Same-sex marriage in California

I would like to post about a very heated issue that is going on this election: the issue of same-sex marriage in California. Proposition 8 is on the ballot. If it passes, the California state constitution will be changed to include these words: "Only marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized in the state of California." If this proposition does not pass there will be dire consequences. Some people may say: "What does it matter? It doesn't affect me, does it?" I have news for you. It will affect you in more ways that you might realize. Take a look at some information on another blog that I have. Check out this post as well as this post if you are interested.

Today, I just found some videos my young adults in the state of California. These videos address many of the questions people may have on this issue and can explain it better than I can. These videos can be found on this website. Let me share one of these videos with you:

I hope that Californians vote loud and clear and they do not want to change the definition of marriage!

Success: How is it achieved?

That is a question I ask myself frequently. How do we, as individuals or as a group, achieve success? How do we know if we have achieved success? In order to better understand these questions lets go back to the beginning of time. I am a Christian and very religious. I believe that what is recorded in the Holy Bible is literal and actually happened. In the beginning, after everything was created, God created Adam and Eve. Then God gave Adam and Eve commandments, one of them being not to eat of the forbidden fruit. Then Satan (the serpent) tempted Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit. In the words of the Bible, this is what he said, "Ye shall not surely die...your eyes shall be opened...knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:4-5) Another verse of scripture helps clarify this in these words: "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad...corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility." (2 Nephi 2:11) I would add also to that, neither failure or success. In other words, in order to achieve success and know that we have achieved success we must have first failed. The old adage comes to mind, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

At this point you are probably wondering what this has to do with a political discussion. Let me clarify it for you. If you don't let people (or businesses) fail they will never become stronger and achieve success. People will never learn from their own mistakes or the mistakes of others to be able to finally succeed in what they want to achieve. As the government continues to bailout companies because they are "too big to fail" greater more successful businesses will never have the opportunity to come about. People are more likely to take on more risk then they should if they believe that they are going to be bailed out in the end if something goes wrong. Also, if individuals are bailed out of their mortgages (or anything for that matter) they don't understand what is necessary to achieve success and will rely on someone else, namely the government for everything. If our government continues to do this it will be the start of the welfare state.

Replies

Back in September I posted an email that I sent out to "the President, our Congressman and Senators expressing my concern over the planned $700 billion bailout and how it should not happen." I have also recently emailed some of the same individuals expressing my disdain because they voted for the bailout, especially after all the pork and earmarks that were added to the bill. I also, emailed several senators and thank those that voted against the bailout. I should send a thank you to the members of the House that voted against the bailout twice, there is just a lot more of them then there are Senators. Here are the replies I have received back via email from some of these "so called" leaders of of the free world:

U.S. Senator Bill Nelson (FL) after sending the email to him thanking him for voting against the bailout:

Thank you for contacting me about the $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. I voted against it because I believed it lacked meaningful relief for homeowners facing foreclosure, and it left taxpayers with the short end of the stick.

Still, make no mistake: I understand the severity of this financial crisis. The bottom line is that until we stem the record number of home foreclosures, this crisis will continue to worsen.

That’s why I’ve proposed a three-part plan to address the financial crisis, including help for homeowners.

First, I’m working on legislation to create new ways for homeowners to refinance their mortgages and stay in their homes. My proposal will require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to retool mortgages that they hold on their books. It will also establish a direct loan facility within the Federal government to require lenders and other financial institutions that benefit from the bailout to refinance or modify mortgages in danger of default or foreclosure.

Second, I am calling for an investigation into the business practices of major credit rating agencies that helped foster the enormous growth of the mortgage-backed securities industry. Investors relied on and trusted in those credit ratings, and the public deserves to know how these rating agencies concluded that such risky investments could receive high credit ratings.

And finally, we must better regulate all aspects of the financial markets. Today’s financial crisis results from years of inadequate oversight that has been far too tolerant of excessive risk taking.

Meantime, I’ll continue to press Congress to act quickly to keep people in their homes and put our economy back on track.

U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (UT) on my disdain for his vote for the bailout:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the current crisis in our financial markets and the state of the economy. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you well know, our financial markets have become increasingly volatile over the past weeks. The collapse of major financial institutions and a giant insurance company sent a clear signal that we were on the brink of a major financial catastrophe. Something had to be done in order to prevent the problems of our financial markets from leaking into other sectors of our economy. Secretary Paulson and President Bush offered the first solution to the exacerbating economic decline as an attempt to get the dialogue flowing. However, many, including myself, believed that this plan was not sufficient. The House amended the original plan in an attempt to protect taxpayer's interest, prevent exuberant executive packages for participating entities, and provide more oversight. Even with these additions, the plan failed to pass the House, and that day the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell nearly 778 points, the biggest single-day point loss in history.

