Beach Peanuts

Peter King Is Not Happy About That Rubio Knife In His Back

Hey, remember when Marco Rubio voted against relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy?

And remember when New York Republican Rep. Peter King loudly chastised his fellow Republicans on their "no" votes, but then quickly forgot when they finally made a deal?

And remember when Rubio voted "no" on that one too?

Well, turns out that Peter King actually does still remember, and thanks to Marco Rubio's ego, greed, lust for power, and Presidential pipe dreams, King was reminded of it all over again today. 

It seems that while on his supposedly "quiet" money grubbing trip to Wall Street this week, Rubio set King off all over again, and let's just say it wasn't pretty:

“Being from New York we’re not supposed to be suckers,” Mr. King told Politicker this morning. “It’s bad enough that these guys voted against it, that’s inexcusable enough. But to have the balls to come in and say, ‘We screwed you now make us president?’”

Mr. King went on to urge Empire State donors to cut off Mr. Rubio and any other member of Congress who “threw a knife in the back in New York” by voting “no” on the bill.

“Rubio and these other Republican candidates are coming to New York to raise money,” he said. “I don’t think any senator or congressman who voted against aid for Sandy should get one nickel from New York.”

Ouch. 

Yeah, that Marco. What he lacks in brains, he makes up for in, shall we say......"bolas?" He could just be too stupid to realize how such a thing might look. Or he just doesn't care. His smarts, or the lack thereof have been a topic of debate for years. 

Either way, King needn't worry too much about that knife in his back. There's a lot of time between now and 2016, and Rubio will have plenty of others to use it on before he's finished. 

Mitt Romney's Policies Would Lead To An Economic Crisis

Really.

 

The Ties That Bind Mitt Romney: Bank Bailouts, Housing Bubble And Those Tax Returns

Today in Florida, Mitt Romney is fighting back against Newt Gingrich on his ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the housing crisis. He's placed new ads, made statements to reporters, and used his campaign surrogates like former rival candidate Tim Pawlenty to say Gingrich can't be trusted because he "cashed in" while Florida families were losing their homes.

At the same time, Romney held a rountable discussion on the housing crisis in Tampa with eight local residents suffering due to the housing market here in Florida, and while he offered no policy solutions to the housing problem, he blamed too many regulations for the problem.

Tampa Bay Times:

As each person recounted their struggles with banks, lenders, mortgages, loans and employment, the Republican presidential candidate expressed his sympathies, calling the accounts "just tragic," and said they "break my heart."

Romney did not specify policies he would enact or change if elected, but blamed regulatory laws for paralyzing banks and vowed to focus on job creation.

"The banks are scared to death . . . they're feeling the same thing you're feeling," he said to the group at the Sheraton Tampa Riverwalk Hotel in downtown Tampa.

But Romney asked the group to hold out hope for the future.

"It will get better," he said. "We'll not always be like this. This is a detour from America's history."

Offering sympathetic words like "it breaks my heart" but no advice beyond waiting for things to get better, it's clear where the man who owns several houses sympathy lies: With the banks.

Anyone who has paid attention and/or lost their home knows the Romney claim of too many regulations causing the housing bubble is laughable on its face, as is the statement "The banks are scared to death . . . they're feeling the same thing you're feeling." No, the banks are feeling quite good actually, and Romney knows that. Just look at the size of his Wall Street buddies contributions to his campaign for evidence of that.

On the subject of hitting Newt Gingrich on his ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, sure Gingrich was paid by the company for what he claims wasn't lobbying but rather as a "historian" and a consultant. That's certainly a valid argument, but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't cause the housing crisis no matter how many times Romney places the blame on them along with Newt Gingrich.

However, on the subject of Fannie and Freddie, Mitt Romney has his own ties to the mortgage lenders.

From Mother Jones and The Boston Globe:

But what Romney isn't letting on, the Boston Globe reports, is that at the same time he's ripped Fannie and Freddie, he has also raked in cash from personal investments in the two companies, which the federal government took over in September 2008.

On his financial disclosure statement filed last month, Romney reported owning between $250,001 and $500,000 in a mutual fund that invests in debt notes of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among other government entities. Over the previous year, he had reported earning between $15,001 and $50,000 in interest from those investments.

And unlike most of Romney's financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney.

The Globe also notes that the fund containing Romney's Fannie and Freddie funds also included investments in Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, and JPMorgan Chase. If Romney invested in those banks in the second half of 2007, as a campaign aide says he did, then Romney's investments benefited from the federal bailout of those banks, which received tens of billions of dollars to stay afloat.

