McCain, Gramm and the economy

I posted this in the Obama thread, but think it warrants reposting...

Has anyone talked about the connection McCain's economic adviser, Phil Gramm? McCain had the brass to admit that he doesnt know as much about the economy as he should, and that his good friend Phil Gramm is his chief economic adviser.

Phil Gramm is infamously known as the driving force in the senate behind deregulation of some commodities markets and how they relate to energy... This was taken advantage of most notably in 2000 when a very large energy company bought up energy futures, and then staged fake rolling blackouts in California to further substantiate their "energy shortage" ruse. The price of energy skyrocketed, based on the perceived shortage... the company took in BILLIONS. The company was Enron, and they have since ceased to be. The deregulation law became known as the "Enron Loophole."

The farm bill currently under consideration in congress faces a veto threat from our Current Occupant, and further is opposed by John McCain, who is advised by Phil Gramm... the largest sticking point for McCain (who by his own admission, doesnt know enough about the economy as he should) is, surprise, against the energy market regulation included in the bill... aka the closure of the Enron Loophole....

This is my biggest problem with congress, they pass a bill that has too much in it. From what I've seen on this farm bill it's got a lot of non-farm issues in it that aren't all bad. However, I do have a hard time supporting the idea that we need to subsidize an industry that has seen prices skyrocket to where they are turning a healthy profit, but it also JUST happened, so we can't really judge where they stand.

The ongoing joke around here with all the farmers is that they don't know what to do anymore since they are turning profits without the government helping them this year, and now they are getting more money.

To me this is no different than giving the oil industry subsidies now. Why are we helping an industry that has huge profits already? Is it because they are use to the money, so they'll just raise prices even more if we take the gov't money away? Farmers can't really do that as their prices are set by the market, not them. But, it's still an interesting question.

As for McCain.. I like that he's willing to admit when he's in over his head, especially on the economy. I don't think any of the 3 candidates really understand how things work (Hillary actually has the best handle on it), but at least one admits it.

His advisor (Gramm) is a chairman with UBS now, but also appears to have never met a handout he didn't like from what I've seen. He's a 100% free trade guy, which I agree with to a degree.. maybe not 100%. He's just on the opposite side of what most people believe is needed right now, which is more regulation. I think there's a thin line there that we've yet to find.

I'd like to see McCain get a new advisor here though....

hillarys campaign debt rises as she shoves forward looking for who-can-figure-out-what shows me how she is on money management issues.

the wish for mccain to get a new advisor seems to have pretty good odds...his campaign support system seems to be bailing for various reasons..he will have to replace some eventually.

cardinal5150 wrote:This is my biggest problem with congress, they pass a bill that has too much in it. From what I've seen on this farm bill it's got a lot of non-farm issues in it that aren't all bad. However, I do have a hard time supporting the idea that we need to subsidize an industry that has seen prices skyrocket to where they are turning a healthy profit, but it also JUST happened, so we can't really judge where they stand.

The ongoing joke around here with all the farmers is that they don't know what to do anymore since they are turning profits without the government helping them this year, and now they are getting more money.

To me this is no different than giving the oil industry subsidies now. Why are we helping an industry that has huge profits already? Is it because they are use to the money, so they'll just raise prices even more if we take the gov't money away? Farmers can't really do that as their prices are set by the market, not them. But, it's still an interesting question.

According to the anecdotal evidence I have, the subsidies in years past were not enough to keep farms afloat... My FIL has a farm, and in the seven years I have know him, he's always borrowed against his land just to keep running. The cost of anyhydrous has risen significantly, the cost of fuel (even though it's taxes less) has obviously risen significantly. Yes, farmers are made out big last year, but in most of the (anecdotal) evidence I've seen, that windfall mostly consumed by paying back the debts incurred from previous years. A combine costs $300,000 and gets used 3 weeks a year.

Your point about adding stuff to particular bills that seem relatively unrelated is one of Obama's platforms, especially as it relates to hard and soft earmarks... you're practically a liberal already :-)

Good questions. McCain does seem to waffle, ala John Kerry, on a number of issues. He was one of the few Republicans who spoke against the plan in Iraq long before that was popular. Yet now he doesn't give that impression.

See, I can be equally critical of both parties.

I had no doubt you could be...