Recently in Politics Category

I said a few days ago that Banks hate the concept of mortgage brokers, because without brokers, they could jack up their margin per loan. Here's what they're doing about it: Introducing a bill into Congress making it impossible for mortgage brokers to do exactly what the banks themselves do.

You can track HR 1728 here.

Text of HR 1728. Most of it is redundant, iterating other things already done. One that isn't, however, is found in Section 103, subsections 1, 2 and 4

'(1) IN GENERAL- For any mortgage loan, the total amount of direct and indirect compensation from all sources permitted to a mortgage originator may not vary based on the terms of the loan (other than the amount of the principal).

This means that they are not permitting differing compensation to an originator based upon the tradeoff between rate and cost of real estate loans. Defensible, in and of itself. But not in conjunction with other parts of this section.

'(2) RESTRUCTURING OF FINANCING ORIGINATION FEE-

'(A) IN GENERAL- For any mortgage loan, a mortgage originator may not arrange for a consumer to finance through rate any origination fee or cost except bona fide third party settlement charges not retained by the creditor or mortgage originator.

'(B) EXCEPTION- Notwithstanding paragraph subparagraph (A), a mortgage originator may arrange for a consumer to finance through rate an origination fee or cost if--

'(i) the mortgage originator does not receive any other compensation from the consumer except the compensation that is financed through rate; and

'(ii) the mortgage is a qualified mortgage.

This removes the ability of a broker to allow consumers the choice or paying the origination fee via yield spread. I've explained yield spread more than once. It can be thought of a "negative discount" because that's exactly what it is: Something the banks voluntarily pay brokers in order to get those brokers to bring them loans at that rate of interest. It is rooted in the secondary market for loans, and what that secondary market pays for such loans. If the secondary market won't pay a premium (i.e. more than face value of the note) for such loans, I've never heard of a single lender offering any yield spread on such loans. In fact, there's usually a difference of about 1.5 points between secondary market premium and yield spread, with yield spread being the lesser of the two. So if it's a $400,000 loan with a yield spread, that lender is making about $6000, over and above what they pay the broker - just for the act of funding that loan long enough to sell it on the secondary market. This premium has nothing to do with whatever interest the consumer may be charged - it's a strictly cash bonus earned by being an intermediary middleman between the broker and the secondary market. Many loans with secondary market premium bonuses are still charged discount by lenders. In short, this section prohibits brokers from simply sharing in the premiums earned by bankers on the secondary market.

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing compelling lenders to offer yield spread in the first place for any loan. It is purely voluntary on their part. They do it because otherwise brokers will shop other lenders for their clients requesting loans in that current cost range. Since this happens to be the vast majority of all mortgage loans I have experience with, this will have no effect other than the restriction of consumer choice on the most popular loan choices, forcing them to go to direct lenders, prohibiting brokers from competing effectively. This is in the consumer interest how?

The answer is that it isn't. It's in the big direct lender's interests, because it would enable them to jack up their profit margin per loan.

The exception might be taken as allowing yield spread to be used to finance origination, except for the following in subsection 4

'(4) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION- No provision of this subsection shall be construed as--

'(A) permitting yield spread premiums or other similar incentive compensation;

'(B) affecting the mechanism for providing the total amount of direct and indirect compensation permitted to a mortgage originator;

'(C) limiting or affecting the amount of compensation received by a creditor upon the sale of a consummated loan to a subsequent purchaser;

'(D) restricting a consumer's ability to finance, including through principal, any origination fees or costs permitted under this subsection, or the mortgage originator's ability to receive such fees or costs (including compensation) from any person, so long as such fees or costs were fully and clearly disclosed to the consumer earlier in the application process as required by 129B(b)(1)(C)(i) and do not vary based on the terms of the loan (other than the amount of the principal) or the consumer's decision about whether to finance such fees or costs; or

'(E) prohibiting incentive payments to a mortgage originator based on the number of residential mortgage loans originated within a specified period of time.'.

The last sentence should be known as the "encouraging unethical mortgage originators clause" but it's that first sentence that's the real killer. It flatly prohibits yield spread, something that the lender's lobby has been after for years. Individual lenders pay yield spread because they make more money by encouraging brokers to place the loans with them (as I said, about 1.5 points per loan), while the industry as a whole has been looking for a way to ban it because if no lenders are legally allowed to pay yield spread, they will make even more money per loan, not to mention cut down on the competitive advantage brokers have by economizing.

I wrote in Yield Spread is a Beneficial Tool That Can Be Misused that yield spread is not a cost paid by consumers, and it isn't. It's a premium paid by banks so they can make more more money (roughly $1.50 per hundred dollars loaned) by doing a higher volume of loans. By having yield spread available as an option, consumers have the option of not increasing their loan balance, or not increasing it by so much. You can't do reduced cost loans, let alone zero cost loans, without yield spread.

Here's an example to illustrate: Suppose you have a $400,0000 loan at 7.5%, and rates drop (as they have currently). However, you're also planning to sell in a year or two. So you don't want to spend a huge amount of money you'll never recover before you sell the property on refinancing your property. Along comes a broker who says, "Instead of refinancing you at 4.5% with a point of discount and a point of origination, costing you $8000 extra on your loan balance, suppose I refinance you at 5.25% with no discount and no origination. I make what I need to via yield spread, and it only costs you about $2000 on your balance to refinance. You save 2.25% every year in interest cost, or $9000, so if you go a year and a half, that's $13,500 you save in interest charges, less $2000 on up front cost, giving you a net of $11,500 in your pocket a year and a half from now." Wouldn't you say "yes" to that? It is completely logical and to your benefit to do so. But HR 1728 would remove that option by prohibiting the payment of yield spread. The only people to benefit by this are the lenders who keep you in higher interest rate loans.

I personally work through a correspondent lender. We don't get yield spread (unless we choose to work as brokers instead) because correspondent lenders fund in our own name - thereby getting most of the secondary market premium that the big lenders get. HR 1728 would probably be a good thing for me, personally, at least in the short term by putting brokers out of business. But I have learned the hard way that anytime consumer choice is adversely impacted, I will pay for it later. Yeah, they're only coming for brokers and I'm not a broker. But then what happens next? Easy: Once true brokers are out of business, they figure out a way to kill correspondent lenders. Instead, I choose to help brokers, even though I haven't got a personal stake in it - yet. Furthermore, it seems rather spurious to villainize a process that is a much smaller piece of precisely the way the big lenders themselves do business.

Stand up and be counted as in favor of permitting yield spread. The only people who benefit from banning it are major lenders and corrupt politicians engaged in paying them back for campaign contributions and personal favors (Yes, I'm looking at you Barney Frank (D - Malfeasance), and Chris Dodd (D - Corruption), too.)

Caveat Emptor

Megan McArdle on Obama's proposed bailout

So the plan:

1. Forces the bloated and undercapitalized mortgage agencies to take on more debt without regard to creditworthiness

2. Cleans up only the least toxic loans

3. Will cost some unknowably huge amount of money

This is from a supporter.

My lunatic proposal for the day: why not make it easier to move homeowners out of homes they can't afford? Set up a streamlined foreclosure proceeding where a current or mildly delinquent homeowner can simply give the house to the bank and walk away. Do this with two legal provisos:

1. No tax on the forgiven loan

2. No black mark on the credit record. The bank marks the loan as fully satisfied.

The homeowner gets a fresh start, and the bank gets the house without the huge administrative costs that are normally associated with foreclosure. Everyone loses something, but no one loses a crippling amount, and there is no net transfer between two parties who are both in financial trouble.

I left a comment, but now let me expand on it.

