A couple of years ago when I decided to try blogging, the main objective that I had was to not become a slave of writing on a schedule. I don't think anyone can say that I have, since it has been so long since I have posted here.
Another of my intentions was to do it for fun. Often it has not been.
Since I retired I have been enjoying life, with a great family, a faithful dog, wonderful friends and good health, at least for an old codger.
My family, friends and I have lived the American Dream. It has been great, and I hope that we can preserve that opportunity for our children and their children.
The above is the happy part.
It is a cultural thing, I suppose, for the elderly to disapprove of what the younger generations are doing. My parents disapproved of our teen music, just as my generation doesn't appreciate the kind of music and culture of the current teens. That is just natural, and is not something that I am that concerned about.
What I am concerned with is the direction in which our country, and particularly our government, is headed.
This is the sad part.
One can read past posts and get an idea of the things that are so sad. A quick summation would be that our people are increasingly losing their liberty to an ever growing and increasingly uncontrollable government.
Since at least the last Great Depression we have all looked increasingly toward the national government to solve every problem, and increasingly let our state and local governments become so hooked on Federal funds that they can only respond to the Feds, and not to the desires of the people.
It is not my intent to go into great detail about the hows and whens, but we all must realize that we have been letting our government drift out of control for several decades.
The more this happens, the less free we become.
This is Christmas time, and I am going to be happy, and I wish happiness and a Merry Christmas to all of you.
After this happy period, I am not going to be sad any more.
I am going to be mad as Hell.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Are we living in a satire?
A good question. When we consider what is going on around us every day, it just has to be satire.
The President of the United States tours the world apologizing for everything our country has been.
The President of the United States offends and insults the friends and allies of our country, but snuggles up to the tyrants and dictators of the world in very obsequious ways.
The Russians are now threatening the US with nuclear preemption.
The Iranians and the North Koreans and every other two-bit dictatorship thumbs their noses at the US, correctly assuming that our President is weak.
A Republican President of the United States permits a financial coup de' etat of our economy by the huge financial institutions in New York, and his Democratic successor further enables it.
The President of the United States is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, having been nominated therefor not later than 12 days after he took office, joining others to hold the prize like Yassir Arafat and Jimmy Carter.
The politicians in Washington are proposing huge and expensive changes in our medical care system in the middle of the worst economy in decades.
They are also proposing huge new taxes on energy use at the same time.
They are continuing to try to solve the problems in the economy caused by too much debt by going further into debt at historical rates.
When one looks at Washington, all one sees is business as usual.
We are living in Wonderland, with Alice.
Who will lead the revolution?
The President of the United States tours the world apologizing for everything our country has been.
The President of the United States offends and insults the friends and allies of our country, but snuggles up to the tyrants and dictators of the world in very obsequious ways.
The Russians are now threatening the US with nuclear preemption.
The Iranians and the North Koreans and every other two-bit dictatorship thumbs their noses at the US, correctly assuming that our President is weak.
A Republican President of the United States permits a financial coup de' etat of our economy by the huge financial institutions in New York, and his Democratic successor further enables it.
The President of the United States is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, having been nominated therefor not later than 12 days after he took office, joining others to hold the prize like Yassir Arafat and Jimmy Carter.
The politicians in Washington are proposing huge and expensive changes in our medical care system in the middle of the worst economy in decades.
They are also proposing huge new taxes on energy use at the same time.
They are continuing to try to solve the problems in the economy caused by too much debt by going further into debt at historical rates.
When one looks at Washington, all one sees is business as usual.
We are living in Wonderland, with Alice.
Who will lead the revolution?
Friday, October 2, 2009
Not in our strategic interests?
Afghanistan is in the news with the US undertaking still another review of the strategy and tactics needed there. Although I am a hawk on a lot of matters, I am thinking we should step back and take a look at Afghanistan.
What is our strategic interest there? Is the conflict there so important that it involves our nation's really strategic interests? In other words, is it something so important all the resources we have should should be used to accomplish the objective? Stated another way, is Afghanistan so important to us that we should expend large numbers of lives and billions or trillions of dollars to make Afghanistan "safe for democracy,"or whatever we are trying to do?
If we left Afghanistan to a fight between the factions there, would it really have any kind of effect on our national interests? How much?
Or is our objective just to make it unsafe for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda?
My thought is that it is appropriate to have a well defined objective, and one that is based upon our important strategic interests.
I really have not seen anyone articulate a firm objective.
Our decision must be measured against some known facts. Many of the best armies in the history of the world have tried to pacify Afghanistan: Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the British in the 19th Century, and the Soviet Union in the 20th Century.
They all failed. The terrain and tribalism makes it extremely difficult to do.
The Afghanis don't like outsiders, and we have become the outsiders once NATO and the regular forces moved in.
If we try to increase our force levels and go all out to pacify the country, it will be extremely costly, and, like the other great powers of the past, we may likely fail as they did.
And we would be diverting badly needed resources from other areas, such as the Middle East, where we absolutely do have very important strategic interests, and where they may be needed soon. Think Iran.
So again, one must ask the question: Is it worth it?
I am having doubts that it would be.
What is our strategic interest there? Is the conflict there so important that it involves our nation's really strategic interests? In other words, is it something so important all the resources we have should should be used to accomplish the objective? Stated another way, is Afghanistan so important to us that we should expend large numbers of lives and billions or trillions of dollars to make Afghanistan "safe for democracy,"or whatever we are trying to do?
If we left Afghanistan to a fight between the factions there, would it really have any kind of effect on our national interests? How much?
Or is our objective just to make it unsafe for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda?
My thought is that it is appropriate to have a well defined objective, and one that is based upon our important strategic interests.
I really have not seen anyone articulate a firm objective.
Our decision must be measured against some known facts. Many of the best armies in the history of the world have tried to pacify Afghanistan: Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the British in the 19th Century, and the Soviet Union in the 20th Century.
They all failed. The terrain and tribalism makes it extremely difficult to do.
The Afghanis don't like outsiders, and we have become the outsiders once NATO and the regular forces moved in.
If we try to increase our force levels and go all out to pacify the country, it will be extremely costly, and, like the other great powers of the past, we may likely fail as they did.
And we would be diverting badly needed resources from other areas, such as the Middle East, where we absolutely do have very important strategic interests, and where they may be needed soon. Think Iran.
So again, one must ask the question: Is it worth it?
I am having doubts that it would be.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Thoughts on a return to blogging
It has been a long and busy three weeks, and I have not been able to even gather thoughts in order to blog. Sorry.
There was some time to keep up with email, and to read some articles. Given what is happening in our world, there is a lot to blog about. I will try to do so with a bit more regularity than lately.
Looking about, one sees the United States, once respected, if disliked, has changed to being disrespected and still disliked.
All of that in a period of eight months.
This is because of the deliberate policies of our current government. It has sucked up to our enemies and offended and abandoned our friends. Intentionally.
Iran has just been given another pass, in spite of its threat. North Korea is ignored, to do whatever nuke development they wish.
Castro and Chavez to our south are being helped, rather than isolated, while Honduras and Colombia, our allies, are treated quite poorly.
The situation in Afghanistan is eroding, and the government is holding "meetings." There seems to be no sense of urgency, even though the President accorded Afghanistan important status when running for office.
Domestically, the economy is in the tank while the "stimulus" is spent to shore up supporters and arms of the Democratic Party. The big banking and financial institutions have been bailed out with nearly three trillion dollars of taxpayers' money, but the government entities refuse to account to the people for the money.
The majority party is trying to cram health "reform" down the throat of the 85% of the people who are satisfied with their health insurance, in order to make coverage available to an additional 11% of the people (and, of course, 12 million illegal aliens).
They are also trying to pass a "cap and trade" regime, which will enrich a few, but will constitute a huge energy tax on everyone else, even the poor. This is being done in a time of deep recession and increasing unemployment.
In the media, I notice that the New York Times has as the lead article a story about Senator John Ensign (R-Nev) and his affair, but there is not a mention anywhere of Charles Rangel (D-NY) and his series of felonies, nor of the bastard child of John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, even though there is some here on Politico.
Enough.
A couple of weeks ago, as I sat out on my patio enjoying the evening with my puppy dog and an adult beverage, I had something of a premonition. Nothing specific at all, just a thought that something bad might happen. A friend that I told about it said he was having somewhat similar thoughts.
I think that when one considers the above, along with everything else, there is good reason to worry.
Perhaps that can be covered a bit in succeeding posts.
There was some time to keep up with email, and to read some articles. Given what is happening in our world, there is a lot to blog about. I will try to do so with a bit more regularity than lately.
Looking about, one sees the United States, once respected, if disliked, has changed to being disrespected and still disliked.
All of that in a period of eight months.
This is because of the deliberate policies of our current government. It has sucked up to our enemies and offended and abandoned our friends. Intentionally.
Iran has just been given another pass, in spite of its threat. North Korea is ignored, to do whatever nuke development they wish.
Castro and Chavez to our south are being helped, rather than isolated, while Honduras and Colombia, our allies, are treated quite poorly.
The situation in Afghanistan is eroding, and the government is holding "meetings." There seems to be no sense of urgency, even though the President accorded Afghanistan important status when running for office.
Domestically, the economy is in the tank while the "stimulus" is spent to shore up supporters and arms of the Democratic Party. The big banking and financial institutions have been bailed out with nearly three trillion dollars of taxpayers' money, but the government entities refuse to account to the people for the money.
The majority party is trying to cram health "reform" down the throat of the 85% of the people who are satisfied with their health insurance, in order to make coverage available to an additional 11% of the people (and, of course, 12 million illegal aliens).
They are also trying to pass a "cap and trade" regime, which will enrich a few, but will constitute a huge energy tax on everyone else, even the poor. This is being done in a time of deep recession and increasing unemployment.
In the media, I notice that the New York Times has as the lead article a story about Senator John Ensign (R-Nev) and his affair, but there is not a mention anywhere of Charles Rangel (D-NY) and his series of felonies, nor of the bastard child of John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, even though there is some here on Politico.
Enough.
A couple of weeks ago, as I sat out on my patio enjoying the evening with my puppy dog and an adult beverage, I had something of a premonition. Nothing specific at all, just a thought that something bad might happen. A friend that I told about it said he was having somewhat similar thoughts.
I think that when one considers the above, along with everything else, there is good reason to worry.
Perhaps that can be covered a bit in succeeding posts.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
What are they buying?
Opensecrets.org is a great site to explore, and I encourage everyone to go there and browse.
I was doing so today, and came across their list of heavy hitters: the biggest contributors to political campaigns over the last 20 years.
One clear thing is that labor unions were, as a group, by far the biggest givers, to the tune of $184,906,000. That is $184 Million.
ATT was the biggest single company at over $43 Million. Goldman Sachs managed only fourth place with over $31 Million. But they got several Secretaries of the Treasury for their trouble.
Go here and see who "owns" our politicians. Click at the bottom of the list of ten to see the whole list, and to which party the contributions were made.
Something has to change. Who will lead the revolution?
I was doing so today, and came across their list of heavy hitters: the biggest contributors to political campaigns over the last 20 years.
One clear thing is that labor unions were, as a group, by far the biggest givers, to the tune of $184,906,000. That is $184 Million.
ATT was the biggest single company at over $43 Million. Goldman Sachs managed only fourth place with over $31 Million. But they got several Secretaries of the Treasury for their trouble.
Go here and see who "owns" our politicians. Click at the bottom of the list of ten to see the whole list, and to which party the contributions were made.
Something has to change. Who will lead the revolution?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The Next Financial Crisis
Its already coming. And, if the trends remain the same, it will be even worse than this one has been.
There is an excellent article in The New Republic with this title, written by Peter Boone and Simon Johnson.
The past crisis was certainly mitigated by the actions of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, but what they did sowed the seeds of the next crisis. And what they continue to do will make it worse.
This has happened many times before:
" We have seen this spectacle--the Fed saving us from one crisis only to instigate another--many times before. And, over the past few decades, the problem has become significantly more dire. The fault, to be sure, doesn’t lie entirely with the Fed. Bernanke is a prisoner of a financial system with serious built-in flaws. The decisions he made during the recent crisis weren’t necessarily the wrong decisions; indeed, they were, in many respects, the decisions he had to make. But these decisions, however necessary in the moment, are almost guaranteed to hurt our economy in the long run--which, in turn, means that more necessary but harmful measures will be needed in the future. It is a debilitating, vicious cycle. And at the center of this cycle is the Fed."
Back in the "old days" before the Federal Reserve was created, if you ran a bank and lost your depositors' money, the bankers' personal assets and income could be taken to help cover the losses.
"In the United States, there was great experimentation with banking during the 1800s, but those involved in the enterprise typically made a substantial commitment of their own capital. For example, there was a well-established tradition of “double liability,” in which stockholders were responsible for twice the original value of their shares in a bank. This encouraged stockholders to carefully monitor bank executives and employees. And, in turn, it placed a lot of pressure on those who managed banks. If they fared poorly, they typically faced personal and professional ruin. The idea that a bank executive would retain wealth and social status in the event of a self-induced calamity would have struck everyone--including bank executives themselves--as ludicrous."
In 1913 the Federal Reserve was created, and it went to work using liquidity loans and low interest rates to cushion banks in difficulty by reducing their costs.
"But, by insulating banks from the terrible consequences of their own blunders, these measures would also encourage them to keep taking unwise risks, and thereby lay the groundwork for future crises."
The Fed has made many errors with this. In the summer of 1927 it lowered interest rates, fueling the boom that crashed in the fall of 1929. It had belatedly raised rates in 1928, but that did not stop the frenzy. After the crash, it then kept interest too high into 1933, causing many banks to fail.
During the Great Depression, banking came under increasing regulation, and the rules were tightened so that risk taking was more difficult.
But:
"....eventually, banks would learn how to play the new game. They would spend serious money lobbying to keep regulations lax, hiring lawyers and accountants to find methods to minimize or avoid regulations, and incentivizing employees to hide risk from regulators. While the banking sector became more risky, creditors to banks (such as depositors and lenders) knew they could count on the Fed to engineer bailouts via lower interest rates and access to credit if times got tough--so banks had no trouble raising funding from creditors, and our financial system grew rapidly."
As time went on, the Fed continued to protect the banks. In the 1980s, Volcker lowered interest rates during the Latin American debt crisis [and simply ignored it when some banks were technically insolvent]. That caused a real estate boom that resulted in the S&L debacle of 1987. So interest rates were lowered again creating problems in real estate again, and then in the Asian markets. They crashed, then the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund created a "systemic risk" and rates were lowered again, fueling the Hi-tech bubble, also treated with low interest rates. which created the current burst bubble. You get the idea.
Saving the big banks from themselves is getting far more expensive than it used to be:
"Based on what we have seen over the past two decades, the cost of the next collapse will invariably be steep. Since the early 1980s, the Fed has gone back to its origins as the bailout machine for the financial sector. The only difference is that this sector has become much larger since 1907 or 1913. Back then, it accounted for around one percent of GDP. Now it is closer to 8 percent. The cost of bailouts--the current one and those to come--has skyrocketed as a result."
So, what do the big banks get from all of this? Its very simple:
"Consider the lessons learned in the past twelve months by our major banks. If they again get into serious financial trouble, the Fed can be counted on to lend them essentially unlimited amounts at effectively zero interest rates. What would you do with free money? You’d pay off all your old debts, then you’d find something to invest in that would yield a decent return. But then you’d reckon--why not take more risk? After all, if things go badly, you’ll get more free money."
