With a public relations disaster for his administration and party as close at hand as the bulk of the oil spill is to the shoreline, a real economic and political crisis is growing underfoot due to persistently high and unyielding unemployment levels.
Obama, with November elections closing in fast and his party in near disarray, has renewed a call for Congress to pass another so-called jobs bill, to enable the Small Business Lending Fund. This legislation for an additional $30 billion - belatedly to target small business enterprises, enabling them to borrow money that Wall Street has so far been loathe to provide through taxpayer funded TARP bailouts. And he no less proposes to do it with money that we don’t have; exclaims House Minority Leader Boehner, “We’re broke!”.
For Obama there are a number of other problems as well. Significantly, the proposal isn’t timely anymore.
To survive, small businesses already were forced into action much earlier in trimming both inventory and payrolls. Understandably they are now reluctant to take on debt. They’re looking for evidence of a sustainable recovery before increasing capacity and risking capital again; rather they would have reductions in the cost burdens imposed by taxes and ill-devised regulation. Time and again they have expressed those needs as incentives to job creation, and time and again a tone deaf administration and Democratically controlled Congress has accelerated job destruction.
As to the money…Obama proposes that the funding come from unused or repaid TARP money. However, Republican representative Mike Pence of Indiana has inconveniently reminded the Congress and administration to do so would violate the law in that TARP legislation states in Section 106, Part D: "Revenues of, and proceeds from the sale of troubled assets purchased under this Act, or from the sale, exercise, or surrender of warrants or senior debt instruments acquired under section 113 shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt."
Of course before passage, we can all remember the endless parade of Democrats and Republicans who assured and swore to the public and press that due to the unprecedented financial emergency and the scope of the funding, TARP funds would not be used for the kinds of purposes now contemplated by the administration or others in Congress. Excess funding and repaid money would be used specifically to pay down the national debt.
And the Obama solution to skirt the law … the funds go into the Treasury where they’re co-mingled with other money. Congress will then ignore PAYGO legislation, which requires there be no further deficit spending without offsetting revenues, as it has done all year long, and passes legislation to authorize the new Small Business Lending Fund as further deficit spending. Get ready for it, here it comes …no actual TARP moneys are used out of the Treasury.
Congressional and Presidential resolve to comply with the law, it’s spirit and their own assertions and promises is as substantial and as permanent as an ice cream cone in mid- August on the Washington Mall – it looks appealing right up to the point the sticky mess drips all over the place!
What remains to be seen is how weary the electorate is of more Washington sleight of hand and charades.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Obama Gets TOUGH ... sort of.
Now into the 7th week of BP’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill, America has pretty much resigned itself to the notion that, due to Obama and his administration having bungled the handling of the crisis, we will be unable to avert a major ecological and economic disaster in the Gulf and Gulf States.
In an effort to salvage something of Obama’s credibility, Hollywood film director Spike Lee urged Obama to at least display anger for its public relations value. "One time, go off (on BP)!" Lee said on CNN's 'AC 360°.' "If there's any one time to go off, this is it, because this (handling of the oil spill) is a disaster."
During an interview aired Tuesday with NBC’s Matt Lauer, Obama tried it on for size, though unconvincingly, as it didn’t fit quite comfortably within his line of rhetoric.
Obama said during the interview that “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar; we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.”
More to the point, Jon Stewart on the Daily Show observed yesterday that with regard to Obama’s failed leadership, “The ass has been kicking you!”
Unfortunately for Obama he also revealed in the same interview that he still had not yet personally spoken to BP’s CEO, Tony Hayward about any aspect of the disaster; despite the campaign in recent weeks by Obama and administration officials to assure the public that Obama himself was personally in charge of the government’s and BP’s efforts to clean up the entire mess.
Obama offered a weak explanation that left even Lauer incredulous. “My experience,” Obama said, “when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he's gonna say all the right things to me. I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions."
Surprise, surprise. For someone who throughout his entire term of office has had to deal with the perception and criticism of being incapable of doing any real work to accomplish much more than giving “pretty speeches”, Lauer’s surprised look must have been a moment of real revelation for Obama - that anyone could actually expect him to make good on any of his own words – nope, the irony just evaporated over Obama’s head.
Image is everything, isn’t it.
In an effort to salvage something of Obama’s credibility, Hollywood film director Spike Lee urged Obama to at least display anger for its public relations value. "One time, go off (on BP)!" Lee said on CNN's 'AC 360°.' "If there's any one time to go off, this is it, because this (handling of the oil spill) is a disaster."
During an interview aired Tuesday with NBC’s Matt Lauer, Obama tried it on for size, though unconvincingly, as it didn’t fit quite comfortably within his line of rhetoric.
Obama said during the interview that “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar; we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick.”
More to the point, Jon Stewart on the Daily Show observed yesterday that with regard to Obama’s failed leadership, “The ass has been kicking you!”
Unfortunately for Obama he also revealed in the same interview that he still had not yet personally spoken to BP’s CEO, Tony Hayward about any aspect of the disaster; despite the campaign in recent weeks by Obama and administration officials to assure the public that Obama himself was personally in charge of the government’s and BP’s efforts to clean up the entire mess.
Obama offered a weak explanation that left even Lauer incredulous. “My experience,” Obama said, “when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he's gonna say all the right things to me. I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions."
Surprise, surprise. For someone who throughout his entire term of office has had to deal with the perception and criticism of being incapable of doing any real work to accomplish much more than giving “pretty speeches”, Lauer’s surprised look must have been a moment of real revelation for Obama - that anyone could actually expect him to make good on any of his own words – nope, the irony just evaporated over Obama’s head.
Image is everything, isn’t it.
Close Enough ...
Over the weekend in an interview with Chris Wallace about Obama’s leadership regarding BP’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill, Haley Barbour, Republican Governor of Mississippi, quipped that “The American people want problems solved. And they don't need Republican politicians like me piling on. The American people are making up their minds pretty clearly about what they think of the administration's performance in this disaster. And I'll let it stand at that.
You know, Napoleon said never interfere with the enemy while he's in the process of destroying himself. So people don't need me to pile on or to talk about what the administration's doing or ought not to do.”
The actual Napoleonic quote was “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”, but we get the drift.
You know, Napoleon said never interfere with the enemy while he's in the process of destroying himself. So people don't need me to pile on or to talk about what the administration's doing or ought not to do.”
The actual Napoleonic quote was “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”, but we get the drift.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Who, Me ??? ...
When asked why she didn't bear responsibility in the AIG bonus scandal resulting from the TARP and stimulus bills she worked feverishly to rush through Congress, Nancy Pelosi said, "Is it worth it to transfer hundreds of billions of taxpayer money, as Secretary Paulson asked us?" "What are the results? Where is the credit circulating on Main Street? Our people are afraid of losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their pensions, losing the college education of their children. It's just not right."...
You're right it's not ! YOU promised us that TARP wasn't just for Wall Street. That it was needed for Main Street, for credit, to keep people in their jobs, from losing their homes, pensions and college education funds for their children !!!
It was YOU who tried to cutoff debate on the House version of TARP, chided the American public with 'they just didn't get it' when they implored Congress not to vote for the measure, mocked the previous administration for the need for the relief, castigated the Republicans for its failure to pass and then engineered passage in the House of the Senate version of TARP. YOU beamed with smug satisfaction when the stimulus bill was similarly pushed through without meaningful debate or review and then took credit for being the principal architect of its provisions but got 'pissed off' when conferees knocked some of your more egregious social spending programs out - condoms ! for economic recovery ???.
Your indignation rings hollow and hypocritical ... but then you're still running true to form !
LONDON FREE PRESS, Oct. 3rd 2008
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the bill was needed to “begin to shape the financial stability of our country and the economic security of our people.” Typifying arguments the problem no longer is just a Wall Street issue but also one for Main Street, lawmakers from California and Florida said their state governments were beginning to experience trouble borrowing funds for their own operations.
Pelosi said, “We must win it for Mr. and Mrs. Jones on Main Street.”
BOOMERS_BANK, Oct. 3rd 2008
House leaders said the difference was lawmakers’ work to shift the focus from the bailout of financial companies to the boost it would give homeowners, small businesses and individual investors.
“All the attention was on Wall Street, and we wanted to turn that attention,” Pelosi said after the vote.
SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE, Sept 26, 2008
Pelosi accused Republicans of "choosing to protect oil companies rather than schools, libraries, and road building."
THE AGE, Sept. 27th, 2008
When Ms Pelosi replied "it's not me blowing this up, it's the Republicans".
REUTERS, Sept. 27th 2008
"It would be my hope, that this could be resolved today, that we had a day for the American people and members of Congress to review the legislation on the Internet that we could bring something to the floor possibly Sunday night or Monday morning," Pelosi said.
CNN, Sept. 29th 2008
Republican leaders, who had pushed their reluctant members to vote for the bill, pointed the finger for the failure at a speech given Monday by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Pelosi, speaking on the House floor, had blamed the nation's economic problems on "failed Bush economic policies."
THE SWAMP - TRIBUNE's WASHINGTON BUREAU, Sept. 29th 2008
"When was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion?'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asked the House near the close of debate Monday.
"It's a staggering figure.... $700 billion, a staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country,'' Pelosi said, blaming Bush for inheriting a budget surplus and turning it into a record deficit with " reckless economic policies.... "It's really an anything goes mentality, no regulation, no supervision, no discipline.
"And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute, and the government will bail you out,'' Pelosi said. "Those days are over. The party is over.''
CNN, Feb. 12th 2009
Pelosi, however, said Thursday that, "We're proud of the product ... this is historical and transformational."
"While we would have liked to had more Republican support for it, and hopefully we will, we stand as Democrats ready to be accountable to the American people for this legislation and for the results we predict it will bring," she said.
WASHINGTON POST, Feb. 12th 2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), along with many other House Democrats, was disappointed that the final package more closely resembled the Senate's bill than the House's spending-rich package. But she called the legislation "historic and transformational" for its investments in Democratic social priorities.
"Let's just say it was a success," Pelosi told reporters.
FORBES, Feb 12th 2009
House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, calls it "the trillion-dollar spending bill that stressed-out taxpayers feared it would be," after hundreds of billions of dollars in interest are factored in.
Nonetheless, Democrats are confident it will create at least 3.5 million jobs within the next two years. "We will be accountable for this," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters in a press conference Thursday afternoon.
You're right it's not ! YOU promised us that TARP wasn't just for Wall Street. That it was needed for Main Street, for credit, to keep people in their jobs, from losing their homes, pensions and college education funds for their children !!!
It was YOU who tried to cutoff debate on the House version of TARP, chided the American public with 'they just didn't get it' when they implored Congress not to vote for the measure, mocked the previous administration for the need for the relief, castigated the Republicans for its failure to pass and then engineered passage in the House of the Senate version of TARP. YOU beamed with smug satisfaction when the stimulus bill was similarly pushed through without meaningful debate or review and then took credit for being the principal architect of its provisions but got 'pissed off' when conferees knocked some of your more egregious social spending programs out - condoms ! for economic recovery ???.
Your indignation rings hollow and hypocritical ... but then you're still running true to form !
LONDON FREE PRESS, Oct. 3rd 2008
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the bill was needed to “begin to shape the financial stability of our country and the economic security of our people.” Typifying arguments the problem no longer is just a Wall Street issue but also one for Main Street, lawmakers from California and Florida said their state governments were beginning to experience trouble borrowing funds for their own operations.
Pelosi said, “We must win it for Mr. and Mrs. Jones on Main Street.”
BOOMERS_BANK, Oct. 3rd 2008
House leaders said the difference was lawmakers’ work to shift the focus from the bailout of financial companies to the boost it would give homeowners, small businesses and individual investors.
“All the attention was on Wall Street, and we wanted to turn that attention,” Pelosi said after the vote.
SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE, Sept 26, 2008
Pelosi accused Republicans of "choosing to protect oil companies rather than schools, libraries, and road building."
