Promise Turned to Dissappointment in 2008. Bring on 2009!

As the snow flies outside my windows for the last time in 2008, I wanted to grab a few moments to reflect on this past year, and perhaps look forward to 2009. This year really started out with such tremendous promise, and is ending, at least for me, with some serious disappointment. 

At the start of 2008, I was becoming consumed by the primary runoffs, and encouraged as I saw a man, in Gov. Mike Huckabee, who gave me great hope that many of my perspectives might be once again represented at the highest level of government. First catching my attention in the debates, then remembering the good things I had heard about him in years past (covenant marriage, his "tax me more" stunt, among others), the more I explored and learned, the more enthusiastic I became. I started donating - twenty bucks here; fifty if I could spare it, and even volunteered to be a county coordinator! The embers of my political fire reignited, I started reaching out to my local political organizations, to see what could be done. I started a journal again, both as a source of encouragement, and a measure of progress. I even started this blog after having a couple of articles posted on Huck's national blog.

Personally, on the business side of life, leads for some big projects were coming in greater quantity than they had ever in the past. It was looking to be a really good year!Heck, we even got the opportunity later in the spring to move from the wilds of Whately, MA on down to Newington, CT, and back to civilization - so my wife was happy too!

The first disappointment of the year came when big voices on the Right started trashing my candidate. Call me naive, but I really thought that these folks I'd been listening to, and reading opinions from for years would see in Huckabee what I saw. To my chagrin however, they piled on with the mainstream media in their criticisms, and dismissals. It was eye-opening to see how quickly social conservatives, and the so-called "religious right" was being thrown under the bus, even by those who professed to lead and defend our interests! I'll never hear Ingraham, Hannity, Limbaugh, Carr, or read the National Review the same again. I still respect their voices in our movement, but know that when push comes to shove, people who share my views are the ones who're going to be shoved aside.

Of course this first disappointment resulted in a second, even greater one. Somehow, our party had chosen John McCain as it's nominee. With all these great candidates...John McCain?!? It makes me really want to re-evaluate the primary process, that's for sure. Could we have chosen a weaker candidate? The race for the presidency was sealed, and nothing, not even the breath of fresh air swept in by Sarah Palin could turn that candidacy around. 

It frankly, seems all down hill from there. The unstoppable force of Barack Obama swept over the immovable object of the Clintons, everwhelming even their formidable influence. Not even "Operation Chaos" could stop that train. Slow it perhaps, but not stop it.

What happened next, is still in my mind like a bad nightmare I keep hoping to awake from. Seems as if President Bush just quit, and caved to the Fed Chairman and Treasury Secretary. The bailout debacle was beginning. Just talking about this subject, or even thinking about it, is frankly uncomfortable now. How?!? Why?!? They're going to do what?!? Oh, now they'll vote for it after $150 billion in pork was added?!? It's simply unfathomable.

Then came the election. Historic? In a superficial way. Nevermind his lack of experience, or who he calls "friend", or his big government, wealth redistribution views, or how he doesn't want his daughters"punished" with a baby...he's "African-American". So tell me how that's not racist?

Now the year is ending with far-reaching economic pull back, if not utter collapse. Projects are being cancelled. Industries are struggling. Capital is being frozen. Terrorists have struck India. Massive corruption is being exposed in Minnesota and Illinois. War is breaking out between Israel and Hamas. And that doesn't cover it all.

The New Year seems an empty slate. It's as if anything, good or bad, could happen in 2009. I have no prognostications for this new year, nor the hope I felt at this time last year. No, I will cling to my faith in God above, and in Jesus to intercede at the Father's throne for his bride. I encourage you to pray with me for family,  friends, our leaders, our countrymen, and for those around the world who seek His face. May God bless you and yours in the New Year!

Debate, Part I: Missed Opportunity

Reflecting on the 1st Presidential Debate of the fall season, there are certainly several positives to talk about in relation to Sen. McCain's performance. He once again delivered when it came to clear, decisive, leadership attributes; especially on the subjects of government spending, and our strategies in various foreign theaters. Based on the arc of the debate, to my viewpoint, he won the evening.

I don't feel satisfied this morning, though. I feel there was a major missed opportunity in last night's discussion, that quite honestly, neither candidate took a real swing at. The major news story of the past couple weeks - the US Treasury takeover of several financial firms, and the proposed 700 billion dollar bailout of even more financial institutions, wasn't competently discussed by either candidate. This was very disheartening.