They propose some solutions that might work, but may not be tough enough.
First, banks should have more capital to cover loan losses than is now permitted. Now, it is about 8%, which is ridiculously low.
Second, they propose that banks and their officers, directors and shareholders be at least partly responsible financially when their banks go broke [I would make them fully responsible].
Third, they say we should stop the merry-go-round from the banks to the government and back to the banks. My thought is that right now, because of this, we have the actual perpetrators of the crisis involved in bailing out their former companies. This is simply atrocious.
Last, they say the Fed should take more of a leadership role in regulation the system. My thought is that we should at least consider doing away with the Fed, or curtailing its powers to prevent this continual boom and bust cycle.
At least we should audit the Fed on a frequent basis. There is far too much secrecy there.
They conclude that if the Fed doesn't take the lead in better regulation, it will continue to be the "handmaiden to repeated bailouts." And that the peril to our system becomes even worse with each one.
This is a great article. I somewhat disagree with them in that they treat the Federal Reserve as something different from the banks. The Federal Reserve is owned by its member banks, and with the exception of the Chairman, now Mr. Bernanke, the banks elect the members. We therefore have the foxes guarding the hen house.
I highly recommend you go read the whole article here.
In addition, the two authors blog at The Baseline Scenario.
There is an excellent article in The New Republic with this title, written by Peter Boone and Simon Johnson.
The past crisis was certainly mitigated by the actions of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, but what they did sowed the seeds of the next crisis. And what they continue to do will make it worse.
This has happened many times before:
" We have seen this spectacle--the Fed saving us from one crisis only to instigate another--many times before. And, over the past few decades, the problem has become significantly more dire. The fault, to be sure, doesn’t lie entirely with the Fed. Bernanke is a prisoner of a financial system with serious built-in flaws. The decisions he made during the recent crisis weren’t necessarily the wrong decisions; indeed, they were, in many respects, the decisions he had to make. But these decisions, however necessary in the moment, are almost guaranteed to hurt our economy in the long run--which, in turn, means that more necessary but harmful measures will be needed in the future. It is a debilitating, vicious cycle. And at the center of this cycle is the Fed."
Back in the "old days" before the Federal Reserve was created, if you ran a bank and lost your depositors' money, the bankers' personal assets and income could be taken to help cover the losses.
"In the United States, there was great experimentation with banking during the 1800s, but those involved in the enterprise typically made a substantial commitment of their own capital. For example, there was a well-established tradition of “double liability,” in which stockholders were responsible for twice the original value of their shares in a bank. This encouraged stockholders to carefully monitor bank executives and employees. And, in turn, it placed a lot of pressure on those who managed banks. If they fared poorly, they typically faced personal and professional ruin. The idea that a bank executive would retain wealth and social status in the event of a self-induced calamity would have struck everyone--including bank executives themselves--as ludicrous."
In 1913 the Federal Reserve was created, and it went to work using liquidity loans and low interest rates to cushion banks in difficulty by reducing their costs.
"But, by insulating banks from the terrible consequences of their own blunders, these measures would also encourage them to keep taking unwise risks, and thereby lay the groundwork for future crises."
The Fed has made many errors with this. In the summer of 1927 it lowered interest rates, fueling the boom that crashed in the fall of 1929. It had belatedly raised rates in 1928, but that did not stop the frenzy. After the crash, it then kept interest too high into 1933, causing many banks to fail.
During the Great Depression, banking came under increasing regulation, and the rules were tightened so that risk taking was more difficult.
But:
"....eventually, banks would learn how to play the new game. They would spend serious money lobbying to keep regulations lax, hiring lawyers and accountants to find methods to minimize or avoid regulations, and incentivizing employees to hide risk from regulators. While the banking sector became more risky, creditors to banks (such as depositors and lenders) knew they could count on the Fed to engineer bailouts via lower interest rates and access to credit if times got tough--so banks had no trouble raising funding from creditors, and our financial system grew rapidly."
As time went on, the Fed continued to protect the banks. In the 1980s, Volcker lowered interest rates during the Latin American debt crisis [and simply ignored it when some banks were technically insolvent]. That caused a real estate boom that resulted in the S&L debacle of 1987. So interest rates were lowered again creating problems in real estate again, and then in the Asian markets. They crashed, then the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund created a "systemic risk" and rates were lowered again, fueling the Hi-tech bubble, also treated with low interest rates. which created the current burst bubble. You get the idea.
Saving the big banks from themselves is getting far more expensive than it used to be:
"Based on what we have seen over the past two decades, the cost of the next collapse will invariably be steep. Since the early 1980s, the Fed has gone back to its origins as the bailout machine for the financial sector. The only difference is that this sector has become much larger since 1907 or 1913. Back then, it accounted for around one percent of GDP. Now it is closer to 8 percent. The cost of bailouts--the current one and those to come--has skyrocketed as a result."
So, what do the big banks get from all of this? Its very simple:
"Consider the lessons learned in the past twelve months by our major banks. If they again get into serious financial trouble, the Fed can be counted on to lend them essentially unlimited amounts at effectively zero interest rates. What would you do with free money? You’d pay off all your old debts, then you’d find something to invest in that would yield a decent return. But then you’d reckon--why not take more risk? After all, if things go badly, you’ll get more free money."
They propose some solutions that might work, but may not be tough enough.
First, banks should have more capital to cover loan losses than is now permitted. Now, it is about 8%, which is ridiculously low.
Second, they propose that banks and their officers, directors and shareholders be at least partly responsible financially when their banks go broke [I would make them fully responsible].
Third, they say we should stop the merry-go-round from the banks to the government and back to the banks. My thought is that right now, because of this, we have the actual perpetrators of the crisis involved in bailing out their former companies. This is simply atrocious.
Last, they say the Fed should take more of a leadership role in regulation the system. My thought is that we should at least consider doing away with the Fed, or curtailing its powers to prevent this continual boom and bust cycle.
At least we should audit the Fed on a frequent basis. There is far too much secrecy there.
They conclude that if the Fed doesn't take the lead in better regulation, it will continue to be the "handmaiden to repeated bailouts." And that the peril to our system becomes even worse with each one.
This is a great article. I somewhat disagree with them in that they treat the Federal Reserve as something different from the banks. The Federal Reserve is owned by its member banks, and with the exception of the Chairman, now Mr. Bernanke, the banks elect the members. We therefore have the foxes guarding the hen house.
I highly recommend you go read the whole article here.
In addition, the two authors blog at The Baseline Scenario.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Capitalism After the Crisis
This is the title of an essay in a new publication called National Affairs.
It is a new quarterly publication that perhaps is the successor to The Public Interest, which was started in 1965, but is no longer published.
In the essay, author Luigi Zingales examines the state of capitalism in the United States and the way that public attitudes may change with regard to it.
He wonders if the concentration of so much power in a few huge institutions which caused the crisis, and the bailouts of some of them, and of others, might move the US in the direction of European style corporatism and crony capitalism one sees elsewhere.
"Capitalism has long enjoyed exceptionally strong public support in the United States because America's form of capitalism has long been distinct from those found elsewhere in the world — particularly because of its uniquely open and free market system. Capitalism calls not only for freedom of enterprise, but for rules and policies that allow for freedom of entry, that facilitate access to financial resources for newcomers, and that maintain a level playing field among competitors. The United States has generally come closest to this ideal combination — which is no small feat, since economic pressures and incentives do not naturally point to such a balance of policies. While everyone benefits from a free and competitive market, no one in particular makes huge profits from keeping the system competitive and the playing field level."[My bold]
Of course, the true competitive market has no lobby. All the lobbyists are looking for a competitive edge granted to them by the government.[This is what keeps Congressional coffers full of money.]
American capitalism is special, and mainly because support for capitalism by the public is based upon the tenets that hard work, not luck, determines one's success, and is not contingent upon corruption. Many of our current billionaires made their money through hard work in competitive business with no government intervention.
Elsewhere, that is not true. Many billionaires come from countries where their government connections and concessions guaranteed their success, not initiative and enterprise.
"A healthy financial system is crucial to any working market economy. Widespread access to finance is essential to harnessing the best talents and allowing them to prosper and grow. It is crucial for drawing new entrants into the system, and for fostering competition. The system that allocates finance allocates power and rents; if that system is not fair, there is little hope that the rest of the economy can be. And the potential for unfairness or abuse in the financial system is always great."
This is why our Founding Fathers distrusted banks, and Andrew Jackson even created a severe financial crisis when he vetoed the Second National Bank Bill in 1837 because he saw the bank as an instrument of political corruption. This was because it was found to have tried to influence the election of public officials with its money and power.[Try going to http://www.opensecrets.org/ and check out the money given to political campaigns by the big banks. Jackson would be horrified.]
"The finance sector's increasing concentration and growing political muscle have undermined the traditional American understanding of the difference between free markets and big business. This means not only that the interests of finance now dominate the economic understanding of policymakers, but also — and perhaps more important — that the public's perception of the economic system's legitimacy is at risk."
And that is the problem. All the huge banks have so much influence, no matter who holds political power, that is creates a very serious problem. When we see the perpetrators of the financial calamity being placed in charge of curing it, and then granting their former companies huge benefits out of the Federal Treasury, it calls into serious question the integrity of both the Treasury and the large banks.
"We thus stand at a crossroads for American capitalism. One path would channel popular rage into political support for some genuinely pro-market reforms, even if they do not serve the interests of large financial firms. By appealing to the best of the populist tradition, we can introduce limits to the power of the financial industry — or any business, for that matter — and restore those fundamental principles that give an ethical dimension to capitalism: freedom, meritocracy, a direct link between reward and effort, and a sense of responsibility that ensures that those who reap the gains also bear the losses. This would mean abandoning the notion that any firm is too big to fail, and putting rules in place that keep large financial firms from manipulating government connections to the detriment of markets. It would mean adopting a pro-market, rather than pro-business, approach to the economy."
This is the right way to go. The concept of "too big to fail" must be abandoned, and continued bailouts of the worst perpetrators must be stopped.
Does our current government have the guts that Jackson had?
No. And neither does the opposition, the Republicans.
Go read the whole essay here.
It is a new quarterly publication that perhaps is the successor to The Public Interest, which was started in 1965, but is no longer published.
In the essay, author Luigi Zingales examines the state of capitalism in the United States and the way that public attitudes may change with regard to it.
He wonders if the concentration of so much power in a few huge institutions which caused the crisis, and the bailouts of some of them, and of others, might move the US in the direction of European style corporatism and crony capitalism one sees elsewhere.
"Capitalism has long enjoyed exceptionally strong public support in the United States because America's form of capitalism has long been distinct from those found elsewhere in the world — particularly because of its uniquely open and free market system. Capitalism calls not only for freedom of enterprise, but for rules and policies that allow for freedom of entry, that facilitate access to financial resources for newcomers, and that maintain a level playing field among competitors. The United States has generally come closest to this ideal combination — which is no small feat, since economic pressures and incentives do not naturally point to such a balance of policies. While everyone benefits from a free and competitive market, no one in particular makes huge profits from keeping the system competitive and the playing field level."[My bold]
Of course, the true competitive market has no lobby. All the lobbyists are looking for a competitive edge granted to them by the government.[This is what keeps Congressional coffers full of money.]
American capitalism is special, and mainly because support for capitalism by the public is based upon the tenets that hard work, not luck, determines one's success, and is not contingent upon corruption. Many of our current billionaires made their money through hard work in competitive business with no government intervention.
Elsewhere, that is not true. Many billionaires come from countries where their government connections and concessions guaranteed their success, not initiative and enterprise.
"A healthy financial system is crucial to any working market economy. Widespread access to finance is essential to harnessing the best talents and allowing them to prosper and grow. It is crucial for drawing new entrants into the system, and for fostering competition. The system that allocates finance allocates power and rents; if that system is not fair, there is little hope that the rest of the economy can be. And the potential for unfairness or abuse in the financial system is always great."
This is why our Founding Fathers distrusted banks, and Andrew Jackson even created a severe financial crisis when he vetoed the Second National Bank Bill in 1837 because he saw the bank as an instrument of political corruption. This was because it was found to have tried to influence the election of public officials with its money and power.[Try going to http://www.opensecrets.org/ and check out the money given to political campaigns by the big banks. Jackson would be horrified.]
"The finance sector's increasing concentration and growing political muscle have undermined the traditional American understanding of the difference between free markets and big business. This means not only that the interests of finance now dominate the economic understanding of policymakers, but also — and perhaps more important — that the public's perception of the economic system's legitimacy is at risk."
And that is the problem. All the huge banks have so much influence, no matter who holds political power, that is creates a very serious problem. When we see the perpetrators of the financial calamity being placed in charge of curing it, and then granting their former companies huge benefits out of the Federal Treasury, it calls into serious question the integrity of both the Treasury and the large banks.
"We thus stand at a crossroads for American capitalism. One path would channel popular rage into political support for some genuinely pro-market reforms, even if they do not serve the interests of large financial firms. By appealing to the best of the populist tradition, we can introduce limits to the power of the financial industry — or any business, for that matter — and restore those fundamental principles that give an ethical dimension to capitalism: freedom, meritocracy, a direct link between reward and effort, and a sense of responsibility that ensures that those who reap the gains also bear the losses. This would mean abandoning the notion that any firm is too big to fail, and putting rules in place that keep large financial firms from manipulating government connections to the detriment of markets. It would mean adopting a pro-market, rather than pro-business, approach to the economy."
This is the right way to go. The concept of "too big to fail" must be abandoned, and continued bailouts of the worst perpetrators must be stopped.
Does our current government have the guts that Jackson had?
No. And neither does the opposition, the Republicans.
Go read the whole essay here.
Obama and the Schoolchildren
When I first heard that Obama was going to address the schoolchildren and the Department of Education has sent out a "lesson plan" to be followed, my immediate response was to object. This comes mainly from my feelings of distrust toward Obama.
After some thought, I changed my mind, at least about the Obama speech (I think the "lesson plan" was a bit over the top).
Obama has every right to address schoolchildren about appropriate subjects, and it turns out that the speech he made was fine (perhaps a bit too much "I" but that happens whenever he opens his mouth). I just hope that the kids listened and took it seriously.
One of the most serious problems in our society is the high rate of school dropouts, particularly from within the poor and minority communities. We are raising generation after generation of children from those communities without sufficient education to be much of a factor in the workplace.
Someone like Obama can make a difference there, if he will. But speeches will not be enough. More is needed, and the teacher's unions seemingly refuse to take the kinds of steps needed to improve the schools. But that is another story.
Why would Obama address the kids when there is so much on his plate? Well, for the same reason that George H. W. Bush did in 1991, and George W. Bush was doing much the same when the planes hit the towers on 9/11.....politics, purely and simply.
Folks like politicians that pay attention to the children, from kissing babies all the way to making speeches to them. So politicians do that. It makes them seem human to everyone.
Why do other politicians object? Politics again. They don't want someone on the other side to gain from such a display.
That is why the Democrats had Bush, Sr.'s speech investigated by the GAO (which found it to be perfectly legal).
The point is: its fine to address the kids if you say the right things, but it is not fine to turn it into a political show. The kids need to be left out of politics. They will have to deal with them too soon anyway.
After some thought, I changed my mind, at least about the Obama speech (I think the "lesson plan" was a bit over the top).
Obama has every right to address schoolchildren about appropriate subjects, and it turns out that the speech he made was fine (perhaps a bit too much "I" but that happens whenever he opens his mouth). I just hope that the kids listened and took it seriously.
