Clinton Suggests Possible Credentials Committee Fight

Apparently, we’re in store for a good old fashioned credentials fight. Hillary Clinton said the following in an interview with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren yesterday:

VAN SUSTEREN: And if he says, no, I won’t do it, that leaves Michigan and Florida out. And does that leave you out?

CLINTON: No. Not at all, because we are going to make sure those votes get counted, one way or another.

VAN SUSTEREN: How?

CLINTON: Well, you know, you can always go to the convention. That is what credential fights are for. You know, let’s have the Democratic Party go on record against seating the Michigan and Florida delegations three months before the general election? I don’t think that will happen. I think they will be seated. So that is where we are headed if we don’t get this worked out.

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton Press Release: Statement from Hillary Clinton on Bush’s Pursuit of a “Long-Term Strategic Partnership” with the Iraqi Government

[Clinton Campaign Press Release from March 27, 2008]

Statement from Hillary Clinton on Bush’s Pursuit of a “Long-Term Strategic Partnership” with the Iraqi Government

“President Bush today again announced his intention to circumvent the United States Congress and unilaterally negotiate what he called a ‘long-term strategic partnership’ with the government of Iraq. The President has said he plans to conclude this agreement with the Maliki government ‘in the coming months.’

“We cannot allow President Bush to tie the hands of his successor to his failed Iraq policy. Legislation I introduced last December would block funding for any such agreement in the absence of express congressional approval. I have been joined by a number of my distinguished colleagues as co-sponosrs, including Senators Bayh, Boxer, Casey, Feinstein, Menendez, Obama, Webb and Whitehouse.

“We must stop the President as he attempts to sidestep Congress and the will of the American people. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the President’s attempt to cement his failed Iraq policy for years to come.”

Senator Clinton introduced the Congressional Oversight of Iraq Agreements Act (S2426) on December 6. It would bar the authorization or appropriation of any funds to carry out any bilateral agreement between the United States and Iraq involving “commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole,” including a status of forces agreement, that is not approved by the Congress.

###

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Press Release: OBAMA RESPONSE TO BUSH SPEECH: President Bush & McCain demand greater sacrifice without accountability from the Iraqi government

[Obama Campaign Press Release from March 27, 2008]

OBAMA RESPONSE TO BUSH SPEECH: President Bush & McCain demand greater sacrifice without accountability from the Iraqi government

“I have watched with great admiration as our troops and their commanders have achieved security gains in Iraq, often at great cost. But once again, the President has failed to show us any real evidence of political progress in Iraq, which was the purpose of his policy. Instead, George Bush and John McCain continue to demand greater sacrifice from our troops and their families while lowering expectations for the Iraqi government itself. For the sake of our troops and our security, we cannot continue this failed policy indefinitely. It is time to end this war,” said Barack Obama.

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton Press Release: Obama Copies Hillary’s ‘Second Stimulus’

[Clinton Campaign Press Release from March 27, 2008]

Obama Copies Hillary’s ‘Second Stimulus’

Last Thursday, Senator Clinton called for a “second stimulus package” with $30 billion to help states and localities fight foreclosures. One week later, Senator Obama announced a “second $30 billion stimulus package”.

Clinton policy director Neera Tanden: “If Senator Obama has to copy policy ideas when he’s a candidate on the campaign trail, how is he going to solve people’s problems if he’s president? When it comes to fixing the economy, we need leadership, not followership.”

1) Hillary called for a $30 billion fund to help states and localities to fight foreclosure in their communities. [Clinton Campaign Press Release, 3/20/08]

One week later, Barack Obama called for an economic stimulus package of $30 billion to provide ‘immediate relief to areas hardest hit by the housing crisis.’ [Reuters, 3/27/08]

2) Hillary’s plan introduces idea of ‘second stimulus.’ “That is why Senator Clinton is calling on Congress and the President to pass a second stimulus package. This time around, the primary focus should be on addressing the growing housing crisis. And by investing new, temporary resources in a housing-focused stimulus package, we can avoid the worst fall-out from the current downturn, keep families in their homes and stabilize communities.” [Clinton Campaign Press Release, 3/20/08]

Obama’s plan uses the exact same language: ‘Enact a Second $30 Billion Stimulus Package to Address the Mortgage Crisis, Protect Vulnerable Families and Strengthen the Economy.’ [Obama Plan to restore Confidence in the Markets, 3/27/08]

3) Hillary’s plan reiterated her support for increasing unemployment insurance: “While this second stimulus package should focus predominantly on the housing crisis, Congress should also consider temporary measures to help struggling workers like extending unemployment insurance.” [Clinton Campaign Press Release, 3/20/08]

Obama’s plan includes the same call for increasing unemployment insurance: “Barack Obama believes we must extend and strengthen the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program to address the needs of the long-term unemployed, who currently make up nearly one-fifth of the unemployed and are often older workers who have lost their jobs in manufacturing or other industries and have a difficult time finding new employment.” [Obama Plan to restore Confidence in the Markets, 3/27/08]

###

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Press Release: Clinton Supporter on Clinton Idea: Stupid

[Obama Campaign Press Release from March 27, 2008]

From: Bill Burton
RE: Clinton Supporter on Clinton Idea: Stupid

Interesting reading in the Washington Post today — major Clinton fundraiser and signer of the letter to Speaker Pelosi on superdelegates, Steve Rattner, wrote an op-ed calling one of Hillary Clinton’s signature proposals “stupid.” From the op-ed: And we need to avoid panicking into stupid responses, such as proposals for mandatory moratoriums on interest resets or foreclosures that would interfere with contracts between lenders and borrowers and risk long-term damage to mortgage markets.

Full op-ed here: [LINK]

Background: Senator Clinton has called for a freeze of at least five years on subprime adjustable rate loans and at least a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and stated that if a rate freeze and moratorium could not be agreed to voluntarily, she would introduce legislation to require it.

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton Press Release: Video - Hillary Clinton on John McCain & Economy

[Clinton Campaign Press Release from March 27, 2008]

Video: Hillary Clinton on John McCain & Economy

Hillary Clinton delivered the following statement at a campaign event this morning in Raleigh, North Carolina:

To watch video of the statement, click here.

“It’s time for a president who is ready on Day One to be the Commander-in-Chief of our economy. Sometimes the phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House and it’s an economic crisis. And we need a president who is ready and willing and able to answer that call. I read the speech that Senator McCain gave the other day which set forth his plan which does virtually nothing to ease the credit crisis or the housing crisis. It seems like if the phone were ringing, he would just let it ring and ring and ring.

