The Purpose of the Constitution

In my mind the Constitution was designed to have two conflicting goals: (1) create a strong federal government, (2) create a federal government with very limited powers. That is why Tea Parties and conservatives around the country are angry. There are no longer any limits on the power of the federal government.

The problem is described in the scriptures this way:

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. D&C 121:39

"Almost all" is pretty inclusive. Too much power in one place invites the worst in people. That's why I would rather power be decentralized to states, counties, and municipalities.

Why I Can't Be Liberal

A person's true colors are revealed by who they look up to.

Many liberals love to parade around about the wrongs committed by America. President Obama had a whole overseas trip apologizing for President Bush. Did Bush make mistakes? Yes. Does America have glaring faults? Yes. America really is the worst nation in the world...

...except for all the rest.

I am sick of liberals talking about how much they love people when they are friends with or fans of genuinely evil world leaders.

Calling conservatives who favor limited government power neanderthals, racists, butchers, and thugs only works if liberals aren't friends with/fans of the Castros (Cuba), Lula da Silva (Brazil), Che Guevara, Che's daughter Aleida Guevara, or Hugo Chavez (Venezuela). They constitute the real thugs, butchers, racists, and neanderthals of the Americas. (To see why I pick on some of those specific thugs, see here.)

No Thanks for Buying My Health Insurance

I'm someone who has spent half of the past three years without any form of health insurance. I had other personal budget priorities and as a single guy in good health, I didn't think it mattered much. (Now that I'm married I sing a different tune.)

Hypothetically, since I have not paid income taxes in several years (not enough income) and haven't had insurance, I should love government provided health insurance. My question is: Why on earth should the taxpayer pay for something I wasn't willing to buy for myself?

My real opposition to health care and welfare in general comes from first hand experience watching the degradation of a society where a sizable proportion of the people receive welfare benefits and generations never rise out of the slums. If people don't have to work they won't. And if people don't work a spiritual darkness descends and holds them down as long as they continue to let it.

I just want my voice on record as opposed to massive new programs that cover the whole nation when the problem was only 10% to 15% of the population. And everybody knows that government spending makes things cost more, not less. So the problem of increasing prices will not slow down unless quality decreases.

Economic Growth

Another problem with big government solutions to economic problems is that ALL economic growth comes from small businesses. Small businesses don't do business with the government. At least not new startups. The only thing government can do to promote the growth of small businesses is to get out of the way. Overmuch bureaucracy stifles the kind of creativity needed to make a more prosperous world.

The government can only cultivate an atmosphere where creativity can work freely. They could not have said to Bill Gates in the 70s, 'We think you have a good idea and will give you money to go forward.' Gates would never have amounted to anything had that happened. He had to earn his success to actually achieve it. (I know that sounds a little circular in my reasoning, but I mean it.)

To cultivate a creative atmosphere, there should be a clear set of rules to play by and a limited scope of government so that it is not perpetually gobbling up everything that moves.

Businesses big enough to deal with the billions the government doles out are no solution for a sluggish economy. The very nature of big businesses is that they seek to do more with less. Job one in big business is to increase productivity. So if a big business can do the same jobs with a 10% smaller workforce, they need to either find new things for that 10% to do or cut the workforce.

Growth is a bottom-up, individual, community centered process. Government spending, massive projects, roads, bridges, etc. will never do anything to increase the hiring of a small business. Not the kind that increases national productivity.

I may carve out one exception, and that is some high tech research. The government has more resources for things like that, but the results need to be made available to entrepreneurs and startups so they can come up with new and innovative uses for the technology. But even that I would rather have funded privately.

Economic Leadership

It is easy to lament the state of the economy. Debt rules households, corporations, and government at all levels. But for some reason, the power brokers who have created the vast corporate and government debt haven't been removed from power.

To borrow money and create a false sense of wealth is blatant dishonesty.

