economy

What's with this G20 summit last weekend in Washington? Who are the G20? The MSM as usual abdicated their duty - did what they do best: what they cannot spin or obfuscate, they bury.

Initial research learns that the G20 have emerged from the the Doha Trade Round, set up on the basis of a Brazilian initiative in the run-up to the Cancun Conference. Apart of the states making up the G8, G20 member states include Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the EU and European Central Bank, and the NGOs IMF, the World Bank and their Development Committee.

With the notable exception of South Korea neither of these countries has a principled tradition of free market capitalism. All, until recently suffered, or are still bowing under the rule of theocrats, autocrats, dictators, a collective, or all of the above.

The Third World is slowly crawling on to the world stage, out of its largely self-imposed, poverty ridden, Marxism or theocracy driven lethargy. But swathes of Latin America are already in danger of regressing back into darkness, even before having fully emerged from it; Socialist as well as Islamic beginnings are simply antithetical to individual rights, the moral requirement for a fully functioning free-market democracy.

And then there's good, old chauvinist commie prop. The Heritage Foundation here reports on the PR stunt China pulled just ahead of the summit!

What can be expected of such a global, economic governing body? They cannot even be trusted to handle a trade round, let alone lead, run and reform the world's economic and financial system. How would they do that ... by committee, by revelation, or by decree?!

The situation is hardly better in the state of Europe, which is steadily desolving into a post-democratic, Hegelian Absolute. European states are challenging American leadership of the global economy, calling on President-Elect Obama to embrace Europe as America’s equal partner.

Soeren Kern on The Brussels Journal had this to say last week: "The idea behind this new man-to-man relationship with Washington was hatched by (surprise, surprise) France, which currently holds the EU’s six-month rotating presidency. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner says the reason for establishing an equal transatlantic partnership is that “the world has changed.” Europe has suddenly realized that the United States “is not the only one concerned by the world’s problems. The European Union has become more resolute…. We don’t want to play a secondary role any more,” says Kouchner," who is an experienced NGO builder (founder Doctors Without Borders).

On the economy the French - as most Europeans - can be fully trusted to commit a coup of state against the private sector. Soeren Kern: "Self-regulation to solve all problems, it’s finished,” Sarkozy says. “Laissez-faire, it’s finished. The all-powerful market that is always right, it’s finished…. It is necessary then for the state to intervene.”

John Gizzi on Human Events goes as far as saying the G20 meeting was in effect Sarkozy's summit, clarifying "that the goal of the French President, was future international economic summits that include many more nations beside the traditional G8 industrial titans. His secondary goal was to assimilate discretionary bondholders (countries that hold U.S. debt) into the summits (...)

John Gizzi

gives us the gist of what emerged from the summit: "(...) Sarkozy did get this long-stated desire of a "college of supervisors" for oversight of the books of major financial institutions operating across international borders. Moreover, the world leaders agreed that their systems would submit to periodic review by the International Monetary Fund (whose Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former French finance minister who was tapped for the IMF position by—you guessed it!—Nicolas Sarkozy).

A tougher line by ratings agencies on exhorbitant compensation for executives–either voluntary or regulatory—was called for in the final communiqué of the G20. Again, this was an issue doggedly pursued by Sarkozy.

With much of the actual work of the summit done behind closed doors, the media has had to rely on reports from anonymous sources on who said what to whom. Relying on such sources, the Washington Post pointed to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper as one who was particularly opposed to Sarkozy’s calls for greater global regulation over markets in sovereign nations.

We are looking at an entire round of talks stretching well into the next year. Apart from the above, nothing much emerged from present summit while outgoing President Bush acted as a forceful buffer against the anti capitalist onslaught. But as postmodern President-Elect Obama joins the company of Argentina, China and the other card-carrying members of the Grizzly 20 collective, we will soon all be reminded of which cloth that philosophy is a cut.