“Senator McCain is a friend of mine and I admire his service to our country greatly. But he recently admitted, “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” And it turns out he’d rather ignore the credit crisis and mortgage crisis – or blame middle class families instead of offering solutions on their behalf.

“I think we’ve had enough of a president who didn’t know enough about economics, and didn’t do enough for the American middle class. I don’t think we can afford four more years of that kind of inaction. I believe we need a president who will answer the call and act aggressively to deal with economic crises like the ones we are seeing in our economy today. That’s the kind of president we will desperately need after eight years of President Bush.”

###

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Press Release: RESPONSE TO MCCAIN’S ECONOMIC DO-OVER - Still a third term for Bush’s policies

[Obama Campaign Press Release from March 27, 2008]

RESPONSE TO MCCAIN’S ECONOMIC DO-OVER: Still a third term for Bush’s policies

“In his continuing struggle to understand the economy better, John McCain attempted a do-over on his economic speech today that still offers not one single idea or proposal to help struggling homeowners. The truth is, John McCain’s on-your-own approach to our housing crisis promises nothing more than a third term of George Bush’s failed policies. Barack Obama has offered a detailed plan that’s not a bailout for borrowers and lenders who’ve acted irresponsibly, but a fair solution that asks all sides to sacrifice and helps millions of homeowners re-finance their mortgages so that they can stay in their homes. At a time when so many families are struggling, that’s the kind of leadership the American people expect from their next President,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton Press Release: Response from Policy Director, Neera Tanden, on Sen. Obama’s Remarks Today on the Economy

[Clinton Campaign Press Release from March 27, 2008]

Response from Policy Director, Neera Tanden, on Sen. Obama’s Remarks Today on the Economy

Clinton campaign policy director Neera Tanden issued the following statement in response to Senator Obama’s remarks today: “Presidents have to do more than announce principles. They have to solve problems. At a time of crisis in our financial markets, Senator Obama announced a series of broad, vague principles, while offering no new concrete solutions to provide Americans with greater confidence in the market or keep them in their homes. The contrast could not be clearer - on Monday, Senator Clinton announced a detailed, specific plan to address the housing and credit crisis. On Tuesday, Senator McCain announced that he had no plan. And today, Senator Obama offered just words.”

BACKGROUND ON SEN. OBAMA’S DAY IN NEW YORK:

On Monday, the Obama campaign responded to Hillary unveiling a comprehensive plan to deal with the housing crisis by attacking her for taking contributions connected to subprime lenders. Campaign manager David Plouffe said: “If we’re really going to crack down on the practices that caused the credit and housing crises, we’re going to need a leader who doesn’t owe those industries any favors.”

As it turns out, those were just words… Today, Senator Obama gives an economy speech followed by a fundraiser at - you guessed it - one of the top 10 issuers of subprime loans in America, Credit Suisse. In fact, Senator Obama has taken more money from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans than BOTH Senator Clinton and Senator McCain [cq.com].

- Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans. [cq.com]
- Obama received $266,907 from Lehman. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $5395 from GMAC. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $150,850 from Credit Suisse First Boston. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $11,250 from Countrywide. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $9052 from Washington Mutual. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $161,850 from Citigroup. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $4600 from CBASS. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $170,050 from Morgan Stanley. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $1150 from Centex. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. [Cq.com]

###

Sphere: Related Content

McCain Press Conference Call: To Discuss Barack Obama’s Remarks On Housing Crisis

[McCain Press Release/Conference Call from March 27, 2008]

ARLINGTON, VA — Today at 12:30pm EST, U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign will hold a press conference call with senior policy advisor Doug Holtz-Eakin and RNC Victory 2008 Chair Carly Fiorina to discuss Barack Obama’s remarks on the housing crisis today in California.

Thursday, March 27, 2008
PRESS CONFERENCE CALL

WHO: Doug Holtz-Eakin, Senior Policy Advisor, John McCain 2008
Carly Fiorina, RNC Victory 2008 Chair and former Hewlett-Packard CEO

WHAT: Press Conference Call

WHEN: Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. EST

[AUDIO]
will follow shortly

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton Press Release: Clinton Kicks Off Solutions For The American Economy Tour - Announces A New $2.5 Billion Per Year Workforce Training Program

[Clinton Campaign Press Release from March 27, 2008]

Clinton Kicks Off Solutions For The American Economy Tour In North Carolina

Announces A New $2.5 Billion Per Year Workforce Training Program

In North Carolina today, Hillary Clinton launched a six-day tour to discuss her solutions to ensure shared prosperity in these tough economic times. Clinton will travel to North Carolina, Indiana, and Pennsylvania as part of the “Solutions For The American Economy” tour and will highlight ways that state and local leaders have found solutions to economic challenges. The first event of the tour took place at Wake Tech Community College in Raleigh where Clinton gave a speech outlining her plan to revive the economy and announced a new plan to invest $2.5 billion per year – or $12.5 billion over 5 years –to strengthen the nation’s workforce development efforts. Her plan would make job retraining universally available to all dislocated workers, provide new Pell Grants to workers, and support on-the-job training opportunities.

“We are competing in a new global economy, but our policies to equip American worker for the twenty-first century are stuck back in the twentieth. When it comes to retraining assistance, our government is more focused on how you lost your job than how you can find a new one,” said Clinton. “And while we have been rightly focused on trying to help people who are out of work, there’s been too little thought and effort to help people gain new skills while they still have their existing jobs – so they can move up or move on to higher-wage positions.”

During her remarks, she noted that North Carolina Governor Mike Easley has made workforce development and job retraining a major priority. In fact, he increased funding for community colleges by 15.8 percent above 2005-06 levels. He has also expanded the “Learn and Earn” initiative, which allows high schools students to obtain a high school diploma and an associate’s degree or two years of university credit in five years.

Unfortunately, the commitment to workforce development has not been matched at the federal level. President Bush has dramatically undermined the capacity of our federal workforce training system, which is now training 30% fewer people than it did in 2000. Under President Bush, the number of long-term unemployed workers has nearly doubled. And of the nearly 4 million long-term workers who were displaced from jobs in 2006, close to one-third experienced an earnings loss of 20 percent or more. [BLS, Displaced Workers Summary, 2006].

Clinton’s plan will rebuild the nation’s training system with new initiatives that support workers who have lost their jobs and help workers currently on-the-job get new training and skills to compete for higher-wages and better positions. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that 24 of the 30 fastest-growing occupations will be filled by people with postsecondary education or training over the next five years. While improving schools is essential, Clinton’s plan ensures that the training needs of the workforce already out of school are met. About two-thirds of our 2020 workforce is already out of school. If we want a skilled workforce in the future, we must invest in the skills of those who are working right now.