THE AGE, Sept. 27th, 2008
When Ms Pelosi replied "it's not me blowing this up, it's the Republicans".
REUTERS, Sept. 27th 2008
"It would be my hope, that this could be resolved today, that we had a day for the American people and members of Congress to review the legislation on the Internet that we could bring something to the floor possibly Sunday night or Monday morning," Pelosi said.
CNN, Sept. 29th 2008
Republican leaders, who had pushed their reluctant members to vote for the bill, pointed the finger for the failure at a speech given Monday by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Pelosi, speaking on the House floor, had blamed the nation's economic problems on "failed Bush economic policies."
THE SWAMP - TRIBUNE's WASHINGTON BUREAU, Sept. 29th 2008
"When was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion?'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asked the House near the close of debate Monday.
"It's a staggering figure.... $700 billion, a staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country,'' Pelosi said, blaming Bush for inheriting a budget surplus and turning it into a record deficit with " reckless economic policies.... "It's really an anything goes mentality, no regulation, no supervision, no discipline.
"And if you fail, you will have a golden parachute, and the government will bail you out,'' Pelosi said. "Those days are over. The party is over.''
CNN, Feb. 12th 2009
Pelosi, however, said Thursday that, "We're proud of the product ... this is historical and transformational."
"While we would have liked to had more Republican support for it, and hopefully we will, we stand as Democrats ready to be accountable to the American people for this legislation and for the results we predict it will bring," she said.
WASHINGTON POST, Feb. 12th 2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), along with many other House Democrats, was disappointed that the final package more closely resembled the Senate's bill than the House's spending-rich package. But she called the legislation "historic and transformational" for its investments in Democratic social priorities.
"Let's just say it was a success," Pelosi told reporters.
FORBES, Feb 12th 2009
House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, calls it "the trillion-dollar spending bill that stressed-out taxpayers feared it would be," after hundreds of billions of dollars in interest are factored in.
Nonetheless, Democrats are confident it will create at least 3.5 million jobs within the next two years. "We will be accountable for this," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters in a press conference Thursday afternoon.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Obama ... Messes
Way ta go Obama! You're The Man ... one of vision, one of keen intellect, one of ... oh well, you're just the ONE.
House Passes Bill to Punish A.I.G. Bonus Recipients
WASHINGTON — Spurred on by a tidal wave of public anger over bonuses paid to executives of the foundering American International Group, the House voted 328 to 93 on Thursday to get back most of the money by levying a 90 percent tax on it.
When no one at AIG wants to work there to finish winding down the remaining 1.6 TRILLION - do you get it Obama ! - that's TRILLION dollars - of derivatives exposure; what Warren Buffet calls weapons of financial destruction (WFD) and their performance suffers we all end up footing a needlessly more expensive bill or God, Forbid, - AIG actually collapses then we get to kiss anywhere from 80 to 170 Billion goodbye for naught and who knows what ensuing damage to the economy.
All because you couldn't rise up above the vitriol and lead !
Oh, hell, I forgot ... financial ruin, class warfare, institution destruction, constitutional crisis, panic, fear ... they're all necessary for your Socialist agenda ... silly me.
House Passes Bill to Punish A.I.G. Bonus Recipients
WASHINGTON — Spurred on by a tidal wave of public anger over bonuses paid to executives of the foundering American International Group, the House voted 328 to 93 on Thursday to get back most of the money by levying a 90 percent tax on it.When no one at AIG wants to work there to finish winding down the remaining 1.6 TRILLION - do you get it Obama ! - that's TRILLION dollars - of derivatives exposure; what Warren Buffet calls weapons of financial destruction (WFD) and their performance suffers we all end up footing a needlessly more expensive bill or God, Forbid, - AIG actually collapses then we get to kiss anywhere from 80 to 170 Billion goodbye for naught and who knows what ensuing damage to the economy.
All because you couldn't rise up above the vitriol and lead !
Oh, hell, I forgot ... financial ruin, class warfare, institution destruction, constitutional crisis, panic, fear ... they're all necessary for your Socialist agenda ... silly me.
Reining In Congress ...
Musing for a moment on ways to rein in Congress's reckless and wasteful spending habits ... Here's a better version of "Pay to Play".
Most people know that recklessly spending Other People's Money (OPM or "our" tax money) is a seductive temptation our legislators just can't seem to refrain from; equally, most people understand that when it's YOUR money - either going into or out of their own pockets that there's a lot less carelessness involved.
Keeping this fundamental aspect of human nature in mind perhaps our legislators should be required to be the FIRST to pay their share of any bills they introduce and pass in the future.
Before they are called to vote, the Office of Management and Budget could prepare a report showing the cost to every American citizen for the proposed legislation and then calculate each member of Congress' share.
Let's not forget though, that we want to be sure to apply Obama Socialist Principle #1 - "Each according to his ability to Pay".
Therefore, while it adds complication and more work, the OMB will have to look at each member's net worth - and because we know these rascals have already defeated the financial reporting rules by limiting meaningful disclosures on spouses' incomes and financial interests, the OMB will have to determine their "household" net worth - and each member's share will be adjusted proportionately (read upwards) based upon how wealthy they are in contrast to each other and to the rest of us.
Next the OMB will need to calculate the carrying or interest costs of the legislation since we're already running a deficit and otherwise someone else will have to carry the burden in future years - since that's our children and grandchildren and they have no voice or representation in the debate over the merits, if any, of the legislation but will assume the expense of it when they begin working for their own earned incomes.
Again to be fair and since Obama has determined that half of the deficit will be eliminated in 10 years we'll use an amortization of only 20 years to compute interest.
Now, also since Congress gets far better perquisites, and benefits than the rest of us at taxpayer expense; for the privilege of being our legislators each member gets to prepay the first year's interest and that is added to their graduated share of the legislation's cost. The interest for each of the following 19 years will be invoiced to them each year.
When the clerk calls the roll for a vote, each member of Congress dutifully files down to cast their vote with checkbook, though cash is preferred because we all still remember the Congressional checkwriting scandal from a few years ago, or credit card in hand. If they choose to use plastic, they also have to pay the card processing fees.
Once they have a receipt showing that they have paid, each member can proceed to cast his or her vote !
If Joe Biden was still seated can you imagine how quickly Mr. Liberal would turn into a Fiscal Conservative ... Okay, you get the point.
Most people know that recklessly spending Other People's Money (OPM or "our" tax money) is a seductive temptation our legislators just can't seem to refrain from; equally, most people understand that when it's YOUR money - either going into or out of their own pockets that there's a lot less carelessness involved.
Keeping this fundamental aspect of human nature in mind perhaps our legislators should be required to be the FIRST to pay their share of any bills they introduce and pass in the future.
Before they are called to vote, the Office of Management and Budget could prepare a report showing the cost to every American citizen for the proposed legislation and then calculate each member of Congress' share.
Let's not forget though, that we want to be sure to apply Obama Socialist Principle #1 - "Each according to his ability to Pay".
Therefore, while it adds complication and more work, the OMB will have to look at each member's net worth - and because we know these rascals have already defeated the financial reporting rules by limiting meaningful disclosures on spouses' incomes and financial interests, the OMB will have to determine their "household" net worth - and each member's share will be adjusted proportionately (read upwards) based upon how wealthy they are in contrast to each other and to the rest of us.
Next the OMB will need to calculate the carrying or interest costs of the legislation since we're already running a deficit and otherwise someone else will have to carry the burden in future years - since that's our children and grandchildren and they have no voice or representation in the debate over the merits, if any, of the legislation but will assume the expense of it when they begin working for their own earned incomes.
Again to be fair and since Obama has determined that half of the deficit will be eliminated in 10 years we'll use an amortization of only 20 years to compute interest.
Now, also since Congress gets far better perquisites, and benefits than the rest of us at taxpayer expense; for the privilege of being our legislators each member gets to prepay the first year's interest and that is added to their graduated share of the legislation's cost. The interest for each of the following 19 years will be invoiced to them each year.
When the clerk calls the roll for a vote, each member of Congress dutifully files down to cast their vote with checkbook, though cash is preferred because we all still remember the Congressional checkwriting scandal from a few years ago, or credit card in hand. If they choose to use plastic, they also have to pay the card processing fees.
Once they have a receipt showing that they have paid, each member can proceed to cast his or her vote !
If Joe Biden was still seated can you imagine how quickly Mr. Liberal would turn into a Fiscal Conservative ... Okay, you get the point.
Bullshit ! ... AIG, again
"Listen, I'll take responsibility...", Obama said yesterday while traveling in California. He noted that, "... it's my job to make sure we fix these messes, even if I don't make 'em."
You did make it - by pushing through your stimulus bill which had the provisions enabling the mess and to top it off - you've never even read the bill.
So it won't come as any surprise to you when all the other "messes" start rolling in from that wicked little piece of legislation. Nor, should it surprise anyone else that true to form you'll glibly accept responsibility, without any intellectual honesty or genuine consequence, when they do.
You did make it - by pushing through your stimulus bill which had the provisions enabling the mess and to top it off - you've never even read the bill.
So it won't come as any surprise to you when all the other "messes" start rolling in from that wicked little piece of legislation. Nor, should it surprise anyone else that true to form you'll glibly accept responsibility, without any intellectual honesty or genuine consequence, when they do.
Pelosi's Oath ...
"I, Nancy Pelosi, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
It was reported yesterday that Nancy Pelosi, in addressing a group of illegal aliens in San Francisco, declared them to be the true Patriots - she also decried the actions of Immigration and Customs law enforcement personnel and insisted that enforcement of the US Immigration laws was "Un-American" and unacceptable.
What alternate universe does Pelosi live in? Airlines, to insure our safety as passengers, are required to periodically perform evaluations of the mental and emotional fitness of their pilots. Nancy Pelosi stands as the best example as to why there should be the same requirement for the political leadership of this country !
The Speaker of the House has a higher standard of behavior and responsibility than any other member of Congress. Nancy Pelosi has and continues to fail, miserably, in meeting that standard of office.
By law the Speaker of the House is second in line only to the Vice-president of the United States for succession to the Presidency. That puts Nancy Pelosi two heartbeats away from holding the most important position of leadership in the United States.
It is time that Nancy Pelosi be removed by Congress from her office, BEFORE she is capable of inflicting any more damage on the United States.
It was reported yesterday that Nancy Pelosi, in addressing a group of illegal aliens in San Francisco, declared them to be the true Patriots - she also decried the actions of Immigration and Customs law enforcement personnel and insisted that enforcement of the US Immigration laws was "Un-American" and unacceptable.
What alternate universe does Pelosi live in? Airlines, to insure our safety as passengers, are required to periodically perform evaluations of the mental and emotional fitness of their pilots. Nancy Pelosi stands as the best example as to why there should be the same requirement for the political leadership of this country !
The Speaker of the House has a higher standard of behavior and responsibility than any other member of Congress. Nancy Pelosi has and continues to fail, miserably, in meeting that standard of office.
By law the Speaker of the House is second in line only to the Vice-president of the United States for succession to the Presidency. That puts Nancy Pelosi two heartbeats away from holding the most important position of leadership in the United States.
It is time that Nancy Pelosi be removed by Congress from her office, BEFORE she is capable of inflicting any more damage on the United States.
Black Wednesday ... Printing Presses to Crank Up
To most people, yesterday March 18th wasn't all that different a day save for the hypocritical excoriations conducted by Representative Barney Frank and friends at the Capitol during the day long interrogations of AIG Ceo Edward Liddy and the news of the tragic death of Natasha Richardson, actress and daughter of Lynn Redgrave, and wife of actor, Lliam Neeson.
What mostly passed notice yesterday though was the Federal Reserve's decision to purchase about 300 Billion dollars worth of US Treasury Bonds (debt) and up to 750 Billion in mortgage backed securities.