One of the most serious problems in our society is the high rate of school dropouts, particularly from within the poor and minority communities. We are raising generation after generation of children from those communities without sufficient education to be much of a factor in the workplace.
Someone like Obama can make a difference there, if he will. But speeches will not be enough. More is needed, and the teacher's unions seemingly refuse to take the kinds of steps needed to improve the schools. But that is another story.
Why would Obama address the kids when there is so much on his plate? Well, for the same reason that George H. W. Bush did in 1991, and George W. Bush was doing much the same when the planes hit the towers on 9/11.....politics, purely and simply.
Folks like politicians that pay attention to the children, from kissing babies all the way to making speeches to them. So politicians do that. It makes them seem human to everyone.
Why do other politicians object? Politics again. They don't want someone on the other side to gain from such a display.
That is why the Democrats had Bush, Sr.'s speech investigated by the GAO (which found it to be perfectly legal).
The point is: its fine to address the kids if you say the right things, but it is not fine to turn it into a political show. The kids need to be left out of politics. They will have to deal with them too soon anyway.
About "Deconstructing the 'Whup Ass'"
Those are titles of two essays among several that I missed reading while I have been tied up the last few weeks. They are written by Victor Davis Hanson.
The good professor is a favorite of mine, as many of you may know.
He is Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and one of the best writers around about current affairs.
His writings can be found at "Works and Days" and at "Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers." The sites are also listed to the right of this blog.
In "Decontructing," he takes on the recent situation regarding Van Jones, an admitted communist on Obama's staff who just resigned and the inevitable cries of "racism" that have accompanied his departure.
He also mentions other of Obama's friends and associates:
"What we are now seeing with Obama’s coterie is a sort of Billy Carterism—after a while what seems at first outlandish gradually becomes repugnant. Half of the country is now furious at Obama because they are starting to see that Ayers, Khalidi, Meeks, Pfleger, and Wright were representational, rather than aberrational; that is, the associates that for 30 years were the natural friends and role models of Obama proved hard to shake and appear buffoonish 24/7. And stranger still, Obama himself seems surprised that they keep reappearing, as if one so easily can throw under the bus decades of choices, attitudes, and second natures."
About Jones, he points out after cataloging some of his statements:
"... But such are the times we live in, that a Jones feels he can abuse the public discourse and insult the intelligence of the public, confident that when called on it, the refuge of “racist”! is always there."
And, Hanson finally concludes:
"Barak Obama did not transcend race as promised. Nor was there a racial backlash against him as his supporters both feared and now charge.
Rather the mood is weariness. One major reason Obama’s polls have dropped is the public resentment of this spate of allegations of racism."
And:
"Nothing is so fatal to a con as boredom. Tragically, when a Rangel, Paterson, Jones, or Obama—all enjoying privileges and successes that 300 million Americans might only dream of—start in on the now accustomed trope, the public turns the channel and sighs “Been there, done that.” And I think they really mean it this time."
There are several fine essays at the two sites. I highly recommend that you bookmark them, and return to read all of them.
The good professor is a favorite of mine, as many of you may know.
He is Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and one of the best writers around about current affairs.
His writings can be found at "Works and Days" and at "Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers." The sites are also listed to the right of this blog.
In "Decontructing," he takes on the recent situation regarding Van Jones, an admitted communist on Obama's staff who just resigned and the inevitable cries of "racism" that have accompanied his departure.
He also mentions other of Obama's friends and associates:
"What we are now seeing with Obama’s coterie is a sort of Billy Carterism—after a while what seems at first outlandish gradually becomes repugnant. Half of the country is now furious at Obama because they are starting to see that Ayers, Khalidi, Meeks, Pfleger, and Wright were representational, rather than aberrational; that is, the associates that for 30 years were the natural friends and role models of Obama proved hard to shake and appear buffoonish 24/7. And stranger still, Obama himself seems surprised that they keep reappearing, as if one so easily can throw under the bus decades of choices, attitudes, and second natures."
About Jones, he points out after cataloging some of his statements:
"... But such are the times we live in, that a Jones feels he can abuse the public discourse and insult the intelligence of the public, confident that when called on it, the refuge of “racist”! is always there."
And, Hanson finally concludes:
"Barak Obama did not transcend race as promised. Nor was there a racial backlash against him as his supporters both feared and now charge.
Rather the mood is weariness. One major reason Obama’s polls have dropped is the public resentment of this spate of allegations of racism."
And:
"Nothing is so fatal to a con as boredom. Tragically, when a Rangel, Paterson, Jones, or Obama—all enjoying privileges and successes that 300 million Americans might only dream of—start in on the now accustomed trope, the public turns the channel and sighs “Been there, done that.” And I think they really mean it this time."
There are several fine essays at the two sites. I highly recommend that you bookmark them, and return to read all of them.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Bailing out the crooks
The New York Times reports that not only did we bail out Fannie Mae, but the taxpayers are paying millions of dollars for lawyers for the guys that drove it into the ground.
$6.3 million so far for them. This is to defend them from shareholder suits brought because of their wrongdoing.
"With all the turmoil of the financial crisis, you may have forgotten about the book-cooking that went on at Fannie Mae. Government inquiries found that between 1998 and 2004, senior executives at Fannie manipulated its results to hit earnings targets and generate $115 million in bonus compensation. Fannie had to restate its financial results by $6.3 billion.
Almost two years later, in 2006, Fannie’s regulator concluded an investigation of the accounting with a scathing report. “The conduct of Mr. Raines, chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard, and other members of the inner circle of senior executives at Fannie Mae was inconsistent with the values of responsibility, accountability, and integrity,” it said. "
Now taxpayers are having to pay to protect them from their manipulations.
Does anybody but me see anything wrong with that?
They are all Democrats.
A tip of the hat to Ed Morrissey. See his blog post here.
$6.3 million so far for them. This is to defend them from shareholder suits brought because of their wrongdoing.
"With all the turmoil of the financial crisis, you may have forgotten about the book-cooking that went on at Fannie Mae. Government inquiries found that between 1998 and 2004, senior executives at Fannie manipulated its results to hit earnings targets and generate $115 million in bonus compensation. Fannie had to restate its financial results by $6.3 billion.
Almost two years later, in 2006, Fannie’s regulator concluded an investigation of the accounting with a scathing report. “The conduct of Mr. Raines, chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard, and other members of the inner circle of senior executives at Fannie Mae was inconsistent with the values of responsibility, accountability, and integrity,” it said. "
Now taxpayers are having to pay to protect them from their manipulations.
Does anybody but me see anything wrong with that?
They are all Democrats.
A tip of the hat to Ed Morrissey. See his blog post here.
Labor Day
The unofficial end of Summer has arrived, and with it all sorts of things.
College football got under way last week, starting my favorite time of the year. My Texas Longhorns won, while our arch-rival Oklahoma lost at home to Brigham Young. OU's Heisman quarterback was injured, but its extent is yet unknown. I wish him a speedy recovery. He is an outstanding young man.
With it comes a breath of Fall, particularly in the mornings and evenings in West Texas. Temps at night are 10-12 degrees cooler than a month ago, and there is a freshness in the breeze. Even a few leaves are beginning to drift down in the back yard
New polls shown unions to be unpopular with the folks. That is not surprising, because now that their man is President, and they own the Congress, we are all able to see what jerks most of them are. See articles here and here.
Obama had the whistle blown on one of the several outright communists in his administration. There are more, but good riddance to Van Jones. An article here. Another is here.
Take note that the large media never covered the story until he left, and than tried to paper it over. No wonder they are all going broke. Most of them are simply an adjunct to Obama's propaganda machine. Something closely akin to Lenin's "useful idiots." One simply cannot trust anything most of them say.
This Labor Day finds us with a reported 9.7% unemployment rate, with the direction still headed down. If one were to use the same measure as was used during the Great Depression, it would be closer to 17%. Very sad.
All the liberal pundits like to talk about "green shoots" in the economy, and a "recovery" about to start. My view is that there is no recovery until jobs come back. Even Obama says that won't be until well into next year.
The use of the "stimulus" bill to pay off ACORN and other large Democratic constituencies is turning into a nightmare for unemployed Americans. Will there be any accountability for this? Probably not. Maybe November, 2010. We will see.
There are other things to cover that have arisen since I last posted. More later.
College football got under way last week, starting my favorite time of the year. My Texas Longhorns won, while our arch-rival Oklahoma lost at home to Brigham Young. OU's Heisman quarterback was injured, but its extent is yet unknown. I wish him a speedy recovery. He is an outstanding young man.
With it comes a breath of Fall, particularly in the mornings and evenings in West Texas. Temps at night are 10-12 degrees cooler than a month ago, and there is a freshness in the breeze. Even a few leaves are beginning to drift down in the back yard
New polls shown unions to be unpopular with the folks. That is not surprising, because now that their man is President, and they own the Congress, we are all able to see what jerks most of them are. See articles here and here.
Obama had the whistle blown on one of the several outright communists in his administration. There are more, but good riddance to Van Jones. An article here. Another is here.
Take note that the large media never covered the story until he left, and than tried to paper it over. No wonder they are all going broke. Most of them are simply an adjunct to Obama's propaganda machine. Something closely akin to Lenin's "useful idiots." One simply cannot trust anything most of them say.
This Labor Day finds us with a reported 9.7% unemployment rate, with the direction still headed down. If one were to use the same measure as was used during the Great Depression, it would be closer to 17%. Very sad.
All the liberal pundits like to talk about "green shoots" in the economy, and a "recovery" about to start. My view is that there is no recovery until jobs come back. Even Obama says that won't be until well into next year.
The use of the "stimulus" bill to pay off ACORN and other large Democratic constituencies is turning into a nightmare for unemployed Americans. Will there be any accountability for this? Probably not. Maybe November, 2010. We will see.
There are other things to cover that have arisen since I last posted. More later.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Busy, busy
Have been very busy the last two weeks, and will be the next three weeks it appears. I only thought I had retired. LOL
There is a lot going on in the political world, and I will try to be commenting a bit about some of it, but time will be short.
After they get Teddy buried, I suspect some will try to use any emotion generated by his death to help push through their socialized medicine bill. Let's hope they fail.
I feel about as good about TedKennedyCare as Mary Jo Kopechne would.
The liberal press continues to give proven corrupt Democrats a pass. Rangel would lead the list, of course. One cannot count his felonies on one hand, but he still leads the House Ways and Means Committee. Apparently the majority party approves of his corruption.
Bill Richardson escaped indictment through a rules breaking decision by the Attorney General to drop proceedings against him. I guess apologies are due the Grand Jurors who spent a year doing the investigation.
Then there is Christopher Dodd and Kent Conrad, who got sweetheart deals from CountryWide as it was going busted, but a Senate committee has decided it wasn't unethical.
The list goes on. And on. And on.
Of course, there have been Republicans on such a list as well, but we were promised in 2006 that the Democrats would do away with the "culture of corruption" in Washington.
Instead, they have accelerated it.
If the House and the Senate cannot enforce ethical conduct among their members, how can we expect them to make correct decisions on anything else?
We need to throw them all out, and start over. Beginning at the very top.
There is a lot going on in the political world, and I will try to be commenting a bit about some of it, but time will be short.
After they get Teddy buried, I suspect some will try to use any emotion generated by his death to help push through their socialized medicine bill. Let's hope they fail.
I feel about as good about TedKennedyCare as Mary Jo Kopechne would.
The liberal press continues to give proven corrupt Democrats a pass. Rangel would lead the list, of course. One cannot count his felonies on one hand, but he still leads the House Ways and Means Committee. Apparently the majority party approves of his corruption.
Bill Richardson escaped indictment through a rules breaking decision by the Attorney General to drop proceedings against him. I guess apologies are due the Grand Jurors who spent a year doing the investigation.
Then there is Christopher Dodd and Kent Conrad, who got sweetheart deals from CountryWide as it was going busted, but a Senate committee has decided it wasn't unethical.
The list goes on. And on. And on.
Of course, there have been Republicans on such a list as well, but we were promised in 2006 that the Democrats would do away with the "culture of corruption" in Washington.
Instead, they have accelerated it.
If the House and the Senate cannot enforce ethical conduct among their members, how can we expect them to make correct decisions on anything else?
We need to throw them all out, and start over. Beginning at the very top.
Friday, August 21, 2009
What About Social Security?
With all the heat over the health care issues, the issue of Social Security is being ignored. That is a shame, because Social Security presents us with a far more pressing problem than health care.
Because of the current recession, it now appears that the point at which SS revenues become less than its benefit payments has advanced from 2017 as reported by the Government Accountability Office to 2012 or sooner. That means that SS is basically broke, because there is no money in the SS Trust Fund.
Benefits will have to be paid out of general revenue after that. Congress has spent the Trust Fund on other things. And there is no fiduciary responsibility for the Trust Fund as there would be for private ones. How clever.
According to the GAO in 2005( go there, it is a great report), it would take $12 Trillion dollars paid in now to fully fund future SS benefits at current levels. Try that on for size.
As a result, Social Security needs some real change, not talk. There are several ways to cure the problem and make sure that our children have some semblance of retirement security.
We could do what most private companies have done, and what most state and local governments are going to have to do. That is, go to a defined contribution plan, as opposed to the current defined benefit plan we have.
I suspect that will be a non-starter for Democrats, because the defined benefit plan has a large amount of wealth redistribution in it. That was why they were so adamantly opposed to Bush's partial privatization, which was really making part of SS a defined contribution plan.
On to other possibilities.
We could raise the tax on wages. An increase of 15% in payroll taxes today would do it. If we wait until 2041, it would have to be 41%. Of course, with the latter date, general revenue (with its tax stream) would have to finance it until then. I do not favor this. I think it would be unfair to our young people.
We could raise the cap on wages taxed. This would require those with a higher income to pay much higher taxes, but get higher benefits, though far from dollar for dollar because of the redistributionist benefit schedule. Now the maximum wage taxed is $102,000 per year.
We could change the benefits, either by reducing them significantly or by delaying the payment of them.
Both of those benefit changes would have to be phased in over a decently long period for it to be fair to those already receiving SS or nearing eligibility. Probably the way they extended the eligibility date to age 67 may be appropriate.
Delaying the benefits may be the best way. When SS was set up, the age of 65 was very old. The primary reason SS is broke is that people receiving benefits are living much longer than we used to, and so each person receives far more in benefits than planned.
The quite simple way to solve this problem is to extend the eligibility date as the life expectancy increases.
It is imperative that Congress addresses this issue. It is extremely difficult politically to do so, but there is also not much time. Support for Social Security is beginning to evaporate as more and more young people become politically active. Few of them believe that they will ever receive SS, but realize that it is they who are paying for what their elders are getting.
They understand that this is terribly unfair....and it is.
This week, in a poll done by Rasmussen, he found the following:
"Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters say working Americans should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and provide for their own retirement planning."
In addition:
"Sixty percent (60%) of voters are not confident that the Social Security system will pay them all promised benefits during their lifetime, with 36% not very confident and 24% not at all confident."
This does not bode well for the future of Social Security, and may be signalling a widening generational dispute.
If support is to be maintained for SS, then it must be made fair to everyone, and that includes sacrifices from us all.
This is a very emotional subject, and has been the source of a lot of demagoguing by politicians on both sides of the issues. It is time for that to stop. There has to be room for responsible compromise on the various choices. Some combination of the above will probably do the job.
Both sides of the issues need to sit down and work something out. The hyperpartisanship we have seen in Washington the last few years is not getting the job done, and will not.