Related: - "Hurray! It's the Weekend of Capitalism!"-

Conservatives are carrying the water for one of the more enduring myths in American politics:  Economic malaise under Carter gave us Reagan and it stands to reason that a bad economy will bring in another GOP president.  As much as I'd like to strangle anyone hoping for a sustained FOUR YEARS worth of recession because it's not only your pocketbook being decimated, but also how such an event would eradicate the Republican Party as well.

Forget about the 1980 election for a moment, and think of other momentous elections in US history.  While Democrats win elections under different kinds of economic environment, Republicans only win during a sustained economic recovery.  By the time the 1994 Republican Revolution came around, the economy had been expanding since 1991 and held on to it during the subsequent boom years.  Bush I win in 1988 was also helped by the Reagan boom.  The oncoming recession of 2000 when the tech  bubble popped, Republicans saw its first losses in the Senate since 1994 and Bush losing the popular vote.  Recessions in the 1950s whittled the ranks of GOP congressional members despite Eisenhower's victories.  Richard Nixon's victories was brought in part by the fact that there were no recessions in the US from 1957-1973.  The sick economy brought on by the oil crisis in 1973 probably exacerbated his declining popularity.  By 1976, the expected happened with a Democrat being elected to take care of runaway inflation. 

What makes 1980 standout is that Reagan carried the election despite the fact that the economy was tanking.  Maybe this was one of the signs that a political realignment was finally complete that voters have abandoned the idea for the time-being that Democrats will protect Americans from tough economic times.

"Protect".  I think that's the reason why voters would rather have Democrats during tough economic times.  At the first appearance of economic downturn, the reaction is to hunker down and look for protection.  The first shock to come in during a recession is unemployment and the lack of future prospects of employment.  Democrats (and to be honest, Bush) will promote policies that are not growth-oriented but protection-oriented such as higher entitlment spending, bailouts, stimulus packages, trade protectionism, stronger union powers, and tax increases for the "rich".  The GOP is stuck with responding with policies that is too future-oriented to resonate with the voting public.  The GOP is there to promote policies to sustain an economic recovery  and to prevent the state from interfering in the people's consumption of the fruits of economic growth (e.g., entitlement reforms, reversal of statist policies, tax cuts, pro-business regulations, free trade). 

I know not to get carried away in using economic graphs to determine people's voting intentions.  Look what happened to all the silly predictions of Gore winning in 2000 and Bush losing in 2004 just because of economic performance.  However, we (conservatives) can not wish for an economic catastrophe under this administration.  It won't bring us a Reagan, just widespread poverty and international embarassment.  It's hard to argue for tax cuts when people are not making enough money to tax. 

My friend and colleague, Patrick Ottenhoff, had an interesting analysis of Virginia back in June that could be on the money:

Major federal contractors set up shop in Northern Virginia and, in turn, subcontracted work to technology firms that hired accountants and lawyers. The young professionals who work at those firms in Tysons Corner, Reston and Ashburn are part of Obama’s core constituency. But the ideology and lifeblood of many of these firms is rooted in continued defense spending — one part of the Bush legacy that McCain would be sure to continue. In an election in which Republicans’ Iraq policy will hurt McCain in almost every state, his bullish foreign policy could actually help him in some quarters of Virginia.

Let's forgive Pat for missing the economic crisis and improvement in Iraq and focus on the basic economic point for a moment. When Barney Frank said that he would cut defense spending by 25%, both resonating with an image of Barack Obama and particular statements, an opportunity was created.

Significant defense cuts have the opportunity to creat massive economic dislocations for people and communities. And they know it. Just look at the terror in Northern Virginia over BRAC. John McCain's campaign figured this out. This is basic paycheck issue for a lot of hard-working people. Suddenly, Barack Obama's "radicalism" means something to real people. Let's look at some numbers.

The key thing to realize hereis that you can cut ads in these states and people will get it. Imagine scripts like these:

Barack Obama doesn't just endanger our national security wtih his untested ideas, he  endangers [state]'s economic security.  In [state], that means [jobs] jobs. And it just starts there. When you remove those jobs from [state] everyone suffers from even lower house prices to the damage done to small businesses.