The moderator, Jim Lehrer, tee'd the issue up for the candidates; a golden opportunity to grasp hold of an issue of major concern, and really set themselves apart from their rivals by discussing the heinous errors that got us here, and defining the principles we should be concentrating on going forward. Sen. Obama delivered his well-rehearsed four talking points regarding what he and his congressional allies expect to be in any bailout agreement, but failed to adequately explain how we got here (other than "George Bush's eight years of failed policies". yawn.), or give any reassurance about such a bailout's effectiveness, or how and what his administration would do to make sure it wouldn't happen again. His answer fell flat. 

Sen. McCain, with a clear opening to hammer congressional and regulatory oversight, Fannie & Freddie as deeply flawed and corrupt financial institutions doomed to failure, and the asserting of power by the US Treasury Secretary in the takeovers of failing Wall Street firms as constitutionally disturbing, failed to deliver. It was a wide open opportunity to reclaim the mantel of economic and fiscal responsibility, by clearly outlining conservative economic principles, and the risks that improper government interference in the marketplace pose to the stability of the economy. It was an opportunity to put some real distance between himself and the current administration on economic policy, by strongly criticizing the bailout plan, siding with Senators Shelby and DeMint, and reinforcing the conservative ideals of limited government. All we got was a brief mention of his sounding the alarm about Fannie & Freddie a couple years ago, and clarification of his call for the resignation of the SEC chair as a call for accountability. Not bad points, but not seizing the opening he was given. 

The entire arc of this campaign could change drastically, if one of these two candidates could get a firm grasp on the issues at stake, and take a clear and concise leadership position with regard to the current financial situation. The American people would be thrilled to see that someone really "gets it". Being a free-market, limited government conservative, John McCain should have a serious advantage over his rival in this arena. It's a clear opportunity for him to distance himself from the Bush administration, and their questionable bailout plan, especially while his rival and the Democrat Party, it seems at this point, are only too willing to align themselves with it. 

Yes, this debate might be recorded as a "win" in McCain's column, but a win in November is the real goal; and he can't afford to not seize on such glaring opportunities if he hopes to turn this race strongly in his favor, and tally the big win.

The Current Financial "Crisis" - In Layman's Terms: no bailout necessary

There are many out there trying to understand what's going on in the financial markets, and why the US Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Board Chairman are proposing a near trillion dollar bailout for investment bankers. 

To really go back to the beginning, please refer to my previous posting on the history of Fannie and Freddie, for reference.

Now, let's see if I can follow this. 

As politicians tend to do, back in the early nineties, it was decided that expanding homeownership to those who had previously been unqualified for mortgages would be a great way to pander to those Americans who had "slipped through the cracks", and thus legislation was enacted that forced lending institutions to do just that via a strategy of penalization and roadblocks for lenders who didn't comply. It is also my understanding that Fannie Mae lowered the standards of qualification for a mortgage around that time as well.

Following the burst of the tech bubble in the late nineties, the Federal Reserve set off on a series of record interest rate reductions in an attempt to stave off a recession, making the lending/borrowing of money very cheap. 

These actions created an environment in which investors started putting money into real estate, a historically stable market, but in new irresponsible ways.  Homebuilders saturated the market with homes often too expensive for the average buyer. Mortgage brokers in concert with bankers, came up with new and creative ways to extend mortgage privileges with "interest only" and "bubble mortgages". Many of our fellow citizens took on loans they hadn't fully considered the ramifications of, feeling that if creditors were offering it, it must be safe. With interest rates trending downward, adjustable rate mortgages, previously an investment taboo, also appeared attractive to the ignorant, and were being actively marketed by lenders as the smart way to go. As more expensive new homes were built, and new neighborhoods appeared, home values all over towns increased in response. Lenders were marketing "home equity" mortgages, into which huge credit card debts were being buried, all over the place. On the outside, the home market was looking great.

In the meantime, Fannie and Freddie were taking on a tremendous number of these new high-risk mortgages, and cooking the books to make it appear as if they were going to reap tremendous profits, ignoring the tremendous risk they were assuming. Democrat political hacks, like Franklin Raines, Jamie Garelick, and Jim Johnson, as a reward for their loyalty, were being appointed to executive positions yielding huge bonuses nearing 100 million each, based on this chicanery.