Both sides had better realize that the folks back home are getting impatient. We want a government that works for all of us. But not one that is intrusive into our private lives.
That means that the "my way or the highway" attitudes by our political class has to be discarded, and the pols need to get to work.
Or else.
Because of the current recession, it now appears that the point at which SS revenues become less than its benefit payments has advanced from 2017 as reported by the Government Accountability Office to 2012 or sooner. That means that SS is basically broke, because there is no money in the SS Trust Fund.
Benefits will have to be paid out of general revenue after that. Congress has spent the Trust Fund on other things. And there is no fiduciary responsibility for the Trust Fund as there would be for private ones. How clever.
According to the GAO in 2005( go there, it is a great report), it would take $12 Trillion dollars paid in now to fully fund future SS benefits at current levels. Try that on for size.
As a result, Social Security needs some real change, not talk. There are several ways to cure the problem and make sure that our children have some semblance of retirement security.
We could do what most private companies have done, and what most state and local governments are going to have to do. That is, go to a defined contribution plan, as opposed to the current defined benefit plan we have.
I suspect that will be a non-starter for Democrats, because the defined benefit plan has a large amount of wealth redistribution in it. That was why they were so adamantly opposed to Bush's partial privatization, which was really making part of SS a defined contribution plan.
On to other possibilities.
We could raise the tax on wages. An increase of 15% in payroll taxes today would do it. If we wait until 2041, it would have to be 41%. Of course, with the latter date, general revenue (with its tax stream) would have to finance it until then. I do not favor this. I think it would be unfair to our young people.
We could raise the cap on wages taxed. This would require those with a higher income to pay much higher taxes, but get higher benefits, though far from dollar for dollar because of the redistributionist benefit schedule. Now the maximum wage taxed is $102,000 per year.
We could change the benefits, either by reducing them significantly or by delaying the payment of them.
Both of those benefit changes would have to be phased in over a decently long period for it to be fair to those already receiving SS or nearing eligibility. Probably the way they extended the eligibility date to age 67 may be appropriate.
Delaying the benefits may be the best way. When SS was set up, the age of 65 was very old. The primary reason SS is broke is that people receiving benefits are living much longer than we used to, and so each person receives far more in benefits than planned.
The quite simple way to solve this problem is to extend the eligibility date as the life expectancy increases.
It is imperative that Congress addresses this issue. It is extremely difficult politically to do so, but there is also not much time. Support for Social Security is beginning to evaporate as more and more young people become politically active. Few of them believe that they will ever receive SS, but realize that it is they who are paying for what their elders are getting.
They understand that this is terribly unfair....and it is.
This week, in a poll done by Rasmussen, he found the following:
"Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters say working Americans should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and provide for their own retirement planning."
In addition:
"Sixty percent (60%) of voters are not confident that the Social Security system will pay them all promised benefits during their lifetime, with 36% not very confident and 24% not at all confident."
This does not bode well for the future of Social Security, and may be signalling a widening generational dispute.
If support is to be maintained for SS, then it must be made fair to everyone, and that includes sacrifices from us all.
This is a very emotional subject, and has been the source of a lot of demagoguing by politicians on both sides of the issues. It is time for that to stop. There has to be room for responsible compromise on the various choices. Some combination of the above will probably do the job.
Both sides of the issues need to sit down and work something out. The hyperpartisanship we have seen in Washington the last few years is not getting the job done, and will not.
Both sides had better realize that the folks back home are getting impatient. We want a government that works for all of us. But not one that is intrusive into our private lives.
That means that the "my way or the highway" attitudes by our political class has to be discarded, and the pols need to get to work.
Or else.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Horse Soldiers
That is the name of a book I have just read written by Doug Stanton.
It is the fabulous story of how fewer than fifty Special Forces troops took down the Taliban in two months, rather than the two years the Pentagon thought it would take.
They and about 15,000 irregular troops of the Northern Alliance, mounted on horseback, defeated 50-60,000 Taliban and Al Quaeda, and took the fortress at Mazar-i-Sharif.
With B-52s or FA-18s circling overhead to assist with GPS guided bombs, these guys conducted cavalry charges against tanks, other armored vehicles and machine guns, and prevailed against tough and tenacious fighters.
When they finally took Mazar-i-Sharif, half of the Special Forces guys stayed behind while the Northern Alliance and the other half continued the pursuit of the Taliban.
After they were gone, some 600 Taliban prisoners kept in the fort got their hands on weapons stored there and staged a revolt, killing a CIA agent there to interrogate some of them. John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, was among the prisoners.
In a 96 hour long battle, the Special Forces fought the prisoners until the Northern Alliance came back from Konduz, and a few reinforcements from the 10th Mountain Division arrived.
They were later reinforced with other Special Forces, but what happened back then is that about a total of 350 American Special Forces and 100 CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, managed to do something that the Chinese, the British, and the Soviet Union had all failed to do. Conquer Afghanistan.
Read the book and get an inkling why we are going to lose it back, and why we really are losing or have lost Iraq.
Its a fabulous story.
To bad Hollywood is too left wing to produce a movie about it.
It is the fabulous story of how fewer than fifty Special Forces troops took down the Taliban in two months, rather than the two years the Pentagon thought it would take.
They and about 15,000 irregular troops of the Northern Alliance, mounted on horseback, defeated 50-60,000 Taliban and Al Quaeda, and took the fortress at Mazar-i-Sharif.
With B-52s or FA-18s circling overhead to assist with GPS guided bombs, these guys conducted cavalry charges against tanks, other armored vehicles and machine guns, and prevailed against tough and tenacious fighters.
When they finally took Mazar-i-Sharif, half of the Special Forces guys stayed behind while the Northern Alliance and the other half continued the pursuit of the Taliban.
After they were gone, some 600 Taliban prisoners kept in the fort got their hands on weapons stored there and staged a revolt, killing a CIA agent there to interrogate some of them. John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, was among the prisoners.
In a 96 hour long battle, the Special Forces fought the prisoners until the Northern Alliance came back from Konduz, and a few reinforcements from the 10th Mountain Division arrived.
They were later reinforced with other Special Forces, but what happened back then is that about a total of 350 American Special Forces and 100 CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, managed to do something that the Chinese, the British, and the Soviet Union had all failed to do. Conquer Afghanistan.
Read the book and get an inkling why we are going to lose it back, and why we really are losing or have lost Iraq.
Its a fabulous story.
To bad Hollywood is too left wing to produce a movie about it.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Throwing gasoline on a deficit fire
Sometime in the next week or so, the Obama Administration is going to deliver the delayed Mid Session Review, which is a budget document that updates the administration's economic and budget forecasts.
It was delayed because they wanted it to come out during the dog days of August when everyone was out of Washington. You can imagine why.
Keith Hennessy has an article over at Real Clear Politics entitled "Understanding the Upcoming Deficit Numbers" that gives a pretty good idea of what is coming.
Deficits are already estimated at huge numbers, but will have to be significantly increased because of actions already taken by Congress.
Growth is predicted at too high numbers already and will have to be reduced if they are honest. They probably won't be.
The deficits are so bad because they are 4 times the average the last 20 years. What does that do?
"Budget deficits crowd our private borrowing and raise interest rates. It costs more to get a mortgage, a car loan, or a student loan. Higher interest rates and their effect on the dollar cause the U.S. economy to grow more slowly, meaning fewer jobs are created and wage growth slows."
What will happen?
"The President has boxed himself in with different messages on fiscal policy and health policy. He argues we must slow the growth of long-term health spending, but has not offered policies that unbiased analysts say would achieve that goal. In health care reform, Congress is in no mood to make the painful choices needed to reduce future deficits, so the President has fallen back to a more modest goal of not increasing future deficits. If health care reform should actually become law this year, expect the long-run budget picture to get dramatically worse. Pending bills would create a rapidly-growing enormous new spending commitment that would quickly outstrip the proposed spending cuts and tax increases. In an effort to rescue health care reform the President has shifted away from a cost control message. Congress will read this signal and look for ways to avoid the pain of deficit reduction, knowing that the President will sign any bill that reaches his desk."
The President entered office with a bad situation. We all grant that. But he has determined to plow ahead and force through a liberal social program that will make a bad situation much worse.
"The President’s social policy agenda is throwing gasoline on a deficit fire."
Read the whole thing here.
It was delayed because they wanted it to come out during the dog days of August when everyone was out of Washington. You can imagine why.
Keith Hennessy has an article over at Real Clear Politics entitled "Understanding the Upcoming Deficit Numbers" that gives a pretty good idea of what is coming.
Deficits are already estimated at huge numbers, but will have to be significantly increased because of actions already taken by Congress.
Growth is predicted at too high numbers already and will have to be reduced if they are honest. They probably won't be.
The deficits are so bad because they are 4 times the average the last 20 years. What does that do?
"Budget deficits crowd our private borrowing and raise interest rates. It costs more to get a mortgage, a car loan, or a student loan. Higher interest rates and their effect on the dollar cause the U.S. economy to grow more slowly, meaning fewer jobs are created and wage growth slows."
What will happen?
"The President has boxed himself in with different messages on fiscal policy and health policy. He argues we must slow the growth of long-term health spending, but has not offered policies that unbiased analysts say would achieve that goal. In health care reform, Congress is in no mood to make the painful choices needed to reduce future deficits, so the President has fallen back to a more modest goal of not increasing future deficits. If health care reform should actually become law this year, expect the long-run budget picture to get dramatically worse. Pending bills would create a rapidly-growing enormous new spending commitment that would quickly outstrip the proposed spending cuts and tax increases. In an effort to rescue health care reform the President has shifted away from a cost control message. Congress will read this signal and look for ways to avoid the pain of deficit reduction, knowing that the President will sign any bill that reaches his desk."
The President entered office with a bad situation. We all grant that. But he has determined to plow ahead and force through a liberal social program that will make a bad situation much worse.
"The President’s social policy agenda is throwing gasoline on a deficit fire."
Read the whole thing here.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Biggest Lie
"I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help you."
That's it. You have all heard that. There are other big lies, but this is the biggest.
Government, if left to its own devices, as the liberals would have it, is only here to enslave us.
We need an effective governemnt to do those things that we, in the Constitution, have asked it to do.
We do not need a slavemeaster.
Think about it.
That's it. You have all heard that. There are other big lies, but this is the biggest.
Government, if left to its own devices, as the liberals would have it, is only here to enslave us.
We need an effective governemnt to do those things that we, in the Constitution, have asked it to do.
We do not need a slavemeaster.
Think about it.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Obamacare and the Constitution
Someone is finally raising a very valid point about the attempt at a Federal takeover of health care.
Is is Constitutional?
That is a complex question, because the Supreme Court has over the years seriously broadened the powers of the government beyond those contemplated by the Framers, and expressly stated in the Constitution itself.
So, although I do not believe that the Constitution permits it, there is the potential that the Supreme Court might find otherwise.
Rob Natelson, over at Electric City Weblog, writes a bit about the question today, stating:
"Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers – eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. (The exact number depends on how you count.) None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories."
The catch, however is:
"To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power. "
Thanfully, there is a "but":
"But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal” justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go."
My view is that if it is not a power ennumerated in the Constitution, then it is governed by the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sounds pretty clear, doesn't it.
Questions like these are what Supreme Court selection is all about. The left wants appointees who will ignore the Constitution and approve every harebrained idea they have, while the right wants appointees who will preserve the Constitution.
Roosevelt, when he was President, forced the Supreme Court to back off the concept of due process with regard to the taking of property, by threatening to "pack" the Court by expanding the number of justices above the traditional nine.
That caused a lot of very questionable legislation to be passed and approved by the Court
Will Obama and the Democrats do that again? Or will the present Court just let them have what they want? What will Justice Kennedy do?
Perhaps the bill can be defeated and then we won't have to worry.
Is is Constitutional?
That is a complex question, because the Supreme Court has over the years seriously broadened the powers of the government beyond those contemplated by the Framers, and expressly stated in the Constitution itself.
So, although I do not believe that the Constitution permits it, there is the potential that the Supreme Court might find otherwise.
Rob Natelson, over at Electric City Weblog, writes a bit about the question today, stating:
"Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers – eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. (The exact number depends on how you count.) None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories."
The catch, however is:
"To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power. "
Thanfully, there is a "but":
"But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal” justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go."
My view is that if it is not a power ennumerated in the Constitution, then it is governed by the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sounds pretty clear, doesn't it.
Questions like these are what Supreme Court selection is all about. The left wants appointees who will ignore the Constitution and approve every harebrained idea they have, while the right wants appointees who will preserve the Constitution.
Roosevelt, when he was President, forced the Supreme Court to back off the concept of due process with regard to the taking of property, by threatening to "pack" the Court by expanding the number of justices above the traditional nine.
That caused a lot of very questionable legislation to be passed and approved by the Court
Will Obama and the Democrats do that again? Or will the present Court just let them have what they want? What will Justice Kennedy do?
Perhaps the bill can be defeated and then we won't have to worry.
Did you know
Almost two thirds of Government Motors car sales in the first half of the year were outside North America?
And the new, inexpensive subcompact car they are going to manufacture will be made possibly (probably) in Asia?
The story is here.
Interesting.
And the new, inexpensive subcompact car they are going to manufacture will be made possibly (probably) in Asia?
The story is here.
Interesting.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Public Option Off the Table?
The New York Times is quoting Kathleen Sibelius, the HHS Secretary, that a government insurer "is not an essential element" to the health insurance reform bill.
If that is the case, and they will let that part go, then one of the worst parts of the bill will have been taken out.
Hooray for the good guys!
Now, if we could only find out what is in the rest of the bill.
Some reform does need to be done, but it has to be done in a way that keeps the government out of our business.
Liberals want the government in our business, so we must be vigilant. Pelosi and Reid can be very sneaky, as we have seen with the stimulus bill and the cap and trade bill.
If that is the case, and they will let that part go, then one of the worst parts of the bill will have been taken out.
Hooray for the good guys!
Now, if we could only find out what is in the rest of the bill.
Some reform does need to be done, but it has to be done in a way that keeps the government out of our business.
Liberals want the government in our business, so we must be vigilant. Pelosi and Reid can be very sneaky, as we have seen with the stimulus bill and the cap and trade bill.
Its Not Just About Health Care
A lot of liberals are making the mistake in thinking that all of the protesting out there by the citizenry is just about the health care bills.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Some of it is....it is the issue du jour. But there is a lot more. A lot.
Victor Davis Hanson, is great essay, says it this way:
"There is a growing sense of a “we’ve been had”, bait-and-switch. Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats — apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president — voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out-of-control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort."
Read the whole thing here.
Professor Hanson goes on the give reasons for why "we have been had" but there are others he misses.
And he misses one important thing: these protests are also against the Republican policies of the last few years.
The people are tired of the government messing everything up. They are tired of the corruption, the power of the big lobbyists, the huge and growing deficits, the move to have the government control every aspect of our lives, the terrible, huge bailouts of the financial institutions, the nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors with the concurrent gift of 40% of the stock in GM to the United Auto Workers, an adjunct of the Democratic Party, and a whole list of other things.
While the Democrats may be the worst offenders, Republicans started us down the path to the bailouts and the nationalizations, and certainly were running up huge deficits. They also really enjoyed slopping at the trough when they were in power.
Much of this anger is directed at the entire political process. Some did, as Hanson points out, foolishly think that Obama might really change things, and hope that government could be made to work better.
Obama's only interest is to make it work better for his political allies. Anyone who thinks differently is still being foolish.
