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.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
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?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Cramming
After kicking around yellow dogs yesterday, today has been slow.
We changed out our telephone, cable and Internet providers this morning, so have been playing a bit with that.
Its Uverse, and so far, so good.
The summer doldrums are here, and Congress is rushing to get a bunch of bad legislation through while most people are thinking about vacation, or wishing they had the money to go.
From what I read, a lot of Democratic Congressmen were taken aback by their constituents' reactions to the "cap and trade" bill. I cannot understand why.
One would think that anybody with any sense would have realized that if you pass a huge tax without reading a word of the bill, most folks might get a little upset.
Watch them try to do the same thing with socialized medicine. I saw where Rahm, Obama's man, has threated to cram the socialized medicine down our throats whether we like it or not.
Hope and change.
We changed out our telephone, cable and Internet providers this morning, so have been playing a bit with that.
Its Uverse, and so far, so good.
The summer doldrums are here, and Congress is rushing to get a bunch of bad legislation through while most people are thinking about vacation, or wishing they had the money to go.
From what I read, a lot of Democratic Congressmen were taken aback by their constituents' reactions to the "cap and trade" bill. I cannot understand why.
One would think that anybody with any sense would have realized that if you pass a huge tax without reading a word of the bill, most folks might get a little upset.
Watch them try to do the same thing with socialized medicine. I saw where Rahm, Obama's man, has threated to cram the socialized medicine down our throats whether we like it or not.
Hope and change.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Of Yellow Dogs and Stuff
From back when I was a Democrat until this very day, I have known Democrats who would swear they would vote for a yellow dog, if he was a Democrat.
There are a lot who actually would....its not a joke.
There is a lot of "tribalism" that goes into political parties, I guess.
I was always a bit too independent to turn over my political choices to a group that anybody could join, so although I supported Democrats back in the day with whom I didn't fully agree, I didn't pull the straight ticket lever but once. That was in 1964. Big mistake. Have not done it since.
But back to yellow dogs....I have seen some candidates who wouldn't be able to stand up to a good yellow dog, and from both parties. I have nothing against yellow dogs, per se. In fact, I like dogs, even yellow ones.
Where I take issue with those Democrats is when the candidate doesn't measure up to a good dog, and they will vote for him or her anyway, if they run for election as a Democrat. (To treat everyone the same, I would feel the same way about a Republican who would do such.)
Of course, there are some elections where neither of the parties offer a decent choice. One that comes to mind was the last election for governor here. There were lots of candidates, but I wasn't real happy with either of the two parties' candidates, and the independent, although an old friend, just didn't measure up. So I voted for old UT graduate Kinky Friedman, because I knew he couldn't screw things up nearly as badly as the others could. But Kinky, although really a Democrat, wasn't a yellow dog.
I came up with this yellow dog business today as I was pondering some of the emails about Obama that are flying about the Internet. You know, the ones about his birth certificate, his travel to Pakistan on a foreign passport, his college records, and all that stuff.
Now, I have no idea whether those allegations are true or false.
But what I do know is that the allegations have been out there since before the election (many are based upon his books).
That raises the question: how can anyone have voted for him without knowing the answers to the questions?
The so-called mainstream press never pressed any of it, although private parties tried to. I understand Obama has spent nearly a million dollars keeping it all hushed up. He, like any individual, has a right to privacy, but it would seem that a candidate for President would not be concerned about a birth certificate. Or college records (we had Bush's). Or passport records.
I have been in public service for over 40 years, and my life has been an open book. I never had anything that I was sufficiently ashamed of to hide. Why is Obama ashamed?
He could very easily solve the problems and answer the questions.
And that is what got me to thinking about the yellow dog.
There are a lot who actually would....its not a joke.
There is a lot of "tribalism" that goes into political parties, I guess.
I was always a bit too independent to turn over my political choices to a group that anybody could join, so although I supported Democrats back in the day with whom I didn't fully agree, I didn't pull the straight ticket lever but once. That was in 1964. Big mistake. Have not done it since.
But back to yellow dogs....I have seen some candidates who wouldn't be able to stand up to a good yellow dog, and from both parties. I have nothing against yellow dogs, per se. In fact, I like dogs, even yellow ones.
Where I take issue with those Democrats is when the candidate doesn't measure up to a good dog, and they will vote for him or her anyway, if they run for election as a Democrat. (To treat everyone the same, I would feel the same way about a Republican who would do such.)
Of course, there are some elections where neither of the parties offer a decent choice. One that comes to mind was the last election for governor here. There were lots of candidates, but I wasn't real happy with either of the two parties' candidates, and the independent, although an old friend, just didn't measure up. So I voted for old UT graduate Kinky Friedman, because I knew he couldn't screw things up nearly as badly as the others could. But Kinky, although really a Democrat, wasn't a yellow dog.
I came up with this yellow dog business today as I was pondering some of the emails about Obama that are flying about the Internet. You know, the ones about his birth certificate, his travel to Pakistan on a foreign passport, his college records, and all that stuff.
Now, I have no idea whether those allegations are true or false.
But what I do know is that the allegations have been out there since before the election (many are based upon his books).
That raises the question: how can anyone have voted for him without knowing the answers to the questions?
The so-called mainstream press never pressed any of it, although private parties tried to. I understand Obama has spent nearly a million dollars keeping it all hushed up. He, like any individual, has a right to privacy, but it would seem that a candidate for President would not be concerned about a birth certificate. Or college records (we had Bush's). Or passport records.
I have been in public service for over 40 years, and my life has been an open book. I never had anything that I was sufficiently ashamed of to hide. Why is Obama ashamed?
He could very easily solve the problems and answer the questions.