This is really a matter of leadership. But the difficulty is deciding who the leader is. Did the attitude of profligate spending start in Washington and households followed suit, or the other way around? Really, the twin debts are mutually reinforcing. And the solution is the same for households and the government. Stop spending more than you make. But that is a very unpopular solution for both.

Politicians or households would rather just have more income. That can work with households, but not so much with politicians. If politicians go for more income they either tax the economy to death or print money which causes inflation to murder the economy.

Role Reversal

Who knew that the day would come when Democrats were the party of big government and big business? Despite all the branding to the opposite, Republicans have become the party of the little guy - the individual investors, the tea partiers, and the small business owners.

In fact, I would almost rather the Republicans be the party of big business, because having Democrats as the party of big government AND big business is a dangerous invitation for corruption.

In an individual business, it is important to separate responsibilities related to money. For example, one person enters checks into the register, one person signs checks, and two separate people make deposits at the bank. Thus you need the dishonesty of several people with competing interests to get robbed by your employees.

If business and government are controlled by one party, there is a big risk for collusion and corruption. I would be concerned with Republicans taking over half the economy just as I am for Democrats taking over half the economy (when you consider bailouts and healthcare and cap-and-trade).

All the current financial difficulties are a result of individual actors making dishonest or foolish choices. The famous old phrase is that society requires obedience to the unenforceable. If there is a lack of honesty, it does not matter the laws on the books, the regulations, or the enforcement in place. Nothing can keep a corrupt culture from financial ruin.

Closing Guantanamo

I remember a conversation I had on a Southwest flight to Houston earlier this year. I mentioned it before. One thing I said to him was that President Obama's announcement that closing the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility was just window dressing. It was merely a cosmetic change. He felt like it was genuine change.

I suppose there is still time left this year, but I just want to gloat a little: I was right. The facility is still open and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Those scoundrels held there are dangerous and nobody wants to release them or transfer them to other prisons or other nations' prisons.

That fellow traveler also didn't believe when I told him about released terrorists landing back on the battlefield. He said it was made up by the vast right wing spin machine. I researched that a little more and was right about that as well.

Equality?

As long as it is possible for differences in outcomes (i.e. there are both rich and poor people in society), there will be winners and losers. People have differing skills, talents, work ethics, education, opportunities, and a little luck. Some people are uncomfortable with inequality, and extreme inequality is bad for society; if only a very few control all the profits, then the standard of living for society at large will be harmed,

The only option other than differences in outcomes is that everyone is poor. So guaranteeing similar results would be bad for society. The main role governments should strive to fill is to make sure there is equality of opportunity. Equality on the front end is actually possible, while equality on the back end is impossible without spreading misery equally.

Equality on the front end means people can obtain education, avoid discrimination, and that the broader economy is growing so that there are ample jobs to replace those displaced by economic “creative destruction.”

Poor People Are Good For The Economy

I had a conversation on a Southwest flight a couple of months ago with a liberal fellow who was an environmental consultant for mass transit (as I remember). He had a few interesting points. One was that he spoke well of Jimmy Carter (specifically about solar panels being put on the White House - which Ronald Reagan removed). I had never heard positive words about Carter before.

His other point was about food stamps. He said the math works out to about $4 a day for food. His complaint was that you can't live off that. If I were quicker with words, I would have said, "Good." I don't want foods stamps or welfare to be too comfortable. Otherwise, people will be satisfied with government largesse.

Poverty and hunger can be a strong motivator. Handouts breed laziness. In fact, handouts likely decrease prosperity for those who receive them. In my international economics textbook, I read that the same phenomenon occurs with government aid. International aid has nothing to do with improving economic growth.

Besides, in the United States people are generous and eager to help those around them. Private initiatives to relieve suffering are more important anyway. And private help, unlike government help, is designed to be temporary; when people no longer need help, they will be able to stand on their own two feet.

My grandpa was a branch president for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Dumas, Texas about 45 years ago. He was working with a family facing some economic hard times and was using Church resources to provide work for them so they could earn money. Another member of the branch was employed by the government welfare program, and had the needy family placed on welfare. His reasoning was that if he didn't have enough people on welfare, he would lose funding. Once the family was on welfare, the were not interested in working.