We have always had Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure, which does precisely that, gets the borrower out now with only one (or one additional) black mark. However, it is not mandatory that lenders accept the offer. To give them some small amount of credit, lenders in aggregate are becoming more willing to do so. More of them are getting intelligent enough to do so. I would also strongly suggest making Deed In Lieu of Foreclosure much less of a black mark than it is. Someone who loses their job and promptly realizes the situation and takes steps to deal with it that do not result in a creditor losing money they don't have to is a responsible borrower. Someone who makes the lender go through the whole rigamarole of foreclosure is in an entirely different category. And someone who hires a lawyer to spin it out for 18 to 24 months extra while the lender keeps losing money needs to be placed in a special hell for the rest of their lives.

No tax of debt forgiveness was something we had from October 2007 through the end of 2008. I thought it was a good idea initially, but lender and market experience leads me to believe I was mistaken. It was what opened the door to more massive (temporary) increases in the available housing supply, massively lowering price equilibrium until we work through that inventory. My area (San Diego) being on the bleeding edge of this whole mess, had pretty much worked through previously existing problems and the market was ripe for a recovery and some of the data seems to suggest that one had started - and then people who were struggling got their "GET OUT OF DEBT AND TAXES FREE" card.

Complete tax forgiveness didn't work, but that doesn't mean a partial measure might not be an appropriate solution. I believe that a lessened tax rate (say 25% of normally due tax) but not complete forgiveness would be a measure worth trying, but the complete forgiveness motivated a lot of people who could have and should have seen it through to bail out, creating more problems for everyone else. By leaving a portion of the penalty intact, it motivates those who can afford their payments, but simply don't want to, to keep going. As I said in Why You Should Not Walk Away From Upside-Down Real Estate, the market is going to come back, it is only a question of when. What we need to do is have an honest dialog about what is an appropriate share of the normal tax. The idea is we don't want people bailing out if they don't have to, and we especially don't want to encourage anything like buy and bail, or "Bail and Buy" bailing out of one upside-down property so they can turn around and promptly buy another one that isn't.

Apropos of that, the second idea, no black mark on credit record, is inappropriate as well, as it encourages both "Buy and Bail" and "Bail and Buy" type planning. Even if the credit report were completely unmarked, several questions on form 1003 (The federally mandated mortgage application form) will bring it to light on any future loan applications these folks may submit. Furthermore, this amounts to deceiving the system, and will set the stage for further problems on down the line.

If, however, all the people who lost their homes due to this get the standard treatment, that's a lot of folks and a lot of potential customers that lenders are going to make up their mind that they want a year or so down the line. Just because things are paranoid now doesn't mean it's going to last forever. Lenders will create appropriate programs and demarcations and grades of treating the issue, thereby dealing with the problem and bringing these people back into the market. The ones who lose their home but otherwise take care of their credit will be fine. They may pay a slightly higher rate (or need a bit higher down payment) than people who didn't have a short sale, foreclosure, or deed in lieu, but the lenders will decide they want them as borrowers nonetheless. It's as inevitable as gravity. The ones who don't take care of their credit otherwise will suffer appropriate penalties. And once the folks who get another mortgage loan make a couple more years of on-time mortgage payments, I'll bet they get treated just the same as someone who never had a problem, and that's as it should be.

People have been trying to deal with this like it's a little problem, that we can easily solve in one fell swoop and get past, and that nobody needs to suffer any pain except maybe the lenders. None of that is true. None of that is possible. This is a major problem, but the end can be in sight if the government will allow the markets to act in their own best interests. What we need is a rational plan that doesn't repeat the causes of the problem we're trying to recover from, that enables and motivates as many people as practical to work through their problems so that the problem is no larger than it needs to be, that doesn't make the problem worse, but nonetheless encourages dealing with the problem and getting past it.

Once we do all of that, it's just a matter of time until we're back to a more normal market. If the government uses the remaining money from TARP to help stabilize the credit markets and otherwise stops trying to "help", I think that the markets will get it through the heads of the participants what they need to do in order to get out of this. Everybody knows already what they would have to do to get through it on their own, but they're putting off the reckoning because they're hoping the government will step in and save them from the bad consequences of their own bad decisions. Well, a certain amount of that is necessary simply due to politics, but the money the government spends has other ill effects, and it doesn't come out of some hyperspatial vortex. The time for the government to step back and tell people to work through things on their own has definitely arrived.

Caveat Emptor

Today, the President announced "a plan" to theoretically aid homeowners. Unfortunately, judging from the information available, it looks more like a Wish List than a Plan.

People may be eligible to refinance if their loan to value ratio is 105% or less. Respectfully, Mr. President, that's not going to help a lot of people, who bought for zero down and have seen values slide thirty percent. You do the math: If values slid thirty percent, how much did they have to put down for this to help them?

While we're at it, what proportion of the homeowners at risk have mortgages through Fannie and Freddie? Very small. Even if they do have Fannie and Freddie first mortgages, what about the "piggyback" second loans with other lenders that enabled these folks to buy with zero or five or ten percent down?

They give three examples of refinancing, but are completely silent upon the likelihood of getting second mortgage holders to subordinate.

Second mortgage holders might be willing to subordinate if there are no costs added to the balance of the first mortgage. In other words, homeowner pays everything out of pocket. It is the rational thing to do. But second mortgage holders are not going to agree to go even more underwater than they are.

From the Q&A

Do I need to be behind on my mortgage payments to be eligible for a modification? No. Borrowers who are struggling to stay current on their mortgage payments may be eligible if their income is not sufficient to continue to make their mortgage payments and they are at risk of imminent default. This may be due to several factors, such as a loss of income, a significant increase in expenses, or an interest rate that will reset to an unaffordable level.

This is false. Imminent risk of default is defined as being within thirty days of default. In California, you've got to be 120 days late to be in default. Therefore, in California you have be be three months late on your mortgage in order to be at imminent risk of default.

How do I know if I qualify for a payment reduction under the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan? In general, you may qualify for a mortgage modification if (a) you occupy your house as your primary residence; (b) your monthly mortgage payment is greater than 31% of your monthly gross income; and (c) your loan is not large enough to exceed current Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loan limits. Final eligibility will be determined by your mortgage lender based on your financial situation and detailed guidelines that will be available on March 4, 2009.

Um, this is what those lenders doing now. And by the way, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac standards are (and have been for many years) 45% back end debt to income ratio. If you have no debts when you get your mortgage, this means up to 45% of your income for housing.

7. I owe more than my house is worth. Will the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan reduce what I owe? The primary objective of the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan is to help borrowers avoid foreclosure by modifying troubled loans to achieve a payment the borrower can afford. Lenders are likely to lower payments mainly by reducing loan interest rates. However, the program offers incentives for principal reductions and at your lender's discretion modifications may include upfront reductions of loan principal.

Note the words "at your lender's discretion". Lenders don't want to modify principal, for many excellent reasons I went into in Mortgage Loan Modification. Incentives for them to do this are going to cause them to be willing to write down principal on a dollar for dollar basis with those incentives. Basic microeconomics. Since the incentives seem to be in the range of $1000 per loan, that's what you can expect.

10. Is my lender required to modify my loan? No. Mortgage lenders participate in the program on a voluntary basis and loans are evaluated for modification on a case-by-case basis. But the government is offering substantial incentives and it is expected that most major lenders will participate.

Once again, this is different from what lenders are doing now in what way? Oh, I'm sure that $1000 government incentive is going to make the critical difference in how much they are cutting the rates to avoid losing their entire investment of several hundreds of times that amount.

14. My loan is scheduled for foreclosure soon. What should I do? Contact your mortgage servicer or credit counselor. Many mortgage lenders have expressed their intention to postpone foreclosure sales on all mortgages that may qualify for the modification in order to allow sufficient time to evaluate the borrower's eligibility. We support this effort.