And that is what got me to thinking about the yellow dog.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Whither climate change? What is the real agenda?
It is noted that the new term adopted by the environmental "sky is falling" group is "climate change" to replace the old term "global warming."
But its perhaps not so unexpected when you consider that the globe mysteriously stopped warming in 1998. That occurred even though manmade CO2 emissions have continued to rise.
Unfortunately, that has not stopped the "Chicken Littles" out there from demanding that we take great and painful steps to limit the use of fossil fuels in the U. S. even if few others do.
One must question why we should do this to cure a problem that doesn't even exist.
There are two articles out lately that explain what is happening. Unfortunately, our media in the United States is ignoring the fact that there are reputable scientists that disagree with the "consensus" view that we are having a catastrophic warming event. The two I mention are from the United Kingdom.
Ian Plimer, in an interview in the Spectator, has another view:
‘The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology."
In his book, Heaven and Earth, he pointed out that:
".... polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty."
During the period of growing gapes and citrus in southern Scotland, the world was far warmer than now, and warmer than predicted in the next hundred years.
His view of the various computer models used to forecast future climate change is correct:
"...I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."
So there you have it. There is more from him, but let's consider the article by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph.
He speaks of the G-8 summit last week which committed to fight "global warming", or "climate change", if you will:
"Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2 emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry. All this is being egged on by a gigantic publicity machine, by the UN, by serried ranks of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore, last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against Hitler's Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are setting in train."
He goes on:
"What makes this even odder is that the runaway warming predicted by their computer models simply isn't happening. Last week one of the four official sources of temperature measurement, compiled from satellite data by the University of Huntsville, Alabama, showed that temperatures have now fallen to their average level since satellite data began 30 years ago."
He then talks of the paper by George Carlin at the EPA, which the EPA attempted to suppress:
"In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama's plans to curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His 90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible, while the "counter consensus'' view – solar radiation and ocean currents – seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking a considerable stir, Carlin's report was stopped dead, on the grounds that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA's official policy."
Why the rush to judgment on a ruinous "cap and trade" bill in the United States? Now that the global warming "consensus" is beginning to collapse, and the globe is cooling again, would it not be better to stop and study the issue more thoroughly?
In a deep recession it just does not make sense to usher in radical rules that will greatly increase everyone's energy bills. Particularly when the worls biggest CO2 emitter is not going to join in. So if Obama and the Democrats have their way, we are going to ruin our economy while giving China, India and other developing nations a giant competitive edge over Americans.
That makes so little sense that I have to wonder if their agenda is not to solve the imagined global warming, but to "transform" our economy into something the left can be proud of, but at the cost of millions of jobs.
Sheer madness.
But its perhaps not so unexpected when you consider that the globe mysteriously stopped warming in 1998. That occurred even though manmade CO2 emissions have continued to rise.
Unfortunately, that has not stopped the "Chicken Littles" out there from demanding that we take great and painful steps to limit the use of fossil fuels in the U. S. even if few others do.
One must question why we should do this to cure a problem that doesn't even exist.
There are two articles out lately that explain what is happening. Unfortunately, our media in the United States is ignoring the fact that there are reputable scientists that disagree with the "consensus" view that we are having a catastrophic warming event. The two I mention are from the United Kingdom.
Ian Plimer, in an interview in the Spectator, has another view:
‘The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology."
In his book, Heaven and Earth, he pointed out that:
".... polar ice has been present on earth for less than 20 per cent of geological time; that extinctions of life are normal; that climate changes are cyclical and random; that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty."
During the period of growing gapes and citrus in southern Scotland, the world was far warmer than now, and warmer than predicted in the next hundred years.
His view of the various computer models used to forecast future climate change is correct:
"...I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."
So there you have it. There is more from him, but let's consider the article by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph.
He speaks of the G-8 summit last week which committed to fight "global warming", or "climate change", if you will:
"Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2 emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry. All this is being egged on by a gigantic publicity machine, by the UN, by serried ranks of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore, last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against Hitler's Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are setting in train."
He goes on:
"What makes this even odder is that the runaway warming predicted by their computer models simply isn't happening. Last week one of the four official sources of temperature measurement, compiled from satellite data by the University of Huntsville, Alabama, showed that temperatures have now fallen to their average level since satellite data began 30 years ago."
He then talks of the paper by George Carlin at the EPA, which the EPA attempted to suppress:
"In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama's plans to curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His 90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible, while the "counter consensus'' view – solar radiation and ocean currents – seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking a considerable stir, Carlin's report was stopped dead, on the grounds that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA's official policy."
Why the rush to judgment on a ruinous "cap and trade" bill in the United States? Now that the global warming "consensus" is beginning to collapse, and the globe is cooling again, would it not be better to stop and study the issue more thoroughly?
In a deep recession it just does not make sense to usher in radical rules that will greatly increase everyone's energy bills. Particularly when the worls biggest CO2 emitter is not going to join in. So if Obama and the Democrats have their way, we are going to ruin our economy while giving China, India and other developing nations a giant competitive edge over Americans.
That makes so little sense that I have to wonder if their agenda is not to solve the imagined global warming, but to "transform" our economy into something the left can be proud of, but at the cost of millions of jobs.
Sheer madness.
Starting
Starting the blogging day hoping that the tree we just planted in the back yard prospers.
And also looking forward to the fresh blackeyed peas my bride has been shelling.
They are cooking now and sure smell good.
One of the simple pleasures for an old retired guy.
And also looking forward to the fresh blackeyed peas my bride has been shelling.
They are cooking now and sure smell good.
One of the simple pleasures for an old retired guy.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Transformation of America
William Katz who blogs at Urgent Agenda has a bit about something written by Frank Miele, the managing editor of a small Montana newpaper, The Daily Inter Lake.