At Wake Technical Community College, she was joined by several students and faculty members, including Bud Burton, an instructor in architecture and landscape architecture, who is working with his students on green building design, as well as Susanne Mistric, a married mom of two, who always wanted to go to college and is a double major in graphic design and web technology. Clinton also met with Shenise Gilyard, a senior at Southeast Raleigh High School and participant in Wake Tech’s dual enrollment program. When she graduates from high school this year, she will have her diploma and an EMT certificate.

Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Prepare Every Worker for High-Wage, High-Skill Jobs of the Future

Making Worker Adjustment Assistance Universally Available for All Dislocated Workers: In today’s economy, no industry or worker is immune from global competition or technological change. Yet current government efforts to support retraining too often focus on why a worker lost his or her job, rather than on how to best help that worker find a good new job going forward. Trade Adjustment Assistance provides generous assistance, training and income support but is limited to a narrow set of workers who lose a job because their plants relocate to a country with which we have not signed free trade or trade preferences agreements. The Dislocated Worker Program – which was tripled during the Clinton Administration – actually has been cut during the Bush Administration, even as we face our second potential recession in seven years. Senator Clinton has already joined Senator Max Baucus, Representative Charlie Rangel and other Democratic leaders in calling for expanding the existing TAA program to cover service workers affected by global competition.

Today, Senator Clinton called for taking the next step – by committing $10 billion over five years to move towards a universal system where every dislocated worker is eligible for a basic set of training, adjustment and job search benefits regardless of whether their job loss was due to trade, outsourcing, technological change, or economic downturn. Senator Clinton will work to ensure that this expansion is achieved without diluting current TAA benefits or the expansion to service workers.

Providing New Pell Grants for Workers: Hillary will provide a new Pell Grant benefit to displaced workers who enroll in training and education programs to upgrade their skills. Because eligibility for federal financial aid is based on one’s annual income, and not available to less than part-time students, many displaced workers do not qualify. Under this initiative, any worker who lost a job of three or more years because the plants where they were working closed or moved elsewhere will be eligible for the minimum Pell Grant benefit if they enroll in a training, certificate or degree-granting higher education program. Those who qualify for more generous financial aid awards will receive the full amount to which they are entitled. Hillary will also instruct the Department of Education to conduct a pilot program to relax certain requirements while maintaining the integrity of the federal financial aid system, so that it better meets the needs of workers. And her Administration will conduct aggressive outreach by partnering with state unemployment and labor offices to ensure that every eligible worker learns about the Pell Grants for Workers program, and is able to take full advantage of it.

Supporting New Preemptive and On-The-Job Training: Senator Clinton believes that we should not wait until workers lose their jobs to help them get new training and new skills. By strengthening opportunities for workers to get education and skills while still on the job, Senator Clinton’s plan will help increase workers wages and employment prospects, while aiming to decrease dislocation as well. Her plan includes:

• 401(k)s for Education and Training: Senator Clinton’s new American Retirement Accounts will give workers a new, easy and automatic way to save for education and training opportunities. These accounts will allow individuals to invest up to $5,000 per year on a tax-deferred basis, and offer up to $1000 in matching tax cuts to help workers save. To empower workers to equip themselves with the skills to find new jobs before they have suffered a dislocation, Senator Clinton has proposed that these funds can be withdrawn penalty-free for higher education and training while workers are on-the-job. In addition, workers will also be able to withdraw 10-15% of the savings from their accounts to help tide them through periods of extended unemployment.
• Preemptive Training Initiative for Vulnerable Communities: Senator Clinton would invest $200 million per year in a program to offer preemptive training assistance to workers and communities threatened by global competition. Under this program, communities, unions and companies could apply for assistance if they were concerned that their jobs were being threatened by global competition or technological change, and would receive competitive grants to support training and transition assistance for new jobs and new career opportunities, including those targeted to local circumstances.. The Strategic Early Warning Network (SEWN) in Western Pennsylvania involves community, business, and union leaders to identify and assist at-risk manufacturers; SEWN estimates that these preemptive efforts have saved or created more than 10,000 jobs since the program began in 1993.  The grants would also seek to support new partnerships between community colleges, workers and local businesses to tailor credit-bearing training programs to specific local employment demand. These programs could seek to provide new ways to help workers train on the job, by adapting college offerings to workers’ schedules and expanding worksite learning opportunities. One example is the Charlotte Regional Workforce Development Partnership, which brings together representatives from nine area community colleges to discuss the workforce trends, enrollment in training programs, and how the local training programs can be better tailored to address the needs of the local economy.
• More flexible employer tuition benefit programs: Senator Clinton believes Section 127 of the tax code should be amended to allow employers to use tuition benefit programs to pay for not just for college courses, but also for literacy and English as a Second Language (ESL) or other pre-undergraduate education. This would help new immigrants and low-skilled workers to develop the basic education and language skills required for more advanced work and learning opportunities.

A Commitment to Fiscal Discipline: The cost of Senator Clinton’s new training initiative is approximately $2.5 billion per year. This cost will be financed without increasing the deficit by allocating a portion of the savings from Senator Clinton’s Corporate Subsidy Commission. This commission will identify unnecessary and outdated corporate subsidies for elimination and present its recommendations in full to Congress for an up-or-down vote – without amendments. [American Dream Initiative, 2005]. This approach will ensure that special interests cannot interfere to protect their own subsidies.

Building on a Bold Agenda for Job Creation: Hillary’s plan to prepare our workers for the high-wage, high-skill jobs of the future builds on her bold agenda to create good, high-wage jobs in America. Hillary will restore a strong manufacturing sector in the U.S. by investing in processes and products that could lower costs, improve efficiencies, and create more U.S. manufacturing jobs. She will end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and investing in innovation and job growth in the U.S. Her Rebuild America plan will invest in infrastructure to create good jobs, ensure our safety and enhance our economic competitiveness. And her $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund will invest in renewables and clean energy technologies that will help create at least 5 million green collar jobs.

###

Sphere: Related Content

McCain Press Release: Statement By John McCain On The Housing Crisis

[McCain Campaign Press Release from March 27, 2008]

Statement By John McCain On The Housing Crisis

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on the housing crisis:

“On Tuesday, I addressed the housing crisis and its devastating impact on our financial markets and the household budgets of millions of hardworking Americans. The fact is that there are about 4 million homeowners in danger of losing their homes. We have a responsibility to take action to help those among them who are deserving homeowners, and as I said this week, I am committed to considering any and all proposals to do so. Any action must further look to the future to make certain this never happens again.

