The heading is a tongue-in-cheek reference to Scott Brown's multi-talented daughter, Ayla, whom barely missed making the Top 12 of American Idol 2006. ("Mrs. Brown, you've got a lovely daughter, ooh-ooh!"). Scott Brown has his own claim to fame, in 1982 he posed for Cosmopolitan and won their "America's Sexiest Man" contest.
Scott P. Brown has staged one of the hugest political upsets in American history: after the primaries, Martha Coakley had a 30-point lead over Brown. There are two major factors in the victory: Brown was able to make up for the 3-1 registration edge in favor of Democrats by attracting independents and centrist Democrats, whom are discouraged by the power imbalance, massive spending, and heightened polarization in politics and wanted to send a clear message to Capitol Hill. Second, Brown astutely asserted his independent politics and avoided bringing polarizing political figures (e.g., Sarah Palin) into the campaign; his correction of "Kennedy's seat" as "the people's seat" was a brilliant response.
The media conservatives are ecstatic tonight because Brown's 52%-47% victory is a clear mandate against the Democratic Party Health Care Bill, with a rebuke coming from a reliable blue state producing two Presidential candidates in just over 20 years. However, Scott Brown is a pragmatic Republican, whom considers, for example, abortion (with minor "speed bump" restrictions) and "gay marriage" are settled law. I am personally very pleased with Brown's election despite some differences of opinion; his emphasis on problem solving and bipartisanship and his positions on the health care bill, terrorism, pro-business growth, and unsustainable deficits are a refreshing change from the previously all-Democratic Congressional delegation, dominated by progressive groupthink.
The other big loser of the night? Barack Obama who initially didn't intend to stump on behalf of Martha Coakley but decided his health care agenda was too important to risk being blamed if Martha lost by a small margin. This makes the third consecutive high-profile election (the others being the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections) where Obama's active endorsement has been in a losing cause. No doubt the Dems are seriously worried about Obama's coattails this fall.
When Will the Democrats Accept Responsibility for Their Failed Economic Policies?
The Associated Press reports, in the aftermath of Brown's upset win:
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, head of the House Democrats' campaign effort, said Coakley's loss won't deter his colleagues from continuing to blame the previous administration.
"President George W. Bush and House Republicans drove our economy into a ditch and tried to run away from the accident," he said. "President Obama and congressional Democrats have been focused repairing the damage to our economy."How pathetic is it that the Democrats whom begged the country in the 2006 and 2008 elections to put themselves in charge of the Congress and the Presidency are seeking to scapegoat Bush and legislators not part of the ruling majority? They have held control of Congress since the beginning of 2007--more than 18 months before the economic tsunami.
There are demagogic appeals by Obama and his Democratic cronies that Bush's economic policies "failed" and were responsible for the economic tsunami. The reality is that Bush inherited an economy and stock market correcting from a stock market bubble and soon hit with 9/11, which almost took out the air transportation and hospitality sectors of the economy, and the financial market scandals (Enron, Tyco, etc.) What is remarkable is that the global economy didn't tank, and I give credit in part to Bush's pro-economic growth policies cutting marginal tax rates to job creators and investment taxes. What is remarkable is we had modest growth through most of the Bush years.
The major problem is that we had a housing bubble, enabled by prolonged easy money policies and certain federal legislation promoting homeownership (i.e., AMTPA and CRA). Easy money aggravates boom or bust cycles as it lowers the cost of adding capacity. This housing bubble in particular was prolonged by making mortgage money available to higher-risk applicants; this was accompanied by artificially high demand in related sectors (e.g., new homeowners purchase new appliances, home projects and property maintenance, carpeting, etc.) Easy money was also available by inflows from foreign investors looking for higher returns in implicitly government guaranteed mortgage-backed securities (MBS), also purchased by investment banks and hedge funds. The basic idea was to borrow cheap funds and to invest in higher-yielding MBS's, but when the housing bubble burst, and homeowners started defaulting as adjustable-rate mortgages reset, the prices of MBS's started plunging, wiping out assets (unless protected, e.g., by swaps, such as those sold by AIG, with inadequate reserves.) The sale of MBS's was also facilitated by overly optimistic credit bureau ratings.
It's difficult to argue, as Congressman Van Holland does, that these are the result of "Bush Administration" policies. By many accounts, the housing bubble started in 1997--under the Clinton Administration. Both Democratic and Republican administrations had promoted increased home ownership as a goal; both Democratic and Republican Administrations and Congresses rightly promoted financial deregulation but failed to anticipate de facto workarounds to existing regulatory structures, virtually unregulated opaque financial instrument markets (e.g., derivatives/swaps) and an increasing vulnerability of the economy to non-bank entities. Furthermore, the Democrats' staunch support of then less-regulated GSE's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which captured roughly half of the home mortgage market by purchasing (under progressive political pressure) mortgage notes (in particular, those in subprime mortgages in the high-bubble states like California, Nevada, and Florida) clearly exposed the American taxpayer to risk. The fact that both parties failed to learn the lessons from the S&L crisis, where we found lack of commensurate federate oversight of institutional risk exposure relative to federal guarantees of deposits, is telling.
As a conservative, I do believe in the right amount of regulation--for example, ensuring transparency of transactions which ensures a fair, more efficient market. But I think it is also critical we understand and reform existing regulatory authorities and credit bureaus, and we must confront the failure of the policymakers whom had oversight over existing regulators and failed to properly address relevant risks.
As for Van Holland, his misleading attempt to scapegoat Bush and Republicans in general is yet another example of defensive behavior by the clueless progressive Democrats in Congress, most without a reasonable background in business and economics and whom do not realize or acknowledge the limitations of their knowledge. He and his cronies shoved an ultra-expensive, ineffective, partisan stimulus bill and fiscal year budget down the nation's throat and put climate change and health care expansion (both expensive propositions burdening a slowly recovering economy) above a pro-business growth plan, e.g., making business top tax brackets more competitive globally, lowering investment taxes, permanent reduction in business payroll taxes, ratifying trade agreements, streamlining regulatory/reporting burdens on businesses, etc.
The facts are--the only "answers" that the progressives in Congress and the White House have had is to throw money borrowed from future generations on ineffective federal programs in quadrupling the deficit over the Bush Administration. In fact, they added to the deficit more than the aggregate amount spent on military operations during the War on Terror. And they have "more important things to do" than worry about economic growth while the country's unemployment rate reached 10%--much more than the 8% cap they promised in passing the so-called stimulus bill.
Mr. Van Holland, it is clear you and your fellow progressives don't have an answer on how to address the nation's economy. If you do know, why haven't you already done it? Stop complaining about the Republicans; George Bush has been out of office for a year, and Democrats enjoy lopsided majorities in Congress. For shame: if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Cartoon of the Day
Eric Allie plays tribute to Presidential lip service.
Musical Interlude: Beatles' Paul McCartney/Wings, "Maybe I'm Amazed"
As my Beatles' series continues, no doubt the most commercially successful former Beatle has been Paul McCartney. It's almost unfair to pick a song--what do you leave out? "Just Another Day"; "My Love", "Getting Closer"? Even a more recent ditty like "Dance Tonight" is charming and creative... But if you were to ask me about my top 5 hits for the 70's, I would list songs like Eric Clapton's "Layla", Boston's "More Than a Feeling", Bruce Springsteen's "Born to Run", Simon & Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water"--and this song. A glorious love song I never tire of listening to; the video also shows the target, his late wife Linda (RIP) whom "helps [him] sing [his] song".
