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?
Monday, October 6, 2008
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
At Your Own Peril...
You've seen the placards of the Obamamites blaring out the campaign's official slogan "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN".
Now pay attention to what candidate Obama has to say about himself and what will happen to those who believe in him......
“Mr. Obama himself confesses that, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.”” – The Economist, Aug 23rd-29th, 2008.
Yeah, right...of course, It's Their Fault Anyway !!! ... We understand faith just sort of happens - and really, it's not as though you could have possibly said absolutely anything that would have appealed to, and falsely encouraged them and their desires.
Now pay attention to what candidate Obama has to say about himself and what will happen to those who believe in him......
“Mr. Obama himself confesses that, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.”” – The Economist, Aug 23rd-29th, 2008.
Yeah, right...of course, It's Their Fault Anyway !!! ... We understand faith just sort of happens - and really, it's not as though you could have possibly said absolutely anything that would have appealed to, and falsely encouraged them and their desires.
Check's in the Mail (2)...
Hi, I'm Secretary Paulson and I can't tell you how this 700 billion bailout plan will really work, how much it will really cost in total, whether it will really do what I say it will or how soon, but IF it does work the American taxpayer will see a profit! Oh, by the way, perhaps I should mention, I won't be here anymore after January.
Obama Votes "PRESENT !" (again)...
Presidential Democratic candidate Obama declares the present turmoil in financial markets to be the worst crisis our country faces since the Great Depression and after sounding the general alarm that millions of Americans and the country are facing imminent financial devastation and ruin in his very next breath says "call me, if you need me".
Well golly gee Sir, should that be at the beginning, middle, or when the last light is turned out? Do you not understand the meaning of the word "depression" when you invoke it to express the gravity of the problem and what it demands in leadership?
The irony is absolutely astounding...Obama, Pelosi, Barny Frank and the rest of the Democrats are pushing to saddle the American taxpayer with 700 Billion (what will prove ultimately to be only a tiny downpayment for the bailout) in debt for an ill and hastily conceived plan by the Bush Administration - the VERY people who they have roundly and repeatedly condemned as being responsible for the financial disaster in the first place!
What remains true to form is the courage, conviction and decisivenees of John McCain who immediately suspended his campaign and returned to Washington and his Senate duties to help resolve the debate and insure that America's taxpayers were not screwed one more time because the "Paulson Plan" with its Obama/Democrat "socialism" tinkering does not adequately protect innocent taxpayers.
Once again, regardless of the political consequence to himself, personally, McCain demonstrates his willingness to tell Washington and the President they're wrong and that they are promoting an action that will hurt Americans and America for a very long time to come.
In standing unengaged, merely "staying in touch" with Congress, as Bush did with emergency planners and officials before and after destruction was wrought on New Orleans during its crisis, is this not the aloof Obama's own "Katrina" moment?
Well golly gee Sir, should that be at the beginning, middle, or when the last light is turned out? Do you not understand the meaning of the word "depression" when you invoke it to express the gravity of the problem and what it demands in leadership?
The irony is absolutely astounding...Obama, Pelosi, Barny Frank and the rest of the Democrats are pushing to saddle the American taxpayer with 700 Billion (what will prove ultimately to be only a tiny downpayment for the bailout) in debt for an ill and hastily conceived plan by the Bush Administration - the VERY people who they have roundly and repeatedly condemned as being responsible for the financial disaster in the first place!
What remains true to form is the courage, conviction and decisivenees of John McCain who immediately suspended his campaign and returned to Washington and his Senate duties to help resolve the debate and insure that America's taxpayers were not screwed one more time because the "Paulson Plan" with its Obama/Democrat "socialism" tinkering does not adequately protect innocent taxpayers.
Once again, regardless of the political consequence to himself, personally, McCain demonstrates his willingness to tell Washington and the President they're wrong and that they are promoting an action that will hurt Americans and America for a very long time to come.
In standing unengaged, merely "staying in touch" with Congress, as Bush did with emergency planners and officials before and after destruction was wrought on New Orleans during its crisis, is this not the aloof Obama's own "Katrina" moment?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Missing the Point (again)....
Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi continues to incoherently harp about the ongoing financial crisis in an effort to extract political advantage for her party and the Obama campaign by chiding McCain and the Republicans that the issue is about "main street" not "wall street" as if only she, her Party and Obama can advance the interests of all middle class Americans.
No madam Speaker, it's not just about "main street" either - the crisis is about "every American street". It's about ALL of us; regardless of economic class, advantage or disadvantage. It's not just about dealing with the financial industry's woes, or the captains of industry, or the average person and their savings security, or in money market vulnerabilities, or foreclosures or whatever myriad other things that flit into your mind and you want to lay blame for and at the Republicans' and current administration's doorstep - it is about what comes in the aftermath of the resolution of the turmoil on wall street - it is about the future health and vitality of commerce for the nation - and based upon Obama's gigantic and oppressively "tax and spend" plan, which you endorse and support - if our future has to cope with that ill-advised burden too, then the future's looking pretty bleak.
