An interview with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was published by the New York Times about a week and a half ago. I guess you have to admire the guy’s candor, but it’s a little disconcerting to read that our transportation secretary admittedly knows little about transportation and only got the job because (a) he’s a Republican, and (b) he’s good buddies with Rahm Emanuel.
It also makes me uncomfortable to read passages like this:
Mr. LaHood talks regularly on the phone with Mr. Emanuel and eats dinner with him once a week. And he unabashedly plays his Rahm card when it suits his infighting purposes.
A few weeks ago, for example, Mr. LaHood was in Arizona to announce a $36 million light-rail train project when someone from the White House Office of Management and Budget called and tried to halt the event, saying the project might not be eligible for stimulus money. Mr. LaHood called the budget director, Peter R. Orszag, to complain, but the matter only dragged on.
“That’s when I called Rahm,” Mr. LaHood said. “And that took care of it.”
Took care of… what? You mean, he magically made the project eligible for stimulus money? Huh. That’s handy. Here I thought there was some kind of objective criteria for that money. I should have known better.
When LaHood was a congressman, he was often derisively labeled a RINO (Republican In Name Only), meaning his “political actions, policies, positions on certain issues or voting records are considered to be at variance with core Republican beliefs.” Perhaps his acquisition of that moniker can be explained by this:
When asked if he could foresee disagreeing with the administration on anything, Mr. LaHood shrugged, and eventually shook his head. “I’ve never been passionate about any particular issue,” he said. [emphasis added] “I’m not going to sit around agonizing. The answer is, probably not.”
Well, that explains a lot. I always have found LaHood to be wishy-washy. Now I know why: he is wishy-washy. Maybe some people find indifference to be an admirable quality for a politician. I don’t. I find it blatantly opportunistic.
Isn’t that the ideal politician… not looking after his own passions but instead representing the constituency? Being a representative, not an advocate? An errand boy, so to speak.
Or do we want messiahs?
A mercenary, so to speak? A hired gun? If you don’t hold to principle, who exactly is your constituency? Yourself?
One of the things I found refreshing about Mitt Romney, after years of “principal-driven” national elected officials (who were really ideology-driven, damn the facts and full speed ahead), is that you could always be sure he’d vote however the polls told him to vote. Sure, he was going to flip-flop, but at least it’d be a totally predictable flip-flop that wouldn’t take anyone by surprise, and at least it’d be in line with and responsive to his constituents’ desires.
Eyebrows: Which constituents? Which desires? See, this is the problem with not being principle-driven. Polls only tell you the desires of the constituency at a given point in time and on a particular issue minus context. The classic conundrum is that constituents simultaneously want lower taxes and more/better services. A poll-driven politician, trying to meet both demands, will put the country in a ton of debt.
Wait a sec…. That’s exactly what has happened…. Weird….
Amen! This is your very best piece. You nailed this one.
Thanks C.J. I couldn’t have said it better myself!
We hear so much about the problem of polarizing views and gridlock, but you’ve clearly pointed out the opposite side of that – the lack of ANY consistently held principles (well, except maybe the principle of shifting to whatever the polls are). Great article.
I think it is difficult to connect and Bush policies and public opinion polls. (other than the obvious manipulated opinions about the war.)
Our economic mess is Bush administration failures not Obama administration.
When does it become Obama’s failure,1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 3 years 11 months? Maybe when he has spent our great great great great great grandchildren’s future? Maybe when we are all wondering what happened to our freedom. Then it may be Obama’s fault, but I doubt it.
Let’s see… Bush was president for 8 years…. Obama, 100 days…. Oh, yeah… it must be Obama’s fault….
Our economic mess is the Federal Reserve’s failures coupled with politicians over the past one hundred years promising more services and ‘goodies’ by purchasing on ‘credit.’ THIS economic mess is not the result of just the past 8 years. Long time a comin’ and now taxpayers are reaping the whirlwind while our posterity will be reaping an exponential whirlwind.
It is a result of Reagan’s deregulation of everything, and the freewheeling antics of investors and banks in the stock market derivatives over the past 25 years or so. It is the “me first” and “me only” motivations of the CEOs and Boards of Directors that looked to the stock market to determine a company’s worth. As long as money kept circulating through out the economy it was a like a giant political/economic game of musical chairs… but during the Bush Administration the music finally stopped and no one had a place to sit. (This was caused mainly by the overwhelming inflationary spending of Bush’s administration.)
kcdad,
I have been watching your comments on here for a while on this issue. I have one question for you, where are you getting your information?
It is pretty well documented that the Bush administration had nothing to do with the housing mess that lead to the downfall of this economy. From both House and Senate hearings on this subject, to Christopher Dod’s and Barney Frank’s own comments on this issue, this was a mess made by trying to give people something for nothing.
