Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Mr. McMorris

I found the conversation with Rep. McMorris' to be disappointing.

He clearly has a set script of reasonable sounding doublespeak and redirection for most questions and used it. He said of the republican party: "We hear the public and we have changed our ways and we understand what the public wants and needs".

It's a shame that he made that statement as a follow up to a question about whether or not it was appropriate for the government to break up businesses rather than letting free market forces act. He essentially said that he does believe the government should have a role in breaking up businesses and regulating them in an unconstitutional manner. While he said he understands that the bailouts are not a good idea for the financial sector and others, he believes they are necessary for the auto industry.

These remarks were prefaced by his statement that he was the first person in either house to speak out against the bailouts.

Good for him, I wonder what his constituency is thinking about the "enforced" resignation of GM's Rick Waggoner.

The beginning of one question was asking if the regulations that forced the banks and other lending institutions to make poor quality loans had been dealt with or removed. The answer, (stripped of all the the-housing-bubble-wasn't-entirely-the-government's-fault babble) was no. This is a telling point, because what is the point of bailing out or restructuring lending institutions if they are still going to be forced to write the same types of loans?

He put forth some good sound bites, including the 5 principles most Americans and republicans can agree on. I'll publish them here as a thank you to the Rep. for participating, because I know his participation was voluntary and he was probably expecting positive coverage, which this is not. I'm sure that there will be some who think my posts on the meat of the call thus far should be tempered to encourage the participation of more Reps in the future. I think the time for flattery is well past. The truth is too important to be toned down at this point. I think our country is in an all out battle to retain the founding principles of America. In my opinion the founder's vision is still the preferable one and turning to flattery at this point serves no one.

5 principles most Americans and republicans can agree on:
1. Our liberty is from God, not the government
2. Our sovereignty is in our souls, not the soil. (What exactly does he mean by this one? No idea, but it sure sounds good doesn't it?)
3. Our security is from strength, not surrender.
4. Our prosperity is from the private sector, not the public sector.
5. Our truths are self evident, not relative.

"He that rebuketh a man afterwards shall find more favour than he that flattereth with the tongue."~Prov 28:23


Dr.D said...

2. Our sovereignty is in our souls, not the soil.

Well, actually Mom, I don't think that sounds good at all. I think that says that at most we are sovereign over our own souls and have no sovereignty at all over our physical nation. I don't like the sound of that one bit!

Your point regarding the failure to fix the problem with the lending institutions is well taken. What we are doing is simply pumping more money into them so that they can pump more money out to people who will never, ever repay any of it. Thus the problem will simply grow and grow. This is a typical government "solution." Government never solves any problem; it only expands the problems to make them permanent.

Thank you very much for going to a lighter background color. It helps a lot!

Call Me Mom said...

Well, it keeps the alliterative mode going at any rate.

I agree on number 2, in that it reminds me of the saying in feudal Europe that a peasant owned "nothing but his stomach".

Terry Morris said...

testing comments

Terry Morris said...

As I was saying, I much preferred your original background color, but the problem with black is that it does not lend itself to the inclusion of various text colors like you tend to put in your posts.

Call Me Mom said...

Terry, I liked the black too.

Mr. McMorris' 4th point - that our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector seems to make a hypocrite of him.

His own clearly stated views are that the government should have the authority to break up private corporations like AIG. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised since Mr. McMorris is the representative from Michigan. I would grant him some leeway as the UAW is probably a big factor in his re-election plans, but I've already addressed that point in my post on Rep. King.

I got the feeling that Mr. McMorris is quite satisfied with the idea that the government should have this authority. In my opinion, he has either fallen hook, line, and sinker for the Obama administration's line or he is promoting it for some reason of his own or a combination of the two.

Dr.D said...

I find myself in a somewhat peculiar position regarding having the government break up large corporations.

I am a strong believer in free enterprise, but I am also very reluctant to see businesses beccome extremely large. (And then we have the question, how large is too large?)