These can be supplemented with statements by local politians who, inevitably, fell over themselves to talk about BRAC and the damage that removing even one office at one military base, or even civilian office, would do to the community.

This is an issue that, when tied with Joe the Plumber and whatever crazy ACORN or whatever else stuff pops over the weekend can resonate with John McCain's underlying message. These are real issues. Barack Obama is talking about "change", while John McCain is talking about what's in your pocket-book. That's something that people understand and that we need to nail the last 5 days of the campaign.

Having just registered as a member at The Next Right, I feel as though the best way to get started is to post the letter that - as an Alum - I was asked to write on Sen. McCain's behalf in my law school's newspaper.

Slight editing - I named my former classmate in the actual letter.

----

THE CASE FOR JOHN McCAIN

A former classmate recruited me to make the case for John McCain – presumably because there are few who he could find to make it.  So, I am writing this as a student of American political history – being fairly certain that Senator Barack Obama will be elected to be the 44th President of the United States. After the Republican Party fell into many of the same traps that parties fall into when they’re in power, the stage is set for Senator Obama.

The reason I am so easy to dupe into an exercise like this is probably because my former classmate knows how I feel about the federal government as a “miracle drug.”  Its capacity to fix problems is overshadowed by its proven ability to prohibit American innovation and to cause far more problems than it could ever manage to fix.  Such a broad based offering leads me to Sen. John McCain, for whom I will be voting this November.  Whether this is an acceptable option for most of you will depend on what ideologies you embrace, what commercials you found most interesting, or for some it will just be a matter of habit – pulling the (R) or (D) lever (being a conservative who has lived his life in the northeast – I don’t expect any amount of good pointery in this missive to change minds).

I approach an election wanting to know the underlying philosophy of each candidate.  Issues are important, but new issues come to the Presidency every day and understanding the underlying ideals of a candidate is far more important to me than however they’ve triangulated a particular issue.

This year, I am left with two candidates who I find exceptionally talented – albeit in different ways.  Sen. Obama is the most gifted orator since Reagan.  He is not nearly as gifted off the cuff, but he is clearly an extremely intelligent man who has laid the foundation for his successes in the halls of academia and the Illinois State Legislature.  Since he wasn’t elected to the Senate until 2004, he could make the claim that he was the only major Democratic candidate who had been opposed to the invasion of Iraq.  Part of his appeal is that he has not been a creature of Washington for decades.  Sen. McCain is a man of conviction who has made a career of staking his position and living by it.

My concern with Senator Obama is that his public record reveals him to be little more than a political opportunist – which is infuriating if you’re trying to determine what underlying philosophy he has.  He is likely to be a President for whom political calculation is a more precious commodity than principle.  The finest example of this was the FISA bill, which he changed his position on once he became the nominee of his party and had to consider the fact that not just Democrats and Daily Kos readers would be voting for him in November.  In February of this year, he stated, “I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty.”  By June, he had changed his position, trying to couch his support by saying that as President he would carefully monitor the program – but in the end, siding with President Bush.  His decision to forgo the public financing was another demonstration of his preference for opportunity over developing an underlying philosophy of governance.  This move has effectively destroyed the public financing system, since no candidate going forward is likely to commit to it.  It seems absurd to watch Sen. Obama rail against a “broken system” when he is the one who broke it.  He also has – curiously – not disclosed his entire donor list, as Sen. McCain has.  While Sen. McCain has left his campaign open to public scrutiny, Sen. Obama shies away from it.  I also question a public official who has made his career by perfecting the “present” vote on the people’s dime.  I have a fundamental problem with the career-mindedness of our politicians as it is – but I will save that for another day. 