Epitomizing Nancy Pelosi and her office, one Washington insider described the "arrogance that comes from perennial re-election", as preventing, in part, bi-partisan efforts and solutions for the nation's problems; so, after failing miserably while leading a "do-nothing" Democratically controlled House of Representatives, please, please, please spare us your shrill cries now for reform.
And when it comes to meting out responsibility for the current financial crisis why don't you serve up a sizable portion for yourself and your cohorts in the Congress for enabling the entire mess with your pandering to the greed and excess of the GSE's (governmnet sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) all the while as a $56,000 beneficiary of their lobbying.
After all, YOU could choose to rise above politics and do your own job, and not your Party's.
No madam Speaker, it's not just about "main street" either - the crisis is about "every American street". It's about ALL of us; regardless of economic class, advantage or disadvantage. It's not just about dealing with the financial industry's woes, or the captains of industry, or the average person and their savings security, or in money market vulnerabilities, or foreclosures or whatever myriad other things that flit into your mind and you want to lay blame for and at the Republicans' and current administration's doorstep - it is about what comes in the aftermath of the resolution of the turmoil on wall street - it is about the future health and vitality of commerce for the nation - and based upon Obama's gigantic and oppressively "tax and spend" plan, which you endorse and support - if our future has to cope with that ill-advised burden too, then the future's looking pretty bleak.
Epitomizing Nancy Pelosi and her office, one Washington insider described the "arrogance that comes from perennial re-election", as preventing, in part, bi-partisan efforts and solutions for the nation's problems; so, after failing miserably while leading a "do-nothing" Democratically controlled House of Representatives, please, please, please spare us your shrill cries now for reform.
And when it comes to meting out responsibility for the current financial crisis why don't you serve up a sizable portion for yourself and your cohorts in the Congress for enabling the entire mess with your pandering to the greed and excess of the GSE's (governmnet sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) all the while as a $56,000 beneficiary of their lobbying.
After all, YOU could choose to rise above politics and do your own job, and not your Party's.
The Sick and Twisted (2)....
NBC's Saturday Night Live airs a "skit" that accuses Todd Palin of an incestuous relationship with his daughters - a new, vile low even for the "jackasses" at SNL - and re-affirms for many Americans just how far removed the media and celebrity elite are from the traditional American values of decency and fair play - and how hypocritical it is for them to complain of character assassination.
Youtube yanks a copy of the video from it's website to avoid controversy of being accused as a party to drawing Palin's children into public ridicule.
Not surprisingly the mainstream press gives little coverage to criticism of SNL or to the "outrage" of Palin's supporters, hoping to avoid claims of vindication by the Republican Party for its ongoing accusation of "smear" tactics employed by Obama's supporters in the celebrity ranks and liberal press.
Palin's supporters wonder why, in Obama's earlier magnanimity when cautioning his campaign that Palin's family is a subject "out of bounds" that he remains silent on this reprehensible assault on the Palin family.
Youtube yanks a copy of the video from it's website to avoid controversy of being accused as a party to drawing Palin's children into public ridicule.
Not surprisingly the mainstream press gives little coverage to criticism of SNL or to the "outrage" of Palin's supporters, hoping to avoid claims of vindication by the Republican Party for its ongoing accusation of "smear" tactics employed by Obama's supporters in the celebrity ranks and liberal press.
Palin's supporters wonder why, in Obama's earlier magnanimity when cautioning his campaign that Palin's family is a subject "out of bounds" that he remains silent on this reprehensible assault on the Palin family.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Please Pass the Salt...
At $28,500.00 a plate, the Obama campaign worries last night's California fund raising dinner and fete with the "Hollywood power elite" might appear to the average American that candidate Barack Obama is an "elitist", too and his only interest in ordinary Americans is to gather up election votes from them to serve his own ambition and Hollywood celebrity friend's agenda. Naw...Do do you really think so?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Sick and Twisted ...
"Lost Your Job Yet ? ... Keep Buying Foreign !", is a popular bumper sticker which laments the loss of American jobs to outsourcing overseas. Based though upon recent revelations of product contamination this and last year, by those who deliberately choose to injure helpless and vulnerable children - well, it seems then it could be argued that the phrase ought to read "Lost your Health yet?...Keep buying Chinese!."
The International Herald Tribune reports the Chinese government is warning that the number of deaths and kidney ailments in infants due to complications from toxic melamine contaminated baby formula will rise as it continues to probe the industry. 2 infant deaths have so far been attributed to the poison and 1253 others are reported ill with 53 of that number considered especially critical.
Other reports indicate that the contaminate has also been found in Chinese yogurt products, and that at least 20 % of the Chinese dairy industry is guilty of adding melamine to fake the protein content of the raw milk.
Melamine was the culprit in an earlier scandal in 2007 involving adulterated pet foods exported from China.
This is the second time Chinese baby formula was responsible for infant deaths - in 2004 phony formula, lacking any nutrients, sickened 200 children and left 12 dead.
And it calls into question once again just how meaningful China's standards are for consumer safety practises especially with regard to food handling and processing, and how seriously China's government and regulators treat those standards when they fail repeatedly to both report and act upon deficiencies in a timely manner. The Tribune notes, "Shoddy and fake goods are common in China, and infants, hospital patients and others have been killed or injured by tainted or fake milk, medicines, liquor and other products.".