My view is that Americans do want their government to work better than it has, but they also want it to be limited to those things government can do best.
They want the government to stay out of things that the government is incapable of doing, like making medical choices for over 300 million Americans. Some regulation, yes. Deciding when to put granny down, or whether grandpa can have a knee replaced, or a neonate should be saved or not, no.
Hell no.
Running Chrysler and General Motors, no.
Taxing energy and destroying our economy (even more), no.
Running up trillions more in national debt, no.
Expanding government at the expense of the private sector, no.
One could go on and on. Obama is trying to cram the very opposite down our throats. The Republicans so far have not really put forward credible and effective alternatives, at least none that have been well publicized.
Message to Republicans: don't try to regain power by saying "we will do better." Nobody will believe you.
Show us.
Message to Democrats: Get off the socialism now.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Some of it is....it is the issue du jour. But there is a lot more. A lot.
Victor Davis Hanson, is great essay, says it this way:
"There is a growing sense of a “we’ve been had”, bait-and-switch. Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats — apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president — voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out-of-control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort."
Read the whole thing here.
Professor Hanson goes on the give reasons for why "we have been had" but there are others he misses.
And he misses one important thing: these protests are also against the Republican policies of the last few years.
The people are tired of the government messing everything up. They are tired of the corruption, the power of the big lobbyists, the huge and growing deficits, the move to have the government control every aspect of our lives, the terrible, huge bailouts of the financial institutions, the nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors with the concurrent gift of 40% of the stock in GM to the United Auto Workers, an adjunct of the Democratic Party, and a whole list of other things.
While the Democrats may be the worst offenders, Republicans started us down the path to the bailouts and the nationalizations, and certainly were running up huge deficits. They also really enjoyed slopping at the trough when they were in power.
Much of this anger is directed at the entire political process. Some did, as Hanson points out, foolishly think that Obama might really change things, and hope that government could be made to work better.
Obama's only interest is to make it work better for his political allies. Anyone who thinks differently is still being foolish.
My view is that Americans do want their government to work better than it has, but they also want it to be limited to those things government can do best.
They want the government to stay out of things that the government is incapable of doing, like making medical choices for over 300 million Americans. Some regulation, yes. Deciding when to put granny down, or whether grandpa can have a knee replaced, or a neonate should be saved or not, no.
Hell no.
Running Chrysler and General Motors, no.
Taxing energy and destroying our economy (even more), no.
Running up trillions more in national debt, no.
Expanding government at the expense of the private sector, no.
One could go on and on. Obama is trying to cram the very opposite down our throats. The Republicans so far have not really put forward credible and effective alternatives, at least none that have been well publicized.
Message to Republicans: don't try to regain power by saying "we will do better." Nobody will believe you.
Show us.
Message to Democrats: Get off the socialism now.
The "Golden Years"
Last weekend while visiting an old friend who is rehabbing from an almost fatal stroke, I had the opportunity to spend a few hours in a combination nursing home and assisted living home.
Although my friend is slowly improving, it was a very saddening experience.
Actually, it is every old person's horror.
There were only two men that I saw in the facility, my friend and a retired pastor in his 90s. The remainder were little old ladies in various stage of physical and mental health, none of which seemed capable of providing for themselves.
The eyes haunt me. My friend and several of the ladies still had bright eyes...indicating to me, at least, that they still had mental acuity. This was generally proved by conversation.
Other eyes were dull, not bright, and those were the ones that may well have been the best off.
Now my friend appears to be on the way to recovery and escape from the home.
For the others with "bright eyes" there will likely be no escape other than eventual death.
Those with the "dull" eyes? Well, they probably don't appreciate what is going on that much. Their minds have likely already escaped, and their bodies will follow at a later date.
Back in the old days, when we had strong families throughout American society, a place like that would be unheard of. If one's mom or dad, or grandparents got in that shape, they would be taken into a family member's home until they passed on.
Now, however, they are placed in homes like these. And left alone.
Sad.
They way we treat our elderly is certainly a comment on our society the same way as the way we treat our youth is.
Although my friend is slowly improving, it was a very saddening experience.
Actually, it is every old person's horror.
There were only two men that I saw in the facility, my friend and a retired pastor in his 90s. The remainder were little old ladies in various stage of physical and mental health, none of which seemed capable of providing for themselves.
The eyes haunt me. My friend and several of the ladies still had bright eyes...indicating to me, at least, that they still had mental acuity. This was generally proved by conversation.
Other eyes were dull, not bright, and those were the ones that may well have been the best off.
Now my friend appears to be on the way to recovery and escape from the home.
For the others with "bright eyes" there will likely be no escape other than eventual death.
Those with the "dull" eyes? Well, they probably don't appreciate what is going on that much. Their minds have likely already escaped, and their bodies will follow at a later date.
Back in the old days, when we had strong families throughout American society, a place like that would be unheard of. If one's mom or dad, or grandparents got in that shape, they would be taken into a family member's home until they passed on.
Now, however, they are placed in homes like these. And left alone.
Sad.
They way we treat our elderly is certainly a comment on our society the same way as the way we treat our youth is.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Real Problem With the Health Care Debate
The real problem with health care is that they have done it in a way that nobody can really be informed. Clearly the Congress is not, and clearly the folks on both sides are not.
This is the crux of the matter: the whole issue has been presented in such a poor way that nobody really knows or appreciates what is actually in the various bills, and the attempt to rush it through with no debate, like the stimulus and the cap and trade bill, leaves the public to assume that the health care bill is as bad as the others.
This is just real poor politics by Obama and the Congressional leaders. Camille Paglia had it right.
People fear the unknown. The bill's provisions are unknown....deliberately. The Democrats are losing the fight for that reason, and should.
What needs to be done is that Obama needs to lay out the bill he wants, and then the various committees in Congress should hold public hearings and hear everyone's views.
After hearings and a fair markup debate, what comes out should be freely debated on the House floor (or the Senate, as the case may be) and voted up or down after any amendments. In other words, they should follow their own procedures.
Instead, the Democrat leadership in the House tried to rush something through without debate and without really informing the public what was in it.
This is not how a Democratic Republic like ours is supposed to work. It is a violation of all the tenets of fairness.
For that reason all of the bills should be voted down, and a new start made.
We were promised bi-partisanship by Obama. Instead, we have gotten worse partisanship than even Tom DeLay caused.
Shame on them all.
This is the crux of the matter: the whole issue has been presented in such a poor way that nobody really knows or appreciates what is actually in the various bills, and the attempt to rush it through with no debate, like the stimulus and the cap and trade bill, leaves the public to assume that the health care bill is as bad as the others.
This is just real poor politics by Obama and the Congressional leaders. Camille Paglia had it right.
People fear the unknown. The bill's provisions are unknown....deliberately. The Democrats are losing the fight for that reason, and should.
What needs to be done is that Obama needs to lay out the bill he wants, and then the various committees in Congress should hold public hearings and hear everyone's views.
After hearings and a fair markup debate, what comes out should be freely debated on the House floor (or the Senate, as the case may be) and voted up or down after any amendments. In other words, they should follow their own procedures.
Instead, the Democrat leadership in the House tried to rush something through without debate and without really informing the public what was in it.
This is not how a Democratic Republic like ours is supposed to work. It is a violation of all the tenets of fairness.
For that reason all of the bills should be voted down, and a new start made.
We were promised bi-partisanship by Obama. Instead, we have gotten worse partisanship than even Tom DeLay caused.
Shame on them all.
Health Care Reform
The last day or so I have managed to post some comments on this issue on a friend's blog.
Go here to check out the comments.
Go here to check out the comments.
Sorry about
the hiatus in blogging. As noted in the previous blog, I was out of town, and have been working since.
That has not left time to blog.
There are lots of things out there to blog about, so I will try to do better.
That has not left time to blog.
There are lots of things out there to blog about, so I will try to do better.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Hot and Dry in the Hill Country
Driving down to Austin from West Texas yesterday was quite an experience. Starting out, the countryside was pretty lush from recent rains. The crops looked pretty good all the way to Sweetwater and beyond.
Between there and Brady, on the western edge of Texas' Hill Country, the landscape was pretty average for summer in Texas. A bit hot, of course, but not entirely bone dry.
Once past Brady, however, it became a sudden desert. Temps were over a hundred degrees, and the land was parched like I have never seen it in the Hill Country, which covers 70 years.
The Pedernales River was bone dry as I crossed it on Highway 71. Boathouses were stranded on the cracked, dry riverbed for as far as one could see downriver.
I am told that Lake Travis is much the same in many areas.
Sad.
Pray for rain.
Between there and Brady, on the western edge of Texas' Hill Country, the landscape was pretty average for summer in Texas. A bit hot, of course, but not entirely bone dry.
Once past Brady, however, it became a sudden desert. Temps were over a hundred degrees, and the land was parched like I have never seen it in the Hill Country, which covers 70 years.
The Pedernales River was bone dry as I crossed it on Highway 71. Boathouses were stranded on the cracked, dry riverbed for as far as one could see downriver.
I am told that Lake Travis is much the same in many areas.
Sad.
Pray for rain.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Utopia Versus Freedom
Thomas Sowell has a very thoughtful article on this subject over at Real Clear Politics. He is absolutely right about what he says.
We are in the midst of a great debate between liberals who want to impose, through the government, a utopia on all of us, and those who would rather preserve their freedom. His thought:
"... If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice.""
And that is it in a nutshell. Turning your life over to the government erodes your freedom. Its really as simple as that.
He goes on to say:
"Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom."
Our health care system is not perfect, but 80% of Americans are satisfied with their coverage. Everytime we ask the government to do something about that, or anything else, it usually leads to more imperfections. The track record of the government is not good. See the Veteran's Administration for the operation of hospitals, and see Medicare and Medicaid for its operation of insurance. Nothing the government has ever done in this area has been done without far exceeding its projected costs. The example of the VA is horrendous. Medicare and Medicaid are merely broke
Anytime you get politicians involved in anything, it is all about distributing largesse, not about doing it right.
The message I have to all the people who want the Democrats to lead us to a socialist utopia is to understand that people who love their freedom will not stand for it.
A hat tip to William Katz at Urgent Agenda.
We are in the midst of a great debate between liberals who want to impose, through the government, a utopia on all of us, and those who would rather preserve their freedom. His thought:
"... If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice.""
And that is it in a nutshell. Turning your life over to the government erodes your freedom. Its really as simple as that.
He goes on to say:
"Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom."
Our health care system is not perfect, but 80% of Americans are satisfied with their coverage. Everytime we ask the government to do something about that, or anything else, it usually leads to more imperfections. The track record of the government is not good. See the Veteran's Administration for the operation of hospitals, and see Medicare and Medicaid for its operation of insurance. Nothing the government has ever done in this area has been done without far exceeding its projected costs. The example of the VA is horrendous. Medicare and Medicaid are merely broke
Anytime you get politicians involved in anything, it is all about distributing largesse, not about doing it right.
The message I have to all the people who want the Democrats to lead us to a socialist utopia is to understand that people who love their freedom will not stand for it.
A hat tip to William Katz at Urgent Agenda.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Sheer Stupidity
The Washington Post today has a story that the Obama Administration is studying moving some of the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay to a prison in the United States where thay could be tried by courts or military commissions.
Now we have a very secure facility down at Gitmo that is a virtual country club compared to prisons in the United States, but we are going to close it down and move the terrorists to the US?
Why?
Sheer stupidity, that is why.
Its the same reason why in the middle of a deep recession we are going to tax everyone's energy, and raise another $1 trillion to finance socialized medicine.
It makes one feel like Alice in Wonderland.
Nothing Obama does makes any sense, unless he is trying to destroy our country.
Now we have a very secure facility down at Gitmo that is a virtual country club compared to prisons in the United States, but we are going to close it down and move the terrorists to the US?
Why?
Sheer stupidity, that is why.
Its the same reason why in the middle of a deep recession we are going to tax everyone's energy, and raise another $1 trillion to finance socialized medicine.
It makes one feel like Alice in Wonderland.
Nothing Obama does makes any sense, unless he is trying to destroy our country.
Will ObamaCare Ration Health Care to Seniors?
Absolutely YES.
Senator Brownback, in a post on NRO lays it on the line:
"This became abundantly clear when Senator Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) introduced an amendment designed to ensure that the new center could not put a value on life-saving treatment by using “quality of life” and “cost-effectiveness” measures “for the denial of Medicare benefits to patients against their wishes.” Because Democrats rejected the amendment in a party-line vote, the proposed new entity would be able to impose restrictions on access to treatment, as is common in European countries with socialized medicine. Elderly, disabled, and medically dependent patients would be at greatest risk of being denied necessary care."
Medicare certainly needs fixing, but there are many ways to do it that do not include denial of health care to the elderly and infirm.
The fact that we are being lied to about it, makes it even worse.
I am working and then out of town most of this week, but I do have some thoughts about how to help fix the Medicare problem that I will try to post at some point.
The conduct of the majority party in Washington is shameless.
Senator Brownback, in a post on NRO lays it on the line:
"This became abundantly clear when Senator Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) introduced an amendment designed to ensure that the new center could not put a value on life-saving treatment by using “quality of life” and “cost-effectiveness” measures “for the denial of Medicare benefits to patients against their wishes.” Because Democrats rejected the amendment in a party-line vote, the proposed new entity would be able to impose restrictions on access to treatment, as is common in European countries with socialized medicine. Elderly, disabled, and medically dependent patients would be at greatest risk of being denied necessary care."
Medicare certainly needs fixing, but there are many ways to do it that do not include denial of health care to the elderly and infirm.
The fact that we are being lied to about it, makes it even worse.
I am working and then out of town most of this week, but I do have some thoughts about how to help fix the Medicare problem that I will try to post at some point.
The conduct of the majority party in Washington is shameless.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Birds of a Feather?
In the early hours of the morning on June 28 this year, soldiers of the Honduran Army, bearing an order from the Honduran Supreme Court, arrested and then exiled Honduran President Zelaya.
The order from the Supreme Court, with the approval of the duly elected Congress of Honduras, came after Zelaya had disobeyed a direct order from the Court and was proceeding with a referendum that had been found to be unconstitutional.
A member of Zelaya's own party was appointed by Congress and sworn in as temporary President until an election could be held on November 29.
The hue and cry from the Marxist/Communist/Socialist dictators from south of our border was instant and loud.
The esteemed Hugo Chavez vowed to reverse the situation. The socialist government of Ecuador announced they would not recognize the new government.
The Castros of Cuba were outraged and demanded sanctions.
The old Sandinista from Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, joined the other extreme leftists.
And then came Barack Obama. He stepped into it with both feet.
Eventually the Organization of American states demanded that Zelaya be restored, and called for sanctions.
The United States immediately suspended military aid, and has since revoked the visas of four diplomats representing the new government.
So let us get this straight.
We have a guy in Honduras, Zelaya, who is trying to establish a dictatorship, a la Chavez in Venezuela, who is legally removed for having violated the Constitution of Honduras, and the President of the United States is helping him, and trying to get him restored to power.
Somehow, that just seems un-American for some reason. There are thousands of reasons we might have to avoid having another Chavez, or Castro, or Ortega in Central America, but I cannot think of a single, solitary reason why the interests of the United States could be served by having another Marxist/Communist/Socialist dictator down there.
So why would Obama take that position? Could it be that he is birds of a feather with Castro, Chavez, Ortega and the others?
My Mom always told me that birds of a feather flock together.