With the economy being in the frightful condition it’s in, I am leery of voting for Senator Obama.  A root cause of the financial breakdown is the mortgage crisis and the cooked books at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide and others.  With a recession coming, the importance of economic issues – and the importance of government efficiency – becomes paramount.

Does Senator Obama have a plan to be the steward of our economic destiny? In February, Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal did the math on the Illinois Senator’s economic proposals.  Sen. Obama’s proposals amounted to a 39.6% personal income tax; a 52.2% combined income and payroll tax, a 28% capital-gains tax, a 39.6% dividends tax, and a 55% estate tax.  Such imposition from the federal government left Sen. Obama with questions to answer in June.  Now, with the economy heading south for winter and credit markets locking up, the federal government ringing the economic neck of Americans is a poor choice.  Sen. Obama has since elaborated his position (fundamental change seems to be negotiable) – insisting that the top echelon will pay more (it’s their patriotic duty, after all), while 95% of Americans will receive a tax cut.  Such a claim leaves many heads spinning, however, since it is estimated that less than 70% of Americans actually pay federal income taxes as it is.  How is this tax cut to be delivered to those who aren’t paying federal income taxes?  Will they be getting money back that they didn’t actually put in?  If ten million more people will not be paying taxes, then at what point do we have more people collecting from the government than we have contributing to it?   Call it pandering, opportunism, or redistribution of wealth, but something fails to ring true in Sen. Obama’s proposals.  It would appear that Sen. Obama prefers a move toward socialist-market initiatives – the kind that have bogged down economic growth in Western Europe (the kind that much of Western Europe is moving away from). 

Talk of regulation or de-regulation, in my mind, is overshadowed by the fact that it was Sen. Obama’s own party that prevented the regulation and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  It doesn’t seem logical that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President will perform the proper oversight and regulation when they have so grandly dropped the ball on this issue so far.  Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and others were encouraged (via threat of financial penalty) to provide affordable housing and “subprime loans” to those who might not have otherwise had the opportunity to get a mortgage.  All of this was achieved under legislative devices like the Community Reinvestment Act.  Sen. Obama can give lip service to regulation and oversight until to his heart’s content, but when Armando Falcon, the Director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight brought the issue to Congress, Democrats accused Mr. Falcon of being overzealous, misguided, and even intimated that he was more interested in the political lynching of Franklin Raines than he was the structural integrity of Fannie and Freddie.  Was this what Sen. Obama has decried as “Bush’s deregulation” or was it a shell game that goes on all too often in Congress and in our politics?  This seems to be a problem that Sen. Obama is more likely to encourage than he is to remedy. 

Despite his skillful distancing and triangulating, Sen. Obama is the less desirable candidate in the face of such economic challenges.  While some invoke the Great Depression (as is the case whenever economic turmoil rolls around) this is the worst economic crisis we’ve seen since the Carter Administration.  The difference is that we can either change course, as we did in 1980, or we can revive policies that walk and talk like the New Deal and turn a potential recession into this century’s economic catastrophe.  In the 1980s, President Reagan worked with a Democratic Congress and managed to limit the economic damage.  In the 1930s, President Roosevelt and his New Dealers pushed through an agenda that managed to prolong the economic crisis aroused by the 1929 stock market crash.  They used the economic crisis as an excuse to advance their preferred policies. The idea that “capitalism broke” was misguided then and it is misguided now.  If its capitalism that is broken, what is it that is being offered in its place? 
 