One company to be found producing the tainted baby formula product is Sanlu Group, a Chinese firm that is the country's largest producer of baby care and baby related products with 43% of its ownership controlled by Fonterra, a company based in New Zealand - it was Fonterra that notified the New Zealand government which in turn notified the Chinese government of the problem. The Chinese company, Sanlu, however was aware of the problem as early as March and in August had actually confirmed the presence of the melamine, which they said was added by the dairy producers and brokers, from whom they purchase the raw milk, to circumvent quality tests. As much as 3 tons per day of the contaminated raw milk was sold.
Sanlu, said that it was "sad" it had caused "severe harm to the many sickened babies and their families."
It is claimed that none of the milk powder was exported to either the US or Europe, although the US Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that some of the Chinese product may in fact be on the shelves of ethnic grocery stores throughout the US.
Last year adulterants were added to Chinese produced Heparin, a drug used to thin blood, and which was imported into the US and responsible for several deaths before the US government forced a shutdown of the Chinese factories and imposed a ban on the importation of any more of the product.
The FDA recently announced that it will step up its monitoring of Chinese imported products and that it will open 3 offices in China to assist in the effort.
The deaths and injuries to defenseless infants dependent upon a product for their sustenance and very survival by callous "entrepeneurs" is both obscene and tragic.
It's bad enough that US jobs and incomes have been compromised and lost by expanding the industrial capability of China, but it is further insult and injury for Americans to have to use their tax dollars to pay to protect themselves from those very same products now made by the Chinese.
As of today 8.17.08 - 3 dead more than 6000 sickened. 21 more Chinese companies implicated.
As of today 8.22.08 - more than 56,000 infants ill, more yet to be tested.
The International Herald Tribune reports the Chinese government is warning that the number of deaths and kidney ailments in infants due to complications from toxic melamine contaminated baby formula will rise as it continues to probe the industry. 2 infant deaths have so far been attributed to the poison and 1253 others are reported ill with 53 of that number considered especially critical.
Other reports indicate that the contaminate has also been found in Chinese yogurt products, and that at least 20 % of the Chinese dairy industry is guilty of adding melamine to fake the protein content of the raw milk.
Melamine was the culprit in an earlier scandal in 2007 involving adulterated pet foods exported from China.
This is the second time Chinese baby formula was responsible for infant deaths - in 2004 phony formula, lacking any nutrients, sickened 200 children and left 12 dead.
And it calls into question once again just how meaningful China's standards are for consumer safety practises especially with regard to food handling and processing, and how seriously China's government and regulators treat those standards when they fail repeatedly to both report and act upon deficiencies in a timely manner. The Tribune notes, "Shoddy and fake goods are common in China, and infants, hospital patients and others have been killed or injured by tainted or fake milk, medicines, liquor and other products.".
One company to be found producing the tainted baby formula product is Sanlu Group, a Chinese firm that is the country's largest producer of baby care and baby related products with 43% of its ownership controlled by Fonterra, a company based in New Zealand - it was Fonterra that notified the New Zealand government which in turn notified the Chinese government of the problem. The Chinese company, Sanlu, however was aware of the problem as early as March and in August had actually confirmed the presence of the melamine, which they said was added by the dairy producers and brokers, from whom they purchase the raw milk, to circumvent quality tests. As much as 3 tons per day of the contaminated raw milk was sold.
Sanlu, said that it was "sad" it had caused "severe harm to the many sickened babies and their families."
It is claimed that none of the milk powder was exported to either the US or Europe, although the US Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning that some of the Chinese product may in fact be on the shelves of ethnic grocery stores throughout the US.
Last year adulterants were added to Chinese produced Heparin, a drug used to thin blood, and which was imported into the US and responsible for several deaths before the US government forced a shutdown of the Chinese factories and imposed a ban on the importation of any more of the product.
The FDA recently announced that it will step up its monitoring of Chinese imported products and that it will open 3 offices in China to assist in the effort.
The deaths and injuries to defenseless infants dependent upon a product for their sustenance and very survival by callous "entrepeneurs" is both obscene and tragic.
It's bad enough that US jobs and incomes have been compromised and lost by expanding the industrial capability of China, but it is further insult and injury for Americans to have to use their tax dollars to pay to protect themselves from those very same products now made by the Chinese.
As of today 8.17.08 - 3 dead more than 6000 sickened. 21 more Chinese companies implicated.
As of today 8.22.08 - more than 56,000 infants ill, more yet to be tested.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Do Anything, Say Anything To Get Elected ...
Much has already been written about whether or not Obama seriously considered Hillary Clinton as a VP pick for his campaign - Clinton's ardent supporters don't believe she was ever on his short list because of the bitter rivalry and harsh feelings between them for the Democratic Presidential nomination. That skepticism has continued to fuel a problem for the Obama campaign in keeping those Hillary votes loyal to the party and available for Obama in the November election, despite Hillary's endorsement and direct appeals.
How ironic and painful it must be then for both Obama and Hillary. That Obama needs her to stump for him to keep his poll numbers dropping any further due to the Republican candidate's dogged persistence and the "Palin Factor"; and for Hillary, to need Obama's help in retiring the $24 million of past due campaign debt she still has - $13 million of which are her personal loans to her own campaign.