The commentary is about Obama and Abraham Lincoln, for whom Obama has shown a great deal of admiration.
Mr. Katz blogs about wisdom and genius and how it can be confused. And warns about Obama relying on genius as opposed to wisdom. Its good, and you should go there and read it.
But Miele's commentary is much more than that.
He quotes Obama:
"Let us transform this nation," Obama said in his 2007 announcement address. "Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy... And as our economy changes, let's be the generation that ensures our nation's workers are sharing in our prosperity.... Let's be the generation that ends poverty in America.... Let's be the generation that finally tackles our health care crisis... Let's be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil... Let's be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did here."
Miele says we should not now be surprised at what Obama is doing. He told us well in advance.
Obama also talked about greatly transforming our economy long before the economy went into the tank. When he said that, the economy was humming along.
From the very beginning, he has had the notion of doing away with our old economic system, capitalism, and substituting.........what?
Given that Obama was raised in a Marxist leaning household and has an awful lot of friends who are extremely radical, one can figure out where he wants to take us pretty easily.
Our intrepid editor goes on to say:
"Thus, to the extent that he is indeed the "towering genius' his admirers perceive, President Obama may quote Lincoln, but he certainly doesn't want to be him. He wants not to preserve the work of presidents past, but to "transform" the nation, to "take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America," as he said in Springfield...."
This is right on point. What Obama wants to do is not preserve our nation as it has been, but to transform it into something else. And he is busy trying to do just that.
Miele further states:
"Now, Abraham Lincoln was not a prophet –– just a very wise man. His words provide food for thought, but should not themselves be considered an indictment of any individual. Nonetheless, for those of us who are concerned that Barack Obama means exactly what he says, and does indeed intend to "transform" the nation, they are one more opportunity to make a plea for "preservation" of the "temple of liberty" instead."
We still have a chance to stop this, but people must wake up to what is happening. Congress cannot be trusted to do it. For crying out loud, they spent nearly a trillion dollars without reading the bill, and passed the "cap and trade" bill in the House with nobody having read it as well.
We need a political revolution in this country to counter the one that Obama and the left is trying to cram down our throats. Unfortunately, neither of our political parties is up to the task.
Will we all wake up?........... In time?
Who will lead the revolution? Is anybody out there?
The commentary is about Obama and Abraham Lincoln, for whom Obama has shown a great deal of admiration.
Mr. Katz blogs about wisdom and genius and how it can be confused. And warns about Obama relying on genius as opposed to wisdom. Its good, and you should go there and read it.
But Miele's commentary is much more than that.
He quotes Obama:
"Let us transform this nation," Obama said in his 2007 announcement address. "Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy... And as our economy changes, let's be the generation that ensures our nation's workers are sharing in our prosperity.... Let's be the generation that ends poverty in America.... Let's be the generation that finally tackles our health care crisis... Let's be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil... Let's be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did here."
Miele says we should not now be surprised at what Obama is doing. He told us well in advance.
Obama also talked about greatly transforming our economy long before the economy went into the tank. When he said that, the economy was humming along.
From the very beginning, he has had the notion of doing away with our old economic system, capitalism, and substituting.........what?
Given that Obama was raised in a Marxist leaning household and has an awful lot of friends who are extremely radical, one can figure out where he wants to take us pretty easily.
Our intrepid editor goes on to say:
"Thus, to the extent that he is indeed the "towering genius' his admirers perceive, President Obama may quote Lincoln, but he certainly doesn't want to be him. He wants not to preserve the work of presidents past, but to "transform" the nation, to "take up the unfinished business of perfecting our union, and building a better America," as he said in Springfield...."
This is right on point. What Obama wants to do is not preserve our nation as it has been, but to transform it into something else. And he is busy trying to do just that.
Miele further states:
"Now, Abraham Lincoln was not a prophet –– just a very wise man. His words provide food for thought, but should not themselves be considered an indictment of any individual. Nonetheless, for those of us who are concerned that Barack Obama means exactly what he says, and does indeed intend to "transform" the nation, they are one more opportunity to make a plea for "preservation" of the "temple of liberty" instead."
We still have a chance to stop this, but people must wake up to what is happening. Congress cannot be trusted to do it. For crying out loud, they spent nearly a trillion dollars without reading the bill, and passed the "cap and trade" bill in the House with nobody having read it as well.
We need a political revolution in this country to counter the one that Obama and the left is trying to cram down our throats. Unfortunately, neither of our political parties is up to the task.
Will we all wake up?........... In time?
Who will lead the revolution? Is anybody out there?
The War Against the Producers
The summer doldrums are here. News is slow, but there are some good blogs out there.
Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent piece over at Pajamas Media. I won't try to blog about it. Its all too good to break down. Its called The War Against the Producers.
The subtitle at Pajamas asks the good question:
"How can rewarding unproductive areas of the economy and punishing the engines of the economy possibly work?"
Hanson proceeds to answer that question and others. Perhaps the best quote from the artice is:
"Final observations: Obama brilliantly conflated the Wall Street class with the upper-tier of Main Street in Animal Farm fashion: the former gets lectured, but stays enriched through bailouts; the latter takes both the moral hit for the former’s crimes and greed and the actual hit in higher taxes.
(Nota bene: the new Democrats, in Prince Charles fashion, like the taste and culture of the hyper-rich, who care little about taxes, are sensitive behind their ramparts to the less well off, and know high-culture (think Streisand, Gates, Soros, the Georgetown/Hollwood/Silicon Valley, Upper East Side, Cambridge, Mass, set). These aristoi despise the wheeler-dealer, always on the move, uppity, wanna-get-rich scrambler that is desperately trying to get his get kid through Public U, and add a wing on his gross MacMansion, while towing his outboard up to the lake for five hours of water-skiing, without an opera, symphony, or NPR analysis on the radio)."
