The Free Pass should include:

• A guarantee no national money will be used against the Democrat in the general election.
• A guarantee if the Democrat wants to jump parties (far less likely), he/she will receive the RNC’s endorsement in the primary & national money in the general.

Yes, Pelosi still faces hurdles. Yes, a government take-over of health care would inflame America’s likely voters and lead to greater Republican gains in November.  Yes, we can attempt to repeal it.  Yes, we can cheer SCOTUS to rule it unconstitutional.

But, none of these things is worth the current Republican passivity.   We have no time for party purity here.   Our own focus must be jobs, jobs, jobs.   And we cannot get bogged down with “repeal it,” even if we gain power.

Right now, Republicans should be locking down NO votes with as much carrot as we have stick.  We’ve put the fear of god into them, for the ones still fence sitting, it is time to offer salvation.

Here’s my list of persuadable Democrats to be offer a Free Pass:

1. Rep. Dennis Cardoza
2. Rep. Jim Costa
3. Rep. John Boccieri
4. Rep. Henry Cuellar
5. Rep. Tim Bishop
6. Rep. John Adler
7. Rep. Allen Boyd
8. Rep. Steve Driehaus
9. Rep. Joe Donnelly
10. Rep. Marion Berry
11. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
12. Rep. Daniel Lipinski
13. Rep. Michael Arcuri
14. Rep. Steve Kagen
15. Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper

From reading reports these are persuadable Democrats.  There are certainly more.  We need at least ten, so Michael Steele needs to really put an offer out there.

I’d argue we should be very public about it, so we can be kept to our word.  If it is kept secret, Representatives will not believe it.   Also, this way each Representative’s voters will KNOW the Republican party is truly big tent: we place good policy over party line. On this policy we have a vast majority of Americans on our side, we need to show we can negotiate in good faith, that we can govern.

Yes, it’s just going to suck.  Each of these idiots has annoyed us on one issue or another.  But, if these are your Representatives (or your Representative is a Democrat) get on the phone, let them know you are a likely Republican voter, a regular donor, and that your vote is up for sale.  In this one instance, let them know you’ll be a single issue voter.

We need to play hardball here.  There will be other fights to have with these Democrats.

The Debt-Sea Scrolls tell a story of evolving fiscal folly that could represent one of the greatest man-made disasters ever — the destruction of mankind’s most successful experiment in governance and the crippling of an economic system that produced the greatest sustained prosperity the world has ever known.  The first of the Debt-Sea Scrolls was written around 80-years ago when the government believed it could spend its way out of the Great Depression with money it didn’t have…with money it didn’t even almost have.  The programs (known as the “New Deal”) described in the first of the Debt-Sea Scrolls didn’t succeed in revitalizing American industry.  It was The Second World War and the massive Lend-Lease program with which we became the “Arsenal for Democracy” that finally succeeded in revitalizing American Industry. By the time the war was over, so was the Great Depression. Unemployment had plummeted to below 2.0% by the time the war ended in 1945 from 14.6% in 1940, which was essentially the rate of unemployment during the early years of the depression and seven years of New Deal Keynesian prime-the-pump policies.  Following the war, American industry converted from wartime to peacetime production and the rate of unemployment remained below 6.0% for over a decade and for most of the half century that followed.

We learn from the Debt-Sea Scrolls that unsustainable national debt, fueled by easy credit that required borrowers to have very little skin in the game (sound familiar?) was, more than any other factor, generally credited with igniting the economic conflagration we now know as the Great Depression.  Ironically we are now, seventy years later, adding unsustainable debt (to already unsustainable debt) at a level many economists believe will seriously impede our recovery and may end any hope of returning to robust prosperity.  We are, systematically, mortgaging the future of our children, their children and their children’s children as well.

Let us pause to consider the debt-spawning spending spree on which the government has embarked and proposes further to accelerate.