Or is it?
In their shared need and, even to Obama, the increasingly evident and obviously bad decision in choosing Biden as his running mate, especially in the face of a newly re-energized McCain campaign courtesy of Sarah Palin, isn't it in every way conceivable, the Clinton's and Obama have already brokered a deal for Biden to be dumped from the ticket and Hillary to move back on in his place?
As for Obama, embarrassment and betrayal haven't given him pause before; he's already demonstrated a lack of personal conviction by abandoning his early support from the liberal left in his bid to re-define, and re-create himself, and to be seen as a moderate Democrat. Getting rid of Biden in the pursuit of his naked ambition won't cause him any hesitation whatsoever.
Oh, how prophetic Rudy Giulliani's advice to Biden - "get it in writing!" - about any Obama commitment must now seem.
As prelude to a formal announcement of an Obama Clinton ticket, and for Biden to begin to bow out, Biden just confessed in New Hampshire that Clinton in every way was his equal in qualification to be Vice President and could even have been a better choice.
Bill Clinton and Obama met in Clinton's Harlem office where after the meeting yesterday, representatives for both suggested that they just whiled away the time reminiscing over the earlier primary campaign as opposed to being in any substantive and frank discussions and hard negotiations about how Hillary as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate could help Obama stop the momemtum of the McCain Palin ticket.
Bill Clinton, who Obama indelibly labelled as a "rascist" during the primaries, and who does not like Obama personally, nor believes he's ready to be President, must be thoroughly enjoying this twist in political fortunes now that Obama, on bended knee, approaches as a respectful supplicant as he panders for Hillary's supporter's votes.
Clinton, for the ninth time, publicly announced afterward that he will do whatever the Obama campaign requests.
Watch for an announcement from the Obama camp to trump the Palin nomination.
How ironic and painful it must be then for both Obama and Hillary. That Obama needs her to stump for him to keep his poll numbers dropping any further due to the Republican candidate's dogged persistence and the "Palin Factor"; and for Hillary, to need Obama's help in retiring the $24 million of past due campaign debt she still has - $13 million of which are her personal loans to her own campaign.
Or is it?
In their shared need and, even to Obama, the increasingly evident and obviously bad decision in choosing Biden as his running mate, especially in the face of a newly re-energized McCain campaign courtesy of Sarah Palin, isn't it in every way conceivable, the Clinton's and Obama have already brokered a deal for Biden to be dumped from the ticket and Hillary to move back on in his place?
As for Obama, embarrassment and betrayal haven't given him pause before; he's already demonstrated a lack of personal conviction by abandoning his early support from the liberal left in his bid to re-define, and re-create himself, and to be seen as a moderate Democrat. Getting rid of Biden in the pursuit of his naked ambition won't cause him any hesitation whatsoever.
Oh, how prophetic Rudy Giulliani's advice to Biden - "get it in writing!" - about any Obama commitment must now seem.
As prelude to a formal announcement of an Obama Clinton ticket, and for Biden to begin to bow out, Biden just confessed in New Hampshire that Clinton in every way was his equal in qualification to be Vice President and could even have been a better choice.
Bill Clinton and Obama met in Clinton's Harlem office where after the meeting yesterday, representatives for both suggested that they just whiled away the time reminiscing over the earlier primary campaign as opposed to being in any substantive and frank discussions and hard negotiations about how Hillary as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate could help Obama stop the momemtum of the McCain Palin ticket.
Bill Clinton, who Obama indelibly labelled as a "rascist" during the primaries, and who does not like Obama personally, nor believes he's ready to be President, must be thoroughly enjoying this twist in political fortunes now that Obama, on bended knee, approaches as a respectful supplicant as he panders for Hillary's supporter's votes.
Clinton, for the ninth time, publicly announced afterward that he will do whatever the Obama campaign requests.
Watch for an announcement from the Obama camp to trump the Palin nomination.
Immutable Laws of the Universe...
"There are no more wearisome things in existence than the apologies of the insincere."
- Luhrs
- Luhrs
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Tuition Costs... One Strategy
Government sponsored studies have shown that in most instances the selection by parents and students of a college or university for higher education is not a rational but an emotional process.
For the last 20 years, tuition costs have been rising faster than any other product or service in our economy and not entirely linked to either the demand for the education or actual inflation costs associated with it. Admission officers admit that many institutions capitalize on this emotional process by consumers, in that schools find that raising tuition rates attracts more applicants because families mistakenly equate high prices with quality education.
Even degrees from leading brand name institutions don't necessarily result in top paying jobs after graduation.
Aside from evaluating value for a higher education on a more rational, economic basis; one strategy that can save families, especially those that don't qualify for financial aid, thousands of dollars is to fast track the education by compressing a traditional 4 year program into 3 or 3 1/2.
Many schools have commencement programs for graduation between semesters, and by using Advanced Placement credits, local summer school credit transfers, and an increased number of semester courses the length of the time required for the diploma can be reduced - of course, meaningful results can only be produced if individual students are up to the task of shouldering the additional workload.
