Docface's Place: September 2008

In light of today's news, please read the following very carefully:

FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005
The United States Senate
May 25, 2006Section 16
In This Section...
Sen. McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and...
Record Text
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
Quick Info
S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Status: Dead
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

This reform legislation was cosponsored by John McCain 3 years ago. It was shot down by democrats who were receiving campaign funds from the big shots of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Obama received the 2nd largest amount of money from these men. Is it any wonder that he is reluctant to join across party lines to figure out a solution?

I have had fear in my heart over this years election. I have really not been converted to either candidate, although I have leaned towards McCain. So, after reading many blogs and articles and listening to radio and TV commentators, I finally got on line and read, line by line the two platforms presented at the respective conventions. I put them on separate tabs so that I could go back and forth and compare them.

I read the Dem's platform first. So much of it sounded reasonable and good. But, implementation of their ideas have me worried, plus there are a few moral issues that I take exception to. But, overall, I felt like much of what I have heard and read about Obama is somewhat misguided and that in many cases his heart may be in the right place. (I like to think the best of people.)

Then, I read the Republican platform and saw that many of their aims are similar when it comes to caring for America, but their approaches are different and I have to say that I felt the confirmation that the Republican way is the best. Please read as I outline some of the differences and point out why I came to this conclusion.

First of all, let's address the War in Iraq. The Democrats say that they will have a careful, systematic pull out of Iraq that will take 16 months. They call the war in Iraq a strategic blunder. My first reaction upon reading this was that they have a lot of nerve saying this when they all voted to go into the war in the first place. Now, they have the luxury of back-pedaling and placing all of the blame on the President. Don't you think that if Pres. Bush could have gotten out of this unpopular war by now he would have done it? How do the Dems know that they can safely remove the troops within 16 months without Iran rushing in and taking over? I felt the Republican stand was more realistic, showing their experience in such matters. "In dealing with present conflicts...it would be presumptuous to specify them in advance and foolhardy to rule out any action deemed necessary for our security."
This discussion leads directly to each parties stand on dealing with Iran. The Dem's threaten stiff sanctions on Iran if they don't agree to not having nuclear weapons. Do you really think they care about that? I was alive in the 70's when Jimmy Carter's sanctions failed and American hostages were taken. The Republicans speak bluntly to Iran, whose leadership "supports terror, threatens its neighbors and provides weapons that are killing our troops in Iraq." They will not consider negotiation unless they agree to no nuclear weapons and stop supporting terrorism. As a side note, there is a group of war veterans who are running ads against Obama because of his statements that he would sit down with the leader of Iran before speaking with the new leader of Iraq. His plan seems to be to pull out of Iraq before there is control in that country, making it vulnerable to Iran and undoing all of the work that our troops have worked, fought and died for there. As the wife of a Viet Nam War veteran, I can understand these veteran's frustration with this situation.

Both parties talk about strengthening the military. The Dem's gave Pres. Bush a backhanded compliment about efforts to verify North Korea's nuclear weapons program. I found this very interesting when you consider how long North Korea has been a problem, and tell me again, what did Clinton do about that problem? How many bases did Clinton close when he was in office and allow China to use instead of our own troops? But, now they will expand the military. That need falls right into the Dem's lap.

Both platforms deal with immigration and how to handle illegal immigration. Their views did not seem to me to be that divergent, except that the Republicans also addressed immigration as a national security issue, and the Dem's did not.

Now, lets talk about Social Security. The Dem's call it indispensable. Really? Some members of my family live on Social Security. $1200 per month, but if they earn more than $900 on their own, it is taken away. Are we really concerned about abolishing poverty? People living on Social Security, their hard earned money that they will never see most of and have to qualify to receive, are living in poverty. The Republicans propose that people have control over their Social Security investments and that they receive a fair return on said investments without taking away from those relying on the current system.

One of the things that I have heard Obama say against McCain is that he doesn't specify how he will make change. But, as I read both of the platforms, I have found the opposite to be true. For example, the Republicans give an in depth description of the current budget process and how it must be changed: I am pasting the following directly from the platform document.
The federal government collects $2.7 trillion a year from American families and businesses. That’s $7.4 billion a day. Even worse, it spends over $3 trillion a year: $8.2 billion a day. Why? Largely because those who created this bloated government will not admit a single mistake or abolish a single program. Here are some staggering examples of the overall problem:
Recent audits show that 22% of all federal programs are ineffective or incapable of demonstrating results.
69 separate programs, administered by 10 different agencies, provide education or care to children under the age of 5.
Nine separate agencies administer 44 different programs for job training.
23 separate programs, each with its own overhead, provide housing assistance to the elderly.
With so many redundant, inefficient, and ineffective federal programs, it is no wonder that the American people have so little confidence in Washington to act effectively when federal action is really needed.

So, let's talk about social programs and how they will be implemented. First of all, The Dem's speak highly of past Democratic leaders. Unfortunately, they have forgotten the words that they have spoken. John F. Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country." (I realize that this may not be exact, but you know what quote I mean.) To me, these words do not mesh with the Democratic love of entitlement programs that foster dependence on government dole systems. These programs all are paid for by taxes. Democrats want to supply preschool for every child:

Pre-school
We will make quality, affordable early childhood care and education available to every
American child from the day he or she is born. Our Children's First Agenda, including
increases in Head Start and Early Head Start and investments in high-quality Pre-K, will
improve quality and provide learning and support to families with children ages zero to
five. Our Presidential Early Learning Council will coordinate these efforts.