This is a very good article, is very thoughtful, and needs to be read in its entirety. Go here to do so.
Victor Davis Hanson has an excellent piece over at Pajamas Media. I won't try to blog about it. Its all too good to break down. Its called The War Against the Producers.
The subtitle at Pajamas asks the good question:
"How can rewarding unproductive areas of the economy and punishing the engines of the economy possibly work?"
Hanson proceeds to answer that question and others. Perhaps the best quote from the artice is:
"Final observations: Obama brilliantly conflated the Wall Street class with the upper-tier of Main Street in Animal Farm fashion: the former gets lectured, but stays enriched through bailouts; the latter takes both the moral hit for the former’s crimes and greed and the actual hit in higher taxes.
(Nota bene: the new Democrats, in Prince Charles fashion, like the taste and culture of the hyper-rich, who care little about taxes, are sensitive behind their ramparts to the less well off, and know high-culture (think Streisand, Gates, Soros, the Georgetown/Hollwood/Silicon Valley, Upper East Side, Cambridge, Mass, set). These aristoi despise the wheeler-dealer, always on the move, uppity, wanna-get-rich scrambler that is desperately trying to get his get kid through Public U, and add a wing on his gross MacMansion, while towing his outboard up to the lake for five hours of water-skiing, without an opera, symphony, or NPR analysis on the radio)."
This is a very good article, is very thoughtful, and needs to be read in its entirety. Go here to do so.
Will we wake up?
Starting the blogging day wondering if the people of the United States will realize what a drastic transformation of our country Obama is attempting in time to stop it.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The best and brightest and hoi polloi
Well, I am getting tired of stories that concern Sarah Palin, but Jack Kelly has a good commentary in the Toledo Blade about all the Palin controversy.
It doesn't really matter about Palin. She was thrust into a situation she was far from prepared for.
But what he says is instructive without regard to that issue.
He points out some things that were written by Princeton Professor Angelo Codevilla:
"The distinctions between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, are being overshadowed by that between what we might call the 'Court Party,' made up of the well-connected who see themselves as potters of the great American clay, and the 'Country Party,' the many more who are tired of being treated as clay."
He goes on to point out:
"People in the Court Party think it proper they should decide what kind of cars the hoi polloi in fly-over country should drive and how much medical care they may have. Theirs is an aristrocracy not of birth but of connections, connections forged mostly by where they went to school. "
He concludes:
"The hoi polloi in fly-over country are watching the self-styled best and brightest ruin the economy while feathering their own nests. If this leads to a revolt at the polls in 2010 and 2012, the hoi polloi are more likely to look for leadership from the person who best exemplifies their values and expresses their anger than to those who, by the Court Party's definition, are more qualified."
How could anyone say it better? My thanks to the good Professor, and to Jack Kelly for bringing him to us.
Go read the whole thing.
With a hat tip to William Katz over at Urgent Agenda.
It doesn't really matter about Palin. She was thrust into a situation she was far from prepared for.
But what he says is instructive without regard to that issue.
He points out some things that were written by Princeton Professor Angelo Codevilla:
"The distinctions between Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, are being overshadowed by that between what we might call the 'Court Party,' made up of the well-connected who see themselves as potters of the great American clay, and the 'Country Party,' the many more who are tired of being treated as clay."
He goes on to point out:
"People in the Court Party think it proper they should decide what kind of cars the hoi polloi in fly-over country should drive and how much medical care they may have. Theirs is an aristrocracy not of birth but of connections, connections forged mostly by where they went to school. "
He concludes:
"The hoi polloi in fly-over country are watching the self-styled best and brightest ruin the economy while feathering their own nests. If this leads to a revolt at the polls in 2010 and 2012, the hoi polloi are more likely to look for leadership from the person who best exemplifies their values and expresses their anger than to those who, by the Court Party's definition, are more qualified."
How could anyone say it better? My thanks to the good Professor, and to Jack Kelly for bringing him to us.
Go read the whole thing.
With a hat tip to William Katz over at Urgent Agenda.
Obama unveiled
We have learned long ago that we could not trust our domestic media on things Obama, not even those that are "fair and balanced."
So we have to turn to the foreign press to hear the truth.
Rex Murphy of Canada's Globe and Mail hits the truth hard with his comments today: Obama on the flying trapeze.
"We've been watching over the past two weeks, willingly or not, the wrong icon. Michael Jackson's a distraction. Barack Obama is the superstar of the world, the real celebrity. And because he's President of the world's foremost power (for now), his actions have real, not just symbolic, meaning."
Real meaning is right, and he goes on:
"We've seen him in action for a bit more than six months. What we can say with confidence, now that we have the evidence of his actions, is that had he run on (a) transforming the U.S. economy by massive federal government intervention, (b) taking an owner's stake in the automobile industry, (c) transforming the rules of America's energy economy, (d) instituting a national health-care system - all of these simultaneously and in the centre of a financial meltdown - Barack Obama wouldn't merely have lost the election, he wouldn't have got as many votes as gnarly old Ross Perot did in an election long past. He wouldn't, in other words, have beaten a bad-tempered, egotistical spoiler."
How true this is. :
"Mr. Obama has taken the real crisis of the U.S. (and world) economy and used it as the screen and lever for a massive agenda of transformation, a transformation that calls for expenditures on a scale never before seen in the history of government on this planet......."