But importantly, it's not just another year of soaring school expense that can be avoided; it's another year in which to start earning income.
For the last 20 years, tuition costs have been rising faster than any other product or service in our economy and not entirely linked to either the demand for the education or actual inflation costs associated with it. Admission officers admit that many institutions capitalize on this emotional process by consumers, in that schools find that raising tuition rates attracts more applicants because families mistakenly equate high prices with quality education.
Even degrees from leading brand name institutions don't necessarily result in top paying jobs after graduation.
Aside from evaluating value for a higher education on a more rational, economic basis; one strategy that can save families, especially those that don't qualify for financial aid, thousands of dollars is to fast track the education by compressing a traditional 4 year program into 3 or 3 1/2.
Many schools have commencement programs for graduation between semesters, and by using Advanced Placement credits, local summer school credit transfers, and an increased number of semester courses the length of the time required for the diploma can be reduced - of course, meaningful results can only be produced if individual students are up to the task of shouldering the additional workload.
But importantly, it's not just another year of soaring school expense that can be avoided; it's another year in which to start earning income.
Fatal Prescription Drug Overdoses, Complications
The Archive of Internal Medicine in July published a study showing that a particularly treacherous time of life is between the ages of 40 and 60 due to the self mis-administration of prescription drugs and because physicians now routinely prescribe potent medications for home use that had previously been limited to administration and supervision under hospital care. More responsibility has been shifted to the individual, who under the influence of the drug and, or because of the medical condition under treatment take the drugs improperly in combination with other drugs, alcohol or over dosage.
See www.arp.org/health/rx_drugs/usingmeds for more information on how to reliablely manage self care with prescription drugs.
See www.arp.org/health/rx_drugs/usingmeds for more information on how to reliablely manage self care with prescription drugs.
Must Have Missed It ...
It's interesting that the American public believes that the press is biased toward and for the Obama campaign, yet the press themselves believe they are presenting fair and balanced coverage; not favoring either candidate and certainly not in any way disadvantaging the Republican candidates, John McCain and Sarah Palin.
It would be unthinkable, wouldn't it, that the press corps could be subtley or even overtly pushing an agenda in support of Obama and Biden?
When John McCain, who all agree has had the most favorable access policy for the press than any other candidate, is held up to ridicule by the national press for stumbling with an irrelevant question on how many homes he has and Obama in similar fashion makes a statement in Beaverton, Oregon that he has visited 57 states and implies that the US is made up of 60 states and the coverage by the same press is nearly non-existent; then yes, it's credible that the public has an entirely different take on the fairness of press coverage.
Apparently, it would seem some in NBC management must finally believe so too, as both Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann have been "re-assigned" and replaced by David Gregory; this coming after blatantly biased and lopsided coverage of the Republican National Convention by MsNBC.
It would be unthinkable, wouldn't it, that the press corps could be subtley or even overtly pushing an agenda in support of Obama and Biden?
When John McCain, who all agree has had the most favorable access policy for the press than any other candidate, is held up to ridicule by the national press for stumbling with an irrelevant question on how many homes he has and Obama in similar fashion makes a statement in Beaverton, Oregon that he has visited 57 states and implies that the US is made up of 60 states and the coverage by the same press is nearly non-existent; then yes, it's credible that the public has an entirely different take on the fairness of press coverage.
Apparently, it would seem some in NBC management must finally believe so too, as both Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann have been "re-assigned" and replaced by David Gregory; this coming after blatantly biased and lopsided coverage of the Republican National Convention by MsNBC.
He Said What ??? ...
Barack Obama, at a campaign stop in Flint, Michigan on Sept. 8th objected to the McCain campaign's assertion that John McCain, was the real candidate for change by virtue of McCain's actual record of accomplishment as opposed to Obama's rhetoric.
Obama, complaining about McCain told the audience, “You can’t just recreate yourself,” said the Democratic nominee. “You can’t just reinvent yourself. The American people aren’t stupid.”
OK, doesn't he actually hear any of what he says ? ... afterall, this coming from a man, who, on both superficial and policy levels has diligently re-worked his own image, attempting to distance himself from his own voting record, memoirs, and earlier speeches on his more extreme liberal positions - all, in advance of the Democratic Convention in order to become palatable to the moderate left, press and public.
As such, and after widespread public criticism he now wears an American flag on his lapel, claims he never had Muslim training and as a Christian denounced his extremist, hate spewing preacher of the past 20 plus years, is the product of corrupt Chicago machine politics, yet assumes the mantle of reformer and agent of change, panders for the Jewish vote while downplaying his poor voting record in support of Israel, claims to favor 2nd amendment rights while voting for gun control, wants to pursue appeasement to resolve international disputes while dismantling defense programs, voted against support for soldiers in the field and pronounces he's tough on terrorism, and on and on.
The other notable thing about glass houses is the amount of light they let in.
Obama, complaining about McCain told the audience, “You can’t just recreate yourself,” said the Democratic nominee. “You can’t just reinvent yourself. The American people aren’t stupid.”
OK, doesn't he actually hear any of what he says ? ... afterall, this coming from a man, who, on both superficial and policy levels has diligently re-worked his own image, attempting to distance himself from his own voting record, memoirs, and earlier speeches on his more extreme liberal positions - all, in advance of the Democratic Convention in order to become palatable to the moderate left, press and public.