In the preceding weeks, the Treasury Dept tried to sell more US debt to pay for the Obama economic and domestic programs by offering another round of about $40 billion worth of 30 year US Treasury bonds. Notably, the subscription failed with less than half of the amount being purchased because investors either, didn't believe the treasuries were a good investment, and, or because for the risk involved they didn't pay a high enough interest rate.
To pay a higher rate of interest would spur on inflation. Something the Fed is loathe to cause.
It was not a good sign for the confidence of investors in the future prospects of the US economy.
Now, in order to purchase our nation's debt, which is a direct consequence of an undisciplined President and Congress hell bent on profligate spending and unwilling to set realistic priorities - the Federal Reserve has decided to step in to buy US debt to help prop up our economy.
This is important because the only way the Fed can purchase debt is to increase the money supply and the only way to increase the money supply is to print more, new US currency - that is, dollars. Too many dollars and too much debt result in all dollars being worth less, or devaluation.
And cranking up the presses to print worthless dollars is a major problem because it too will spur on both eventual inflation and the devaluation of our dollars - including those in the savings, and checking accounts and payroll checks of every American - as well those dollars held by foreign governments as cash and in the value of the US treasury bonds (debt) they already hold.
Printing worthless money puts all of us on the edge of a terrible precipice - one that with alarming rapidity can cause our country and the rest of the world to fall into a devastating depression.
And the Fed is going to print 1 TRILLION new dollars !
This is precisely what the Chinese government expressed as their concern when they criticized Obama and Congress about his reckless spending programs and the potential to devalue their holdings in dollars, both as currency reserves and in US debt.
In their view the Congress, Pelosi and Obama are acting like drunken whores on a shopping spree with a credit card - a credit card that belongs to the Chinese. Reallistically how long will it be before the Chinese, in an act of self preservation and desperation, cancel that credit card ?
The rest of the world is very pissed off at the change in their economic fortunes because of all of the toxic debt and assets that were created here and subsequently packaged and marketed to them - they see us accountable for it. They intend to hold us accountable for it in due course.
That accountability is already taking form with discussions about replacing the US Dollar with another "world" currency - if and when that occurs - the US and its citizens will really be screwed.
Why weren't you listening Pelosi and Obama ? Over the past 2 months the Chinese have sent earlier warnings about their posture on it. And while there have been no public disclosures as yet, the Chinese have almost certainly beaten up Hank Paulson over this issue during his watch.
Obama is too concerned about pushing his Socialist agenda to give much thought to economic and other realties.
Pelosi on the other hand, famous for wasting tax dollars on jet travel, has a real problem with hearing, and comprehension. While she protests she supports real protection for US taxpayers and their money - she has a bug for the Chinese about their internal domestic human rights policies and treatment of Tibet, because the Chinese audaciously do not conform to her "San Francisco" values and beliefs.
At the G-20 summit Obama's pleas for European Union support of his economic plan was rebuffed by Germany, who basically said that his reckless spending was not the solution and more likely to cause greater economic harm to both the US and the rest of the world. Ow ! - that was a slap in the face, wasn't it Obama ?
Ironically, Communist China, moving quickly and massively in cutting taxes to improve its economy is acting more like a capitalist nation than the United States, which under the Obama/Pelosi's leadership has rejected tax cuts in favor of uncontrolled reckless spending.
What mostly passed notice yesterday though was the Federal Reserve's decision to purchase about 300 Billion dollars worth of US Treasury Bonds (debt) and up to 750 Billion in mortgage backed securities.
In the preceding weeks, the Treasury Dept tried to sell more US debt to pay for the Obama economic and domestic programs by offering another round of about $40 billion worth of 30 year US Treasury bonds. Notably, the subscription failed with less than half of the amount being purchased because investors either, didn't believe the treasuries were a good investment, and, or because for the risk involved they didn't pay a high enough interest rate.
To pay a higher rate of interest would spur on inflation. Something the Fed is loathe to cause.
It was not a good sign for the confidence of investors in the future prospects of the US economy.
Now, in order to purchase our nation's debt, which is a direct consequence of an undisciplined President and Congress hell bent on profligate spending and unwilling to set realistic priorities - the Federal Reserve has decided to step in to buy US debt to help prop up our economy.
This is important because the only way the Fed can purchase debt is to increase the money supply and the only way to increase the money supply is to print more, new US currency - that is, dollars. Too many dollars and too much debt result in all dollars being worth less, or devaluation.
And cranking up the presses to print worthless dollars is a major problem because it too will spur on both eventual inflation and the devaluation of our dollars - including those in the savings, and checking accounts and payroll checks of every American - as well those dollars held by foreign governments as cash and in the value of the US treasury bonds (debt) they already hold.
Printing worthless money puts all of us on the edge of a terrible precipice - one that with alarming rapidity can cause our country and the rest of the world to fall into a devastating depression.
And the Fed is going to print 1 TRILLION new dollars !
This is precisely what the Chinese government expressed as their concern when they criticized Obama and Congress about his reckless spending programs and the potential to devalue their holdings in dollars, both as currency reserves and in US debt.
In their view the Congress, Pelosi and Obama are acting like drunken whores on a shopping spree with a credit card - a credit card that belongs to the Chinese. Reallistically how long will it be before the Chinese, in an act of self preservation and desperation, cancel that credit card ?
The rest of the world is very pissed off at the change in their economic fortunes because of all of the toxic debt and assets that were created here and subsequently packaged and marketed to them - they see us accountable for it. They intend to hold us accountable for it in due course.
That accountability is already taking form with discussions about replacing the US Dollar with another "world" currency - if and when that occurs - the US and its citizens will really be screwed.
Why weren't you listening Pelosi and Obama ? Over the past 2 months the Chinese have sent earlier warnings about their posture on it. And while there have been no public disclosures as yet, the Chinese have almost certainly beaten up Hank Paulson over this issue during his watch.
Obama is too concerned about pushing his Socialist agenda to give much thought to economic and other realties.
Pelosi on the other hand, famous for wasting tax dollars on jet travel, has a real problem with hearing, and comprehension. While she protests she supports real protection for US taxpayers and their money - she has a bug for the Chinese about their internal domestic human rights policies and treatment of Tibet, because the Chinese audaciously do not conform to her "San Francisco" values and beliefs.
At the G-20 summit Obama's pleas for European Union support of his economic plan was rebuffed by Germany, who basically said that his reckless spending was not the solution and more likely to cause greater economic harm to both the US and the rest of the world. Ow ! - that was a slap in the face, wasn't it Obama ?
Ironically, Communist China, moving quickly and massively in cutting taxes to improve its economy is acting more like a capitalist nation than the United States, which under the Obama/Pelosi's leadership has rejected tax cuts in favor of uncontrolled reckless spending.
The Federal Reserve purchases will bolster concern that inflation will accelerate as borrowing costs fall, said Jessica Hoversen, a foreign exchange analyst with MF Global Ltd. in Chicago.
“The Fed is basically financing our deficit by buying the debt issued by the Treasury,” she said. “If the Obama administration pushes through another stimulus package, the dollar is done.”
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
FREE Tea Bag Pictures and Artwork
FREE pictures and artwork to copy of Tea Bags
go here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/shrugs4/TeaBags#
go here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/shrugs4/TeaBags#
Brown Shirts ...
Obama has planned yet this week 2 townhall style meetings as well as a guest appearance for Jay Leno's Tonight Show in California.
If you're wondering what the hell is he doing racking up more costs to taxpayers for transportation and security - which doesn't come cheap - to go to California when he should be at his desk at work in Washington ....
Well, take your pick:
It's the infatuation of flying on Air Force One for free - can't get enough of it, or,
I've never had a real job anyway, and I don't like this "tied to a desk" routine, or,
I'm still campaigning !
If you chose all 3 - Congratulations.
Now that Obama's popularity is starting to slide, and his budget proposals are taking heat on the Hill, it's time to try and fire up some grass roots support.
You may not be surprised to learn that the Obama campaign and it's members "Obama for America" have now become "Organizing for America" to promote Obama's Socialist agenda. Hey, same initials - they can still use all of those old, leftover campaign buttons.
Previous supporters of the "old" OFA, not to be confused with the "new" OFA, are being asked by the "new" OFA to sign a "pledge" to support the Obama economic plan and domestic proposals for education, health care and energy.
This coming weekend OFA supporters have also been asked to go out and canvas neighborhoods, knocking door to door, to garner even more support.
In the future don't be surprised if OFA organizers eventually finalize on a "Brown" shirt for the faithful to wear when they gather in groups to rally and pledge allegiance to Obama.
If you're wondering what the hell is he doing racking up more costs to taxpayers for transportation and security - which doesn't come cheap - to go to California when he should be at his desk at work in Washington ....
Well, take your pick:
It's the infatuation of flying on Air Force One for free - can't get enough of it, or,
I've never had a real job anyway, and I don't like this "tied to a desk" routine, or,
I'm still campaigning !
If you chose all 3 - Congratulations.
Now that Obama's popularity is starting to slide, and his budget proposals are taking heat on the Hill, it's time to try and fire up some grass roots support.
You may not be surprised to learn that the Obama campaign and it's members "Obama for America" have now become "Organizing for America" to promote Obama's Socialist agenda. Hey, same initials - they can still use all of those old, leftover campaign buttons.
Previous supporters of the "old" OFA, not to be confused with the "new" OFA, are being asked by the "new" OFA to sign a "pledge" to support the Obama economic plan and domestic proposals for education, health care and energy.
This coming weekend OFA supporters have also been asked to go out and canvas neighborhoods, knocking door to door, to garner even more support.
In the future don't be surprised if OFA organizers eventually finalize on a "Brown" shirt for the faithful to wear when they gather in groups to rally and pledge allegiance to Obama.
And Speaking of Honor ...
Obama has gone out of his way during the campaign and as recently as this week to praise our service men and women; commenting on the honor they have earned and what we owe them. Yet this very same week, he, and members of his administration refuse to commit to avoid shifting the cost of medical services for veterans injured during service to private insurance carriers and subsequently causing veterans to bear the financial burden.
An Administration spokesperson points out that Obama is trying to save 540 million in the budget.
An Administration spokesperson points out that Obama is trying to save 540 million in the budget.
Honor ...
Charles Grassley, Republican Senator from Iowa, in his zeal to blast AIG over bonus payments, called upon AIG management to do the "honorable" thing and follow the Japanese custom - for failure and dishonor - and commit suicide. A day later, though he continued to refer to the Japanese suicide ritual, Grassley tried to explain that his remarks were made only because he wanted a demonstration of contrition from those responsible, not that he actually wanted anyone to perform the act.
There aren't adequate words to describe how vile, irresponsible and idiotic this man's statements were ... ok, maybe there are ... but I don't want to put them in print !
There aren't adequate words to describe how vile, irresponsible and idiotic this man's statements were ... ok, maybe there are ... but I don't want to put them in print !
Ineptitude ... AIG, TARP Revisited
During his campaign and notably since taking office, Obama has been posturing for his Socialist agenda by pitting populism against the wealthy in America to entrench and further deepen the class schism.
Obama's latest overture - his recent "outrage" over AIG's latest abuse of TARP money - has been to exploit the same for political purposes. But in singlemindedly pursuing his socialist goals he's lost track of some other realities.
If he really gave a damn about taxpayer's money he would have "vetoed" the stimulus appropriations bill that wastes BILLIONS instead of ranting about AIG's millions in bonus payments. Given that he took such a strident position against "earmarks" and that he would champion the stewardship of taxpayer's interest - when it came to tackling the reality of confronting the political interests of Congressional legislators who sponsor "earmarks" - he limply backed away, saying in effect, "well, it's just an old business item carried over from last year; but we'll really address the earmark problem on future appropriations bills.". That's nice, it's only going to cost us 8 billion that could have been prevented.
Well, by signing that bill he not only squandered our money, but his credibility too.
Now he should re-think expressing his "outrage" over AIG.
