US Senate

(Co-authored by El Presidente and Ben DeGrow)

We were privileged with the opportunity last Saturday to sit down and conduct an exclusive half-hour two-on-one interview with Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ryan Frazier (Frazier's two GOP primary contenders are Weld County district attorney Ken Buck and businessman Cleve Tidwell). The conversation was wide-ranging and informative. We left with a clearer picture of the candidate's vision and the campaign's direction.

We began by bringing up a recent article in The Hill that portrayed Frazier as part of a "band of centrists", and asked him what he thought of the characterization. He responded: "I'm Ryan Frazier, and I do what I believe to be right. I've never been much for labels.... I'll leave the labeling to the press." Though he did choose the word "principled" to describe his philosophy, he was fairly adamant about not being categorized into a box.

Nor did Frazier express any dismay that Beltway Republican Party bigwigs have taken a wait-and-see approach to his candidacy (all the better in light of NRSC's recent Florida endorsement): "I'm not really concerned about folks in Washington DC. I never expected to be their number one choice. As a matter of fact, I think that's why our candidacy can be so significant. Because we're not the establishment. We are a grassroots campaign.... I'm not as concerned about whether they think I'm a top choice."

Frazier added that his coalition building is anything but traditional for a Republican candidate in Colorado, as he stressed the bottom-line focus of his early campaign strategy: "It's building the base, period. That's my goal. And I'm not talking about just purely a Republican base. I have to build a Colorado base of support that spans Republicans, unaffiliateds, and Democrats....I'm going to take a very non-traditional route toward building the base." That route will be premised on “ideas and specific solutions” that rise above party affiliation.

Frazier also elaborated on the nature true grassroots movements in leading the resurgence of fiscally responsible, limited government, and individual freedom-inspired candidates nationwide. “What they represent is a movement, something that the center-right has not seen in some time,” Frazier explained. He continued, “This movement is critical to my campaign . . . but also critical to restoring Republican fiscal responsibility, and move this country in a better direction.”

Now, certainly, Frazier would prefer to be the candidate representing the Republican Party in challenging Michael Bennet in 2010. But in any case, he laid out a pretty clear, 3-point roadmap of the incumbent appointee's clearest weaknesses:

1. Education: In particular, Michael Bennet's abandonment of disadvantaged kids by throwing the D.C. voucher program under the bus (more recently, Bennet told Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll that the program is a "here today, gone tomorrow" argument).
2. EFCA, also known as the union card-check bill. Of course, Bennet's indecisiveness on this issue has approached legendary status. Frazier noted that no matter what happens going forward, Bennet has already identified himself by his long delay in making a decision on this "extremely poor policy".
3. "He's been going around the state touting Obama's budget as if somehow it's the best thing since peanut butter & jelly sandwiches." Frazier added that this clearly aligns the Democrat incumbent with "fiscal irresponsibility" and mounting deficits and debt.

Frazier touched on other specific issues: "I believe that in a Republican primary the issue of immigration will play a role.... That said, ultimately only practical solutions to the issue of immigration I think will win the day." Among the ideas he touted were scrapping the 3-year and 10-year rules for re-entry to create an incentive for voluntary self-deportation, and establishing a non-immigrant visa for service workers. He recognized that the issue is a strong suit for primary opponent Ken Buck, but is counting on a move toward smart solutions over heated rhetoric to hold his own.

As to the big deal that has been made out of his apparently unorthodox views on social issues, Frazier had a couple important things to say. First, he denied rumors that his views were anything but "pro-life". While we didn't have time to dig deeper into more specific issues in the abortion debate, he did state: "When it comes to the issue of life, I'm very supportive of strict constructionist judges....You can argue about Roe v Wade and the outcome. But if you look at it just on the basis of the law, the fact is the Constitution is silent on the matter, and as such the Tenth Amendment should apply."

Second, he stood firm on his position in defense of granting employee benefits to same-sex couples. "It doesn't mean I'm abandoning my principles." As he also stands against the idea of gay marriage, we don't see this position as being any sort of deal-breaker with the vast majority of conservatives in Colorado.