As such, and after widespread public criticism he now wears an American flag on his lapel, claims he never had Muslim training and as a Christian denounced his extremist, hate spewing preacher of the past 20 plus years, is the product of corrupt Chicago machine politics, yet assumes the mantle of reformer and agent of change, panders for the Jewish vote while downplaying his poor voting record in support of Israel, claims to favor 2nd amendment rights while voting for gun control, wants to pursue appeasement to resolve international disputes while dismantling defense programs, voted against support for soldiers in the field and pronounces he's tough on terrorism, and on and on.
The other notable thing about glass houses is the amount of light they let in.
The Color of Lipstick...
The Republican National Campaign committee with the release of a TV ad, has decided that Obama's recent description of "a pig wearing lipstick" was not an innocent gaffe as he protested, but rather, a not so subtle and clumsy personal slam against Republican VP candidate, Sarah Palin, who had famously remarked a week before that the difference between her, and other "hockey mom's" and a pit bull was - lipstick.
On the defensive, Obama cried that it was he, who was victemized by the "manufactured" outrage of the Republicans over his remarks; but the controversy has not subsided despite Obama's call of, "Enough !" and for it to end. His subsequent explanation, to many, sounded like more indignation and a further attack. Other observers have commented that the more Obama tries to denigrate Palin, the more popular she becomes with the electorate; since they say, she, unlike either Obama or Biden, is more representative of the American working class population.
At best, Obama can claim that the remark was unintended, and thoughtless - an unfortunate metaphor with respect to timing; but then, if that were really the case, it's also probably reasonable to conclude that he would have been more conciliatory rather than as combative as he was, in acknowledging his remarks could and would have been perceived as personally offensive by Palin's supporters.
Or, shucks --- at worst, Obama intended the slam all along --- something similar to the time he leveled one against former President Clinton during the primaries; that the Clinton's were playing the "race" card against Obama, who again protested he was the victem.
Many have observed that Obama is a shrewd and calculating individual who prefers to remain aloof and at times can be petty.
In the video, during his Palin remarks, and after the audience reacts, groans and Obama sees that they "get it", he allows himself a wry smile of satisfaction.
In the end, the entire episode may have more to do with a reflection upon the poor quality of Obama's judgment and lack of political accumen in dealing with Palin - engaging her, a Vice Presidential candidate, in the first place, while failing to recognize that because of her obvious popularity, a cheap personal attack would be poorly received by the electorate. Especially, when he, himself, claims to be above that sort of dirty political manuever. By allowing his advisors to pressure him into being more "aggressive", he has, ultimately, only presented the image of a candidate successfully "rattled" by an opponent.
On the defensive, Obama cried that it was he, who was victemized by the "manufactured" outrage of the Republicans over his remarks; but the controversy has not subsided despite Obama's call of, "Enough !" and for it to end. His subsequent explanation, to many, sounded like more indignation and a further attack. Other observers have commented that the more Obama tries to denigrate Palin, the more popular she becomes with the electorate; since they say, she, unlike either Obama or Biden, is more representative of the American working class population.
At best, Obama can claim that the remark was unintended, and thoughtless - an unfortunate metaphor with respect to timing; but then, if that were really the case, it's also probably reasonable to conclude that he would have been more conciliatory rather than as combative as he was, in acknowledging his remarks could and would have been perceived as personally offensive by Palin's supporters.
Or, shucks --- at worst, Obama intended the slam all along --- something similar to the time he leveled one against former President Clinton during the primaries; that the Clinton's were playing the "race" card against Obama, who again protested he was the victem.
Many have observed that Obama is a shrewd and calculating individual who prefers to remain aloof and at times can be petty.
In the video, during his Palin remarks, and after the audience reacts, groans and Obama sees that they "get it", he allows himself a wry smile of satisfaction.
In the end, the entire episode may have more to do with a reflection upon the poor quality of Obama's judgment and lack of political accumen in dealing with Palin - engaging her, a Vice Presidential candidate, in the first place, while failing to recognize that because of her obvious popularity, a cheap personal attack would be poorly received by the electorate. Especially, when he, himself, claims to be above that sort of dirty political manuever. By allowing his advisors to pressure him into being more "aggressive", he has, ultimately, only presented the image of a candidate successfully "rattled" by an opponent.
Honesty ...
Rich Lowry, of the National Review online writes, that during the Democratic National Convention, former President Bill Clinton extolled Obama's virtues, promoting him as the best man for the Presidency, all the while that deep down, Clinton personally doesn't like Obama and "probably doesn't truly believe he is ready to be President.".
Friday, September 5, 2008
Standing the Test of Time (5)...
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
Gerald R. Ford
Gerald R. Ford
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Practical Steps to Save the Planet..
Let's demand that Al Gore's private jet remain on the ground and that he turns off just half of the lights in his house.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Double Standards - It's Just Politics, or Is It?...
Senator McCain announced today that his pick for Vice President is the current Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin.
Almost immediately, both the Obama campaign and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued statements condemning Governor Palin as unqualified and having no experience for the position.