We recognize, of course, that ours is an enormous economy, $14.25 trillion of GDP to be exact. In fact, we would wager that there are few people who can fully comprehend the marvel of such national commerce and industrial output. Similarly, we doubt that very many people (if any at all) can fully comprehend the magnitude and complexity of the attendant potential burden, risk and consequence of a national debt of approximately the same size.  In fact, as we have previously reported, President Obama recently signed legislation that elevates our debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion.  The debt ceiling is there (or, we should say, was there) for a reason.  It is there (was there) to place a limit on the Congresses ability to spend money that the Treasury doesn’t have.  Congress, however, has a long history of simply raising the statutory limit on debt whenever its spending makes that limit obsolete. For example, it seems clear that, barring an economic miracle, we’ll have to borrow an additional $1.3 trillion next year (on top of the $1.6 trillion we have to borrow in the current fiscal year) which would necessitate yet another increase in our so-called debt limit to at least $15.6 trillion.  At that point, our debt will exceed the value of our entire projected economic output or GDP.

And it gets worse when we consider the full enormity of our debt burden, which also includes our unfunded liabilities, (including future Social Security, and Medicare benefits) estimated to be over $106 trillion as well as the debt of the many states and municipalities throughout the land (estimated to be slightly over $2.0 trillion). It also doesn’t include the guarantees we have made to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or any other federal guarantees of debt from all sources, all of which are off-balance sheet and therefore not included on the federal balance sheet. Not a pretty picture.

The Debt-Sea Scrolls remind us that the economy is in trouble now, as it was in 1929, because America has been spending much, much more than it can afford.  When the banking system’s liquidity became stretched way beyond what the collective equity or collateral of the borrowing public could even remotely justify, the system broke down.  Thus came the infamous bailouts and the non-stop spending that has gone unabated ever since. We had to raise the debt limit last month or the United States of America would not have been able to pay its bills. You can mark our words; Congress will not hesitate to raise our debt limit again whenever that limit interferes with its determination to spend money we don’t have.  We believe the new stratospheric debt limit will be raised to even higher limits by this time next year.

We have committed over a trillion dollars to so-called stimulus programs between the first stimulus package and the new “jobs bill” (a rose by any other name), seventy percent of which will simply pump up public sector payrolls in the name of economic stimulus.  Of course, with unemployment stubbornly hovering around 10% it seems pretty clear that we aren’t stimulating much of anything, and certainly next to nothing in the private sector.  As we reported last week, one prominent Harvard economist has determined that over the next five years we will trade about $900 billion in private investment for around $600 billion in public investment.  One can also be sure that the amount of money used to pad public payrolls will never diminish. Government-sector jobs are stubbornly resistant to productivity cuts.

President George W. Bush was not a good steward of the national fisc, but he was an absolute piker compared to the unbridled spending of President Obama and the Democratic controlled congress.  Given that we know the role our national debt played in precipitating the Great Depression, a reasonable man or woman might assume that our elected officials would be ever vigilant in seeking out ways to bring the government’s profligate spending under control. Instead, it seems our elected officials are ever vigilant in identifying new opportunities to spend money we don’t have.  And if our generation doesn’t have the means to bear this enormous debt, who does?  It’s a rhetorical question.  We know the answer. Our plan, if you can dignify what Congress and the president are doing by calling it that is to kick the proverbial can down the road and ask our descendants to solve the problem out of the weakened economy we hand over to them, not least of which is the problem of servicing the debt we are piling up.  We hear that all the time…that we are leaving an enormous tab for our children, but what exactly does that mean?  Well, for one thing, it means that the next several generations are almost certain to experience a much lower standard of living than we have enjoyed.  They may well be the first generation in the history of the country that will not do as well as did their parents.

Why would we risk doing that to them? Why would we insist on a new massive expansion of the federal role in health care when virtually every poll (and every state-wide election) screams that the people do not want the government to do that? Why would we even flirt with a highly speculative tax on carbon emissions in the name of climate control that would transfer tens of trillions of dollars out of the American economy at a time like this?  Why in the world would our government propose borrowing an additional $1.3 trillion in order to spend a record $3.8 trillion during the coming fiscal year? And as we have previously warned, the increasing debt service costs and the rates our lenders will demand from a country whose currency is likely to be under severe pressure… and the percentage of our annual budget devoted to servicing that debt … risks our ability to maintain our influence as the leading (maybe even a leading) world power.

Since President Obama was sworn into office, he and the Democratic Congress have increased discretionary spending by $1.4 trillion.  This is money that is simply sucked out of the private economy and redistributed through the government.  This is not an efficient way to stimulate the economy. It grows the deficit and, hence, the nation’s debt.