The Fact sheet has one provision that is sure to be popular, but is also certain to completely destroy the mortgage market down the line,

From the bullet points on page two:

Allowing Judicial Modifications of Home Mortgages During Bankruptcy When A Borrower Has No Other Options

This is a taking of private property without appropriate compensation, which violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. It's been on a wish list of socialists and trial lawyers for decades, but until now, the government has been smart enough to see what happens next.

1. People can now keep their homes by declaring bankruptcy.

2. Amazingly enough, people who are in danger of foreclosure declare bankruptcy

3. Courts modify the indebtedness. Lenders don't get money, are stuck with a non-performing loan, and don't have any benefit from the security interest (that is, the property) given in the mortgage.

4. Lenders start treating real estate loans in accordance with all other loans and indebtedness of similar quality - in other words, mortgage rates go into double digits at a minimum, probably into the twenties. Down payment requirements increase.

5. Keeping in mind that The Mortgage Loan Market Controls the Real Estate Market, real estate markets suffer a crash that makes everything that has happened to date look like a mild accidental scratch.

And if we have this much trouble with losing 30% of value, what do you think happens when we lose 90% of what's left? In a circumstance like that, I would consider walking away from my mortgage.

I see no criteria for qualification, other than the basic "conforming loan limit". It's not clear whether this includes "super conforming" loans in high cost areas like mine.

Two months ago, I wrote that the previous president's plan wasn't really going to help much in The Hope (Dashed) For Homeowners Program. Absent that one killer condition of judicially modifying mortgages through bankruptcy, this plan would be no better but no worse, except for spending $75 billion dollars of taxpayer money for things the lenders are already doing.

But if the "judicial modification" of mortgages item is still in whatever bill makes it through Congress, that will do more damage to our economy than anything else I can think of that our government might possibly do, and that includes the $1.2 Trillion Congress and the President just agreed to waste a few days ago.

I am sorry, but I cannot stay silent on this matter any longer.

Several years ago there was a a Proposition on the California ballot regarding gay marriage. I voted in favor of gay marriage then, but as I recall, my side lost by something like 8 million votes. Given that, I accepted the fact until the next time there was a ballot proposition. If the voters speak, that should be the law of the land, absent a clear and convincing Constitutional reason otherwise. At least until the voters change their mind.

Make no mistake: Supporters of gay marriage have enough support to easily put such an initiative on the ballot in any election they should care to make the attempt. It only requires a tiny percentage of the voters to sign the initiative petition. We could have had such a proposition to change the law on the ballot in every election between then and now, but that has not been done.

I am going to take a few paragraphs for an aside here. I don't actually think the government should have anything to do with marriage. Living partnerships, yes. Any two adults want to form a business partnership for household expenses, raising of any children, that's fine with me. If the state wants to privilege certain partnerships, then it should privilege those partnerships without regard to the sexes of the two partners. But that's all in the nature of a business partnership. Whether you realize it or not, that's the entire historical basis of a state or government interest in marriage: The financial partnership interests. Call if domestic partnership, call it marriage, call it gobbledegook if you want. That's a legitimate state or government interest, particularly if it is privileging certain partnerships in certain ways, and I firmly believe that when government privilege is involved, the sexes of domestic partners should not be a criterion for discrimination.

Unfortunately, when the government started getting more involved in such things, there were only partnerships between one male and one female to consider. This in turn led to some noteworthy confusion which still exists - the financial arrangements of such partnerships, which are a legitimate state interest, with the spiritual arrangements, which are not, but rather within the domain of whatever religious body the partners happen to be a member of.

In short, the word marriage is subject to a confusion between the government sense of the term - a financial and business partnership between adults - and the religious sense of the term, having to do with the spiritual aspects and whether some particular religious body has blessed the union in accordance with whatever principles they hold sacred.

I would far rather see a complete bifurcation of the word "marriage" into "civil (or domestic) partners" and "spiritual partners." The former is a legitimate government interest; the latter is not - indeed, it appears to me to be forbidden from government interest by the First Amendment. I see no reason why these two functions should not be completely independent of one another. There is no reason to require civil partners be spiritual ones, nor vice versa. I see no reason why two adults cannot be one or the other without any requirement whatsoever for the other. I suspect the word "marriage" would be preserved in function on the spiritual side, where it has a far longer history and tradition, but that is not important. The explicit bifurcation of functions is.

There seems to me to be a lot of confusion on both sides of the issue. The pro gay marriage side seems to be intentionally glossing over (or perhaps glorying in) the fact that they are attempting to force spiritual acceptance on the faithful of just about every faith in the world. They don't accept each other's spiritual marriages (or for that matter, purely civil ones) despite the fact that they might otherwise meet that sect's requirements; why should they be forced into accepting a "marriage" that violates every belief they stand for? The anti gay marriage forces, for their part, seem to be deliberately confusing the state interest business and financial partnership with the non-state interest spirtual partnership that the various faiths may not accept. I've long despised the latter; but my state of mind has recently evolved into "A Pox Upon Both Of Their Houses."

We have previously established that the pro gay marriage forces have more than sufficient influence to place gay marriage onto the ballot any time they want, and proceed to influence the minds of the citizens in their direction by campaigning and giving those citizens reasons that those citizens should vote in their favor. That would be the intelligent, rational way to go about these things. Persuade the voting citizens that they are not threatened by gay marriage. We aren't, you know.

Instead, supporters of gay marriage took to the courts, trying to win their case by appealing to a few judges. Well, they eventually did. Four judges decided to re-write the state constitution by judicial fiat, making gay marriage legal and giving the gay rights community not only that, but classifying disagreement with the concept of gay marriage as "hate speech", something which is Unconstitutional no matter how many judges say it isn't in contradiction of all reason.

To change something that the citizens of the state had voted upon in the millions, and come up with a many millions plurality one way by judicial fiat is a raw wound, and it should not have surprised anyone with the IQ of an amoeba that there would be a push back, and so Proposition 8 qualified for the ballot, defining marriage as one man, one woman, and removing the hate speech classification.

I think it quite reasonable - only fair, in fact - that the homosexual community have the same rights of civil partnership as anyone else. I did not, initially, understand that the issue was broader, and so I was planning to vote against Proposition 8 as a matter of course. Sure, we had lost previously, and it certainly rubbed me the wrong way that four judges had undone the work of a multiple millions plurality of the voters because of their private prejudices and the fact that they happened to be a majority upon one particular court. That was very bad, but not bad enough to make me vote for Proposition 8. After all, here was another election, and if the voters voted the way I (initially) wanted them to, we would have gay marriage and have arrived at the spot where we should have been in the first place legitimately. I fully intended to vote against Proposition 8 until nearly the end of October.

That was when I found out about the "hate speech" feature of what the judges had done. Hate speech is a vile, evil concept that directly violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. I want to see what I see as justice done. I want to see homosexuals have full legal parity with heterosexuals. But it is vile, evil, and a corruption of everything I hold sacred to criminalize disagreement with me on this score or any other. Let us consider that if "hate speech" had been a fixture of life thirty years ago, homosexuals would not have many of the rights they enjoy now as a matter of course. You have the right to be heard, and to make your case, and to the victory if the citizens vote your way. NOBODY has a right to stifle dissent, to make disagreement grounds for criminal punishment. That's a right that not even traditional marriage has, and earlier in this article I said things about traditional marriage which might well be "hate speech" within the meaning of the law towards traditional heterosexual marriage, if such a protection existed. I'm glad it doesn't, and you should be also. Just because the body of public opinion favors you at this moment does not in any way give you the ability to freeze the status quo into place. How are we supposed to make future improvements if the status quo is frozen? Ladies and gentlemen, our children are going to have more data about the situation after we are gone than we could hope to. What right have we to freeze any decision of ours forever immobile into law so that they cannot change it? Do we somehow believe they will be more bigoted, more narrow minded, stupider, have less in the way of scientific knowledge? That's what criminalizing opposition to anything does.