He talks about some of the things initiated by Bush, and then:
"These initiatives, however, were almost instantly overlaid with the Obama agenda of massive government expansion, or attempted expansion, into everything from the auto industry to health care - all of them sold with cries of urgency and executed with reckless haste. Massive bills were passed before there were even copies of them to read. The U.S. government's debt is being swollen beyond all previous records."
This is all true, and he could not have undertaken this without having planned it all along. He planned this, but campaigned on "hope and change" without saying what, and he has reneged on numerous promises made during the campign.
So why don't we hear about this from our own press? Are they completely in the tank for Obama?
Of course. Thank goodness the foreign press is still honest.
Go read the whole thing.
A tip of the hat to Instapundit.
So we have to turn to the foreign press to hear the truth.
Rex Murphy of Canada's Globe and Mail hits the truth hard with his comments today: Obama on the flying trapeze.
"We've been watching over the past two weeks, willingly or not, the wrong icon. Michael Jackson's a distraction. Barack Obama is the superstar of the world, the real celebrity. And because he's President of the world's foremost power (for now), his actions have real, not just symbolic, meaning."
Real meaning is right, and he goes on:
"We've seen him in action for a bit more than six months. What we can say with confidence, now that we have the evidence of his actions, is that had he run on (a) transforming the U.S. economy by massive federal government intervention, (b) taking an owner's stake in the automobile industry, (c) transforming the rules of America's energy economy, (d) instituting a national health-care system - all of these simultaneously and in the centre of a financial meltdown - Barack Obama wouldn't merely have lost the election, he wouldn't have got as many votes as gnarly old Ross Perot did in an election long past. He wouldn't, in other words, have beaten a bad-tempered, egotistical spoiler."
How true this is. :
"Mr. Obama has taken the real crisis of the U.S. (and world) economy and used it as the screen and lever for a massive agenda of transformation, a transformation that calls for expenditures on a scale never before seen in the history of government on this planet......."
He talks about some of the things initiated by Bush, and then:
"These initiatives, however, were almost instantly overlaid with the Obama agenda of massive government expansion, or attempted expansion, into everything from the auto industry to health care - all of them sold with cries of urgency and executed with reckless haste. Massive bills were passed before there were even copies of them to read. The U.S. government's debt is being swollen beyond all previous records."
This is all true, and he could not have undertaken this without having planned it all along. He planned this, but campaigned on "hope and change" without saying what, and he has reneged on numerous promises made during the campign.
So why don't we hear about this from our own press? Are they completely in the tank for Obama?
Of course. Thank goodness the foreign press is still honest.
Go read the whole thing.
A tip of the hat to Instapundit.
Recession and revenues
I see that the sales tax collections in Texas are down 11.2% from last year.
Usually, Texas is less affected by recession than other states, but with the decline of oil and gas production, that is not true any more.
This means that all levels of government will have to cut back, of course.
Thankfully, we are one of the states that has a balanced budget requirement in our Constitution, so we don't have the terrible debt obligations that the liberal states do.
Memo to the politicians in Washington: we CAN have good frugal government. All it takes is discipline.
We have not seen that in DC in decades.
Will Texans be asked to bail out California?
Usually, Texas is less affected by recession than other states, but with the decline of oil and gas production, that is not true any more.
This means that all levels of government will have to cut back, of course.
Thankfully, we are one of the states that has a balanced budget requirement in our Constitution, so we don't have the terrible debt obligations that the liberal states do.
Memo to the politicians in Washington: we CAN have good frugal government. All it takes is discipline.
We have not seen that in DC in decades.
Will Texans be asked to bail out California?
Hot
Belatedly starting the blogging day wondering if it will go over 100 deg. F. today, like it has the past few. Hoping not. Its only 93 now.
It was a cool Spring and the early summer has been cool as well, but the heat came back with a vengeance this week. I think the highest it got was 107F.
Two good things about this time of year.
One is that the fresh vegetables are now available at the farmers' markets. My bride and I gathered up a lot of peas, squash and other goodies today.
Then we came home and I planted some flowers in a couple of blank spots in the yard.
The second good thing about this time of year is that football is only six weeks away. That begins by far my favorite time of the year...the Fall, when footballs are in the air.
It was a cool Spring and the early summer has been cool as well, but the heat came back with a vengeance this week. I think the highest it got was 107F.
Two good things about this time of year.
One is that the fresh vegetables are now available at the farmers' markets. My bride and I gathered up a lot of peas, squash and other goodies today.
Then we came home and I planted some flowers in a couple of blank spots in the yard.
The second good thing about this time of year is that football is only six weeks away. That begins by far my favorite time of the year...the Fall, when footballs are in the air.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Robert Reich almost gets it right
I was cruising along on a slow news day, and came across this post by Robert Reich over on TPM Muckraker. Being a glutton for punishment, I undertook to read it.
To my surprise, he sounded very much like he agreed with my thoughts on the Recession.
We aren't going to have a V shaped recovery or a U shaped one....people are comparing to the wrong prior recessions. This one is different.
Our economy is 70% consumers, and most of them are out of money, have little or no credit, and no home equity to borrow against.
So far, so good. This is all true.
He goes on:
"Eventually consumers will replace cars and appliances and other stuff that wears out, but a recovery can't be built on replacements. Don't expect businesses to invest much more without lots of consumers hankering after lots of new stuff. And don't rely on exports. The global economy is contracting."
Still right so far except for China and India. Then we get to this:
"...This economy can't get back on track because the track we were on for years -- featuring flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity,..................."
Wow!. Its hard to believe. This liberal guy is right on track. I am thinking by now that he will finish up with a plan.
Sorry, no plan.
He finishes the above quote this way:
"........not to mention increasing carbon in the atmosphere -- simply cannot be sustained."
