The constitutional lawyer, Mark Levine, has given one of the most comprehensive analyses of how the financial meltdown of 2008 occurred, and who is to blame.  

On one of his shows, Mark outlined in vivid detail the chronology of where all these risky loans and bad debt that crashed the big investment banks on Wall Street originated.  Mark then goes on to showcase that the very people who created the mess are LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH to blame Capitalism or Bush for their dirty work.

This is informative to know, so that when you read these Leftists in Congress blame you and me and Bush and the GOP – for this mess that THEY helped create, we might someday hold these vermin accountable.

Thank you Mark!

 

Where the Blame Truly Lies In The Financial Meltdown This Past Week 

Transcript

MARK LEVIN SHOW

Friday September 19, 2008:

September 2008 will be remembered as the time when Socialism really, really took hold in this country.

Unfortunately these politicians are running for the hills because they do not want to take responsibility for what is going on, and I mean BIG TIME.

So I want to tell you a little story about your government; I want to tell you a little story about how it works and doesn’t work. I want to tell you a little story about how things go on in the shadows in this country and the massive bureaucracies of this country that you don’t know about, and yet they affect your lives every single day.

We have a massive Administrative State….and we have this massive bureaucracy, that’s utterly unelected, and unaffected by what you want or what you believe. It’s part of the Washington elite management system that controls so much of what goes on in this country.

…And I want to tell you a little bit about how the liberals in government whether they be elected or appointed, whether they be bureaucrats or politicians, how they work together and bring us to this point. And then tell YOU the problem is free markets, the problem is Capitalism, the problem is greed.

They lie.

The Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA – is a federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area. And it prohibits them from NOT giving loans to poorer areas within the reach of their communities. They call this redlining. They call violations of this redlining.

The purpose of this Act is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to what they call “under-served populations” and commercial loans to small businesses.

The law was passed by Congress in 1977 under Carter as a result of national grassroots pressure from groups like ACORN (an ultra-Left wing criminal enterprise in my humble opinion) which brought pressure for affordable housing for the poor. It was opposed significantly and aggressively by the banking community. But they had no choice. It became law 31 years ago.

The law mandates that “each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of it’s entire community” – that is, if it has given loans to enough poor people, or people who can’t really afford them.

And then that record is taken into account by the federal government when it considers an institution’s application for mergers and acquisitions. 

And so the law is enforced by the federal government and in 1995, as a result of interest from Bill Clinton’s Administration – particularly Janet Reno and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the implementing regulations for the law were strengthened by focusing the financial regulator’s attention on institution’s performance in helping to meet community credit needs.

So they really, really pushed them. They used the FORCE OF LAW to compel these private institutions to make bad loans.

These changes were very controversial. 

…The Clinton Administration’s regulatory revisions with an effective starting date of January 31 1995, were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low and moderate income borrowers for home loans. Clinton used to brag about this.

Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency in the genesis of lenders like Countrywide that DID NOT mitigate loan risk with savings deposits, which traditional banks do. They were using the new SUBPRIME AUTHORIZATION, of 1995. Are you listening to me? This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans. The revisions in the law allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. In other words, they had to figure out how to give loans to people who do not qualify for the loans under traditional procedures. So they changed the procedures.

The loans were not capitalized. So you have No Down Payment loans, No Interest loans, Low Interest loans that turn into higher interest loans over time (ARMs), and on and on. They were trying to be creative in what they could do, and they HAD TO BE under the threat of losing business practices and activities as compelled by the Federal Government.

The Federal Government compelled this activity and compelled this behavior.

The first securitization of CRA loans, started in 1997 with Bear Stearns (remember them?) 

Now in 2003, The Bush Administration recommended what the New York Slimes (Times) called “The most significant regulatory overhaul in the Housing Financial Industry since the Savings and Loan crisis a decade ago”. This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under a wholly new agency created within the Department of Justice, which would give it more oversight power and more auditing power. It would require these two so-called “companies” to better capitalize their debt.