By forcing banks and other lenders to give monstrous interest only loans to people who could not afford them, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they put all lending institutions in precarious positions. When the Feds increased the interest rates at the end of 2007 to stem inflation, those people with sub-prime mortgages could no longer pay because their variable interest rates climbed. People started to default on their payments, and their homes went into foreclosure.
These assets quickly became toxic because those that had sub-prime mortgages never paid on the principle of the loans. To the bank, the houses were worthless. This was especially true when housing values began to fall as a direct result from foreclosures. Foreclosed homes do not sell for as high a price as a normal sale. Once a house sells for cheap in a neighborhood, all of the houses lose value. All of this caused a sharp decline in housing purchases, sales, and in housing construction.
New home construction is what really hurt the market, because it provides manufacturing jobs, additional revenue through commerce, and additional property tax revenue for local municipalities.
kcdad, you need to look at the actual facts into this situation, instead of talking about what you heard. All of this is well documented in Government archives, and in video from CSPAN.
I am not saying that Bush was a god, and Obama is the devil. However, you have to give blame where blame is due. This time, the blame rests solely on the shoulders of two prominent Democratic politicians, Chris Dod and Barney Frank. I would remind you that the Democrats controlled congress during this time, and their committees regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Last time I looked congress still made the laws, all the executive branch did was enforce them. Any bad economy needs to be blamed on Congress not the President. Ultimately, they are the ones responsible for regulations and taxes.
kcdad: I agree that Reagan and deregulation did not help the situation. Nevertheless, one needs to keep turning the pages back in the history book to the days of the creation of the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax and the IRS and and and and …. it started there or even prior to 1913….. Google Sen. Alrich from Rhode Island and company for some interesting reading……………
“Bush administration had nothing to do with the housing mess”
What housing mess? It is a banking and investment sector mess. The banks are complicit in it, not victims of it. (Something for nothing…. like 20 million dollars for managing a failing company? Like 200,000 for running a failing School District? Like 25 million for taking steroids in professional sports… Is that what you mean by something for nothing? Or were you thinking along the lines of charging 375% interest on a perfectly safe and secured loan?)
Karrie, you are correct about The Fed… but it is after all, a BANK.
kcdad: Yes, our very own USof A central bank. And the policy was …. I believe by the Clinton administration …. instead of a chicken in every pot …. it was a house on every lot …. even those who did not quality ….. um because those in authority were not using their time to even verify if people qualified for a particular house because lending guidelines had been stretched tooooooooo thin, that was a result of Congress and the Clinton administration. Please correct me if I am inaccurate…..
http://virginiahammon.com/ will explain cause of the Financial mess. Dr.David X.Li
wrote the Guassan Coupla Theory,it was flawed ,Clinton was responsible for the SEC changes on 2000 ,not Bush! as was Clinton who signed NAFTA agreement. Dr.li is back in China and not available. The gentleman who wrote the computer program based on the flawed theory is now doing land scaping.
Now the chairman/CEO of the New York Fed was Geitner so he had to know all ?He even hired the guy who took Lehmann Brothers,down the tubes and
put him in charge of risk Management!!
as to LaHood he took care of himself as did “good ole boy Bob Michaels”
We don’t stand a chance!!
Karrie: ” our very own USof A central bank” Except it isn’t. It is a private cabal of U.S. and International bankers…and you know that. It is “as Federal as Federal Express”.
How does someone not qualify for a house or home? How does someone not qualify for medical care? How does someone not qualify for quality education? How does someone “not qualify” for basic human services?
Popijw:
“Our education system is in deep, fundamental, trouble, when a simple thinking skill is so rare that we must bring in fresh talent from overseas.”
I agree. I ask students for their opinion on something and I get: “What do you want me to say?”
kcdad: You wouldn’t have that response at my home …. everyone has an opinion in our household …. I know … I know … hard to imagine ….. lol! 🙂
And yes, it is a private cabal — when you start connecting the dots from the Fed Res. to this and that commission and this and that think tank and this and that this and that … it is no wonder that groupthink aboundeth.
So what were we voting for all those years? Were we fooled into thinking he had principles? Does anything he says now have any meaning, or is he just reading from a teleprompter? Unbelievable.
Hey what’s even more disconcerting is that Janet Napolitano doesn’t know anything about national security and is now head of Homeland Security.
kcdad says, “It is a result of Reagan’s deregulation of everything, and the freewheeling antics of investors and banks in the stock market derivatives over the past 25 years or so.”
Well it was Clinton who signed who signed the bill which repealed Glass-Steagall thereby deregulating banks, investment and insurance cos. and opening the door which allowed the creation of mortgage backed derivatives. Prior to that there were no such mortgage derivatives. The consequent destruction of the economy took less than eight years.