“As I said on Tuesday, I believe the role of government is to help the truly needy, prevent systemic economic risk, and enact reforms that prevent the kind of crisis we are currently experiencing from ever happening again. Those reforms should focus on improving transparency and accountability in our capital markets — both of which were lacking in the lead-up to the current situation.

“However, what is not necessary is a multi-billion dollar bailout for big banks and speculators, as Senators Clinton and Obama have proposed. There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face.

“This is a complex problem that deserves a careful, balanced approach that helps the homeowners in trouble, not big banks and speculators that acted irresponsibly. I again call on our lending institutions, where possible, to step up and help Americans who are hurting in this crisis.”

###

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Press Release: In Major Speech, Obama Calls For Modernizing Our Regulation of Financial Markets

[Obama Campaign Press Release from March 27, 2008]

In Major Speech, Obama Calls For Modernizing Our Regulation of Financial Markets

At Cooper Union, Obama stresses the need to recognize our obligations to each other—that what’s good for Main Street is good for Wall Street

NEW YORK, NY—In a major economic address at Cooper Union today, Senator Barack Obama called for immediate relief for homeowners hit by the housing crisis, modernization of our regulatory framework, and an additional $30 billion stimulus package to jumpstart the economy and help protect families from the economic slowdown. As confidence in our financial markets wanes and Americans struggle in the face of a mortgage crisis, Obama stressed the importance of pushing back on the special interests and honoring our obligation to one another—and that doing so is not just a matter of altruism but a matter of self-interest.

“Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices,” Senator Obama said. “We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.”

Obama was introduced at Cooper Union by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a legendary business executive who has shown deep commitment to community and family prosperity as mayor of America’s largest city.

In his speech today, Obama made the case that while markets are the engine of American progress, the government’s role as umpire and steward is critical to the function of the free market. For too long, he said, special interests have been able to bend the rules to maximize their profits on the backs of hardworking Americans.

Obama pledged to restore confidence in the markets, tackle the housing crisis and protect families from the economic slowdown by:

• Creating 21st century standards for transparency and oversight of the financial system in order to prevent future abuses and crises.
• Providing immediate relief to homeowners hit by the housing crisis.
• Enacting a second stimulus package to stabilize and strengthen the economy, provide aid to homeowners and states hardest-hit by the housing crisis, and extend and expand unemployment insurance.

A fact sheet detailing these steps, as well as Obama’s principles for modernizing the regulatory framework for our financial markets, can be found HERE.

A document containing statements of support from leading finance experts can be found HERE.

Senator Obama’s remarks follow as prepared for delivery.

Renewing the American Economy

Senator Barack Obama

Cooper Union

March 27, 2008

I want to thank Mayor Bloomberg for his extraordinary leadership. At a time when Washington is divided in old ideological battles, he shows us what can be achieved when we bring people together to seek pragmatic solutions. Not only has he been a remarkable leader for New York –he has established himself as a major voice in our national debate on issues like renewing our economy, educating our children, and seeking energy independence. Mr. Mayor, I share your determination to bring this country together to finally make progress for the American people.

In a city of landmarks, we meet at Cooper Union, just uptown from Federal Hall, where George Washington took the oath of office as the first President of the United States. With all the history that has passed through the narrow canyons of lower Manhattan, it is worth taking a moment to reflect on the role that the market has played in the development of the American story.

The great task before our Founders that day was putting into practice the ideal that government could simultaneously serve liberty and advance the common good. For Alexander Hamilton, the young Secretary of the Treasury, that task was bound to the vigor of the American economy.

Hamilton had a strong belief in the power of the market. But he balanced that belief with the conviction that human enterprise “may be beneficially stimulated by prudent aids and encouragements on the part of the government.” Government, he believed, had an important role to play in advancing our common prosperity. So he nationalized the state Revolutionary War debts, weaving together the economies of the states and creating an American system of credit and capital markets. And he encouraged manufacturing and infrastructure, so products could be moved to market.

Hamilton met fierce opposition from Thomas Jefferson, who worried that this brand of capitalism would favor the interests of the few over the many. Jefferson preferred an agrarian economy because he believed that it would give individual landowners freedom, and that this freedom would nurture our democratic institutions. But despite their differences, there was one thing that Jefferson and Hamilton agreed on – that economic growth depended upon the talent and ingenuity of the American people; that in order to harness that talent, opportunity had to remain open to all; and that through education in particular, every American could climb the ladder of social and economic mobility, and achieve the American Dream.

In the more than two centuries since then, we have struggled to balance the same forces that confronted Hamilton and Jefferson – self-interest and community; markets and democracy; the concentration of wealth and power, and the necessity of transparency and opportunity for each and every citizen. Throughout this saga, Americans have pursued their dreams within a free market that has been the engine of America’s progress. It’s a market that has created a prosperity that is the envy of the world, and opportunity for generations of Americans. A market that has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery.

But the American experiment has worked in large part because we have guided the market’s invisible hand with a higher principle. Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest. We have done this not to stifle – but rather to advance prosperity and liberty. As I said at NASDAQ last September: the core of our economic success is the fundamental truth that each American does better when all Americans do better; that the well being of American business, its capital markets, and the American people are aligned.

I think all of us here today would acknowledge that we’ve lost that sense of shared prosperity.

This loss has not happened by accident. It’s because of decisions made in boardrooms, on trading floors and in Washington. Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.

Nor is this trend new. The concentrations of economic power – and the failures of our political system to protect the American economy from its worst excesses – have been a staple of our past, most famously in the 1920s, when with success we ended up plunging the country into the Great Depression. That is when government stepped in to create a series of regulatory structures – from the FDIC to the Glass-Steagall Act – to serve as a corrective to protect the American people and American business.

Ironically, it was in reaction to the high taxes and some of the outmoded structures of the New Deal that both individuals and institutions began pushing for changes to this regulatory structure. But instead of sensible reform that rewarded success and freed the creative forces of the market, too often we’ve excused and even embraced an ethic of greed, corner cutting and inside dealing that has always threatened the long-term stability of our economic system. Too often, we’ve lost that common stake in each other’s prosperity.

Let me be clear: the American economy does not stand still, and neither should the rules that govern it. The evolution of industries often warrants regulatory reform – to foster competition, lower prices, or replace outdated oversight structures. Old institutions cannot adequately oversee new practices. Old rules may not fit the roads where our economy is leading. There were good arguments for changing the rules of the road in the 1990s. Our economy was undergoing a fundamental shift, carried along by the swift currents of technological change and globalization. For the sake of our common prosperity, we needed to adapt to keep markets competitive and fair.