Furthermore, gay marriage proponents had filed lawsuits against several religious houses seeking damages and the revocation of their tax exempt status for the horrible crime of disagreeing with whether gay marriage should be legal. What happened to that First Amendment clause about "nor restricting the free exercise (of religion)"? Only religions that meet certain dogmatic tests are to be permitted? Well, I can see restricting ones such as the Thuggees and Islamic Fundamentalists, who want to kill anyone who isn't one of them. But absent violence towards non-believers on the part of that sect, there is precisely zero in the way of legal, ethical, or moral justification towards outlawing religious belief. If you want crazy, harmful beliefs, Communism has killed a couple hundred million in the last century and made the lives of billions into living hells that anyone who could escaped by running away, drugging themselves into oblivion, or committing suicide, yet communists are still permitted to preach their vile mental poison of envy, which has been proven false upon the lives of billions of people within the memory of myself and billions of others alive today. By comparison, the recent history of any world religion except Fundamentalist Islam is a paragon of virtue.

I wrote a few paragraphs ago that heterosexuals are not threatened by homosexual marriage. But everyone is threatened by the concept of hate speech. None of our liberties is safe when hate speech is an avenue of legally closing down any debate. Furthermore, criminalizing hate speech isn't even beneficial. If the Nazis or the KKK want to preach their particular brand of hate, well it may be offensive to the targets, but it is one heck of a useful signpost that these miserable excuses masquerading as human beings should in no way, shape or form be trusted with power, money, votes, or even dignified by taking them seriously. By allowing it into the public discourse, we have a significant restraint upon the ability of these cretins and their allies to persuade us that they might somehow be mistaken for reasonable, rational people. By accepting a certain amount of verbal abuse upon the targets of hate, we immunize ourselves against the possibility that the proponents will ever be able to actually do anything worse.

And in the last few days of the election campaign and the aftermath, the proponents of gay marriage certainly demonstrated a vile streak of their own. Intimidation worthy of the Pinkertons against Unions at the beginning of the twentieth century isn't the first example that pops into my mind, but I'll use it. Communist guerrillas throughout the twentieth century who made a habit of intimidating and assaulting the political opposition before assuming power, and just imprisoning or shooting the survivors after they assumed power. A little old lady who happened to be a Mormon intimidated and subjected to more hateful behavior than anything she was accused of doing because she donated $100 of her own money to the anti gay marriage Yes on 8 campaign. I can understand her business being boycotted by those in favor of gay marriage - that's legitimate, just as it would be equally legitimate for pro gay marriage people to make a point of patronizing her business as often as possible. What is not acceptable is the vile treatment she received when she attempted the common courtesy of hearing out those she disagreed with. Another little old lady abused and assaulted by a mob of gay marriage proponents. I could go on for quite a while, but you can run the same search engines I can for the articles.

Well, you vile fascist pigs, here I am. Here I will stay. I voted FOR Proposition 8. Boycott my business all you want. Say all the vile things about me that you care to. I will simply delete them if they happen to be on my website. If they're not here, I'll simply get a lawyer and sue if they are within the definition of defamation - towards individuals, not causes - that has been quite correctly inscribed in our legal system for centuries. Physically assault me, and I will do my dead level best to pound you into the concrete - and then I'll get my lawyer and sue for assault. Or simply disagree with me in a civil fashion, and we can talk it over in a civilized manner. You have that right, and you might even persuade me. I don't want to classify disagreement with me or the status quo as "hate speech," and will fight any attempt to make it so.

And I will still continue to vote and speak in favor of equal civil rights for homosexuals - unless you somehow manage to convince me of what you have not done thus far: that said rights would constitute a threat significant enough to be worthy of denying equality to you. You're starting late in the game, but really making up for lost time there. I'm repulsed by your tactics and behavior of late, to the point where my flesh has crawled while reading a couple of articles about them. But I still think you should be treated equally before the government, and I understand that there are still areas where your treatment has not attained that standard (hospital visitation and funeral arrangements, to name two), and I will not only vote in favor of such equality, but vote for representatives who will vote in favor of such equality. Where I draw the line is in the use of legal force to stifle dissent, or to force religious folks to accept within their religion that which their holy books decry, whether those books be Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Zoroastrian, or whatever. I believe in equal rights, but not in special privileges. We should all have the right to be equal before the law - but none of us has the right to avoid a little unpleasantness and disagreement from time to time in dealing with those of differing beliefs.

The election is in a few days. While it has become plain to me that the reporting of the polls has been manipulated (along with everything else) by a media actively campaigning for Obama, the math apparently says that the amount of manipulation is not enough to flip the basic result: an Obama victory.

I would be very happy to be wrong about this, and enough people to make a difference could still change their mind, but I'm pretty much resigned to an Obama victory.

I'm still going to vote for McCain, and urge everyone I know to do the same no matter how hopeless it may seem to you.

I have seen too much evidence that Obama intends to lead this country into an economic, foreign relations, and Constitutional disaster of epic proportions.

I love this country.

Therefore, I am going to fight until the bitter end to save it.

I am going to the polls on Tuesday. I am going to vote for John McCain. I'm going to continue to urge all like minded voters to do so, no matter how hopeless the election may seem. That's the easy part. Who knows, we may still bring it off. In any case, by making the win as narrow as possible, it will reduce Obama's political mandate - and power to bring about dangerous change. If enough other people follow this path, we may even put enough spine into the Republican congressional leadership to stand up and make the best fight of it they can.

But if Obama wins, I am not threatening to leave the country. I am going to stay and hold that lying two-faced populist, totalitarian incompetent's feet to the fire to the limit of my ability to do so.

I am going to be scrupulously fair and give him credit for anything good he does.

I am not going to make up stuff about him. If what he has said he wants to do is what he does in fact do, the truth will be bad enough to convince anyone even vaguely rational. I won't need to make up chants like the deranged left has done for George Bush.

If the Big Lie works for the left, imagine what pure facts are going to do for the right and center.

I was too young to vote in 1976. But I remember that President Ford's leadership and plans were working, until he lost the election.

I remember all of what Jimmy Carter did. I lived through his hand-wringing about a "national malaise". The national malaise was of his causing.

Jimmy never tried to repeal half of the bill of rights, as Barack Obama has said (and voted!) to do. Specifically, the first, second, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth amendments are in danger of becoming dead letters if Barack Obama wins, and any pretense of the judiciary being neutral arbiters of the law. For that matter, the thirteenth amendment is in danger (the conscript national service corps he wants to establish). If Whoopi Goldberg is worried about being a slave, she should maybe vote against the man who has said he wants to do something that violates the thirteenth amendment, instead of for him because he indirectly shares some genetic heritage with the group who were slaves If you're worried about a draft, maybe you should vote for the man who believes in the all-volunteer military (John McCain), instead of the man who has said he wants to draft people - just not for the military.

Most importantly, Barack Obama has convinced me that he wants to give our most productive citizens and corporations as much reason to leave take their dollars, their jobs, their investments, and most importantly, their innovative energies out of our country and into others as he can. I want to keep these folks around, in this country, so I will raise the biggest voice I can in their defense.

I remember how Ronald Reagan turned us around. I'm looking around, and I just don't see such a figure in national politics today, and what Barack Obama wants to do will bar most of the avenues he had to make his case, get elected, and enact his agenda. So I'm going to stay, and I'm going to make as much of a fight of it as I can, no matter what anyone else does.

Barack Obama is no man on a white horse. He is a trojan horse. I'm fully aware of what happened to Laocoon, but I must stand up and speak the truth as I see it. I love this country too much to stand by, no matter the cost.