When I was in high school, I remember hearing in a Social Studies class (I grew up in CA) that in the future, the government would try to take control of American families by mandating preschool programs. I was disbelieving at the time. But, more and more I am seeing a movement towards "The State" trying to take control of my family. While the above statement is not a mandate, I wonder why I will have to be paying, with my tax money for daycare of other people's children? What other decisions will this Learning Council make? Why is the Federal government so involved with preschool when it is not given this responsibility in the constitution? The Republicans support Head Start funding for low income families. How could we possibly afford to pay for every one's daycare?

Here is a quote from the Democratic platform: "A Barack Obama administration will make it clear to the special interests that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over." Really? Wasn't there a news reporter arrested for photographing Dems meeting with special interest lobbyists at the DNC?

Continuing with education, both parties pledge to continue with grants and assistence to college. The Republicans take it even furthur with the following:
Although the Constitution assigns the federal government no role in local education, Washington’s authority over the nation’s schools has increased dramatically
Because some of the nation’s leading universities create or tolerate a hostile atmosphere toward the ROTC, we will rigorously enforce the provision of law, unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court, which denies those institutions federal research grants unless their military students have the full rights and privileges of other students. That must include the right to engage in ROTC activities on their own campus, rather than being segregated elsewhere.
We call for education in constitutional rights in schools...

I love that last part about educating students on the constitution. I read somewhere that they felt that the repubs spoke disrespectfully about the constitution. But, I must say that I found no evidence of that in their platform. On the contrary, their pride in the constitution and the symbols of our country were much more apparent than in the platform of the democrats. Here are a few examples:

1. They explained the benefits of having English as our unifying language. It fosters a commitment to our national motto, E Pluribus Unum.

2. "The symbol of our unity, to which we all pledge allegiance, is the flag. By whatever legislative method is most feasible, Old Glory should be given legal protection against desecration. We condemn decisions by activist judges to deny children the opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school."

3. "We support freedom of speech and freedom of the press and oppose attempts to violate or weaken those rights, such as reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine."

The dems did not address any of the above issues.

Now, on to a few final topics that are really clinchers for me. I will put some direct quotes from both platforms for you to read with a few interspersed comments by me.

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's
right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any
and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning
services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empowers people to
make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care
and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce
the need for abortions.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by
ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care,
parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

In contrast to that, read the Republican stand.

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

Here is something that I have heard Senator Obama say about abortion: (not an exact quote, this is from my memory.) "I wouldn't want my teenage daughter to be punished with a baby." A baby is not a punishment. It is a consequence. Should the baby be punished and have his life taken because of your daughter's mistake?

Next quote:

"Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives. "

The only thing really said about homosexuality in the democratic platform that stands out is allowing anyone in the military regardless of sexual orientation. Also, it is clumped together with other issues that they would not tolerate discrimination against.

Here in AZ, there is going to be a proposition on the ballot that would make a constitutional amendment that states that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Our church leaders have asked us to vote yes on this propostion, #102. This is not something that they do very often, that is telling us how we should vote. But, this is a very important issue, one that could affect our freedom of religion and our freedom of speech.

A few other comments and then I will end this lengthy blog. I do not support socialized medicine. I have lived in another country where it is socialized and their taxes are huge! The care is not better and the waiting time is longer. 'If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in a sorry state as the souls who live under tyranny.' Thomas Jefferson

I love our country. I have faith that God will bless our country as long as the majority will remain righteous. My fear is that the democratic answer to everything is too much like Satan's plan. He wanted the glory and to make us all do things his way. Democrats treat us, the poor everyday people, as if we are too stupid to think for ourselves, to choose for ourselves and to make our own decisions. Well, some people are stupid, some people will make bad choices, but we deserve the freedom to do so. I will make sure that my children are educated my way, and I will feed them and clothe them as long as I am able to do so. When I can not do this for myself, then I will ask for help. But, I am not entitled to have any of this for free at the expense of my fellow Americans. I want to care for the poor and disabled in the Lord's way. I do not want to give hand-outs to everyone who knows how to work the system because they are too lazy to work for themselves.

I am not computerly adept enough to give you the websites to the platforms, but you can google them easily and I would encourage you to do so.

Remember what Michael Savage said: "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

Oh Wow! I had to come back and edit my post because I left out one of the most important things. Both the dems and the repubs stress the importance of faith in our lives. Once again, the Repubs took it farther, which I appreciated. "Republican leadership has made religious liberty a central element of US Foreign policy. Asserting religious freedom should be a priority in all America's international dealings. We salute the work of the US commission on International Religious Freedom and urge special training in religious liberty issues for all US diplomatic personnel. " I just feel that this issue could have major implications for missionary work being carried on throughout the world.

Okay, that is it. If I sound biased, well I am, but now I feel I can defend my bias intelligently and with knowledge under my belt and not with just hearsay and rhetoric. Thanks for reading this. I hope it all made sense to you. I know that McCain isn't perfect, but I believe that the Republican platform is the best of the two. And, think of this, do you really want a democratic congress and a democratic President? That is scary!