Bobby Jindal Is a Liar

Impressions from Obama's speech and the republican response:

Obama's Speech:

Frak it, lets go big. I mean the guy is gonna cure cancer, halve the deficit, and fix energy, healthcare, education and the economy. I applaud the boldness with which he makes these statements. Now is a time for boldness. But damn! Its big stuff and Obama runs a real risk of massively overpromising. You can credibly make the argument that the stimulus bill did not go far enough. So if he promises way beyond his ability to deliver, he's going to be punished for that by the electorate. But I like that he says it like he thinks he can do it. Now Mr. President, stand and deliver.

The republican response:

Bobby Jindal was charged with the republican response. I've heard good things about Jindal and I'm inclined to like him because he is a wonky sort of a guy. Tonight was his introduction to the national stage and to a large number of people who have never seen or heard of the guy. It was not an auspicious beginning in my view.

The opening few seconds of his rebuttal were jarring for me. First, he comes walking out and he's this skinny brown skinned guy and he looked quite nerdy and geeky. Then, to make it a tad freakier, he starts talking and this Louisiana accent is coming out of this skinny brown nerd face and he's trying to be folksy while he reads from the teleprompter and it did not quite work. So his tele-mojo was not really clicking. So he gets no points for style.

On content and theme, I have to say it was a miss for me too. The theme was an old GOP favorite. Government is bad, government is the problem. I'm sorry, but I don't think that old saw is adequate to the rhetorical challenge of Obama nor the concerns of the electorate for action. I think that when the GOP says government is the problem, government is bad, what the electorate hears is "do nothing". The problems confronting us are perceived to be huge and require something as huge to address them, and in this case, thats the federal government. There is a role for the government and to talk as though there is not I think is a big miss.

On content, some real missteps too. For starters, the emphasis on race and talking about Obama as the first black president. His blackness is evident to us all, we just got finished being cheesed off by Holder's ham fisted comments on the subject and Jindal comes out leading with some schtick about how glorious it is that we have a black president? I think the country has already pretty much absorbed the novelty of that and is trying very hard to get on with business. I think the country regards him as "the President" and is rapidly permitting his color to fade away into the background. I think much of America already finds the non white reality of the President to be routine, unremarkable and not particularly worthy of comment. Its America, we have a black President....and?

Why do I call Jindal a liar? Because of this statement:

"A few weeks ago, the President warned that our nation is facing a crisis that he said ‘we may not be able to reverse.’ Our troubles are real, to be sure. But don’t let anyone tell you that we cannot recover — or that America’s best days are behind her."

The President did not say, nor did he imply that the US cannot recover or that America's best days are behind us. Simply never did. It was a lie. Jindal's use of this phrase along with his repeated assertion that "Americans can do anything" was an attempt once again to rhetorically paint Obama as un-American. There is no shortage of legitimate issues upon which to disagree vehemenently with the President. This continued insinuation that Obama is un-American as a political tactic of opposition is quite dissapointing and angers me. We don't have time for it. And considering that the use of such tactis resulted in the GOP's defeat in the election by a margin of 192 EVs, I'm waiting for somebody to get the frakking memo. Being a liar in your national introduction is not great

As he was closing, Jindal also said the following:

"You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington. Republicans lost your trust — and rightly so."

Michael Steele made a similiar statement about trust while on the Glenn Beck show recently and hearing Jindal say it gave me an epiphany about why the GOP's time in the wilderness may be long indeed. Republicans were running the show for six of the last eight years and in that time, did not distinguish ourselves as the party of fiscal discipline whatsoever. Now, we rail against the profligate spending of the One and the democratic congress, but we've lost all authority and standing to criticize the democrats on this issue. It simply rings hollow. We have been exposed as being nothing more than politicians who will spend the taxpayer's dime just as easily as a democrat will, making us therefore indistinguisable from them and it renders our attempts to be a unified opposition on spending and fiscal prudence very empty sounding. Bottom line, we are simply not believed on these issues, because when it was our turn, that is not how we behaved. And that is why we fail to get any major traction with such arguments against the One.

