the economic crisis. She told Harry Smith that she has been predicting this situation during the last two years of her campaign. This can only mean two things.
1) If she did predict it, then I want to hear the soundbites. Also, if she predicted it, then why the fuck didn't she do anything about it?
-or-
2) She's lying, and thus there are no soundbites.
Would someone please shove a big rock in her mouth? thank you.
Sterling at September 23, 2008 1:38 PM
Chang - please hit yourself in the head with a very large hammer. Repeat until you are unable to type. Thank you.
I find it absolutely incredible that Congress is holding hearings where they are grilling Hank Paulsen over the issue of bailing out the fucked up liar-mortgage market.
I had to turn it off because I just could not handle seeing Chris Dodd's fat criminal face on my television.
Dodd was one of the CREATORS of the problem, and he thinks that he can solve it?
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them." - A. Einstein.
brian at September 23, 2008 1:38 PM
"Dictators destroy their countries economies, they don't improve them. And before you say China is doing great thanks to dictators ... think again"
The democracy (freedom) without law and order in any society means anarchy. Just look at various nations in Africa or South America for examples. It only brings corruption and freedom to rob your neighbor at a gun point.
People forget that Mao made sure train runs on time.
You cannot improve the economy without the trains running on time. The dictator will enforce it if the public (employees) do not follow the posted the arrival or departure times.
Had Mao (good revolutionary, bad politician) been assassinated right away after 1945 and Deng took over immediately, China would have been the biggest economy in the world right now. And it would have nothing to do with democracy.
Chang at September 23, 2008 1:46 PM
Where does the Constitution grant power to the federal government to "encourage" home ownership? I've been educating myself about the steps that have taken place along the way to get us into this mess, but the first step never should have been taken.
This whole situation is just too goofy. Why homes, and not cars? No one should have to drive an old beater, so where's my ACORN group when I want a new Mercedes?
Not everyone can afford a house. Well, so what? Not everyone wants one, either! Why is there a perception that "society" benefits when more people own homes? Why is owning "better" than renting? I think it depends on the individual situation. People who aren't tied down by home ownership, for example, can travel and relocate quickly when their job skills are badly needed in another state or city. That's GOOD for everyone.
The financial markets are simply correcting themselves the way they should. Government meddling was what caused this problem in the first place, and the removal of this meddling is what we need to fix it. Rip the damn Band-Aid off and be done with it. I do NOT want to see this bailout take place. I get the idea most other people don't, either. Everyone I work with and talk to is mad as hell about it.
Pirate Jo at September 23, 2008 2:14 PM
Where does the Constitution grant power to the federal government to "encourage" home ownership? I've been educating myself about the steps that have taken place along the way to get us into this mess, but the first step never should have been taken.
Once the Socialist States come into being, you will only take according to your ability. It's all about the higher planes of consciousness. Actually, the percentage of default is very low. From what I understand, the problem is, these default mortgages are mixed in with good ones, so the mixed deal is hard to sell.
The Mad Hungarian at September 23, 2008 3:03 PM
Actually, the longer this goes on, the more it looks like the Chrysler bailout.
And the government made out OK on that one.
Then again, they were dealing with Iacocca.
How about we put him in charge at AIG?
brian at September 23, 2008 3:08 PM
"Chang - please hit yourself in the head with a very large hammer. Repeat until you are unable to type. Thank you."
I am sorry but I could not. A real pretty tall blonde showed up from nowhere and took the hammer from me.
If you did not like my original idea, I have a back up plan to get us out of this mess.
My new plan. Only taxpayers get to vote. In another word, if you don't pay in the system, you have no voice. Also, if you pay in more taxes, you have more voting power. In another word, if you pay in $2,000 taxes, you get two votes. $3,000 in taxes, you get three votes.
This way top 20% elite will not bitch any more about paying more taxes as now they get to decide where the tax money goes. They might even volunteer to pay more to decide the direction of the policy. The tax dead beats will file income tax returns, so they could have a say in the deal. This way, we will balance the budget in no time and limit the voting process to only people, who have the stake in the policy. They will not be playing with someone else's money, so they will be cautious.
However, the 20% of tax collected must be spent to take care of the bottom 20%'s need to prevent the Bolshevik revolution.
Chang at September 23, 2008 6:19 PM
I've got a better idea.
First, you get the hammer back and hit yourself with it. You'll either stop functioning, or you'll become enlightened and understand that socialism will never work so long as humans are involved.
Second, repeal the 16th amendment, removing the ability from the Federal government to tax individual citizens.
Third, end pretty much all direct payments FROM the federal government to individuals. If anyone's gonna do that, it ought to be the states.
Fourth, any "bailout" is contingent upon the federal government taking possession of assets that can be sold to recoup the losses.
Finally, if you want to end the shit we have going on in the markets now, require absolute transparency in all financial transactions.
brian at September 23, 2008 7:03 PM
Thanks for posting the link, Conan. I've been thinking the same damned thing. The idiots about to lose their homes are hardly innocent victims. Why should I have sympathy (let alone help them stay in a home I couldn't get for being too honest) for someone who lied on an app losing their home? That signature on a blank form bit? Gimme a break, she knew it was going to be filled out with whatever false information was needed. That's why she did it. And anyone knows their signature is attesting to something. Let them lose their homes and let the shady lenders go down with them. If it makes house prices fall, good. Maybe, finally, my honesty and hard work will be rewarded. (Yeah, right.)
Chang, why do I suspect I wouldn't like your third suggestion either -- or your 100th. And, Christ, like the poor aren't at the mercy of the rich in this country enough as it is? How about instead of getting extra votes for being wealthy (though Bill Gates running this country probably would be a vast improvement, grant you that), law-abiding citizens get one for being honest and self-supporting. Every decade of adulthood that passes without being found guilty of a violation of the law, you get an extra vote. I'd be up to 4 now. I like that better.
Yes, people, I'm just joking. I think it's outrageous that felons don't get to vote. And, you may have noticed, I'm not usually on the side of the criminals.
T's Grammy at September 24, 2008 6:58 AM
Oh, and, Eric -- Oprah? Are you trying to give me nightmares? Tell me you were kidding.
T's Grammy at September 24, 2008 6:59 AM
Leave a comment