Presumably some of these people at AIG have specialized knowledge on how to run that business. Unfortunately, we now own most of AIG, to the tune of 80% .
At this point what injures Americans the most ? Should AIG be abandoned and allowed to collapse - or do we continue to prop it up? If, it's the latter, then the same people are necessary to keep AIG functioning, and Obama's and Congress' rantings and threats aren't going to yield optimum performance over at AIG; to the contrary they will insure further failed performance. Yeah, it's piss poor that our leadership and legislators didn't heed the warnings or care and know enough about how to protect our interests before they rushed head long to pass TARP. But what is in our best interests now? It's certainly not the spew coming out of Washington from the politicians.
Obama also needs to consider whether or not he's setting this up for further backlash in Congress. Congress is going to be very hard pressed to justify the next 30 billion round of funding for AIG - and it's coming up soon - let alone any more so called TARP rescue for other financial institutions.
Secretary Geithner's and Treasury's accountability in all this is under scrutiny as well, with calls already for Geithner's resignation! Geithner says he will get all of the bonus payment money back from AIG. Wake up idiot, "WE OWN AIG - you're going to get it all back from US ! ".
Schumer, Dodd, Reid, Grassely, Pelosi, Frank and others are foaming at the mouth to pass some sort of legislation that targets the individuals who received the bonuses; interestingly those who are complaining the loudest bear the greatest responsibility for failing miserably to protect taxpayers in the first place.
The "thinking" of these legislators is especially dangerous - it is "wrong" when government resources are used to "punish" those who are not in political favor or seen as undeserving. In Europe, where they have had decades of injury, misery and suffering from totalitarian and fascist regimes, they understand just how dangerous this kind of political "thinking" is. There are real constitutional problems with what these legislators want to do, and they will be called to account for it.
Some voices are pushing for the bonus agreements between AIG and its employees to be blocked, voided or rescinded - essentially to interfere with legally binding contracts. If no fraud was involved, you can be certain litigation will follow and lost and the cost burden will be borne by the American public at greater expense than the bonus payments alone.
Because of Obama's ineptitude and his fanning the flames of outrage, responsibility for all of this can be laid at the Whitehouse's doorstep.
Lastly, AIG's abuses are only prelude - is there anyone in Congress or the Administration so gullible to believe that with the BILLIONS of dollars yet to be distributed from the stimulus bill that more financial abuses, fraud and voter outrage aren't on the way? Unfortunately, we already know the answer!
Yeah, this really is change we can believe in !
Obama's latest overture - his recent "outrage" over AIG's latest abuse of TARP money - has been to exploit the same for political purposes. But in singlemindedly pursuing his socialist goals he's lost track of some other realities.
If he really gave a damn about taxpayer's money he would have "vetoed" the stimulus appropriations bill that wastes BILLIONS instead of ranting about AIG's millions in bonus payments. Given that he took such a strident position against "earmarks" and that he would champion the stewardship of taxpayer's interest - when it came to tackling the reality of confronting the political interests of Congressional legislators who sponsor "earmarks" - he limply backed away, saying in effect, "well, it's just an old business item carried over from last year; but we'll really address the earmark problem on future appropriations bills.". That's nice, it's only going to cost us 8 billion that could have been prevented.
Well, by signing that bill he not only squandered our money, but his credibility too.
Now he should re-think expressing his "outrage" over AIG.
Presumably some of these people at AIG have specialized knowledge on how to run that business. Unfortunately, we now own most of AIG, to the tune of 80% .
At this point what injures Americans the most ? Should AIG be abandoned and allowed to collapse - or do we continue to prop it up? If, it's the latter, then the same people are necessary to keep AIG functioning, and Obama's and Congress' rantings and threats aren't going to yield optimum performance over at AIG; to the contrary they will insure further failed performance. Yeah, it's piss poor that our leadership and legislators didn't heed the warnings or care and know enough about how to protect our interests before they rushed head long to pass TARP. But what is in our best interests now? It's certainly not the spew coming out of Washington from the politicians.
Obama also needs to consider whether or not he's setting this up for further backlash in Congress. Congress is going to be very hard pressed to justify the next 30 billion round of funding for AIG - and it's coming up soon - let alone any more so called TARP rescue for other financial institutions.
Secretary Geithner's and Treasury's accountability in all this is under scrutiny as well, with calls already for Geithner's resignation! Geithner says he will get all of the bonus payment money back from AIG. Wake up idiot, "WE OWN AIG - you're going to get it all back from US ! ".
Schumer, Dodd, Reid, Grassely, Pelosi, Frank and others are foaming at the mouth to pass some sort of legislation that targets the individuals who received the bonuses; interestingly those who are complaining the loudest bear the greatest responsibility for failing miserably to protect taxpayers in the first place.
The "thinking" of these legislators is especially dangerous - it is "wrong" when government resources are used to "punish" those who are not in political favor or seen as undeserving. In Europe, where they have had decades of injury, misery and suffering from totalitarian and fascist regimes, they understand just how dangerous this kind of political "thinking" is. There are real constitutional problems with what these legislators want to do, and they will be called to account for it.
Some voices are pushing for the bonus agreements between AIG and its employees to be blocked, voided or rescinded - essentially to interfere with legally binding contracts. If no fraud was involved, you can be certain litigation will follow and lost and the cost burden will be borne by the American public at greater expense than the bonus payments alone.
Because of Obama's ineptitude and his fanning the flames of outrage, responsibility for all of this can be laid at the Whitehouse's doorstep.
Lastly, AIG's abuses are only prelude - is there anyone in Congress or the Administration so gullible to believe that with the BILLIONS of dollars yet to be distributed from the stimulus bill that more financial abuses, fraud and voter outrage aren't on the way? Unfortunately, we already know the answer!
Yeah, this really is change we can believe in !
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Nice Work ... If You Can Find It !
How many hours of work a week do you put in...40, 50 or more? If you own a business it's probably not uncommon for you to work 12 or more hours a day, skip a lot of lunches and miss a lot of family events because of time on the job during weekends. If you're a homemaker, you probably work even longer hours.
Now how much time do you think Congress puts in for a full year for $174,000 in pay, not including perqs and benefits - which by the way includes an automatic $4700 pay increase that went into effect in January?
This year Congress is scheduled to work a total of 137 days - for everyone else a normal work year on the job is about 103 days longer or about 240 days.
The rebuttal, of course, is that members of Congress want you to know that they spend the rest of their time in their home districts working very hard - to get re-elected, that is.
Given the magnitude of the economic crisis confronting all of us, the limited number of days Congress actually spends on the job, and as precious as their time is, they apparently found enough of it to grind out that very vital piece of the people's business by legislating March 14th into officialdom as "PI Day" thereby promoting science and mathematics. It must have been a moment of tremendous satisfaction and personal pride, since clearly, quality efforts like this by Congress go a long way in assuring America's technical and scientific pre-eminence in the World.
Representative John Murtha, Democratic septuagenarian, said he thought they were voting for "Pie" Day - those of the fruit persuasion.
Apparently, my 6 year old grandaughter reads as much of the bills pending before Congress as our legislators do - though she comprehends more.
Ed Rendel, the Governor of Pennsylvania has something to say about Congress' work ethic - "How hard do you think Congress works?", he asks. "Until you can show me that you bust your hump every single day of the week—that you're working 10 hours a day, five days a week, and you have meetings on Saturdays—until you tell me that, don't tell me you're working too hard."
Personally, I'd rather see Congress not work at all, or at the very least not increase their hours ... for when they're on the job - it costs all of us a fortune.
Congress - please go away but more importantly, stay away!
Now how much time do you think Congress puts in for a full year for $174,000 in pay, not including perqs and benefits - which by the way includes an automatic $4700 pay increase that went into effect in January?
This year Congress is scheduled to work a total of 137 days - for everyone else a normal work year on the job is about 103 days longer or about 240 days.
The rebuttal, of course, is that members of Congress want you to know that they spend the rest of their time in their home districts working very hard - to get re-elected, that is.
Given the magnitude of the economic crisis confronting all of us, the limited number of days Congress actually spends on the job, and as precious as their time is, they apparently found enough of it to grind out that very vital piece of the people's business by legislating March 14th into officialdom as "PI Day" thereby promoting science and mathematics. It must have been a moment of tremendous satisfaction and personal pride, since clearly, quality efforts like this by Congress go a long way in assuring America's technical and scientific pre-eminence in the World.
Representative John Murtha, Democratic septuagenarian, said he thought they were voting for "Pie" Day - those of the fruit persuasion.
Apparently, my 6 year old grandaughter reads as much of the bills pending before Congress as our legislators do - though she comprehends more.
Ed Rendel, the Governor of Pennsylvania has something to say about Congress' work ethic - "How hard do you think Congress works?", he asks. "Until you can show me that you bust your hump every single day of the week—that you're working 10 hours a day, five days a week, and you have meetings on Saturdays—until you tell me that, don't tell me you're working too hard."
Personally, I'd rather see Congress not work at all, or at the very least not increase their hours ... for when they're on the job - it costs all of us a fortune.
Congress - please go away but more importantly, stay away!
Focus
There must be a peculiar sense of vindication, albeit with a decidedly bitter aftertaste, for those who warned that AIG’s and the fortunes of other Wall Street miscreant’s should have been left to the judgment and correction of the markets rather than the misguided and incompetent meddling of our political leadership.
Now after 4 failed infusions totaling some $ 170 billion of taxpayer funded relief specifically to prop up AIG, our politicians are tripping over themselves to express their moral indignation and outrage that AIG would dare to use $165 million of taxpayer’s bailout money to honor employment contracts. Do these wonks really believe that they can deflect public resentment for the culpability of their own failures in this mess – that no one will recognize what is happening - that these very same politicians desperately want to shift the focus and blame away from themselves by scapegoating AIG? Well, yes … OF COURSE THEY REALLY BELIEVE IT or they wouldn’t be in such a mad rush to get “air time” or any other media coverage!
Certainly, AIG has a long laundry list of sins, misjudgments and missteps to account for, but honoring a legally binding contract is not one of them. And yes, it is one further abuse … BUT no, we should look squarely to place blame and responsibility where it belongs – on those politicians who enabled this latest abuse and the waste and squandering of 170 billion on AIG of our tax dollars in the first place. Those politicians rushed in boisterous zeal to pass legislation without having sufficiently debated the merits of it or comprehending its consequences. And they initially failed to provide for effective control or even rudimentary oversight.
“What the hell, it was only tax money not my own!”
If it can be presumed that no fraud has been perpetrated at AIG and that the company entered into these agreements with its employees prior to receiving any bailout funds, then what an incredible irony.
First, that our pontificating politicians have not shouldered any responsibility for the mess; that our government on our behalf now owns 80% of AIG; that AIG still needs substantial future taxpayer funding; and that if the Federal government tries to block legally binding contracts the resulting litigation will only cost us, the taxpayer, even more than just increased dollars of expense.
Now comes Christopher Dodd, Democratic Senator from Connecticut and the beneficiary of more than $2 million of the financial industry’s lobbying, outlandishly proposing that the way for the Federal government to re-capture taxpayer’s money is to target those who received the bonus with TAXES specifically designed and legislated for them – Apparently, if our leadership can’t provide and exercise sufficient judgment to prevent the wasting away of BILLIONS in taxes in the first place, they can smugly recapture millions by using the resources of government to punish those they deem to be undeserving.
Congratulations Mr. Dodd, your thought processes, and those of your ilk, are indeed proving to be truly dangerous!
Assuaging our politician’s “outrage” is only going to cost the rest of us more in the long run. And sad to say but better to write off this latest abuse of $165 million in bonuses and move on. The least we can learn from it in the future is to better recognize the spoon fed crap we will get from our current political leadership.
Still not satisfied because of the unfairness? Ok, then you want satisfaction. Fine - let’s see the outrage placed where it could better accomplish something more meaningful – not on the $165 million - focus on the $8 BILLION in waste of our tax dollars on “pork” in the last appropriations bill – the $ 270 billion in the same bill that had nothing to do with stimulating the economy – or the TRILLIONS of dollars of debt we’re running up. Express that to Congress.