Even so, what remained was the implied guarantee that the American taxpayer, should anything go wrong, would back-up these loans.

But that legislation to strengthen these programs, to move the oversight to an independent separate agency WAS BLOCKED in 2003 by Congress. And it was blocked by the Democrats, because the Democrats were in bed with ACORN and these other “community activists grassroots groups”, of whom Barrack The Hussein Obama is quite familiar.
These are the constituents of the Democrat party – that is these Left wing groups like ACORN.

(Barney) Frank (D-MA) was in bed with them; Chris Dodd (D-CT) was in bed with them; the Clinton Administration was in bed with them; and so they blocked the reforms the Bush Administration proposed in 2003.

Barney Frank said at the time “These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are NOT FACING ANY KIND OF FINANCIAL CRISIS. The more people exaggerate these problems…the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing”.

So basically, the Socialists FORCED the private sector to behave in ways the private sector didn’t want to behave but was forced to behave under threat of law. That is to give loans to people who were bad risks.

The two government run companies; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when the Bush Administration said in ’03 “Look we got a problem here. They don’t have enough capital, they’re running wild over there. We don’t have enough oversight and auditing activity. We want to break out that activity – make it independent so they can oversee it. Force them to capitalize against their loans better”. They were BLOCKED.

Now I don’t know about people who say we can’t talk about party (blame) – We HAVE TO TALK ABOUT PARTY HERE because the only way you have accountability, and the only way you fix this situation, is to know WHO and WHAT is responsible, and what policies got us here!

Now these policies encouraged the development of the sub-prime debacle, through this CRA legislation, which forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy customers. Which they are now being criticized for having done. Before this debacle, while they are now attacking these huge financial institutions – they would praise them for all the uncreditworthy risky loans they were giving to ‘certain’ citizens (and non-citizens) in this country!

In 2003, the NY Slimes said of the Bush Administration’s plan “The plan is an acknowledgment by the Administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together have issued more than 1.5 trillion in outstanding debt, is broken”. 

2003.

Former Treasury Secretary John Snowe from the Bush Administration, 2003 - “There is a general recognition, that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprise neither has the tools nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises.”

Michael Oxley, Republican from Ohio, former House Finance Services Committee Chairman, he said: “The current regulator does not have the tools or the mandate to adequately regulate these enterprises. In recent months, we have seen the mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed”.

The Senate Republican Policy Committee, the Conservatives warned in 2003, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac threatened the U.S. economy and taxpayer “Although both firms seem to be performing well at the moment, it is far better for Congress to take pre-emptive action, instead of facing an enormously expensive corrective action after a destabilizing crisis strikes. Given how large these government companies have grown, and how much interest rate risk they retain, the risks posed by their current operations, should move Congress to increase their disclosure requirements, improve safety and soundness regulations, and examine how best to extricate the Federal Government from their operations. And through such steps, Congress could give regulators and investors a better sense of the risks that Fannie and Freddie’s operations pose and reduce the likelihood of a bailout.”

That was the Conservative Republican Policy Committee, Conservative Republican Senators.

What did the Democrats say? What did they say in 2003?

When the Bush Administration in 2003 was in fact, ringing the alarm bells, and did in-fact draft proposed legislation to address this, Republicans supported it and Democrats blocked it.

“These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are NOT FACING ANY KIND OF FINANCIAL CRISIS. The more people exaggerate these problems…the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing”. – Barney Frank, 2003 (D-MA)

He told the AP a few weeks later: “I don’t think we face a crisis. I don’t think we have an impending disaster.”

In 2004 Frank said “I think Wall Street will get over it”, referring to the possible collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In 2005, the Republicans in Congress offered legislation to basically do what the Bush Administration had proposed two years earlier, and here’s what the Democrat Minority Leader in the Senate Harry Reid had to say: “The legislation from the Senate Banking Committee passed today on a party-line vote by the Republican majority, includes measures that could cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding home ownership. While I favor approving oversight by our federal housing regulators, to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process”. That was UPI quoting Harry Reid in July ’05.

