McCainisms

I've commented in prior posts about the inconsistencies that McCain and his surrogates are positing, but they just keep coming and bear response.  The Obama campaign has had its share of inconsistencies as well, but not nearly in the flagrant manner of John Sydney McCain.  In this post I would like to discuss the latest McCainisms, most notable his new housing bailout plan, and several other of the latest attacks coming from others in the McCain camp.
There has been a lot of talk in the media today about the economic plan that McCain announced in Tuesday's town hall style debate.  During the debate McCain initially proposed a plan to purchase bad mortages from the lenders at a "discounted rate."  The homeowners would then be issued new 30 year fixed rate mortages at lower interest rates while passing the buck on the losses to the taxpayers.  While McCain was espousing his "new" plan during the debate his campaign staffers were putting out all sorts of "information" about the plan on McCain's website and throughout the internet.  According to the original statement issued by the campaign regarding the proposal "Lenders in these cases must recognize the losses they've already suffered."

Dateline: The Day After - Overnight, the McCain campaign realizing the error of their ways quickly issued a new statement regarding the proposal that had conveniently left that sentence out, citing that it was mistakenly included in the original, "a simple mistake" according to one McCain campaign staffer.  A simple mistake that will cost American taxpayers $300 Billion.  I think we can all agree that struggling homeowners need help, but let's discuss what the problem is with this proposal.
The government and the taxpayers are already bailing out Wall St. with a $700 Billion bailout package, and now McCain is proposing $300 Billion in relief for the lenders whereby the government will purchase these bad assets at their full values with taxpayer money.  We know that these assets aren't worth their original values, and right away the taxpayers will be taking a loss.  In doing so, the money will be handed over to the very lenders that got Americans into this mess in the first place.  Yes, the argument can be made that these homeowners should not have bought houses, but I've worked in the mortgage market and over the past few years these lenders were giving away loans.  There was no accountability, the lender loans the money, sells the loan to another bank, and the cycle continues.  Mortgage brokers aren't even required to take any qualification tests.  And now, John McCain wants to bail these lending institutions out at the expense of the taxpayer?
This seems to me like it's a another erratic move by the McCain campaign to appear as though they are putting together a detailed proposal for this plan.  In reality this plan was put together prior to the debate by campaign staffers.  Perhaps the very people that McCain will place in cabinet positions if he's elected, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually wants to help homeowners.  According to www.politico.com, Douglas Holtz-Eakin who is an economic advisor to McCain has said that this plan has been in the works since March of this year.  The McCain campaign is touting this as though it's an original idea even though something similar was proposed in or around March by the democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barney Frank. McCain said back in March about that plan:
"It is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.  Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy."
I think we can all agree that we are in a time of systemic risk and danger to the economy and I commend McCain for making an attempt at solving this issue.  The problem with this plan and the way that it has been proposed is "it seems hastily put together...given the lack of detail, specificity, and overlap with other programs" according to one Republican financial services lobbyist.  I really don't think McCain is helping himself with yet another "hail mary," and you know it's bad for McCain when even Republican financial services lobbyists are coming out against his economic plans.  Let's also not forget that we're coming to the head of a heated campaign season and McCain is trailing in the polls mainly because of the economy.
I want to finish up here by commenting quickly on what we're seeing from the other side of the ticket.  The DOW dropped over 678 points today, and what are we hearing at McCain's campaign rallies?  Are we hearing more about substantive issues that voters care about?  No, we're getting more smears and distortions; they've even dragged Cindy McCain into the fray.  Cindy McCain was on the stump reading a prepared statement about how Barack Obama doesn't support the troops because he voted against funding for the troops at one time or another. Most of us who follow politics know that the reason that Obama voted against that bill was because it did not contain a timeline for withdrawal.  What Cindy McCain failed to mention is that John McCain voted against various war funding provisions at one time or another because they did have timelines for withdrawal in them.  Cindy took it a step further saying that Obama voted against supporting "[her] son" and then suggested that he "walk in her shoes" for a day.  If we want to walk in Cindy McCain's silver spoon fed shoes we can go rent The Stepford Wives.
McCain also voted against more body armor for the troops and other bills that contained provisions that supported the troops which I won't get into here; if you'd like more detail on this I'd encourage you to visit www.votevets.org.  Votevets.org also reported that according to a study conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics in August of this year troops overwhelmingly have contributed to Obama's campaign vs. McCain's at a rate of 6:1 especially among those actually deployed.  Does that mean that the troops don't support the troops as the argument goes?  Think about it.