Take at least one small step ... Send a Teabag on April 1st – it’s a simple, but powerful and symbolic message they’ll finally understand.
Now after 4 failed infusions totaling some $ 170 billion of taxpayer funded relief specifically to prop up AIG, our politicians are tripping over themselves to express their moral indignation and outrage that AIG would dare to use $165 million of taxpayer’s bailout money to honor employment contracts. Do these wonks really believe that they can deflect public resentment for the culpability of their own failures in this mess – that no one will recognize what is happening - that these very same politicians desperately want to shift the focus and blame away from themselves by scapegoating AIG? Well, yes … OF COURSE THEY REALLY BELIEVE IT or they wouldn’t be in such a mad rush to get “air time” or any other media coverage!
Certainly, AIG has a long laundry list of sins, misjudgments and missteps to account for, but honoring a legally binding contract is not one of them. And yes, it is one further abuse … BUT no, we should look squarely to place blame and responsibility where it belongs – on those politicians who enabled this latest abuse and the waste and squandering of 170 billion on AIG of our tax dollars in the first place. Those politicians rushed in boisterous zeal to pass legislation without having sufficiently debated the merits of it or comprehending its consequences. And they initially failed to provide for effective control or even rudimentary oversight.
“What the hell, it was only tax money not my own!”
If it can be presumed that no fraud has been perpetrated at AIG and that the company entered into these agreements with its employees prior to receiving any bailout funds, then what an incredible irony.
First, that our pontificating politicians have not shouldered any responsibility for the mess; that our government on our behalf now owns 80% of AIG; that AIG still needs substantial future taxpayer funding; and that if the Federal government tries to block legally binding contracts the resulting litigation will only cost us, the taxpayer, even more than just increased dollars of expense.
Now comes Christopher Dodd, Democratic Senator from Connecticut and the beneficiary of more than $2 million of the financial industry’s lobbying, outlandishly proposing that the way for the Federal government to re-capture taxpayer’s money is to target those who received the bonus with TAXES specifically designed and legislated for them – Apparently, if our leadership can’t provide and exercise sufficient judgment to prevent the wasting away of BILLIONS in taxes in the first place, they can smugly recapture millions by using the resources of government to punish those they deem to be undeserving.
Congratulations Mr. Dodd, your thought processes, and those of your ilk, are indeed proving to be truly dangerous!
Assuaging our politician’s “outrage” is only going to cost the rest of us more in the long run. And sad to say but better to write off this latest abuse of $165 million in bonuses and move on. The least we can learn from it in the future is to better recognize the spoon fed crap we will get from our current political leadership.
Still not satisfied because of the unfairness? Ok, then you want satisfaction. Fine - let’s see the outrage placed where it could better accomplish something more meaningful – not on the $165 million - focus on the $8 BILLION in waste of our tax dollars on “pork” in the last appropriations bill – the $ 270 billion in the same bill that had nothing to do with stimulating the economy – or the TRILLIONS of dollars of debt we’re running up. Express that to Congress.
Take at least one small step ... Send a Teabag on April 1st – it’s a simple, but powerful and symbolic message they’ll finally understand.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Tea Party Slogans -
Save America Now … Send Pelosi Home - Economy Class!
Save America … Shut down Congress.
The Tree of Liberty Is Very Thirsty …
Hey Congress, Before You Raise Our Taxes, Again…Pay Your Own First !
Born Free … But Taxed To Death !
Hey Buddy, Spare Us Your “CHANGE”.
Don’t Stimulate … LIBERATE !
Your Choice - 1776 OR 1984 !
Paying My Mortgage … And Now Paying Yours Too!
Give Me Liberty Now … Not Debt.
Obamanomics – “Chains” You Can Believe In.
Obama, Commander n’ Thief
Stop Subsidizing Stupidity, Repeal CONGRESS or at least, Pelosi !
OBSCENITY – Nancy Pelosi’s use of the word “Bi-Partisan”!
WE GET IT, Pelosi … It’s not Stimulus, It’s Strangulation!
Your Mortgage Is Not My Problem!
If Healthcare is Expensive Now … wait until it’s FREE !
Congress … The Rise of the Incompetent!
Democracy … Not Pelosi’s Monarchy !
Obama’s CHANGE Checklist:
Loss of Wealth
Loss of Property
Loss of Freedoms
Loss of Liberty
Loss of Dignity
Free Markets … Not Free-Loaders!
Next Time Obama Read the Bill, BEFORE You Sign it!
OBAMA The RECKLESS!
233 Years to BUILD the Republic … 100 Days to Destroy It!
Things Congress Does Well … Ok, I Dunno, What?
The Obama Economic Plan … Haste, Waste and Fear!
Liberals - Working Louder … Not Smarter!
I’m 5 Years Old and Thanks to Congress I Have No Future !
Obama Lies and America Dies.
I Want My Money AND My Country Back!
Foreclose The Whitehouse!
You Can’t Fix Stupid … But You Can Vote Nancy Out!
It’s The SPENDING, Stupid !
Hey EveryBody C’mon Over to My Whitehouse – We’re Having Pork, Lobster and Caviar, again !
Pork – Congress’ Charitable Contributions … of our Taxes!
If Everyone Else Is Being “Laid-Off”, How Come Congress Isn’t ?
If It Was A Terrible Thing To Inherit 1 Trillion Of Debt, Why Was It A Good Thing Obama Doubled It ?
Save America … Shut down Congress.
The Tree of Liberty Is Very Thirsty …
Hey Congress, Before You Raise Our Taxes, Again…Pay Your Own First !
Born Free … But Taxed To Death !
Hey Buddy, Spare Us Your “CHANGE”.
Don’t Stimulate … LIBERATE !
Your Choice - 1776 OR 1984 !
Paying My Mortgage … And Now Paying Yours Too!
Give Me Liberty Now … Not Debt.
Obamanomics – “Chains” You Can Believe In.
Obama, Commander n’ Thief
Stop Subsidizing Stupidity, Repeal CONGRESS or at least, Pelosi !
OBSCENITY – Nancy Pelosi’s use of the word “Bi-Partisan”!
WE GET IT, Pelosi … It’s not Stimulus, It’s Strangulation!
Your Mortgage Is Not My Problem!
If Healthcare is Expensive Now … wait until it’s FREE !
Congress … The Rise of the Incompetent!
Democracy … Not Pelosi’s Monarchy !
Obama’s CHANGE Checklist:
Loss of Wealth
Loss of Property
Loss of Freedoms
Loss of Liberty
Loss of Dignity
Free Markets … Not Free-Loaders!
Next Time Obama Read the Bill, BEFORE You Sign it!
OBAMA The RECKLESS!
233 Years to BUILD the Republic … 100 Days to Destroy It!
Things Congress Does Well … Ok, I Dunno, What?
The Obama Economic Plan … Haste, Waste and Fear!
Liberals - Working Louder … Not Smarter!
I’m 5 Years Old and Thanks to Congress I Have No Future !
Obama Lies and America Dies.
I Want My Money AND My Country Back!
Foreclose The Whitehouse!
You Can’t Fix Stupid … But You Can Vote Nancy Out!
It’s The SPENDING, Stupid !
Hey EveryBody C’mon Over to My Whitehouse – We’re Having Pork, Lobster and Caviar, again !
Pork – Congress’ Charitable Contributions … of our Taxes!
If Everyone Else Is Being “Laid-Off”, How Come Congress Isn’t ?
If It Was A Terrible Thing To Inherit 1 Trillion Of Debt, Why Was It A Good Thing Obama Doubled It ?
Monday, October 6, 2008
Paulson - The China Secret ?...
What if a significant part of the urgency, scope and provisions of the "Paulson Plan" bailout were due to and a result of pressure by China to have the US cover and make China whole for its US based losses?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
A Political Nitwit (3)...
In Congress, it must just be that Audacity comes along with the office furniture, carpet, lamps and wall decorations, too.
FOX news reported that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has spent almost $100,000 of the contributions made to her own political action committee, "PAC To The Future"; paying the money to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past 10 years.
Curiously, Pelosi supported legislation banning the practice of paying a spouse with political contributions last year. At the time, in a press release, Pelosi said, "Democrats are committed to reforming the way Washington does business...and preventing the misuse of funds."
According to the Times Network, since Pelosi's husband took over as treasurer for his wife's committee in 2007 federal records show that his firm will receive 8 times the payments in this year alone that his company got annually from the PAC from 2000 to 2005 when the treasurer's position was held by someone else.
Last week, Pelosi's office said the payments were perfectly legal, insisting that they were for work performed for the PAC. The payments were described as "business expenses".
PAC's are designed to help politicians build political influence when they use them to contribute to other politician's campaigns. It is illegal for members of Congress to hire family members to work on their Congressional staff, but not illegal to hire relatives to work on campaigns or a PAC.
The Times Network also reports, "Meredith McGehee, policy director at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, said putting family members on a PAC payroll is bound to raise questions and, in some cases, allow for abuse. The reality is that under the current system, PACs are rife with self-dealing transactions. The laws and regulations could and should be strengthened...any self-dealing transaction by a member of Congress is going to get scutiny, particularly with large amounts of money and prominent members."
In 2004 one of Pelosi's PACs, "Team Majority" was fined $21,000 by the Federal Election Commisssion for accepting political donations over federal limits. She closed the PAC shortly after the fine was levied.
FOX news reported that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has spent almost $100,000 of the contributions made to her own political action committee, "PAC To The Future"; paying the money to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past 10 years.
Curiously, Pelosi supported legislation banning the practice of paying a spouse with political contributions last year. At the time, in a press release, Pelosi said, "Democrats are committed to reforming the way Washington does business...and preventing the misuse of funds."
According to the Times Network, since Pelosi's husband took over as treasurer for his wife's committee in 2007 federal records show that his firm will receive 8 times the payments in this year alone that his company got annually from the PAC from 2000 to 2005 when the treasurer's position was held by someone else.
Last week, Pelosi's office said the payments were perfectly legal, insisting that they were for work performed for the PAC. The payments were described as "business expenses".
PAC's are designed to help politicians build political influence when they use them to contribute to other politician's campaigns. It is illegal for members of Congress to hire family members to work on their Congressional staff, but not illegal to hire relatives to work on campaigns or a PAC.
The Times Network also reports, "Meredith McGehee, policy director at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, said putting family members on a PAC payroll is bound to raise questions and, in some cases, allow for abuse. The reality is that under the current system, PACs are rife with self-dealing transactions. The laws and regulations could and should be strengthened...any self-dealing transaction by a member of Congress is going to get scutiny, particularly with large amounts of money and prominent members."
In 2004 one of Pelosi's PACs, "Team Majority" was fined $21,000 by the Federal Election Commisssion for accepting political donations over federal limits. She closed the PAC shortly after the fine was levied.
A Political Nitwit (2)...
More lip service to creating an environment conducive for a true bipartisan effort and solution:
"The legislation has failed. The crisis has not gone away," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said. "We must work in a bipartisan way..."
Sep 30, 2008 istockAnalyst.com (press release)
"... not our bill, President's bill," Rep. Nancy Pelosi, (d) Speaker of the House, said.
Sep 30, 2008 WFIE-TV
"What happened today cannot stand. We must move forward," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. "We are here to protect the taxpayer as we work to stabilize the markets."
Sep 29, 2008 International Herald Tribune
Sept 29th...90 seconds of ill-judged, ill-timed bile that helped to kill off any hope of consensus on Capitol Hill. Ms Pelosi said: "Seven hundred billion dollars: a staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country, policies that were built on budget recklessness...the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything-goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.
Sep 30, 2008 Times Online
"This is the Administration's problem," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. "They sent us their bill. We did the best we can to improve it."
