Main Street America: No Trust, No Faith

So the House of Representatives voted down the Wall Street Bailout Bill yesterday. Was this a total surprise? Not to me.

Why did this bill fail? Representatives received thousands of phone calls and e-mails from their constituents (Main Street Americans) who basically told them, "Hell no." Many Representatives could not vote for this especially if they were up for re-election in November.

Why did their constituents say "Hell no" to this bill? President Bush could not sell the bailout concept to the American people. House and Senate leaders could not sell the bill to the American people or their fellow lawmakers. Financial advisers and analysts could not persuade the American people that it is needed. Main Street Americans have no trust in the wheels of government and have lost faith in the process.

Who is to blame for this lack of trust and faith by the American people? This is the most difficult question to answer. Simply put. there's a lot of blame to go around. Visceral partisan politics is certainly one reason. Washington has the appearance of helping only the wealthy and the greedy over recent years. But I would say as of late, the main problem is President Bush. His economic policy mistakes and foreign policy blunders have left a bad taste in the mouth of the electorate. He can not sell the American people on anything that appears to come from his administration. He can not even sell members of his own party who are suppose to respect and follow his "leadership." President Bush is beyond the label of "lame duck." He is the "damned duck."

How will a bailout bill get passed? I think one will be passed the second time around. I think many representatives wanted to make a loud statement the first time and then they'll pass a modified version at the next opportunity. But I don't think the American people will get behind this bill unless something happens that directly affects them or their family (like one of their banks folding or they get turned down while attempting to purchase a car or refinance a loan). This crisis has not truly been felt yet by the average American who does not have great quantities of stock (or any at all). Right now, most Main Street Americans still feel that the problem is not theirs and they don't want to help people that they see as greedy and unworthy of assistance.

If the financial analysts are correct, the major hurt is right around the corner. I hope this crisis can be resolved so that: a) Markets are stabilized; b) the American people's money, if lent, will be returned; and c) Wall Street is held accountable if any wrong doing has occurred. But like most Main Street Americans, I don't trust any of "them" and I have little faith that even these three concerns will be adequately covered. And God help whoever assumes the office of the Presidency come next January.

Now appearing... John "David Blaine" McCain

90 minutes. That's how long the Presidential Candidates debate is scheduled to last Friday night at the University of Mississippi. Washington D.C. is about 2.5 hours via plane from the debate's location. Given that, both Senator's McCain and Obama can take the time to show up and talk about where they want to lead America for the next four years.

Why does Senator McCain seek to delay this debate? He is not a member of the Senate Banking Committee. He's not the Majority or Minority leader in the Senate. There will not be a vote Friday night on passage or not of a Wall Street bailout bill. I can only conclude that this is nothing but a political stunt on the part of Senator McCain to make some noise and "appear" as if he's leading something or anything. Now that the press honeymoon is over for Governor Palin, the American people (the intelligent, knowledgeable people who aren't on waiting lists wanting to cop a pair of Palin's favorite $400 glasses) are again focusing on the top of the two tickets and Senator McCain's poll numbers are slipping and looking like those in a pre-Palin time.

Debate not delay is what America wants. Discussion of policies and plans and not stunts is what America wants. John McCain is starting to look like the David Blaine of American politics.

The McCains and"Their" Economy

The McCains own:

* 10 Properties. But 6 are investments and they can only live out of 4 homes.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers: “The reality is they have some investment properties and stuff. It’s not as if he lives in ten houses. That’s just not the case,” Rogers said. “The reality is they have four that actually could be considered houses they could use.”
For more on Properties see: http://www.mccainvminnesota.com/cribs.html

* 13 Cars. But John McCain himself is registered on only one.

What are the cars: 2004 Cadillac CTS, 2005 Volkswagen convertible, 2001 Honda sedan, 2007 Ford F-150 truck, 1960 Willys Jeep, 2008 Jeep Wrangler, 2000 Lincoln, 2001 GMC SUV, (3) 2000 NEV Gem electric vehicles, Toyota Prius (bought for the daughter). Cindy McCain mostly drives a Lexus which is registered to her family's beer business and has personalized plates that read "MS BUD." For more on Cars see: http://www.newsweek.com/id/160091

So is it any wonder that John McCain said on Meltdown Monday (9-15-08): "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Because apparently, McCain's personal economy is quite strong. Unfortunately, that's not the case with the majority of Americans. McCain's comment (along with his inability to recall how many properties or cars the McCain's own) creates a picture of a candidate who has no grasp on the current state of our economy or even a grasp on what he owns. How can this man empathize with the rest of us?

