Friday, April 11, 2008

Saxby Chambliss (Socialist - Georgia)

Below is an email I got from my Senator, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia in regards to my email urging him not to vote for any bailouts for IH"O"s, Idiot Home "owners".

Hey Senator, I know I am just a lowly peon constituent of yours. But for crying out loud at least have the courtesy to you know, READ my email before sending the template reply back. I don't support your bullshit tax credit. And you support the efforts of the Federal Reserve huh? So you support the devaluation of the $US which has led to $110 oil and close to double digit inflation?

And Senator, please stop using the term homeowner. IHOs own nothing but a mortgage. A home owner is someone who owns a home. Someone who has negative equity and an unaffordable mortgage is not an owner.

This comes on top of the McCain flip flop regarding the bailout today. It is once again obvious that there is no difference between the parties. Hill-o-Bama wants to spend hundreds of billions of dollars. McCain wants to spend the same. Chambilss wants it. Bush wants it. The only difference now between the two parties is on Iraq. McCain and Bush want to be there for eternity. Hill-o-Bama only want to be there indefinitely. The choice when voting has come down to one kind of socialist vs. another kind of socialist. Either way the end result will be higher taxes, more regulation and another step towards 3rd world status for this country.

Oh I'm sure Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will think this is just a wonderful idea. Had it come from Hill-a-Bama they would be spending 3 hours a day bashing it as wasteful spending. But now that it comes from a Republican, it will be the greatest idea since invading Iraq. When Hill-a-bama proposed spending $1M on the Woodstock museum, Rush Hannity had a heart attack and scolded her for wasteful spending. Yet when Chambliss proposes spending $300B - which will end up being $900B when all is said and done - it's wonderful. When Bush devalues the dollar so badly that even 3rd world peasants won't accept the currency , Rush Hannity praises him for sturdy leadership.

I used to scoff at people who said there was no difference. Sure there is I would say. Democrats want to grow governemnt and raise taxes. Gotta vote for Republicans to stop them. Yeah right. Chambliss is a supposed fiscal conservative Republican. Tells you all you need to know right there about where the Republican party stands on the issues, if this guy is on "the right".

We are beyond FOOKED.

On April 10, 2008, this housing package passed the Senate with my full support. In its current state, the package would provide various tax-exemptions, tax credits, and enhancements to Truth in Lending Act provisions that would bring much needed stability to the housing market. Specifically, the bill provides a $7,000 non-refundable tax credit to taxpayers who purchase, as their principal residence, homes where foreclosure has been filed pursuant to the laws of the state. This credit will help prevent declining property values for homeowners, and, hopefully, bring the market back to an even keel.

I appreciate your comments on this important matter. As our nation experiences the challenges you outlined, I will keep your views in mind as my colleagues and I weigh the various legislative proposals before the Senate. I have closely reviewed the decisions implemented by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and, in general, support their efforts. As we move forward in the Senate, the state of the economy and the support of legislation that will enable the housing sector to improve is and will remain uppermost in my mind.


Zach said...

That housing bill is really one of the wort tax policies that I've seen. Here are the different components, as I see them:

1. A $7,000 tax credit for taxpayers who buy foreclosed homes. Now, a family down the street who's selling their home so they can take better-paying jobs elsewhere must lower the price of their house to compete with the deadbeat homeowner down the street whose house comes with a $7,000 tax break.

2. $4 billion worth of federal grants to local governments to buy
foreclosed homes. Now, a newlywed couple ready to buy their first
home must compete with their local govt as a buyer of those homes.
And the worst part is that the local government is using that couple's own tax dollars to do it!

3. Allowing homebuilders to deduct current losses from past gains during the housing boom. This is unprecedented as far as I know. Let's subsidize risky behavior (also known as moral hazard) so that it not only prolongs the current downturn but encourages future crises.

4. Allowing all homeowners to claim property tax deductions on their federal returns rather than just those who itemize. This actually isn't a terrible idea.

5. All items above require funding. Whether revenue is lost in the form of a credit or given out in the form of an expenditure, the bottom line is that either other services will need to be cut or current or future tax rates will need to be increased. Since we all know that politicians will never cut other programs, all of these proposals will result in future tax increases.

Every notable tax research group has concluded that this is bad policy:

Unbelievable pandering by our Senators.

Jeremy said...

"...and, hopefully, bring the market back to an even keel."

I, for one, am hoping for this "even keel" market.

Who comes up with this crap?

Ed said...

'even keel' as in profitable enough so that the contributions from home builders keep on coming in, as well as from Home Depot and Lowe's.