Pro-Black People Policy Alert: Support Republican low-rate mortgage proposal

Republicans push low-rate mortgage in U.S. stimulus | Economy | Reuters

Mitch McConnel is pushing for a provision in the stimulus bill that would drive down mortgage rates to 4%. 30 year mortgages at that price point would make it easier to purchase a home and for people who refinanced, could save them thousands of dollars over the course of a year of mortgage payments. This is a Political Season Pro Black People Policy Alert

Why should black folks support such a provision? Because the last decade or so has seen a tremendous growth in home ownership and homeonwership remains a traditional path to generational wealth building for the vast majority of Americans. This is perhaps even more true for blacks. The economic downturn is wiping out hard earned wealth gains among blacks as financially devasted families lose their homes. Before this is all over, blacks may lose two generations of wealth gains. A provision such as this one is very much in the interest of black folks to support. Think of it like a 30 year tax break that puts money in your pocket from the get. The even better aspect of this is that it costs the government very little to do it. Because of the economic crisis, investors are parking their money in US Treasury bills as the safest place to keep it for now, which means the government can borrow huge amounts of money at very low rates, like 3%. If they relend that money at 4%, they pass on the benefit of that low cost money to homeowners and the government even makes a little change on the spread. No deficit hit. Its a win win.

Not only should blacks support insertion of this into the stimulus bill though, we need to push a little further in terms of implementation. Many black folk who got mortgages in the last several years got put into sub prime loan products. Sometimes because that was the risk profile of the borrower, but sometimes despite the fact that they could have gotten into a conforming loan. Either way, those mortgages ranging anywhere from 8-11%, are draining black folk dry as they pay these heavy financing costs and leaving even more people exposed to foreclosure, which costs everyone. In addition, I suspect that people who are in sub prime products are more likely to spend the savings they get from refinancing, thereby stimulating the economy with their spending, which is in fact the whole point. This proposal in my view gets even better in terms of impact on black folks if provision is made to get people out of high cost sub prime loan products.

Now, the Heritage Foundation does not like it, and I actually agree with them with regard to doing this to stimulate home sales. Mortgage rates are already quite low, so I think this provision is of marginal benefit on that front. Their other major contention is that its an income transfer from the financial sector to homeowners who don't really need it, which feels more like an ideological issue that does not help anybody per se, which is why I think the additional twist ought to be providing relief to those stuck in sub prime products. Considering how much income in the form of taxpayer dollars has been transferred INTO the financial sector, I really don't think its a problem to let some of that circulate back where it came from in the first place.

With a tweak or two, I think this is a good idea and firmly in the interest of black folks to support. Its action time. Call and email your senator and your represenative and the White House. Tell them you support the republican proposal AND that you want provision to be made to make these low cost mortgages available to people stuck in sub prime loan products. Use the links above, get their phone number and call their office now. Ask for the legislative assistant working on housing or on the stimulus and tell them you support Mitch McConnel's proposal for lowering mortgage rates AND that provisions should be made for people stuck in high cost sub prime mortgage products to refinance out of them, because those people are likely to circulate those savings back into the economy, increasing stimulus. Do it now, do it today.

We're Being Had and Here's the Proof - Call Congress and Tell Them - No Bailout!

Hat tip Politics After 50

Verification of the con game being run on the American taxpayer by Paulson and his Wall Street cronies comes via the contents of a secret conference call meeting on Sunday, Sept. 28th between Treasury Department officials and some 800 financial services industry insiders where they talk about how the additions to the bill that the Democrats "fought for" are just shams (CEO pay caps, metering out the $700 billion in smaller chunks, etc.). They can ALL be ignored or worked around.

Notes compiled by the blog Naked Capitalism are below on the call. Also, give THIS a read, watch the video below and then CLICK HERE TO SEND A LETTER TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN RIGHT NOW and tell them no way on this bailout con job.