This by the way is the same reason they won’t address the other looming disasters like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. They just won’t do it. Until we’re on the brink.

As recently as August 16, 2007 – a little over a year ago – Schumer and Dodd, the Chairman of the Banking Committee, called on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulators TO LIFT THE PORTFOLIO CAPS SO THEY COULD GIVE OUT MORE LOANS, to MORE people. They argued that allowing the two firms to buy more mortgages, and we’re talking about these sub-prime mortgages, “at least temporarily” they said, “would inject much liquidity into the market and calm the financial markets.” 

That’s what we’re talking about.

In November 2006, Schumer in an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg: “With the benefit of hindsight, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which imposed a new regulatory framework on all public companies doing business in the U.S., also needs to be re-examined. Since its passage, auditing expenses for companies doing business in the U.S. have grown far beyond anything Congress had anticipated. Of course, we must not in any way diminish our ability to detect corporate fraud and protect investors. But there appears to be a worrisome trend of corporate leaders focusing inordinate time on compliance minutiae rather than innovative strategies for growth, for fear of facing personal financial penalties from overzealous regulators.”

They were arguing for REDUCING the regulations that had been passed after Enron!!!!

…We will be paying for all of this now and down the road because of Socialism. That’s what I am trying to explain. That’s why I am taking the time to slog though this. Because it all sounds so foreign – because it has all been going on, behind the curtain. So we really haven’t been aware of it. It’s like Illegal Immigration, been going on for 45 years, they have been passing these laws, and we really haven;t been aware of it. We’re aware of it now, because we are on the hook for it. 

What Chuck Schumer wrote in the WSJ Op-Ed in November 2006, is not what Chuck Schumer says today. Here’s what he said on the senate floor 

“8 years of de-regulatory zeal by the Bush Administration, an attitude of “The market can do no wrong” have led us down the short path to economic recession. From the unregulated mortgage brokers, to the opaque credit default swaps market, to aggressive Short Sellers who were driving down the price of even healthy financial institutions based on innuendo, this Administration has failed to take the steps necessary to protect both Main Street and Wall Street”.

There may not be a silver bullet to fix what is currently dragging down the economy, but we can take steps to mitigate the costs and make sure that the impact of this crisis will be short-term. ” – Schumer, (D-NY)

See, our nation would be far better off without charlatans like Chuck Schumer. We have you dead to rights here Chuck. We have you in writing where you demanded LESS regulation and less oversight. So the fact you go to the senate floor and spew your talking points doesn’t work here.

We have you Barney – we have you dead to rights too. You’re a liar. You fought the reforms the Administration tried to put in place in 2005.

Yet Frank had this to say today:

“The fundamental issue is we have got to put an end to this situation in which there is no sensible regulation, and irresponsible individuals in the private market, or unwise individuals in the private market can incur the kind of risks that put us in a threatening situation,” said House Financial Services Committee Chairman, Barney Frank.

He’s a liar.

Now Barrack Obama, Obama is allied with radical groups like ACORN. These radical Left wing front groups like ACORN which pushed hard for the legislation that Carter put in place – the CRA forcing private financial institutions to make the riskiest of loans.

We have the Clinton Administration dead to rights – including Janet Reno, who insisted that these banks and financial institutions would not be able to survive and expand unless they took a certain amount of their assets and applied them to the riskiest of loans. That’s what they created in 1995 with this sub-prime market – of zero down loans. They were trying to come up with packages so they could meet their federal requirements. And they did.

Then step in the two government-run entities, Fannie and Freddie – and they are buying up these loans from the private sector as far as they can. Now that doesn’t promote home ownership, yet that is what they were in existence to do. So why were they buying up these risky loans?? Because they appeared as assets on their books, even though they weren’t. And the more assets they had, the bigger the bonuses for Franklin Raines, and Jamie Gorelick, and Jim Johnson – these three who are Obama’s ECONOMIC ADVISORS – that’s why they bought them up. It was in their OWN self-interest!!

