Hugh Hewitt: The Destructocrats

Townhall ^ | September 30, 2008 | Hugh Hewitt

[2ndDivisionVet]

Why did Nancy Pelosi sink the rescue package and Barack Obama and Harry Reid allow her to do so?

The harshest voices in the leftosphere were certainly screaming at her. Kos posted "Pelosi thinks we're stupid" yesterday morning which ranted at the Speaker, and Michael Moore thundered away at "biggest robbery in the history of this country."

Pelosi buckled, and with her went a trillion dollars in long accumulated wealth, nursed over decades into retirement accounts. Where was Obama? "Just trying to stay out of the battle," Rudy Giulianai told me yesterday about the Democratic nominee. "You know, 'Let me keep my skirts clean.'"

The carnage from the Destructocrats' inability to lead past their hard left base paralyzed the country yesterday and is a glimpse of the future if Obama hangs on to his narrow lead, and the hard left trio of Obama-Pelosi-Reid are running the country. That really means Ayers-Kos-Moore will be running the country, rising up in a vast snarl every time their kept politicians depart from their line. Axelord thinks he is riding that beast, but yesterday showed who is in control.

Obama's minions are out chanting blame at the Republicans, but the Speaker runs the House and in this instance she ran it over the cliff and with it the dreams of millions of Americans, and the crisis isn't over. Far from it in fact. The damage done to the people who sold into a panic will not be reversible, and shattering blows taken to the employment of who knows how many won't even surface for months. Markets will now start factoring in the likelihood of an Obama presidency and the massive tax hikes and the soaring oil prices that will certainly follow.

The election is of course far from over, and Rudy may in fact have been the first one to sense another change in the wind:

HH: What’s your sense of this race and of the next five weeks? RG: My sense, and I don’t believe…I believe there has been a change right now at this particular point we’re at. I don’t think it’s about Sarah Palin. I think that she’s still giving us help by making the Republican base very enthusiastic, and actually reaching over to a group of voters who might not be thinking about us. I think it’s the economy that’s creating it. The general wisdom is if there’s trouble in the economy, it’s going to favor the Democrat. I think that’s what you’re seeing. But I believe if the public perceives a crisis in the economy, I think it’s going to start favoring John McCain, because I think it’ll be the same reason why they favor him as the more capable being commander in chief. And right now, we need a leader. We need someone who can make tough decisions, somebody who can wade in and get things done. John McCain last week acted like a president, trying to get votes. All this weekend, he’s acted like a president, trying to get votes. Barack Obama is just trying to stay out of the battle, you know, let me keep my skirts clean, and I want to politically position myself. That isn’t the kind of leader we need at a time the country’s at crisis.

As Pelosi and the hard left engineered a huge smash up --95 Democrats voted against the bill!-- Obama ran for the tall grass. In the immediate aftermath of the smash-up, a stunned crowd of victims and observers wandered around the wreckage wondering what happened. But the effects of the collision will be shaken off and heads will clear and people will see the first and hopefully the only example they need of the new Democratic Party leadership working together.

Yesterday the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Destructocrats delivered the chaos that their hard-core activists demanded. The prospect of four years of that should make even left-of-center Democrats shudder.

UPDATE: An e-mail sent from a very successful businessman I know, David Parker, to every House member who voted "no" yesterday:

Dear Honorable Member of the House:

Having observed the failure of the House of Representatives to pass the proposed Financial Institutions Rescue Bill today, I wanted to express my serious concern and displeasure. The effective price that the American people paid today for your individual “NO” vote on the Rescue Bill (which monies are now lost to all who sold in today’s market) was $4,824,561,403.51 ($4.8 billion), if you calculate that the American taxpayers lost $1.1 trillion in today’s market decline on 228 votes, or nearly $92 billion for each of the 12 votes that failed to pass the measure. Today’s market decline is not retrievable to those who sold into it, in a panic because of your failure to act in the best interests of the American and global economies. I completely agree that Speaker Pelosi failed to lead and bring a consensus to the vote in her hyper partisan introduction – she showed anything but leadership on the point. Even so, and in spite of such an offense, the American people deserved better from their elected officials who are called to SERVE.

Tuesday’s market will also be a costly experience for the American people as well. How long must we wait? Unlike the proposed Rescue Plan where the Treasury would have received a reasoned return on its investment (like unto Chrysler and the S&L Rescue Package), the American people lost today and will tomorrow and each day thereafter until confidence is restored to our markets. Many of you call this socialized economics, when in fact it is anything but. Wait until the markets completely dissemble and the Democratic majority in Congress takes hold of corrective actions – that will render us on the slippery slope of socialism.

As a lifelong conservative Republican, and one who has been actively involved in the financial markets, I am completely dismayed by the lack of financial capacity, integrity and character in your vote. I truly believe that you voted out of fear of the ballot box, and disbelief in the realities of the market. Are you that much smarter and more capable than some of the finest economic minds who are leading our markets, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke? What must be said or done to illustrate the severity of your actions today? The PRIDE of both Republicans and Democrats, evidenced in pointing fingers, taking credit, trying to preserve elected positions, etc. is compromising every American. The lack of confidence in the global economies is costly, far more than the invested dollars of the proposed Rescue Plan. It is manifest in 401k’s, pension funds, savings accounts, employment, housing, food, energy and every other element of society. Your failed actions today will cost us eventually, both in market losses and in an ultimate rescue plan that will bear an even greater cost.

