cozcommunio

Palin and Obama both started their political careers as members of the political party that controlled their state. Both state parties, Alaskan Republican Party and the Illinois Democratic Party, were very corrupt. The difference between the two is that one, Obama, got in bed with the corrupt Democratic Party and Palin fought and beat the Alaskan Republican establishment. Obama got in bed with Emile Jones who is governor, Rod Blagojevich’s man in the legislature, Richard Daly, Tony Rezco and the whole Illinois Democratic gang. Sarah Palin ran on a platform of fighting corruption and the corrupt Republican establishment. She fought and beat the sitting Republican governor in 2006. You tell me which one is the reformer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOFT8jtuVpo

John McCain could not have made a better choice!  I have not been a fan of McCain but this is really the right first decision.

Obama seems like a great guy - someone who would make a nice neighbor.  If he were elected I think he could do a good job of helping to heal racial wounds in our country.  But my problem with Obama is that he wants the politicians, the bureaucrats and the Washington elites to have more power and more control of resources.  God forbid a 35% marginal tax bracket is not enough he want it to be higher.  The answer is not to send more power and resources to the elites in Washington.  The best way to solve our problems is to let people keep their resources to use to freely work with open and free markets to build and plan their own lives.  The rule of law with secure property rights allowing people to live their own dreams will increase employment and prosperty.  Activity in and through markets are voluntary while government action is coercive force.  Let the people decide not the elites. Here is a good article from David Harsanyi in today’s Denver Post today:

“No, it was capitalism — more of it, not less of.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/in_denver_the_end_of_capitalis.html

Watching Senator Obama’s acceptance speech tonight, I find it unbearable to listen to him talk about compassion.  This from a man who over the last seven years has only given 2.19% of his income to charity.  These were seven year when his income averaged over $500,000 and all of them over $200,000. Here is a link to Obama’s tax returns and record of giving to charity:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html

Government is force - force is not compassion.  You can not be compassionate with other peoples money.  Compassion can only be done by individuals acting by free choice with their own resources and efforts.

Yesterday’s quote was from Fulton Sheen.  More Sheen: “Truth brings with it great responsibilities; that is why so many men keep their hands open to welcome it, but never close them to grasp it … in their cowardice, they keep their minds ‘open’ so they will never have to close on anything that would entail responsibility, duty, moral correction or altered behavior.”

“Two of the most popular theories among the bored today are the Marxian and the Freudian. Marx holds that we are economically determined; Freud, that we are biologically determined. Despite all the talk about freedom today, the plain fact is that many are bored with freedom. That is why they are willing to surrender it to a dictator as Marxism demands or else are willing to deny any personal responsibility as Freudianism suggests, by denying moral guilt.”

Quiz question: Who said the above?

1. Fredrick Hayek
2. Fulton Sheen
3. Ayn Rand
4. Barry Goldwater

The answer in tomorrow’s Coz Communio.

For years the two government sponsored quasi-govenment public/private agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were suppose to be there to support the housing market.  Now it turns out the private part was to make money for their executives and stockholders (yes they are publicly traded stock companies) and the public part is that after over leveraging, mismanagement and accounting fraud it is now time for the taxpayers to provide billions in bailout money.  Heads I win, tails you lose.  Bill Clinton’s political buddy, Franklin Raines, who was CEO of Fannie Mae for a few years was forced out after accounting problems.  But don’t worry about Raines before he left he was able to pocket more than $20 million  in bonus and compensation in 2003 before he left.  How were these two entities allowed to grow in power and get in to the great mess they are now.  They had plenty of friends: politicians both Dems and Reps, Walls Street banks and even left wing newspaper columnist like Paul Krugman.  A few weeks ago Paul Gigot, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, wrote a great article naming names and giving a good overview of how these housing agencies got into such a mess. There main reason for being was to subsidies housing but in the end their power was used to help politicians and line the pockets of the politically connected.  As Gogot writes:

“… about half of the implicit taxpayer subsidy for Fan and Fred is pocketed by shareholders and management. According to the Federal Reserve, the half that goes to homeowners adds up to a mere seven basis points[7/100 of 1%] on mortgages. In return for this, Fannie was able to pay no fewer than 21 of its executives more than $1 million in 2002, and in 2003 Mr. Raines pocketed more than $20 million. Fannie’s left-wing defenders are underwriters of crony capitalism, not affordable housing. So here we are this week, with the House and Senate preparing to commit taxpayer money to save Fannie and Freddie. The implicit taxpayer guarantee that Messrs. Gray and Raines and so many others said didn’t exist has become explicit. Taxpayers may end up having to inject capital into the companies, in addition to guaranteeing their debt. The abiding lesson here is what happens when you combine private profit with government power. You create political monsters that are protected both by journalists on the left and pseudo-capitalists on Wall Street, by liberal Democrats and country-club Republicans. Even now, after all of their dishonesty and failure, Fannie and Freddie could emerge from this taxpayer rescue more powerful than ever. Campaigning to spare taxpayers from that result would represent genuine “change,” not that either presidential candidate seems interested.”

Here is link to complete Gigot column:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677050160675397.html