John McCain – who may be running the most lackluster national campaign since Bob Dole in 1996 – has been a consistent advocate of government restraint, of reducing the deficit, and doing away with wasteful government spending.  These are adult answers to adult problems.  If Treasury Secretary Paulson’s plan is the right one, then America needs to be more responsible with every penny that comes to the federal government for easily the next decade.  Instead, the people who are causing the problem are allowed to spend at will, by dishonest means, in order to keep their careers moving forward. Sen. McCain’s promise that he’ll make earmark authors famous is a promise that I actually look forward to seeing realized.  In a time when we face novel challenges internationally, domestically, and economically, our Executive branch needs to serve a very simple purpose: hold Congress’ feet to the fire and insist they be adults.  Publicly shame them into being responsible if need be.  John McCain’s plain and simple leadership is what this country needs right now.  Every day I grow more convinced that we will go with style over substance, but I pray that in the closing days, Senator McCain will make the case that “Change We Can Believe In” is as useless a slogan as “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too” was.  It’s a clever campaign gimmick – but a useless governing philosophy.  I am not convinced that Senator Obama knows the difference and cannot endorse his candidacy.  The over used phrase “fundamental change” does not seem to be rooted in any particular plan for governance.  Senator McCain is an accomplished public servant who seems uncomfortable campaigning – and that may be all the clue we need as to what kind of Commander in Chief he would be.

Both men have presented a compelling case.  In fact, I would argue that Sen. Obama has made a remarkable case that he’d be the better Head of State, while Sen. McCain has made the case he’d be the better Head of Government.  Both are the responsibility of our Executive.  While Sen. Obama’s God-given talent endlessly impresses me it is his opponent who has offered a governing philosophy for public scrutiny.  Sen. McCain knew what his response to the Russian invasion of Georgia was immediately.  It took Sen. Obama much longer to decide.  Sen. McCain took a position on the Bailout Plan immediately.  Sen. Obama avoided it for a few days.  I am not inclined to think that Sen. Obama has a particular stance on many issues – but I don’t believe that the “fundamental change” he espouses means a 180 degree turn on every particular issue, either.  I don’t think that Sen. Obama is going to turn away from President Bush’s position on citizenship for illegal alien workers, his expansion of the federal government (the largest since 1947), the surge strategy that worked beyond Sen. Obama’s wildest dreams, or the foreign aid and effort that he’s engaged the United States in.  One of the great untold stories of the Bush Administration is the work it has accomplished in the developing world.  Bob Geldof, known for his humanitarian work in Africa, has been frustrated that more people don’t know the extent of the policies that Bush has enacted to benefit Africa.  As recently as October 21, Geldof expanded his compliments, saying that the current President has set the bar extraordinarily high for either Sen. McCain or Sen. Obama.  Just because our national media is less interested in Bush’s accomplishments than his failings doesn’t mean that accomplishments haven’t occurred. I would refer anyone to Orson Scott Card’s (a lifelong Democrat) recent essay, “Will the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn on the Lights?”  When the record dictates that change for change’s sake would be detrimental in most areas of governance, one has to wonder whether Sen. Obama knows what going in the opposite direction really means. This is when you realize that what didn’t work earlier this decade – a Republican President rubber stamping a Republican Congress, is simply going to be repeated now.  That’s what Sen. Obama and the Democrats’ campaign is really about.  If Sen. Obama doesn’t have much of a governing philosophy of his own, then President Bush’s greatest failing – not being able to locate his Veto Pen – will simply be duplicated.   That is hardly a fundamental change.  In fact, it’s fundamentally the same, except it will have a (D) next to it instead of an (R). 

Sponsoring a bill that mandates foreign aid is not good judgment.  Saying you’re post-partisan fails to ring true when you’ve voted with your party almost 97% of the time.  Using the criminal justice system in an attempt to stifle free speech doesn’t demonstrate good judgment, as Obama’s campaign recently has in Missouri and in lobbying the Justice Department to investigate groups opposed to him.  One hopes that Sen. Obama sees that undermining 401(k) plans in favor of government run “guaranteed retirement accounts” would be misguided, but it would be his party proposing them. In the spring, during a Democratic Primary debate, Sen. Obama asserted that he’d meet with the leaders of rogue nations without pre-conditions.  During his first debate with Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama asserted that he would do no such thing.  If his position changes again, it will be hard to argue that Sen. Obama’s foreign policy comes from a place of deeply founded principle and judgment.  But currently, flourish aside; if Sen. Obama’s assertion in the debate with Sen. McCain is to be his position, then it is not all that different from President Bush’s.

