Posted Tuesday, 09 September 2008 by Peter Tharaldson Comments (2) E-mail
Coverage of a recent Humphrey Institute Poll included remarkably speculative comments
regarding the impact of Independence Senatorial Candidate Dean Barkley on the election. It was intimated that most of the anti-incumbent vote should be to the benefit of Al Franken’s left of center perspective. Sadly, the speculator of such results neglected the fact that considerable anti-incumbency this year comes from people disappointed about the lack of fiscal stewardship and violation of our liberties (the Ron Paul factor). Independence Party federal candidates, from Ross Perot to Jim Gibson, Jim Moore, John Binkowski and Tammy Lee have consistently called for policies which have been consistent with this third perspective.
We have solution to this speculation…and it is one we have offered many times previously: Put up or shut up. If you don’t ask the question (in the survey) that matters, then don’t speculate. “If the candidate you support were not in the race, which of the other two candidates would you support?” Ask this question of supporters of the three candidates to be fair. This question has been asked in other polls….it actually helped political scientists determine the impact of Ross Perot in 1992 (he did not help the incumbent George Bush).
We have asked and asked for this question to replace speculation. If Professor Jacobs can’t ask it then why should he speculate? One question, dude… just one question to all three voting groups. If you don’t ask, then don’t tell.
Posted Friday, 05 September 2008 by Jim Moore Comments (1) E-mail
One little reported result of the recent Humprhey Institute/Minnesota Public Radio poll was that 77% of "likely voters" replied that they would consider an independent or third party candidate--that's right 77% (read the MPR article). This response surely shakes the two-party establishment to its core. Despite selling out to special interests for huge campaign contributions so they can dominate the airwaves with their increasingly insulting messages, the general voting public still feels a need to have more than two choices -- and, overwhelmingly, will seriously consider them.
The key is for independent and non-entrenched party candidates is to get their message out amongst the noise created by the silliness put forth by Republican/DFL candidates and their surrogates. This can be done, but only with your help. The great equalizer is your activism and your effort to tell others about an interesting candidate that would surely make a difference if elected. The internet is the great equalizer in information flow -- use it.
In the next two months, it is likely that you will not hear of a poll result like this again. The two-party establishment will do their best to pressure pollsters not to seek or report results this damaging to their security. The establishment will call our candidates spoilers. The establishment will try to keep our candidates out of the debates. And, sadly, the media will likely aid them in their efforts. Don't sit back and take it. Act! The establishment can muzzle the pollsters and the media, but they can't muzzle you.
Posted Thursday, 31 July 2008 by Jim Moore Comments (2) E-mail
The Bush Administration just announced that the federal budget deficit for the fiscal year beginning in October is projected to be $462,000,000,000. Want some perspective?
Posted Thursday, 24 July 2008 by Jim Moore Comments (3) E-mail
David Dillon, the Independence Party's endorsed candidate for the 3rd Congressional District, just released his first ad this week. It's a great parody of Bob Dylan's famous music video "Subterranean Homesick Blues". View it here.
David is running for the open US House seat held by Jim Ramstad who is retiring.
Trivia Question: Who will be the first to guess the identity of the guy in the background of David's commercial?
(Full disclosure: I'm a little biased since I ran a similar ad during my 2002 US Senate Campaign written, performed and filmed by my brilliant campaign manager Neal Levine.)
Posted Tuesday, 22 July 2008 by Jim Moore Comments (2) E-mail
Imagine investing in a business based on the following model: when times are good, you reap the benefits (dividends, rising stock price) and when times are bad (big losses, declining stock price and a huge need of additional capital), the government backs you up. Nice investment huh?
This is precisely the deal that shareholders of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have in the home mortgage market. It should come as no surprise that many Washington insiders are in on the deal and actively lobby to ensure regulatory pressure is minimized. In particular, they lobbied to resist raising capital requirements as the loan portfolios surged.
As a Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE’s) originated to meet a compelling public need (essentially defined as improving affordable home ownership), these enterprises are allowed to borrow at lower rates from the bond market and operate with lower capital requirements than traditional mortgage lenders because there is an implied financial backing from the federal government. With over $5 trillion in home mortgages, one could plausibly argue that these GSE’s have been quite successful.
The question of an implied government guarantee comes into play when the GSE’s are financially stressed. While the mortgages underwritten by Frannie and Freddie were more traditional and they never entered the “sub-prime” market, they are still facing losses due the weakening economy and falling real estate values. Last weekend, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve worked diligently to implement a plan to provide additional capital to these entities if their losses increased. Additionally, the Fed allowed them to borrow directly from the Federal Reserve if they needed liquidity.
The reasons behind the decision for government intervention are very real. Combined, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac comprise almost half of the overall mortgage market. If they suffer continued liquidity problems, it could potentially bring the mortgage market to its knees--especially on the heels of the sub-prime mortgage debacle.
Situations such as this are becoming increasingly more prominent as an election issue because individuals who are struggling with their mortgages continue to see a fragment of the concern that is offered to GSE’s and Investment Banks (as a result of the Bear Stearns implosion). It is becoming a classic debate of how much government should be involved in our financial markets and to whom, if anyone, it should provide relief.
The first question in this debate is if the big guys (financial institutions) are the beneficiaries of government intervention, why aren’t the “little guys”
(i.e. homeowners who can’t meet their mortgage obligations) being helped. If you are quick to point out that these homeowners made their own bed, remember that these institutions made their bed as well. It’s quite the moral dilemma for both the “give them a hand” crowd as well as the “it’s too big to fail” market folks. If you were a policy maker, would you intervene? If so, where would you draw the line?
Posted Tuesday, 22 July 2008 by Jim Moore Comments (2) E-mail
We've all been through the dilemma of what to give someone when they reach an important milestone.
Posted Wednesday, 16 July 2008 by Rob Rossi E-mail
Read more: Nuturing Innovation: Government's Proper Role in Energy Policy
Page 13 of 13
