Warwick Beacon - " Ahead in polls, finances, Sen. Reed ignores challenger" Amidst all the mountains of speculation about whether Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) would be offered a position in a potential Obama cabinet, one could easily forget that he faces something that irks incumbents: An election. But contrary to popular belief, Reed does face a primary challenge from perennial candidate Christopher Young, who ran for Senate in 2006 against Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Carl Sheeler. Young received 11 percent of the primary vote in that race. That same day, he received 26 percent of the vote in the Providence Mayoral Primary. The winner of this year's Senate primary will go on to face Robert Tingle—who didn't even show up at his own party's state convention earlier this summer—in the general election. Perhaps the fact that Young lacks decorum - he once flipped over a table during a campaign forum in a Providence Mayoral debate in 2002; shows absolutely no cash in his campaign coffers for this election; or the fact that Reed consistently polls as Rhode Island's favorite politician, have all contributed to why he's been ignored by the media as a candidate. For his part, Young explains, uses a Biblical reference to explain the farce at the Providence campaign forum. "It was like Jesus throwing out the money changers at the temple." Reed's popularity, Young said, exists because the media refuses to scrutinize his record. And his own lack of campaign cash, Young says, is precisely why he's the better candidate for the job. In Young's opinion, Reed, who has raised about $4 million in this election cycle, is nothing more than a glorified puppet of his campaign contributors. "Do you really think these people give Reed all that money and then expect nothing back in return?" Said Young. (Reed has raised over $4 million in this election cycle alone.) To make his point, he referenced the Housing Bill, which sailed through Congress last month. The bill gives the Treasury Secretary the ability to use the Treasury to bail out Fannie May and Freddie Mac, the gargantuan sized (GSE) government-sponsored enterprises, which hold as much as two-thirds of all the nation's housing mortgages. "Why are the American people on the hook to bail out two of Jack Reed's top campaign contributors?" asked Young rhetorically during an extended interview. The bill did appoint a new body to "regulate" the GSEs, but it did nothing to replace the current management of the companies, or prevent the companies from lobbying in the future. In essence, the companies will remain in their current form, do business as usual, and the American people will bail them out if all else fails. Following the bill's passage, the two companies reported losses triple that of what economists had forecasted, exponentially increasing the likelihood that taxpayers will have to bail out the companies. Sounding like the most conservative Republicans in the country, Young said the bill created a "moral hazard" because it creates a scenario where the risk is socialized but the profit is strictly private. "I don't think parties matter all that much at this point," said Young. But unlike the GOP, Young had a different solution to solve the Fannie May and Freddie Mac problem. Just sit back and let the chips fall where they may. "That's the whole point of a world economy, to compete. Sorry, but no one forced the foreigners to lend money that couldn't be paid back," said Young. Young eagerly and often points out that the two GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) have contributed tens of thousands to Reed's campaigns throughout the years. Young also raises questions about the fact that Reed took a leadership role in deregulating banks. Particularly, the Glass-Steagall Act, which was adopted after the Great Depression and prevented commercial banks from investing banking, has caused many of the financial sector's problems, Young said. Reed was part of a group that led the charge to deregulate the banking industry. Professor George Borts, who teaches economics and international finance at Brown University, said Young's positions warrant at least debate. Borts partially agrees with Young's assessment of the Housing bill. An all out bailout of Fannie and Freddie—apparently the direction the U.S. took—does create a "moral hazard." However, allowing the giants to outright fail would dangerously harm the U.S. and world economies. "He's right that they've [Congress] created a moral hazard…but if you let them fail now, you're asking for big, big trouble." Under Young's scenario, foreign central banks and investors would see their bonds become worthless. Foreign countries would likely then go broke, creating an unstable world economy, and perhaps world. And, perhaps worse, the foreign investors would stop lending to the U.S. "Once the value of their holding debt goes down, their willingness to lend disappears," said Borts. Professor Borts said Young's opinions on bank deregulation are fairly common—some in academia share Young's opinions—but it's very much an open question. Borts pointed out that some investment banks, like Fidelity for instance, appear to be doing fine. Young also said Reed is in the pocket of the military-industrial complex, saying Reed takes serious campaign contributions from Picerne Military Housing, and "has voted for the War in Iraq practically every single time." "If people knew that Reed was pro-choice, if they knew that he was for the war and if they knew that he's a puppet for his contributors, then they wouldn't vote for him," said Young. "But the media refuse to report on my campaign. If I'm not going to be covered just because I'm not a hostage to big campaign contributors, why should we even bother calling America a free country? Let's just call us what we are, a corporate dictatorship." Reed, for his part, has handled this campaign as a candidate who is way ahead in financial contributions, and the polls, would be expected to; by ignoring his opponent. When his spokesman was contacted and asked about some of the questions raised by the Young campaign, the spokesman refused to set up an interview or answer specific questions. "Senator Reed is honored and privileged to serve Rhode Island in the Senate and he's going to continue to work hard every day to get the economy back on track in a responsible way and especially on resolving the War in Iraq. Senator Reed will continue to make a positive impact for all Rhode Islanders," said Chip Unruh in a voicemail message. Young isn't amused. "Reed is such a coward," said Young. "He won't debate me because he refuses to talk about where he takes his money from—the banks who profit from our national debt, which he's voted to increase every chance he's gotten."