Bailing out Bear Stearns necessary to protect economy
Q: You said, "It's not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they're big banks or small borrowers." What about Bear-Stearns?
A: On the issue of Bear Stearns, every financial expert I know says that if it
had failed, it would have rippled throughout the entire financial community and would have caused greater problems which eventually would have come down on the average citizen if our economy continues to decline the way that it's been doing.
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 "Choosing the President" interviews
Apr 6, 2008
Key is to not to bail out homeowners who speculated
Q: You gave a speech recently in which you said, "It's not the duty of government to bail out & reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they're big banks or small borrowers." What would you do to help the thousands of Americans who right now are in
the process of losing their homes? Or do you feel, as you said in your speech, that's not the duty of government?
A: Look, Americans are hurting right now. They don't know if they have to get another job. The challenges are enormous right now.
The key to it is not to bail out people who speculated or people who engaged in unsavory practices. The key to it is get the lender and the borrower together. We know how hard that is because of identifying the lender, but there's ways to do it.
Of course there's a role for government, but it's not to reward greedy speculators. It is not to reward people who misbehave. And it certainly isn't a huge expenditure of taxpayers' dollars which, in the long run, could exacerbate the problems that exist
Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000
Q: Are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?
A: You could argue that Americans overall are better off, because we have had a pretty good prosperous time, with low unemployment and low inflation and a lot of good things have happened.
A lot of jobs have been created. But let's have some straight talk. Things are tough right now. Americans are uncertain about this housing crisis. Americans are uncertain about the economy, as we see the stock market bounce up and down. But
I think what we're trying to do to fix this economy is important. We've got to address the subprime housing problem. We need to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which I voted for twice to do so. I think we need to eliminate the alternate minimum tax.
A: I think we are better off overall if you look at the entire eight-year period, when you look at the millions of jobs that have been created, the improvement in the economy, etc.
May have to go further to fix the subprime lending situation
Q: Do you have a plan to help people with bad credit get lower interest rates so they can keep those homes and avoid foreclosure?
A: Yes, and it's tough here in California, it's tough in Arizona, it's tough particularly all over, but it's very tough
particularly in the high growth states. The efforts that have been made so far are laudable. We may have to go further, but the fact that the FHA and the other organizations of government under Secretary Paulson's direction, and he is doing a good job of
sitting down and fixing at least a significant number of these problems. We've got to return to the principal that you don't lend money that can't pay it back. There's some greedy people on Wall Street that perhaps need to be punished.
There's got to be a huge amount more of transparency as to how this whole thing came about so we can prevent it from happening again. If necessary, we're going to have to take additional actions and particularly in cleaning up a mortgage.
Recession is partly psychological and not inevitable
A mortgage should be one page and there should be big letters at the bottom that says, "I understand this document." We ought to adjust the mortgages so people who were eligible for better terms, but were somehow convinced to accept the mortgages which
were more onerous on them. We need to fix the rating systems, which clearly were erroneous in their ratings, which led people to believe that there were these institutions which were stable, which clearly were not. We may have to take further steps if
this subprime lending situation continues to be serious. Part of the problem in any recession is psychological. I'm still optimistic that nothing is inevitable. I still rely on the innovation and the talent of the US. But we've got to make the tax cuts
permanent. We need to get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax. We need to give people a depreciation in one year for their business and investment. We need to encourage research and development and tax credits that are associated with it.
I'm well-versed in economics; I was at the Reagan Revolution
Q: Is it a problem for your campaign that the economy is now the most important issue, one that, by your own acknowledgement, you are not well versed on?
A: Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well versed in economics.
I was there at the Reagan Revolution. I was there just after we enacted the first tax cuts and the restraints on spending. I was chairman of the Commerce Committee in the Senate, which addresses virtually every major economic issue that affects the US.
I'm very well versed on economics. That's why I have a strong team around me that respect my views and my vision. And that's why The Wall Street Journal, in a survey of economists recently, that the majority of economists thought that I could handle the
nation's economy best. And I have been a consistent fighter to restrain spending and to cut taxes. And my credentials & my experience & my knowledge of these economic issues, I think, are extensive. And I would match them against anybody who's running.
McCain cast doubt on moderator Tim Russert's assertion that the candidate had said he was no expert on economics. Russert claimed that McCain had repeatedly said, "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues.
I still need to be educated." McCain responded, "Actually, I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well-versed in economics."
Russert's quote comes from a 2005 interview with the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 26,
2005: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."
We could not find that McCain has said that quote "repeatedly," but he has made similar comments recently
The Chicago Tribune quoted McCain talking to reporters on Dec. 18, 2007: "The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should. I understand the basics, the fundamentals, the vision, all that kind of stuff."
Impose some fiscal discipline to revive the economy
Q: Why should we continue a Republican in the White House with the current kind of economic record?
A: I will, as president, veto every one of these big spending bills. I will impose some fiscal discipline. We will clean up our act and we will
regain the confidence of the American people as being careful stewards of our tax dollars, and we will fix this problem with having to borrow money from China, then we will balance our budget, just like every governor in America has been required to do.
Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida
Jan 24, 2008
Will be able to reduce war costs & have a stable Middle East
Q: You would leave troops in Iraq for an indefinite period. How will you do this, both militarily & economically?
A: I know of no military leader, including Gen. Petraeus, who says we can't sustain our effort in Iraq. So you're wrong.
The fact is, we are succeeding in Iraq. We're going back down to previous levels, and we will be able to withdraw troops over time if we succeed. We have American troops all over the world today & nobody complains about it because we're defending freedom
That's one of the obligations of being the world's superpower. I'm proud to adopt the strategy that is succeeding, and that's happened. I'm the only one that said that. It is succeeding. We will be able to reduce our costs, and we will be able to have a
stable Middle East, where our vital national interests, national security interests are at stake. I'm so proud of the job that the men and women in the military are doing there, and they don't want us to raise the white flag of surrender.
Reform insurance to cover violent weather patterns
As more and more violent weather patterns take place, people's homes are more and more in jeopardy. We can address it regionally. We can address it with the governors and the legislatures working with the federal government to have insurance spread
across state lines, increasing the risk pool. We can reform insurance. I will call the regulators, the governors and the legislators and work together to provide every American that's in jeopardy to have the insurance that they need and deserve.
Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida
Jan 24, 2008
To avoid recession, stop out-of-control spending
Q: If we're talking about a recession in the next few months, in 2008, what kind of short-term, more immediate government fixes would you propose to try to keep the slowdown diminished or to reverse it? And would you support them even if they added to th
government deficit?
A: The first thing we need to do is stop the out-of-control spending. Out-of-control spending is what caused the interest rates to rise. It causes people to be less able to afford to own their own homes. We need to stop the spending
And the way we can get our budget under control is to have strong, fundamental fiscal underpinnings. The second thing that we need to do, of course, is stop spending $400 billion a year overseas to oil-producing countries that come right out of our
economy immediately. Some of that money goes, unfortunately, to fund terrorist organizations. We've got to develop technologies to reduce this dependency on foreign oil, and eventually eliminate it, and stop this outflow of some $400 billion a year.
Loss of economic strength leads to losing military strength
Q: Does our country's financial situation creates a security risk?
A: Of course, any nation that no longer has economic strength sooner or later will lose its military strength, so it's a national security issue. We have many trillions of dollars of
unfunded liability. Obviously, we've been on a spending spree. If oil reaches $100 a barrel, which many people think it may, $400 billion of America treasure will go to oil-producing countries. Some of those monies will go to terrorist organizations.
Source: 2007 Des Moines Register Republican debate
Dec 12, 2007
Republicans have forgotten how to control spending
Q: Have Republicans forgotten how to control spending?
A: Absolutely. We let spending lurch completely out of control. As president of the United States,
I'd take an old veto pen that Ronald Reagan gave me, and I'd veto every single pork barrel bill that comes across my desk. And we've got to stop it and stop it now. I look forward to it.
Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida
Nov 28, 2007
AdWatch: Outrageous to spend $233M for bridge to nowhere
[McCain ad, "Outrageous," which began running Nov. 12]
ANNOUNCER: $233 million for a bridge to nowhere. Outrageous. $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Unbelievable. A million dollars for a Woodstock museum in a bill sponsored by Hillary
Clinton. Predictable. Who has the guts to stand up to wasteful government spending? One man, John McCain.
McCAIN: I'll stop wasteful spending by Congress and restore Americans' trust in their government. I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
Source: FactCheck.org: AdWatch of 2007 campaign ad, "Outrageous"
Nov 20, 2007
FactCheck:Bridge-to-Nowhere never built; would serve 200,000
McCain's TV ad cites "$233 million for a bridge to nowhere," calling the cost "outrageous." Funding for the "bridge to nowhere," also known as the Gravina Island bridge in Alaska, was tacked on to a 2005 transportation bill.
Whether it was truly
a "bridge to nowhere" is debatable: Gravina Island, while it has almost no permanent population, is also home to the Ketchikan International Airport, which processes about 200,000 passengers a year.
Alaskan officials hoped that the bridge would simplify airport access and allow development on Gravina. The bridge was not the only or the most expensive project attached to the transportation bill, and it may not have been the most frivolous.
But it became a symbol for government pork.
In light of the furor over the "bridge to nowhere," Alaska's governor opted to use the money for other pursuits. The bridge was never built, but McCain has been using it as his prime pork example since 2005.
FactCheck: Criticized "Woodstock museum," but skipped vote
One earmark McCain highlights in his TV ad is $1 million for a Woodstock museum, which, he mentions not-so-subtly, was proposed by Sen. Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic presidential contender. The earmark would have allotted $1 million to
New York state's Bethel Woods Center for the Arts, future site of a museum celebrating the 1969 Woodstock music festival and its effect on American culture.