Neither man is perfect, but I’ll take the candidate who has made tough choices and is willing to embrace those choices over the candidate who has seemed allergic to committing himself to a host of issues. 

It is important to note, though, that regardless of who wins, both men are on the ballot to be my President – not just the man who is closer to my side of the spectrum.  Most Americans believe that country comes before party and ideology – but every four years, that can be hard for some to remember.  I don’t believe hope lives or dies with either candidate, regardless of slogans or posters.  Perhaps it is a question of whether we believe that our future lies in the proposed divinity of our government or the proven majesty of our people.  Neither Senator Obama nor Senator McCain holds the American people’s future in their hands.  They are to be good stewards of our government and country – nothing more.  Until the next “most important election of our lifetimes,” (it is amazing how we are all, apparently, reborn every four years) I wish you all continued success.

Hey, I hope you all will get off of this ACORN kick, and blaming Fannie and Freddie alone for the current mess - let's get right to the root of the problem and his name is W.

Following is from a White House, August 2004 press release (and here's the link) - 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040809-9.html

• Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overallU.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush's initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:
  
  • American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;
  • Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
  • Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
  • Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.

My friend Tim Griffin has a suggestion for McCain to shake things up at the final debate: propose a special prosecutor to investigate Fannie, Freddie, Lehman, AIG, and ACORN:

He should propose the appointment of a Special Prosecutor--a career prosecutor with experience prosecuting financial crimes--to look into the mortgage mess. It is the right thing to do. And promise that if one is not appointed by the current attorney general, he will appoint one on Inauguration Day.

Specifically, the Special Prosecutor would look into the housing mess, including:

--The collapse of Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc.

--The role of former Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines in the collapse of Fannie Mae.

--Sen. Chris Dodd's (D-CT) and Sen. Kent Conrad's (D-ND) sweetheart mortgages from Countrywide that appear to have been given to them specifically because they are U.S. Senators and other "VIP" loans.

--The housing related funding ACORN received from the federal government and its use. The Special Prosecutor could work together with the federal prosecutor prosecuting ACORN under the RICO law as a criminal enterprise if that in fact occurs as some have suggested.

Some of these issues are currently being looked at by federal law enforcement but not comprehensively and collectively. Even if the primary task of looking into these matters is left to the appropriate U.S. attorneys, the Special Prosecutor could coordinate the efforts.

If McCain were to make such a proposal, it would demonstrate that he is a man of action, not just words.

On the one hand, McCain really, really, really needs to shake things up. On the other, I'm not sure injecting new proposals into the mix is going to help with the perception that McCain is grasping and unsteady in the midst of the current crisis. And McCain is in a Catch-22, largely of the media's making, in which if he acts it's a ploy, and if he doesn't, he's doing nothing as the Titanic sinks.

As I've written before, I think McCain's central mistake has been in acting Senatorial and not Presidential throughout all this. His proposal to buy up bad mortgages did not move the ball forward. To conservatives like me, it sounded like more socialism and not letting the housing market find its level. But more to the point, to everyone else, it sounded an awful lot like what Congress just passed. Most voters don't know the difference between a mortgage and a securitized mortgage.

I'm not ultimately sure McCain can get out of this because of the scarlet "R" he must bear, but I really would have liked to have seen McCain's maverick, crusading instincts take a back seat on this one. McCain needed to act steady and resolute like a President, talking about the economic equivalent of blood, sweat, toil, and tears in the short run, but exuding confidence that short-term sacrifice would build a foundation for long-term prosperity (it's this piece that Obama misses). He needed to surround himself with advisors with impeccable economic credentials -- and not just campaign hacks. I would have done a very long meeting and public photo op with Alan Greenspan, Gary Becker, and other Nobel Prize winning economists. Voters get that McCain lacks direct economic experience -- a fact that's hurting him -- but they expect such candidates to man up with good advisers (this is what Bush did on foreign policy in 2000, and he saw an improbably uptick in the polls when the Middle East blew up in September). To my recollection, McCain has not shown the country he is getting independent advice from the nation's most respected economists. He sort of looks like he's winging it.