Everything was looking great, ...until the foreclosures started rolling in. Folks who should not have been given loans in the first place - surprise - couldn't meet the terms of payment, and unable to sell their homes immediately due to a saturated market, went into foreclosure. This meant banks had properties on their hands that in the past, when it was rare, they would sell at a loss to recoup at least the majority of their money. However, if there is a concentration of foreclosure sales in an area, the property values of all homes in that area are depreciated, setting up a vicious circle. Depreciation means the value of your home might be less than what you owe, meaning you can't sell it at a profit, or even break even. In fact, you wouldn't be able to sell it all unless you have cash on hand to make up the difference, which most people don't, and even if they did, probably wouldn't part with it. This set up a situation wherein even folks who had put down a significant downpayment were now living in properties that were worth less than their current mortgage balance.

(In the Midwest, which I recently left, it was not unusual to have several abandoned homes in a brand new neighborhoods (less than 10 years old), and see several more homes up for sale or rent.) 

As the burden of debt increased for lenders, cash flow was becoming scarce, as the interest rates their creditors extended to them increased because of that debt, the value of their stocks decreased, and their cash was being tied up in assets that were decreasing in value. Fannie and Freddie, who had assumed the bulk of these subprime loans, were on the ropes. If the other banks couldn't unload their bad loans to Freddie and Fannie, their financial viability was at risk. Since Fannie and Freddie were backed up by the US Treasury (see the previous blog entry) these other investment firms saw them as the clearinghouse for bad debt. 

Eventually the markets were saturated with as much bad debt as could be handled, but more was on the way. So these investment bankers, trying to recoup some cash and maintain some liquidity, came up with some creative securities to sell, with these bad mortgages buried in them in such a complex way, that the true value of the security was near impossible to ascertain by the buyer.  Sales of these complex securities exponentially exacerbated the problem.

The collapse of Fannie and Freddie set off a firestorm. With nowhere for the private sector investment bankers to dump off their bad debts to anymore, they realized they were in really big trouble. With their cash tied up in complex bad securities, of unknown negative value, they had to assume the worst, and started looking for a bailout, or a buyout, selling off their remaining assets for pennies on the dollar. 

It is I believe, these complex securities,  into which bad debt was buried, that are the source of the 700 billion dollar figure being bandied about as the necessary amount for a bailout of the financial system. Because the real amount of financial risk is almost too complex to uncover at this point, financiers are vastly overestimating the amount of money needed from the Treasury in order to make sure they can cover their losses, and still have enough cash on hand to rebound into profitability again. The panic over available credit and capital is not helping the situation.

I personally believe there are plenty of financial institutions out there that will be more than happy to pick up assets with real value for pennies on the dollar from these firms that were engaged in risky financial behavior, and that a bailout is not only not necessary, but could serve to lengthen the financial downturn significantly.

In straight economic terms, what we had is a short term of overinflated demand continue long enough for supply to rise to meet it. When the bubble of demand collapsed, as was inevitable, the value of the assets supplied became devalued relative to the size of that collapse. In order to sell off those assets with any margin of profit relative to the new market value established by the corrected demand, those assets would have to be sold at a price not only below market value, but significantly lower than their original sale price at the peak of the demand bubble. 

It is important to note that no money is really "lost", except on paper valuation, until those assets actually change hands. However, because of the foreclosure rates, financiers were having too much of their cash tied up in depreciated assets, which put them in a real cash crunch. They couldn't afford to sit on those assets until their value increased again. Selling off those depreciated assets had their losses piling up. Without influx of cash to lend and invest, after all, they cannot make money.

To stave off collapse, it seems they tried to generate cash by fooling each other into buying each other's bad debts, by burying them in complex securities. This was just a shell game however, and eventually the inevitable collapse came.

All that capital is not lost for good however, as some on the left, who have no undestanding of economics, would have you believe. There are still plenty of companies out there with plenty of capital on hand who see a perfect buying opportunity in front of them. They will have the golden opportunity to snap up a tremendous amount of undervalued assets with intrinsic, "real" value for below market price. They will then be able to turn around and sell those assets that they bought for a steal, at market value, make a nice profit on them, and be overflowing with even more capital that they can reinvest, to make even more money. In other words, the free market will correct itself. People still need homes after all; and last I checked, populations are still growing.