The government says it will fund this inefficiency over the next decade, in part, by wringing over a trillion dollars from the nation’s taxpayers through increased taxes. Of course, the government also projects fairly robust economic growth during this same period of time. If those growth projections prove to be overly optimistic the government will have only three alternatives to stay afloat: slash spending; wring even more out of the nation’s taxpayers or borrow even more.  So far, we see no evidence by this Administration or this Congress of any real interest in slashing spending. That leaves higher taxes and increased borrowing to prop up the government’s cost of doing business. And, as most economists will attest, as our debt continues to increase beyond the size of our economy, economic growth will diminish, thus, accelerating a vicious and dangerous cycle.

Given that nearly half of the nation’s tax filers pay NO income taxes, the White House seems to be following a game plan that is certain to prove very divisive in the months and years ahead. Indeed, the early signs of a tax revolt are already quite apparent, and the President’s assurances that only the wealthy (assuming there are any left) will see any increase in taxes rings with a very dull thud.

The Debt-Sea Scrolls will be here long after the current Administration and the current Congress are gone.  They will comprise the indelible record of the road America traveled during a critical time in its history.  Perhaps the audacity of hope will be enough to steer the nation back to prosperity.  The audacity of wishful thinking is, however, almost certain to steer us to ruin.

The original founders of Shorebank probably didn’t dream that this bank would have the worldwide influence that it now has. They were all very active in their communities and had a desire to see the South Shore neighborhood re-built to its former state of safety and community life. The neighborhood had suffered economically and was becoming run-down and plagued by crime. Their hope was to re-invest and re-enliven this neighborhood of Chicago. They made loans towards the renovation of many of the buildings which were deteriorating and in disrepair. They also invested in new building projects to benefit the residents of South Shore.

For 30-plus years Shorebank has seen its founders’ dreams realized; and beyond those dreams, Shorebank has become the catalyst for international financing — especially that directed toward low-income people in many countries of the world. The Community Reinvestment Act, passed into law in 1977 during President Jimmy Carter’s term of office, encouraged financial institutions to make loans to low-income borrowers. Ron Grzywinski (one of the original founders of Shorebank) was the only banker to testify before Congress in support of the Community Reinvestment Act. Its passage was instrumental in paving the way for Shorebank’s success. The bank steadily grew financially and facilitated the renewal of poverty stricken areas through the rest of the 1970’s and early 80’s, catching the attention of then-Governor Bill and Hillary Clinton of Arkansas (in fact, according to the IFA, Bill is still advocating on behalf of ShoreBank).

Because Shorebank was lending to run-down neighborhoods, the Clintons, along with Shorebank, decided to establish the Southern Development Bancorporation in Arkadelphia, Arkansas in 1988. They hoped that the poor in Arkansas would be helped by the loans they could obtain. Hillary’s former roommate at Wellesley College, Jan Piercy, joined Shorebank in 1984.

In this video, Hillary Clinton speaks (in September 2008) about Shorebank. The “Ron” she refers to is Ron Grzywinski, one of the founders of Shorebank (founded in 1973).

Other ShoreBank Key Players

From Shorebank’s website:

“In 1973, Ron Grzywinski, Mary Houghton, James Fletcher and Milton Davis purchased a failing bank in a declining and disinvested neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side. They set out to demonstrate that banks can be powerful tools for creating positive social and community change.”

Below is a picture of the 4 original founders of Shorebank.  (Some articles number the founders at only 3, and one article spoke of a founder named Stanley Hallett, now deceased.) In any case, this is the picture that can be found on ShoreBank’s website.

Shorebank founders: Mary Houghton, Milton Davis(deceased), James Fletcher(deceased), Ron Grzywinsky

Ron Grzywinski

From ChicagoBusiness.com on Dec 11, 2009:

ShoreBank co-founders Ronald Grzywinski and Mary Houghton, who’ve led one of the country’s most high-profile community banks for more than three decades, are easing out of their leadership posts, the bank announced to employees today.

Mr. Grzywinski, 73, and Ms. Houghton, 68 … are passing leadership of the holding company to George Surgeon, the ShoreBank veteran who was named CEO of the bank in early November….

In Friday’s letter to employees, Mr. Grzywinski wrote that he and Ms. Houghton next year “will continue to focus on raising capital and providing oversight of ShoreBank Pacific, the international companies and all the non-profit affiliates so that all of George [Surgeon]’s attention can remain focused on the Midwest bank.”

