In light of the financial tsunami that most congressional incumbents are responsible for foisting on the American people, here is something that every American should know. Most, however, do not know because the media is selectively reporting information about the financial mess. And, the media has not told the public the facts about who sounded the alarm back when it could have been fixed, because doing so would remove the insulation they have installed to protect those incumbents - and candidates - who were –and some still are – at fault.
Here’s an example. This fact is in the record and can be easily validated.
More than two years ago (May 2006), 20 United States Senators sent a letter to Senate leadership pointing out “that if effective regulatory reform legislation for the housing-finance ‘government sponsored enterprises’ (GSEs) is not enacted this year (in 2006), American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial market, and the economy as a whole”.
In that letter, those 20 senators also pointed out that, “Today, almost half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned or guaranteed by these GSEs”; and “They are mammoth financial institutions with almost $1.5 Trillion in debt outstanding between them”.
The 20 signers declared, “With the fiscal challenges facing us today (2006)… deficits, entitlements, pensions… Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie and Freddie could not?”
That letter was sent by Senator John McCain. He was joined by 19 of his fellow senators.
Those 20 senators were acting responsibly. They sounded the alarm. Others did not.
It should be noted that Senator Barack Obama did not sign on to the letter. In fact, none of his fellow democrats in the U.S. Senate signed the letter.
It’s obvious, in any objective read, that the purpose of the letter was, yet again, another instance to engender real reform - and real change - in Washington, and protect America’s taxpayers.
Fast forward to today.
We’re in the middle of a presidential election campaign in which, on the one hand, there is a candidate who talks change; and on the other hand, a candidate who speaks about reform.
The short resume candidate talking change, insistently tries to tie his experienced opponent to the current president of his opponent’s party. That is the core campaign strategy of the candidate who talks change, because, he knows that, historically, ‘change’ to most voters is ‘change the party occupying the White House’. And the media beats their drum.