This Hillary Supporter for the Obama/Biden Ticket

I opened up my Yahoo page this morning and read the results of a recent poll that made me mad. Here's the poll breakdown:



* THE ASSOCIATED PRESS-YAHOO POLL
* Interview dates: September 5, 2008 – September 15, 2008
* Interviews: 1,740 adults; 1,546 registered voters
* 825 Democrats; 715 Republicans
* Overall, 74 percent of Democrats say they will vote for Obama, compared to 87 percent of Republicans behind the Arizona senator. About 9 in 10 Clinton supporters are Democrats.

I don't understand this reluctance by some of my fellow Hillary supporters to get off the fence and support Obama. Like most Hillary supporters, I too voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 (the President by Popular vote). I supported Hillary during the 2008 primaries and I think she would have made a damn fine President. But honestly, I didn't want to see her as a Vice Presidential candidate and I don't think she ever wanted that role.

What bothers me here is that we Hillary supporters align with Obama on issue after issue after issue but some of us are still soft on his candidacy? Obama (like Hillary) supports:

* Creating a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq
* Removing the tax cuts for the wealthy
* Reproductive rights for women and other pro-women issues
* Universal Healthcare
* Alternative energy solutions and not the "Drill Baby Drill" mentality of McCain. This includes: enacting a Windfall Profits Tax to provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.

And I could go on but just go to Obama's site and read about the issues for yourself at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Oh and a couple of words about McCain's VP choice. Sarah Palin is nothing but a Republican stunt (a bone thrown to right-wingers in the Republican party). Yes, she's a woman but she's just a cute, right-winger in lipstick with almost no governmental experience or knowledge of the wider world (got her passport last year). She limped through an interview with the laid-back Charlie Gibson (fact checkers found errors in her responses and "non-responses"). And the only reason Palin has the highest approval ratings of any governor in the country is because she pays Alaskans over $2,000 a year from oil revenues (a program called the Alaska Permanent Fund). In other words, Alaskans are paid to like her.

The McCain/Palin ticket offers nothing for us Hillary supporters. Their proposed policies are mostly an extension of the George Bush Presidency and we don't need another 4 years like the last 8 years. The rest of my fellow Hillary supporters need to wake-up and see what's really at stake here and support the Obama/Biden ticket so that we can put this country back on a sane and progressive heading.

More Unnecessary Development in A2

"Ann Arbor City Council OKs 42 North student apartments off Maple Road
Posted by Judy McGovern | The Ann Arbor News September 09, 2008 08:26AM

Hours of debate, fact-finding and agonized decision-making ended Monday when Ann Arbor's City Council OK'd a controversial student-apartment project off South Maple Road by a 7-4 vote."

42 North (a large-scale apartment complex aimed at student tenants) is a perfect example of an unnecessary development that is helping to ruin the landscape of Ann Arbor. The location of this development faces peaceful Dicken Woods Nature Area and will be a neighbor to the single-story, ranch-style development known as Surrey Park. This will be the tallest development (3 stories) south of Pauline Blvd. along South Maple Rd. It will have some 120 apartments and nearly 500 parking spaces.

Basically, almost nobody who lives in the area surrounding 42 North wants it built but it will be built. Grace Bible Church benefits greatly from this sale of property (which will also destroy two perfectly good ranch homes that were once homes for the ministry). Not only are they flush with cash but they will now have a built-in group of young people that they can proselytize within walking distance of their church.

Plainly, the area does not need such a development. Besides the obvious demands on local roads, storm drainage, and utility consumption, it is simply incongruous with its neighbors. A much better fit would have been a modest condo or single family home development but those models may not have been as financially attractive to either the church or potential developers. But everyone has asked the simple question: where do they think they are going to get all of the student tenants that they are aiming this development at? The University has recently expanded on-campus housing. New (much closer) off-campus developments have already been authorized. And nearby apartment complexes are all advertising for more tenants. Where are all of these new student tenants going to come from?

I'm disappointed in Grace Bible Church, the Ann Arbor City Council, and Mayor Hieftje. Such a decision begs the question: who runs Ann Arbor? It isn't the citizens. It isn't the Mayor. It isn't the City Council. Apparently, it is the developers who run Ann Arbor. Developers who are powerful enough to bull-doze local people and their government by threatening to bring in the lawyers and whip out a lawsuit which is exactly what happened in this very sad case.