It appears as though the ship may be sinking and people are running for their lives.

In a subsequent article by Steve Daniels with ChicagoBusiness.com dated January 18, 2010:

ShoreBank seeks financial rescue from state of Illinois

Prodded by the likes of U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Illinois Finance Authority officials met earlier this month with ShoreBank executives to discuss raising tens of millions for the bank through an IFA bond offering….

Banking experts say they’re not aware of any previous bank bailout by Illinois or any other state. (emphasis added)  Federal bank regulators usually handle such bailouts. And banks the size of ShoreBank, with assets of $2.5 billion, don’t ordinarily attract attention at the upper levels of government.

But ShoreBank has been lauded by presidents for making loans in economically disadvantaged areas many lenders avoid. And its political ties run all the way to the White House, where President Barack Obama and the first lady are former neighbors of ShoreBank executives.

Mr. Brandt says the IFA, an economic development arm of state government, won’t consider similar assistance for Illinois’ numerous other small banks beset by the same real estate loan troubles.

“We’re not in the business of saving banks,” he says.

Still, a ShoreBank rescue would almost certainly trigger requests for help from other struggling local banks, some of which also serve low- to moderate-income communities. Rejecting such requests could trigger political repercussions from officeholders intent on saving banks in areas they represent….

An IFA bond offering could raise $30 million to $50 million for ShoreBank, depending on how much the bank gets from others. The rest of the capital could take the form of equity from private investors, and possibly an infusion of funds from the federal government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Should Illinois Taxpayers be forced to bail out any bank with Illinois funds? Is this a case of Shorebank being “too big to fail”? Or perhaps “too politically connected” to fail? What about smaller, less politically connected banks? Shouldn’t the Illinois Finance Authority (IFA) consider bailing them out also?

The above article presents but a few of the many individuals who are personally invested in the success of Shorebank. It will be interesting to watch this situation continue to unfold. With Illinois being virtually bankrupt, how will Illinois residents respond to a bank bailout if it is, in fact, approved by the IFA? We’ll definitely be keeping a close eye on the outcome.

For the Republicans, any failure to demonstrate a principled resistance to the Democrats will hurt them, in the Fall, among Tea Party voters and their base. If it passes, it will do irrevocable harm to our health care system and the solvency of our government, while hurting the economy and the dollar for decades to come. Worse yet, history has shown that de-nationalizing socialized healthcare is beyond difficult. In other words, hoping for the repeal of ObamaCare is not a good option.

That much danger requires that the Republicans pull out all of the stops to literally stop its passage. As the “final” vote on the bill looms, Republicans in Congress simply must enlist the voice of the American people in their effort and force the Democrats to abandon the bill. Here is a 3 point plan to do just that.

1. Adopt a HealthCare Covenant With America. The existing health care bill represents everything that is wrong with American government today. It is a 2600 page monolith and few have any idea of its true contents – as Nancy Pelosi so eloquently noted (“But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it.”) Republicans quickly and simply must contrast that with a one page charter, contract, or declaration. which sets forth 7 – 10 key reforms in simple straightforward language. The contents should obviously emphasize private sector reforms, such as the promotion of HealthCare Savings Accounts (“HSAs”), coupled with the modernization of government regulations, i.e. updated regulations/laws to allow increased pooling across state lines – all with an eye to addressing the deficiencies of the current health care system.

2. Have Republican Candidates Take the HealthCare Covenant Pledge. Leaders in Congress and the RNC should then work to have each Congressional candidate take a HealthCare Covenant Pledge to effect that they will vote for those reforms if elected to Congress. It should become central plank for all Congressional candidates this Fall.

3. Revolutionize The Marketing/Promotion of The Covenant. Republicans can’t run against City Hall from within City Hall. If they are trailing in votes in the halls of Congress, they need to empower the voters outside of Washington. To do that, Republicans cannot conduct business as usual. They need to market this Health Care Covenant in a completely different manner.