When asked about the importance of getting his early strong endorsement from the Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Colorado -- very early, and the first for anyone in the race -- Frazier said: "Their support early on is instrumental to 1) continue to build support and 2) to raise the money it's going to take to be competitive to win." Frazier earned the endorsement not just for the contested Republican primary, but for US Senate, period. The association of businessmen and women on the western side of Colorado believe Frazier is a pro-business, free market candidate that will "aid in returning our economy to an emergent, healthy and vibrant environment," and will not simply be "a no vote."

Frazier did observe from his early fundraising calls, however, that the state of the economy has affected the amounts certain donors traditionally have been able to give. The race may require 20 million dollars to win, but a less than optimal fiscal climate might skew those numbers. On the other hand, Frazier noted, the numbers could rise if the race is perceived as strongly competitive (a necessary retention for Democrats, a viable pickup for Republicans) and is pushed into the top 2 or 3 Senate races nationwide in terms of visibility and swing potential as the “eyes of the nation are focused on Colorado.”

As far as the economy's possible effect on the broader success of his campaign themes and electoral chances, Frazier adroitly noted: "Certainly there are going to be those if the economy gets better they're going to say the Democrats are in charge when it got better. But I would always remind people that when the Democrats were in control it got worse, as well. It's not a matter of the Democrats, it's a matter of confidence by the American people that the economy can and will get better tomorrow than it is today."

“I believe it will come down to this in 2010—who has the best ideas and who can connect with the people—these will ultimately be the deciding factors,” concluded Frazier.

Frazier closed out our talk with an emphasis on the fact that he is "solutions-driven", clearly a theme that appeared throughout his answers. To address what keeps him going on the rigorous campaign schedule that hampers his business and family commitments, he eloquently summed up the case for his candidacy: "I do want to see a better Colorado and a better America where our taxes are low, where our rights are protected, our Constitution is upheld, and our country is defended. Those are the things that motivate me."

Undoubtedly, the young Aurora city councilman, entrepreneur, and father of three has a lot of work cut out for him, but as he begins to make a national impression, Ryan Frazier is on track to make a strong showing.

Thanks to Ryan for making time, and thanks to those who helped set up the meeting.

Confident that he will be the Republican nominee for Governor, Steve Lonegan answered questions in this interview in a way that came across to me as a back to basics strategy. A strategy that would scale back the scope of government and their intrusiveness in our lives. A strategy that intends to strip off the extras which cost us more.

In the previous installment of this interview, we got a good glimpse of that approach to government when the Mayor answered questions involving the Committee On Affordable Housing. Aside from calling the actions of the committee “leftwing social engineering“ he called for its abolishment. Such signs of Lonegans desire to put government back in its proper place are most evident in the area of taxes.

In part two of this interview, Lonegan volunteered that the “first thing” he needs “to do in the state of New Jersey is to cut taxes“. He says “we have the worst income tax, we have the highest top end rate in the east at 9%, we have the highest sales tax in the nation and the highest property taxes“. The former mayor claims that these exorbitant taxes are all “a result of the massive growth of state government”.

He adds that “we also have the worst estate tax in the country so not only can you not afford to live here, you can’t afford to die here” and he made it clear that under a Lonegan administration, the solution that he will provide to the problem will be achieved by cutting taxes across the board which you do by cutting the size of government. He added that he will do so by “cutting it with an axe, not a scalpel”.

• …..“The number one driving force behind increases in property taxes in New Jersey is the state government“…..-Steve Lonegan, 1/21/09-POLITICS 24/7 interview

As for property taxes Lonegan believes the key to solving the problem is lifting government off of our backs and giving mayors and local council members “back the tools they need to govern effectively rather than become functionaries of the state whose job it becomes to implement all the COAH mandates and all the other unfunded mandates that Trenton heaps on the backs of local officials.”

Stating that after 12 years as Mayor of Bogotá he knows the burdens of which he speaks, and proclaimed that he knows what it takes to cut taxes and that due to the overreaching that Trenton participates in, local “officials do not have the tools” to cut taxes ."

He added “we need to eliminate COAH which will be driving up our property taxes. We need to give mayors and councils the ability to negotiate union contracts on a fair playing field and we need to give school boards the ability to negotiate teachers contracts and give them a fair playing field which they do not have now."