This corrosive cronyism, has spread throughout the financial institutions in this country. That’s why they are hustling to fix it! Their fingerprints are all over this dammit! Don’t you see???!!! This wasn’t the private sector that did this, this wasn’t any individual company that did this, this is institutionalized corruption – we call it Socialism!!! Every effort to address it by the Bush Administration in ’03, by the Republicans in ’05, was rejected. Rejected by Chris Dodd, rejected by Chuck Schumer, rejected Barney Frank, rejected by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. This is why I rail against this! This is why I rail against the Left and the Socialists.

This isn’t a joke! This is real life!

And now, over the weekend, the Treasury Secretary – who is a Liberal Democrat, and a Friend of Schumer’s – has a plan that sticks us with a bill of over 1 TRILLION dollars!

We’re nationalizing businesses, we’re subsidizing businesses, now we’re going to create a 1 trillion dollar trust??

I tell you what; Socialism Sucks.

Paulson plan could cost $1 trillion

Look what your government has done!!!!!! They have dragged us to the precipice!

You and I weren’t overseeing Freddie and Fannie – you and I had nothing to do with this CRA law – with all these Left Wing grassroots groups – or forcing banks and thrifts to cough up money for risky loans – we had nothing to do with this!

This is what goes on behind the scenes.

“Oh it’s Capitalism and Free Markets that are the cause” – no it’s not – THAT’S the problem!

What kind of a businessman gives a loan to someone who cannot pay it back unless they have a gun to their head???

…So all this crap that is out there – all these bad loans that are out there – they are going to pass them off into this fund, so every business out there that is loaded with these is going to dump them on you and me – the American taxpayer. To save those businesses. And by the way, those businesses – in many cases were forced to make these crap loans by the very people who are going to save us!!!

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” said lawmakers were told last night “that we’re literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system, with all the implications, here at home and globally.” ?

Why is Chris Dodd still chairman of the banking Committee?? Why isn’t he spooning out slop at some federal prison? Why isn’t he in charge of the soap at some Federal prison? 

“What you heard last evening is one of those rare moments — certainly rare in my experience here — was that Democrats and Republicans decided we needed to work together, quickly,” Dodd said.

Funny how they want to work quickly to fix it now – but refused to do so in 2003 and 2005 BEFORE this collapse was triggered.

“Congressional leaders tell Politico that to expedite the rescue, Treasury plans to seek additional authority rather than creating a new entity. The plan involves buying up hundreds of billions of dollars in bad mortgages to take them off the books of financial institutions that otherwise might fail”. 

…Yeah let’s hurry up (and fix this) let’s set this thing up before the American people figure out what’s going on. Let’s set it up – because as all the experts keep telling us, “this is just too big to fail!” That’s too big and this is too big – we have to nationalize everything! That’ll fix it! That’s because we know that whatever the government does is okay and whatever the private sector does is horrific.

What Obamacare does to the Economy

What Obamacare does to the Dollar

What Obamacare does to Healthcare

Let me first say that I am a strong supporter of Healthcare reform. Our system has experienced healthcare inflation at double digit rates for years and that is exactly what has made healthcare unaffordable and unavailable to millions of Americans. Unfortunately, the healthcare reform now being proposed by the Democrat party leaders is the wrong course...the simple economics of this proposal is far more likely to make matters worse.

House Democrats barely passed (220 votes to 215) a Healthcare bill last week that is so ridiculously liberal that even 39 House Democrats voted against it. America deserves much better than this...we need to send them back to the drawing board. Fortunately, the Healthcare bill passed by House Democrats still has to get through the Senate before President Obama can sign this disastrous 2,200 page train wreck into law.

Here's what can happen in the Senate

For those familiar with the cloture rule, the Senate can invoke cloture with 60 votes. If a cloture vote comes down party lines, then they should have 60 votes. For those unfamiliar with a filibuster, a filibuster is a move that can allow a minority to defeat a measure by tying it up in debate indefinitely (which is how a GOP Senate minority can defeat the healthcare bill.) Cloture prevents a filibuster. If cloture is invoked, it essentially sets a time limit on debate and places a deadline for final vote that can allow a bill to pass on a much slimmer margin (say 51-49.)