(expletive) unbelievable. Or rather, should I say, all too believable: House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks

Words fail, but I'm going to try anyway: Do you have any idea how much of a difference for the worse it will make for the economy? Do you have any idea how much it will hurt the retirements of the "working class" folks they say they are trying to help? For the economy, about the size of the mortgage meltdown bailout every year, while restricting our economic growth rate by at least a third. For the 401k, do the math with a 28% yearly drain on contributions and income within the account, and over a 40 year working lifetime, it cuts the size of the nest egg by a much larger factor than the tax rate.

It is the fact that this money currently accumulates tax deferred which is the biggest reason why it is a good investment. The company match is actually number two. Let's say you contribute $1000 per year. If you contribute multiple thousands, just multiply the results by however many times you contribute $1000. If you get an 8% compounded rate of return, this will cut the size of the nest egg from $281,000 per thousand per year, to $112,000 - sixty percent of the money just gone, and seventy percent of the actual increase in value (you would have $40,000 even if you put it in a mattress). And here's the sick part: For costing you $169,000, the government only collects $43,000 in taxes! If they just waited until you start withdrawing, at the end of your career, they'd get close to $79,000 at the same tax rate! Is this brain damaged or what?

Don't believe me? It's pretty trivial to program in the spreadsheet of your choice.

Change the assumption to a 10% rate of return (very achievable), and instead of $488,000 times however many thousands of dollars you contribute, you only have $163,000 as the multiplier, and the government only collected $63,000 in taxes, as opposed to over $136,000 if they just waited.

Admittedly, there's also Time Value of Money calculations to make, but this is just so unbelievably stupid that I had to check my calendar and the date stamp to make certain it wasn't an April Fools Day joke taken out of context. This is lose-lose-lose by any measure - unless your only criteria for "benefit" is "the government gets your money now"

These are set up to allow Presidential Candidates to appeal directly to large amounts of people. So how did they do?

I'm going to hold my tongue until later.

Three Poll Questions and lest it be unclear, one person, one vote (in each), i.e. enlightened democracy rules.

How did Sarah Palin do?

How Did Joe Biden Do?

How did it influence your likely vote?

UPDATE: For some reason, pollcode is cutting out two answers I asked for "About equal - but I'm now more likely to vote Obama/Biden" and "About equal - but I'm now more likely to vote McCain/Palin" I've tried fixing this three times with no success. If one of these applies to you, since this is a voting question, please answer as if your respective choice did better and you're now more likely to vote for them

PS: If you voted while I was trying to fix it, those were lost. Please do make a vote that will be counted

As last time, I'm holding my impressions until later.

Scroll down or hit reload for UPDATES

Myth vs Fact on bailout compromise

If John McCain had not used his presidential campaign to shine a media spotlight on the process, the Dodd version would probably have been passed over the objections of House Republicans. Once the spotlight hit, Pelosi knew she needed political cover in the form of large numbers of Republicans voting for it (She claimed she wasn't bringing it to a vote unless a minimum of 100 Republicans agreed to vote for it).

If the House Republicans had not come to the bargaining table, to force anti-pork concessions in return for that political cover, the Dodd version would have passed over their objections.

Wall Street Journal has a history of who tried to fix it and when.

Q and O has a list of differences between the three plans - original Paulson, Democratic Congress, and current, after the House Republicans came to the table. Now, the bill is mostly insurance rather than a direct bail-out.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it looks to me like the House Republicans with assistance from John McCain just saved the taxpayers at least $150 billion dollars just by eliminating the ACORN slush fund. Possibly as much as $500 billion. On a $700 billion allocation.

UPDATE before publishing: Oh, hell: House defeats $700B financial markets bailout

Stocks plummeted on Wall Street even before the 228-205 vote to reject the bill was announced on the House floor.

Unpopular with the voters. Unpopular with a Congress that's facing re-election in five weeks. They really want to delay it until a "lame duck" session, but the markets can't wait.

However unpopular it may be, something is necessary, and necessary now. Three observations:

1) If Congress can't get something through in the next week, it will have done in one week what it took Hoover the rest of his term to do: Cause Widespread Banking Panic. We could see the bank runs of 1933-1935 all over again.

2) By being unwilling to support the bill en masse, the House Republicans shot themselves in the head. They came to the table, and used their minority influence and Nancy Pelosi needing political cover to the utmost. They stripped a lot of pork out of it, and got the main thrust redirected to insurance, rather than a direct buyout, and in stages as necessary. I am pretty sure that this bill was the best bill the taxpayers could have hoped for, and now the only proposal on the table currently is the Dodd monstrosity.

3) The House Democrats also shot themselves in the head. They also needed to support it en masse, in order to keep the House republicans on the hook. Now they're on the horns of a dilemma: Force an unpopular bill through on a party line vote, assuming all political responsibility, or do nothing, and be observed to do nothing, while the markets melt down. It doesn't get any stupider than that.

One minor question: Why is Chris Dodd still leading the Senate Finance Committee, rather than in jail? The answer is because Democrats are in the majority, and he is powerful among them.

One very major question: Is Congress going to act to fix this while the situation is still repairable, or are they going to wait until after the election, permanently driving a stake through the heart of the notion that when the issue is important enough, Congress can act responsibly in the best interests of the country.

There is no doubt. The markets are down five percent in the last hour since it happened. Congress needs to get together and fix this - because the crisis in financial liquidity is hitting us right in the spot that underlies the development and improvement of the entire economy. Every day they delay is going to mean more wealth wiped out - which will make the recovery that much harder. Nor are the bond or even government securities market going to be spared. We don't have five weeks for this. We may not have one.

I have just emailed all three members representing me (Filner, Boxer and Feinstein). I'm giving them an ultimatum, and a chance. If there is not a working, acceptable bailout plan in place before the markets melt down, my vote will go to the opposition - but if there is, and they support it, I will vote for them for the first time ever. I urge literally everyone to do the same.

This is that important that I am willing to vote for three of the worst voting records in Congress if they can get this one thing right.

I don't like this. I hate the thought of bailing out these incompetent, shortsighted assholes on Wall Street. It's just that if we don't, we're looking at hurting everyone a lot more that they will be if we approve this. It may be a "crap sandwich", but I'd rather eat a crap sandwich than what will happen if we don't eat that crap sandwich. At least what we had was about the least putrid crap sandwich we could have hoped for.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has been being a complete and unmitigated idiot on this, but she's got the complete roll-call vote. Find what your representative did.

UDATE 2: Hot Air has the update on why it failed: Pelosi couldn't suck it up and not make it a partisan political issue. Despicable, but the Republican response was just as stupid.

Video embed:

Republicans respond

video embed:

The good news is Boehner still wants to be part of the solution, if only Ms. Pelosi will stop stabbing him and his caucus in the back for the sake of political posturing.

UPDATE 3: Investors swarm T-bills as House rejects bailout . Not just T-Bills, but bonds of all sorts.

As the Dow Jones industrial average plunged nearly 780 points, the yield on the 3-month Treasury bill fell to 0.46 percent from 0.87 percent late Friday, after dropping as low as 0.32 percent. Low yields show that investors are prepared to get meager returns on an investment as long as it is secure.

However, expect any dip in rates to be short term (If you're in California and are thinking about a refinance, contact me right now:

LIBOR, or London Interbank Offered Rate, for 3-month dollar loans had risen to 3.88 percent from 3.76 percent on Friday, suggesting that banks have grown increasingly unwilling to lend to each other. LIBOR for 3-month euro loans, meanwhile, soared to 5.22 percent, the highest rate ever.

Now let me ask: What happens if the folks putting out those bonds cannot repay them? This is a credit crisis, which means that the standard refinance out of personal, government, or corporate debt is going to be both expensive and problematical if Congress cannot get on the stick about stabilizing the lending markets.

