Now the Times(London) is reporting a historic breathrough on global warming at the G-8. What has happened to change things?
Well, for one thing, Hu Jintao of China went home.
For another, Barack Obama arrived.
What the new announcement is saying is that the G-8 agrees to limit "global warming" to 2 degrees Centigrade, and cut back emissions 80% by 2050. The other countries agree to the 2 degrees, but no reductions.
There is no word on whether they also agreed to hold back the tide.
Doing this is economic suicide for all 8 countries, particularly the United States.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Climate change deal fails
The Times (London) is reporting that the major developing countries (China, India) are refusing to set a target for reducing their emissions targets unless the developed countries reduce their targets substantially by 2020.
Anyone who thinks that they will do any such thing is dreaming. They will gain a great advantage over the developed countries if those countries follow the liberal pied pipers down the lane of unilateral reductions.
If Obama's "cap and trade" legislation should pass, it would leave our industries even more at the mercy of China and India. It would be like handing them millions of jobs for nothing.
Yet the left in our country, obsessed with the "chicken little" aspects of alleged "global warming" would lead us down that path, and right in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
That makes a lot of sense, doesn't?
Anyone who thinks that they will do any such thing is dreaming. They will gain a great advantage over the developed countries if those countries follow the liberal pied pipers down the lane of unilateral reductions.
If Obama's "cap and trade" legislation should pass, it would leave our industries even more at the mercy of China and India. It would be like handing them millions of jobs for nothing.
Yet the left in our country, obsessed with the "chicken little" aspects of alleged "global warming" would lead us down that path, and right in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
That makes a lot of sense, doesn't?
Stimulus plan
Shawn Ritenour over at the Ludwig von Mises Institute has the best analysis of the stimulus and its effects that I have seen. The stimulus I am taling about is the one that was rushed through in January without anyone having read it and that has failed miserably to stimulate the economy as promised.
There is much more in the article, but this sums it up perfectly:
"From an economic perspective, Obama's stimulus plan is equivalent to a giant welfare scheme. Instead of the money going to lower income Americans, however, it is meant to go to municipal bureaucrats of various stripes. Instead of productive American citizens determining what to do with their own scarce resources, the state is stepping in and dictating how they will be used. Consequently, such spending is essentially government consumption, which is what vulgar Keynesians think we need now more than ever. Such economists are shocked — shocked! — to find out that Americans are now saving any increases in income instead of blowing it on even more consumer goods. Not to worry, however. If private citizens do not consume enough for official tastes, the government always can.
Certainly we can expect that when the government spends a trillion dollars this will provide a positive statistical boost to GDP, if for no other reason that government spending makes up a significant portion of GDP. Where, however, does the state get the money to spend? Ah, as Hamlet might say, there's the rub. There are only three ways the government can obtain funds to throw at all their shovel-ready projects and all three leave in their wake negative economic consequences."
Read the whole thing.
There is much more in the article, but this sums it up perfectly:
"From an economic perspective, Obama's stimulus plan is equivalent to a giant welfare scheme. Instead of the money going to lower income Americans, however, it is meant to go to municipal bureaucrats of various stripes. Instead of productive American citizens determining what to do with their own scarce resources, the state is stepping in and dictating how they will be used. Consequently, such spending is essentially government consumption, which is what vulgar Keynesians think we need now more than ever. Such economists are shocked — shocked! — to find out that Americans are now saving any increases in income instead of blowing it on even more consumer goods. Not to worry, however. If private citizens do not consume enough for official tastes, the government always can.
Certainly we can expect that when the government spends a trillion dollars this will provide a positive statistical boost to GDP, if for no other reason that government spending makes up a significant portion of GDP. Where, however, does the state get the money to spend? Ah, as Hamlet might say, there's the rub. There are only three ways the government can obtain funds to throw at all their shovel-ready projects and all three leave in their wake negative economic consequences."
Read the whole thing.
In California, even the IOUs are owed
California just keeps getting picked upon, but its just too fat a target to avoid.
The New York Times is now reporting that even folks who were to be given IOUs aren't getting them.
"....across California on Tuesday, many vendors who had been told they would receive the i.o.u.’s instead of actual money said they had not yet received them. And if they do not arrive soon, they may be hard to turn into cash."