There are several Democrat Senators whose constituents overwhelmingly oppose a public option and whose constituents overwhemlingly voted against Obama in the election. Needless to say those constituents aren't excited with the House bill. Ironically, these same Senators are up for re-election in 2010 and are understandably very hesitant sell out their constituents and support the more liberal versions of healthcare reform. These Senators' votes are desparately needed to reach 60 votes, invoke cloture, and prevent a GOP filibuster.

Do not be duped by what these senators try to pull off this next week. I believe these vulnerable Senators will attempt to please their party by voting for cloture (thus preventing a GOP filibuster) then attempt to subsequently please their constituents by voting against the bill on the final vote (but allowing the bill to pass on a slimmer margin.) That way, those Senators can offer lip service to their constituents and hope to escape the consequences in 2010 elections. For that reason, Americans need to make it clear that anyone who votes for cloture OWNS OBAMACARE.

Here's what you can do to stop Obamacare:

1. Make sure the Senators listed below have their phones ringing off the hook, not only with your voice of opposition to Obamacare, but also with the reminder that voters will hold Senators responsible for a vote on cloture; and

2. Nothing speaks louder than money. Talkpac (http://talkpac.com/) has set up a campaign donation fund that will be used exclusively to help defeat the vulnerable democrats who chose party over constituents in their support of Obamacare. Make a donation...all these Senators have to see this next week is how quickly their 2010 opponents' campaign coffers are filling up because of this highly controversial, highly opposed healthcare reform bill.

3. Spread the Word right away.

Act quickly - Harry Reid will try to offer the motion for this next week (11/16 - 11/20). Don't worry if you aren't from these Senators' states - these Senators already know this bill is unpopular among their constituents - you don't have to pretend you are a voter from their state. Simply make it clear that

1) your dollars are still going to help their 2010 opponent if they sell out their constituents on this highly controversial bill; and
2) voters will hold Senators accountable for a cloture vote.



These are the vulnerable Senators who need to hear from you:

Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana
DC Phone: (202) 224-5623
Local Phone: Evansville (812) 465-6500, Fort Wayne (260) 426-3151, Hammond (219) 852-2763, Indianapolis (317) 554-0750, Jeffersonville (812) 218-2317, Southbend (574) 236-8302


Sen. Michael Bennet, Colorado
DC Phone: 202) 224-5444
Local Phone: Denver Metro Office: (303) 455-7600 Toll Free: (866) 455-9866 Fax: (303) 455-8851
Colorado Springs Office: Phone: (719) 328-1100


Sen. Byron Dorgan, North Dakota
DC Phone: (202) 224-2551
Local Phone: Bismarck (701) 250-4618, Fargo (701) 239-5389, Minot (701) 852-0703, Grand Forks (701) 746-8972


Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas
DC Phone: (202) 224-4843
Local Phone: Dumas (870) 382-1023, Fayetteville (479) 251-1224, Little Rock (501) 375-2993, Jonesboro (870) 910-6896, Texarkana (870) 774-3106

Someone recently sent a comment to me in response to my opposing views on Obamacare.  Here is an excerpt of her response:  

 

"I know a lot of you think it is horrible to have every American healthy and insured but oh well. I know I know it is horrible to think that an insurance company that makes billions is going to have to cover you know matter what and they can't drop you when your condition gets too expensive. Is that really such a bad thing. Wait, why do I care who has health insurance and who doesn't? I have great coverage and so does my daughter. Oh, I know why because I have a heart and care about human beings as a whole, not just mine."

...and here is my response to her:  

Dear Ruth: (name changed to maintain her anonymity) 

Just because I (along with tens of millions if not hundreds of millions) of Americans vehemently oppose the healthcare reform currently being proposed in congress doesn't mean we all believe the current healthcare system is perfect, nor does it mean we are all heartless human beings who only care about ourselves.  I am absolutely livid that you (along with some disgustingly pathetic democrats) would even suggest that...it shows how ignorant you really are in this debate.    