"Right now, banks don't trust one another," said Axel Merk, portfolio manager at Merk Funds. Even if the rescue package does get approved eventually, it "is a tool that the Treasury can use, but it's not the solution to all the problems out there."

If the banks don't trust one another, how the heck are they going to trust anyone else?

UPDATE 4: More on Pelosi's speech at Volokh Conspiracy

Speaker Pelosi's speech before the House today was remarkable, but not in a good way. She was trying to round up votes for a bailout package that shes claims to believe is essential for the stability of the American economy. She can't, and doesn't want to, pass the bill without a substantial number of Republican votes. So what does she do? You would think she would say, "let's pass this emergency measure now, in the best interests of the country, and talk about who is to blame later." Instead, Pelosi began her speech with a highly partisan tirade against "Bush" and "Republican" economic policies, which were allegedly to blame for this situation. She focused on an attack on the growth of federal deficits, which clearly are at best tangential to the current crisis. That, to me, is the sort of irresponsible thing you do when (a) you're not claiming there is a vast emergency; and (b) you are in the minority, and not claiming to exercise leadership. [Commenters point out that Republican Housemember were acting equally irresponsibly to the extent they rose to Pelosi's bait and voted against the bailout out of pique at Pelosi. True. But the Speaker of the House is a leader, not just a random member of the House, and her actions inevitably and justifiably get more scrutiny than those of her colleagues.

In the comments:

I have no idea why any particular member, or group of members, of the House, voted for or against the bill. All I'm saying is that if you are trying to rally the House to pass an emergency bill, you make it seem like there is AN ACTUAL EMERGENCY, which more or less precludes partisan attacks. E.g., after Pearl Harbor, no one was giving speeches in the House talking about how FDR's reckless provocations of the Japanese invited their attack, even if they believed it.

Daniel Drezner:

There have been two problems from the beginning with the proposed rescue plan. First, it was labeled a bailout, which is a really, really bad public opinion frame. (Let me add that neither presidential candidate has helped. McCain's interventions seem to have bolstered the House Republicans who said no; Obama's frame of Wall Street vs. Main Street made it easy for voters to believe that a financial meltdown would not affect them in the slightest.

Second, the idea of the package was to prevent a financial mewltdown. But here's the thing -- no one gets credit for stopping a meltdown if it doesn't happen. To use a security analogy, think about what would have happened if either the Bush or Clinton administrations had killed the leadership of Al Qaeda and the Taliban prior to June of 2001. Even if they had claimed that they were foiling a terrorist plot against the United States, no one would have known about it, and it would have been pretty easy to attack either administration for belligerent unilateralism. In other words, it was only after 9/11 that the American public was ready to take the actions that would have prevented 9/11.

Read the whole thing

UPDATE 5: Without a Bailout Plan, What Will the Cost Be?

But there's a catch: taxpayers are already on the hook for the failures of financial institutions, and it's possible that the bill will actually be larger without bailout legislation than with it. That's because the regulators who mind the financial industry -- the Federal Reserve, Treasury and FDIC -- will keep doing what they've been doing: stepping in to prevent the chaotic failure of banks and other large financial institutions. This means continuing to put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, but in a way that adheres to no clear plan of action and doesn't require members of Congress to explicitly approve their actions.

In other words, the costs will still be there, but the likelihood is that the economy will crash completely.

Where will congress go from here

UPDATE 6: via Hot Air, Rep. Paul Ryan

The Statement of Sen. Coburn, probably the most principled fiscal conservative in Congress:

Taxpayers deserve to know that there is no guarantee this plan will work, but there is a guarantee that we will face a financial catastrophe if we do nothing. If banks continue to fail and stop lending the average American could lose their job, be unable to secure a loan for a car, home or college education, and find their life savings and retirement in jeopardy. Our economy depends on having liquid assets available for credit and lending just as an automobile engine needs oil. If those liquid assets stop flowing, our economy will be seriously damaged and will require far more costly and lengthy repairs."

Karl Rove explains the politics of the failure of the bail out (audio). When the Democrats are promising the persecute the Republicans for approving it, but giving their own members carte blanche to vote against (and he names names), you shouldn't be surprised when the Republicans decide to bail on the agreement.

In other words, the Democrats are asking the Republicans to give them the election by voting for it, while they play partisan political games by allowing their vulnerable members it's okay to vote against this the unpopular bill, and stab those Republicans in the back with the electorate by demogoguing the issue. And they were surprised the Republicans bailed en masse?

Let's put this in more familiar terms. You and your co-worker are facing a review, at which point one of you is going to be let go. The problem is that there's a really big important job both of you have to get done together, or both of you will be let go. You manage to work together to find a way to get it done. Then you find out that your co-worker has enlisted a third party to slander your work with the boss and blame it all on you. Sure, you could be the mature adult, but that's a no-win situation for you, and your company isn't likely to give you a good review for your next prospective employer. So you decide to roll the dice and let your jerk of a co-worker's tactics be seen to have sabotaged the project. The outcome for the company isn't optimal, but the outcome for you can't get any worse, and you're preventing the co-worker from reaping gains for their tactics.

There are limits to how selfless you can expect even the most mature adults to be for your benefit when you're acting like a spoiled child. And the bulk of the blame for the fall-apart goes squarely on the shoulders of the jerk co-worker who played office politics when you both needed to cooperate. In this case, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.

Quotes of the day

Diogenes spent a lifetime searching for one honest man. Where are we supposed to find 12? - Megan McArdle

Well, I hate it that we have to start looking in Congress - Glenn Reynolds, in response.

The one I keep remembering, even more than usual, is this one:

"I knew water runs downhill. I didn't dream how terribly soon it would reach bottom."
-Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress by Robert A Heinlein.

When I set the poll last night, I said I'd hold off on my comments until later. Here they are.

I can see why some people are saying Obama won. He sounded good. He seemed to make sense on a certain level. Unfortunately for him, this is the level of the people who pay attention to politics when there's something that twinges their conscience that they don't pay more attention. Because for the people who understand the facts and the history and how it all fits together, he got stomped.

He spent the whole debate running a very convincing bluff, that when you come right down to it, boiled down to his stump speech talking points. Senator Obama, your opponent is named "John McCain," not "George Bush," who is never running for anything else again. Furthermore, while trying to tie your opponent to a president that your party has been demonizing since the election of 2000 may be a winning strategy in certain instances (it did help George Bush in 2000, but not John Kerry in 2004), John McCain has separated himself very well from George Bush, at least to anyone who's been paying attention. Immigration, the surge in Iraq, fiscal policy on all levels, even the role of government (he being more of a conservative than George Bush ever was)

Senator Obama was woefully short not only on facts, but on truth, as well. Dr. Kissinger refuted Mr. Obama's contention about his position on talks with Iran before the talking heads were done. It wasn't George Bush's policies that caused the housing crisis, it was Bill Clinton's. When George Bush tried to reform the problem areas back in 2003, and John McCain in 2005, it was the Democratic party who made it clear they would kill the legislation in the Senate, making the whole thing pointless. The Democrats (including Barack Obama) demogogued the issue, claiming it was racial prejudice and class warfare, that those attempting reform didn't want poor people and minorities to be homeowners, using these as cover issues to prevent the change needed, which was simply to tighten the rules up so that there was some reason to believe that the folks buying and refinancing could really afford the payments. (This is remarkably similar to the way they have demogogued Social Security and Medicare reform). In short, George Bush inherited a system that he tried to change when he saw these problems five years ago, and he was prevented from changing it by the Democrats. Sure, he could have tried harder, but he only had so much political capital to spend, and the War on Terror has to be a higher priority for that. But this was not in any way, shape, or form George Bush's problem. It was Bill Clinton's, and George Bush tried to fix it and was prevented by the party that has been demonizing him for failing to fix it.