Perhaps his associations with Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorhn, Rev. Wright and the other radicals that hate the United States were not so benign after all.
The order from the Supreme Court, with the approval of the duly elected Congress of Honduras, came after Zelaya had disobeyed a direct order from the Court and was proceeding with a referendum that had been found to be unconstitutional.
A member of Zelaya's own party was appointed by Congress and sworn in as temporary President until an election could be held on November 29.
The hue and cry from the Marxist/Communist/Socialist dictators from south of our border was instant and loud.
The esteemed Hugo Chavez vowed to reverse the situation. The socialist government of Ecuador announced they would not recognize the new government.
The Castros of Cuba were outraged and demanded sanctions.
The old Sandinista from Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, joined the other extreme leftists.
And then came Barack Obama. He stepped into it with both feet.
Eventually the Organization of American states demanded that Zelaya be restored, and called for sanctions.
The United States immediately suspended military aid, and has since revoked the visas of four diplomats representing the new government.
So let us get this straight.
We have a guy in Honduras, Zelaya, who is trying to establish a dictatorship, a la Chavez in Venezuela, who is legally removed for having violated the Constitution of Honduras, and the President of the United States is helping him, and trying to get him restored to power.
Somehow, that just seems un-American for some reason. There are thousands of reasons we might have to avoid having another Chavez, or Castro, or Ortega in Central America, but I cannot think of a single, solitary reason why the interests of the United States could be served by having another Marxist/Communist/Socialist dictator down there.
So why would Obama take that position? Could it be that he is birds of a feather with Castro, Chavez, Ortega and the others?
My Mom always told me that birds of a feather flock together.
Perhaps his associations with Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorhn, Rev. Wright and the other radicals that hate the United States were not so benign after all.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Look out, a big one is coming
Heh. There is a story over on Politico by Andie Collier about Obama's favorite phrase: "Let me be clear...."
In the story, there is a dissection of what it really means. It is a pretty interesting story, with a number of ideas about what he is meaning to say.
My view: when I hear him say that, I think of the phrase "I'm not lying to you" that is heard just before a big one.
Mr. Obama is anything but clear on most things, mostly because he doesn't know anything about that of which he speaks.
This includes the contents of his health care initiative, or the cap and trade disaster, or his foreign policy.
Clear, indeed. That makes me laugh. Sadly.
In the story, there is a dissection of what it really means. It is a pretty interesting story, with a number of ideas about what he is meaning to say.
My view: when I hear him say that, I think of the phrase "I'm not lying to you" that is heard just before a big one.
Mr. Obama is anything but clear on most things, mostly because he doesn't know anything about that of which he speaks.
This includes the contents of his health care initiative, or the cap and trade disaster, or his foreign policy.
Clear, indeed. That makes me laugh. Sadly.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Waste of Time
I see from U. S. News and World Report that Americans spent 9.9 billion hours doing government paperwork last years, a waste of $460 Billion of costs.
The time spent was a 25% increase from 2004.
Just think what Obama's programs are going to add.
A crushing blow to the economy.
Who really believes the government can do anything right? Or efficiently?
Anybody?
A hat tip to Hotair.
The time spent was a 25% increase from 2004.
Just think what Obama's programs are going to add.
A crushing blow to the economy.
Who really believes the government can do anything right? Or efficiently?
Anybody?
A hat tip to Hotair.
Good Enough For Us, But Not For Them
The Great, Fabulous health care bill that will have deep and lasting effects upon all of us, has been determined by the House Energy and Commerce Committee to be not good enough for the President and the Congress.
I see this over at Redstate in a post by Jeff Emmanuel.
The committee site is here, but it is not functioning because of the high traffic, and has not kept up with the voting.
The first vote was on an amendment to permit all Americans to share the same medical plan that Congress has. That was voted down by the Democrats by 31-28.
The second would have required all Members of Congress and Federal public officials to be automatically enrolled in the so-called public plan.
This was ruled not germane by Democratic Chairman Waxman, saving the Democrats from having to vote on it.
Surprise, surprise.
Who would have thought that we would see Congress feeling that their plan was too good for us peons, and their plan for us was not good enough for them?
That is precisely what they have done.
Outrageous.
But what can we expect from that den of thieves?
Will Rogers was right:
"The only native criminal class in America is Congress."
And the worst are Democrats.
I see this over at Redstate in a post by Jeff Emmanuel.
The committee site is here, but it is not functioning because of the high traffic, and has not kept up with the voting.
The first vote was on an amendment to permit all Americans to share the same medical plan that Congress has. That was voted down by the Democrats by 31-28.
The second would have required all Members of Congress and Federal public officials to be automatically enrolled in the so-called public plan.
This was ruled not germane by Democratic Chairman Waxman, saving the Democrats from having to vote on it.
Surprise, surprise.
Who would have thought that we would see Congress feeling that their plan was too good for us peons, and their plan for us was not good enough for them?
That is precisely what they have done.
Outrageous.
But what can we expect from that den of thieves?
Will Rogers was right:
"The only native criminal class in America is Congress."
And the worst are Democrats.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Who do they work for?
Daniel Henninger over at the Wall Street Journal has a piece about the Blue Dogs where he asks the title question.:
"....The issue is: Do they work for us, or do we work for them? "
That is a question we can ask about all of our folks in the Federal Government including all of Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary.
Who is the master, and who is the slave?
If you explore almost any issue, it comes down to this: one group up there is pro government, and wants the government to make sure we are led down the "correct" paths. These are mostly Democrats. Another group mostly favors (they say) having the private sector do the leading. These are mostly Republicans. The last group is on the fence. They cannot decide who to favor, the government or the people. This includes the Blue Dogs and so-called "moderate" Republicans.
The problem we have is that when the pro-private sector folks have gotten in charge, they have joined the pro government group.
The result has been an unprecedented growth in government the last 80 years. This has left us all less free and less well off than we otherwise would be.
Our government has gotten to the point that it serves the special interests that feed it, and not the people who, through their taxes, are required to support it.
Just look at the absolutely huge sums expended by lobbyists and other big special interests to support the power and elections of the politicians. Is it any wonder that the whole system has become so corrupt?
We all need to send a message to the politicians: you represent us, or you are gone.
Actually, we just need to throw all the bums out and start over.
Read all of Henninger's article here.
"....The issue is: Do they work for us, or do we work for them? "
That is a question we can ask about all of our folks in the Federal Government including all of Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary.
Who is the master, and who is the slave?
If you explore almost any issue, it comes down to this: one group up there is pro government, and wants the government to make sure we are led down the "correct" paths. These are mostly Democrats. Another group mostly favors (they say) having the private sector do the leading. These are mostly Republicans. The last group is on the fence. They cannot decide who to favor, the government or the people. This includes the Blue Dogs and so-called "moderate" Republicans.
The problem we have is that when the pro-private sector folks have gotten in charge, they have joined the pro government group.
The result has been an unprecedented growth in government the last 80 years. This has left us all less free and less well off than we otherwise would be.
Our government has gotten to the point that it serves the special interests that feed it, and not the people who, through their taxes, are required to support it.
Just look at the absolutely huge sums expended by lobbyists and other big special interests to support the power and elections of the politicians. Is it any wonder that the whole system has become so corrupt?
We all need to send a message to the politicians: you represent us, or you are gone.
Actually, we just need to throw all the bums out and start over.
Read all of Henninger's article here.
Big Bankers Legally Steal Public Funds
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, doing a job that apparently nobody else wants, has blown the whistle on the Treasury and the large financial institutions that the Treasury has been bailing out.
Nine big banks which received $175 Billion in TARP funds from the Treasury paid a total of $32.6 Billion in bonuses to their employees.
Anyone that is not outraged at this must be living in a cave in Afghanistan.
These people steered their companies into the greatest bust since the Great Depression, and they get bonuses like that for their performance? With our tax money?
Something is very rotten here.
And why are not the politicians that supposedly are representing the people not doing something?
Follow the money.
Lots of campaign contributions, and lots of lobbyist money.
Stories on this are here, and here.
Nine big banks which received $175 Billion in TARP funds from the Treasury paid a total of $32.6 Billion in bonuses to their employees.
Anyone that is not outraged at this must be living in a cave in Afghanistan.
These people steered their companies into the greatest bust since the Great Depression, and they get bonuses like that for their performance? With our tax money?
Something is very rotten here.
And why are not the politicians that supposedly are representing the people not doing something?
Follow the money.
Lots of campaign contributions, and lots of lobbyist money.
Stories on this are here, and here.
The Pelosi Payroll Tax; UPDATE:Demo says even they don't understand the bill
The Wall Street Journal today points out that there is more than one tax in the proposed health care reform bill.
Its an up to 10% payroll tax on workers whose employers don't provide health insurance. Now it is in the bill as a tax on employers, but it is no secret that such taxes will result in lower pay and benefits for the workers.
"To put this in actual dollars, a worker earning, say, $70,000 a year could lose some $5,600 in take home pay to cover the costs of ObamaCare. And, by the way, this is in addition to the 2.5% tax that the individual worker would have to pay on gross income, if he doesn’t buy the high-priced health insurance that the government will mandate. In sum, that’s a near 10-percentage point tax on wages and salaries on top of the 15% that already hits workers to finance Medicare and Social Security."
This is just one of the things that would not be discussed if the bill had been hurried through like she tried to do.
The four Blue Dogs who caved in yesterday at least give us some time to carefully go through this bill, something we were not able to do with the cap and trade bill.
It will be interesting to discover what else is hidden in the legislation.
Isn't it nice to have such open and transparent processes in the Democrat Congress?
Criminal, at best.
UPDATE: According to Politico, even Democrats in Congress don't understand the health care reform:
"A Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, agrees. “The members don’t even understand what’s in it,” he confessed of the legislation. As for his constituents? They are “not exactly sure what this is about, and they’re not really sure whether they like it or not.” "
What does that say about them and their haste to rush it through? Transparency? Hope and change? Tyranny of the majority?
Its an up to 10% payroll tax on workers whose employers don't provide health insurance. Now it is in the bill as a tax on employers, but it is no secret that such taxes will result in lower pay and benefits for the workers.
"To put this in actual dollars, a worker earning, say, $70,000 a year could lose some $5,600 in take home pay to cover the costs of ObamaCare. And, by the way, this is in addition to the 2.5% tax that the individual worker would have to pay on gross income, if he doesn’t buy the high-priced health insurance that the government will mandate. In sum, that’s a near 10-percentage point tax on wages and salaries on top of the 15% that already hits workers to finance Medicare and Social Security."
This is just one of the things that would not be discussed if the bill had been hurried through like she tried to do.
The four Blue Dogs who caved in yesterday at least give us some time to carefully go through this bill, something we were not able to do with the cap and trade bill.
It will be interesting to discover what else is hidden in the legislation.
Isn't it nice to have such open and transparent processes in the Democrat Congress?
Criminal, at best.
UPDATE: According to Politico, even Democrats in Congress don't understand the health care reform:
"A Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, agrees. “The members don’t even understand what’s in it,” he confessed of the legislation. As for his constituents? They are “not exactly sure what this is about, and they’re not really sure whether they like it or not.” "
What does that say about them and their haste to rush it through? Transparency? Hope and change? Tyranny of the majority?
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Blue Dogs Cave on Health Care Reform; Updated: No vote until late September or later: Obama
There are reports out this afternoon that the Blue Dog Democrats have compromised with the "yellow dog" Democrats, and have agreed on an outline of a bill that would radically change health care in the United States.
Given that the Congressional Budget Office has cited the huge costs of the bill...over one trillion dollars..... the Blue Dogs could be said to have caved in by agreeing to reduce the costs by only an estimated one hundred billion dollars. That is a lot of money, but only a drop in the bucket.
So, what else did they get? Well, they didn't get the national insurance out of the provisions, but they did require that government insurance company negotiate fees with doctors rather than unilaterally set them like it does with Medicare. But that still gets the government's nose under the tent, and we all know where that will go.
They did get a increase in the ceiling for mandatory insurance, doubling it to payrolls of $500,000 or less. That is still too low by far.
There is no mention of Medicare.
It seems a lot of the savings will come from two places, as reported by the New York Times:
"¶ Medicaid would be expanded, as under the original bill, but states would have to pay a small share of the additional costs, perhaps 7 percent. The federal government would have paid the entire cost under the original bill.
"¶ Workers would have to pay slightly more of their income on premiums for employer-sponsored insurance — 12 percent, rather than 11 percent — before they could qualify for federal subsidies."
So savings would come from charging workers more money, and putting additional costs on the states. Isn't that nice? Guess who still pays?
What do we have at the end of the day? The best part of it is that they delayed the bill from coming up for a vote until after Labor Day.
That will at least mean that someone will have a chance to read the bill after it is marked up in committee, and before it is presented to the House for a vote.
That is a change. Celebrate the small things.
They won't be able to change that sow's ear into a silk purse during the recess. But they will try to sell it as one.
And the so-called "conservative" Democrats, the Blue Dogs, showed their true colors once again.
The term "conservative" Democrat is an oxymoron, by the way. If they were conservative, they would not be Democrats. It has been thirty years since there was a real live conservative in the Democratic Party. We all left back then.
UPDATE: Obama is quoted this evening as saying there will not be a vote on the Health Care Reform Bill until late September or mid-October.
This is a major defeat for Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.
Given that the Congressional Budget Office has cited the huge costs of the bill...over one trillion dollars..... the Blue Dogs could be said to have caved in by agreeing to reduce the costs by only an estimated one hundred billion dollars. That is a lot of money, but only a drop in the bucket.
So, what else did they get? Well, they didn't get the national insurance out of the provisions, but they did require that government insurance company negotiate fees with doctors rather than unilaterally set them like it does with Medicare. But that still gets the government's nose under the tent, and we all know where that will go.
They did get a increase in the ceiling for mandatory insurance, doubling it to payrolls of $500,000 or less. That is still too low by far.
There is no mention of Medicare.
It seems a lot of the savings will come from two places, as reported by the New York Times:
"¶ Medicaid would be expanded, as under the original bill, but states would have to pay a small share of the additional costs, perhaps 7 percent. The federal government would have paid the entire cost under the original bill.
"¶ Workers would have to pay slightly more of their income on premiums for employer-sponsored insurance — 12 percent, rather than 11 percent — before they could qualify for federal subsidies."
So savings would come from charging workers more money, and putting additional costs on the states. Isn't that nice? Guess who still pays?
What do we have at the end of the day? The best part of it is that they delayed the bill from coming up for a vote until after Labor Day.
That will at least mean that someone will have a chance to read the bill after it is marked up in committee, and before it is presented to the House for a vote.
That is a change. Celebrate the small things.
They won't be able to change that sow's ear into a silk purse during the recess. But they will try to sell it as one.
And the so-called "conservative" Democrats, the Blue Dogs, showed their true colors once again.
The term "conservative" Democrat is an oxymoron, by the way. If they were conservative, they would not be Democrats. It has been thirty years since there was a real live conservative in the Democratic Party. We all left back then.
UPDATE: Obama is quoted this evening as saying there will not be a vote on the Health Care Reform Bill until late September or mid-October.
This is a major defeat for Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
"End of Life" Counselling
There was too much work yesterday to post, but here goes one for today.
At the beginning, please understand that I am opposed to the health care reform being proposed in Congress. There are many, many aspects of it that I find deeply troubling.
There is one that is being used by opponents to scare senior citizens in the same way the Democrats have always done on Social Security reform. That strategy has been very effective for the Democrats, of course, but that doesn't make it right.