The IOUs, which do not have the full faith and credit of the state behind them, are supposedly being handed out to vendors and others because California is too broke to pay cash. Apparently they are only promises of promises to pay.
Meanwhile Drudge reports that the California legislature has gotten into a food fight....literally. The Democrats, who control the lege, are trying to pass some food regulations rather than deal with the budget. The budget, of course, is at an impass because one side wants to cut spending, and the other wants to raise taxes.
With California's credit ratings headed into the tank, one might think that they would be able to cut expenditures and balance the budget, particularly after voters in May soundly rejected new taxes to do so. But the Democrats, controlled by the large public employee unions, refuse to budge.
Meanwhile, as the Times points out:
"People expecting money from the state who do not get a warrant by Friday have three choices. They can try to find an alternative bank or credit union willing to deal with someone who is not a customer, they can hold the warrant until it matures and collect the interest, or they can try their luck in secondary markets, where some people are already seeking to buy i.o.u.’s at a discount."
As Obama's favorite minister would say; "The chickens, they are a comin' home to roost."
The New York Times is now reporting that even folks who were to be given IOUs aren't getting them.
"....across California on Tuesday, many vendors who had been told they would receive the i.o.u.’s instead of actual money said they had not yet received them. And if they do not arrive soon, they may be hard to turn into cash."
The IOUs, which do not have the full faith and credit of the state behind them, are supposedly being handed out to vendors and others because California is too broke to pay cash. Apparently they are only promises of promises to pay.
Meanwhile Drudge reports that the California legislature has gotten into a food fight....literally. The Democrats, who control the lege, are trying to pass some food regulations rather than deal with the budget. The budget, of course, is at an impass because one side wants to cut spending, and the other wants to raise taxes.
With California's credit ratings headed into the tank, one might think that they would be able to cut expenditures and balance the budget, particularly after voters in May soundly rejected new taxes to do so. But the Democrats, controlled by the large public employee unions, refuse to budge.
Meanwhile, as the Times points out:
"People expecting money from the state who do not get a warrant by Friday have three choices. They can try to find an alternative bank or credit union willing to deal with someone who is not a customer, they can hold the warrant until it matures and collect the interest, or they can try their luck in secondary markets, where some people are already seeking to buy i.o.u.’s at a discount."
As Obama's favorite minister would say; "The chickens, they are a comin' home to roost."
Our Congress(ional staff) at work
Seems like the computers at the Congress got slowed down because so many staffers were watching the MJ funeral on the web.
According to Politico:
"Another staffer tells Shenan that everyone in Cannon is watching the memorial. "All the offices have closed their doors" and "literally the halls are empty." Plus, there was a sighting of a teary-eyed intern. "Thank God we have late votes today," added the staffer, "I would body-check anyone who tried to change the channel to CSPAN right now.""
Doesn't it make every one of you warm and fuzzy to think that these are the people making laws for us?
According to Politico:
"Another staffer tells Shenan that everyone in Cannon is watching the memorial. "All the offices have closed their doors" and "literally the halls are empty." Plus, there was a sighting of a teary-eyed intern. "Thank God we have late votes today," added the staffer, "I would body-check anyone who tried to change the channel to CSPAN right now.""
Doesn't it make every one of you warm and fuzzy to think that these are the people making laws for us?
Citizens' revolt in California
Back in May, California had 6 ballot intiatives designed to fund the gap between state income and outgo, and 5 of them were heavily backed by the political class, the big newspapers, and the public sector unions. The sixth one limited elected officials' salaries.
Guess which one passed and which five failed. You got it.
Now, the political class is up in arms. They won't cut back anywhere. So California is broke and issuing IOUs instead of paying in cash.
Reason has piece by Matt Welsh that covers it pretty well:
"During the last two decades, the Golden State has been transformed from what was once known as the nation’s most anti-labor outpost to a state essentially run by public-sector unions. Nearly three in five publicsector workers are unionized, compared to less than two in five public employees in other states. The Democratic Party, which is fully in hock to unions, has controlled the legislature and most statewide posts, with the notable exception of the governor’s mansion, for more than a decade. That means more government workers, higher salaries, and drastically higher pension costs. "
Now, the public is rebelling, and its about time.
"California is the Ghost of Federal Government Future."