Now tell me what increasing carbon in the atmosphere did to cause our economic difficulties.
Nothing, absolutely nothing.
But it certainly will have something to do with the recovery, or the lack thereof.
What the dang fool is proposing apparently, is that we can't start the new economy, which we need, without carbon controls, which is the fastest way known to destroy what economy is left.
He says there is more to come on the issue of the new economy, I asssume without carbon.
I can hardly wait
The left will never learn.
To my surprise, he sounded very much like he agreed with my thoughts on the Recession.
We aren't going to have a V shaped recovery or a U shaped one....people are comparing to the wrong prior recessions. This one is different.
Our economy is 70% consumers, and most of them are out of money, have little or no credit, and no home equity to borrow against.
So far, so good. This is all true.
He goes on:
"Eventually consumers will replace cars and appliances and other stuff that wears out, but a recovery can't be built on replacements. Don't expect businesses to invest much more without lots of consumers hankering after lots of new stuff. And don't rely on exports. The global economy is contracting."
Still right so far except for China and India. Then we get to this:
"...This economy can't get back on track because the track we were on for years -- featuring flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity,..................."
Wow!. Its hard to believe. This liberal guy is right on track. I am thinking by now that he will finish up with a plan.
Sorry, no plan.
He finishes the above quote this way:
"........not to mention increasing carbon in the atmosphere -- simply cannot be sustained."
Now tell me what increasing carbon in the atmosphere did to cause our economic difficulties.
Nothing, absolutely nothing.
But it certainly will have something to do with the recovery, or the lack thereof.
What the dang fool is proposing apparently, is that we can't start the new economy, which we need, without carbon controls, which is the fastest way known to destroy what economy is left.
He says there is more to come on the issue of the new economy, I asssume without carbon.
I can hardly wait
The left will never learn.
Tyrannical Ambition and Servile Temptation
News is slow today, and my Internet connection has been slow as well.
Over at Power Line, they have had a series of posts by Paul Rahe, the author of the book Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift.
Rahe examines the writings of Montesquieu, Rousseau and de Toqueville and how they "anticipated the propensity of the modern liberal republic to drift in the direction of "soft despotism"- a condition that arises within a democracy when paternalistic state power expands and gradually undermines the spirit of self government."
This has now happened in the Western World now that the United States has arrived there.
The posts on Power Line add to that. There are three of them:
Obama's Tyrannical Ambition;
The Servile Temptation, Part I; and,
The Servile Tempation, Part II.
It is just impossible to break these down into "fair use" quotes and maintain the integrity of the posts.
I recommend you follow the links and read them.
Over at Power Line, they have had a series of posts by Paul Rahe, the author of the book Soft Despotism, Democracy's Drift.
Rahe examines the writings of Montesquieu, Rousseau and de Toqueville and how they "anticipated the propensity of the modern liberal republic to drift in the direction of "soft despotism"- a condition that arises within a democracy when paternalistic state power expands and gradually undermines the spirit of self government."
This has now happened in the Western World now that the United States has arrived there.
The posts on Power Line add to that. There are three of them:
Obama's Tyrannical Ambition;
The Servile Temptation, Part I; and,
The Servile Tempation, Part II.
It is just impossible to break these down into "fair use" quotes and maintain the integrity of the posts.
I recommend you follow the links and read them.
The Founding Fathers
Starting the blogging day wondering what the Founding Fathers of our country would think about what we have allowed our government to become.
I cannot imagine men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton or Franklin would approve of it.
Nor do I.
I cannot imagine men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton or Franklin would approve of it.
Nor do I.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
China passes US auto market in first half sales
It was bound to happen sometime. Associated Press is reporting that the Chinese car market has surpassed the United States for the first half of this year.
No matter that we are in a severe recession, this is a big blow that has been coming on for a generation.
Poor fiscal management by our government and by the people for the last few decades is catching up with a vengenace.
Extremely poor management and greedy unions, along with government interference, has ruined our domestic auto industry. Now, much of it has been nationalized.
All of the above have driven a lot of our manufacturing capability overseas, with a goodly part to China.
Our economy was said to be fine, because we had the "services" industry, primarily meaning that the big financial institutions were thriving.
Well, now were are seeing the results of all of that.
We have spent trillions trying to cover the losses by the "service" industry, we are in a deep recession because of their excesses, and jobs are continuing to disappear at a frightening rate.
In spite of this, our politicians insist on trying to revive the same old economic paradigm that has led us to this situation.
Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible.
The ball is now in the Democrats' court and they are utterly failing to consider proper policies, instead wanting to borrow and spend our way out of a deep hole caused by borrowing and spending far too much.
They are still digging, and the hole is getting deeper by the day.
No matter that we are in a severe recession, this is a big blow that has been coming on for a generation.
Poor fiscal management by our government and by the people for the last few decades is catching up with a vengenace.
Extremely poor management and greedy unions, along with government interference, has ruined our domestic auto industry. Now, much of it has been nationalized.
All of the above have driven a lot of our manufacturing capability overseas, with a goodly part to China.
Our economy was said to be fine, because we had the "services" industry, primarily meaning that the big financial institutions were thriving.
Well, now were are seeing the results of all of that.
We have spent trillions trying to cover the losses by the "service" industry, we are in a deep recession because of their excesses, and jobs are continuing to disappear at a frightening rate.
In spite of this, our politicians insist on trying to revive the same old economic paradigm that has led us to this situation.
Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible.
The ball is now in the Democrats' court and they are utterly failing to consider proper policies, instead wanting to borrow and spend our way out of a deep hole caused by borrowing and spending far too much.
They are still digging, and the hole is getting deeper by the day.
