How to fix the financial crisis

Approve the Paulson plan with one, and only one, modification: instead of giving the Treasury Secretary the power to spend $700 billion, hire Warren Buffett to do it.

“I bet they’ll make a profit,” said Buffett, who pointed out that hedge funds specialising in junk assets were already picking up mortgage-related securities with a view to making profits of 15% to 20%. He said a positive return was feasible if the government ignores the book value of instruments or the original cost to banks and instead pays the prevailing market rates for the bombed out assets.”They’ll pay back the $700bn and make a considerable amount of money if they approach it like that,” said Buffett. “I would love to have $700bn at Treasury rates to buy fixed-income securities—there’s a lot of money to be made.”

Is John McCain recovering his footing?

The statement he offered today suggests so:

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem. We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis. I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.

As Jennifer Rubin notes, this poses an interesting conundrum for the Obama campaign:

Will Obama follow suit and disrupt his debate prep? It will be hard to say no, yet odd to follow meekly behind McCain’s invitation.

More importantly, this offers perhaps the best hope we have for a solution that will actually get us through the current crisis—especially if Sen. Obama follows suit, but maybe even if he doesn’t.Update: Duane Patterson sums this up nicely.

Thought on faith in trying times

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

—James 1:5-8 (ESV)

[Christ] gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.

—Ephesians 4:11-15 (ESV)

I’ll be honest, I’m rather discouraged today; there just doesn’t seem to be a lot of good news out there. Of course, that’s hardly unusual—looking for good news from the world is rather like looking for your next rent payment on the roulette wheel—but it’s still got me down. In matters big (a financial crisis created by partisan stupidity that no one on either side of the aisle seems to have any real clue how to fix, but which may yet be exacerbated by yet more partisan stupidity) and small (the Seahawks are off to a bad start this season, both in their play and in their front office’s overreaction to it), things just seem to be going wrong all over the place. (Granted, the Red Sox did knock the Yankees out of the playoffs, but that only counts for so much when my own team is on the verge of 100 losses.) Throw in a bad night of sleep, and it’s a recipe for a funk.

But God is at work in these times as in any other, and last night when I was up into the wee hours and really starting to get low, he sent me a message, in the form of this YouTube video of one of my favorite groups, the defunct (and much-missed) Jacob’s Trouble:

Wind and Wave

(Lyrics are below; the Scriptures, of course, are above.) It was this morning, and is now, an important reminder to me: when I let circumstances get to me, when I let what seems to be an aura of bad news get me down, when I let myself get pessimistic, I’m falling back into allowing myself to be tossed around, buffeted about, and driven this way and that by the winds and waves of circumstances; I’m letting “human cunning” and “craftiness in deceitful schemes” wash me off my foundation and blow me out into the sea of doubt, rather than trusting in God. Granted, the circumstances right now aren’t pretty in a lot of respects, and it feels natural to me to expect the worst and then start glooming over it; but I have reason to stand on faith in God, rather than giving myself over to the wind and the wave, because I’ve seen other bad times (on a personal level, worse times) and he’s always brought me and my family through. Our country has seen other bad times, and he’s always brought the nation through; God has allowed this “almost-chosen people” to suffer many things, but he’s never failed us yet. The worries of the moment do not outweigh the testimony of the past; our hopes and fears for tomorrow are affected by this morning’s news, to be sure, but they are not at its mercy, for God by his providence continues to be at work, even through the bad news.

I don’t usually repost videos, but this song was another one God used this morning, just to remind me that even when the wind blows hard, he is with us on the road, and his mercy is always for us:

Kyrie

I have reason to trust in God; I have reason to be confident that the struggles of the present moment aren’t permanent. I just need to remember that, and to ask him for the wisdom and, yes, the faith I need to rise above those struggles, rather than allowing them to overcome me. And in doing so . . . I feel better already.

Wind and Wave

I needed wisdom on a matter of faith,
So I sought the Lord at his dwelling place—
Hello? Is there anyone home?
He said, “Let him who comes to me ask believing,
‘Cause faith is revealing but doubt is deceiving,
You know? Don’t you know?”
But I couldn’t seem to stand my ground—
I floundered, flailed, and almost drowned;
And as I sank, I thought I heard a sound.

Chorus:
Wind and wave, to and fro, back and forth, stop and go,

Lost in doubt. Am I out or am I safe?
Fire and ice, land and sea. It’s up to you, it’s down to me.
Will I be eternally weak in faith
On the wind and the wave?

A voice inside me said, “You’re on your own!
You blew it once too often, now He’s left you alone!”
Oh, no! Please say it isn’t so!
So I clung to my feelings, forgot the facts,
‘Til I heard the voice of Jesus telling me to relax,
“Let go. I’ll take control.”
Well, it was tough at first but I obeyed.
I just went limp and then I prayed,
“Please, Jesus, save me from this open grave.”