Sep 29, 2008 TIME
"When the White House and the administration described a problem, we worked in a bipartisan way in legislation to help stabilize the markets." Pelosi said.
Sep 29, 2008 News 10 Now
"It isn't us, Democrats, who are the problem.", said Nancy.
Sep 29, 2008 ITInews - Insurance Times and Investments News
"People have to know this is not a bailout of Wall Street, it's a buy-in," said Pelosi in a Sunday afternoon news conference
Sep 28, 2008 The Miami Herald
"The markets need a message from us ...we understand time is important," Pelosi told reporters.
Sep 26, 2008 guardian.co.uk
"It's not me blowing this up, it's the Republicans," Pelosi said.
Sep 26, 2008 Slate
"It's their problem. It's their bill. And they're going to have to figure out if they can support it," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said of Republicans.
Sep 23, 2008 The Associated Press
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday lawmakers are, quote, "committed to quick, bipartisan action" to rescue Wall Street.
Sep 22, 2008 KARK
"It's about defining a difference between Democrats and Republicans," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Sep 22, 2008 The Miami Herald
"The worsening economy demands another bipartisan economic recovery effort," Pelosi wrote in a letter delivered to President Bush Thursday evening.
Sep 18, 2008 The Associated Press
"This is their problem. This is their solution," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Sep 17, 2008 The Associated Press
"The red tape, which every time you seem to cut some of it, it seems to still be someplace else, and there's just no way to explain that to people."
Sep 15, 2008 IowaPolitics.com
"Americans believe there is a compact with their government to help them in times of disaster," Pelosi said. "People want results, they don't want red tape."
Sep 9, 2008 Gazette Online
"The legislation has failed. The crisis has not gone away," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said. "We must work in a bipartisan way..."
Sep 30, 2008 istockAnalyst.com (press release)
"... not our bill, President's bill," Rep. Nancy Pelosi, (d) Speaker of the House, said.
Sep 30, 2008 WFIE-TV
"What happened today cannot stand. We must move forward," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. "We are here to protect the taxpayer as we work to stabilize the markets."
Sep 29, 2008 International Herald Tribune
Sept 29th...90 seconds of ill-judged, ill-timed bile that helped to kill off any hope of consensus on Capitol Hill. Ms Pelosi said: "Seven hundred billion dollars: a staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country, policies that were built on budget recklessness...the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything-goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.
Sep 30, 2008 Times Online
"This is the Administration's problem," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters. "They sent us their bill. We did the best we can to improve it."
Sep 29, 2008 TIME
"When the White House and the administration described a problem, we worked in a bipartisan way in legislation to help stabilize the markets." Pelosi said.
Sep 29, 2008 News 10 Now
"It isn't us, Democrats, who are the problem.", said Nancy.
Sep 29, 2008 ITInews - Insurance Times and Investments News
"People have to know this is not a bailout of Wall Street, it's a buy-in," said Pelosi in a Sunday afternoon news conference
Sep 28, 2008 The Miami Herald
"The markets need a message from us ...we understand time is important," Pelosi told reporters.
Sep 26, 2008 guardian.co.uk
"It's not me blowing this up, it's the Republicans," Pelosi said.
Sep 26, 2008 Slate
"It's their problem. It's their bill. And they're going to have to figure out if they can support it," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said of Republicans.
Sep 23, 2008 The Associated Press
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday lawmakers are, quote, "committed to quick, bipartisan action" to rescue Wall Street.
Sep 22, 2008 KARK
"It's about defining a difference between Democrats and Republicans," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Sep 22, 2008 The Miami Herald
"The worsening economy demands another bipartisan economic recovery effort," Pelosi wrote in a letter delivered to President Bush Thursday evening.
Sep 18, 2008 The Associated Press
"This is their problem. This is their solution," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Sep 17, 2008 The Associated Press
"The red tape, which every time you seem to cut some of it, it seems to still be someplace else, and there's just no way to explain that to people."
Sep 15, 2008 IowaPolitics.com
"Americans believe there is a compact with their government to help them in times of disaster," Pelosi said. "People want results, they don't want red tape."
Sep 9, 2008 Gazette Online
Stepping Up...
In a CNBC interview this morning, billionaire Wilbur Ross of Atlanta, Ga said that passage of the Senate amendment last evening for the "Paulson Plan" with all of its "Christmas tree ornaments" to induce House members to vote for it only shows why the American public is so frustrated with lobbyist influence on Congress in that the members can not resolve serious issues without resorting to political gimmickry.
Ross, who believes that a better solution for the financial markets and the taxpayer is an insurance fund program, and if structured properly his company is willing to invest up to $1 billion in it - further, he believes that many others are willing to put private capital into the program as well because "the math works" for all parties.
Ross, who believes that a better solution for the financial markets and the taxpayer is an insurance fund program, and if structured properly his company is willing to invest up to $1 billion in it - further, he believes that many others are willing to put private capital into the program as well because "the math works" for all parties.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
An Open Letter to Congress...
Dear Legislator,
Please do not support passage of any Bill or Amendment that would make the 700 Billion "Paulson Plan" bailout become law.
You already know how enraged your constituency is with the prospect of having to shoulder the debt from yet another bailout plan for the misdeeds and failures of others.
More importantly the Administration is trying to railroad you into support of a bad plan with a sense of urgency that does not exist - this is a "you have to shake 'em up before you shake 'em down" alarmist approach by the Administration to get you and other Legislators to act quickly in favor of this plan without taking the time to fairly debate, and consider ALL of the alternatives.
Knowledgeable economists have said there is at least one month before action is needed to address Wallstreet's issues.
The "Paulson Plan" is a bailout that will, contrary to the Administration's assertions, hurt far more Americans and the American economy than it will help.
It will hurt all of us in these ways: First and foremost, 700 billion is an unprecedented amount of money in scope and timing that will add significantly to an already unsupportable national debt level. No doubt you've already heard that this alone will pose more than a $6,000 debt on every American man, woman, and child - or - more than $24,000 in new national debt for the average American family of 4 people. The impact of the existing national debt has already seriously eroded the value and strength of the American dollar - at the beginning of this year it had already lost more than 25% of its value since 2004 - cutting into savings and increasing the cost of nearly every commodity, service or product used by American consumers and commerce. This plan is a serious threat to our future financial security, especially if it is followed by further taxation.
Can you or any other Legislator seriously believe that the sponsors of this plan, who only arrived at a determination that $700 billion would be sufficient because it was " a really big number", will effectively counter the threat of trillions of dollars of exposure with this amount? There are sophisticated and expert financiers and economists, including former Federal Reserve Secretary Greenspan who don't!
Do you not suspect that as a consequence and once committed that you will be asked, just like the funding for the war in Iraq, for more money in the future - because failure to do so would jeopardize $700 billion already spent or because the Administration had vastly underestimated the extent of the "crisis" just as they were equally blindsided by it as recently as August?
Washington, unlike American business and commerce, does not have a culture of cost savings and cost containment. Can you imagine how vast the structure will be needed by Washington to administer, manage, maintain and market these "investments" , or the magnitude of the cost if it's outsourced, and for how long ? What will it take - 3 years, 5 years ??? Bill Gross of Pimco has bandied about the possibility of a 7% return - even if it was possible that's not net profit but gross profit. When all of the costs for the plan's administration are added up, there will be a loss not a profit. Even Secretary Paulson qualifies this outcome.
Pricing of these "toxic" (Wallstreet's own description for them) assets and instruments is paramount; yet this plan has no clear mechanism to assure the determination of a real and fair value that won't subsequently injure taxpayers. It's been pitched as "trust us to do the right thing". Well, poll after recent poll shows that overwhelmingly Americans do not trust the Government to do the "right" thing in this crisis.
I urge you to "step back" and recognize all of the Congressional Leadership's and Administration's posturing and arm twisting on this bailout plan and recognize it, just as the American public does, for what it is.
Please consider some of the other viable alternatives already put forth for discussion that do not harm the American taxpayer to the extent this plan does - Senator Schumer's notion of an FDIC-style insurance program to backstop these instruments and mortgages and make them marketable; the use of preferred stock for some classes of assets to give the taxpayer an equity position for their tax dollars; repeal of the "mark to market" accounting rules to establish an equitable value and market for the assets; and, lastly a substantial reduction and, or, elimination of the capital gains tax to instantly pump massive amounts of liquidity from private capital back into the housing and equity markets.
There is time to do this right - Christmas ornaments, political posturing and the notion that "a bad bill now is better than the perfect bill later" is absolutely asinine - no one believes that Congress will reform it's legislation later to make the perfect bill.
Americans recognize that this is a bailout for Wallstreet being packaged and "sold" to them as a "Mainstreet" issue .... if the "Paulson Plan" is passed into law, they will not accept any Legislator's plea afterward for having been misled by those who promoted its adoption. Gullibility will not cut it as a defense against a voter backlash. Constituents want representation and that's clear from the volume of mail, calls, faxes and emails that Congress has received over this - they don't want to hear that the American public just doesn't understand the issues and how it affects them - they're also smart enough to know that is just more Washington arrogance, suggesting the public is "too stupid to get it".
Moreover, Congress should fully expect in the wake of any passage of this $700 billion bailout, a wide sweeping voter effort to reform the "legalized bribery" of lobbyists and PAC's. The American public understands the extent legalized bribery has enabled and played an part in leading us into this financial crisis.
Nancy Pelosi has said, but unwittingly hasn't understood the implication, not only is the party over for high flying Wallstreet Ceo's, so too, will it be for the Congressional beneficiaries of influence peddling and legalized bribery if this plan passes.
* if you care to, feel free to use the above letter
Congressional Emails, Addresses, Phone and Fax Numbers
http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html
http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
http://www.congressmerge.com/
https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Please do not support passage of any Bill or Amendment that would make the 700 Billion "Paulson Plan" bailout become law.
You already know how enraged your constituency is with the prospect of having to shoulder the debt from yet another bailout plan for the misdeeds and failures of others.
More importantly the Administration is trying to railroad you into support of a bad plan with a sense of urgency that does not exist - this is a "you have to shake 'em up before you shake 'em down" alarmist approach by the Administration to get you and other Legislators to act quickly in favor of this plan without taking the time to fairly debate, and consider ALL of the alternatives.
Knowledgeable economists have said there is at least one month before action is needed to address Wallstreet's issues.
The "Paulson Plan" is a bailout that will, contrary to the Administration's assertions, hurt far more Americans and the American economy than it will help.
It will hurt all of us in these ways: First and foremost, 700 billion is an unprecedented amount of money in scope and timing that will add significantly to an already unsupportable national debt level. No doubt you've already heard that this alone will pose more than a $6,000 debt on every American man, woman, and child - or - more than $24,000 in new national debt for the average American family of 4 people. The impact of the existing national debt has already seriously eroded the value and strength of the American dollar - at the beginning of this year it had already lost more than 25% of its value since 2004 - cutting into savings and increasing the cost of nearly every commodity, service or product used by American consumers and commerce. This plan is a serious threat to our future financial security, especially if it is followed by further taxation.
Can you or any other Legislator seriously believe that the sponsors of this plan, who only arrived at a determination that $700 billion would be sufficient because it was " a really big number", will effectively counter the threat of trillions of dollars of exposure with this amount? There are sophisticated and expert financiers and economists, including former Federal Reserve Secretary Greenspan who don't!
Do you not suspect that as a consequence and once committed that you will be asked, just like the funding for the war in Iraq, for more money in the future - because failure to do so would jeopardize $700 billion already spent or because the Administration had vastly underestimated the extent of the "crisis" just as they were equally blindsided by it as recently as August?
Washington, unlike American business and commerce, does not have a culture of cost savings and cost containment. Can you imagine how vast the structure will be needed by Washington to administer, manage, maintain and market these "investments" , or the magnitude of the cost if it's outsourced, and for how long ? What will it take - 3 years, 5 years ??? Bill Gross of Pimco has bandied about the possibility of a 7% return - even if it was possible that's not net profit but gross profit. When all of the costs for the plan's administration are added up, there will be a loss not a profit. Even Secretary Paulson qualifies this outcome.
