Monday, May 24, 2010

Anna Little Responds to Frank Pallone's Press Release regarding Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

Photo credit: Lynn Gordon, Bayshore Tea Party

Highlands, NJ - Continuing to misunderstand and misdiagnose the causes of our economic downturn, Frank Pallone on May 17th issued a press release outlining his support of yet another level of useless and detrimental government bureaucracy to the already stifling regulatory system emanating from Washington. Considering how completely out of touch with Main Street Frank Pallone actually is this is not surprising.

Anna Little, small-town Mayor and 6th District Congressional candidate with a direct line to the people she will serve, spoke with the Two River Times and properly addressed the issue rather than demagoging the banks and financial institutions who are merely symptoms of a problem that begins and ends in Washington

Mayor Little said that "Government regulation is not the answer to the fraud and abuse of shareholders that occurs on Wall Street. Government regulation drives up the cost of business and thus costs for consumers, and interferes with free market competition. "

Responding to Pallone’s claims that D.C. has all the answers, regardless of the fact that they are in fact the career politicians who caused the meltdown in the first place, Mayor Little noted that "Business experts know their industry, and can expose fraud, and reckless behavior. The best redress is via the civil and criminal court systems."

Finally, Mayor Little points out that Washington and Frank Pallone have proven themselves wholly incompetent in directing the economy and that more such efforts will only lead to more cost, more loss and near permanent unemployment:

"If the Federal Reserve is an example of the competence of Government to regulate the financial market, my point is made clear. Government must get out of the way for business competition to restore ethics in the financial market and create jobs."

"The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, HR 4173, is unconstitutional. The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, regulates commerce between the United States and foreign countries, between the United States or any state and the Indians, or commerce between two or more States. The Commerce Clause does not regulate business generally."

Frank Pallone has been meddling in and destroying our economy for over two decades. His liberal party-line voting record is evidence of his complete misunderstanding of how our economy actually works. Rather than getting to the root causes of the issue, career politicians like Frank Pallone, who have never held a real job in their lives, continue instead to stir passions and promote “solutions” that have been tried, tested and proven as failures.

It’s time the 6th District elected someone with the common sense and understanding necessary to reform Washington before destroying our economy with more useless, costly Wall Street reforms.


Anonymous said...

Anna Little seems pretty good at repeating the tea party line about the role of the federal government. The rest of us have to live in the real world. If Anna Little thinks that the commerce clause does NOT allow for the federal government to regulate businesses then her reading of the constitution is fundamentally flawed. Great rhetoric, seriously flawed ideas, and no solutions. NO, "free market forever" is not a solution.

Anonymous said...

very smart: eye on the incumbent we're trying to dump..good job..good luck..

Anonymous said...

@12:01:00 PM

You really are dumb dude. Considering from your idiotic comment I have to conclude you're a Gooch zombie or a Pallone plant, I'm not surprised.

Yes, virtually unregulated free enterprise is indeed the solution. It always has been and it always will be.

I really don't expect your puny mind to be able to comprehend the reasons why, so I won't waste my time.

Anonymous said...

"very smart: eye on the incumbent we're trying to dump..good job..good luck.."

I was thinking the same thing.

Anonymous said...

@1:44:00 PM
Nice use of judicial decisions outlining and defining the commerce clause to rebut my statement that Anna Little does not understand the constitution.

Anonymous said...

@2:47:00 PM


Dude, from which law school did you graduate? I did and I have neither the time nor the inclination to give you a Constitutional law seminar on Art's blog.

Suffice to say, she's absolutely correct.

Quick: what are three things Congress can regulate as it relates to IC under current SCOTUS decisional law?

Hint: "Business" isn't one of them.


Constitutional Lawyer said...

OK, 1. We can have a debate about what the intention of the framers was with regard to the Commerce clause. That is a legitimate debate.

However SCOTUS precedent is clear. The Court has interperted the Commerce Clause over the last 80 years to allow the type of regulations that Congress has passed.

2. We can also debate wether the regulation passed is appropriate.
the answer is no it does not adrees the real problems and does more harm then good.
I would say regulation is needed but this is the wrong regulation

Anonymous said...

"However SCOTUS precedent is clear. The Court has interperted the Commerce Clause over the last 80 years to allow the type of regulations that Congress has passed."

You got a cite to back that up? I could argue that this kind of regulation is neither of a channel nor an instrumentality of IC, leaving, of course, the weaselly "substantially affect" category.

But with the make-up of the Court today, it's arguable that they'd find these regulations proper in that respect.

As a "constitutional lawyer" you make a pretty ironclad claim that the precedent is settled when, quite frankly, it is most certainly not. You also have to know that "settled" at the SCOTUS level really hasn't happened with many issues over the last 80 years at all.