With too much easy money, a generation is raised to believe that they are owed something by society. Nothing could be more dangerous to long-term economic growth than an increasing population not producing anything, but who demands a great deal. So poor people are good for the economy, if, and only if, they are given the motivation to rise from their poverty. In this country, there is plenty of opportunity, so if someone doesn't grab it, it is because they don't try.

What Do Tea Parties Mean?

I heard reports of several of those Tax Day Tea Parties. It sounds like even smaller locations had thousands in attendance. There were certainly hundreds of thousands nationwide who attended. Just one tally of locations had over 134,000 people attending rallies across the country. And just think, ACORN didn't even have to bribe any of the protesters to show up.

Due to work, I was unable to attend the closest tea party, but I was there in spirit. If I was there I might have seen something like this: I have to feel sorry for the reporter. She is likely to become one of the most ridiculed people in the nation.

I think Obama has reawakened an American ideal from the Greatest Generation: hatred of debt. My grandparents were children of the Depression and saved and lived modestly their whole lives. They were not going to take any big trips like Hawaii until "their ship came in." By the time they were both near 80 they had a great retirement fund, but were too old to travel extensively. When my sister and I were both off to college, they moved to Houston to be near more of their grandkids. They paid off their new house in less than 5 years. They were not slaves to debt like most of America seems to be today.

People like the reporter above don't get that taxes are not necessarily the problem with the government today. Taxes are still relatively low because of the Bush tax cuts. But they expire soon. And everyone knows that debt must be repaid. The size of government is the problem. If government expands freedom is curtailed. (Some freedom should be curtailed, like the freedom to do dog fighting or steal identities.)

If government grows now, taxes MUST increase in the future. That is the problem. And that is why so many families were at those protests with their children. Parents want to leave America better than they found it, and profligate debt will make that impossible.

The best protest sign in the pictures says:

OBAMA: CHAINS YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

UPDATE: Apparently CNN has taken down the vidoe that makes them look so bad. Here is another version with that same "reporter" discussing things with another protester: That lady is correct, Republicans and Democrats are dirty, and both are to blame for excessive spending.

Apparently I am an Extremist

Just in case anyone from DHS reads my blog, I am no threat to national security. This report is ridiculous. Check out this footnote:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

So lets get it straight, supporting federalism, opposing abortion, or distrusting broadening federal powers makes you an extremist.

Page 3 has a great line:

Anti-Semitic extremists attribute [recent financial] losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.”

This report is so broad it means nothing. The so-called rightwing of this country is constantly accused of Israel-loving. And yet now they are anti-Semites.

Even better is this line on the next page:

Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons.

Now all Mormons are part of the dangerous rightwing movement. The name of the Church has "Latter-day" in it for crying out loud. We have a long tradition of prophecies about the collapse of corrupt government, and have been counseled to stockpile food since the Great Depression. That proves it. We are a threat to the country.

Holy smokes.

Want a little more? Here:

Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

There goes the First Amendment. I am a little tired of the idea that opposing amnesty makes you anti-immigration or racist. Come here legally and adopt American culture and language and you will be welcomed with open arms. (Oh, and don't just immigrate to fill our welfare roles.) The crimes committed by gangs of illegal immigrants is far more dangerous than anything the rightwing extremist might do. The next section promises to threaten the Second Amendment.

Of course this comes out just in time for the Tax Day Tea Parties tomorrow. Everyone who attends is probably considered a threat by Obama's Administration. The thing is it is a genuine grassroots effort. These things have spontaneously sprung up all across the country. No one person can take credit for this (except perhaps Obama).

The threats of violence need to be taken seriously, but this report is broad enough to label everyone who voted against Obama as a threat to public safety. There is nothing specific enough for law enforcement agencies to act on in this report. Things probably haven't changed a lot, but the safest parts of the country last time I heard tend to be more conservative.