Most Americans (myself included) support healthcare reform - it is desperately needed.  However, to fix the current system - we don't have to massively expand government and deficit-spend our way into oblivion.  (That might be the way y'all handle things in California, but in case you haven't noticed the California state government is almost bankrupt.)  

• It is okay to change the rules for heath insurance companies in such a way that they have to expand coverage to all Americans.  
• It is okay to change the rules to prevent insurance companies from dropping coverage or omitting coverage for pre-existing conditions.  
• It is okay for the government to divert some federal funding to help unemployed households maintain coverage.  
• It is okay to knock down states' regulatory barriers that preclude more in-state competition between insurance companies

We can fix most of the problems without bringing in a ridiculous public option that creates far more problems than it fixes and that (via the inconsequential penalties against employers who fail to offer coverage) pushes more Americans onto the public option and eventually toward a single-payer system.  

Another problem that Obama, Reid, Pelosi and all their cronies haven't even addressed in their 2,200 page waste of paper is that (as I have said before) insurance is merely a conduit for the real problem - the real problem is the cost of medical care itself.  You can fix insurance all you want, but if the cost of medical care keeps inflating the way it has - those costs will continue increasing the insurance premiums at double-digit rates, which will continue to make insurance less affordable for more and more Americans.      

That is why so many millions of American oppose Obamacare - it wastes taxpayer dollars and ultimately puts us back where we started because it won't fix a thing.  

I can't believe I am saying this, but I liked a lot of what I heard Obama say last night during his 09/09/09 healthcare speech to congress...was it because Obama was using all the right buzz words that everyone wants to hear or was it because he presented meaningful dialogue and reform?  The beginning of the speech wherein Obama outlined the problems with our current system were things both sides agree with.  No one disagrees that our current healthcare system desperately needs reform.  

I was hopeful as Obama included valid points from the opposition and seemed to imply a future of bipartisanship as they work through these deals.  Unfortunately, there were many things he said that either highlighted his ignorance on some of the issues or that just plainly don't add up to the promises he made.  For example:  

