RightWave

AFP’s Phil Kerpen has some great ideas about next steps on the bailout/credit crunch in NRO today.  What Phil lays out seems like a legitimate role of government in addressing the issue without a massive taxpayer-funded bailout, which few (even its supporters, save, perhaps, Hank Paulson) thought to be a particularly great plan.

The Crux:

But the key to solving this problem is to direct the tax relief at the purchase of troubled assets.

A Treasury facility could be set up to operate exactly as suggested by the original Paulson plan. As such, it would buy troubled assets to provide markets liquidity and serve a price-discovery function. However, instead of funding the facility by selling Treasury bills that would impose a debt on future taxpayers, some or all of the fund could be constructed of capital that is voluntarily committed by private entities.

And here’s the tax-cut sweetener: All funds invested in the facility for a five-year holding-period would be tax-free, exempt from the capital-gains tax, the corporate tax, the death tax, the repatriation tax, and any other tax that would otherwise apply.

Read the whole thing!

As per usual, Tom Sowell has an interesting take on the bailout fiasco of yesterday.  Check it out.

Though, it’s not like we needed yet another reminder of the follies of Barney Frank & Co:

Among the congressional “leaders” invited to the White House to devise a bailout “solution” are the very people who have for years created the risks that have come home to roost.

Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the “soundness” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and said “I do not see” any “possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury.”

Moreover, he said the federal government has “probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing.”

More…

-All in all, I’m underwhelmed.

10:38 p.m. – Well…who knows?  I’m not sure who won that one.  I thought they were both frankly not too great.  McCain clearly dominated on the foreign policy section.  Obama probably did a little better on the economic things, which is what most people are thinking about now. But, Obama came off, to me, as a young punk.  With the “John” rather than “Senator McCain” and his pompous, knowing smiles throughout.  I think most people in America have a good solid respect for our elders, and Obama totally threw that to the wind.  I don’t know. I don’t have a clear sense of a “winner.”  Thoughts?  Also, the Cubs are losing.  Boo.

-Any of those children (save the ones in Madras schools) he speaks of who apparently look at America in a different light wouldn’t give anything to come be a part of the American dream.

-Here we go again with the Dems portraying veterans as victims rather than heroes.

-Does Senator Obama really believe that President Bush doesn’t desperately want Osama Bin Laden captured or killed?  What a disingenuous comment.

10:32 p.m. – This is a good little closing by McCain there.

-Oh, geez.  “The way we’re perceived in the world…”  This is one of the more ridiculous arguments of the Left today.  To quoth the West Wing, “They’ll like us when we win.”  Not that diplomacy doesn’t have a place.  But we’re not a target because we didn’t (again quoting WW) “take the Arab world out for ice cream.”  They hate us and everything we stand for.

-Ugh.  Reaching across the aisle again.  Don’t remind me.

-Ooh – back to energy!  C’mon McCain.  Use this to go after drilling!

-Was the “looked in Putin’s eyes” comment a dig at President Bush?  Will anyone get it if it was?

-The Russia v. Georgia conversation should throw up some sparks.

-McCain: “Oh, please.” Nice.

-Obama is so arrogant.  I wonder if it comes off that way to “normal” people? (aka. not political junkies)

-Agree with McCain on legitimizing the comments.

-”Invite them over for tea” ??  Not a beer or a drink or a ballgame?

-”Senator what about talking?”  Was a huge opportunity to say something about action vs. talking.

-Let’s talk more about trade!!  TRADE STOPS WARS!

-Good hit on Obama about the Iranian situation.

-League of Democracies?  I don’t like the sound of that Senator McCain.  Maybe as long as they don’t have any real power.  Trade agreement, maybe?

-”You don’t muddle through…” … this debate.

-”I’ve got a bracelet too.”  Is it the battle of the bracelets?

-Sorry I don’t have as much to say on the foreign policy stuff.  Obama drives me nuts.

-Interesting debate about Pakistan.

-Ha.  He’s still ticked about the strategy vs. tactics line.

-There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before?

-Obama seems a little peeved.  He’s back to “John” though.

-”Senator Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy.”  NICE!

-Was Senator Obama there when our troops came in?  Can he prove we weren’t “greeted as liberators.” There’s evidence to show we were in some quarters.