For those who pay attention (sadly, not as many as there should be, particularly among the young), John McCain more than held his own in the economic policy debate. He proposed specific ideas and concrete proposals. When Jim Lehrer asked Barack Obama what he would cut because of the bail-out, he segued into new program proposals straight off his stump speech. That's like being told it's a subtraction problem, and adding instead.

Senator McCain blew Senator Obama out of the water on foreign policy. From Georgia to Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan and North Korea, it was obvious who was used to handling this stuff, and who wasn't. Who understands what is still The Great Game, and who does not. The difference in their grasp of international politics should have embarrassed Senator Obama. I'll give him credit for acting ability, though. He kept running a good bluff, and even had the grace to agree with Senator McCain in about half a dozen instances when he knew anything else he said would get him stomped so badly it would destroy his bluff.

Senator McCain did manage to partially call Obama's bluff on energy policy. You can't have nuclear power without storing spent fuel and reprocessing it. But if Yucca Mountain (which Obama has repeatedly opposed), which all of the experts have agreed is the best possible available location for those, is not a good site, then there are no sites available, which reduces to being against nuclear energy.

John McCain does need to work on delivery, and he did let several opportunities to further tear apart Obama. Thinking about it, though, it's probably just as well he let most of the opportunities pass that he did. He was so far ahead that anything more would have been piling on.

The more I know about Barack Obama and his policies, the less impressive his substance becomes. He's got style, he's smooth, and he's got beautiful oration - a lot like Ronald Reagan in those respects. But underneath all that, Ronald Reagan had substance - more substance in a hangnail than Barack Obama has in his whole body. Last night, Barack Obama ran a good, coherent bluff - but John McCain had the winning hand, and didn't fold. It may not be obvious now, especially to committed Obamaphiles (When I visited the conservative websites last night, they were talking specifics, and the comments were jubilant. When I visited progressive ones, they were directing their audience to the polls they had to manipulate, and the comments were bitter), but Obama gave the McCain campaign so much ammunition for campaign commercials that those quotes which are going to come back to haunt him all the way through November 4th. There is material for about fifty ads on a theme of, "What does Barack Obama really stand for?" What he said in the debate, versus what he said in front of partisan audiences. Put about fifty of them out there, and even some of the nutroots will start to wonder.

Okay, here's the crucial question: How did it influence your vote?

Influencing your vote is, after all, what this whole campaign season is about

If you have a comment, keep it civil. The more logical, the better. I'll hold off on my own comments.

PS We're playing enlightened democracy rules here. One person, one vote, period. No stuffing the ballot box.

Regarding treatment of Sarah Palin over the weekend, I was going to write something excoriating the Leftist press over this, but Megan McArdle beat me to it. I'm not going to bother with the idiots who accused Sarah Palin of faking her most recent pregnancy to cover for her daughter - that was so mind bogglingly stupid I couldn't believe people were wasting pixels on it.

The dragging through the mud of a 17 year old girl who has not campaigned, not given any speeches, not sought or been pushed into the limelight by her mother is slimy. I said this when it was Chelsea Clinton (before she started campaigning). I believe once they voluntarily step onto the campaign trail (e.g. Laura Bush and Cindy McCain, Michelle Obama) they make themselves fair game, but until that happens, leave them the heck alone. They didn't choose for their famous relative to run for office. They have a life of their own. Let them live it.

I see nothing wrong - and plenty that's praiseworthy - in how Sarah Palin has handled her family. Yeah, it'd be better if her daughter hadn't gotten pregnant, but short of locking her her up 24/7 - something I'd suggest would be evidence of character shortcomings - the girl is going to make her own choices, and 17 year olds are not as level-headed as thirty year olds. But in both the case of her own fifth child (born with Down's Syndrome) and her oldest daughter's pregnancy, she has done exactly the right thing. I've seen the phrase "shotgun wedding" applied more than once to the daughter's upcoming nuptials - but no evidence presented that the young man in question is in any wise being coerced into the marriage. Throughout most of human history, girls of fifteen to eighteen and boys of similar ages have been getting married and starting families. Yeah, it's probably smarter from a standpoint of the young folks not to start quite so early in our modern society, but it's still the right thing to do for the baby. They're accepting a lot of extra problems they don't have to in order to preserve an innocent life and care for it. Isn't that the sort of things those leftists praise working mothers for doing? I agree - it's heroic, not in the military risk your life sense, but in the sense of people who are going to do an awful lot of work they don't have to, over a period of time at least two decades in length, to make certain that child has the family life it deserves. And Sarah Palin, who taught her daughter well enough to take responsibility for the mistake that resulted in the pregnancy, even when they could get out of all of it in several ways? That's the sort of person I want to vote for, a sort of leader who is in far too short a supply in our government at any level.

I've also seen leftists telling Gov. Palin she should become a stay-at-home mom and give up her career, because she's got a special needs child. Say what? NOW may have gone overboard in the last twenty years ago, but that was one thing they accomplished that I agreed with even as young kid whose mother worked. A woman is not a life support system for her ovaries and womb, nor should she be expected to do more in the way of child care than men. Biology already forces her to spend nine months carrying the baby and she's the only parent who can lactate. Sarah Palin is the sort of person the feminist movement was all about in the beginning, the mother who wanted a career as well, and if the leftists who've been criticizing her for having and continuing her career had any conscience whatsoever, they'd appear before her to apologize, metaphorical hat in hand. Or is it that they just can't believe the Republicans have gotten past the 1950s, so they're hoping to peel off some Republican supporters? And for the left to sell out its supposed principles of female economic liberation in order to peel off a few votes in one election should have honest feminsits crossing party lines to vote McCain/Palin, because their own side has certainly demonstrated more than once in the past couple of weeks that when it comes to actually doing the things they say are praiseworthy, the Democrats have not come as far as the Republicans.

As for troopergate, where Gov. Palin tried to get her ex-brother in law fired from his job as a state trooper, that began well before she was elected governor, and if your governor was personally aware of a rogue, out-of-control law enforcement officer, wouldn't you want them to try to do something about it? This clown was guilty of abuse of authority, using it to harass non-police, tasering an 11 year old boy, poaching major game animals, and several other offenses that should cause a law enforcement official to lose his job. I'd prefer the louse was in prison, but having his ability to abuse the law removed might be sufficient for some people.

If this is all the leftist media has on the lady (and it appears to be) than the "revelations" we've seen thus far, then yes, I'd have to agree that the McCain campaign vetted her well, and there's nothing here that should be harmful. It has been reported that McCain himself knew of everything true that's been reported thus far, and chose Governor Palin anyway - something that says quite a bit in favor of his judgment. I'd say that if some people think there was anything wrong in the above actions, that's more a commentary on those particular people than on the Palins. Just because I think abortion should be an available option, and women should have the ability to choose to terminate their pregnancy, does not mean I think that doing so is in any way admirable, nor that doing so should be something anyone should encourage. In fact, if you've got the personal fortitude to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, an unplanned child, or a special needs child by keeping that child and bringing it up in the best way of which you are capable, that is what says something very admirable about you.

Beautiful! I love it!

The head fake with Pawlenty had me fooled.

McCain chooses Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as running mate, campaign officials say

John McCain tapped Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a conservative who shares his maverick streak, to be the Republican vice presidential running mate on Friday in a startling selection on the eve of the Republican National Convention.

Palin's problems? Her home state is safely GOP, so delivering Alaska doesn't add any electoral votes to the R column there. She's been accused of firing a subordinate because he wouldn't fire her ex brother in law from his state trooper job. She's made enemies within her state GOP for her maverick crusade against corruption and pork. She's light on experience at the level necessary - Governor for two years.