1. Coverage for Illegal Aliens.  Although I didn't like Joe Wilson's tact, I am glad someone called out Obama on that illegal alien verbiage.  I don't believe any conservatives have ever said the health care bills explicitly cover illegal aliens...Obama's comment here was misdirected.  The conservative criticism has been that the bill does nothing to explicitly EXCLUDE or PROHIBIT illegals from obtaining coverage nor does the bill address any measures to ENFORCE those prohibitions or even VERIFY CITIZENSHIP.  That is the problem - click here for more information. How is Obama's point (the the bill does not extend coverage to illegals) relevant if the bill does not include any language to prevent illegals from obtaining coverage?  A lack of citizenship verification (or lack of enforcement plans) for illegal aliens is by default an extension of coverage because illegals will exploit that to their advantage as will the trial lawyers.  On this issue, Obama still just doesn't get it. 
2. Pretty much any reference to "Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy."  That is a partisan as it gets.  The Bush tax cuts are more accurately described as tax cuts to the taxpayers...if you paid a lot of taxes, you got more of a tax cut that you did if you paid no taxes.  If you were already getting a free ride by paying no taxes then I'm sorry - you didn't get your taxes cut below zero.  How can Obama promise bipartisanship when he keeps throwing partisan jabs at his opponents in the same breath?    
3. When Obama justified the cost of his program by contrasting it with the cost of the wars, I thought that was idiotic.  At the time those wars were declared (by both parties) it was a matter of national security.  Regardless of how fiscally irresponsible the Bush administration was (and my biggest gripe with G.W. Bush was his out-of-control spending) - Obama's spending makes Bush look like Dave Ramsey.  You don't justify another trillion dollar spending package by claiming that it costs less than our last fiscally irresponsible spending package.  Is it not just as idiotic for me to buy a car that my wife and I cannot afford, then buy my wife another car we cannot afford and proceed to justify those irresponsible decisions by claiming these cars still cost less than the house we bought last month (which we also cannot afford.)  Do those Federal Government chambers have some electronic field that zaps away a person's common sense once they are elected?  Once again, how can you promise bipartisanship when you keep throwing jabs at your opponents?
4. (As an afterthought to #3, I'd be more accepting of Obama's promise to cut inefficiencies and waste to pay for the program if I had ever seen our government succeed in delivering on such a promise.  I don't mean to be skeptical and pessimistic here, but the government's track record of failing to deliver on this type of promise extends far beyond my lifetime.  I'd rather find an alternative where I don't have to put my trust in a government that hasn't earned my trust.)   
5. Overall, when Obama seemed to address critics of his plan - he pointed to their charges as ridiculous and false and remarked that the bill contained no such things.  As indicated in #1 above, there is a difference between items that are specifically addressed in the bill and consequences resulting from the bill.  The critics of Obama's healthcare reform raise many legitimate concerns about the CONSEQUENCES of this reform as it is written.  For example, Obama dismisses the "death panels" as a ridiculous scare tactic and points out that the bill contains no such measures.  That is not the point his critics are making...the "death panels" could very well be a consequence of what happens when the decision of how to ration health care (which is a scarce resource that accordingly has to somehow be rationed in one way or another - that's simple Economics 101) is turned over to the government.  If 1000 individuals need life-saving care and the government-run healthcare system only has resources to provide care for 500 of those, someone in the government will make a decision on which 500 get care and which get delayed care or no care.  That is the death panel concern and it is a very legitimate concern (read more about it here and also more specific comments from Obama & his advisors here) that Obama blew off as a "falsehood" and a "ridiculous scare tactic."  His critics all point to Section 1233 of the bill, and Obama continues to avoid any meaningful dialogue on those concerns.  
6. Tort Reform - Obama has clearly underestimated how big of a problem this really is.  The problem isn't limited to the skyrocketing malpractice costs for doctors who have to pass those costs on to thier patients.  The problem also includes doctors having to perform all kinds of additional (and many times unnecesary) tests merely to cover their ground from a legal perspective.  I truly hope Obama is open-minded about what the panels find in this area and I hope he is prepared to deal with the trial lawyers' special interest groups as he seeks reform in this area.
7. Some other problems with Obama's healthcare reform shown here. 
8. Some other solutions that should be considered/included.

My overall philosophy is as follows: 

1. Keep government involvement as minimal as possible; Isn't it ironic that the 10th amendment of our constitution prohibits our congress from meddling outside of their enumerated powers (which enumerated powers DO NOT include anything remotely connected to healthcare or a "public option") yet our entire congress ignores that fundamental problem to their approach?  
2. Attack the problem at its source (hint:  insurance isn't the source, it is merely a conduit for the real problem - escalating heath care costs are the real problem.)  I liken insurance reform to bailing water off the Titanic...and I believe the "public option" only pokes a bunch of holes in your "bailing bucket."    
3. Limit insurance use to the large, catastrophic-type events, and have Americans pay for the basic day to day stuff either out of pocket or with HSA's.  (ie:  I am happy to have my insurance pay $900 for a sonogram, but I'll scrap the sonogram if the $900 has to come out of my pocket...and we wonder why healthcare costs so much?  If a sonogram were not covered by insurance and Americans all had to decide whether to pay that out of pocket, the sonogram providers will have to either drop their price to get any customers or make their living doing something else.  Hmmmm.)
4. Speaking of HSA's, how about getting rid of that senseless "use it or lose it rule?"
5. How about a system that rewards elements of healthy lifestyles - how's that for attacking the problem at the source?
6. Tort reform will do a lot to bring down health care costs...to apply my Titanic example, tort reform is equivilent to closing up one of the big holes wherein the ship is taking on water.
7. How about getting some balance to the supply & demand problem with healthcare.  How about some incentives to create more doctors.  How about expanding the capacity of the medical schools and knocking down some of the barriers that limit how many doctors we have?  Again - to apply the Titanic example - this is another hole that is taking on water...but these are fixable without a massive expansion of government.        