• ....."The real losers here are the students"..... -Steve Lonegan, 1/21/09-POLITICS 24/7 interview

Another factor, one of the most important factors, in rising property taxes is the 15 year old Abbot School funding formula which Lonegan clearly states is plain wrong. Calling the Abbot funding system “another product of our liberal state supreme court”,

Lonegan explains that we have the 33 most expensive school districts in America. “These are the Abbot districts where spending per student ranges as much as $2,500 and in some cases $3,000 per student and the real travesty here is that after billions and billions of dollars pored into these school districts, we still have students coming out of these school districts with a less than mediocre education, often in unsafe schools”, he added.

• ….“I think the idea of collecting money from people and sending it back is absurd”….. - Steve Lonegan, 1/21/09-POLITICS 24/7 interview

Still on the topic of property taxes, I asked the Mayor what he thought of the homestaed rebate program which eligible homeowners recieve after paying their taxes. His response was expected and right on the mark. "I think the idea of collecting money money from people and sending it back is absurd. I think the whole sytem should be eliminated" said Lonegan. He further stated that as governor, as he reduces the size of government, "one of the programs that will go will be the homestaed rebate program".

• ....."cut taxes for everyone"..... -Steve Lonegan, 1/21/09-POLITICS 24/7 interview

But before anyone takes tthe line about doing away with the homestaead rebate and tries to paint Lonegan as someone who refuses to make it easier for taxpayers in New Jersey, he made clear that his goal is to "cut taxes for everyone and give them real tax cuts, not some phomy income redistribution scheme that requires people to call into some stupid phone number and wait for an hour".

Steve believes that if we can "start cutting the state's income and sales tax for the people, they will say, we don't want your rebate anymore" As for the education of our children Lonegan declared that the highlight of his career will be the day that he signs a bill requiring every Abbot school districts to "give a quality education to students with the same funding as every other school district in the state of New Jersey".

If they don't, Lonegan demands that they give each parent of those students a voucher so that they can go to the school of their choice. With much of our discussion dealing with funding and mandates I asked Mayor Lonegan if as Governor, he would refuse any federal funding for the state because of strings that may be attached to it.

When it comes to our return on the tax dollar that New Jerseyans send to Washington, D.C., most of it has to do with the ability of our representatives in D.C. and how good they are at delivering for the state. Our representatives in the U.S. Senate, Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez have been a sleep and during their naps, New Jersey has fallen to last place when it comes to the money we get back from Washington.

Although New Jersey could use all the help it can get right now, I asked Steve if there was any limit to what help he would reject t from Washington because of some of the federal strings attached to it.

His matter of fact response was “I certainly would, it depends on the strings of course so it has to be analyzed case by case." The mayor did feel that it is a “sad state of affairs when the federal government uses money to manipulate us into implementing their agenda on the state level."

But that answer cuts both ways. For instance, I am a supporter of legislation sponsored by Texas Senator John Cornyn, which prohibits the use of federal money involving projects that a state or local entity obtains through eminent domain policies. I also support federal legislation to link the refusal of Homeland Security dollars to states that allow themselves to be sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants. However the Mayor’s comment has merit. There are many cases where the federal government does refuse to turn over money to a state if they fall short of adopting some of D.C's intended social engineering programs, programs like COAH for example, and besides, he did state that he looks forward to the day when we don't need any help from Washington.

All in all Steve Lonegan presented a great case for not only conservatives but for taxpayers as well.

He also demonstrated that someone with the experience of a New Jersey township or municipal mayor, might just be what New Jersey needs in a Governor. Who knows best what the ramifications of Trenton’s decisions are in the towns, villages, cities and municipalities, throughout our state, than a mayor who has had to deal with what comes out of Trenton?

His points are hard to argue and the only real area for debate, regarding his points, deal with the approach to the solutions of each of those points and that’s what the Republican primary for the gubernatorial nomination will be all about. In the next part of this interview we will get into that debate as we ask the Mayor about his opponents and his chances of winning. We will also get into what may become a political liability and deep bump in Lonegan's road to victory among Republicans.

A friend of mine is in the naval reserves................