Palin's bonuses? She's not in the top spot on the ticket - Nobody ever said Obama wasn't qualified for Vice President, which would give him time to learn what he needs for the top spot, and as young as she is, her experience is still greater than Obama's. The Democrats can't argue that she's too inexperienced without undercutting Obama. Particularly her executive experience is greater than his. Matter of fact, Palin's career reminds me of a certain other young vice presidential candidate.

She has a long history of being anti-pork and anti-corruption, being even more willing than John McCain to root it out, even when practiced by Republicans. Given four years as Vice President (or eight) she'd be ideally suited to run for President next cycle.

Finally, of course, she may not bring in Alaska's electoral votes, but that's thinking small. She gives McCain a good solid wedge to appeal to not only former Hillary supporters in all fifty states - which will likely move a critical number of states into the R column, but she forever shatters any illusions about Republicans keeping women down. Palin's a working mother - and one of her children has Down's Syndrome, and I think she's the first serving governor to have given birth while in office.

I don't think anybody except McCain's inner circle was expecting this. This is masterful political judo on somebody's part in the McCain campaign. Yeah, I think Romney would have brought more credibility to McCain on the economy (far and away the most important issue), but Vice Presidential candidates are selected for their ability to help the presidential candidate win the election. Call McCain-Palin the PUMA slate. Appropriate in a lot of ways, not just from the Democratic, but the Republican side as well. But her selection gives the ticket a lot more, electorally, than it takes away, it forever removes the Democratic ability to slander Republicans as the party of white males, and it sets up a very strong presidential candidacy for her in four (or eight) years, helping secure the future of the Republican party.

I have made no bones about the fact that I much prefer John McCain to Barack Obama. This is a move that makes it much more likely that McCain will win the election, barring some weird revelation about Governor Palin. Where Obama chose the ultimate insider, McCain took a risk and went the exact opposite direction. I think it's going to pay off for him.

Well done, John McCain and Sarah Palin.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey covers the advantages of Palin wonderfully. Best quote:

Finally, based on all of the above, McCain can remind voters who has the real record of reform. Obama talks a lot about it but has no actual record of reform, and for a running mate, he chose a 35-year Washington insider with all sorts of connections to lobbyists and pork. McCain has fought pork, taken real political risks to fight undue influence of lobbyists, and he picked an outsider who took on her own party -- and won.

Who talks the talk, and who walks the walk?

Or,

If a Recession will not come to the US, the Democrats will send the US to the Recession.

Why did IndyMac Bank fail? Charles Schumer wrote a letter saying it was going to, and then published that letter, resulting in a 1.3 Billion dollar run on deposits over a two week period.

I don't know any lender that could remain solvent in the face of that.

From the Office of Thrift Supervision

The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac's viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts.

"This institution failed today due to a liquidity crisis," OTS Director John Reich said. "Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process."

Some are asking: Did Senator Chuck Schumer Cause Indymac Bank Failure?

The answer is, not by himself. He didn't force them out on a limb by making risky mortgages. But he certainly chopped off the branch they were sitting on. Many institutions in worse shape have survived to become profitable again.

Now if I knew one of my neighbors was struggling to survive, and hanging on but with decent to good prospects of making it back to health, I wouldn't go administering the coup-de-grace while there was that chance. But I'm not a Democratic politician trying to convince people that the economy is in trouble.

The Democrats want a recession so badly that they're willing to create one. Anticipated direct costs to the taxpayer of IndyMac's failure? Four to eight billion dollars. So that people will be mad at the President and vote in Democratic candidates..

More evidence:

Bloomberg: IndyMac Seized by U.S. Regulators; Schumer Blamed for Failure

seeking alpha:

Schumer's letter served no purpose because the FDIC and OTS were already closely monitoring IMB. The letter was only for public consumption, to create publicity for Schumer. The New York Times "Regulators Seize Mortgage Lender" reports Reich saying IMB's deposits were actually increasing before the letter was published, after which withdraws averaging $100M a day started ($1.3B total).

Jerry Bowyer: How Chuck Schumer Caused the Second Largest Bank Failure in US History

Indymac has been under attack from the hard left. The Center for Responsible Lending issued an attack on Indymac within a few days of Schumer's letter. CRL is part of a small army of left of center 'research' groups, community organizers, and public interest law firms who make their living accusing home lenders of racial redlining and predatory lending. On June 20th the Center accused Indymac of unfair practices regarding minority borrowers.

Obama's campaign makes an appeal to pity. Willisms debunks it thoroughly.

neo-neocon on Obama's thin skin.

Private Papers on the Obama Double Standard.

Ever since he started this campaign, he's been telling people he's something special. What he seems to mean is that he wants special consideration, special immunities, and special opportunities for attack. I'm getting real tired of Obama's thin skin, and his, "Play nice while I take choice opportunities to get nasty" schtick. I imagine a lot more people will be before the campaign is settled.

Geez, at least communists and fascists waited until they were in power to suppress dissent.

I wrote the above Friday. Another example today: Obama tells seniors McCain would threaten Social Security;

Democrat Barack Obama told seniors Sunday that Republican John McCain would threaten the Social Security that they and millions like them depend on because he supports privatizing the program.

Gratuitous attack? check. Scare tactics? Check. Blaming McCain for something he's been among the potential reformers trying to save? Check. Tell me, Senator, how is this any different from what you got all indignant about a few days ago when President Bush talked about appeasers without mentioning your name? Where a reasonable reading of the transcript says he's talking about the general concept of appeasement, (in the Knesset of Israel, in the context of events leading up to Israel's founding). Then you jumped up and cried about how he meant you when he was really talking about events that happened before you were born?

But while we're on this subject, Senator Obama, if you dig into the actuarial reality of the referenced programs, the only way to save Social Security at all is a radical change like privatization. Social Security and Medicare are headed for financial disaster too severe to save them from (I'm seeing estimates of $65 trillion of unfunded, uncovered liability under the two programs, and growing. That's every single dollar the US economy produces in five years.) So what's it going to be, Senator? Do something so that these programs are going to be there in some form, or stand athwart history yelling "Stop!" Okay, so you've already made it clear what your choice is: Pretend those two trains heading for each other on the same track are somehow not going to hit. Now go rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic. The adults have work to do.

Another example Monday Obama tells Tenn.'s GOP: 'Lay off my wife'

Obama, his party's presidential front-runner, and his wife, Michelle, were asked in an interview aired Monday on ABC's "Good Morning America" about an online video last week by the state's GOP taking her to task for a comment some considered unpatriotic.

"The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."

The video repeats what his wife said speaking at a campaign even on his behalf. here's a clip containing it (I haven't watched the whole clip in this instance, just enough to see that it had what Michelle Obama was being taken to task for)

Dear Senator Glass House: If you are using someone to campaign for you, they are a fair target. What they say while campaigning for you is a particularly fair target. Let's contrast this with "how Democrats treat Republicans." For instance, Dick Cheney's daughter didn't campaign for him, but she became a campaign issue. Jenna and Barbara Bush became campaign issues when one of them had an underage drink (I don't remember which), but President Bush didn't complain about that because he had used them for youth outreach. Colin Powell decided not to run for President because of what would happen to his family. You decided to run for President in what should have been full awareness of the consequences, and if you didn't, that's hardly a recommendation in your favor - it's not like it's not common knowledge. None of the criticism of Michelle is old or irrelevant. The criticisms of Michelle Obama I've seen have fresh stuff, from campaign appearances she made on your behalf, speaking for you. Even if she were speaking solely on her own behalf, I think it's pretty relevant what your wife thinks and what her values are. Common values are one of the main supports of a viable marriage - her values are a reflection of yours. Otherwise, you wouldn't still be married. For someone who tried a few days ago to bring Cindy McCain's wealth just a few days ago (which has been held separate from her husband's money for their entire 28 year marriage), this shows a lot of gall.