Mortgages and Christopher Dodd

Where was Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, while the mess in the mortgage market was brewing? The easy answer is that he was ignoring his job and his constituents while attempting to beat the margin of error in presidential polls. Despite the problems happening on his watch, he moved his family to Iowa in a bid that even at the time everyone (except possibly him) knew was futile.

But it turns out he wasn't simply stroking his ego in Iowa. While Countrywide Lending was involved in predatory lending and charging prepayment penalties and steering home buyers to more costly loans, Senator Dodd got preferential treatment from them on not one, but two loans. Yes the chairman of the banking committee was getting lower interest rates than were available to the public, as well as $21,000 in campaign donations, from the poster child for the mortgage crisis.

According to Portfolio.com "The lower rates save the senator about $58,000 on his Washington residence over the life of the loan, and $17,000 on the Connecticut home." Additionally, he received services form the bank, like a float-down to a lower interest rate for free, where regular customers have to pay for these services.

The only response to these allegations from the Senator's office at the time of this writing is that they are preparing a statement.

Ignoring his job was bad enough. This moves Dodd to a whole new realm. It's time for him to retire from public office and spend more time in those homes he saved so much money on.

Senate Fails To Raise Gas Prices

Yesterday, the Senate failed to pass a bill that would raise gas prices. That's not a typo, I said raise. Why would the Senate want to introduce a bill that would raise gas prices above their already ludicrous levels? Well they didn't want to, they has good intentions and thought they were helping. Unfortunately the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Senate Democrats put forth an energy bill with a key component being a windfall tax on oil company profits that were not reinvested in alternative energy sources. The thinking behind this is that it would help wean us off of our dependency on foreign oil. Unfortunately, that's not what would have happened.

Oil companies are responsible to their shareholders. The shareholders want profits. A windfall tax means an extra cost to the company. In order to offset the cost, the company must either cut costs somewhere else (i.e. layoffs) or raise prices. So the effect of this bill would have been greater gas prices or greater unemployment.

Now I see the scowls on some faces out there. You're thinking, "Why should I care if the shareholders make money? That's not helping me any." Well it probably is. If you have a pension, you're one of their shareholders. Most pension funds, from private mutual funds to city, state, and federal retirement plans are all heavily invested in oil companies.

Do you have kids? Their teachers' benefits are paid for by investments in oil companies. If you think it's hard to find good teachers now, imagine what it would be like if they had no benefits. Police, fire, ambulance, all these municipal workers have benefits paid for by investments in oil companies. Would you like to make it harder to attract good people for those positions?

Now I'm not saying that oil companies alone are paying for all this, they're just a large part of it. I'm also not saying I like high gas prices. I am saying that we need a feasible, economically-sound energy policy. If the senate (and congress) really wants to do something about the high prices, they need to take steps that will actually amount to lower prices. What can they do? Open more lands for oil drilling, allow more nuclear plants to be built, focus on strengthening the dollar. Each of these will lower the price of oil. None of them is a magic bullet, and none of them will work overnight, but unlike the tax plan, they will help.

Politics As Usual

There are those in office that want to fix things, and then there are those who just want things their way. Senator Harry Reid wants things his way. Reid is holding the Senate for an all-night debate on Iraq. The problem is he doesn't actually want to debate what's going on in Iraq, he wants the Senate to vote to withdraw the troops.

This is not debate. Debate is here's a problem, let's get people's opinions and see what the best decision is. Reid doesn't want to debate, he wants to placate his liberal constituents. But if he really looked at the issue he'd realize that we don't get a do-over. Pulling the troops out of Iraq does not turn back the clock so everything will be like it was before we went in. You can't base a decision on what could have been, you need to base it on what is. Of course, Reid doesn't want wait for the September report on what is, he wants his way now.

This isn't just going on at the federal level. New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is willing to jeopardize $500 million in federal money because he doesn't like Mayor Bloomberg's plan for congestion pricing. Bloomberg, who has been fighting to meet a federal deadline for the money, has stated that this would be a pilot program, which means let's see what happens and we can stop the program if it doesn't meet expectations. What does Silver want to do? Nothing. He agrees there are environmental and traffic problems, but he wants to create a committee of his cronies to study the problem. The Speaker held the Democratic contingent of the Assembly in New York City, keeping them from attending the debate and voting in Albany.

Enough of politics as usual. Can we get rid of these do-nothing politicians who would rather argue than actually come up with solutions?

Votes vs. Soundbites

Congress has passed an increase to the minimum wage. Workers who now make $5.15 an hour will see their paychecks go up by 70 cents per hour before the end of the summer. Another 70 cents will be added next year, and by summer 2009, all minimum-wage jobs will pay no less than $7.25 an hour.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, called the increase one of Òthe proudest achievements of this new Congress.Ó

Kennedy said. ÒDemocrats stood together, and stood firm, to say that no one who works hard for a living should have to live in poverty.Ó

So what's the problem with this? What Kennedy isn't saying is that he voted against the bill. So did Senators Clinton, Obama, and Dodd. Why? The minimum wage was raised as part of the bill that funded our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to a CBS/New York Times poll, 87% of Americans said we should finance the war and 69% said we should have benchmarks. So we have a bill that 87% of Americans support, that provides funds for our troops AND raises the minimum wage, and four of the most vocal Senators, three of whom are running for President, voted against it.

They voted against "the proudest moment of this new Congress." We should not forget this.

Damn The Security, There's An Election To Win

Yesterday, three Democratic senators who are running for President showed us just what they are made of. Unlike the majority of the Senate (Democrats and Republicans alike), Senators Clinton, Dodd, and Obama voted to abandon our troops in Iraq and cut off their funds completely. Never mind that it would put our troops in more danger than they are in. Never mind the fact that it would abandon the Iraqi people again. (Is it any wonder that people don't believe we can see things through with cut and run policies like this?) Never mind the fact that it would give Al-Qaeda a new home from which to plan the next 9/11. They voted to suck up to organizations like Moveon.org, who represent their own agenda, not that of the American people.

As President, your job is to represent the country. If Clinton, Dodd, and Obama seriously want the job, they should start by not voting to throw our soldiers under a bus.