There is a provision in the bill that amends the Social Security Act (the part that applies to Medicare reimbursements) to provide for payment for end of life counselling for seniors every five years, and more frequently if the senior has a terminal illness.
I have read the two bills, and there is no requirement that anyone have the counselling as the fearmongers say. It just permits them to have it, and be covered by Medicare.
My view is that every senior should have the counselling provided for in the bill whether or not the bill is passed with that in it. The last couple of times I have gone to the hospital, I have been asked if I had a directive to physicians and a medical power of attorney. I have, and so should everyone if you want your wishes to be honored.
There is, in fact, another provision that provides for such counselling already in the Medicare Act.
There are a lot of reasons to oppose the bills before Congress, but this is not one of them.
You may find the provision at issue here.
The part of the Social Security Act being amended is here.
At the beginning, please understand that I am opposed to the health care reform being proposed in Congress. There are many, many aspects of it that I find deeply troubling.
There is one that is being used by opponents to scare senior citizens in the same way the Democrats have always done on Social Security reform. That strategy has been very effective for the Democrats, of course, but that doesn't make it right.
There is a provision in the bill that amends the Social Security Act (the part that applies to Medicare reimbursements) to provide for payment for end of life counselling for seniors every five years, and more frequently if the senior has a terminal illness.
I have read the two bills, and there is no requirement that anyone have the counselling as the fearmongers say. It just permits them to have it, and be covered by Medicare.
My view is that every senior should have the counselling provided for in the bill whether or not the bill is passed with that in it. The last couple of times I have gone to the hospital, I have been asked if I had a directive to physicians and a medical power of attorney. I have, and so should everyone if you want your wishes to be honored.
There is, in fact, another provision that provides for such counselling already in the Medicare Act.
There are a lot of reasons to oppose the bills before Congress, but this is not one of them.
You may find the provision at issue here.
The part of the Social Security Act being amended is here.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Defend Your Health Care
In trying to research the health care matters before Congress one particular website stands out. Its called Defend Your Health Care. It is run by Betsy McCaughey, PhD, a former Lt. Governor of the State of New York.
You can hear an interview with her at this site.
Everyone should go to the web site and check it out. The first thing you will see is something I have also pointed out in an earlier post:
"Whatever health insurance bill is passed in Congress MUST apply to members of Congress and other federal employees. No Exceptions.
If it isn't good enough for them, it isn't good enough for us.
We are calling on members of Congress to propose an amendment to the Kennedy Health Bill requiring all federal employees to enroll in a "qualified" health plan just like the rest of us. "
The only way for us to get the scheming politicians in DC to pass anything reasonably fair is to require that they be subject to the same provisions.
The fact that they choose to exempt themselves is certain evidence that they know its a bad bill.
This whole matter is outrageous.
The politicians, particularly those on the left, are trying to steal our country.
Between the health "reform," the cap and trade bill, the huge deficit spending, and a whole big bunch of other things, they will destroy our freedom if we permit them to do it.
A political revolution is needed.
Who will lead it?
You can hear an interview with her at this site.
Everyone should go to the web site and check it out. The first thing you will see is something I have also pointed out in an earlier post:
"Whatever health insurance bill is passed in Congress MUST apply to members of Congress and other federal employees. No Exceptions.
If it isn't good enough for them, it isn't good enough for us.
We are calling on members of Congress to propose an amendment to the Kennedy Health Bill requiring all federal employees to enroll in a "qualified" health plan just like the rest of us. "
The only way for us to get the scheming politicians in DC to pass anything reasonably fair is to require that they be subject to the same provisions.
The fact that they choose to exempt themselves is certain evidence that they know its a bad bill.
This whole matter is outrageous.
The politicians, particularly those on the left, are trying to steal our country.
Between the health "reform," the cap and trade bill, the huge deficit spending, and a whole big bunch of other things, they will destroy our freedom if we permit them to do it.
A political revolution is needed.
Who will lead it?
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Slammed by CBO Again
The Congressional Budget Office has slammed ObamaCare once again for failing to do anything to cut costs.
"For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years. "
Republicans had a response:
""This letter underscores the enormous challenges that Democrats face trying to pay for their massive and costly government takeover of health care. In their rush to pass a bill, Democrats continue to ignore the stark economic reality facing our nation," said Boehner spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier. "Let's scrap the current proposal and come together in a meaningful way to reform health care in America by reducing cost, expanding access and at a price tag we can afford.""
Clearly, the "reform" proposed by the left includes so much government that it could not possible be efficient or fair.
Of course, to the left, its more about control than costs or fairness.
Senator Charles Grassley, however, says that a reform bill will be passed this year:
"“They said we’ve got to show the Democrats they don’t have a vote to nationalize health insurance and then they’ll come to us and we’ll get a compromise,” Grassley said, describing conversations he has had with the other leaders."
Everyone, it seems, thinks we have to reform medical insurance, and that is fine. But will it be good enough for Congress and the President to include themselves in the reform?
And how can you compromise a bill that is so bad?
Current legislation would exempt all the Feds, so they must not think its a very good deal.
The public should demand that any reform that is passed apply to everyone, and not leave out a privileged few.
It is very apparent that the few in Washington consider themselves far above those of us out in the hinterland.
We should throw them all out. All of them.
"For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years. "
Republicans had a response:
""This letter underscores the enormous challenges that Democrats face trying to pay for their massive and costly government takeover of health care. In their rush to pass a bill, Democrats continue to ignore the stark economic reality facing our nation," said Boehner spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier. "Let's scrap the current proposal and come together in a meaningful way to reform health care in America by reducing cost, expanding access and at a price tag we can afford.""
Clearly, the "reform" proposed by the left includes so much government that it could not possible be efficient or fair.
Of course, to the left, its more about control than costs or fairness.
Senator Charles Grassley, however, says that a reform bill will be passed this year:
"“They said we’ve got to show the Democrats they don’t have a vote to nationalize health insurance and then they’ll come to us and we’ll get a compromise,” Grassley said, describing conversations he has had with the other leaders."
Everyone, it seems, thinks we have to reform medical insurance, and that is fine. But will it be good enough for Congress and the President to include themselves in the reform?
And how can you compromise a bill that is so bad?
Current legislation would exempt all the Feds, so they must not think its a very good deal.
The public should demand that any reform that is passed apply to everyone, and not leave out a privileged few.
It is very apparent that the few in Washington consider themselves far above those of us out in the hinterland.
We should throw them all out. All of them.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Memo to the President and Congress re: Health Care
Mr. President and Congress, you are presently trying to pass a health care reform bill. You have exempted yourselves and all Federal employees from the provisions thereof.
You need to pardon me for shouting, but:
I WILL ACCEPT ANY REFORM OF MEDICAL CARE THAT YOU AND ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WILL BE SUBJECT TO, AND NONE OTHER.
PERIOD.
I do not know why you believe that you have some kind of superior rights to the rest of us, but rest assured, you do not.
The South Plainsman
You need to pardon me for shouting, but:
I WILL ACCEPT ANY REFORM OF MEDICAL CARE THAT YOU AND ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WILL BE SUBJECT TO, AND NONE OTHER.
PERIOD.
I do not know why you believe that you have some kind of superior rights to the rest of us, but rest assured, you do not.
The South Plainsman
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Bored?
Last night's press conference shows that Americans are becoming bored with Obama. It was the lowest rated yet in terms of viewers.
It was also the lowest rated in terms of substance.
Called to help bolster the sagging health care agenda, the presser demonstrated that Obama does not have a clue about the subject matter.
Even with the adoring White House press corps asking softer than goose down questions, Obama couldn't get into the swing of things. From the first question until the last, he gave circuitous, meaningless answers to the easy questions.
The last, of course, was the doozy about racial profiling, where he took a stand before he even had heard the evidence.
If everyone keeps the heat on their Congressmen and Senators, ObamaCare should be defeated.
Hopefully the same for the cap and tax, er, trade, bill.
Meantime, at the stock markets, Obama's lackluster performance gave it a boost above $9,000 on the Dow Jones Average today.
So perhaps he did accomplish something.
It was also the lowest rated in terms of substance.
Called to help bolster the sagging health care agenda, the presser demonstrated that Obama does not have a clue about the subject matter.
Even with the adoring White House press corps asking softer than goose down questions, Obama couldn't get into the swing of things. From the first question until the last, he gave circuitous, meaningless answers to the easy questions.
The last, of course, was the doozy about racial profiling, where he took a stand before he even had heard the evidence.
If everyone keeps the heat on their Congressmen and Senators, ObamaCare should be defeated.
Hopefully the same for the cap and tax, er, trade, bill.
Meantime, at the stock markets, Obama's lackluster performance gave it a boost above $9,000 on the Dow Jones Average today.
So perhaps he did accomplish something.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Raindrops keep fallin' on my head......
Wow. Got up this morning and drove to work in the rain. Finished, and drove home in the rain. Its still raining....a nice constant rain.
Here we are in West Texas on the 22nd of July, and it is 64 deg. and raining.
Sounds like time for a good nap.
Here we are in West Texas on the 22nd of July, and it is 64 deg. and raining.
Sounds like time for a good nap.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Public Enemies
We went to the movies today. I don't usually go, but this one was about John Dillinger, the bank robber active back during the Great Depression.
Good movie. I recommend it for those that like action.
It occurred to me during the movie how much things had changed since then. Back then, guys like Dillinger, "Baby Face" Nelson and "Pretty Boy" Floyd were the bad guys, robbing and killing folks.
Today, its entirely the opposite. Now the banks and financial institutions, particularly the great big ones on Wall Street, are the ones doing the robbing and pillaging.
Just think. They had that huge bubble that blew up courtesy of the Federal Reserve and the helpful politicians of both parties in Washington. Those banks and financial institutions sold all kinds of paper, all represented to be good, while at the same time, they and the government were encouraging the public to borrow more and more.
Huge bonuses piled on huge bonuses for the perpetrators of all of this. They all got tremendously wealthy.
Then the house of cards crashed down.
Retribution for their excesses? Of course not. Their enablers in the government decided to bail the perps out with money that will have to be taken from the victims of all of this, namely the US taxpayer.
Instead of ending up like Dillinger, at least figuratively, most of them are going to get even richer off of the bailouts.
I understand from Mr. Barofsky, who is the authoritative person in this issue, that the US taxpayer may get stuck for as much as 23.7 TRILLION DOLLARS.
We need to throw out all of the pols in the government that were, and continue to be, behind this.
Quickly.
Good movie. I recommend it for those that like action.
It occurred to me during the movie how much things had changed since then. Back then, guys like Dillinger, "Baby Face" Nelson and "Pretty Boy" Floyd were the bad guys, robbing and killing folks.
Today, its entirely the opposite. Now the banks and financial institutions, particularly the great big ones on Wall Street, are the ones doing the robbing and pillaging.
Just think. They had that huge bubble that blew up courtesy of the Federal Reserve and the helpful politicians of both parties in Washington. Those banks and financial institutions sold all kinds of paper, all represented to be good, while at the same time, they and the government were encouraging the public to borrow more and more.
Huge bonuses piled on huge bonuses for the perpetrators of all of this. They all got tremendously wealthy.
Then the house of cards crashed down.
Retribution for their excesses? Of course not. Their enablers in the government decided to bail the perps out with money that will have to be taken from the victims of all of this, namely the US taxpayer.
Instead of ending up like Dillinger, at least figuratively, most of them are going to get even richer off of the bailouts.
I understand from Mr. Barofsky, who is the authoritative person in this issue, that the US taxpayer may get stuck for as much as 23.7 TRILLION DOLLARS.
We need to throw out all of the pols in the government that were, and continue to be, behind this.
Quickly.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Birth Certificate Issue Makes it to Congress
It seems that those who question Obama's natural born citizen status have gotten some Congressmen to jump on the bandwagon.
There is a bill co-sponsored by 9 Congressmen, including our own Randy Neugebauer, that would require any candidate for President to produce his or her birth certificate.
John Avlon, writing over at The Daily Beast, thinks that is rather silly, and it certainly may well be.
"All this might be laughable, if there weren’t deadly serious hyper-partisan hatred behind it all. There is plenty to debate over the administration’s policies, but Obama Derangement Syndrome is not healthy for our democracy—it is pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism."
Those are pretty harsh words for what might seem a reasonable sort of request. Reminds me of the Bush Derangement Syndrome we saw for 8 years.
My view is that Obama should release his birth certificate. If he is who he says he is, and I have no reason to doubt it, then he could put this business to rest very quickly, and send the "birthers" running with their tails between their legs.
The only thing that gives this life is Obama's strenuous efforts to hide the birth certificate and other records that most Presidents release.
Is he trying to hide something?
There is a bill co-sponsored by 9 Congressmen, including our own Randy Neugebauer, that would require any candidate for President to produce his or her birth certificate.
John Avlon, writing over at The Daily Beast, thinks that is rather silly, and it certainly may well be.
"All this might be laughable, if there weren’t deadly serious hyper-partisan hatred behind it all. There is plenty to debate over the administration’s policies, but Obama Derangement Syndrome is not healthy for our democracy—it is pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism."
Those are pretty harsh words for what might seem a reasonable sort of request. Reminds me of the Bush Derangement Syndrome we saw for 8 years.
My view is that Obama should release his birth certificate. If he is who he says he is, and I have no reason to doubt it, then he could put this business to rest very quickly, and send the "birthers" running with their tails between their legs.
The only thing that gives this life is Obama's strenuous efforts to hide the birth certificate and other records that most Presidents release.
Is he trying to hide something?
Sunday, July 19, 2009
A Cure for Radiation Sickness?
YNet has posted news that a cure for radiation sickness has been found by Jewish-American scientists and one from Israel. The research was funded by Israelis.
"The ground-breaking medication, developed by Professor Andrei Gudkov – Chief Scientific Officer at Cleveland BioLabs - may have far-reaching implications on the balance of power in the world, as states capable of providing their citizens with protection against radiation will enjoy a significant strategic advantage vis-Ã -vis their rivals."
It will also have other very valuable uses:
"Gudkov's discovery may also have immense implications for cancer patients by enabling doctors to better protect patients against radiation. Should the new medication enable cancer patients to be treated with more powerful radiation, our ability to fight the disease could greatly improve. "
This drug, if it works and passes the tests, will have profound implications for every human being living in this nuclear age.
The potential use in fighting cancer is mind boggling.
They hope to have it through the FDA in a couple of years. We will see.
Go read the whole story.
And a hat tip to Roger L. Simon.
"The ground-breaking medication, developed by Professor Andrei Gudkov – Chief Scientific Officer at Cleveland BioLabs - may have far-reaching implications on the balance of power in the world, as states capable of providing their citizens with protection against radiation will enjoy a significant strategic advantage vis-Ã -vis their rivals."
It will also have other very valuable uses:
"Gudkov's discovery may also have immense implications for cancer patients by enabling doctors to better protect patients against radiation. Should the new medication enable cancer patients to be treated with more powerful radiation, our ability to fight the disease could greatly improve. "
This drug, if it works and passes the tests, will have profound implications for every human being living in this nuclear age.
The potential use in fighting cancer is mind boggling.
They hope to have it through the FDA in a couple of years. We will see.
Go read the whole story.
And a hat tip to Roger L. Simon.
What are they smoking?
Hillary is in India, trying to convince the Indians that they should cut their carbon emissions according to the Washington Post. While there, she told the Indians:
"No one wants to in any way stall or undermine the economic growth that is necessary to lift millions more out of poverty," Clinton countered. "We also believe that there is a way to eradicate poverty and develop sustainability that will lower significantly the carbon footprint."