Thoughts on Inauguration Day

I have seen people say they are proud to be Americans for the first time in 8 years. That statement makes me a little queasy. Who the president is has nothing to do with my gratitude for this country. The freedom of speech, religion, and press are the most vital aspects of this country.

Obama said we must start today to "remake America." What will be his template? I will agree that government does not work. If he really ends programs that don't work I will rejoice. If the government really starts doing business in the light of day, it will be a miracle. Obama's greatest obstacle to that will the the Reids, Pelosis, Franks, and the rest of Congress. Like he will stand up to them.

Obama says good things about standing up to terrorists: "We will defeat you." Good. I hope he takes that seriously. "People will judge you for what you can build, not what you can destroy." I like that line.

Obama issues a call to service akin to the sacrifice of those who lie in Arlington Cemetery. I appreciate his words about the Founding.

Overall, I thought it was an ok speech. But for all those people who think all our problems are supposed to be over now, there will be massive disillusionment. Things aren't going to change quickly.

Senate for Sale and Secret Combinations

I know there is a lot of money in politics, but the governor of Illinois tried to give Obama's vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder. Luckily the rule of law still matters here. In corrupt political systems, there is only one way to get ahead: you play the game. When in Rome...

Thinking internationally, no one can get ahead in Pakistan, Bangladesh, or any other place like that without playing the local game. Which is why reform is so difficult. The only way to get power is to play by the rules. If the rules are corruption and conspiracy that is what you do.

Which is what makes Obama's image so interesting. His groupies consider him a messiah figure. Rush made me laugh today:

Jesus walked on water. Obama apparently walks on a cesspool and is untainted by it.

The thing is, Obama got to the top by playing the game. Once out of Chicago, he shed those who helped him rise up as fast as possible: "That's not the _____ I knew."

Obama choosing Gates says to me that he is playing by slightly different rules to get the same goal. He wants as much power as possible, so he will not do anything too crazy right off. The only Democrat presidents in his memory are Clinton and Carter. I wonder which president he will pattern himself after more closely.

Is This Creepy?

I just ran across this website: www.change.gov. Notice the .gov ending. This is an official government website.

I just want to ask. Is it more creepy that they (a) have it at all (b) have it so quickly or (c) that it screams cult of personality?

It is as if change were a virtue in and of itself. There are a lot of things in life I would like to see change.

Politically, I would love to see an actual two party system. Other than tax cuts and foreign policy, the Bush administration has seemed a lot like a Democrat administration. No Child Left Behind was written by Ted Kennedy. The farm bills were massively bloated. Congressional earmarks unacceptably ballooned. The prescription drug bill expanded government. The Department of Homeland Security is a massive, new, unmanageable bureaucracy which combined several existing bureaucracies.

The financial bailouts have essentially nationalized the banking and insurance industries. Once government gets its hands in the pot, they rarely have the self control to get out. If they nationalize the auto industry, then that will be one more death knell to the free market. Nationalizing the economy will stifle innovation.

I hope I am wrong about Obama and his policies, but his increased taxes are aimed at where I intend to be within a few years. Increasing capital gains taxes from 15% to 24% will instantly decrease the value of stocks and real estate by 11%.

Change? We'll See

My dad listened to Obama's speech last night and his comment was, "That almost sounded normal." Everyone already knew Obama gives a good speech. I remember actually liking his speech at the 2004 Democrat Convention. The real test will be when the rubber hits the road and he starts proposing legislation and enacting his policies.

No matter who won last night, there has not been an incoming president with the deck so stacked against him in a long time. There are several layers of the financial crisis that have not even started to unravel yet. The world is going crazy around us and it is likely to get worse before it gets better. Obama has a small window to enact his change, but if he doesn't get results quickly, there will be large blocs of his supporters who will be very angry.

As a past and future small business owner, I am not happy about his tax policies aimed at me. As far as Obama standing up to his party, I am not holding my breath - he hasn't done it before.