Food stamp record
In April a record 33.8 million people received food stamps, a fifth consecutive monthly record. Surprisingly according to Bloomberg, Texas was the state with the most recipients, above California.
Expect the numbers to continue increasing, particulaly since the politically (mis)directed stimulus is having little effect on anything but government.
Its a shame that the entire stimulus couldn't have just been given directly to the people rather than to governments.
Tax rebates would have done far more to help those who need the help. But the "party of the people" really isn't. Its all about government.
Expect the numbers to continue increasing, particulaly since the politically (mis)directed stimulus is having little effect on anything but government.
Its a shame that the entire stimulus couldn't have just been given directly to the people rather than to governments.
Tax rebates would have done far more to help those who need the help. But the "party of the people" really isn't. Its all about government.
Climate bill delayed
Looks like the Senate may have gotten an ear full while back home for the Fourth of July. Now the Washington Post reports that hearings on the "cap and trade" bill have been put off until September.
"The leading Senate committee responsible for developing the climate change legislation has delayed by at least a month its crafting of a bill, leaving less time for Congress to fulfill Obama's desire to enact a law this year.
"We'll do it as soon as we get back" in September from a month-long break, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer announced. "
The delay means that the bill probably won't be ready for Obama to display at the Copenhagen talks on a climate change treaty in December, but there is disagreement about that:
"Asked if the delay in her committee hurt chances the Senate will pass a bill this year, Boxer said, "Not a bit ... we'll be in (session) until Christmas, so I'm not worried about it."
But she did not guarantee Congress will be able to finish a bill and deliver it to Obama by December in time for the Copenhagen meeting.
"I want to take this as far as we can take it (before Copenhagen). The more we do the better," Boxer said.
Senator Charles Grassley, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which also has a significant role in developing the climate legislation, was more pessimistic. "I don't even expect it to come up this year" in the Senate, he told reporters. "
This is one of the worst bills to ever come before the Congress. Passing it now (if ever) would create very serious pain in an already suffering economy.
Its sheer stupidity.
The Chicken Littles in the Democratic Party, rather than avoiding a falling sky, are much more likely to bring it down on all of us.
"The leading Senate committee responsible for developing the climate change legislation has delayed by at least a month its crafting of a bill, leaving less time for Congress to fulfill Obama's desire to enact a law this year.
"We'll do it as soon as we get back" in September from a month-long break, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer announced. "
The delay means that the bill probably won't be ready for Obama to display at the Copenhagen talks on a climate change treaty in December, but there is disagreement about that:
"Asked if the delay in her committee hurt chances the Senate will pass a bill this year, Boxer said, "Not a bit ... we'll be in (session) until Christmas, so I'm not worried about it."
But she did not guarantee Congress will be able to finish a bill and deliver it to Obama by December in time for the Copenhagen meeting.
"I want to take this as far as we can take it (before Copenhagen). The more we do the better," Boxer said.
Senator Charles Grassley, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which also has a significant role in developing the climate legislation, was more pessimistic. "I don't even expect it to come up this year" in the Senate, he told reporters. "
This is one of the worst bills to ever come before the Congress. Passing it now (if ever) would create very serious pain in an already suffering economy.
Its sheer stupidity.
The Chicken Littles in the Democratic Party, rather than avoiding a falling sky, are much more likely to bring it down on all of us.
Avoiding a lot of CO2 without ruining the country
Next Big Future says improving and adding to existing nukes can save a lot of CO2 emissions. They say that the US currently avoids 700 million tons of CO2 emissions from existing nukes.
Other things, including annular fuel, speeding the buildout of new nuke plants, and building liquid flouride thorium reactors to reduce coal burning would help as well. They list other alternatives, as well.
Annular fuel would increase existing nukes' output by 50%.
Developing these things would make a lot more sense than Obama's "cap and tax" bill, and would certainly be a lot cheaper in the long run.
But Obama's pals wouldn't get to make the big bucks trading the CO2 "permits" provided for under the bill.
I have never understood why we are unable to get our government to act sensibly on energy. Nuclear and other technology is there if the government would just get out of the way.
Go and read the story.
Other things, including annular fuel, speeding the buildout of new nuke plants, and building liquid flouride thorium reactors to reduce coal burning would help as well. They list other alternatives, as well.
Annular fuel would increase existing nukes' output by 50%.
Developing these things would make a lot more sense than Obama's "cap and tax" bill, and would certainly be a lot cheaper in the long run.
But Obama's pals wouldn't get to make the big bucks trading the CO2 "permits" provided for under the bill.
I have never understood why we are unable to get our government to act sensibly on energy. Nuclear and other technology is there if the government would just get out of the way.
Go and read the story.
The Only Thing Stimulated In a Government Stimulus
Ed Morrissey has an article over at AIP that discusses what the "stimulus" bill stimulates:
"A new GAO review of the $787 billion stimulus package tells us what we should have known all along. When government spends money themselves to stimulate the economy rather than let citizens have their own money to spend, the only part of the economy that gets stimulated is government itself. " (My emphasis)
Who would have guessed? The liberals in Congress rushed this bill through with anyone even having a chance to read it, without any input, and without letting the public in on any of it.
This is the kind of hope and change we can expect from the Democrats, and probabaly from a lot of the Republicans as well. Over three quarters of a trillion dollars, which is equal to about $100,000 per household of four, is blown proping up government programs that need to be pared back.
What could your family have done with that money? Better than the government, I would bet.
Read the whole article.
And think about getting a new bunch of politicians.
"A new GAO review of the $787 billion stimulus package tells us what we should have known all along. When government spends money themselves to stimulate the economy rather than let citizens have their own money to spend, the only part of the economy that gets stimulated is government itself. " (My emphasis)
Who would have guessed? The liberals in Congress rushed this bill through with anyone even having a chance to read it, without any input, and without letting the public in on any of it.