That is in fact what the US Treasury Secretary is counting on. He is looking at this as an opportunity for the US government to fatten it's coffers in just that way. That is why he is promoting this "bailout" as such a positive for the taxpayer. 

What we as Americans have to ask ourselves is whether we want all that capital tied up in the US government to be mismanaged and squandered, or do we want it to be in the private sector, where it can create jobs and wealth not just for political hacks, but for those who work hard enough and smart enough to merit it's rewards?

The free market can never collapse. There can only be a shift of capital from one institution to another, profit from one entity to another. Let's not mire ourselves for years in more New Deal socialist folly, doomed for another collapse, but protect our free market economy. Call your Congressman and oppose any government "bailout".

Fannie & Freddie in the rearview mirror

In keeping with the theme of this blog, I've posted an article from HNN posted back in December of 2003. While it would have been nice to have an understanding of these institutions before they failed - to therefore avert that failure, it is now too late. Please read it to gain an understanding of how we got to here.

12-08-03

What Are the Origins of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?

By Rob Alford

Mr. Alford is a student at the University of Washington and an HNN intern.

In recent months, the nation's two largest mortgage finance lenders have come under increasing scrutiny at the hands of Congress, the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Federal National Mortgage Association, nicknamed Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, nicknamed Freddie Mac, have operated since 1968 as government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). This means that, although the two companies are privately owned and operated by shareholders, they are protected financially by the support of the Federal Government. These government protections include access to a line of credit through the U.S. Treasury, exemption from state and local income taxes and exemption from SEC oversight. A recent accounting scandal at Freddie Mac that resulted in the replacement of three of the company's top executives has led to mounting concerns over the privileged status these GSEs enjoy in the marketplace.

Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. The collapse of the national housing market in the wake of the Great Depression discouraged private lenders from investing in home loans. Fannie Mae was established in order to provide local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages in an attempt to raise levels of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing.

Initially, Fannie Mae operated like a national savings and loan, allowing local banks to charge low interest rates on mortgages for the benefit of the home buyer. This lead to the development of what is now known as the secondary mortgage market. Within the secondary mortgage market, companies such as Fannie Mae are able to borrow money from foreign investors at low interest rates because of the financial support that they receive from the U.S. Government. It is this ability to borrow at low rates that allows Fannie Mae to provide fixed interest rate mortgages with low down payments to home buyers. Fannie Mae makes a profit from the difference between the interest rates homeowners pay and foreign lenders charge.

For the first thirty years following its inception, Fannie Mae held a veritable monopoly over the secondary mortgage market. In 1968, due to fiscal pressures created by the Vietnam War, Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the national budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE, generating profits for stock holders while enjoying the benefits of exemption from taxation and oversight as well as implied government backing. In order to prevent any further monopolization of the market, a second GSE known as Freddie Mac was created in 1970. Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control about 90 percent of the nation's secondary mortgage market.

GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae, with their combination of private enterprise and public backing have experienced a period of unprecedented financial growth over the past few decades. The current assets of these two companies combine for a total that is 45 percent greater than that of the nation's largest bank.

 

On the other hand, their combined debt is equal to 46 percent of the current national debt. It is this combination of rapid growth and over leveraging that has lead to the current concerns of Congress, the Justice Department and the SEC with regards to the financial practices of these GSEs.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the only two Fortune 500 companies that are not required to inform the public about any financial difficulties that they may be having. In the event that there was some sort of financial collapse within either of these companies, U.S. taxpayers could be held responsible for hundreds of billions of dollars in outstanding debts. A recent investigation by the Justice Department and the SEC into the accounting practices at Freddie Mac revealed accounting errors in the amount of 4.5 to 4.7 billion dollars and resulted in the termination of three of the company's top executives. Ongoing investigations by Congress, particular the House Finance Services subcommittee that oversees the activity of GSEs, will determine the future role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the secondary mortgage market that they dominate.

What A Knockout!

It's safe to say that the attitude among many conservatives towards the prospect of John McCain becoming the next POTUS has been less than excitement.