A few weeks ago, He was attending a conference that included admirals in both the US and the French navies. At a cocktail reception, my friend found himself in a small group that included an admiral from each of the two navies.

The French admiral started complaining that whereas Europeans learned many languages, Americans only learned English. He then asked. "Why is it that we have to speak English in these conferences rather than you have to speak French?"

Without even hesitating, the American admiral replied. "Maybe it is because we arranged it so that you did not have to learn to speak German."

The group became silent.

Submitted by Mike, Broomfield, Co.

Be Sure To Sign The Petition To

REPEAL THE CONGRESSIONAL PAY HIKE

Sign the Online Petition - Repeal The Automatic Pay Raise That Congress Is Receiving

Pass The Link On To Family, Friends and Co-workers

http://www.gopetition.com/online/24301.html

AND DON'T FORGET.............

BE SURE TO SIGN THE PETITION URGING THE NOMINATION

OF SENATOR BECK FOR LT. GOV.

Take The POLITICS 24/7 Poll

[polldaddy poll=1277750]

http://theinvisiblehand.typepad.com

Nearly a year ago on December 27, 2007, Barack Obama delivered a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, that has been called "OUR MOMENT IS NOW", in that speech Obama emphasized a NEW KIND OF POLITICS:

I chose to run because I believed that the size of these challenges had outgrown the capacity of our broken and divided politics to solve them; because I believed that Americans of every political stripe were hungry for a new kind of politics, a politics that focused not just on how to win but why we should, a politics that focused on those values and ideals that we held in common as Americans; a politics that favored common sense over ideology, straight talk over spin.

The American Public is starting to get a glimpse of the New Kind of Politics with the arrest of the Illinois Gov. Blagojevich. Yesterday, during a press conference with Al Gore, President-elect denied having any contact with the Illinois Governor in regard to his vacant Senate seat. OBAMA: I HAVE HAD NO CONTACT WIth ILLINOIS GOVERNOR VIDEO.

Asked what contact he'd had with the governor's office about his replacement in the Senate, President-elect Obama today said "I had no contact with the governor or his office and so we were not, I was not aware of what was happening."

However, on November 5, 2008, Barack Obama met with Governor Blagojevich in the afternoon to discuss the upcoming vacant Illinois Senate Seat. READ FULL STORY

Also, on November 23, 2008, his senior adviser David Axelrod appeared on Fox News Chicago and said that, while insisting that the President-elect had not expressed a favorite to replace him, and his inclination was to avoid being a "kingmaker," Axelrod said, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them."

Now the Obama's transition team is denying that the discussion with Obama and the Governor ever took place. Axelrod even issued a statement last night saying:

"I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject."

At this point there are no allegations that Barack Obama had anything to do with the alledged crimes of Governor Blagojevich. But, we are starting to see a pattern with Mr. Obama when he is confronted with a problem, CONCEAL HIDE, and DENY. It all goes back to the question What do we know about Obama? I would love to see his birth certificate, law school records and the list goes on. Now, we have the new kind of politics Illinois style, in fact, when Obama met with Meet the Press and Tom Brokaw this past weekend. Mr. Brokaw asked Obama about Hillary Clinton's potential replacement in the US Senate and Obama answered,

"But the last thing I want to do is get involved in New York politics. I've got enough trouble in terms of Illinois politics." FOR TRANSCRIPT CLICK HERE

President-elect talked with the Governor of Illinois and he even told Mr. Brokaw about Illinois Politics. Also, Obama is deeply tied to Governor Blagojevich. Jake Tapper an ABC News' Senior White House Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau writes about this relationship with Obama and the Illinois Governor in his article,

Questions Arise About the Obama/Blagojevich Relationship

And, it should be pointed out, Mr. Obama has a relationship with Mr. Blagojevich, having not only endorsed Blagojevich in 2002 and 2006, but having served as a top adviser to the Illinois governor in his first 2002 run for the state house.

That 2002 endorsement came at the same time that Axelrod had such serious concerns about whether Blagojevich was ready for governing he refused to work for his one-time client.

According to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., Mr. Obama's incoming White House chief of staff, Emanuel, then-state senator Obama, a third Blagojevich aide, and Blagojevich's campaign co-chair, David Wilhelm, were the top strategists of Blagojevich's 2002 gubernatorial victory.

