The Democrats' health care hypocrisy

When Bill Clinton ran for president back in 1992, he used Hawaii as an example of a successful health care system that was a role model for the rest of the country. Here is what he had to say during the October 15, 1992 presidential debate:

Now, let me say, some people say we can't do this but Hawaii does it. They cover 98% of their people and their insurance premiums are much cheaper than the rest of America...

Now see Hawaii Congressman Neil Abercrombie's current description—from a recent email—of the poor shape of Hawaii's health care system, and thus the need for a national plan:

It's no secret. There's a healthcare crisis in Hawaii, and in the rest of the country. Medical bills are getting larger and more families are facing bankruptcy. Though most people over 65 are covered by Medicare, one of every four people in Hawaii under 65 has no health insurance, and probably has not seen a doctor in the last two years. Not only are families burdened by the costs, but healthcare providers are in dire straits, too. Our community hospitals will have to come up with $62 million this year to stay in business.

I wonder how long the U.S. will have its new, wonderful universal health care system before it becomes a crisis that needs to be fixed with more government involvement.

You should also know that since 1974 in Hawaii, employer-sponsored health care kicks in when employees work at least 20 hours per week. The result? For many low wage jobs, employers only hire for 19 hours per week. This leaves many low wage workers unable to find a full-time job. As someone who used to be a low wage worker in Hawaii, I can tell you that given the choice between universal health care or the ability to afford a roof over my head, I'd much prefer the latter. (Managing two part-time jobs is difficult, especially when they have flexible hours.)

Senator Chris Dodd is still a crook

U.S. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd got a special deal on mortgages from Countrywide Financial in 2003. Now he's playing games with reporters regarding the issue. From The Wall Street Journal:

Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd has finally, sort of, kind of, ended 193 days of stonewalling about his sweetheart loans from former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. At least he did if you were a fast reader and were one of the few reporters he invited to his Hartford office yesterday to review — but not copy or take — more than 100 pages of documents related to his 2003 mortgage financings through Countrywide's "Friends of Angelo" program.

These are the files that Mr. Dodd pledged to make public after the news broke last summer that the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee had received preferential treatment from Countrywide. At first, Mr. Dodd denied everything. Later, he conceded that he'd been given special treatment but thought it was "more of a courtesy."

Heck, we'd all love the kind of courtesy that would have saved Mr. Dodd $75,000 over the life of the two loans he refinanced to the tune of $800,000, according to an analysis by Portfolio magazine. The savings came from rock-bottom interest rates and a free "float-down" — the right to borrow at a lower rate if interest rates fall before you've closed on the loan.

On Monday, with interest rates — even for non-VIPs — near historic lows, Mr. Dodd announced that he would refinance the sweetheart loans with another lender. ...

We don't know whether the documents Mr. Dodd briefly showed yesterday illuminate this mystery or not, because he didn't release them to us, or to the public or his constituents.

Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd deserve blame for Fannie and Freddie

The Independent, a British newspaper, blames the Democrats for the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

What is the proximate cause of the collapse of confidence in the world's banks? Millions of improvident loans to American housebuyers. Which organisations were on their own responsible for guaranteeing half of this $12 trillion market? Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the so-called Government Sponsored Enterprises which last month were formally nationalised to prevent their immediate and catastrophic collapse. Now, who do you think were among the leading figures blocking all the earlier attempts by President Bush — and other Republicans — to bring these lending behemoths under greater regulatory control? Step forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

In September 2003 the Bush administration launched a measure to bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under stricter regulatory control, after a report by outside investigators established that they were not adequately hedging against risks and that Fannie Mae in particular had scandalously mis-stated its accounts. In 2006, it was revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated its earnings — to which its senior executives' bonuses were linked — by a stunning $9.3billion. Between 1998 and 2003, Fannie Mae's executive chairman, Franklin Raines, picked up over $90m in bonuses and stock options.

Yet Barney Frank and his chums blocked all Bush's attempts to put a rein on Raines. During the House Financial Services Committee hearing following Bush's initiative, Frank declared: "The more people exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness [at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae], the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially." His colleague on the committee, the California Democrat Maxine Walters, said: "There were nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr Franklin Raines."

When Mr Raines himself was challenged by the Republican Christopher Shays, to the effect that his ratio of capital to assets (that is, mortgages) of 3 per cent was dangerously low, the Fannie Mae boss retorted that "our assets are so riskless, we could have a capital ratio of under 2 per cent".

Democrats to blame for financial crisis?

The view from Fox News:

Democratic landslide?

The Democracy in America blog reports:

SOMETIMES I wonder if the Republicans have already given up on Congress this election year. Whether by circumstance or by design, the Democrats seem to have taken all of the advantages as they seek to expand their majorities, and they are using them. The latest, from the Wall Street Journal’s number crunchers, is that a slew of Democratic challengers are raising lots of money, coming close to or surpassing their opponents. Established GOP senators such as Alaska’s Ted Stevens, North Carolina’s Elizabeth Dole and Maine’s Susan Collins all face challengers with large war chests. On the House side, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nurses a large money edge over its GOP rival, and Democratic incumbents are holding their own as well, leaving cash for unseating Republicans. It feels like the Republicans just don’t want it.

Democrats are also reusing some of their winning tactics from 2006. Real Clear Politics’s Reid Wilson examines how the Democrats have embraced the centre in their Congressional recruiting, while the Republican caucus becomes more conservative. A big question in the caucus has been whether seeking ideological purity on the right will make the GOP a permanent minority party again while the Democrats rebuild their big tent. This is more likely than not, barring a period of Democratic corruption and misrule. Republican congressional leaders had better learn to run the opposite direction and, for that matter, to raise more money.