As you, I am deeply troubled by the financial situation we are facing. We did not get here because of any one decision or policy - these problems were years in the making. For example, in the late 1990s, the Clinton Administration began pressuring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase loans to subprime borrowers. We are seeing the consequences of a long series of policy errors, both in private and public sectors, which have combined to create a "perfect storm" of financial problems. In my view, one thing was for certain, inaction was not an option. We had to provide relief quickly because the consequences of inaction far outweighed the cost of the provisions in the legislation.

If we had not addressed this problem, we would be ignoring a much greater danger. For everyone who has a savings account, retirement savings, or a job, inaction placed these lifelines in jeopardy. For anyone who needs a mortgage loan, to borrow for a car, or to finance an education, the prospects had significantly worsened. With business expansion and job creation, there is a need for credit in order to make our economy work.

The Senate version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, HR.1424, which ultimately passed the Senate and the House and was signed into law on October 3rd, broadened the ability of the federal government to revitalize our economy. The legislation is designed to help secure retirement savings, help small-business owners meet payroll and help restore the American people's confidence in their own financial well being. Furthermore, the Senate added specific provisions to curtail the jobless rate and promote investment. Among the added provisions was a set of extensions to expired and expiring tax provisions, including the research tax credit and the Alternative Minimum tax (AMT). While it is estimated that 70 percent research tax credit dollars are used for wages of R&D employees, the AMT relief will free 23 million Americans, including hundreds of thousands of Utahns from having to pay the unfair AMT.

This legislation, while not perfect, will have a greater impact beyond Wall Street into Main Street. I believe that one reason why the financial rescue legislation failed to pass in the House the first time was because the American people were not convinced that the bill would help them personally. Along with this, I believe that many Americans failed to see the connection with the current crisis with our financial markets and their own future economic well being.

While the Economic Stabilization Act may hold off an impending economic meltdown, it must now be followed up with decisive action on our part. Foremost, we need to change the way the financial sector works. The Federal Reserve needs to rethink its definition of good monetary policy and determine whether its existing policy tools -- such as reserve requirements, oversight capabilities, and reporting rules -- are adequate. In addition, Congress must reconsider what it has charged the Federal Reserve to do. The Fed has been charged with two goals: 1) providing a sound currency with stable purchasing power, and 2) maintaining steady economic growth with low unemployment. At this point, it is obvious that an aggressive, excessively easy monetary policy in pursuit of short-term growth is self-destructive in the long-run. It leads only to inflation and speculative excesses in the credit markets that harm the economy. Only by focusing on a stable currency can the Federal Reserve achieve both its objectives.

We also need to completely rethink Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As we've heard countless times over the last few weeks, in creating these two government-sponsored enterprises, we have made sure that the benefits of their investments are private while all the risks are public. Put simply, this is bad policy, with considerable moral hazard. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together represent an immense government-created and government-coddled duopoly. In the years since their creation, they have focused mainly on their own expansion, recklessly urged on by many in Congress who believed this was a way to make home ownership more affordable for lower income families. However, as a recent Fed study has demonstrated, most of the benefit of the previously implicit - now explicit -- federal guarantee of their debt has gone to their shareholders as higher earnings, not to reducing costs for new homeowners. In their efforts to expand, Fannie and Freddie took too many unwarranted risks. They needed an ever-expanding supply of new mortgages to package and resell and to hold for income. Others fed this expansion effort with unsound lending. The recent Federal rescue package of these institutions requires an immediate step: Congressional oversight. It is a little late in coming, but, as of right now, it is essential.

The regulatory and rating agencies also need to be reviewed. We need to ask whether they have enough resources for adequate supervision and whether they've failed to recognize the evolutionary changes in the credit markets and the new business arrangements that reduced transparency in financing. These and other questions will have to be explored as we move forward.

I believe that we clearly need to reform our financial markets and refine the powers of the Federal Reserve in order to ensure crises like this don't happen again. And, though I hesitated to support the idea, it is not unreasonable to conclude that government intervention can provide immediate relief and prevent any more catastrophic losses in the near future and give the financial market time to sort out the mess. But, if we don't adopt policies that are pro-growth, pro-business, and pro-job creation, we won't be able to ensure long-term economic security for our country, no matter how many bad mortgages we purchase with taxpayers' money.

In order to address these concerns, Congress must be very careful as we work to solve this crisis. We must meet the demands of taxpayers and restore confidence in our financial markets.

Again, thanks for writing.

Sincerely,
Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator

Who caused this financial problem?

If you would like to know who caused this problem and how it happened.  Check out this video.  It's about ten minutes but it says it all.

The Truth about the Bailout

I listen to talk radio a lot and today I was listening to Glen Beck and what he said made me so angry.  I have now discovered why the Senate passed this bailout bill 74-25.  This passed it by this margin by adding as much port, earmarks and pet projects for each of the Senators in the Senate to get most of them on board to approve the bill.  Did you know that the bill was 435 pages long.  When President Bush gave it to Congress it was 4 pages!  Here is what I found has been added to the bailout bill:

• Section 325 provides essential tax breaks for the wool research fund. 
  