Pricing of these "toxic" (Wallstreet's own description for them) assets and instruments is paramount; yet this plan has no clear mechanism to assure the determination of a real and fair value that won't subsequently injure taxpayers. It's been pitched as "trust us to do the right thing". Well, poll after recent poll shows that overwhelmingly Americans do not trust the Government to do the "right" thing in this crisis.
I urge you to "step back" and recognize all of the Congressional Leadership's and Administration's posturing and arm twisting on this bailout plan and recognize it, just as the American public does, for what it is.
Please consider some of the other viable alternatives already put forth for discussion that do not harm the American taxpayer to the extent this plan does - Senator Schumer's notion of an FDIC-style insurance program to backstop these instruments and mortgages and make them marketable; the use of preferred stock for some classes of assets to give the taxpayer an equity position for their tax dollars; repeal of the "mark to market" accounting rules to establish an equitable value and market for the assets; and, lastly a substantial reduction and, or, elimination of the capital gains tax to instantly pump massive amounts of liquidity from private capital back into the housing and equity markets.
There is time to do this right - Christmas ornaments, political posturing and the notion that "a bad bill now is better than the perfect bill later" is absolutely asinine - no one believes that Congress will reform it's legislation later to make the perfect bill.
Americans recognize that this is a bailout for Wallstreet being packaged and "sold" to them as a "Mainstreet" issue .... if the "Paulson Plan" is passed into law, they will not accept any Legislator's plea afterward for having been misled by those who promoted its adoption. Gullibility will not cut it as a defense against a voter backlash. Constituents want representation and that's clear from the volume of mail, calls, faxes and emails that Congress has received over this - they don't want to hear that the American public just doesn't understand the issues and how it affects them - they're also smart enough to know that is just more Washington arrogance, suggesting the public is "too stupid to get it".
Moreover, Congress should fully expect in the wake of any passage of this $700 billion bailout, a wide sweeping voter effort to reform the "legalized bribery" of lobbyists and PAC's. The American public understands the extent legalized bribery has enabled and played an part in leading us into this financial crisis.
Nancy Pelosi has said, but unwittingly hasn't understood the implication, not only is the party over for high flying Wallstreet Ceo's, so too, will it be for the Congressional beneficiaries of influence peddling and legalized bribery if this plan passes.
* if you care to, feel free to use the above letter
Congressional Emails, Addresses, Phone and Fax Numbers
http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html
http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
http://www.congressmerge.com/
https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
A Political Nitwit ....
is how Washington WMAL talk show host Chris Plante refers this morning to Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi in her handling of yesterday's House vote on the $ 700 billion bailout package for Wallstreet.
Pelosi emboldened by what she thought was the certain passage of the bill lambasted the Republican members of the House and the Bush administration before the vote with an inflammatory partisan speech seeking to gain political advantage for the Obama campaign.
Some Republicans pointed directly to the Pelosi speech as the reason for the bill's failure. Other House members, Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank among them countered that the notion Pelosi was at fault was absurd and a Pelosi aide stated that members vote on "the bill, not the speech". Frank also commented that he felt he was "not in a position to assess the reasons for the opposition to the bailout bill", even though 12 of his own committee members voted against it.
An interesting comment nonetheless from Frank, since Nancy Pelosi failed to deliver some 95 Democrats from her own Party in support of passage, including prominent committee and subcommittee chairs. Even though the Democratic party is in control of the House, Pelosi could not insure a Democratic majority for the Bill's passage, suggesting that 40 % of the Democrats found the bill to be sufficiently flawed - preventing them from voting for it.
The dissenting Republicans from the outset cited the fundamental structural problems of the bill and the saddling of the American taxpayer with a $ 700 billion debt burden - which they reported was the chief concern of their constituencies running at a ratio of 15 to 1 and as much as 20 to 1 against the bill opposed to favoring its passage.
Political Arm Twisting -
Generally, when Democrats and Republicans call for bipartisan cooperation most are really ducking for cover especially when it comes to legislation that is either widely unpopular but deemed necessary, profound in its potential consequence especially if it fails, or can be used for political advantage in upcoming elections - "If we work together on this and even though I may have to share any success with you at least you can't put me to political disadvantage and injure me if it fails!".
And all too commonly it's manifested in the practice of "arm twisting" by each party's leadership and rank and file at the back of the chamber out of range of earshot and the microphones. This is the political give and take of the legislative process of maintaining non-partisan balances and securing "deals".
Those members who might in principle be opposed to a bill and could be expected to vote against it but could be persuaded to support it are sought out by those seeking the bill's passage and it runs something like this. "Look, I don't like this damn thing and won't support it and won't vote for it", "Okay, I understand that but this bill is really important to me, and I'm asking you to do this personally for me.", "All right, but you owe me in the future when I need your support."
"“I do believe that we could have gotten there today, had it not been for the partisan speech that the Speaker gave on the floor of the House,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said. “We put everything we had into getting the vote to get there today.”
Minority Whip Roy Blunt said he had 12 Republicans who would have voted for the bill but changed their minds, while member Eric Cantor holding up a copy of what he said was Pelosi’s floor remarks - said the speaker “frankly struck the tone of partisanship.”".
Barney Frank complained loudly that it was irresponsible of the Republicans who said they would vote for the bill and then changed their minds after Pelosi's speech. Although, Frank knew full well that the votes reverted to their original opposition, not because they were "mad" at the Speaker as he said but because she and the Democrats by injecting partisanship (again) into the process had not honored the "arm twisting" deals.
No doubt Pelosi had the votes needed for passage before the roll was called. And no doubt her insults drove them away when she tried to inject a partisan shift in advantage that could be later used against those who had been "arm twisted' into supporting it.
Last evening Bill O'reilly reported that a 70,000 person survey by Fox news on the issue of who is to blame for the financial crisis, found 56 % attributed it squarely as a failure of Congress, with 20 % believing that unqualified borrowers were to blame, 19 % felt it to be the responsibility of "bad companies" (presumably, ceo's as well as predatory lending practices) and only 5 % felt that it was the fault of the Bush Administration.
Commentary last evening and this morning was divided along two lines: that Congressional leadership and the Administration failed to adequately explain both the urgency and impact on the average American citizen and those voting against it lacked "courage", failing to demonstrate leadership by virtue of a "safe" vote - basically, that the public, is "too dumb" to get it and that disaster is upon us because the bill failed! Not surprisingly Wallstreet, much of the press and the politicians who supported passage of the bill cling to this explanation and fear.
The other view is that in the rush to bailout Wallstreet that the American taxpayer is unfairly being called upon again to shoulder the responsibility of the failure of others - perhaps justifiably the American public no longer trusts Congressional and Administration leadership to get it right without screwing the public one more time - and they want all options to be considered; especially those that can avoid further financial burden now and in the future rather than the present alarmist "you have to shake em' up first before you shake 'em down !" approach.
Somewhere in the middle of all the chatter is the notion and growing consensus that there is a deepening financial crisis and some intervention by the Government is necessary soon.
All parties seemed to have pledged now to work in a non-partisan way to further modify the existing bill or craft a new one for the bailout.
Yesterday's vote though is just another ongoing example that Nancy Pelosi's zeal to blatantly advance her Party's interests makes her unfit to serve as Speaker of the House.
As one wag pointed out - "Bad Politics, Bad Bill, Bad Speaker - Bad, Bad, Bad!".
And another, "Congress actually voted as it's constituency wanted truly representing the people - Good God, what a radical idea!".
Pelosi emboldened by what she thought was the certain passage of the bill lambasted the Republican members of the House and the Bush administration before the vote with an inflammatory partisan speech seeking to gain political advantage for the Obama campaign.
Some Republicans pointed directly to the Pelosi speech as the reason for the bill's failure. Other House members, Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank among them countered that the notion Pelosi was at fault was absurd and a Pelosi aide stated that members vote on "the bill, not the speech". Frank also commented that he felt he was "not in a position to assess the reasons for the opposition to the bailout bill", even though 12 of his own committee members voted against it.
An interesting comment nonetheless from Frank, since Nancy Pelosi failed to deliver some 95 Democrats from her own Party in support of passage, including prominent committee and subcommittee chairs. Even though the Democratic party is in control of the House, Pelosi could not insure a Democratic majority for the Bill's passage, suggesting that 40 % of the Democrats found the bill to be sufficiently flawed - preventing them from voting for it.
The dissenting Republicans from the outset cited the fundamental structural problems of the bill and the saddling of the American taxpayer with a $ 700 billion debt burden - which they reported was the chief concern of their constituencies running at a ratio of 15 to 1 and as much as 20 to 1 against the bill opposed to favoring its passage.
Political Arm Twisting -
Generally, when Democrats and Republicans call for bipartisan cooperation most are really ducking for cover especially when it comes to legislation that is either widely unpopular but deemed necessary, profound in its potential consequence especially if it fails, or can be used for political advantage in upcoming elections - "If we work together on this and even though I may have to share any success with you at least you can't put me to political disadvantage and injure me if it fails!".
And all too commonly it's manifested in the practice of "arm twisting" by each party's leadership and rank and file at the back of the chamber out of range of earshot and the microphones. This is the political give and take of the legislative process of maintaining non-partisan balances and securing "deals".
Those members who might in principle be opposed to a bill and could be expected to vote against it but could be persuaded to support it are sought out by those seeking the bill's passage and it runs something like this. "Look, I don't like this damn thing and won't support it and won't vote for it", "Okay, I understand that but this bill is really important to me, and I'm asking you to do this personally for me.", "All right, but you owe me in the future when I need your support."
"“I do believe that we could have gotten there today, had it not been for the partisan speech that the Speaker gave on the floor of the House,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said. “We put everything we had into getting the vote to get there today.”
Minority Whip Roy Blunt said he had 12 Republicans who would have voted for the bill but changed their minds, while member Eric Cantor holding up a copy of what he said was Pelosi’s floor remarks - said the speaker “frankly struck the tone of partisanship.”".
Barney Frank complained loudly that it was irresponsible of the Republicans who said they would vote for the bill and then changed their minds after Pelosi's speech. Although, Frank knew full well that the votes reverted to their original opposition, not because they were "mad" at the Speaker as he said but because she and the Democrats by injecting partisanship (again) into the process had not honored the "arm twisting" deals.
No doubt Pelosi had the votes needed for passage before the roll was called. And no doubt her insults drove them away when she tried to inject a partisan shift in advantage that could be later used against those who had been "arm twisted' into supporting it.
Last evening Bill O'reilly reported that a 70,000 person survey by Fox news on the issue of who is to blame for the financial crisis, found 56 % attributed it squarely as a failure of Congress, with 20 % believing that unqualified borrowers were to blame, 19 % felt it to be the responsibility of "bad companies" (presumably, ceo's as well as predatory lending practices) and only 5 % felt that it was the fault of the Bush Administration.
Commentary last evening and this morning was divided along two lines: that Congressional leadership and the Administration failed to adequately explain both the urgency and impact on the average American citizen and those voting against it lacked "courage", failing to demonstrate leadership by virtue of a "safe" vote - basically, that the public, is "too dumb" to get it and that disaster is upon us because the bill failed! Not surprisingly Wallstreet, much of the press and the politicians who supported passage of the bill cling to this explanation and fear.
The other view is that in the rush to bailout Wallstreet that the American taxpayer is unfairly being called upon again to shoulder the responsibility of the failure of others - perhaps justifiably the American public no longer trusts Congressional and Administration leadership to get it right without screwing the public one more time - and they want all options to be considered; especially those that can avoid further financial burden now and in the future rather than the present alarmist "you have to shake em' up first before you shake 'em down !" approach.
Somewhere in the middle of all the chatter is the notion and growing consensus that there is a deepening financial crisis and some intervention by the Government is necessary soon.
