Republican presidential candidate John McCain may say that he is for regulation of Wall Street, but don’t be fooled: He has been the champion of financial deregulation in the Senate. In 1999, McCain voted for a bill that removed the barriers between financial institutions so that investment, banking and insurance could enjoy more market freedom. Those barriers were put into place after the Great Depression to ensure that another economic calamity would not occur. But disaster has occurred as a direct result of McCain’s 1999 vote. That bill, by the way, was sponsored by McCain’s former campaign chairman Phil Gramm who insisted that we are in a “mental recession” and said that we have become a “nation of whiners.”
While plenty troubling in and of itself, McCain’s vote for deregulation in 1999 is part of a broader pattern that has led us down the road to economic instability. Although he originally opposed President Bush’s tax cuts as irresponsible, McCain now favors a tax plan that makes Bush’s cuts look tame. Like Bush’s so-called “tax relief,” McCain’s plan would only further relieve the wealthiest few of their responsibility to society. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, by no means an economic leftist, has said that America can’t actually afford McCain’s tax plan unless spending is drastically cut. John McCain’s solution? End earmark or so-called “pork-barrel” spending, which represents only a fraction of the federal budget and pales in comparison to the money being pumped, for example, into the Pentagon.
But perhaps the most troubling element of McCain’s economic record is his position on energy independence — or maybe it would be better to say his total lack thereof. McCain may be fond of saying that he favors an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence, but the truth is that “drill, drill, drill” is and has always been the centerpiece of his record on energy. In the recent presidential debate, Barack Obama pointed out that McCain has voted against alternative energy 23 times over the past 26 years. To take up an old presidential campaign slogan, “Where’s the beef?” If McCain is for alternative energy, why does his record indicate the opposite?
If you watched the first debate, you may have noticed that McCain looked a bit squeamish when talking about the economy and that he didn’t offer any concrete solutions to our problems. He should look squeamish, because he is directly responsible for the crisis facing our financial institutions today. He is also directly responsible for the overwhelming budget deficit and the high energy prices Americans are seeing in their utility bills and at the gas pump. And if he didn’t offer any real solutions, maybe it’s because the man who broke our economy doesn’t know how to fix it. Then again, maybe it’s because he doesn’t think our economy is broken and that it therefore doesn’t need fixed. After all, leaving Phil “Nation of Whiners” Gramm completely aside, it was John McCain who said that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.” Maybe he’s just been inhaling too many fumes during all those oil rig photo ops.
Nate Nelson is a junior studying political science. E-mail him at nn318806@ohiou.edu.
Reader Comments
This is not a shot at Nate, but The Post and all newspapers in general: can we stop with the partisanship that further divides and hardens this nation. People our age often do not become civilicly engaged because of the partisan rhetoric of both parties and that is further perpetuated in our news media. I am guilty of this too. However, if we ever want to provide solutions to the problems our communities and nation face, we must work together and not against one another. Partisan and hatefilled rhetoric by dems or repubs, in our papers, needs to stop. And now I am off my soap box.
Of course the problem wasn't mandating loans to impoverished minorities unable to afford the payments and defaulting on the loans. A policy created under Clinton and crusaded by the likes of Nate as "responsibility to society." Mind telling me where that responsibility is at under the Constitution Nate? Or is that one of those zingers you pulled from Marx.
Bush tried to prevent the collapse in 2003 by trying to correct Fannie and Feddie, but guess who screamed bloody murder?
Pop quiz hot shot. What Senator has received more contributions from Fannie Mae than any other Senator in just three short years? ......... Survey SAYS: (Ding! Ding!) OBAMA!!
Don't you dare blame this on the free market when the government had its hands in this mess from the start. Had the market not been required to give loans to people who couldn't afford them, much of this crisis could have been averted. Furthermore, if not for constant opposal from Democrats on drilling going back to 2002, much of the speculation would be cut on oil prices.
Alternate energy is a great idea. Take Nuclear energy for example. The most reliable and efficient present form of power. Guess who supports Nuclear power plants and who doesn't. SURVEY SAYS!: ......OBAMA!
The only thing John McCain is directly responsible for is bringing the voice of reason and reality to a table filled with psuedo intellectuals who think they can solve the world's problems after taking a few college classes.
Nothing wrong with being steadfast in your beliefs Nate. But when you make crap up to take blame away from what is obviously (at least primarily) a Democrat created problem, you just sound like, well, a whiner.
Nathan: it's funny that you avoid the 2005 bill heavily criticized by the Democrats and pushed by McCain (S. 190 the Federal Housing Enterprise Act of 2005.) On the senate floor, McCain warned that inaction on such a bill could cause a collapse as we have seen in the lat year. Exactly what did he say? Here's a part of his speech:
"The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190
Naturally, the democrats were against it, and the bill failed. Oh, and did you know that the top 3 monetary benefactors in a 10 year span were democrats? And the man holding the 2nd top position in gaining monetary donations from Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac was only in office 3 years? Who was that bandit with the deep pockets you ask? Obama. So naturally you should not be suprised that he now has hired two ex-CEOs of these failed companies (the very men that helped bring about the collapse of them by cooking the books) as his FINANCIAL davisors!
Common sense check: do you want someone who was fired for fraud to be giving you advice on what to do with your money?
No, you can just tack this up to the growing laundry list of questionable alliances, along with anti-american pastors and friendships with american born terrorists.
No Nate, you try bringing up a cheap shot while avoiding the real meat of the subject. Nice try at targeting McCain, but you obviously fell hook, line, and sinker for Pelosi's words last week after the collapse of Fanny Mae when she said "don't blame the Democrats." As the record proved, the democrats are as much, if not more, at fault than those 'evil widdle republicans' for their lack of inaction...
...hmmm, inaction, seems to be the motto of Congress over the last 2 years under Pelosi. Shocking, isn't it?
Hey Nate, did it ever occur to you to shave before you got that picture taken?
Nathan:
Here's a great youtube clip showing the failure of your article to fully comprehend the democrats stance.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2095857/posts
Nate you are so horrifically wrong. It is obscene that you are allowed to continue to write garbage.
The above commenters point out in detail why.
I will only take issue with one phrase: "further relieve the wealthiest few of their responsibility to society."
I wouldn't call forcibly taking US citizens money so that it can be redistributed by the will of corrupt politicians the wealthy's responsibility to society. It is NOT the governments money!
Nathan, there is nothing wrong with being a Marxist. Why hide it? Come out of the closet with your Marxism.
You are oblivious to what this country was founded on. It wasn't high taxes for the wealthy, government services for the masses, regulations for all conceivable situations, etc. The United States will NEVER be how you suggest!
You ARE incredibly out of touch with main street, the people in flyover country, and it is why you continue to lose elections.
Americans are NOT socialists.
Also,
I would love to say Obama's record caused the crisis, but given the fact three years ago he was in the Illinois Senate, and has been campaigning for the US Presidency the better part of the last three years in the US Senate....
...there is no record to speak of....pretty scary if you ask me...
Oh yeah, Obama got Rosa Parks on a stamp...what a monumental achievement oh so worthy of the US Presidency?!
Just wanted to point out that this is the second article jpmo13 has called somebody out for being a Marxist. It's good to know that he is putting his POLS101 text book to use. Just another college kid who's taken one poli sci class and thinks he knows everything.
Submit a comment to The Post