I am as hopeful as anyone that our healthcare system gets the badly needed healthcare reform.  Much of the needed tweaks to our current system could be accomplished through tax credits & incentives calculated to change behavior for the medical community, the insurance companies, and the American people.  That keeps the reform constitutional.  The highest priority in my opinion is right in line with many things Obama said:  coverage for pre-existing conditions, curbing medical inflation, allowing better access to healthcare for more Americans--(which is best accomplished by lowering the costs), preventing insurance companies from dropping you when you don't want to be dropped, tort reform, etc.  I'd prefer to fix these problems in a way that costs taxpayers and employers as little as possible and in a way that limits government powers to those permitted within the constitutional framework.      

I truly hope Obama was sincere in his call for bipartisanship to fix this, but that sincerity remains to be seen in the coming weeks/months.    

UPDATE:  Heard an interview with Joe Wilson regarding his "that's a lie" outburst during the Obama speech.  Wilson pointed out that republicans proposed an amendment to the house bill that would further prevent illegal aliens from abusing the system by requiring citizenship verification.  Democrats defeated the amendment and prevented it from making its way onto the bill.  (Now can you understand why it pushed Wilson over the top when Obama claimed illegal aliens would not receive coverage under the bill?  Obama knew about the defeated amendment yet he still deliberately and dishonestly claimed illegals would not receive coverage under his bill...in other words, he lied through his teeth to congress and America.)  

• John is a dishwasher making minimum wage of $6.55/hour
• Alan (John's supervisor) is an assistant line cook who makes $7.25/hour
• Mark (Alan's supervisor) is a line cook making $8/hour
• ...etc.

Further summary of Family Code:

• (b–d) CA Family Code further gives the same rights to former domestic partners, surviving domestic partners, and domestic partners with respect to children.
• (e) Registered domestic partners shall be treated by California law as if federal law recognized a domestic partnership in the same manner as California law.
• (f) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights regarding nondiscrimination as those provided to spouses.
• (g) No public agency in this state may discriminate against any person or couple on the ground that the person is a registered domestic partner rather than a spouse.

Jeff Fuller (of www.mymanmitt.com) was in a discussion with a Huckabee supporter who was dissing Mitt as "Finished." 

The reponse was just beautiful: 

It looks like Mitt (after 1 month of primaries and caucuses) is going to have more total votes and total delegates than your man (Huck) will have after 2 months of primaries and caucuses. 


(CNN delegate count as of 2/13/2008)

	Delegates
McCain	830
Romney	286
Huckabee	217

Vote Tally as of 2/13/2008

	Total Votes	Percent
McCain	5,468,444	38.77%
Romney	4,293,965	30.44%
Huckabee	2,800,425	19.85%

And your man is more "finished" now than than our man was when he bowed out for the good of the party.

The Huck supporter then said that Romney spent over a million dollars per delegate and was the worst political investment ever . . . the Fuller reply: I think Rudy's $50 million for 1 delegate is probably the "worst political investment ever".

And, like Huck, I'm no math major, but I do have at least two functioning brain cells.
Romney got 286 delegates . . . your "$1 plus mil per delegate" claim suggests that he must have spent $300 million or more on this campaign.  Either you're easily duped (typical Huck supporter BTW) or your completely dishonest (typical Huck mimicker).

When a guy drops out of a masters program to be the understudy of a Tele-Evangelist - that tells us all anyone (especially any religious person) needs to know about Huck's character and aspirations.

UPDATE:  Stats were updated 2/13/08 with data current as of 2/13/08.  The Math for Huck is getting worse daily.  It still appears that by 3/4/08, Huck might still not even catch up to Romney's 2/5 numbers, where Romney dropped out for the good of the party.