Unfortunately, instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one – aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight. In doing so, we encouraged a winner take all, anything goes environment that helped foster devastating dislocations in our economy.

Deregulation of the telecommunications sector, for example, fostered competition but also contributed to massive over-investment. Partial deregulation of the electricity sector enabled market manipulation. Companies like Enron and WorldCom took advantage of the new regulatory environment to push the envelope, pump up earnings, disguise losses and otherwise engage in accounting fraud to make their profits look better – a practice that led investors to question the balance sheet of all companies, and severely damaged public trust in capital markets. This was not the invisible hand at work. Instead, it was the hand of industry lobbyists tilting the playing field in Washington, an accounting industry that had developed powerful conflicts of interest, and a financial sector that fueled over-investment.

A decade later, we have deregulated the financial services sector, and we face another crisis. A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business has changed. But by the time the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework.

Since then, we have overseen 21st century innovation – including the aggressive introduction of new and complex financial instruments like hedge funds and non-bank financial companies – with outdated 20th century regulatory tools. New conflicts of interest recalled the worst excesses of the past – like the outrageous news that we learned just yesterday of KPMG allowing a lender to report profits instead of losses, so that both parties could make a quick buck. Not surprisingly, the regulatory environment failed to keep pace. When subprime mortgage lending took a reckless and unsustainable turn, a patchwork of regulators were unable or unwilling to protect the American people.

The policies of the Bush Administration threw the economy further out of balance. Tax cuts without end for the wealthiest Americans. A trillion dollar war in Iraq that didn’t need to be fought, paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China. A complete disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting – coupled with a generally scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement – allowed far too many to put short-term gain ahead of long term consequences. The American economy was bound to suffer a painful correction, and policymakers found themselves with fewer resources to deal with the consequences.

Today, those consequences are clear. I see them in every corner of our great country, as families face foreclosure and rising costs. I seem them in towns across America, where a credit crisis threatens the ability of students to get loans, and states can’t finance infrastructure projects. I see them here in Manhattan, where one of our biggest investment banks had to be bailed out, and the Fed opened its discount window to a host of new institutions with unprecedented implications we have yet to appreciate. When all is said and done, losses will be in the many hundreds of billions. What was bad for Main Street was bad for Wall Street. Pain trickled up.

That is why the principle that I spoke about at NASDAQ is even more urgently true today: in our 21st century economy, there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street. The decisions made in New York’s high-rises have consequences for Americans across the country. And whether those Americans can make their house payments; whether they keep their jobs; or spend confidently without falling into debt – that has consequences for the entire market. The future cannot be shaped by the best-connected lobbyists with the best record of raising money for campaigns. This thinking is wrong for the financial sector and it’s wrong for our country.

I do not believe that government should stand in the way of innovation, or turn back the clock to an older era of regulation. But I do believe that government has a role to play in advancing our common prosperity: by providing stable macroeconomic and financial conditions for sustained growth; by demanding transparency; and by ensuring fair competition in the marketplace.

Our history should give us confidence that we don’t have to choose between an oppressive government-run economy and a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism. It tells us we can emerge from great economic upheavals stronger, not weaker. But we can do so only if we restore confidence in our markets. Only if we rebuild trust between investors and lenders. And only if we renew that common interest between Wall Street and Main Street that is the key to our success.

Now, as most experts agree, our economy is in a recession. To renew our economy – and to ensure that we are not doomed to repeat a cycle of bubble and bust again and again – we need to address not only the immediate crisis in the housing market; we also need to create a 21st century regulatory framework, and pursue a bold opportunity agenda for the American people.

Most urgently, we must confront the housing crisis.

After months of inaction, the President spoke here in New York and warned against doing too much. His main proposal – extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans – is completely divorced from the reality that people are facing around the country. John McCain recently announced his own plan, and it amounts to little more than watching this crisis happen. While this is consistent with Senator McCain’s determination to run for George Bush’s third term, it won’t help families who are suffering, and it won’t help lift our economy out of recession.

Over two million households are at risk of foreclosure and millions more have seen their home values plunge. Many Americans are walking away from their homes, which hurts property values for entire neighborhoods and aggravates the credit crisis. To stabilize the housing market and help bring the foreclosure crisis to an end, I have sponsored Senator Chris Dodd’s legislation creating a new FHA Housing Security Program, which will provide meaningful incentives for lenders to buy or refinance existing mortgages. This will allow Americans facing foreclosure to keep their homes at rates they can afford.

Senator McCain argues that government should do nothing to protect borrowers and lenders who’ve made bad decisions, or taken on excessive risk. On this point, I agree. But the Dodd-Frank package is not a bailout for lenders or investors who gambled recklessly, as they will take losses. It is not a windfall for borrowers, as they will have to share any capital gain. Instead, it offers a responsible and fair way to help bring an end to the foreclosure crisis. It asks both sides to sacrifice, while preventing a long-term collapse that could have enormous ramifications for the most responsible lenders and borrowers, as well as the American people as a whole. That is what Senator McCain ignores.

For homeowners who were victims of fraud, I’ve also proposed a $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund that would help them sell a home that is beyond their means, or modify their loan to avoid foreclosure or bankruptcy. It’s also time to amend our bankruptcy laws, so families aren’t forced to stick to the terms of a home loan that was predatory or unfair.

To prevent fraud in the future, I’ve proposed tough new penalties on fraudulent lenders, and a Home Score system that will allow consumers to find out more about mortgage offers and whether they’ll be able to make payments. To help low- and middle-income families, I’ve proposed a 10 percent mortgage interest tax credit that will allow homeowners who don’t itemize their taxes to access incentives for home ownership. And to expand home ownership, we must do more to help communities turn abandoned properties into affordable housing.

The government can’t do this alone, nor should it. As I said last September, lenders must get ahead of the curve rather than just reacting to crisis. They should actively look at all borrowers, offer workouts, and reduce the principal on mortgages in trouble. Not only can this prevent the larger losses associated with foreclosure and resale, but it can reduce the extent of government intervention and taxpayer exposure.

Beyond dealing with the immediate housing crisis, it is time for the federal government to revamp the regulatory framework dealing with our financial markets.

Our capital markets have helped us build the strongest economy in the world. They are a source of competitive advantage for our country. But they cannot succeed without the public’s trust. The details of regulatory reform should be developed through sound analysis and public debate. But there are several core principles for reform that I will pursue as President.