This is the kind of hope and change we can expect from the Democrats, and probabaly from a lot of the Republicans as well. Over three quarters of a trillion dollars, which is equal to about $100,000 per household of four, is blown proping up government programs that need to be pared back.
What could your family have done with that money? Better than the government, I would bet.
Read the whole article.
And think about getting a new bunch of politicians.
“America’s long-awaited fiscal train wreck is now under way.”
That is a quote from Morgan Stanley's Chief Economist, Richard Berner. This from Politico:
"By “train wreck,” he means out-of-control federal budget deficits that he’s sure will finally drag the economy under — as if we weren’t already feeling badly enough about its shaky state."
I don't know that this should be a surprise to anybody. We have been on this course for several decades.
Now it is catching up with us.
Some propose that we spend and borrow even more to "cure" the problem.
Utter madness.
"By “train wreck,” he means out-of-control federal budget deficits that he’s sure will finally drag the economy under — as if we weren’t already feeling badly enough about its shaky state."
I don't know that this should be a surprise to anybody. We have been on this course for several decades.
Now it is catching up with us.
Some propose that we spend and borrow even more to "cure" the problem.
Utter madness.
You know its a slow news day when
Drudge links to a story about Michelle Obama's purse that she carried in Russia in the New York Daily News. Seems somebody thought it was a $6,000 purse, while the White House says it was an $875 purse.
Who cares? Its their money. Let them spend it whatever way they want.
I am a lot more concerned about the silly ways Obama plans to spend the tax money I pay.
Everyone should be. Its madness.
Who cares? Its their money. Let them spend it whatever way they want.
I am a lot more concerned about the silly ways Obama plans to spend the tax money I pay.
Everyone should be. Its madness.
Brown Manure, Not Green Shoots
That is the title of a column over at Forbes by Nouriel Roubini, the economics guru from New York University who has probably been the most right so far on the current financial crisis.
His comments are on the June unemployment report, which, of course, was pretty grim at 9.5% unemployment.
He says its not the end:
" With the current rate of job losses, it is very clear that the unemployment rate could reach 10% by later this summer--around August or September--and will be closer to 10.5%, if not 11%, by year-end. I expect the unemployment rate is going to peak at around 11% at some point in 2010, well above historical standards for even severe recessions."
He may well be too optimistic. This is by far the worst recession since the Great Depression, and if anything goes wrong....well, another Great Depression could occur.
And the jobs report is not all there is to it:
"The job market report is essentially the tip of the iceberg. It's a significant signal of the weaknesses in the economy. It affects consumer confidence. It affects labor income. It affects consumption. It affects the willingness of firms to start increasing production. It has significant consequences of the housing market. And it has significant consequences, of course, on the banking system."
Does this latter mean that the government is going to feel like it has to pour a lot more money into the bottomless pit that is our banking system? Just think that for every trillion dollars that goes to the banks every household of four could get $130,000 in cash. There has been several trillion, and much of it has been added to the national debt. So instead of getting the cash, each household has, in effect, given it to the banks.
Roubini does not have an optimistic outlook:
"....large budget deficits and their monetization are going to lead--toward the end of next year and in 2011--to an increase in expected inflation that may lead to a further increase in 10-year treasuries and other long-term government bond yields, and thus mortgage and private-market rates. Together with higher oil prices driven up by this wall of liquidity rather than fundamentals alone, this could be the double whammy that could push the economy into a double-dip or W-shaped recession by late 2010 or 2011. "
My take is that the outlook is grim for another year or two, and that the government is going to try another round of bank bailouts, along with having severe pressures put on to bail out profligate state and local governments. Don't look for anything for the people, though. This government is more interested in taking care of the politicians and the banks. I do suspect, however, that ACORN will get its "share."
His comments are on the June unemployment report, which, of course, was pretty grim at 9.5% unemployment.
He says its not the end:
" With the current rate of job losses, it is very clear that the unemployment rate could reach 10% by later this summer--around August or September--and will be closer to 10.5%, if not 11%, by year-end. I expect the unemployment rate is going to peak at around 11% at some point in 2010, well above historical standards for even severe recessions."
He may well be too optimistic. This is by far the worst recession since the Great Depression, and if anything goes wrong....well, another Great Depression could occur.
And the jobs report is not all there is to it:
"The job market report is essentially the tip of the iceberg. It's a significant signal of the weaknesses in the economy. It affects consumer confidence. It affects labor income. It affects consumption. It affects the willingness of firms to start increasing production. It has significant consequences of the housing market. And it has significant consequences, of course, on the banking system."
Does this latter mean that the government is going to feel like it has to pour a lot more money into the bottomless pit that is our banking system? Just think that for every trillion dollars that goes to the banks every household of four could get $130,000 in cash. There has been several trillion, and much of it has been added to the national debt. So instead of getting the cash, each household has, in effect, given it to the banks.
Roubini does not have an optimistic outlook:
"....large budget deficits and their monetization are going to lead--toward the end of next year and in 2011--to an increase in expected inflation that may lead to a further increase in 10-year treasuries and other long-term government bond yields, and thus mortgage and private-market rates. Together with higher oil prices driven up by this wall of liquidity rather than fundamentals alone, this could be the double whammy that could push the economy into a double-dip or W-shaped recession by late 2010 or 2011. "
My take is that the outlook is grim for another year or two, and that the government is going to try another round of bank bailouts, along with having severe pressures put on to bail out profligate state and local governments. Don't look for anything for the people, though. This government is more interested in taking care of the politicians and the banks. I do suspect, however, that ACORN will get its "share."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)