As soon as practical, the Republicans should declare a HealthCare Covenant Day. On that day:

(a) Republicans should hold a National Townhall using a coalition of the willing cable television and radio outlets. That National Townhall should be used to promote the virtues of the HealthCare Covenant while demonstrating the vast shortcomings of ObamaCare. As part of that effort, Republicans should organize watch parties coupled with voter registration drives across the country; and

(b) Republicans should flood the new media (Internet/blogs) and the old media (newspapers) with editorials reinforcing the virtues of the HealthCare Covenant while demonstrating the vast shortcomings of ObamaCare; and

(c) Republicans should invite Tea Party groups and others to hold demonstrations that day; and

(d) Republicans should flood talk radio shows around the Country, leading up to the Townhall, with guests that reinforce the message; and

(e) Republicans should email vital details across the nation to activists and encourage them to contact Democrat lawmakers.

The vast majority of Americans are against this healthcare takeover. It is time for Republicans to enlist their support in a meaningful way as part of a peaceful revolt. If they don’t, America may never be the same. If they do, it will be a victory for Republicans and a more important victory for America.

As is the new DC operating procedure for major legislation, there are almost no firm details on the current language. We know there will be a large new federal bureaucracy, somewhere within government, to provide “consumer protection” for financial products. We know there will be a $50 billion tax on banking customers to provide a permanent bailout fund, or as Sen. Corker would describe it, a “wind-down” fund. Unfortunately, we also know that the bill will do nothing to reform Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, who continue to drain billions from the U.S. Treasury.

We’re told the Corker-Dodd Bailout Bill is a necessary response to the financial melt-down triggered by the collapse of the housing bubble. But, if it doesn’t take even small steps to reform Fannie and Freddie, then, simply, it isn’t a serious proposal. Its like rebuilding the porch on a house, while ignoring it’s cracked foundation.

Washington politicians would rather ignore this, but the housing bubble was the result of very explicit government policy. Throughout the 90’s and early 2000’s, officials from both parties became addicted to forever pushing homeownership rates higher than the laws of economics would otherwise allow.

If you want to identify the roots of the homeownership-cult among elected officials, fire-up the way-back machine and check out a little report issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in the early 90’s. Under the leadership of Richard Syron, then-President of the Boston Fed (more on him later), the report was the result of discussion among the bank’s staff and the usual collection of academics and professional activists. It was to make recommendations to the nation’s bankers on addressing alleged discrimination in mortgage lending.

Boston Fed

Most of the report is innocuous pablum; a kind of cross between a Hallmark Card and corporate-ese. But, a few of the report’s recommendations are, in hindsight, more ominous. And while they were just ‘recommendations’, they were being made by one of the Fed banks, which carries a certain, shall we say, weight with bankers. From the intro:

The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston wants to be helpful to lenders as they work to close the mortgage gap. For this publication, we have gathered recommendations on “best practice” from lending institutions and consumer groups. With their help, we have developed a comprehensive program for lenders who seek to ensure that all loan applicants are treated fairly and to expand their markets to reach a more diverse customer base.

As far as it goes, fine. But, consider this:

Obligation Ratios: Special consideration could be given to applicants with relatively high obligation ratios who have demonstrated an ability to cover high housing expenses in the past. Many lower–income households are accustomed to allocating a large percentage of their income toward rent. While it is important to ensure that the borrower is not assuming an unreasonable level of debt, it should be noted that the secondary market is willing to consider ratios above the standard 28/36.

Got that. Banks should use their normal risk-based underwriting standards, because low-income people can carry more debt than families with higher income. Oh, and wink-wink, the secondary market will consider higher risk ratios. In other words, go ahead and underwrite the mortgage and you can probably sell it off. More:

Credit History: Policies regarding applicants with no credit history or problem credit history should be reviewed. Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor. Certain cultures encourage people to “pay as you go” and avoid debt. Willingness to pay debt promptly can be determined through review of utility, rent, telephone, insurance, and medical bill payments. In reviewing past credit problems, lenders should be willing to consider extenuating circumstances. For lower–income applicants in particular, unforeseen expenses can have a disproportionate effect on an otherwise positive credit record. In these instances, paying off past bad debts or establishing a regular repayment schedule with creditors may demonstrate a willingness and ability to resolve debts.

Nothing can go wrong there. But, this is one of the more interesting items noted in the report:

Institutions that sell loans to the secondary market should be fully aware of the efforts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to modify their guidelines to address the needs of borrowers who are lower–income, live in urban areas, or do not have extensive credit histories.