The Minority Report has obtained a sneak peak at a full-page ad that will appear tomorrow on the front page of The New York TImes, The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.

The letter, written to the American people is signed by four of the top CEO's in the country.

The letter reads, in part:

The Unshaken Pillar

While key pillars of our economy — housing, banking, autos — have been shaken, one pillar stands unshaken and provides the stability that our economy so desperately needs at this critical time. That pillar touches every American. It supports every local economy. It interacts with every business sector, from agriculture to technology. It provides more than 1.8 million high-paying jobs and another 4.6 million related jobs. It is a pillar of our economy that will not and cannot go away. That pillar is energy.

Today, Americans understand that a strong and diverse energy sector is vital to our economic well-being and prosperity. They know that energy produced here at home creates good-paying American jobs, reduces our dependence on others, and spurs the necessary investment and innovation needed to develop all forms of energy. Congress responded to the American public. Its decision to let expire the 26-year moratorium on exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf may prove to be a significant measure in addressing our long-term economic health. The best guarantee of America’s energy security and economic competitiveness is a combination of exploring for more oil and gas at home, intensified initiatives to develop alternative and renewable forms of energy, and continued improvements in energy efficiency and conservation.

The entire letter and the signatories are here:

It is encouraging during this trying economic time to find CEO's of major American Corporations who still see America as a land of opportunity, and a bright City on the Hill.

In the excerpts from hearings to investigate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's illegal bookkeeping, Rep Richard Baker (R-LA) says "It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home but to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of a clean-up of an enterprise failure. The analysis makes clear that more resources must be brought to bear to ensure the high standards of conduct are not only required, but more importantly, they are actually met."

Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA): "Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke..." [no pun intended there, I'm quite sure]

This is a long video, but well worth the effort. It clearly indicates Republicans attempting to oversee and obtain accountability for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with complete resistance on the part of Democrats. One of the most chilling scenes involves the praise heaped upon the now completely discredited (and sacked) Obama campaign advisor and former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines. When questioned as to why Fannie Mae's capital had fallen below the absolute minum level of 5%, Franklin Raines said "These investments are so riskless that the capital for holding them should be under 2%".

Note: there are already 800 comments on YouTube for this video. As of this post, it's only been up for two days.

It has been a long time waiting, but tonight the first presedential debate is finally on. It was uncertain whether or not it would take place, with John McCain saying he would not attend unless progress was made on the bailout bill.

It is here now though, and with both Obama and McCain already on the ground in Oxford, the debate is going forward as planned. At the time of this writing, we are but five hours out from the event, which begins at 9PM EDT. 

In general, the person who wins the first presedential debate is on the fast track to the white house, should either candidate lose, he will have a hard time regaining lost ground to say the least. On paper, this debate belongs to McCain.

Unfortunately for McCain, it is not going to be that easy. With the way the financial situation has been shaping the campaign the last few days, the debate will inevitibly shift to the economy. This will help Obama in the debate, and could be his ticket to escape total debate disaster tonight.

Ideally, Obama will want to begin the debate on the economy, to put McCain on the defensive from the get go. Then when the debate goes to foreign policy, McCain will be playing catch up. Obama is not looking to win this debate, he is looking to neutralize it. The Obama campaign knows if the debate seems like a tie, it goes to the front runner, which of now is Obama. 

The end result is that neither candidate will likely emerge the clear winner. Despite McCain's debate experience, and Obama's charisma, both candidates are so strong in certain areas the debate will leave some scratching their heads.

Will there be plenty of fireworks in the debate tonight? You bet. Will either candidate be able to edge out this debate in their favor? Right now it is looking that the first debate will either not hurt either candidate, and help Obama, or hurt McCain, and help Obama.