First, if you can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision. Secretary Paulson admitted this in his remarks yesterday. The Federal Reserve should have basic supervisory authority over any institution to which it may make credit available as a lender of last resort. When the Fed steps in, it is providing lenders an insurance policy underwritten by the American taxpayer. In return, taxpayers have every right to expect that these institutions are not taking excessive risks. The nature of regulation should depend on the degree and extent of the Fed’s exposure. But at the very least, these new regulations should include liquidity and capital requirements.

Second, there needs to be general reform of the requirements to which all regulated financial institutions are subjected. Capital requirements should be strengthened, particularly for complex financial instruments like some of the mortgage securities that led to our current crisis. We must develop and rigorously manage liquidity risk. We must investigate rating agencies and potential conflicts of interest with the people they are rating. And transparency requirements must demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counterparties.

As we reform our regulatory system at home, we must work with international arrangements like the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the International Accounting Standards Board, and the Financial Stability Forum to address the same problems abroad. The goal must be ensuring that financial institutions around the world are subject to similar rules of the road – both to make the system stable, and to keep our financial institutions competitive.

Third, we need to streamline a framework of overlapping and competing regulatory agencies. Reshuffling bureaucracies should not be an end in itself. But the large, complex institutions that dominate the financial landscape do not fit into categories created decades ago. Different institutions compete in multiple markets – our regulatory system should not pretend otherwise. A streamlined system will provide better oversight, and be less costly for regulated institutions.

Fourth, we need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are. Over the last few years, commercial banks and thrift institutions were subject to guidelines on subprime mortgages that did not apply to mortgage brokers and companies. It makes no sense for the Fed to tighten mortgage guidelines for banks when two-thirds of subprime mortgages don’t originate from banks. This regulatory framework has failed to protect homeowners, and it is now clear that it made no sense for our financial system. When it comes to protecting the American people, it should make no difference what kind of institution they are dealing with.

Fifth, we must remain vigilant and crack down on trading activity that crosses the line to market manipulation. Reports have circulated in recent days that some traders may have intentionally spread rumors that Bear Stearns was in financial distress while making market bets against the company. The SEC should investigate and punish this kind of market manipulation, and report its conclusions to Congress.

Sixth, we need a process that identifies systemic risks to the financial system. Too often, we deal with threats to the financial system that weren’t anticipated by regulators. That’s why we should create a financial market oversight commission, which would meet regularly and provide advice to the President, Congress, and regulators on the state of our financial markets and the risks that face them. These expert views could help anticipate risks before they erupt into a crisis.

These six principles should guide the legal reforms needed to establish a 21st century regulatory system. But the change we need goes beyond laws and regulation – we need a shift in the cultures of our financial institutions and our regulatory agencies.

Financial institutions must do a better job at managing risks. There is something wrong when boards of directors or senior managers don’t understand the implications of the risks assumed by their own institutions. It’s time to realign incentives and compensation packages, so that both high level executives and employees better serve the interests of shareholders. And it’s time to confront the risks that come with excessive complexity. Even the best government regulation cannot fully substitute for internal risk management.

For supervisory agencies, oversight must keep pace with innovation. As the subprime crisis unfolded, tough questions about new and complex financial instruments were not asked. As a result, the public interest was not protected. We do American business – and the American people – no favors when we turn a blind eye to excessive leverage and dangerous risks.

Finally, the American people must be able to trust that their government is looking out for all of us – not just those who donate to political campaigns. I fought in the Senate for the most extensive ethics reform since Watergate. I have refused contributions from federal lobbyists and PACs. And I have laid out far-reaching plans that I intend to sign into law as President to bring transparency to government, and to end the revolving door between industries and the federal agencies that oversee them.

Once we deal with the immediate crisis in housing and strengthen the regulatory system governing our financial markets, our final task is to restore a sense of opportunity for all Americans.

The bedrock of our economic success is the American Dream. It’s a dream shared in big cities and small towns; across races, regions and religions – that if you work hard, you can support a family; that if you get sick, there will be health care you can afford; that you can retire with the dignity and security and respect that you have earned; that your kids can get a good education, and young people can go to college even if they’re not rich. That is our common hope across this country. That is the American Dream.

But today, for far too many Americans, this dream is slipping away. Wall Street has been gripped by increasing gloom over the last nine months. But for many American families, the economy has effectively been in recession for the past seven years. We have just come through the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that was not accompanied by a growth in incomes for typical families. Americans are working harder for less. Costs are rising, and it’s not clear that we’ll leave a legacy of opportunity to our children and grandchildren.

That’s why, throughout this campaign, I’ve put forward a series of proposals that will foster economic growth from the bottom up, and not just from the top down. That’s why the last time I spoke on the economy here in New York, I talked about the need to put the policies of George W. Bush behind us – policies that have essentially said to the American people: “you are on your own”; because we need to pursue policies that once again recognize that we are in this together.

This starts with providing a stimulus that will reach the most vulnerable Americans, including immediate relief to areas hardest hit by the housing crisis, and a significant extension of unemployment insurance for those who are out of work. If we can extend a hand to banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to Americans who are struggling.

Beyond these short term measures, as President I will be committed to putting the American Dream on a firmer footing. To reward work and make retirement secure, we’ll provide an income tax cut of up to $1000 for a working family, and eliminate income taxes altogether for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year. To make health care affordable for all Americans, we’ll cut costs and provide coverage to all who need it. To put more Americans to work, we’ll create millions of new Green Jobs and invest in rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure. To extend opportunity, we’ll invest in our schools and our teachers, and make college affordable for every American. And to ensure that America stays on the cutting edge, we’ll expand broadband access, expand funding for basic scientific research, and pass comprehensive immigration reform so that we continue to attract the best and the brightest to our shores.

I know that making these changes won’t be easy. I will not pretend that this will come without cost, though I have presented ways we can achieve these changes in a fiscally responsible way. I know that we’ll have to overcome our doubts and divisions and the determined opposition of powerful special interests before we can truly advance opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.

But I would not be running for President if I didn’t think that this was a defining moment in our history. If we fail to overcome our divisions and continue to let special interest set the agenda, then America will fall behind. Short-term gains will continue to yield long-term costs. Opportunity will slip away on Main Street and prosperity will suffer here on Wall Street. But if we unite this country around a common purpose, if we act on the responsibilities that we have to each other and to our country, then we can launch a new era of opportunity and prosperity.

I know we can do this because Americans have done this before. Time and again, we’ve recognized that common stake that we have in each other’s success. That’s how people as different as Hamilton and Jefferson came together to launch the world’s greatest experiment in democracy. That’s why our economy hasn’t just been the world’s greatest wealth creator – it’s bound America together, it’s created jobs, and it’s made the dream of opportunity a reality for generations of Americans.