Even after the Saddleback Forum hosted by Rick Warren a couple of weeks ago, which artfully highlighted a glaring contrast between the leadership qualities of the two candidates, conservatives, though encouraged by the direct answers McCain gave to issues of great importance to them, were still worried. Rumors have been floating around ever since that a pro-choice VP pick was not "off the table", and with names like Ridge and Lieberman also being mentioned, there was palpable fear the base would be completely abandoned in foolish pursuit of the supposed "moderates." (By the way - how do you appeal to a swath of voters who don't seem to believe strongly in any ideology? Sounds like trying to "herd cats".)

Today was a brand new day, though. Choosing Sarah Palin as his VP running mate, was the kind of bold move that can seriously alter the script of the campaign this fall. Though an unknown to most outside of the ranks of conservative news addicts like myself, I have been introduced, and subsequently impressed with her over the past year, as she's given birth to her fifth child, and approved the construction of a new natural gas pipe line, which has afforded her some national recognition. She was mentioned as a possible VP selection many months ago, though no one seemed to give it much more than a passing note.

She was a brilliant choice for several reasons. First off, agree or disagree with her ideology, she has character and integrity, calling out her own party members on wasteful government and questionable ethics. She is very down-to-earth and easy for most Americans to relate to. She is attractive and well-spoken; friendly and engaging. Ideologically, she is very conservative, trying to make her state more self-reliant; contributing more to the nation economically than they take in government aid. She is a life-long NRA member. She is staunchly pro-life, and certainly family-oriented, living out the values she espouses. The fact that she is a woman in the historical context of this campaign, is really only the icing on the cake.

For former supporters of both Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, she offers the executive experience of a governor, and the pro-business economic and social conservative bona fides that were so important, without the hard feelings supporters of either candidate might harbor for the other.

This choice only makes McCain, whom the Democrats have tried to characterize as the "third Bush term", and as old, out of touch, and no longer with the "maverick" edge that has defined him for so many years, look simply brilliant. Sarah Palin is not a "go along, to get along" type of politician, reassuring voters that she will not simply be a window dressing yes-woman. I can't imagine a more "maverick" choice in it's unpredictability. Her youth and down-to-earth personality balance out his age and cultural downsides. She couldn't be much farther outside the beltway, balancing out his lengthy legislative association.

What a way to reenergize the base, and suck all the air out of the post-DNC news cycle. What a grand slam!

Redemption

Though much belated, Rush Limbaugh finally accepted former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee on his program today to mend fences, and resolve some misunderstandings. Frankly, Rush's mischaracterizations of Huckabee's opposition to Mitt Romney's candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination have long been a point of contention for me towards what I otherwise believe to be a fairly "spot on" daily analysis on his radio program. It has irked me for months that neither he, nor any of the other nationally syndicated talk hosts like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, as well as National Review editor Rich Lowry, acknowledged the recent change in positions of former Governor Romney, and instead chose to characterize him as a victim of religious discrimination when he failed to secure the nomination. Governor Huckabee and his supporters were dismissed as religious zealots, out of touch with the mainstream of the Republican party.

To Huckabee's credit, he has never lashed out bitterly at his detractors, or criticized their lack of support and mischaracterizations of him. He has instead kept on plugging ahead, focused on the goals he based his campaign on, and patiently waiting for his critics to acknowledge the truth.

That patience was rewarded today, as Huckabee was finally granted his first appearance on Rush's show since the primaries. Since it is rare that Rush ever has a guest on, this appearance should be that much more meaningful. Governor Huckabee was finally able to have a conversation with Rush that allowed him to set the record straight - about the questions he had about the character and integrity of Mitt Romney, not his religion; as well as the deal that was made in West Virginia, whereby Ron Paul's supporters threw their votes to Huckabee on the final ballot to give him the win over Romney. To my ear, Rush treated the governor with respect, asking him thoughtful questions that he himself has been contemplating out loud for the past couple days, looking for Huckabee's own incite; such as if there's any contingency at the convention should a hurricane strike New Orleans while it's under way, to which the governor gave a classic, humorous response: "They'll send Pat Robertson down there to pray it off the coast" (a poking reference to Fidel Castro's "supernatural" claims).

It was certainly a moment that long time fans of Rush, and big fans of Gov. Huckabee have long been hoping and waiting for. Let's hope that the fence-mending continues!