As a homeowner in numerous states, the father of 6 in 6 states with 14 grandchildren that each are affected by your failings, please, consider the seriousness of the situation and resolve this, NOW!!

Regards,

David

[2ndDivisionVet]

Excellent.

[Corin Stormhands]

bookmark

[skeeter]

Your failed actions today will cost us eventually, both in market losses and in an ultimate rescue plan that will bear an even greater cost.

Yet the dollar rallies today, meaning gas & everything else will drop in price. I don't see that factored into thie 'businessman's' calculation.

[RKV]

Lousy. The Raw Deal proposed by Paulson et al is the wrong thing to do. Has CRA been repealed? Nope. The cause has not been dealt with. Have Fannie and Freddie been completely privatized? Nope. Note: the market is up today. Let’s not confuse keeping Wall Street banks propped up with public cash. People are afraid and whipped to a frenzy by the M$M. Put. The. Koolaid. Down. The moral hazard quotient in this legislation is way too high. Newt had it right when he said we need to a) cut corporate taxes so businesses can finance their inventories through earnings b) cut the capital gains tax c) change from mark-to-market and use a weighted average asset valuation d) dump Sarb-Ox, it doesn’t help and it costs a bunch e) drill here, now. Take the time to do this right. We’re being herded. Resist the lemmings. The RATs just want socialism and we’re giving it to them by supporting this plan as now structured. And oh by the way, if you’re retired and you have too much of your assets in the stock market, you made a mistake. Not the job of the taxpayers to fix your error.

[2ndDivisionVet]

A headline on Drudge says that we lost the equivalent of the entire Indian economy on Wall Street yesterday.

[atomic_dog]

I am seeing the “local businessman” interviews showing up locally. They never mention the business. Later investigation reveals 4 out of the 5 so far were mortgage bankers.

[RKV]

Static analysis always leads to problems. We’ve got to start thinking DYNAMICALLY.

[skeeter]

The only people who lost yesterday are those who cut & ran.

At the moment, the markets have made up 40% of yesterday's losses.

[RKV]

And gained a huge chunk back today. Volatility is to be expected. Be glad you’re not invested in somewhere like Russia. Their market is closed. Sorry for those who are being hurt, BUT not everyone should have huge fractions of their personal wealth in a risky investment like stocks. Balance is the key and ratios vary by the age of the investor.

[Question Liberal Authority]

The damage done to the people who sold into a panic will not be reversible

What about the gains made by people who bought during the panic? Are they "not reversible"?

What if someone bought shares of Freddie / Fannie / WaMu over the last 10 or 20 years? Their losses are real and non-reversible. Are these losses better because it took longer to lose all of your money?

What if the Dow drops 20% over the course of a year? Is that better than if the Dow drops 7% over the course of one day?

In 1987, the Dow dropped from 2200 to 1700 in a single day. Let's say someone sold their entire portfolio at 2200 and never bought another stock again. Let's say someone sold their entire portfolio at 1700 and never bought a single stock again. Is either one really better off than the person who stayed in the market for 21 years?

If someone buys a stock and the stock is worth less now than they paid, should the Federal Government buy the stock from them to preserve the "value" and "liquidity" of their investment? If not, why should the government buy home mortgages to preserve their value and liquidity?

Shouldn't a bailout bill address the root cause for the reason we need a bailout? If it does not, won't there be need for another bailout in the future? Isn't the concept of an "asset that Americans just won't buy" similar to the concept of a "job that Americans just won't do"?

[BubbaBasher]

This guy is just another whiner looking for a government handout. “I was careless with my investments wa wa wa you have to bail me out wa wa wa”. We don’t need a bailout to free up liquidity. Don’t believe those that say doing nothing is not an option. The bubble will burst and markets will correct as they should. Come on people, government is the problem not the solution!

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>>Excellent.

How so?

I really don't get what everyone finds so great about Hugh Hewitt. Hewitt's entire article is based on the House NOT passing legislation that most Americans view as socialist intervention of the federal government into the free market. The side issue in all this is politics. The central issue is stopping the Feds from ripping off the American taxpayer.

So Hewitt can rail against Pelosi, use Giuliani's rhetoric and the remarks of someone called David Parker to make his point. But the American people are still not buying this government boondoggle.

[Sicon]

Tuesday’s market will also be a costly experience for the American people as well

Dow is +326 at 1:30 pm today, genius.

Socialism isn't the answer - that's what the failure of the bill yesterday said. Not that Congress is likely to listen for long...

[Cyber Liberty]

Closer to 45% now......

[skeeter]

The side issue in all this is politics.

Hugh is not an economist, and the only principles he understands are politically oriented.

He's a vote counter.

[MozarkDawg]

Unlike the proposed Rescue Plan where the Treasury would have received a reasoned return on its investment (like unto Chrysler and the S&L Rescue Package) ...

Could someone assist this historic-detail challenged FReeper with some definitive instruction regarding? When Uncle Sam helped out Chrysler, did it do so by providing the SecTreas with unlimited authority, no oversight, judicial review? Same goes for the S&L rescue, did the RTC creation include the ability of the secretary to buy whatever real estate instruments he wanted at whatever price he wanted, no mandating they be the lowest possible? I'd like a bit more comparison on these two situations before acceding to their "same thing now" labels.