Now it falls to us. We have as our inheritance the greatest economy the world has ever known. We have the responsibility to continue the work that began on that spring day over two centuries ago right here in Manhattan – to renew our common purpose for a new century, and to write the next chapter in the story of America’s success. We can do this. And we can begin this work today.

###

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton Press Release: Morning HUBdate - Creating Jobs

[Clinton Campaign Press Release from March 27, 2008]

Morning HUBdate: Creating Jobs

Today In The Tar Heel State: Hillary will deliver a major economic policy address on rebuilding the middle class by creating new jobs and promoting job training in Raleigh.

If You Watch One Thing Today: Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) tells voters in Fayette County that Hillary is the only candidate with the strength and experience to be president on Day One. Watch Here

Family Ties: Big and enthusiastic crowds have continued to greet Chelsea at her campaign stops, including in Washington, DC yesterday, where she introduced her mother at a “March To Victory” rally. Read more.

Michigan Counts: Following yesterday’s court ruling regarding Michigan’s January 15th primary, Campaign Manager Maggie Williams issued a statement “urg[ing] Senator Obama to join our call for a party-run primary and demonstrate his commitment to counting Michigan’s votes.” Read the statement here.

If You Read One Thing Today: “Clinton Finds Warm Welcome Among Pennsylvania Voters.” Read More

Hoosiers For Hillary: Hillary will be joined on her Indiana campaign swing this Friday, March 28, by two winners of the “Hoosiers For Hillary” contest. Congratulations to Lynn Schwartzberg from Bloomington and Kelly White from Newburgh.

The Hillary I Know: Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) supports Hillary because “[she] has fought for over 35 years…and Hillary will fight for us every day in the White House.” Read More

Just Words: “Sen. Obama knows that if he focused on his experience, he’d get questions about the shortcomings in his record and the efforts he has made to embellish it.” Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Clinton Press Conference Call: To Discuss The State Of The Race

[Clinton Campaign Press Release/Conference Call from March 27, 2008]

Howard Wolfson and Phil Singer will hold a conference call TODAY to discuss the state of the race.

WHO: Howard Wolfson, Communications Director
Phil Singer, Deputy Communications Director

WHAT: Conference call to discuss the state of the race

WHEN: TODAY, Thursday, March 27 at 1:00 p.m. EDT

###

[AUDIO]

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Press Conference Call: Obama Economic Adviser To Hold Call On Obama Economic Speech

[Obama Campaign Press Release/Conference Call from March 27, 2008]

Senior Economic Advisor Daniel Tarullo to Host Conference Call on Obama’s Economic Speech

Chicago, IL – The Obama campaign will host a conference call today with senior economic advisor Daniel Tarullo to discuss Barack Obama’s economic policy speech earlier in the day. Tarullo, now a law professor at Georgetown, served in the Clinton Administration as the Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and the Assistant to the President for International Economic Policy.

WHAT: Press Conference Call with Advisor Daniel Tarullo To Discuss Obama’s Economic Policy Speech

WHEN: Thursday, March 27, 2008
11 AM CT // 12 PM ET // 10 AM MT // 9 AM PT

[AUDIO]

Sphere: Related Content

McCain Press Release: Statement By McCain Campaign On Barack Obama’s Planned Speech On The Economy Today In NYC

[McCain Campaign Press Release from March 27, 2008]

Statement By McCain Campaign On Barack Obama’s Planned Speech On The Economy Today In NYC

ARLINGTON, VA — John McCain 2008 spokesman Tucker Bounds today issued the following statement on Barack Obama’s speech on the economy planned for this morning in New York City:

“No amount of rhetoric can hide Senator Obama’s clear record of embracing the liberal tax and spend, big government policies that hit hardworking American families at a time when they’re most vulnerable, and are certain to move America backward.

“This election provides a clear choice. John McCain offers a common sense agenda to cut taxes, eliminate wasteful government spending, and get our economy back on track, while Senator Obama embraces the failed liberal policies of the past that lock down the ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit that has always grown our economy, created jobs and expanded opportunity for the American people.”

###

OBAMANOMICS: BARACK OBAMA’S LIBERAL TAX & SPEND, BIG GOVERNMENT AGENDA

OBAMA’S HIGH TAX AGENDA

Obama Has Proposed A Laundry List Of Tax Hikes On The Campaign Trail, Which Would Hurt The Economy

Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Investment Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As “Massive New Domestic Spending.” “Obama’s transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?” (James Pethokoukis, “Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?” U.S. News & World Report’s “Capital Commerce” Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)

• Obama Has Also Called For Tax Hikes On Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: “What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.” (”Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama,” San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

The Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore: “If He Becomes President … Tax Rates Will Go Up Almost Across The Board.” “[Obama] doesn’t believe that raising tax rates is going to hurt the economy and if he becomes President … tax rates will go up almost across the board.” (The Wall Street Journal Website, www.wsj.com, Accessed 2/13/08)

CNBC’s Larry Kudlow: “[Obama] Has A Very Punitive High-Tax Campaign Plan For The Economy.” (Larry Kudlow, “Obama, The Very-High-Tax Candidate,” National Review’s “The Corner” Blog, nationalreview.com, 2/11/08)

Ben Stein: “His Understanding Of Economics Is 100 Percent Wrong.” “Mr. Obama could become president and derail everything because his understanding of economics is 100 percent wrong. … I must say I’m so scared about Mr. Obama becoming president. I can hardly tell you.” (CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company,” 2/14/08)

Obama Said He Will Provide Tax Relief For Working Families, But Voted For A Budget That Raises Taxes On Americans Earning As Little As $31,850

Obama: “We could be fighting to put the American dream within reach for every American — by giving tax breaks to working families …” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Iraq And The Economy, Charleston, WV, 3/20/08)

Obama Voted In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget. “Adoption of the concurrent resolution that would set broad spending and revenue targets over the next five years. The resolution would allow up to $1 trillion in discretionary spending for 2009.” (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea)

• Obama-Backed Budget Would Raise Taxes On Individuals Earning As Little As $31,850. “Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent.” (Andrew Taylor, “Presidential Hopefuls To Vote On Budget,” The Associated Press, 3/13/08)
• The Club For Growth’s Andrew Roth Notes That Obama-Backed Budget Would Result In “The Largest Tax Hike In U.S. History.” “The Democrats’ FY09 budget does not extend the Bush tax cuts. As a result, Americans are set to be hammered with the largest tax hike in U.S. history.” (Andrew Roth, “Tax Hike Impact By Congressional District,” The Club For Growth’s “Club For Growth” Blog, www.clubforgrowth.org, 3/12/08)