Is what has been happening in California something we can look for in the rest of the country? Well, consider this:
"The federal government is now run by a president and Congress more responsive to union concerns than any in at least two decades. The same bloat currently bogging down statehouses and city halls is being duplicated in boomtown Washington, D.C. President Barack Obama even brought Andy Stern in to help warn Schwarzenegger that federal stimulus money would not be disbursed to California unless the governor rescinded some proposed state job cuts. Though that threat was later withdrawn, Schwarzenegger at press time was pushing for a measly work force reduction of 2 percent."
So, what can we conclude?
"Faced with a political class that ignored bureaucratic inefficiency, that demanded higher taxes, that filled the newspapers with scare stories about people who will literally die as a result of budget cuts, the citizens of one of the bluest states in the nation collectively said we just don’t believe you anymore. If even California’s famous fruits and nuts can call the statists’ bluff, there may be hope for the rest of the country. "
Read the whole thing here.
Guess which one passed and which five failed. You got it.
Now, the political class is up in arms. They won't cut back anywhere. So California is broke and issuing IOUs instead of paying in cash.
Reason has piece by Matt Welsh that covers it pretty well:
"During the last two decades, the Golden State has been transformed from what was once known as the nation’s most anti-labor outpost to a state essentially run by public-sector unions. Nearly three in five publicsector workers are unionized, compared to less than two in five public employees in other states. The Democratic Party, which is fully in hock to unions, has controlled the legislature and most statewide posts, with the notable exception of the governor’s mansion, for more than a decade. That means more government workers, higher salaries, and drastically higher pension costs. "
Now, the public is rebelling, and its about time.
"California is the Ghost of Federal Government Future."
Is what has been happening in California something we can look for in the rest of the country? Well, consider this:
"The federal government is now run by a president and Congress more responsive to union concerns than any in at least two decades. The same bloat currently bogging down statehouses and city halls is being duplicated in boomtown Washington, D.C. President Barack Obama even brought Andy Stern in to help warn Schwarzenegger that federal stimulus money would not be disbursed to California unless the governor rescinded some proposed state job cuts. Though that threat was later withdrawn, Schwarzenegger at press time was pushing for a measly work force reduction of 2 percent."
So, what can we conclude?
"Faced with a political class that ignored bureaucratic inefficiency, that demanded higher taxes, that filled the newspapers with scare stories about people who will literally die as a result of budget cuts, the citizens of one of the bluest states in the nation collectively said we just don’t believe you anymore. If even California’s famous fruits and nuts can call the statists’ bluff, there may be hope for the rest of the country. "
Read the whole thing here.
Congress and medicine
Starting the blogging day wondering why, if socialized medicine is so good for us, Congress is exempting itself from the rules.
Of course, Congress is very good at exempting itself from onerous rules it passes for those of us in the hinterland.
We need to throw all the bums out and start over.
Of course, Congress is very good at exempting itself from onerous rules it passes for those of us in the hinterland.
We need to throw all the bums out and start over.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Debt is capitalism’s dirty little secret
Ben Funnell has a commentary over on the Financial Times that makes some very interest and thought provoking points.
We have seen a huge concentration of wealth over the years into the hands of the elite, and this has been made possible by debt, which enabled the bulk of the population to maintains its living standards while it was occurring. This is capitalism's "dirty little secret."
He points out that incomes have increased for the highest 20% of earners by 60% since 1970, but have decreased by 10% for the rest. He points out that the Walton Family, of Wal Mart fame is wealthier than the bottom 100 million people in the US put together. If that is true, we have a problem, that is certain.
He goes on to say:
"Put simply, the benefits of economic growth have gone into the pockets of plutocrats rather than the bulk of the population. So why has there been no revolution? Because there was a solution: debt. If you couldn’t earn it, you could borrow it. Cheap financing was made widely available. Financial innovations such as the asset-backed securities market aided this process, as did government-sponsored agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Regulators welcomed it all while perhaps taking insufficient account of the moral hazard problem it posed: that ever-increasing leverage meant the authorities had to keep interest rates low, otherwise the debt burden would cripple consumption. This prompted more leverage, which exacerbated the problem."
Now here comes the crash, so what do we do? The debt is no longer available to help cover the problem.