Emanuel told the New Yorker earlier this year that he and Obama "participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor. We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two."

The Obama relationships continue and what is so amazing, is that, January 20, 2009 is still over a month away, Obama is hoping he can CONCEAL, HIDE, and DENY until he is sworn-in as our 44th President, then his "New Kind of Politics" of CONCEAL, HIDE, and DENY will be easier with EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

-LEX REX http://theinvisiblehand.typepad.com

The Democrats QUICKLY jumped in front of the camera to take FULL CREDIT for any and all 'good' aspects of the new agreement.

You can view the agreement on financialservices.house.gov

YOU WILL NOT BE HAPPY! IT IS COMPLETE AND TOTAL BS!!!!!!!!!

PLEASE TAKE A LOOK....POST YOUR THOUGHTS ON HOW TERRIBLE THIS IS AND
SIGN THE PETITION TO END DEFICIT SPENDING NOW!!!

Update (9:58AM, Sept. 26th): While Sens. Harry Reid and Chris Dodd stand before the news this morning pontificating and mocking Republicans, especially Sen McCain, for the perceived delay in reaching agreement, they also continues to prevaricate. Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi initially asserted that they needed McCain to clinch a deal for Democrats and now they are like a pack rabid dogs blaming John McCain for the deal falling apart. In fact, the deal fell apart before McCain arrived.

A republican senate source has confirmed that the questioned provision reported in this post is being opposed by Senate Republicans which has upset Democrats. Republicans are not opposing the obvious issues identified by Reid. They are working to get rid of the questioned provision "if they can." Also, they have already gotten the Democrats to back down from providing "most" of the money ("future profits") to the groups mentioned in the article "to a much smaller percentage." Negotiations are likely to continue throughout the day. Obviously no one is happy - especially the majority of the American public.

Breaking News - Bill Smith, ARRA Editor. I received a copy of "Agreement in Principle" relative to the $700 billion "bailout" being proposed and supported by Senate Democrats. The one page agreement from the U.S. Senate Banking Committee details guidelines to be put in place relative to taxpayer protection, oversight and transparency, home ownership preservation and Funding Authority.

While on the surface the agreement looks generic and positive, However, the "devil is in the detail." There is one detail that Democrats are concerned that Republicans will not agree to in the bailout agreement. That is if the Republicans even see the item. It seems that this issue may be one reason that many Democrats have hounded Sen. John McCain and pushed for his speedy approval. Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-NV) has already identified that it is Sen. John McCain's approval, not Barack Obama approval, that is needed to secure the agreement of Senate Republicans. In fact, the questioned provision indirectly focus on some prior concern regarding Sen. Barack Obama involvement with various organizations. Maybe that is why Obama would prefer being at a debate in Mississippi than being in Washington D.C.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) cohorts are also hounding Sen. McCain to agree. They know that neither the House Republicans nor the House Blue Dog Democrats are going to sign on easily to an agreement extending $700 billion "bailout" if Sen. McCain disagrees. Pelosi does not have control of the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs who are not happy with committing $700 billion to the "bailout" effort.

In the "agreement in principle," there is the effect of a major "earmark" which commits money from future "profits" to be given to nonprofits organizations like ACORN, National Council of La Raza and potentially the National Urban League. This agreement clearly evidences that the Government expects to benefit in the future from the bailout when the values of property rises and mortgages or properties are then sold by the Federal government. The agreement --

"Directs a certain percentage of future profits to the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund to meet America's housing needs."

In the proposed bailout agreement, Sen. Christopher Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee and other Democrats desire to pre-direct that future funds (profits) not be returned to the taxpayers via the treasury but that they be used to underwrite potential questionable (maybe even illegal activities) of certain nonprofits which have had a hand in promoting and expanding access to "no money down" loans for minorities, illegal voter registrations and extensive lobbying activities.