Forrest P:
The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives
I KNEW there was something fishy about all this pointing the finger at Clinton… This is a Republican thing from the get go…
Ha ha ha! Another Rush Limbaugh wanna be shot down.
That would mean over half of the Dems ( in the House)voted for the bill. A true measure of Bi partisan legislation. Where is the scorn for the unwashed Dems who obviously do no have the will of the people in their views?
Exactly… where is the scorn for the Democrats in the House that voted for this bill written and sponsored by the Republicans… Damn them for not being partisan. And Damn those Senate Democrats for not supporting the bill… who do they think they are…
But by all means… let’s not mention ALL of the Republicans in both houses that wrote it, argued it and passed it.
kcdad – I sure hope you don’t try to teach your students what you spout off in this blog – twisted facts and socialist ideals which have failed everywhere they have been tried.
PS – Hasn’t Obama already racked up a larger deficit than Bush, and in barely 100 days?
When a majority of the votes cast for a piece of legislation is at the level that this particular bill had is not the will of the people being followed? If the bill had unanimous support ould the willof the electorate be served?
Elections have consequences.
When you are in the majority you have the responsibility to move the bill through the process of introduction assignment to committee , markup in committee, passage out of committee, floor action and final vote for or against the bill.
That is the reponsibility of the majority regardless of party make up.
It has already happened this year with a different party in power.
Schock criticizes plan to close two Chrysler dealerships
Posted May 17, 2009 @ 08:38 PM
Last update May 17, 2009 @ 08:39 PM
– Can someone please explain to me what this idiot is doing now?!?
I am beginning to see why even Ray LaHood was afraid of Schock!
mdd,
….and YOUR facts are coming from where exactly?
Job Growth Rates
under recent presidents:
President % Growth
in # years
Johnson (D) 3.8% in 5
Carter (D) 3.1% in 4
Clinton (D) 2.4% in 8
Kennedy (D) 2.3% in 3
Nixon (R) 2.3% in 5
Reagan (R) 2.1% in 8
Bush-I (R) 0.6% in 4
————————————————–
GenerationWhy,
WHY do you bother? Please sit down and hush yourself… Lets compare Clinton & Reagan:
Democrat President Bill Clinton versus
Republican President Ron Reagan
————————————————–
1. 24% more jobs under Clinton
2. 64% greater GDP under Clinton
3. 500% higher growth in the DOW under Clinton
4. Clinton increased national spending by 28%,
while Reagan increased it by 80%
5. Clinton increased national debt by 28% ,
while Reagan increased it by 187%
6. Clinton produced a huge surplus,
while Reagan increased deficits by 112%
Sources :
# Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS.Gov)
– Economic Policy Institute (EPI.org)
# Global & World Almanacs from 1980 to 2003
# National Archives History on Presidents. http://www.nara.gov
( Bureau of Labor Statistics )
Now……………………………
Would it be fair to do a Bush [W] vs. Clinton comparison? Give Obama a little time before we rack him up shall we?
NV:
Clinton had something Reagan did not have, 6 years of Republican control of Senate and HR.
Reagan always had a Dem HR and only 6 years of Rep Senate.
Maybe that is why the difference in your cited stats.
Somehow, here in Peoria, there must be some way to make Republicans look good…
yeah yeah its the Republican congress that made Clinton look good… oops… except it was just argued that it was Clinton’s signing into law THAT Republican bill (Repealing Glass Steagal) that caused all the problems… It was The Republican Senate and House that forced that legislation through.
Wake up… stop listening to Rush and O’Reilly… when some tells you they are fair and balanced, that they have statistics that prove they are right 98% of time… that should tell you that they are lying… even they are not defending The Republicans anymore… they are calling themselves CONSERVATIVES and distancing themselves from The Republicans… time we did the same.
Precinct,
OH, are ‘we’ really reaching here!
I do agree with your logic though:
Dem President = Healthy Economy
Dem Senate = Healthy Economy
Dem HR = Healthy Economy
With Obama and company currently in office ‘happy days’ must be right round the corner!
LOL! The fact is, kc, if you didn’t live life with blinders on and one hear plugged and had more information on the subject you would realize that this issue of the repeal was not just a republican issue alone. But people see the world as they want it to be and not as it really is.
The bill was actually Citigroup’s CEO Sandy Weill’s bill who essentially bought the republicans and the democrats in congress (with lobby help by other repubs and dems outside congress) as well as Pres. Clinton. Clinton easily could have vetoed the bill but he didn’t. He must have thought it was a good idea much like Phil Gramm or Chris Dodd.
Noteworthy too that in March, Rubin asked Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and to change the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. Two months after Senate passage and one day after House passage of the bill repealing G-S, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin leaves Treasury for a top dog position at Citigroup.