Historical Perspective

Part of "checking the mirrors" in life requires studying history to gain perspective on present circumstances. While my own writing has been scarce lately, I'd like to take the opportunity to share a recent column by Patrick J. Buchanan that I feel is both appropriate and relevant to this blog. If you didn't catch it July 4th, here it is:

The Loss of Independence:By Patrick J. Buchanan, July 4, 2008
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27360

"Not until a year after Lexington did the Continental Congress muster the resolveto declare the 13 colonies free and independent states, no longer subject toParliament or Crown.
Not for five years after July 4, 1776, did George Washington's army truly attainAmerica's independence at Yorktown.

Even then, Washington and his aide Alexander Hamilton knew that the 13 states,while politically independent, were dependent upon Europe for the necessities oftheir national life. Without French ships and guns, French muskets and troops,the Americans could not have forced Gen. Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown.

Cornwallis would have sailed away, as Gen. Howe had from Boston.

Indeed, absent the 1778 alliance with France, our Revolution would have been alonger bloodier affair and might not have succeeded.

At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, both Washington and Hamilton weredetermined to make America's political independence permanent, and to begin tocut the umbilical cord to Europe.

In the Constitution that came out of that convention, the states were prohibitedfrom imposing any tariffs on the products of other states, thus creating thegreatest common market in history, the United States of America. Second, theU.S. government was empowered to raise revenue by imposing tariffs on foreigngoods, but explicitly denied the power to impose taxes on the incomes ofAmerican citizens.

And as Hamilton set the nation onto a course that would ensure economicindependence, Washington took the actions and made the decisions that wouldassure our political independence.

First, he declared neutrality in the European wars that followed the FrenchRevolution of 1789. Second, he sought to sever the 1778 alliance with France, afeat achieved by his successor, John Adams.

Third, in his Farewell Address, the greatest state paper in U.S. history,Washington admonished his countrymen to steer clear of permanent alliances andto stay out of Europe's wars. Rarely in the 19th century did the United Statesdivert from the course set by Washington and Hamilton.
In 1812, however, James Madison, goaded by "war hawks" Henry Clay and JohnCalhoun, and ignoring the counsel of the Farewell Address, declared war onBritain and came near to seeing his nation torn apart.

Had it not been for the Duke of Wellington's preoccupation with Napoleon andAndy Jackson's rout of a British invasion army at New Orleans, America mighthave been split asunder. In 1814, New England was on the verge of seceding, andthe British had in mind splitting off the vast Louisiana territory. As it was,Madison had to flee the Washington, when a British Army came up the BladensburgRoad to burn the Capitol and Madison's White House.

After peace in 1815, however, Madison signed the Tariff Act of 1816 to preventBritish merchants from dumping goods into the United States to kill America'sinfant industries that had arisen during the war and to prevent Britishmerchants from recapturing the U.S. markets they had lost.

For most of the 19th century, the nation followed the economic policy ofHamilton and the foreign policy of Washington -- and was richly rewarded. By thefirst decade of the 20th century, America was the most independent andself-reliant republic in all of history.

And by staying out of two world wars of the 20th century until many of thebloodiest battles had been fought, America emerged in 1945 economically andpolitically independent of all other nations.

During the Cold War, however, Americans came to believe that a temporaryalliance, NATO, was necessary to prevent Joseph Stalin's empire from overrunningEurope and turning the balance of power against us. To help our wartime alliesand former enemies Japan, Germany and Italy to their feet, we set asideHamilton's policy and threw open the American market to the goods of Free Europeand Free Asia.

These should have been temporary alliances and temporary measures. Instead, theywere made permanent.

No longer free of foreign entanglements, as Thomas Jefferson urged, we now havecommitments to defend 50 countries. The old Hamiltonian policy of "ProsperAmerica First" has given way to worship of a Global Economy, at whose altars wesacrifice daily the vital interests of our own manufacturers and workers.

"Interdependence" is now the desired end of the new elite.

And so we have become again a dependent nation. We borrow from Europe and Japanto defend the oil of Europe and Japan in the Persian Gulf. We borrow from Chinato buy the goods of China. We are as dependent on foreign borrowing as we are onforeign oil.

And the questions arise: If the men of '76, who led those small and vulnerablestates, were willing to sacrifice their lives, fortunes and sacred honor forAmerica's independence, what is the matter with us?

Do we not value independence as they did? Or is it that we are simply not themen our fathers were?"

Couldn't have said it better myself - MWG