The New Deal was (and will be) a Raw Deal

It drive me crazy that some people still love the New Deal despite how it will soon bankrupt our society. And an Obama administration will expand it. The only way to "spread the wealth" as Obama claims to want is to encourage massive economic growth. Taxing those companies and entrepreneurs who are the very engine of growth will not accomplish that.

Check this article out:

The purpose of New Deal legislation was not, as commonly thought, to restore economic growth but rather to freeze the economy in place at a time when it seemed locked in a downward spiral...These policies did break the downward spiral. But, as Amity Shlaes points out in The Forgotten Man, they failed to restore growth.

From Ezra Taft Benson

I ran across this remarkable discussion on the proper role of government. It is especially important viewing the 2001 interview where Obama said he wants to shred the Constitution. Obama said that

he is frustrated that the Warren Court "didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution."

Here are some of the money quotes from Ezra Taft Benson, former Secretary of Agriculture and Mormon Prophet: (This ended up lots longer than I expected. Sorry. It is all worth the read though.)

- Unlike the political opportunist, the true statesman values principle above popularity, and works to create popularity for those political principles which are wise and just.

- I support the doctrine of separation of church and state as traditionally interpreted to prohibit the establishment of an official national religion. But I am opposed to the doctrine of separation of church and state as currently interpreted to divorce government from any formal recognition of God. The current trend strikes a potentially fatal blow at the concept of the divine origin of our rights, and unlocks the door for an easy entry of future tyranny.

- If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that "B" give his extra horse to "A", they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have.

- I believe we Americans should use extreme care before lending our support to any proposed government program. We should fully recognize that government is no plaything. As George Washington warned, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!" (The Red Carpet, p.142)

- It is well to remember that the states of this republic created the Federal Government. The Federal Government did not create the states.

- A category of government activity which, today, not only requires the closest scrutiny, but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the activity NOT within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.

These two just blew me away after the Obama quote that surfaced this week:

- [O]nce government steps over this clear line between the protective or negative role into the aggressive role of redistributing the wealth and providing so-called "benefits" for some of its citizens, it then becomes a means for what he accurately described as legalized plunder.

- [A]s history has proven, each class or special interest group competes with the others to throw the lever of governmental power in their favor, or at least to immunize itself against the effects of a previous thrust. Labor gets a minimum wage, so agriculture seeks a price support. Consumers demand price controls, and industry gets protective tariffs. In the end, no one is much further ahead, and everyone sufffers the burdens of a gigantic bureaucracy and a loss of personal freedom.

- [N]o government in the history of mankind has ever created any wealth.

This one sounds a lot like where Pelosi, Reid, and Obama will take us:

- The Soviet constitution reflects this philosophy in its emphasis on security: food, clothing, housing, medical care - the same things that might be considered in a jail.

- As Henry David Thoreau explained:

"This government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. IT does not educate. THE CHARACTER INHERENT IN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAS DONE ALL THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED; AND IT WOULD HAVE DONE SOMEWHAT MORE, IF THE GOVERNMMENT HAD NOT SOMETIMES GO IN ITS WAY. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it." (Quoted by Clarence B. Carson, THE AMERICAN TRADITION, p. 100; P.P.S.N., p.171)

(Caps in original)

- Economic security for all is impossible without widespread abundance. Abundance is impossible without industrious and efficient production. Such production is impossible without energetic, willing and eager labor. This is not possible without incentive.

Of all forms of incentive - the freedom to attain a reward for one's labors is the most sustaining for most people. Sometimes called THE PROFIT MOTIVE, it is simply the right to plan and to earn and to enjoy the fruits of your labor. This profit motive DIMINISHES as government controls, regulations and taxes INCREASE to deny the fruits of success to those who produce.

Therefore, any attempt THROUGH GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION to redistribute the material rewards of labor can only result in the eventual destruction of the productive base of society, without which real abundance and security for more than the ruling elite is quite impossible.