But in the end, both the democrats and repulicans should all hang their heads since both did a disservice to the American public, except for the very few in congress who didn’t vote on or voted against the bill. LaHood voted against. Pelosi didn’t vote at all.
Here is the Senate vote on the G-S bill:
REPUBLICANS FOR (52): Abraham, Allard, Ashcroft, Bennett, Brownback, Bond, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Chafee, Cochran, Collins, Coverdell, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Domenici, Enzi, Frist, Gorton, Gramm (Tex.), Grams (Minn.), Grassley, Gregg, Hegel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson (Ark.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe, Jeffords, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Mack, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Roth, Santorum, Sessions, Smith (N.H.), Smith (Ore.), Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich and Warner.
DEMOCRATS FOR (38): Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Byrd, Cleland, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Edwards, Feinstein, Graham (Fla.), Hollings, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey (Neb.), Kerry (Mass.), Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Moynihan, Murray, Reed (R.L), Reid (Nev.), Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer, Torricelli and Wyden.
REPUBLICANS AGAINST(1): Shelby.
DEMOCRATS AGAINST(7): Boxer, Bryan, Dorgan, Feingold, Harkin, Mikulski and Wellstone.
NOT VOTING: 2 REPUBLICANS (2): Fitzgerald (voted present) and McCain.
———————-
BTW, there is a very good documentary on WTVP 2moro night on some of this.
**All the above was provided by Rush Limbaugh, FoxNews and Bill Oreilly, of course, who else?.
“Citigroup’s CEO Sandy Weill’s bill” … I bet he’s a Republican… what do want to wager?
How do your numbers add up to 54-44? Are you saying the vote was 90 – 8?
The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1st by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (|Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent/Socialist 0–1),[3] [4] [5]
two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[6] [7] [8] [9] wikipedia and its sources…
“**All the above was provided by Rush Limbaugh, FoxNews and Bill Oreilly, of course, who else?.”
No wonder it is wrong.
I’m sorry for you but it is not wrong. You are wrong, as usual. Maybe read your beloved wikipedia more carefully next time.
The 54-44 vote you are referring to is the first vote on the bill which sent it to a joint conference committee discussion. That committee resolved differences between House and Senate bills. It stayed in committee until November. The final Senate vote, the vote that sent the bill to the presidents desk for signing, was 90-8.
The final House vote was 362-57. I can’t locate that vote on the House site though.
First Senate vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105
Final Senate vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354
The democrats sticking point was to “strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act”, the Community Reinvestment Act which would add more fuel to the up and coming economic fire. The strengthening of the bill, according to Wikipedia, was “designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods”.
Here’s the final House vote:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll570.xml
Interesting that you write: “You are wrong, as usual” and then proceed to show that I was correct. The vote that sends it to conference is the important vote… the final vote is a formality. It already had the necessary Republican majority to pass it.
How strongly we try to defend the status quo when we know that change is the only thing that will save us.
look at the nays:
Boxer (D-CA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wellstone (D-MN)
and of course as usual, McCain didn’t vote
New Voice – I mentioned nothing of job growth, which is a fallacy anyway since your “facts” do not take into account the huge number of illegals along with real population growth in the US during those periods.
I did mention that Obama’s 100 day deficit being more than Bush’s.
The vote to go to conference only had 207 Rep votes not enough to pass it along without Dem assistance. 10 Rep had an (NV) not voting even with those the tally would be one short of a majority, It was not a forgone conclusion.
Now you are arguing about the House… stick to one attack plan, would you? If you want to go through House and figure why some Dems did vote for it and Reps did not I’d be glad to, but I think the point that the Republicans controlled Congress is a forgone conclusion of this argument. I already conceded that the House vote was not along party lines.
“I did mention that Obama’s 100 day deficit being more than Bush’s.”
So is his attention span.
You’re wrong again.
Democrat support was needed to send the bill to the president and turn the bill into law. Look it up. House and Senate versions of the bill were not the same and they MUST be the same.
The procedure is that both House and Senate bills must be identical before a final vote is taken which will send it to the president’s desk to be signed into law. The differences are ironed out in conference committees. If differences in the two bills cannot be ironed out in committee the bill would have been declared dead and no final vote would have been taken. The final vote is not a formality it is necessary. The final vote could not have been taken with the House and Senate having two dissimilar bills. That is the law.
mdd,
Fallacy? Your proof?
I posted the sources of my stats. My “facts do not take into account the huge number of illegals along with real population growth in the US during those periods?”
Are you serious? Explain to all of us just WHAT does the HUGE number of illegals have to do with real pop growth during those periods [what periods?].
Sir. You need to stop drinking with Forrest P. and learn to sing along. We are in a ‘Party War’ here. This entire blog has become a contest of political wills!
My political party is better than yours………
…though you do have Aaron Schock on YOUR team!