• Section 503 gives tax breaks for the manufacturer of wooden arrows used in toys for children. ($6 million)
  
• Puerto Rican and Virgin Island rum producers get money so they can make more booze! ($192 million)
  
• Section 309, tax credit for economic development in American Samoa
  
• Section 316, a tax break for railroad track maintenance.
  
• Section 317, a tax break for racetracks.
  
• Section 502, qualified television and film productions given an extension of favorable expensing rules. ($10 million)
  
• Section 111 provides for the expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credits. 
  
• Section 112, expansion and modification of the coal gasification project.
  
• Section 113, increased funding for black lung disability fund.
  

I'm sure this is not all but this is the most rediculous thing I have ever seen.  What is this government coming to when they have to bought off to sign off on this bill.  If you have to bought off then this bill should not pass.  

I hope pray something can be done and they will start listening to the people and I hope that congress again rejects this bill as they should!

Bi-Partisan: What does that mean?

According to my view, whatever that is worth, the term bi-partisan that is used by politicians is just a way for them to say, "I don't want to take a stand because I don't want to held responsible for the consequences of my actions."  The American people want someone who will take a stand on and issue and stick up for it and support it. They also want someone who will stand with the American people. I read a quote from someone once that said "It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular, I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone in it.” We need people in government who stand on principles, morals, and values.  This stand would resonate with the majority of Americans and we would once again restore the values setup from the founding fathers in the Constitution of the Unites States of America!

The majority of the current members in Congress do not reflect that.  I think the American people are starting to realize this and they are sick and tired of these people in Washington doing whatever they want and only looking at what they can do to benefit themselves and not the American people.  Hopefully this November we will be surprised how many of the American people will vote for someone other than the incumbent running for re-election.

Questions to ask Congress

I think it is important that we really understand what this $700 billion bailout is all about.  I receive an email from Laura Ingraham everyday that provides a lot of good information and today's email I would like to share with you...

---

Laura's E-Blast 
http://www.LauraIngraham.com 
October 1, 2008 

Eight Bailout Questions 

How many times over the last few days have we heard politicians, talking heads and other self-proclaimed "experts" tell us the reason the $700 billion bailout is so wildly unpopular is that we just don't understand it. The economy is complicated. Just trust Congress, President Bush and his royal highness, Hank Paulson. They'll fix it. Don't worry about that $700 billion number. It only sounds high.

Well. If that's the case - if we're really too dumb to understand what's happening - perhaps Congress can show us how much they know. To start, here are some questions I'd like answered.

1) Since the White House introduced the bailout last week, a number of alternative ideas have been proposed. For one, Michigan Republican Thaddeus McCotter wrote a 10-point plan that carries no cost to taxpayers. Others, like George Soros', are significantly less expensive and, in his estimation, likelier to be effective. Can you explain why this bill is the best option, despite being the most expensive?

2) We're told the bailout could actually turn a profit for taxpayers. Assuming that's true, how can we be sure the money actually ends up back in taxpayers' hands? For years the Social Security system took in more money than it paid out, yet instead of putting the surplus revenue toward future benefits, Congress snatched that extra cash for general expenditures. Likewise, Fannie and Freddie's "profits," were used for congressional pet projects. With this track record, how can we trust that this program will be any different?

3) The McCain campaign yesterday pointed out that the most recent housing bill gave the government nearly $1 trillion to purchase mortgages. If this is true, why exactly does Congress need to pass this monstrous legislation?

4) Does the latest version of this bill still "allow the government to purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families"? Americans are having a hard enough time swallowing the idea of a bailout for irresponsible home, car, and student lending. The notion that we'll be on the hook for insolvent pension plans administered by awful, union-controlled lawmakers in cities like Detroit and New York is simply insane.

5) Does the bill's preamble still proclaim that the law "provides authority to the treasury secretary to ... ensure the economic well-being of Americans?" Does anyone know if there are limitations to this seemingly unbridled authority? Otherwise, what prevents the Treasury secretary from becoming a de-facto dictator? This strikes me as especially worth discussion.

6) Are there still no meaningful curtailments of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Does the bill contain anything even hinting at accountability?

7) What concrete assurances do taxpayers have that the turmoil's provenance - Carter and Clinton-era social-engineering dictums that upended safe-lending practices in favor of higher minority home ownership - will forever be outlawed? How do we know taxpayers won't be asked to finance another $700 billion bailout in 10 years? What has Congress learned from its past mistakes?

8) After Enron's collapse, former CEO Jeffrey Skilling, then-CEO Ken Lay, and then-CFO Andrew Fastow, were called to testify before Congress. According to the Business and Media Institute, Fannie's and Freddie's overstated earnings were 19 times larger than Enron's fake numbers. So when can we expect Congress to call Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the rest of Fannie's and Freddie's enablers to testify before Congress?

At the end of the day, we're not being asked to bailout Wall St. so much as we are the Democratic Party. For $700 billion, answers to the questions above are the least Congress can do in return.