- On the surface this may sound heartless and insensitive to the needs of those less fortunate individuals who are found in any society, no matter how affluent. "What about the lame, the sick and the destitute? Is an often-voice question. Most other countries in the world have attempted to use the power of government to meet this need. Yet, in every case, the improvement has been marginal at best and has resulted in the long run creating more misery, more poverty, and certainly less freedom than when government first stepped in.

- In reply to the argument that a little bit of socialism is good so long as it doesn't go too far, it is tempting to say that, in like fashion, just a little bit of theft or a little bit of cancer is all right, too! History proves that the growth of the welfare state is difficult to check before it comes to its full flower of dictatorship. But let us hope that this time around, the trend can be reversed.

- The abundance which is ours, the carefree existence which we have come to accept as a matter of course, CAN BE TOPPLED BY THESE FOOLISH EXPERIMENTERS AND POWER SEEKERS.

This republic seems ready to implode economically. I have supported Bush overall when he has done things that I felt were wrong (farm bills, prescription drugs, NCLB, profligate spending, etc.), but these bailouts have set a dangerous precedent. If Obama wins, as it looks like he will, there will be nothing to stop the destruction of the American Entrepreneurial Spirit. It will not die overnight, but the best and brightest will seek greener pastures. At least I don't live in a blue state to be oppressed by the state AND federal governments. And Obama's teacher union controlled educational policy will prevent the development of a new generation of the best and brightest.

Divide That Government!

I personally dislike the idea of an Obama presidency because that will give Pelosi and Reid unchecked power. I don't think I can afford what they will do with my money. I have not been happy with the results of the recently ended Republican control of Congress and the Presidency. Frankly, I thought they acted too much like Democrats. Recent history would suggest that a divided government is the best for the American People.

I suppose it is sad that one of the more persuasive arguments to me for a McCain presidency is a divided government. I do like his policies better overall, but he has a long history of making me want to pull my hair out.

Stealing Elections

It is interesting to remember complaints in 2000 about Bush stealing the election even though election law and all recounts showed Bush won. Lately I have been learning about the group Obama did his community organizing with - ACORN. This group goes around registering as many voters as possible; living, dead, felons, six year olds, cartoon characters. Apparently the whole Dallas Cowboys roster has been registered to vote in several places.

Not to mention Obama's illegal fundraising. McCain-Feingold has a loophole where campaigns don't have to report donors who give less than $200. So people who support Obama just give over and over under the name Good Will. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars Obama has raised illegally. There should be massive investigations and prosecutions from all the illegal activities the Obama people have been doing.

It strikes me as really strange, too. Obama is likely to win anyway, but his people are still cheating. I have heard a few people mention the idea of using purple dye on fingers - like in Iraqi elections - to prevent voter fraud. That sounds pretty appealing. If the people actually choose Obama, so be it, but the last thing I want is to have a very undesirable president force on my country by a bunch of cheaters.

If the constitution ever is to hang by a thread, illegitimate election results sounds like a pretty quick way to get there.

Update: This is a pretty good summary of ACORN activity that I just found. A couple of highlights:

Then there's Lake County, Indiana, which has already found more than 2,100 bogus applications among the 5,000 Acorn dumped right before the deadline. "All the signatures looked exactly the same," said Ruthann Hoagland, of the county election board. Bridgeport, Connecticut estimates about 20% of Acorn's registrations were faulty. As of July, the city of Houston had rejected or put on hold about 40% of the 27,000 registration cards submitted by Acorn.

and

The Justice Department needs to treat these fraud reports as something larger than a few local violators. The question is whether Acorn is systematically subverting U.S. election law -- on the taxpayer's dime.

All I can conclude is that community organizing is a fancy phrase for breaking the law and stealing elections.

Democrats Are Dirty For Destroying The Economy

They should be run out of town for their corruption. This is infuriating. Every politician that supported FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC should be voted out of office. If McCain doesn't take these people down, he doesn't deserve the presidency. Democrats ran opposing the "Culture of Corruption" 2 years ago. They DEFINE the culture of corruption.