-He really is mumbly off the cuff and has a really strange speaking rhythm.  Finally, at least, he says “Senator McCain.”

-Strong statement on Iraq from McCain.  How dove-ish will Obama be?

9:39 p.m. – First Palin reference, I think.

-”John it was YOUR President…”  Rude in so many ways.  He’s your President, too, punk.

-Seems to me McCain should focus a little more on taxes rather than spending.

-Oh no.  Not climate change… Interesting Senator Clinton reference…

-Thank you, Senator McCain, for mentioning drilling and nuclear power.  Hit him harder!

-Well, it’s nice that Senator Obama admits we can’t afford everything he wants to do.

9:27 p.m. Interesting that McCain refers to his opponent as “Senator Obama” and Obama refers to McCain as “John.”  Young whippersnapper…

-McCain needs to fight back a little more, I think.  He’s letting Obama get the better of him on this market vs. government question on health care.  Someone should mention that employee-sponsored health care is one of the root causes of the problem!

-My friends, my friends.

-Alright, some fun.  Good for McCain for mixing it up and going after Obama on earmarks.

-A friend on Twitter just notes that Obama is the third largest recipient of Fannie and Freddie funds in the Senate.

-Bring on the class warfare!

-”First we have to get spending under control.”  Amen, Brother John.

-Shouldn’t someone mention the conversion of Main Street and Wall Street with the tremendous number of Americans who are stockholders?  I like Jim Lehrer trying to get them to mix it up!

-Senator McCain, is it really Chris Cox’s fault?  Let’s not go for the figurehead to make people feel better.  Talk about the government’s role in causing this mess.

-YES, Senator Obama, we should ask how we got here.  Though he talks of the “subprime mortgage mess” as though he’s somehow removed from it.  It’s MORE government intervention that caused these problems, not the free market.  REGULATION IS (almost) ALWAYS BAD.

-Nice little shot at the end there about needing more domestic energy production!

-It does not help American confidence to make this sound any worse than it is.  It’s bad enough without all the dramatic rhetoric.  Nice little age joke from McCain, though it threw him off since the crowd apparently took a vow of silence from Jim Lehrer.

-Man, Obama struggles off the ‘prompter (at least compared with his prepared speeches).  My wife: “Is that really how he talks off the cuff?”

-First drinking game rule triggered – Wall Street and Main Street mentioned in the same train of thought.  That didn’t take long!

9:03 p.m. – Here we go.  Dispensing with the timestamps for ease of reading and typing from this point on…

9:01 p.m. – Ah, Jim Lehrer.

9:00 p.m. – Waiting for the debate to begin.  Getting my Drinking Game rules together.  Cubs/Brewers tied 1-1.

Seven minutes to go… I’m going to be torn between the debate and the Cubs v. Brewers game.  Go Cubs Go.

In the meantime, prepare for the debate by checking out this excellent Drinking Game.

Be sure to check out NickyCheese’s flashback to 1999 on the Freddie/Fannie crisis.  Shocker – from the Old Gray Lady herself.

My favorite part:

”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

Admittedly, I am unsure about this whole bailout mess – though I’ve appreciated the commentary of many other bloggers and “thinkers” out there.

In particular, check out Peter’s take at Progressively Right.  Also E!! links to a letter by Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist with another interesting thought.

Of course, do these thoughts total a plan?  I think there are good components.  Perhaps there’s not one “solution” that both helps and stays (close to) true to free-market beliefs.

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.

If you come across other interesting ideas/thoughts I’d love to hear about them.

UPDATE: Forgot to include the Club for Growth’s take.  They make an interesting point.

UPDATE II: E!! points out that I missed her recount of Newt’s plan.  Seems feasible and reasonable.  Check it out.

I’ve got to tell you – I’m tremendously confused as to why the “equal pay for women” issue is hot in this campaign.  There’s a new Obama ad running in Virginia that hit’s McCain on opposing equal pay.  That coupled with the prime time spot given to Lilly Ledbetter, bless her heart (see previous post), and a handful of other occurrences makes this a central attack line for the Dems this year.