The evening before on the last day of the Democratic Party convention, former Vice President Al Gore assured the audience that while Barack Obama, like President Lincoln before him, has “no experience” prior to his election, Obama will go on to become a great President just as Lincoln was. Further, he said, that Senator Biden, as Obama’s running mate for Vice President, having years of experience will be of great “help” to Obama.
If the issue of experience wasn’t to be believed as critical for the Democrats before with regard to Obama, why is it so suddenly now a pertinent issue for them to apply to the Republicans with respect to Governor Palin?
Of course, Pelosi and her Democrat cohorts will try to press the “one heartbeat away” argument for Governor Palin – but if the same standard is applied equally to Biden, consider for a moment that as a Washington insider for the past 3 decades, he is every bit a part of the very problem that Barack Obama fervently wants us to believe we need to change with Obama’s election.
And when you get right down to it, other than rhetoric and the smoke and mirrors guise of appearing to be a “moderate” politician, what “change” is it that Barack Obama has accomplished so far? Based upon his voting record, he has the singular distinction of being the Senate’s Number 1 radical liberal, even beating out the self proclaimed “Socialist” Senator, Bernie Sanders from Vermont – and Joe Biden? Well, he’s the Number 3 liberal in the Senate – though they make the claim, they hardly represent the vast moderate electorate that makes up America!
Neither Obama or Biden have any tangible executive experience; in that regard, Governor Palin already has more “hands on” executive experience than either or even both of them put together!
As far as succession is concerned, a Washington “outsider” such as Governor Palin with a clean slate would seem to be more in keeping anyway with Obama’s desire for change, than a haggard and compromised Washington “insider” such as Joe Biden, who according to his friend, the former Democratic Mayor of New York, Ed Koch says of Biden, “brings his own baggage” to the ticket.
So as a practical matter what’s better for America – a President with no experience dependent upon on a Vice President who’s already a compromised “insider”; or, a President with vast experience assisted by a capable “outsider” Vice President with a real executive resume?
Almost immediately, both the Obama campaign and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued statements condemning Governor Palin as unqualified and having no experience for the position.
The evening before on the last day of the Democratic Party convention, former Vice President Al Gore assured the audience that while Barack Obama, like President Lincoln before him, has “no experience” prior to his election, Obama will go on to become a great President just as Lincoln was. Further, he said, that Senator Biden, as Obama’s running mate for Vice President, having years of experience will be of great “help” to Obama.
If the issue of experience wasn’t to be believed as critical for the Democrats before with regard to Obama, why is it so suddenly now a pertinent issue for them to apply to the Republicans with respect to Governor Palin?
Of course, Pelosi and her Democrat cohorts will try to press the “one heartbeat away” argument for Governor Palin – but if the same standard is applied equally to Biden, consider for a moment that as a Washington insider for the past 3 decades, he is every bit a part of the very problem that Barack Obama fervently wants us to believe we need to change with Obama’s election.
And when you get right down to it, other than rhetoric and the smoke and mirrors guise of appearing to be a “moderate” politician, what “change” is it that Barack Obama has accomplished so far? Based upon his voting record, he has the singular distinction of being the Senate’s Number 1 radical liberal, even beating out the self proclaimed “Socialist” Senator, Bernie Sanders from Vermont – and Joe Biden? Well, he’s the Number 3 liberal in the Senate – though they make the claim, they hardly represent the vast moderate electorate that makes up America!
Neither Obama or Biden have any tangible executive experience; in that regard, Governor Palin already has more “hands on” executive experience than either or even both of them put together!
As far as succession is concerned, a Washington “outsider” such as Governor Palin with a clean slate would seem to be more in keeping anyway with Obama’s desire for change, than a haggard and compromised Washington “insider” such as Joe Biden, who according to his friend, the former Democratic Mayor of New York, Ed Koch says of Biden, “brings his own baggage” to the ticket.
So as a practical matter what’s better for America – a President with no experience dependent upon on a Vice President who’s already a compromised “insider”; or, a President with vast experience assisted by a capable “outsider” Vice President with a real executive resume?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Standing the Test of Time (4)...
"Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people."
Spencer Johnson
Spencer Johnson
The Privileged Few…
During her Democratic Convention speech last evening Hillary Clinton implored with dripping irony, the nation needed Obama as President in order, among other things, that government no longer serve the privileged few at the expense of the rest of America.
If Hillary Clinton had any twinges of conscience when she castigated the “favored few” it wasn’t at all evident in her demeanor, so much so, she clearly must not consider herself in the least little bit to be a recipient of any special treatment and privilege herself – though over the years what a lengthy list it has been.
And prospectively, given the bitter contest between the two for the nomination - after her endorsement, I am left wondering, “Are you being served (still), Madam?”
Let's all check back sometime in the future to see how Hilary's campaign debt is eliminated or should the Democrats win the November election if she is appointed in the future as a Supreme Court Jurist.
If Hillary Clinton had any twinges of conscience when she castigated the “favored few” it wasn’t at all evident in her demeanor, so much so, she clearly must not consider herself in the least little bit to be a recipient of any special treatment and privilege herself – though over the years what a lengthy list it has been.