The call:

Memo found at: http://dealbreaker.com/2008/09/treasury-to-hold-conference-ca.php
MEMORANDUM
TO: SIFMA Government Reps Committee
FR: SIFMA Washington Office
DA: September 28, 2008
RE: Conference Call w. Treasury / 9:00PM TONIGHT

At 9:00pm tonight, Sunday, September 28th, there will be a call with Treasury officials
to discuss the Troubled Asset Recovery Plan. This call is specifically for analysts.
Please distribute ASAP to analysts in your firm who might be interested in participating.
We have also distributed this call notice through various SIFMA Committees to solicit analyst
participation.

Please find the conference call information below:
Date: Sunday, September 28th
Time: 9:00PM ET
Toll-free Dial-in: 1-866-843-0890
Entry Code: 1812173#

Download the bit torrent recording of the call. The call has also been posted to Youtube in five parts.

There is a live blogging recap of the call at Dealbreaker.

Notes on the call from courtesy of Naked Capitalism:

1. The tranching is a mere formality, and the Treasury boys as much as
said so. They could take the $700 billion max as soon as the bill has
passed,

2. However, they do not plan any action immediately,
will wait a couple of weeks. They want to focus their efforts on
stronger companies but also made noise about protecting the financial
system. This, by the way, is the Japanese convoy system all over.

3.There seemed to be a lot of tap dancing about what price they will pay
for assets and no straight answer about their policy on warrants. They
did say that if the amount sold was greater than $100 million, they
would take warrants. FYI, the current draft allows them to pay up to
the price at which the assets were initially booked (yikes) . I wonder
if this is obfuscation, if they have an idea of what the plan to do but
will not admit it in any public forum.

4. As the person who
listened to the call stressed, DealBreaker wasn't clear on the
bifurcated process. If you come to the Treasury and you are in trouble,
you get reamed. Bear/AIG style treatment, execs probably fired. But if
you participate on a voluntary basis, the intent is to make it very
user friendly. That is consistent with Paulson's position during the
negotiations.

5. The exec comp provisions sound like a joke,
They DO NOT affect existing contracts, they affect only contracts
entered into during the two years of the authority of this program and
then affect only golden parachutes. More detail on that point, but I
don't need more detail to get the drift of the gist.
Additional notes from the call compiled by Naked Capitalism:

1) If even the Treasury is saying tranching is a formality, then it really is nothing. Not sure why Dems fought so hard for a fig leaf.

2) Waiting a couple of weeks because no one has any idea when or where the next bomb will blow up. In other words, all their doomsday scenarios about Black Monday were B.S. They screamed the check had to be written by Monday, but now they're saying they actually have a few weeks before they need to cash it. Plus, this will allow them to "seek guidance" from GS, JPM, and other selfless public servants about where the money should be funneled.

3. The tap dancing is because they don't want it to get out that they'll be giving a sweetheart deal. The public won't be following each individual transaction to see exactly what price is being paid. So ridiculously overpriced asset sales can be hidden in the details, and by the time some reporter (or blogger :-) combs through and analyzes the transactions, the deed will have been done. But if Paulson makes a statement that assets will be bought at par before the bailout's even begun, that will be reported and might kill the deal.

4. In other words, we need to sweeten the pot to encourage banks to come "voluntarily". Pardon my ignorance, but why the hell should we be begging banks to borrow from us? I thought a bailout should be the absolute last option for a bank. I.e., it should be so unpalatable, so unprofitable for a bank and its executives that they exhaust every private means of survival before coming for their public "reaming". I wonder if foreclosed homeowners would rate their foreclosure process as "user friendly".

5. Of course the exec comp provisions are a joke. Who do you think is going to be hiring all those banking cmte staffers and newly retired congresspeople next year during the inevitable post-election turnover? Do you really think they're going to vote to limit their salaries?