Yeah, I get that he’s making a strong play for the woman’s vote given the PUMA situation.  But, really?  This is the best you can do.  Didn’t Phyllis Schlafly kick the heck out of that debate like 30-40 years ago?  Frankly, I find it a little disgusting and disingenuous (I guess it’s just politics, right?).  Sure the NOW crazies and hard left feminists have been fighting the fight on this issue, but I haven’t heard it much otherwise in mainstream debate.

Not to mention – I’m pretty darn sure it’s ALREADY illegal to pay women and men (or whites and hispanics, or Catholics and Jews, et al) differently for doing the same job.  Do we need more laws?

I guess I’m just out of touch with my inner woman.

My lovely wife went on a TIRADE in the car the other day when she heard the ad.  Hippie feminist crap makes her do that. It’s one of the reasons I love her so.  But, I suspect she’s not the only one.  It’s one in a long line of lefty ideas that tries to make women victims and tries to create a separate class for women.  (ERA anyone?)

Any women readers out there have a different viewpoint?  Is this a real issue politically (we know it’s a falsehood in real life – see Carrie Lukas’ recent commentary)?  Or a desperate attempt by the Obama campaign to attract PUMAs?  Are they THAT scared of Sarah Palin?

UPDATE: My, again, LOVELY wife, reminds me of this wonderful West Wing scene where <heart flutters> Ainsley Hayes rips into Sam Seaborn about the ERA.  One of my favorite WW scenes of all time.

Thought you might enjoy this “Southern Survival Guide for the East Coast Media Elite” from my hometown newspaper, the Commercial Appeal.  It’s aimed at the hordes of yankees convening in Oxford, Mississippi this week to impart their commentative wisdom.

My favorite passages:

And know that the guy in the pickup who waves at you is just being
neighborly. He may very well know that you’re Anderson Cooper, but he
doesn’t care. That highfalutin’ suit doesn’t impress him. As far as
he’s concerned, you put your pants on the same way he does.

and

We have three drinks in the South. Sweet tea. Coke. And depending
where you’re situated, Jack Daniels or Maker’s Mark. Pick one, and take
it straight.

House wine is not wine. It’s tea. And “tea” down South is sugary
sweet and on ice. Also, we drink Coke. Not Pepsi, not pop, not soda.
This means Coke, Diet Coke, Mountain Dew, 7UP — it’s all Coke.

And the whiskey, well, ‘nuf said.

I miss the South…

Jake Tapscott, who works as an investigative journalist/blogger for ABC News leads today with this criticism of the McCain-Palin ticket:

Combine that with the facts that Sen. McCain has gone 41 days without taking questions from the press corps following him around, and that Gov. Palin has gone every one of  the 25 days since she was introduced to the nation as McCain’s running-mate without holding a press conference.

It all adds up to a campaign that seems to think it should be handed over the keys to leadership of the Free World without having to answer straight-forward, substantive, tough questions from the Fourth Estate.

That’s called lack of accountability.

Which begs the question if a McCain-Palin administration would even hold press conferences.

Really?  That’s the biggest beef?  That they haven’t held a press conference.

I mean, certainly, I think the media has an important role to play in a free society/republic, but I don’t know where in the Constitution it mandates the holding of press conferences.  To me this comes off as whiny and indicative of a press corps that has a tremendously heightened sense of importance. Particularly the so-called “main street media” outlets.

Members of the news media should feel free to dig, root, report and, in the form of commentary, criticize the candidates for positions they’ve held or actions they’ve taken.  But, this “he never returns my phone calls” line of attack is weak and childish.

Did you watch SNL this weekend?  Apparently there’s been some outrage on the conservative side about the skit mocking the New York Times investigative journalists…

One of the journalists in the skit suggests that Todd Palin has an incestuous relationship with his daughters.  Sounds awful, right?  Except, the sartire was focused on the NYT for once, not the Palins in this case.  It was playing on the stereotypes of “backwoods” Alaska that elitist Big Apple-based reporters might believe.

Far be it from me to defend the politics of SNL, but this is one of those times our side needs to take a deep breath and learn to laugh.  It was legitimately pretty funny.

Certainly we have to be watchful that SNL and other laugh-ins don’t become too one sided but also recognize the importance of satire in the political arena. Laughter very often is the best medicine!

Oh, and free speech too!