I would much prefer to see Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac made by five different competing car companies instead by Government Motors. I think it would be a much more healthy thing for the nation.

I would rather see individual banks in each town, rather than CitiBank, etc., ie a few giants that control the banking industry of America. I think it would be much more healthy for the nation.

This move towards consolidation and with it internationalization and offshoring of jobs and manufacturing has been highly detrimental to America.

On the other side of the coin, it is not possible to be small and be in the re-insurance business which is the primary business of AIG. They are the backup insurers of other insurance companies. They have to be large enough to prevent other insurance companies from going broke when they get hit with very large claims like Katrina. You can't do that if you are small.

So, how large is too large? It is a tough question, and the BO administration is the very last organization in the world that I would want to make the decision!

Call Me Mom said...

Dr. D.
I'm in agreement with you to an extent. I'm pretty sure the anti-monopoly laws we have should be sufficient to keep businesses from becoming too large and controlling. But I also believe folks have had enough time to come up with all the best possible ways to get around the anti-monopoly laws.
There should be some way to find a balance without getting the government overly involved.

Dr.D said...

Mom, there is no question but that you are correct when you say, "But I also believe folks have had enough time to come up with all the best possible ways to get around the anti-monopoly laws."

The nation is now in the hands of the lawyers, and their whole purpose for being is to figure out ways to subvert the law. Lawyers were no doubt useful when their purpose was to help settle disputes, but now their purpose is to create disputes so that they will have work. One of the ways that they can do that endlessly is to find ways to distort and twist corporate law to serve the purposes of greed.

Have you ever thought about how careful lawyers are to give each other the title "honorable" when one of them becomes a judge? I think this is interesting and revealing. No other profession does this. We don't hear of teachers or doctors or preachers called, "the honorable Mr. Jones." With attorneys it is a real mark of distinction to have not been found to be a thief! I think this tells us much about the lawyers.

Call Me Mom said...

I haven't received any further invites, so perhaps they decided to post on their own site where the content is more controlled and they can make sure the catchy bits are posted for their constituency.

Dr.D said...

Aren't they all at home on an Easter recess right now? I seem to recall such.

There is also the chance that they decided that they can't stand too much candor.

Call Me Mom said...

It appears this opportunity has ended. Last week I received an e-mail from the House Republican Conference that contained the note
"*As usual...if you blog about this, please do not cite the Conference or me as your source."Not having seen this note in any of our previous correspondence,(And I re-read all of it to be sure I hadn't just missed it somewhere.) I questioned the necessity for such a precaution. The information provided on their site was freely available to the public on other sites and it is customary to give a hat tip(H/T) to the site or person providing one's information. This is so that one's readers may fact check what you have reported as well as to give the originating site more exposure.

There ensued a short discussion where I refused to abide by that requirement because it would make me seem to be acting as a covert arm of the House Republican Conference, when that is not, in fact the case.
My reasoning is that, if there is nothing wrong with what they are doing, there is no reason not to credit them as the source of my information.

Apparently they disagree and I have not heard from them since. The one call I participated in was interesting, but not enough so that I would put myself into that sort of conflict of interest to continue participating in them.

Dr.D said...

Well, isn't that interesting! They want to simply leak information, rather than be upfront about it. That is positively sneaky and disgraceful.

I thought you said these folks were Republicans, but they sure sound like Democrats. More evidence that there is no noticeable difference between the two parties. We have become a one party country! It is time for a new opposition party!

What a group of snakes, ur.. sneaks, .... oh, whatever.

Call Me Mom said...

That's kind of how I felt about it.
I've given up far too much of late to take a stand on principle in other areas of my life to allow this one to slide by.

It does make me sad, though. Whatever happened to ethics?

Dr.D said...

Mom, you asked, "Whatever happened to ethics?"

I think they disappeared just about the same time the country was sold out for short term gain. I don't know which went first, or if it was simultaneous, but I'm sure the two were related events.