Yeah. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. The world's economies from ours all the way down to the smallest depend upon fossil fuels to operate their economies. If other nations are to continue to grow and expand their economies, they will have to use more, not less.
Incidently, Hillary was responding to India's very predictable and definite "No" to her proposals.
It seems that, unlike our current government, India has done a cost/benefit analysis of reducing emissions, and found, like anyone would, that the costs of such a program would far outweigh any benefits. Particularly in a world that has been cooling for over ten years now.
Reuters says that our Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke said in China that the US taxpayers should pay for Chinese emissions:
" “It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai."
That, of course, is after the Chinese have made clear that they are not going to pay for any of it.
So let me see if I can get this straight.
We spend the last two or three decades shipping our manufacturing jobs to China, and a lot of high tech jobs to India, and they are going to get off scot-free on this global warming idiocy? And then we will have to pay for it ourselves?
With what?
I propose that Obama and his cadre get off the dope they are smoking and get back to the real world.
"No one wants to in any way stall or undermine the economic growth that is necessary to lift millions more out of poverty," Clinton countered. "We also believe that there is a way to eradicate poverty and develop sustainability that will lower significantly the carbon footprint."
Yeah. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. The world's economies from ours all the way down to the smallest depend upon fossil fuels to operate their economies. If other nations are to continue to grow and expand their economies, they will have to use more, not less.
Incidently, Hillary was responding to India's very predictable and definite "No" to her proposals.
It seems that, unlike our current government, India has done a cost/benefit analysis of reducing emissions, and found, like anyone would, that the costs of such a program would far outweigh any benefits. Particularly in a world that has been cooling for over ten years now.
Reuters says that our Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke said in China that the US taxpayers should pay for Chinese emissions:
" “It’s important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that,” Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai."
That, of course, is after the Chinese have made clear that they are not going to pay for any of it.
So let me see if I can get this straight.
We spend the last two or three decades shipping our manufacturing jobs to China, and a lot of high tech jobs to India, and they are going to get off scot-free on this global warming idiocy? And then we will have to pay for it ourselves?
With what?
I propose that Obama and his cadre get off the dope they are smoking and get back to the real world.
Friday, July 17, 2009
What is the real agenda?
Why all of the rush, all of a sudden? Ever since the Democrats came into full power in January, they have been in full hurry-up mode.
I remember the so-called stimulus bill was rushed through before anybody could read it or understand it. Turns out it didn't stimulate much but it did feather a bunch of Democratic nests.
A bullet train from Southern California to Las Vegas for good old Harry Reid, for instance.
It is easy to recognize that some action was called for at the time. A day or two or even a month would not have made any difference. So why the rush?
The energy bill, aka the cap and trade bill, was similarly rushed through the House, with no time to read it, and no amendments permitted ( Ms. Pelosi makes Tom DeLay look like a warm fuzzy kitten).
And now the President is pushing it through the Senate, trying to pass it by August.
This so-called problem ended in 1998 when the globe started cooling again. Why not take a few months and have a good debate on it? Why the big rush?
And now we have the big push to pass socialized health care (disguised as "reform") by August as well. The health care business has been around for a long time, and Medicare and Medicaid have needed reform since they were initiated.
So why are we rushing into all of this? These are major bills that will have lasting, perhaps permanent, effects on our lives and our economy.
And we must pass them without even having a debate or being able to read and understand them before they become law?
Wait a minute. Just wait a minute. Is this the kind of "hope and change" we want? Does this constitute the transparency Obama promised? Or the bi-partisanship?
Maybe its just Rahm Emmanuel not wanting to lose the benefit of a good crisis to ram things through.
Could there be another agenda at work here? Not just health care reform, or solving global warming? Is this an attempt to transform the United States into a socialist state, where everyone has equal results in the pursuit of happiness?
Consider the energy proposals. This would levy high direct and indirect taxes on everyone who uses energy.
Companies that manufacture or produce things would be the heaviest hit. It would make those industries even more uncompetitive than the labor unions have managed to do. That would produce a huge drag on employment. This has very deleterious effects on the entire economy, because we have to produce things to create wealth.
Of course, we would all be hit, depending upon the energy we use. Walk to work and do away with all of your modern appliances, including lights, and you might avoid most of the tax.
The health care industry is also a large part of our economy, and employs a very large number of people. The proposals before the Congress would create a number of taxes on various aspects, and particularly employers within and without the industry. Uninsured individuals who don't want insurance ( about 40% of the total according to a study for the CBO) will be taxed, forcing them to buy or pay the tax. (Free country, right!).
Both of those bills will contribute to severely crippling our economy right in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
And anyone with any degree of intelligence should know it.
Now I know that Obama and his team are intelligent and should know this is true ( that does not apply to Lenin's "useful idiots" in the Congress).
So is it their real agenda to bring the US to its knees? Where are they heading us?
They have already nationalized the biggest automaker. Who will be next?
I remember the so-called stimulus bill was rushed through before anybody could read it or understand it. Turns out it didn't stimulate much but it did feather a bunch of Democratic nests.
A bullet train from Southern California to Las Vegas for good old Harry Reid, for instance.
It is easy to recognize that some action was called for at the time. A day or two or even a month would not have made any difference. So why the rush?
The energy bill, aka the cap and trade bill, was similarly rushed through the House, with no time to read it, and no amendments permitted ( Ms. Pelosi makes Tom DeLay look like a warm fuzzy kitten).
And now the President is pushing it through the Senate, trying to pass it by August.
This so-called problem ended in 1998 when the globe started cooling again. Why not take a few months and have a good debate on it? Why the big rush?
And now we have the big push to pass socialized health care (disguised as "reform") by August as well. The health care business has been around for a long time, and Medicare and Medicaid have needed reform since they were initiated.
So why are we rushing into all of this? These are major bills that will have lasting, perhaps permanent, effects on our lives and our economy.
And we must pass them without even having a debate or being able to read and understand them before they become law?
Wait a minute. Just wait a minute. Is this the kind of "hope and change" we want? Does this constitute the transparency Obama promised? Or the bi-partisanship?
Maybe its just Rahm Emmanuel not wanting to lose the benefit of a good crisis to ram things through.
Could there be another agenda at work here? Not just health care reform, or solving global warming? Is this an attempt to transform the United States into a socialist state, where everyone has equal results in the pursuit of happiness?
Consider the energy proposals. This would levy high direct and indirect taxes on everyone who uses energy.
Companies that manufacture or produce things would be the heaviest hit. It would make those industries even more uncompetitive than the labor unions have managed to do. That would produce a huge drag on employment. This has very deleterious effects on the entire economy, because we have to produce things to create wealth.
Of course, we would all be hit, depending upon the energy we use. Walk to work and do away with all of your modern appliances, including lights, and you might avoid most of the tax.
The health care industry is also a large part of our economy, and employs a very large number of people. The proposals before the Congress would create a number of taxes on various aspects, and particularly employers within and without the industry. Uninsured individuals who don't want insurance ( about 40% of the total according to a study for the CBO) will be taxed, forcing them to buy or pay the tax. (Free country, right!).
Both of those bills will contribute to severely crippling our economy right in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
And anyone with any degree of intelligence should know it.
Now I know that Obama and his team are intelligent and should know this is true ( that does not apply to Lenin's "useful idiots" in the Congress).
So is it their real agenda to bring the US to its knees? Where are they heading us?
They have already nationalized the biggest automaker. Who will be next?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Health care on the front burner
William Katz over at Urgent Agenda calls our attention to something in the New York Daily News writtten by one Kristen Lopez Eastlick about a study done by her organization for the Congressional Budget Office. The subject was the nation's folks that are not insured for health care. Who are the 47 million uninsured, really? is part of the title of the article.
It seems that the study found that 43% of them are voluntarily uninsured, in that they make an average of $65,000 per year, and can therefore afford the coverage, but for their own reasons, choose not to buy it. I can see why we don't hear that from the pols in DC.
She goes on to point out that 13% of the uninsured are illegal aliens. In addition, 40 % of the uninsured are unemployed, and if they could find suitable employment or were trained so they could, many of them could get insurance from their employers.
As a result, she questions why we should do such a radical overhaul of our entire system, when lesser approaches would solve the problem. That is a good question.
Mr. Katz has a comment of his own:
"Congress is about to enact a hugely expensive solution to a problem it doesn't even understand. Indeed, the lack of interest in facts is stunning. It's especially stunning when you look at the media, which is always whining about "the people's right to know." Apparently, there are many things the people don't have a right to know, like the real nature of the health-care "crisis.""
Why the hurry? Why such drastic measures? Why such high costs?
Only The Shadow knows.
It seems that the study found that 43% of them are voluntarily uninsured, in that they make an average of $65,000 per year, and can therefore afford the coverage, but for their own reasons, choose not to buy it. I can see why we don't hear that from the pols in DC.
She goes on to point out that 13% of the uninsured are illegal aliens. In addition, 40 % of the uninsured are unemployed, and if they could find suitable employment or were trained so they could, many of them could get insurance from their employers.
As a result, she questions why we should do such a radical overhaul of our entire system, when lesser approaches would solve the problem. That is a good question.
Mr. Katz has a comment of his own:
"Congress is about to enact a hugely expensive solution to a problem it doesn't even understand. Indeed, the lack of interest in facts is stunning. It's especially stunning when you look at the media, which is always whining about "the people's right to know." Apparently, there are many things the people don't have a right to know, like the real nature of the health-care "crisis.""
Why the hurry? Why such drastic measures? Why such high costs?
Only The Shadow knows.
Follow the money
Profits from two very large financial institutions have been in the news lately. Its amazing how that can happen in an environment where taxpayers have been subsudizing those institutions and others like them since last Fall.
One, JPMorgan Chase, just paid back its TARP money, but there has been not accounting for the funds advanced by the Fed.
Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, did not take TARP money, and again, there is not any accounting, one way or the other, for any funds advanced by the Fed.
Goldman, however, was the primary beneficiary of the bailout of AIG, receiving $12.9 Billion dollars of taxpayer money passed through AIG.
One might ask why them....why not Lehman Bros., too?
One of the things learned early in my career in politics was that when you have questions like that, you "follow the money."
OpenSecrets.org is a site where one can do just that. I highly recommend it to you.
If one checks campaign donations to the big shots, one can learn a lot. Take Obama's biggest contributors last year:
"University of California
$1,564,490
Goldman Sachs
$994,795
Harvard University
$854,017
Microsoft Corp
$833,617
Google Inc
$803,436
Citigroup Inc
$699,790
JPMorgan Chase & Co
$695,132
Time Warner
$589,334
Sidley Austin LLP
$588,598
Stanford University
$586,557
National Amusements Inc
$550,683
UBS AG
$543,219
Wilmerhale Llp
$542,618
Skadden, Arps et al
$530,839
IBM Corp
$527,572
Columbia University
$526,802
Morgan Stanley
$514,881
General Electric (NBC)
$499,130
Latham & Watkins
$493,835
US Government
$491,420"
Now these are contributions that are aggregated by the particular entity employed by the giver. Any of them look familiar?
Note that the two companies in this discussion are high up the list. Also ABS was a beneficiary of AIG bailout as well.
Now for the McCain contributors:
Merrill Lynch
$373,595
Citigroup Inc
$322,051
Morgan Stanley
$273,452
Goldman Sachs
$230,095
JPMorgan Chase & Co
$228,107
US Government
$208,379
AT&T Inc
$202,438
Wachovia Corp
$195,063
Credit Suisse Group
$183,353
UBS AG
$183,079
PricewaterhouseCoopers
$167,900
Bank of America
$166,026
US Army
$165,370
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
$159,596
Blank Rome LLP
$154,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP
$146,437
US Dept of Defense
$143,605
FedEx Corp
$131,974
Lehman Brothers
$126,057
Bear Stearns
$117,498
Hmmm. The same guys appear both places, and near the top. Note that the two in last place on McCain's list didn't make the Obama list, and they are no longer with us. That and what is below may point out why Lehman Bros., Goldman Sach's biggest competitor was allowed to fail. Of course, Obama was not elected yet.
Now Goldman Sachs did have more going for it than campaign contributions. They have actually been in charge of making policy at least since Robert Rubin was Clinton's Sec/Treas. Then we had Summers, then Paulson, and now Geithner, with Summers making sort of a re-run in the White House. All from Goldman Sachs.
Goldman Sachs was there at the creation of the bubble, and at the end, and now at the "recovery."
Basically, what we have is the coyotes guarding the henhouse.
Isn't this a wild way to run a government?
One, JPMorgan Chase, just paid back its TARP money, but there has been not accounting for the funds advanced by the Fed.
Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, did not take TARP money, and again, there is not any accounting, one way or the other, for any funds advanced by the Fed.
Goldman, however, was the primary beneficiary of the bailout of AIG, receiving $12.9 Billion dollars of taxpayer money passed through AIG.
One might ask why them....why not Lehman Bros., too?
One of the things learned early in my career in politics was that when you have questions like that, you "follow the money."
OpenSecrets.org is a site where one can do just that. I highly recommend it to you.
If one checks campaign donations to the big shots, one can learn a lot. Take Obama's biggest contributors last year:
"University of California
$1,564,490
Goldman Sachs
$994,795
Harvard University
$854,017
Microsoft Corp
$833,617
Google Inc
$803,436
Citigroup Inc
$699,790
JPMorgan Chase & Co
$695,132
Time Warner
$589,334
Sidley Austin LLP
$588,598
Stanford University
$586,557
National Amusements Inc
$550,683
UBS AG
$543,219
Wilmerhale Llp
$542,618
Skadden, Arps et al
$530,839
IBM Corp
$527,572
Columbia University
$526,802
Morgan Stanley
$514,881
General Electric (NBC)
$499,130
Latham & Watkins
$493,835
US Government
$491,420"
Now these are contributions that are aggregated by the particular entity employed by the giver. Any of them look familiar?
Note that the two companies in this discussion are high up the list. Also ABS was a beneficiary of AIG bailout as well.
Now for the McCain contributors:
Merrill Lynch
$373,595
Citigroup Inc
$322,051
Morgan Stanley
$273,452
Goldman Sachs
$230,095
JPMorgan Chase & Co
$228,107
US Government
$208,379
AT&T Inc
$202,438
Wachovia Corp
$195,063
Credit Suisse Group
$183,353
UBS AG
$183,079
PricewaterhouseCoopers
$167,900
Bank of America
$166,026
US Army
$165,370
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
$159,596
Blank Rome LLP
$154,226
Greenberg Traurig LLP
$146,437
US Dept of Defense
$143,605
FedEx Corp
$131,974
Lehman Brothers
$126,057
Bear Stearns
$117,498
Hmmm. The same guys appear both places, and near the top. Note that the two in last place on McCain's list didn't make the Obama list, and they are no longer with us. That and what is below may point out why Lehman Bros., Goldman Sach's biggest competitor was allowed to fail. Of course, Obama was not elected yet.
Now Goldman Sachs did have more going for it than campaign contributions. They have actually been in charge of making policy at least since Robert Rubin was Clinton's Sec/Treas. Then we had Summers, then Paulson, and now Geithner, with Summers making sort of a re-run in the White House. All from Goldman Sachs.
Goldman Sachs was there at the creation of the bubble, and at the end, and now at the "recovery."
Basically, what we have is the coyotes guarding the henhouse.
Isn't this a wild way to run a government?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)