Let’s examine the connection of the Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund with the various nonprofit groups mentioned above. In July, 2008, a Wall Street Journal article addressed the previous housing bill signed into law:

Provide[d] a stream of billions of dollars for distressed homeowners and communities and the nonprofit groups that serve them. One of the biggest likely beneficiaries, despite Republican objections is Acorn, a housing advocacy group that also helps lead ambitious voter-registration efforts benefiting Democrats. Acorn -- made up of several legally distinct groups under that name -- has become an important player in the Democrats' effort to win the White House. Its voter mobilization arm is co-managing a $15.9 million campaign with the group Project Vote to register 1.2 million low-income Hispanics and African-Americans, who are among those most likely to vote Democratic. Technically nonpartisan, the effort is one of the largest such voter-registration drives on record.

The organization's main advocacy group lobbied hard for passage of the housing bill, which provides nearly $5 billion for affordable housing, financial counseling and mortgage restructuring for people and neighborhoods affected by the housing meltdown. A third Acorn arm, its housing corporation, does a large share of that work on the ground. Acorn's multiple roles show how two fronts of activism -- housing for the poor and voter mobilization -- have converged closely in this election year. The fortunes of both parties will hinge in part on their plans for addressing the fall of the nation's housing market and the painful economic slowdown. . . .

Partly because of the role of Acorn and other housing advocacy groups, the White House and its allies in Congress resisted Democrats' plans to include money for a new affordable-housing trust fund and $4 billion in grants to restore housing in devastated neighborhoods. In the end, the money stayed in the bill; the White House saw little choice. What most riles Republicans about the bill is the symbiotic relationship between the Democratic Party and the housing advocacy groups, of which Acorn is among the biggest. Groups such as the National Council of La Raza and the National Urban League also lobby to secure government-funded services for their members and seek to move them to the voting booth. Acorn has been singled out for criticism because of its reach, its endorsements of Democrats, and past flaws in its bookkeeping and voter-registration efforts that its detractors in Congress have seized upon. . . .

Sen. Obama is especially reliant on registration drives, such as Acorn's with Project Vote, to help him win the White House. The Illinois Democrat draws his strongest support from blacks, Hispanics and young people, groups that are among the least likely to be registered. After law school, Sen. Obama was the director of Project Vote in Chicago. . . .

Democrats on Capitol Hill have helped to steer millions of dollars in housing and other grants from the federal government toward Acorn and groups like it. The groups must qualify and compete for the money, which is typically doled out from the federal government to states and municipalities. The housing package includes a new, permanent source of affordable-housing money that congressional Democrats and grassroots groups have sought for years. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund will be funded by a tax on mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage titans.

That tax eventually will channel upwards of $600 million annually in grants for developing and restoring housing, mostly as low-income rentals, available to Acorn and other groups. Democrats on Capitol Hill and housing groups say the housing-assistance money is vital to helping Americans hit hardest by what some call the largest drop in home values since the Great Depression. But they acknowledge the perception of political conflict in giving federal funds to an organization that does political work. "We are guarding against it," said Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank in an interview. He secured the Affordable Housing Trust from his seat as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. . . .

Acorn describes itself as the nation's largest grassroots community organization, with more than 400,000 families organized into 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities. Over four decades, Acorn has turned its broad membership into a powerful lobbying tool. Its representatives are well-known in the marble halls of the Capitol, and press local, state and federal governments . . .

ACORN is the agency where Sen. Barack Obama worked as a trainer for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN), whose affiliate, Project Vote, is known for voter fraud. It is this same organization from which a large part of the mortgage mess has grown. After Harvard Law School, Obama provided legal representation for ACORN. Obama sat on the boards of the philanthropic Woods Foundation and the Joyce Foundation which both funneled millions of dollars to ACORN.

In 2006, the Wall Street Journal addressed Acorn Indictments. In a recent article, additional complaints, indictments and arrests and conviction of ACORN members for voter fraud have been detailed for Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington State, and Wisconsin. Democrats on Capitol Hill have steered billions of the taxpayer monies to risky ventures and to nonprofits organizations like ACORN, National Council of La Raza through the government’s Affordable Housing Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund. As a result groups like ACORN have developed powerful lobby groups to secure tax money for their organizations. Now the proposed "agreement in principle" for the $700 Billion "bailout" seeks to continue the protection of this process. In another article by James H. Walsh, a former federal prosecutor, it was noted that:

ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC) was instrumental in its passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which has plagued the mortgage markets since 1977. The U.S. Congress through the CRA compelled banks and lending institutions to make loans to “communities of color” disregarding sound economic and risk guidelines. CRA encouraged the relaxing of “outdated” risk-management protocols and underwriting obligations by lending institutions. In the name of ending discrimination, no longer were “communities of color” required to provide verification of income, employment, credit history, ability to pay homeowner bills, or down payment. In response, many banks and mortgage groups bundled trillions of dollars of “subprime” loans and sold them to investors here and abroad. It is these bundled Community Reinvestment Act mortgages, doomed to fail, that are today causing financial strain in U.S. and global financial markets.

In short, a Democrat Congress and President demanded that banks change the rules of good banking and open the Pandora’s Box of mortgage defaults and foreclosures now coming to a head. This home-parity concept of the radical left was mobilized by ACORN resulting in a purchase of a property without any credit, income, employment, and a zero down payment.

In 2003, Fannie Mae home-parity funding in Chicago reached $600 billion. When Franklin Raines, former chair and CEO of Fannie Mae, stepped down in 2004 but managed to take with him a multimillion-dollar parachute and a monthly pension of $114, 393 for life, and should he die, for his wife’s lifetime. Until recently, Raines was an advisor to Obama.

Open Secrets reveals the investment made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Democrats and details the Top 25 Democrat Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions in 1989-2008. The top three in order were Senators Christopher Dodd, John Kerry and Barack Obama.

When government tries to fix social issues through the use of the taxpayers’ money, there are consequences. Now the American taxpayers are being called upon again to underwrite the problems exacerbated by the prior actions of former and the current Congress and past administrations. It is hoped that Senators and Representatives will avoid this massive "earmark." All "future profits" from the resolution and disposition of the alleged current bad mortgages ("bad paper"), should accrue to the American taxpayers as a whole and be returned to the Treasury. Any determination as to the use of "future profits" should be determined by those elected and representing the people at that future point in time. No agreements should include an obligation on the potential "future profits." No agreements should support questionable programs that support organizations that contributed to the failures of mortgages or to the bad lending practices promoted by prior Congresses and administrations.

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: The following editorial comments are in reaction to the actions this week by the five Republicans in the “Gang of 10.” Most of us have been to varied team sporting events: e.g., Soccer, Football, Basketball, Baseball and Hockey. For the team to win, the members of the team must all remain focused on the goal of winning. During the game, they don't get sidetracked patting opponents on the back and running out on the field with a couple of their team buddies to meet members of the other team, or declaring that they represent their whole and have negotiated the end of game results - so the game is over. We would rightly call these players a "gang; thugs." Obviously, they would at a least be benched or at best, kicked off the team. Razorback fans (other readers substitute your favorite team) go to see their Hogs play - win or lose. They keep coming to see their team play in hopes of defeating the other team. They want to win and they wouldn't like it if a few team members sold out the rest of the team. They understand that the Hogs may lose but they sure don't want the game played with without a full team.

Consider then our form of government; we are a Republic. We, the people, elect our Senators to represent our State and elect our Congressional Representative to represent our individual Congressional District. We expect these men and women to go to Washington D.C. to represent us and not to try to compromise and represent the people of other States or districts. Retuning to the sports analogy, across the country we have in effect elected our all star players to go to Washington to compete both for us - their constituents - and to part of their political "All Star" team. For example, in Arkansas, we know that our Senators, both Democrats, are also playing for the Democrat "All Star" team under the incompetent team coach -- Harry Reid. Others, like Lieberman , an "independent democrat,” play for the Democrat team. Others like Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson are supposed to be playing for the Republican "All Star" team. Unfortunately, while on the Republican Team, they have decided to break out on their own and negotiate with members of Reid’s team.

Most of us dislike small groups of people who meet privately to make agreements, and decisions that affect us. We call such groups "clicks" when being nice and other names when not feeling so nice. The press has rightly labeled these breakaway elected officials as “gangs.” We do not deny them their right to associate, to talk, to caucus, or to debate. We may not like their continued personally associations but heck we have no say if the go to church, go fishing, visit their local D.C. "watering hole,” or even foot tap" together. But we do mind when they are on the playing field and then they opt out of their teams and join together in a "Gang of 10" to speak for the rest of the elected officials and the members or your political party. This arrogance is intolerable as they are trampling on our Republic and over calling or silencing the voices of our other elected official.