Here we have not just the hypocrisy involved with Romney's own ties to Fannie, Freddie, and his investments with the banks above who, in his own words are "feeling the same things" homeowners are feeling: scared to death, but the possibility that Romney may have benefited from the bank bailouts as well.  

Looking at the dates from the article above, if Romney did make those investments, it's likely he won't be sharing that information with voters. While Romney finally said he'll release some of his tax returns on Tuesday, he's only releasing his returns from 2010, and just an estimate for 2011.

Both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have no solutions to this or any other crisis beyond trying to place blame on each other and President Obama, but they both in all likelihood have a beneficial interest in doing nothing to make changes that will help everyday Americans.

The entire Republican Party line on the banks and regulations is that they have too many regulations. What do they have to offer the victims?

Flowery words and a pat on the head at a campaign stop photo-op.

 

Obama Makes Recess Appointment To Protect Consumers

Today President Obama made a recess appointment of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Condray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which was created by the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform legislation, drawing a line in the sand with Republicans who have blocked the appointment and aligning himself with consumers against Wall Street.

Republicans wasted no time showing their alliance with Wall Street and taking a public stand against President Obama and American consumers.

House Speaker John Boehner:

“This is an extraordinary and entirely unprecedented power grab by President Obama that defies centuries of practice and the legal advice of his own Justice Department," Boehner said. "The precedent that would be set by this cavalier action would have a devastating effect on the checks and balances that are enshrined in our Constitution."

“This position had not been filled for one reason: The agency it heads is bad for jobs and bad for the economy. It’s clear the president would rather trample our system of separation of powers than work with Republicans to move the country forward.  This action goes beyond the president’s authority, and I expect the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate.”

Of course, Boehner's answer to everything comes in one word: Jobs.

Which jobs? Where are those jobs again, Speaker Boehner? How is it "bad for jobs" exactly?

Bad for the economy? By Boehner's translation, read "bad for the economy" as "bad for the banks."

"Unprecedented power grab" you say Speaker Bohener? You mean "unprecedented" like this? President Obama, as viewed in that graph, has made less recess appointments per year than President's Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"This recess appointment represents a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer. Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress's role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch," McConnell said.

Republican hand wringing and pearl clutching aside, Joan McCarter at Daily Kos points out what a smart move this is by President Obama, and why:

This recess appointment is precedent setting. Instead of making the appointment yesterday, in the brief break when the last congressional session ended and the new one began, the White House is directly challenging the Republicans over their tactics. And his picking a very smart target, forcing them to declare their allegiance to Wall Street over America's working families.

The Republicans are wasting no time doing  just that by banking on Wall Street, as if their crashing the U.S. economy once wasn't bad enough.

Republicans seem to want to personify the very definition of crazy and do the same thing over and over with the same result, and in this instance by saying "no" to those consumer protections.

Unfortunatley here consumers would end up paying for it.

Again.

Fortunatley for the rest of us, President Obama clearly stated in his announcement:

“I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer.”  

Rubio Sides With Wall Street, Leaves Consumers To Fend For Themselves

Last week Republicans in the Senate blocked yet another payroll tax break for millions of Americans, largely for the middle class.

Right before that, Senate Republicans also blocked confirmation of Richard Cordray as the new director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in spite of the fact that two months ago the Senate Banking Committee approved Cordray, and after Congress passed legislation to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and it was signed into law by the President.

Now Senate Republicans are essentially preventing the Bureau from functioning. Period. This means no consumer protection, but plenty of cover for the banks.

Floridians can thank Republican Sen. Marco Rubio for blocking both. No payroll tax breaks, and allowing Wall Street banks to carry on as before when they wrecked the economy under the Bush Administration, with little regulation thanks to a non-functioning CFPB. 

Rubio was also the recipient of hefty contributions from Wall Street banks and the financial industry during his election in 2010. Some of his top contributors were Goldman Sachs and Bank Of America, among others.

Banks are swimming in huge profits (all the more to share with the likes of Rubio come fund raising time) and they tanked the economy, so naturally Rubio thinks no regulations and consumer protections are needed. Rubio says he's a "fiscal conservative." He's just fiscally conservative when it comes to profits for Wall Street, but Rubio often leaves out inconvenient facts and details like that.

Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson voted yes on both the payroll taxes and for Cordray's confirmation.