All parties seemed to have pledged now to work in a non-partisan way to further modify the existing bill or craft a new one for the bailout.
Yesterday's vote though is just another ongoing example that Nancy Pelosi's zeal to blatantly advance her Party's interests makes her unfit to serve as Speaker of the House.
As one wag pointed out - "Bad Politics, Bad Bill, Bad Speaker - Bad, Bad, Bad!".
And another, "Congress actually voted as it's constituency wanted truly representing the people - Good God, what a radical idea!".
Monday, September 29, 2008
Well, Of Course, Now I Understand (2)...
In the rush to "Bail Out" Wallstreet with $700 billion in taxpayer money and the resulting anger and outrage directed toward Congress by the American public is it any wonder that our politicians have made so much effort in their mad scramble to persuade us that they're "really" doing this to save "Main Street" ?
And if Wallstreet Ceo's are going to have their compensation limited why can't ALL of our politicians "give back" to the American taxpayer all of the lobbying money they took from Wallstreet?
Let's start by calling lobbying money to seek and garner political influence by what it really is - a system of legalized Bribery !
Wall Street Money - where it went in 2008
Barack Obama
Goldman Sachs $ 748,880
JPMorgan Chase $ 493,469
Citigroup $ 467,849
UBS $ 423,045
Lehman Bros. $ 393,324
Morgan Stanley $ 341,320
* Obama collected $28,000,000 from Wallstreet from 2003 to 2008
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
fin lobbying 2007 -2008 $ 468,232
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
fin lobbying 2007-2008 $ 1,409,992
Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd
2008 fin lobbying total $ 2,972,572
Citigroup $ 314,694
SAC Capital Partners $ 282,000
Royal Bank of Scotland $ 229,950
AIG $224,678
Bear Stearns $ 205,600
St Paul Travelers $ 205,400
Goldman Sachs $ 175,600
Morgan Stanley $ 155,000
Credit Suisse $ 154,550
Merill Lynch $ 135,950
Lehman Bros. $ 133,800
JPMorgan Chase $ 129,650
KPMG $ 113,100
Hartford Fin Svcs $ 110,450
UBS $108,500
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $ 108,000
The Hartford $ 94,350
Bank of America $ 91,300
Financial Svcs Chairman Barney Frank
fin lobbying (top 20 contributors) $ 239,000
(data above from US Gov't via www.opensecrets.org/politicians/memsearch.php )
And if Wallstreet Ceo's are going to have their compensation limited why can't ALL of our politicians "give back" to the American taxpayer all of the lobbying money they took from Wallstreet?
Let's start by calling lobbying money to seek and garner political influence by what it really is - a system of legalized Bribery !
Wall Street Money - where it went in 2008
Barack Obama
Goldman Sachs $ 748,880
JPMorgan Chase $ 493,469
Citigroup $ 467,849
UBS $ 423,045
Lehman Bros. $ 393,324
Morgan Stanley $ 341,320
* Obama collected $28,000,000 from Wallstreet from 2003 to 2008
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
fin lobbying 2007 -2008 $ 468,232
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
fin lobbying 2007-2008 $ 1,409,992
Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd
2008 fin lobbying total $ 2,972,572
Citigroup $ 314,694
SAC Capital Partners $ 282,000
Royal Bank of Scotland $ 229,950
AIG $224,678
Bear Stearns $ 205,600
St Paul Travelers $ 205,400
Goldman Sachs $ 175,600
Morgan Stanley $ 155,000
Credit Suisse $ 154,550
Merill Lynch $ 135,950
Lehman Bros. $ 133,800
JPMorgan Chase $ 129,650
KPMG $ 113,100
Hartford Fin Svcs $ 110,450
UBS $108,500
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $ 108,000
The Hartford $ 94,350
Bank of America $ 91,300
Financial Svcs Chairman Barney Frank
fin lobbying (top 20 contributors) $ 239,000
(data above from US Gov't via www.opensecrets.org/politicians/memsearch.php )
Friday, September 26, 2008
Well, Of Course, Now I Understand...
Most critics agree that the current financial crisis was precipitated by excess, and the lack of both restraint and oversight at the GSE's - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Obama, Pelosi, Dodd, Reid and Frank all complain loudly that the it was the Bush Administration's fault but they also fervently back and want to see salvaged the "social engineering experiment" of the GSE's that put unqualified borrower's into mortgages they could not afford as well as the current administration's 700 billion bailout plan.
And we are to believe that these folks at all times have the taxpayer's best interests at heart.
You Can Follow the Money....
Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbying largesse:
Candidate Barack Obama $ 126,000
Candidate John McCain $ 20,000
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid $ 77,000
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd $ 165,000
member Jack Reed $ 78,000 member Tim Johnson $ 61,000
member Chas Schumer $ 24,000 member Evan Bayh $ 41,000
member Tom Carper $ 55,000 member Bob Menendez $ 31,000
member Dan Akaka $ 2,000 member Sherrod Brown $ 15,000
member Bob Casey $ 7,000 member Jon Tester $ 4,000
member Richard Shelby $ 80,000 member Bob Bennett $ 107,000
member Wayne Allard $ 20,000 member Mike Enzi $ 31,000
member Chuck Hagel $ 4,000 member Jim Bunning $ 33,000
member Mike Crapo $ 47,000 member Elizabeth Dole $ 1,000
member Mel Martinez $ 11,000 member Bob Corker $ 7,000
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi $ 56,000
House Finance Committee Chairman Barney Frank $ 42,000
member Paul Kanjorski $ 96,000 member Maxine Waters $ 17,000
member Carol Maloney $ 39,000 member Luis Gutierrez $ 3,000
member Nydia Velazquez $ 20,000 member Melvin Watt $ 17,000
member Gary Ackerman $ 5,000 member Brad Sherman $ 18,000
member Greg Meeks $ 14,000 member Dennis Moore $ 26,000
member Mike Capuano $ 6,000 member Ruben Honijosa $ 14,000
member Bill Clay $ 10,000 member Carol McCarthy $ 5,000
member Joe Baca $ 20,000 member Steve Lynch $ 22,000
member Brad Miller $ 18,000 member Dave Scott $ 17,000
member Al Green $ 4,000 member Emanuel Cleaver $ 7,000
member Melissa Bean $ 41,000 member Gwen Moore $ 8,000
member Lincoln Davis $ 5,000 member Paul Hodes $ 5,000
member Keith Ellison $ 2,000 member Ron Klein $ 11,000
member Tim Mahoney $ 11,000 member Chas Wilson $ 7,000
member Ed Perlmutter $ 5,000 member Chris Murphy $ 4,000
member Joe Donnelly $ 3,000 member Bill Foster $ 2,000
member Andre Carson $ 4,000 member Jackie Speier $ 0
member Don Cazayoux $ 1,000 member Travis Childers $ 2,000
member Spencer Bachus $ 103,000 member Deb Pryce $ 55,000
member Mike Castle $ 9,000 member Pete King $ 16,000
member Ed Royce $ 28,00 member Frank Lucas $ 3,000
member Ron Paul $ 3,000 member Steve LaTourette $ 17,000
member Don Manzullo $ 0 member Walter Jones $ 2,000
member Judy Biggert $ 17,000 member Chris Shays $ 2,000
member Gary Miller $ 38,000 member Shelley Capito $ 14,000
member Tom Feeney $ 14,000 member Jeb Hensarling $ 3,000
member Scott Garrett $ 0 member Ginny Brown-waite $ 21,000
member J. Barrett $ 17,000 member Jim Gerlach $ 17,000
member Steve Pearce $ 5,000 member Randy Neugebauer $ 20,000
member Tom Price $ 3,000 member Geoff Davis $ 21,000
member Pat McHenry $ 12,000 member John Campbell $ 1,000
member Adam Putnam $ 15,000 member Michele Bachmann $ 8,000
member Pete Roskam $ 11,000 member Ken Marchant $ 7,000
member Thad McCotter $ 0 member Kevin McCarthy $ 3,000
member Dean Heller $ 6,000
Obama, Pelosi, Dodd, Reid and Frank all complain loudly that the it was the Bush Administration's fault but they also fervently back and want to see salvaged the "social engineering experiment" of the GSE's that put unqualified borrower's into mortgages they could not afford as well as the current administration's 700 billion bailout plan.
And we are to believe that these folks at all times have the taxpayer's best interests at heart.
You Can Follow the Money....
Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbying largesse:
Candidate Barack Obama $ 126,000
Candidate John McCain $ 20,000
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid $ 77,000
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd $ 165,000
member Jack Reed $ 78,000 member Tim Johnson $ 61,000
member Chas Schumer $ 24,000 member Evan Bayh $ 41,000
member Tom Carper $ 55,000 member Bob Menendez $ 31,000
member Dan Akaka $ 2,000 member Sherrod Brown $ 15,000
member Bob Casey $ 7,000 member Jon Tester $ 4,000
member Richard Shelby $ 80,000 member Bob Bennett $ 107,000
member Wayne Allard $ 20,000 member Mike Enzi $ 31,000
member Chuck Hagel $ 4,000 member Jim Bunning $ 33,000
member Mike Crapo $ 47,000 member Elizabeth Dole $ 1,000
member Mel Martinez $ 11,000 member Bob Corker $ 7,000
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi $ 56,000
House Finance Committee Chairman Barney Frank $ 42,000
member Paul Kanjorski $ 96,000 member Maxine Waters $ 17,000
member Carol Maloney $ 39,000 member Luis Gutierrez $ 3,000
member Nydia Velazquez $ 20,000 member Melvin Watt $ 17,000
member Gary Ackerman $ 5,000 member Brad Sherman $ 18,000
member Greg Meeks $ 14,000 member Dennis Moore $ 26,000
member Mike Capuano $ 6,000 member Ruben Honijosa $ 14,000
member Bill Clay $ 10,000 member Carol McCarthy $ 5,000
member Joe Baca $ 20,000 member Steve Lynch $ 22,000
member Brad Miller $ 18,000 member Dave Scott $ 17,000
member Al Green $ 4,000 member Emanuel Cleaver $ 7,000
member Melissa Bean $ 41,000 member Gwen Moore $ 8,000
member Lincoln Davis $ 5,000 member Paul Hodes $ 5,000
member Keith Ellison $ 2,000 member Ron Klein $ 11,000
member Tim Mahoney $ 11,000 member Chas Wilson $ 7,000
member Ed Perlmutter $ 5,000 member Chris Murphy $ 4,000
member Joe Donnelly $ 3,000 member Bill Foster $ 2,000
member Andre Carson $ 4,000 member Jackie Speier $ 0
member Don Cazayoux $ 1,000 member Travis Childers $ 2,000
member Spencer Bachus $ 103,000 member Deb Pryce $ 55,000
member Mike Castle $ 9,000 member Pete King $ 16,000
member Ed Royce $ 28,00 member Frank Lucas $ 3,000
member Ron Paul $ 3,000 member Steve LaTourette $ 17,000
member Don Manzullo $ 0 member Walter Jones $ 2,000
member Judy Biggert $ 17,000 member Chris Shays $ 2,000
member Gary Miller $ 38,000 member Shelley Capito $ 14,000
member Tom Feeney $ 14,000 member Jeb Hensarling $ 3,000
member Scott Garrett $ 0 member Ginny Brown-waite $ 21,000
member J. Barrett $ 17,000 member Jim Gerlach $ 17,000
member Steve Pearce $ 5,000 member Randy Neugebauer $ 20,000
member Tom Price $ 3,000 member Geoff Davis $ 21,000
member Pat McHenry $ 12,000 member John Campbell $ 1,000
member Adam Putnam $ 15,000 member Michele Bachmann $ 8,000
member Pete Roskam $ 11,000 member Ken Marchant $ 7,000
member Thad McCotter $ 0 member Kevin McCarthy $ 3,000
member Dean Heller $ 6,000
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