Boy, would Fannie and Freddie ever modify their guidelines. While the Boston Fed Report was being written, Fannie and Freddie were implementing their first congressional mandate to increase their holdings of mortgages to low-income buyers. From the Village Voice:

[Andrew]Cuomo’s predecessor, Henry Cisneros, did that for the first time in December 1995, taking a cautious approach and moving the GSEs toward a requirement that 42 percent of their mortgages serve low- and moderate-income families. Cuomo raised that number to 50 percent and dramatically hiked GSE mandates to buy mortgages in underserved neighborhoods and for the “very-low-income.”

At some point, the supply of low-income buyers who meet conventional loan standards is going to run out. It would be impossible for Fannie and Freddie to meet their federal mandate if they only bought conventional mortgages. So, by the end of the decade, Fannie, at the urging of elected officials and activist groups, purchased its first sub-prime mortgage. From the New York Times, September 29, 1999:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

By the time the bubble burst, Fannie and Freddie were imploding under the weight of hundreds of billions in sub-prime and other risky mortgages.

A few more excerpts from the Boston Fed Report:

Even the most determined lending institution will have difficulty cultivating business from minority customers if its underwriting standards contain arbitrary or unreasonable measures of creditworthiness.

And,

Unintentional discrimination may be observed when a lender’s under- writing policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower–income minority applicants.

And,

management should be directed to review existing underwriting standards and practices to ensure that they are valid predictors of risk. Special care should be taken to ensure that standards are appropriate to the economic culture of urban, lower–income, and nontraditional consumers.

And, finally, a section that, seen in hindsight, gives me a headache:

The Board may also wish to encourage management to work with the public sector to develop products that assist lower–income borrowers by using public money to reduce interest rates, provide down payment assistance, or otherwise reduce the cost of the mortgage. The Board should also encourage management to work with special secondary mortgage market programs designed for lower–income homebuyers.

To be sure, there were a number of causes that inflated the housing bubble. The Fed’s policy of, essentially, free money in the early part of the decade sloshed money across the financial system and allowed credit to be widely available to anyone with a pulse. Ever more exotic financial products that few understood ingrained themselves into bank balance sheets as little ticking time-bombs.

But, the scope of the crisis would have been far less severe, if it hadn’t been accompanied by explicit government pressure on banks to loosen their lending criteria. Leftist activist groups like ACORN and the Center for Responsible Lending exerted complementary pressure through the media. With nearly-free money, entities like Fannie and Freddie eager buy up even the riskiest loans and near-universal predictions of forever increasing house prices, it is little wonder banks bowed to the outside pressure and loosened their standards. The rest is history.

Oh, about that Richard Syron, who headed up the first Fed report urging banks to loosen their lending standards. He became CEO of Freddie Mac at the end of 2003. He certainly put our money where his mouth was. In the final years of the bubble, 2005-2007, 40% of the loans Freddie took onto its books were junk loans.

Sometimes pablum leaves a mark.

In running for those many offices, Brown has taken countless liberal positions.  As Governor, Brown empowered public employee unions, strongly opposed the death penalty and appointed judges who strongly opposed it.  He opposed Prop 13 before he was for it – but only after the voters passed it. When he ran for President, in 1980, he was for universal health care and said his economic agenda was based, in part, on Buddhist Economics – followers of which endeavor to measure “Gross National Happiness.”  In 1992, when he ran for the Presidency a third time, he touted “living wages,” fought free trade agreements and said he would consider Jesse Jackson as a running mate notwithstanding Jackson’s controversial if not anti-Semitic remarks.  Such is the life of a career liberal like Jerry Brown.

In 2009, while still in the race for Governor, liberal Gavin Newsom said of Jerry Brown’s candidacy: “We’re not content to relive history. We’re going to keep making it.”  To ensure that Brown’s latest history would not include a loss to Newsom, Brown resumed his liberal ways.

Brown attempted to kill Sen. George Runner’s Voter ID Initiative by dubbing it: LIMITS ON VOTING.  INITIATIVE STATUTE.  [which] Prohibits citizens from voting at the polls, unless they present a government-issued photo identification card.  Under similar circumstances, Brown’s Democrat predecessor dubbed the Voter ID initiative he reviewed as “VOTER IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.  INITIATIVE STATUTE.”

