Common Sense for Nov. 4

Common Sense for Nov. 4
Like many parents my mom taught me that common sense was an important characteristic and defined it as having the brains to come in out of the rain and being able to discern truth from error. Right now the American public is being deluged by a lot of rhetoric from both political parties. I invite you to come in from out of the "rain" and to apply a little common sense to the election process.
To begin, let us talk about the economy from a common sense perspective. How on earth did we get where we are? Many people just automatically point their fingers at the current President of the United States and the Republican Party in general. Do you know why that doesn’t make sense at all? Did you know that the President is not able spend a single dime without congressional approval? Congress passes all the legislation to spend money on whatever projects they want, including all the "pork" that we hear so much about. Congress has oversight on all that spending and they regulate all the financial institutions, not the President. When the sitting President sees potential problems he has an obligation and the responsibility to point them out. Our financial crisis has been growing for years. Has our current President ever done anything about it? If you were to believe what you have heard on the television networks, most cable networks and publications, the President has done absolutely nothing about preventing this chaos.
Are you ready for the truth? In 2003, 2004 and 2005 opportunities were laid before Congress, either at the direction of the President or with his approval, to rein in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae whose balance sheets were in a precarious position and whose criterion for backing loans was a joke. People who could not afford to buy homes bought homes all guaranteed by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, ultimately meaning you and me as taxpayers. During those three years the chairman of the Federal Reserve and other officials testified before various groups in Congress saying that if changes were not made the nation was headed for financial disaster. Did Congress do anything about it? I suppose that we all know the truth about the answer to that question.
Powerful Democrats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate blocked those changes saying essentially, "Millions of people are buying homes. It is great for the economy. If it isn’t broke, why fix it?" The problem was that these financial institutions were in serious trouble but these Democrats ignored the warnings.
Have you heard much in the media about any of this stuff? Probably not. Why? It is because it didn’t suit the political agenda of those that own and operate various media outlets. Does it make sense to make election decisions based solely on the perspective of media organizations that have already made up their minds about the election and are not interested in fairly presenting the truth? Does it make sense to blame the Republicans for decisions that Congressional Democrats did or didn’t make about the economy?
Just recently I watched on television two of those ranking Democrats, who originally said no to lending reform, point the finger of responsibility everywhere but at themselves. Keep in mind that for the past two years or more Congress has had a veto-proof majority. Ultimately, who is responsible for this financial debacle? Congress…right?
Okay, regardless of who was responsible which of the candidates has the best ideas to help turn the nations gigantic financial "ship" around? Using some common sense we can figure this stuff out on our own.
Yes, it is true we are in the midst of a financial meltdown and because of the financial crisis banks and businesses are closing their doors. Consumer confidence is in the pit of despair. Thousands and thousands of people have lost their jobs or will lose their jobs in the coming months. What can we do to improve consumer confidence and to create more jobs? What makes sense to you?
One of the presidential candidates is in favor of income redistribution i.e. more tax for those making more than $250,000 and giving the money to those who are financially struggling or unemployed. We used to call this welfare but this particular candidate calls it a "tax credit." Did "welfare" work in the 70’s and 80’s? It was a multibillion-dollar failure. Why? It is because it encouraged a complete dependence on the government for a means to live. People were no longer personally responsible for supporting themselves and they didn’t see a need to work.
Income re-distribution is not a long-term solution but creating more jobs is. When people have a job they are much more likely to purchase goods and services. Doesn’t that make sense? Our next president must ask Congress to encourage businesses to grow and to expand and to develop more jobs. This is done through reducing the tax burden on businesses and not by adding to their tax burden. Additional business taxes discourage growth and the creation of jobs. Businesses will pass on their increased expenses to the consumer and inflation will skyrocket. Decreasing business taxes, at least temporarily, is one proven way to help ease the financial crisis and to grow jobs.
But the country needs a fast influx of dollars to stabilize financial markets and to shore up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These institutions have generated a fairly good size chunk of mortgage paper that is seemingly not worth the paper it is written on as people walk away from their homes unable to pay their mortgages. A financial domino effect has taken hold sending the stock market to historic lows and has affected the viability of businesses and banks. Their ability to lend and borrow money has diminished and now that effect is reaching down to you and me. So what makes sense to you?
When you are broke and in debt up to your eyeballs, does it make sense to borrow more money to buy more of what you already cannot afford? Irresponsible borrowing and spending always gets us into trouble as individuals and as a nation. Doing more of the same doesn’t really make sense, does it? Continuing to borrow and spend money to end the financial crisis is like pouring gasoline on the proverbial fire. The potential to "burn" a lot of people for many generations is huge. A "ginormous" (a granddaughter’s word) financial rescue package, for which our grandchildren will be paying, has already been approved. Do we really want Congress and our next President to continue down that path? I don’t think so.
Do we have a presidential candidate who has demonstrated a dedication to financial and government reform? We do not need bigger and more expensive government; we need smaller more responsible and accountable government. What makes sense to you?
Continuing to borrow and to simply crank up the money printing press is not the answer nor is taxing businesses and the wealthy who already pay 80% of the tax burden. So what on earth can we do that makes sense?
Gee whiz…why do we not cut the Federal Budget by 10%? Why do we not eliminate all those special spending projects for members of Congress? Our current budget is about three trillion dollars. Ten percent of the federal budget is a lot of money. I know that people will say, especially government types, that it is not that simple. Why not?
Which of our candidates has the guts to do such a thing? Who has the courage to cut spending for the next 4 years to get us back on track?
One candidate’s idea to save money is to pull out of the War on Terror. He also wants to put a special windfall tax burden on oil companies to provide money for the tax-credit (welfare) for the poor who already do not pay any tax. Does this make sense? Will not the oil companies pass on the tax to us as consumers? There has to be a better way to help the poor. How about the creation of jobs, but I digress.
Yes, the War on Terror and the energy crisis has not disappeared and is part of our financial struggle. Know this: it is still the goal of fanatical Muslims to destroy America and Israel. Worldwide domination is their well-publicized objective. Have the events of 9-11 so faded from our collective memories that we are willing to walk away from that war? It is ugly and it is expensive. Mistakes have been made but we are winning. Does walking away make sense to you? Our grandchildren will never forgive us if we do.
The energy crisis has almost been put on the back burner of concerns but it is a huge part of the economy. A majority of those representing both major political perspectives agree that improving our domestic supply of energy is a priority. For the most part they also agree that a combination of increasing domestic oil supply and developing renewable and cleaner sources of energy is a necessary strategy. It is ridiculous that we are paying billions of dollars every year for foreign oil when we have adequate supplies of oil and natural gas of our own. Does that make sense? We can be both financially and environmentally responsible in the production of energy.
Slowly, over the last few years with unbelievable reluctance, some members of Congress have finally embraced the reality that, in the short term, while other resources are being developed, drilling for more domestic oil is a priority. Do we have a candidate who is serious about drilling for domestic oil as soon as possible and who will invest in the development of other energy resources?
The challenges that await our next President are huge and I have not addressed some other serious issues. Why anyone would want the office is beyond me but it only makes sense for us to vote for the man most qualified for the job. It cannot be an age thing or a popularity thing. The stakes are too high.
Who has the most experience? Who has truly demonstrated a willingness to oppose his own party and to reach across the political aisle when he thought it was necessary? Who has ideas that are actually financially sound? Who will do a better job of creating more jobs? Who has had the life experience to back up his decisions? Who do you want standing eyeball to eyeball to some of the most dangerous political leaders on the planet, a proven and tested warrior or someone else? What makes sense to you? Lin