OBAMA’S BIG SPENDING AGENDA

Obama’s Liberal Spending Agenda “Suggests A Lack Of Seriousness In Confronting The Nation’s Fiscal Condition”

McClatchy: Obama “Promising Massive New Spending Without Providing Details On How [He'd] Pay For It.” “Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama champion fiscal responsibility on the campaign trail, but both democratic presidential hopefuls are promising massive new spending without providing details on how they’d pay for it.” (Kevin G. Hall and Margaret Talev, “Clinton, Obama Ignore Budget Crisis, Promise Billions,” McClatchy Newspapers, 2/22/08)

USA Today: Obama Offers “A Long List Of New Spending Proposals That Suggests A Lack Of Seriousness In Confronting The Nation’s Fiscal Condition.” “[C]linton and Obama both offer a long list of new spending proposals that suggests a lack of seriousness in confronting the nation’s fiscal condition. Obama has received more criticism, perhaps deservedly so, because his list is somewhat longer.” (Editorial, “Democrats Promise A Lot, But Who Will Pay The Bill?” USA Today, 2/25/08)

Concord Coalition’s Robert Bixby: “I Couldn’t Help But Think, ‘Where Is He [Obama] Going To Get The Money To Pay For These Things?’” (Kevin G. Hall and Margaret Talev, “Clinton, Obama Ignore Budget Crisis, Promise Billions,” McClatchy Newspapers, 2/22/08)

NOTE: Obama Claims He’s Fiscally Conservative. Obama: “I am a progressive, but I always tell people that if you’re a progressive you should be fiscally even more conservative than the so-called conservatives. … The reason is, there are a lot of needs where we need to spend money, so we can’t afford to waste money on stuff that we don’t need.” (April Castro, “Obama Touts Conservative Spending Approach,” The Associated Press, 2/28/08)

OBAMA’S BIG GOVERNMENT AGENDA

Obama Wants Larger Government Role In Free Market Economy

Obama: “We’ve Depended On Government Action To … Make The Market Work Better.” Obama: “[W]e have a tendency to take our free-market system as a given, to assume that it flows naturally from the laws of supply and demand and Adam Smith’s invisible hand. … And although the benefits of our free-market system have mostly derived from the individual efforts of generations of men and women pursuing their own vision of happiness, in each and every period of great economic upheaval and transition we’ve depended on government action to open up opportunity, encourage competition, and make the market work better.” (Barack Obama, The Audacity Of Hope, 2006, p. 150)

• Obama: “But our history should give us confidence that we don’t have to choose between an oppressive, government-run economy and a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism. … What might such a new economic consensus look like? … [W]e can begin to modernize and rebuild the social contract that FDR first stitched together in the middle of the last century.” (Barack Obama, The Audacity Of Hope, 2006, pp. 158-159)

OBAMA HOUSING PLAN: LOTS OF QUESTIONS, HIGHER TAXES

Obama’s Plan To Alleviate The Mortgage Crisis Has Been Criticized By Economists And Industry Experts

“Among The Proposals To Rescue Distressed Borrowers, The Obama Plan Was Singled Out For Criticism By Financial Industry Experts.” (Jessica Holzer, “Major Bailout Is Unlikely On Sub-Prime Mortgages,” The Hill, 9/4/07)

Obama Supports Creating A Mortgage “Bailout Fund.” “[S]en. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who is vying with Clinton for their party’s presidential nomination, advocated fining unscrupulous lenders to partially pay for a bailout fund for distressed borrowers.” (Jessica Holzer, “Major Bailout Is Unlikely On Sub-Prime Mortgages,” The Hill, 9/4/07)

• “Opponents Argue That Bailouts Send The Wrong Message To Recipients And Do Nothing To Discourage Future Irresponsible Behavior.” (Robert Schroeder, “Should Washington Come To Aid Of Troubled Borrowers?” Dow Jones’ MarketWatch, 8/31/07)
• “Economists Question Whether Obama’s $10-Billion ‘Foreclosure Prevention Fund’ Would Cover The Thousands Of Americans Who Already Have Lost Homes And The Thousands More Who Are In Danger.” (Stephen Braun, Nicholas Riccardi and Maria La Ganga, “Rivals Differ On Foreclosure Cure,” Los Angeles Times, 2/21/08)

Obama Said Fining Lenders Would Only “Partially” Cover The Cost Of His $10 Billion Bailout Fund — So Do Taxpayers Have To Pay The Rest?

Obama: “We can partially pay for this fund by imposing penalties on lenders that acted irresponsibly or committed fraud.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Op-Ed, “Fine Unscrupulous Mortgage Lenders,” Financial Times [London, UK], 8/29/07)

Both Clinton’s And Obama’s Mortgage Proposals Would Place “Some Added Burden On Taxpayers.” “On the housing front, both candidates have put forward proposals that would put at least some added burden on taxpayers.” (Nick Timiraos, “Candidates Differ On Housing,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/20/08)

TAX & SPEND, BIG GOVERNMENT AGENDA EARNS OBAMA “MOST LIBERAL SENATOR” RANKING FOR 2007

Obama Rated “Most Liberal Senator” By National Journal, Received “Perfect Liberal Score” On Economic Issues

“Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Was The Most Liberal Senator In 2007, According To National Journal’s 27th Annual Vote Ratings.” (Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, “Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007,” National Journal, 1/31/08)

“In 2006, [Obama] Was One Of 13 Senate Democrats With A Perfect Liberal Score On Economic Issues.” (Richard E. Cohen, “Left To Right,” National Journal, 3/3/07)

• “The Insurgent Presidential Candidate Shifted Further To The Left Last Year In The Run-Up To The Primaries, After Ranking As The 16th- And 10th-Most-Liberal During His First Two Years In The Senate.” (Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, “Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007,” National Journal, 1/31/08)

Obama Receives Poor Marks From Tax, Spending And Business Groups

National Taxpayers Union Gave Obama A Grade Of “F” For His Fiscal Voting Record. (National Taxpayers Union Website, www.ntu.org, Accessed 9/25/07)

Citizens Against Government Waste Gave Obama A Lifetime Rating Of 22 Out Of 100. (Citizens Against Government Waste, “CCAGW Challenges Presidential Candidates On Earmarks,” Press Release, 12/27/07)

Americans For Tax Reform Gave Obama A Lifetime Rating Of 7.5 Out Of 100. (Americans For Tax Reform Website,