Ian Gilyeat - Independent
If you've been following the race for the U.S. Senate, you know that the deadline for submitting petitions to qualify for the ballot was May 30th. In spite of the hard work of many volunteers, all across the state, we did not obtain the required number of signatures. The amount necessary was 31,210. As a result, after much conversation and consideration, I am withdrawing my name as a candidate.
Although the outcome is disappointing, I want to give my deepest thanks to those that have supported me. This is a great
country and it will continue to shine forth, as a standard of liberty
across the globe, because of individual people like you. It is widely
known that America is one of the most generous nations on earth. This
has been my experience as well... while running for public office; loyal and hard working Americans
have been generous with their time, their talents, enthusiasm and
resources. It is humbling and remarkable how many have been willing to
stand with me, even against the popular pressure of parties and
I hope each of us will carry this spirit of sacrifice and
service forward through the remainder of this election cycle - and into
many more in the future. I hope we will each study out the candidates and
choose one that is deeply grounded in the Constitution - someone who
comes from the private sector and understands and loves the principles
of limited government - even those principles that defend our property,
our lives and our individual freedoms.
We need to send the career politicians home. along with their attitude that government can solve our problems. We need to find individuals who will protect our ability to succeed or fail on our own merits. We need individual liberty to fulfill our destiny as a nation. We need to fire the people that have been in Washington, making a career of meddling in people's lives. I hope we will all work to elect honest men and women who care most deeply about these self-evident truths.
With one million+ registered voters in Arizona that are outside of the
traditional parties, this means that one in three registered voters are
"Independent." This is what I call the "great unraveling" of the
two-party system in America. Simply put - registered voters are
abandoning the parties. Please join me and work on your elected
officials to eliminate the barriers they have erected to prevent
independent citizens from running for public office. Ask them to change
the signature requirement for "independents" so they too only have to
gather 1/2 of 1% instead of the 3% that is now required. Also, ask them
eliminate the 1 cent per record fee that "independents" must pay to
access voter registration rolls versus no cost for party candidates. If
we expect the political process to engage all voters then we must knock
down the barriers the "privileged class" have erected to protect their
privileged life styles.
Not very good if you ask me...but remember the Washington beltway is a place where trillions in spending distorts the thinking of otherwise good men and women. It is a place where career politicians no longer see their own spending decisions as part of the problem. It is a place where representatives borrow 40 cents of every dollar they spend while the media crows about them being a "fiscal hawk". It is a place where you can increase your personal staff expenses by 61% over the last ten years and still be called a "fiscal hawk" (www.legistorm.com).
a time when the rhetoric of politicians in Washington have been
screaming about the national debt, deficit spending and the downgrade of
the "good faith and credit of the United States," I think it's useful
to see if the rhetoric matches up with their own fiscal habits in
Washington. Here's the short version:
Our two Senators spend $2.4 million annually each on themselves and their staff.
In 2010 the typical AZ Republican Congressman spent $1.087 million and...
In 2010 the typical Democratic Congressman spent $983 thousand.
Yes, you read that right, in 2010 our Democratic representatives (Grijalva, Pastor, Kirkpatrick, Giffords, Mitchell) spent LESS on average on staff budgets than their Republican peers (Flake, Franks, Shadegg). Even looking over the last ten years, the story doesn't change - Republican representatives from Arizona on average spent more than their Democratic peers on themselves and staff.
Over the past ten years, two of the best known "fiscal hawks" in Arizona have increased their staff spending by 67% and 61% respectively...
what is a "fiscal hawk" in Washington? You can draw your own
conclusion, but for me, increasing your staff expense by 61% or 67% over
the ten years; especially during this Great Recession - fails the smell
test...and it doesn't matter which party you're in - neither one cuts real espenses - and the longer they stay - the more they spend. (www.legistorm.com)
It's rotten to the core - and every career politician that does this should be sent packing and told to go home and get a real job.
Bank of America has $2.2 trillion in assets and $900 billion in net loans. They sold $73 billion in mortgage loans to the Federal government (better known as Fannie Mae) for a paltry $500 million. The loan loss ratio on this portfolio of loans is 13% - about double the national average. This makes no sense for investors of Bank of America (disclosure - I own a few shares) but... Representative Issa of California is investigating this as a "bailout".
Let me say it a different way...Fannie Mae bought $73 billion in assets for less than 1 cent on the dollar and this is being challenged as bailout...even with a loss of 13% or $9.49B it's still less than 1 cent on the dollar.
This isn't a bailout this is a crying shame for shareholders who, from my view just got rolled by Fannie Mae.
By the way, $73B is less than 10% of Bank of America's net loan portfolio... and at $500 million, it's not going to make much difference in their capital requirements. It's a drop in the bucket...
So here's the principles this ignores for me:
1) Bank of America is a private company - yes, there are millions of shareholders trading their ownership in a public market - but from the perspective of property ownership - it is private - or at least it should be.
2) The Federal government should not be in the business of servicing loans -or guaranteeing them for that matter. Home ownership may be the American dream but it is not guaranteed for every citizen. Property ownership is something we aspire to - it shouldn't be guaranteed by a government agency.
Instead of increasing its holdings in mortgage loans, Fannie should be decreasing its position. This is the time when private enterprise with capital to invest can step forward and take a risk with their own money. This is what the free market is all about - risk and reward - and in this instance the rewards of originating these loans has been disconnected from the risk. Overall the long-haul this is the wrong precedent for the mortgage industry, the Federal government and the American home owner.