Chorus

Now, I’m not saying that I will never doubt again,
‘Cause after all I’m just a man, yeah, yeah.
All I know is if I should doubt again
He’ll understand. He understands.

“I will never leave you nor forsake you;
I will always be with you.
I will never leave you nor forsake you;
I will always be with you.”

Chorus

Words and music: Steve Atwell, Mark Blackburn, and Jerry Davison
© 1989 Broken Songs
From the album Door into Summer, by Jacob’s Trouble

 

This sounds very familiar

This from a 1979 Atlantic article by James Fallows, who had been one of Jimmy Carter’s speechwriters:

Sixteen months into his Administration, there was a mystery to be explained about Jimmy Carter: the contrast between the promise and popularity of his first months in office and the disappointment so widely felt later on. Part of this had to do with the inevitable end of the presidential honeymoon, with the unenviable circumstances Carter inherited, with the fickleness of the press. But much more of it grew directly from the quality Carter displayed that morning in Illinois. He was speaking with gusto because he was speaking about the subject that most inspired him: not what he proposed to do, but who he was. Where Lyndon Johnson boasted of schools built and children fed, where Edward Kennedy holds out the promise of the energies he might mobilize and the ideas he might enact, Jimmy Carter tells us that he is a good man. His positions are correct, his values sound. Like Marshal Petain after the fall of France, he has offered his person to the nation. This is not an inconsiderable gift; his performance in office shows us why it’s not enough.After two and a half years in Carter’s service, I fully believe him to be a good man. With his moral virtues and his intellectual skills, he is perhaps as admirable a human being as has ever held the job. He is probably smarter, in the College Board sense, than any other President in this century. He grasps issues quickly. He made me feel confident that, except in economics, he would resolve technical questions lucidly, without distortions imposed by cant or imperfect comprehension.He is a stable, personally confident man, whose quirks are few. . . .But if he has the gift of virtue, there are other gifts he lacks. . . .The second is the ability to explain his goals and thereby to offer an object for loyalty larger than himself. . . .The third, and most important, is the passion to convert himself from a good man into an effective one, to learn how to do the job. Carter often seemed more concerned with taking the correct position than with learning how to turn that position into results. He seethed with frustration when plans were rejected, but felt no compulsion to do better next time. He did not devour history for its lessons, surround himself with people who could do what he could not, or learn from others that fire was painful before he plunged his hand into the flame.I worked for him enthusiastically and was proud to join his Administration, for I felt that he, alone among candidates, might look past the tired formulas of left and right and offer something new. . . .But there were two factors that made many of us ignore these paper limitations. One was Carter’s remarkable charm in face-to-face encounters. All politicians must be charming to some degree, but Carter’s performance on first intimate meeting was something special. . . . I met very few people who, having sat and talked with Carter by themselves or in groups of two or three, did not come away feeling they had dealt with a formidable man. . . .Those who are close enough to Carter to speak to him frankly—Powell, Jordan, Rafshoon, perhaps Moore—either believe so totally in the rightness of his style, or are so convinced that it will never change, that they never bother to suggest that he spend his time differently, deal with people differently, think of his job in a different way. Even that handful speaks to him in tones more sincerely deferential than those the underlings use. No one outside this handful ever has an opportunity to shoot the breeze with Carter, to talk with no specific purpose and no firm limit on time.If he persists in walling himself off from challenge and disorder, Jimmy Carter will ensure that great potential is all he’ll ever have. Teaching himself by trial and error, refusing to look ahead, Carter stumbles toward achievements that might match his abilities and asks us to respect him because his intentions be been good. I grant him that respect, but know the root of my disappointment. I thought we were getting a finished work, not a handsome block of marble that the chisel never touched.

Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter aren’t the same person, of course; but there really are some strong, and worrisome, similarities between the two of them. Like President Carter, Sen. Obama offers his person to the nation. This is not an inconsiderable gift; but for him, too, his performance in office so far shows us why it’s not enough.HT: Beldar

The Ayers/Obama campaign to radicalize education

Maybe this is why the Obama campaign tried to stop Stanley Kurtz from delving into the records of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge—they didn’t want him telling people what the CAC was all about:

The CAC’s agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers’s educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland’s ghetto.In works like “City Kids, City Teachers” and “Teaching the Personal and the Political,” Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? “I’m a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist,” Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk’s, “Sixties Radicals,” at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn). . . .The Daley documents show that Mr. Ayers sat as an ex-officio member of the board Mr. Obama chaired through CAC’s first year. He also served on the board’s governance committee with Mr. Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Mr. Obama. Mr. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. Likewise, Mr. Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the Collaborative. . . .Mr. Ayers’s defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work. That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system. He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in. For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin.Mr. Ayers is the founder of the “small schools” movement (heavily funded by CAC), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to “confront issues of inequity, war, and violence.” He believes teacher education programs should serve as “sites of resistance” to an oppressive system. (His teacher-training programs were also CAC funded.) The point, says Mr. Ayers in his “Teaching Toward Freedom,” is to “teach against oppression,” against America’s history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming “guilt by association.” Yet the issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