Brown filed a lawsuit against San Bernadino County for “failing to consider how growth and new development will impact climate change” – even though the regulations related to AB32 had yet to be put in place at the time of the lawsuit.

In 2008, Brown was also sure to say, before voters passed Prop 8, that it would not apply retroactively to the same sex marriages that Gavin Newsom “legalized” in San Francisco.

All of those positions and actions taken by Brown, on law and order/voting, the environment and social issues, are considerably Left of center and were either taken because he is that Liberal or because he wanted to make sure that then candidate Gavin Newsom would not get to the Left of Jerry Brown.  But now Gavin is gone.  There is no one for Jerry Brown to out-Left.  Soooo, its apparently time for “Reasonable Jerry.”

Like:  The “No tax increase Jerry” – unless the voters want it – meaning he is now against it before he might be for it, or

The “I will look at the pension crisis” Jerry – as if he will take on all those public employee unions he empowered, or

The “I will downsize state government” Jerry – even though the budget increased 120% when he was Governor.

And perhaps the coup de grâce, The “We don’t need mere ambition to be Governor” Jerry Brown.

Clearly, Jerry Brown knows no shame, and without Gavin Newsom in the race, he is trying to tack away from his Leftist rhetoric and embark on his newly discovered Reasonable Jerry Tour.

However, those watching Jerry well remember his comment that “It doesn’t matter what I say, as long as I sound different from other politicians.”  Hopefully, this Fall, voters will understand the true Jerry Brown and let him know that it does matter what you say and even more what you have done.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments began a public discussion on the aim to convert 401(k) saving plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) into annuities and other forms of guaranteed income streams. Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry stated, “the question is how to encourage it, and whether the government can and should be helpful in that regard.” The supposition that the government is looking to be helpful with this proposal should automatically cause alarm.

The rationale for what would ultimately serve as a government takeover of the nation’s private pension system is of the same mold as the position Obama and Congressional Democrats have staked throughout the debate on health-care reform; “trust us, we know better than you”. Their assertion is that a weakened economy and a volatile stock market call for them to protect you and your interests, in this case your retirement money.

Last month, Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara editorialized on the Investor’s Business Daily website:

“The idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years. They will tell you that you are “investing” your money in U.S. Treasury bonds. But they will use your money immediately to pay for their unprecedented trillion-dollar budget deficits, leaving nothing to back up their political promises, just as they have raided the Social Security trust funds.”

If such a scheme sounds familiar to you, that’s because it is—cue Amos Lee’s I’ve Seen It All Before.

When Obama-mania was sweeping the world, and the then-Senator from Illinois was weeks away from making history, Argentina was searching for a solution to keep its own runaway train on the tracks—in hopes of improving its ability to service the nation’s debt and prevent another national default. Socialist President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s solution came in the form of the seizure of the $30 billion Argentines had amassed in their private pension funds and immediate transfer of the money into the nation’s social security system. Unsurprisingly, her administration defended the nationalization of the system as a means to guarantee pensions during a time of global economic uncertainty, and attacked the private system’s administrators who criticized the government’s intervention.

In February, Obama unveiled his budget for fiscal year 2011 which includes a proposal to require small businesses to establish automatic IRAs for employees. With his cronies from the financial services industry by his side, the measure is being marketed as a means to create a nation of savers. But this proposal wasn’t conjured up with your interests at heart. In actuality, the president is licking his lips, with his eyes set on sweetening an already massive lottery jackpot for the government.

As of the third quarter of 2009, Americans held a combined $8 trillion in 401(k) plans and IRAs, according to the most recent retirement market report from the Washington D.C.-based Investment Company Institute. Furthermore, his proposal for health-care reform calls for an extension of the 2.9% Medicare tax to unearned income, which means those annuities and other forms of guaranteed income streams you would receive in exchange for relinquishing the freedom you currently possess over your retirement funds, would be subject to taxation. The American people consistently lose when the government desires to be helpful.

The presidency of Barack Obama is nearly 14 months old, and the campaign-feel good rhetoric waxed about the Change We Need in Washington has materialized into the concoction of a young president channeling his inner-Daley to transform the nation’s capital into Chicago on the Potomac. Now, the citizenry of this nation should prepare for him to channel his inner-Kirchner to provide a taste of Argentine politics.

Unfortunately, it won’t taste as good as the steak.