And for those five Senators who are Republicans, how dare you compromise an important bargaining position on which we are supported by a majority of the American people. While the five democrats on the “Gang of 10” are clearly representing their party’s agenda and getting republicans to compromise and to “shut –up,” such is not the situation for the five republicans. The five republicans have “fumbled the ball” without even having their full team present. They have ignored one of the “most exciting and motivating” issues of the day on which Republicans are taking a stand. They have abandoned their team, ignored the coach and compromised a fundamental issue on which Republicans are taking a stand. How can they expect their team members to trust or work with them in the future? American voters do not forget and “Elephant” voters have long memories and have been know to turn out RINOs. Losing to the other team in a hard fought game is understood. Having a few players throw the game is unconscionable. While winning covers a multitude of issues, failure to support the team is unforgivable. Ask any die hard Razorback fan. We love our team and despise anyone who sellouts the team or tramples on the Razorback name. The same is true for voters be they democrat or republican. And currently, the actions referenced in the Wall Street Journal editorial are unacceptable to Republicans.

Kimberley Strassel, Wall Street Journal: It's taken time, but Sen. McCain and his party have finally found -- in energy -- an issue that's working for them. Riding voter discontent over high gas prices, the GOP has made antidrilling Democrats this summer's headlines. Their enthusiasm has given conservative candidates a boost in tough races. And Mr. McCain has pressured Barack Obama into an energy debate, where the Democrat has struggled to explain shifting and confused policy proposals.

Still, it was probably too much to assume every Republican would work out that their side was winning this issue. And so, last Friday, in stumbled Sens. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, Saxby Chambliss, Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson -- alongside five Senate Democrats. This "Gang of 10" announced a "sweeping" and "bipartisan" energy plan to break Washington's energy "stalemate." What they did was throw every vulnerable Democrat, and Mr. Obama, a life preserver.

That's because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast -- putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.

The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better. And so the Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November.

Sen. Obama was thrilled. . . . Equally gleeful was Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, the Senate's most vulnerable Democrat. She had been sweating the energy debate, especially after her vote against more oil-shale production -- a position her Republican opponent, John Kennedy, had used against her to great effect. Yet there she was, chummily standing with the Gang of 10 and boasting that she is working with "five Republicans" to "lower prices at the pump by increasing offshore drilling here at home."

Mr. McCain, who had been commanding the energy debate, was left to explain why he, of all people, wasn't more enthusiastic about a "bipartisan" effort on energy, especially one that includes "drilling." His camp was forced to take refuge in taxes, explaining that their boss couldn't sign up for a bill that included more. If this is what Mr. McCain's good friend Lindsey Graham considers "helping," somebody might want to ask him to stop.

And pity poor Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been working overtime to stanch GOP losses this fall and head off a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. His dogged efforts to highlight Democratic opposition to drilling has kept energy in the news and laid the groundwork for GOP candidates to use the issue to their advantage.

In the Colorado Senate race, Democrats had christened former GOP Rep. Bob Schaffer "Big Oil Bob" -- hoping to smear his oil industry career. "Big Oil Bob" has instead embraced his pro-drilling positions and is pummeling opponent Mark Udall for his antidrilling stance. In recent weeks, Mr. Schaffer has erased Mr. Udall's lead. Polls show Republican Sens. Norm Coleman (Minnesota) and John Sununu (New Hampshire) both climbing in the polls on the back of strong energy arguments. . . .

The "bipartisan" Republican senators have undercut these efforts, and boosted Ms. Landrieu. They've even put a smile on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's face. He'd been struggling to tamp down the energy debate through November, where he hopes to increase his majority and permanently shelve drilling. He's now counting on the Gang to fruitlessly continue "negotiations" straight through the Senate's short September session and solve his problem for him. Not one of the five Republicans in the Gang is facing a tough election this year. That's the sort of security that leads to bad decisions. And theirs is the sort of thinking that could leave Republicans in a permanent minority.