The fact that Ayers did plant bombs, and remains unrepentant about doing so, only makes it more of a story; this is why, before a national audience, Sen. Obama and his media subsidiary have done their best to keep it out of sight. It’s worth noting, however, that when he was just running in Chicago, Barack Obama offered his work running CAC as a major qualification for office:

Testimonial

“There is one person who’s been consistent on reform issues, and that’s been John McCain.”Says who? President Bush? Dick Cheney? Mitt Romney? Sarah Palin?Nope—Barack Obama:

HT: Power Line (with thanks for a positive thought)

Wondering where John McCain’s wits went

I’d figured that the crisis around Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be a hanging curveball right in Sen. McCain’s wheelhouse, since (as I pointed out at some length a few days ago) he’s been warning us for years that this was coming; all he really had to do was stand up and say so. Instead, we’ve seen a pretty erratic week from him. I think John Podhoretz overstates things a little, but not much, when he writes,

Substantively, this has been the worst week of John McCain’s campaign—and I mean since its beginning, in early 2007. With a perfect argument to make on his own behalf—that he saw the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and called them out in 2005 while others were still angling for their largesse, and that therefore he possesses the experience and demonstrated the kind of leadership and insight that are required for the presidency—he instead flailed about. Calling for the firing of Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Chris Cox? Right there, in that act, we got a glimpse of why senators so often make bad presidential candidates. From time immemorial, senators haughtily acts as though the dismissal of executive branch officials is a form of policymaking when it is almost always the opposite—an act of scapegoating.As SEC chairman, Cox only possesses the regulatory authority granted to him by acts of Congress, i.e., by senators like McCain. Cox did not and does not possess the regulatory authority to halt the creation of the poorly collateralized securities that nearly brought Wall Street down last week. But the naming and pursuit of villains was McCain’s gut instinct last week, as he seemed to attempt to don Teddy Roosevelt’s mantle as the crusader against “malefactors of great wealth.”

This sort of thing is the reason why so many of us on the conservative side have long had reservations about Sen. McCain; that shot at Chairman Cox was completely uncalled-for, unjustified, and counterproductive. (If he really is serious about the egregious Andrew Cuomo to replace him, that would be even worse.) I don’t think it’s really likely that he will “blow the debate and lose the election” as a consequence, even if he doesn’t snap out of grandstanding mode and “start talking like a serious-minded person with a sophisticated sense of the stakes” again, since I don’t think Barack Obama will be in a position to take any real advantage if he doesn’t; but he certainly won’t help himself any—and of greater importance, he won’t be doing the country any favors either.

My favorite Justice

I meant to post this months ago, back when Phil first posted these on The Thinklings, but somehow or other I forgot to do so. I have tremendous admiration for Justice Antonin Scalia as a brilliant moral and legal thinker, a man of deep and strong principles, and a Catholic of deep Christian faith. I also appreciate his wit, and from what I’ve seen of him, I think he’d be an enjoyable and fascinating person to know. He is, of course, unpopular with the Left, since a) they don’t agree with him on much and b) he doesn’t pull his punches (and in fact, he often lands them pretty hard); but like him or hate him, he’s truly one of the major figures in the history of American constitutional jurisprudence, and so deserves to be considered and understood on his own terms.

The speech they wouldn’t let Sarah Palin give

is a splendid piece of work; I suspect part of the reason the Obama campaign didn’t want her to give it is that it would have done a lot to burnish her foreign policy and national security credentials in the minds of anyone who heard it. Kudos to the New York Sun for posting the speech text in full.Update: The Jerusalem Post has published an excellent analysis of Gov. Palin’s speech and of the effects of her disinvitation, which is well worth your time. I was particularly struck by the concluding paragraph, which is clearly intended as a hammer blow:

[The Jewish Democrats who disinvited Palin] should be ashamed. The Democratic Party should be ashamed. And Jewish American voters should consider carefully whether opposing a woman who opposes the abortion of fetuses is really more important than standing up for the right of already born Jews to continue to live and for the Jewish state to continue to exist. Because this week it came to that.

Is David Axelrod trying to smear Sarah Palin?

Between Dr. Rusty Shackelford’s research, posted at The Jawa Report, and Ace’s followup, it sure looks like it; Patterico says pointedly, “In the criminal law business, we call evidence like that ‘consciousness of guilt.’” Didn’t Barack Obama promise us a new politics that would move us away from partisan smears and character assassination?Looks like his campaign didn’t get the memo.HT: Hugh HewittUpdate: Ethan Winner is trying to fall on his sword, claiming he acted alone and without any involvement of the Obama campaign; as Ace points out, there are strong reasons not to believe him, especially given the existing relationship between Axelrod and the Winners’ firm. Certainly, everyone’s behavior here is highly suspicious.