But McCain wasn't present for the vote on an amendment he co-sponsored to remove the stipulated
funding for the museum and reroute about a third of it to maternal and child health services. He was out on the campaign trail.
It's true, as the McCain campaign points out, that McCain's vote would not have changed the outcome.
Still, we wonder whether voters might have a different view of McCain's ridiculing of the museum not just in this ad but in two others, as well as a presidential debate, if they knew of his absence for the key votes.
We lost the election in 2006 because we lost our way. We began to value principle over power, and spending got out of control. Spending lurched completely out of control. Ronald Reagan used to say, we spend money like a drunken sailor.
I never knew a sailor, drunk or sober, with the imagination of the Congress. I received an e-mail recently from a guy who said, "As a former drunken sailor, I resent being compared to members of Congress."
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC
May 3, 2007
Veto all pork-barrel bills and announce pork spenders
Q: How will you be different, in any way, from Pres. Bush?
A: I would have vetoed spending bill after spending bill after pork-barrel project after pork-barrel project, in the tradition of President Reagan. The first pork-barrel bill that crosses my
desk, I'm going to veto it and make the authors of those pork-barrel items famous all over America. We're going to stop it.
Q: What specific programs would you cut if you were president?
A: Line-item veto is the best tool. We need it very badly.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC
May 3, 2007
Use veto power to reduce government spending
McCAIN [to Bush]: You seem to depict the role of the president as a hapless bystander. [Clinton] is threatening to shut down the government and vetoing bills to force the congress to
spend more money. An active president, i.e. me, will veto bills and threaten to shut down the government to make them spend less money.
Bush: It’s the president’s job to make sure Congress
doesn’t have the money to spend in the first place. It is the president’s job to stand up to express the will of the people, advocate and
fight for a meaningful real tax cut. And that’s what I’m going to do.
Distribute surplus: 23% tax cuts; 62% Social Security
McCain says he would dedicate just 23% of [the federal budget surplus] to a tax-cutting plan. For the rest of the surplus, McCain says 62% would bolster Social Security, 10% would go to Medicare, and 5% would pay down the
national debt. “John McCain has never voted for a tax increase, but he thinks saving Social Security is the issue,” McCain’s campaign manager said.
Source: Associated Press, in The Enterprise (Brockton MA), p. A9
Jan 4, 2000
$9B of pork in current budget bills; cut subsidies
McCain said he has found at least “$9 billion worth of pork and wasteful spending” in the appropriations bills now being considered by Congress that could fill the budget gaps. He specified subsidies for oil, ethanol and sugar as examples. “Congress has
found the funds to raise their own salaries but they can’t find enough to help and lower and middle-income Americans,” said McCain.
Source: Will Lester, AP/LA Times
Oct 1, 1999
For Balanced Budget Amend., & off-budget Social Security
McCain was one of only two Republicans who voted twice, in 1995 and again in 1997, to take Social Security “off-budget” - removing it from balanced budget calculations as part of a constitutional balanced budget amendment - which would have prevented the
government from filling the trust fund with “IOU’s”.
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending.
Vote to pass a bill that reduces federal spending by $40 billion over five years by decreasing the amount of funds spent on Medicaid, Medicare, agriculture, employee pensions, conservation, and student loans. The bill also provides a down-payment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs.
Reference: Work, Marriage, and Family Promotion Reconciliation Act;
Bill S. 1932
; vote number 2005-363
on Dec 21, 2005
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts.
Vote to table [kill] an amendment that would increase the amount of the budget that would be used to reduce the national debt by $75 billion over 5 year. The debt reduction would be offset by reducing the tax cut in the budget framework from $150 billion
Approval of the 1998 GOP Budget which would cut spending and taxes.
Status: CR Agreed to Y)78; N)22
Reference: H. Con. Res. 84 as amended;
Bill H. Con. Res. 84
; vote number 1997-92
on May 23, 1997
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment.
Approval of the balanced-budget constitutional amendment.
Status: Joint Resolution Defeated Y)66; N)34
Reference: S. J. Res. 1;
Bill S. J. Res. 1
; vote number 1997-24
on Mar 4, 1997
Maintain & enforce existing spending caps in the future.
McCain adopted the Republican Main Street Partnership issue stance:
What we offer today are not the precise spending decisions of a given year's budget; rather, we call upon the Congress and the nation to adopt the following guidelines for our fiscal policy over the next decade. This long-term blueprint is essential for maintaining both the immediate public-sector goal of balancing the budget and the private-sector goal of a healthy economy. This can be achieved through the following steps:
A commitment to maintaining and enforcing existing spending caps in the future, when such discipline becomes more difficult to achieve;
A careful and considerate re-definition of the federal role in society (what should be the legitimate and proper role of the federal government in the twenty-first century, and how do we prioritize competing demands?); and
An evaluation of implementing tax cuts based on their social fairness.
Source: Republican Main St. Partnership Issue Paper: Fiscal Policy 98-RMSP5 on Sep 9, 1998