And prospectively, given the bitter contest between the two for the nomination - after her endorsement, I am left wondering, “Are you being served (still), Madam?”
Let's all check back sometime in the future to see how Hilary's campaign debt is eliminated or should the Democrats win the November election if she is appointed in the future as a Supreme Court Jurist.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Standing the Test of Time (3)...
"If we suspect that a man is lying, we should pretend to believe him; for then he becomes bold and assured, lies more vigorously, and is unmasked."
Arthur Schopenhauer
COME, Let Us Now Bait the Hook….
“Mr. Obama himself confesses that, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.”” – The Economist, Aug 23rd-29th, 2008.
The principle of projection is one of many devices skillfully employed in the con artist’s repertoire of deceit.
” The 'bait,' which is dangled by the con artist before the victim, induces the victim to participate in the con scheme. The offering of the bait is often preceded or accompanied by 'stroking,' ranging from sentimental gestures to respectfulness, gifts, and other veiled and indirect reinforcements for trust. Con artists aim at authenticating themselves within the scheme by establishing a connection with the victim or presenting knowledge and scenarios that will convince the victim of the con artist's integrity and presented identity. How the victims misinterpret the information provided by the con artist makes the stratagems work. Con artists accomplish this by playing on the victim's stereotyped expectations on one or more of three levels -- the rational, the psychodynamic, and the sociodynamic. These stereotyped expectations are habitual patterns of construing meanings that are yoked to the customary, the directly given, the momentary, the already experienced, and one's ego. Misinterpretation on the rational level is usually connected with false premises. At the psychodynamic level, the con artist works on the emotional willingness and interest of the victim in the bait. At the sociodynamic level, the con artist focuses on the relationship of roles between con artist and victim. At the start of the game, the con artist casts the victim in a certain role which the victim desires (a person of status, knowledge, skill, etc.), and the con artist adopts the complementary role in appearance and behavior. The victim is thus led to act out the role subtly defined by the con artist in taking the bait...”. From “Games Con Men Play …”.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Standing the Test of Time (2)...
"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people. " -
A. Lincoln
A. Lincoln
Standing the Test of Time...
"You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today." -
A. Lincoln
A. Lincoln
What It Takes...
"Practise doesn't make perfect; it makes permanent." - 1991, Dave Butz, Washington Redskins
Immutable Laws of the Universe...
"The smartest people can be found in engineering, science and medicine; the egotistical in law and politics; but the most egotistical and smartest people are in business." - Luhrs
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Here a Dollar, There a Dollar ....
Rick Wagoner, GM's chief executive officer received compensation worth $15.7 million from the board in 2007 - as CEO, he's been at the helm of GM since 2000 and in that time the company has lost more than 85% of its stock value. GM’s second in command, President Frederick “Fritz” Henderson, formerly the company’s CFO was served up $7.6 million in compensation. Vice Chairman and product development chief Robert “ Maximum Bob” Lutz, who likes to fly his own military jet, and famously quoted in 2008 for declaring global warming was “ a total crock of shit!”, got a package worth $6.9 million. Yes sir, let the good times roll and keep on rolling ….
During Wagoner's leadership the company has seen a continual slide in its domestic market share with rising dissatisfaction among both its dealers and consumers. Before taking over the top slot at GM Wagoner ran the company’s North American Division which is precisely the part of operations that continues to drag down GM’s overall performance. At 38.7 billion dollars, General Motors embarrassingly lost more than twice as much in 2007 that
At $38.7 billion, GM racked up a loss for a full year at a rate of almost 74 thousand dollars per minute - Wagoner’s 2007 compensation package equated to about 43 thousand dollars each day. Wagoner also serves as GM’s Chairman.
George Fisher, one of 10 independent directors on GM’s board in August interviews said the board “unanimously” supports Wagoner and the management team. Fisher a past CEO of Eastman Kodak, who retired in1999 before his contract expired, presided there over difficult years from which Kodak’s stock has yet to recover to its 1997 levels. According to Fisher the price of General Motor’s stock is not a major concern to either the board or management; yet, as he describes it, the GM board is very involved, ever more so now and has “astute” people among the directors. Wow, really, no kidding, but after the destruction of $35 billion in market cap value, could the board be just a little late in putting “hard questions to the management”?
Mr. Fisher goes on to say with infusions of $15 billion by next year from debt offerings the company has enough liquidity to remain solvent until it revamps its product line – others observe that GM is burning through $1 billion of cash a month and express doubt that with a 2 to 3 year product cycle, there will be sufficient cash to carry through.
Fisher, himself, as of the latest proxy statement enjoys beneficial ownership of only some 4700 shares of company stock worth roughly $50,000 at current prices or based upon the number of outstanding shares, a .000839 % stakeholder – seemingly not much of a financial commitment to the management plan he supports – the one he asserts which will lead GM to its “bright future” – or could it perhaps just be an “astute” financial decision about the prospects of a lousy investment return based upon the trend in share prices for GM stock the last 8 long years?
Arguably, any other prospective investor might pause too – after all has the 85 % drop in share prices shown that Wall Street can see what the GM Board can’t ... the need to extract sufficient performance from management to move both the company and its stock ahead?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