"What can be done? First, although it is not ideal, we should not be too hasty about abandoning the capitalist model. It is less bad than any other system yet invented. But we should redouble our efforts to increase productivity through innovation and creating new markets; simply squeezing lower-income workers is a bad option, which helped get us into this mess in the first place. This requires investment in education and research. Second, we have to learn to live within our means. This means spending less than we earn, perhaps doing without the BMWs, flat-screen television sets and leather sofas. Third, we should be careful in distributing the higher tax burden that we will inevitably have to bear over the coming decade. Very high marginal tax rates did not work in the 1970s and will not work now. That said, income disparity at current levels is a political time-bomb that needs to be dealt with. Finally, we should all come to terms with the fact that these are structural issues needing structural solutions; they need to be enforced over a longer time period than any one government’s term. So we need a new political consensus, one aimed at reducing overall debt levels while reducing inequality by encouraging education, entrepreneurship and investment in innovation."
So, do we need a political revolution? Both of our political parties are tied to the old paradigm. If this is the problem, neither one of them is really positioned to do the right thing. They are both bought and paid for by the special interests that have gotten us where we are.
The changes he proposes, if his premise is correct, will be difficult to implement. Every politician in DC and every bureaucrat working for the government has a vested interest in the staus quo.
This seems to be something we should research. If he is right, our democracy can't last long without changes.
The last of his recommendations, which I have boldened, should be done whether or not his entire premise is correct.
If so, who will lead the revolution?
We have seen a huge concentration of wealth over the years into the hands of the elite, and this has been made possible by debt, which enabled the bulk of the population to maintains its living standards while it was occurring. This is capitalism's "dirty little secret."
He points out that incomes have increased for the highest 20% of earners by 60% since 1970, but have decreased by 10% for the rest. He points out that the Walton Family, of Wal Mart fame is wealthier than the bottom 100 million people in the US put together. If that is true, we have a problem, that is certain.
He goes on to say:
"Put simply, the benefits of economic growth have gone into the pockets of plutocrats rather than the bulk of the population. So why has there been no revolution? Because there was a solution: debt. If you couldn’t earn it, you could borrow it. Cheap financing was made widely available. Financial innovations such as the asset-backed securities market aided this process, as did government-sponsored agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Regulators welcomed it all while perhaps taking insufficient account of the moral hazard problem it posed: that ever-increasing leverage meant the authorities had to keep interest rates low, otherwise the debt burden would cripple consumption. This prompted more leverage, which exacerbated the problem."
Now here comes the crash, so what do we do? The debt is no longer available to help cover the problem.
"What can be done? First, although it is not ideal, we should not be too hasty about abandoning the capitalist model. It is less bad than any other system yet invented. But we should redouble our efforts to increase productivity through innovation and creating new markets; simply squeezing lower-income workers is a bad option, which helped get us into this mess in the first place. This requires investment in education and research. Second, we have to learn to live within our means. This means spending less than we earn, perhaps doing without the BMWs, flat-screen television sets and leather sofas. Third, we should be careful in distributing the higher tax burden that we will inevitably have to bear over the coming decade. Very high marginal tax rates did not work in the 1970s and will not work now. That said, income disparity at current levels is a political time-bomb that needs to be dealt with. Finally, we should all come to terms with the fact that these are structural issues needing structural solutions; they need to be enforced over a longer time period than any one government’s term. So we need a new political consensus, one aimed at reducing overall debt levels while reducing inequality by encouraging education, entrepreneurship and investment in innovation."
So, do we need a political revolution? Both of our political parties are tied to the old paradigm. If this is the problem, neither one of them is really positioned to do the right thing. They are both bought and paid for by the special interests that have gotten us where we are.
The changes he proposes, if his premise is correct, will be difficult to implement. Every politician in DC and every bureaucrat working for the government has a vested interest in the staus quo.
This seems to be something we should research. If he is right, our democracy can't last long without changes.
The last of his recommendations, which I have boldened, should be done whether or not his entire premise is correct.
If so, who will lead the revolution?
For those who think we can deal with China....
The Financial Times has a story, Four Rio Tinto staff detained in China. Seems there is a dispute over the negotiations over a new contractual price for the iron ore Rio Tinto sells to China.
China is also mad because Rio Tinto backed out of a deal for a Chinese company to buy into Rio Tinto.
What a way to negotiate!
China is also mad because Rio Tinto backed out of a deal for a Chinese company to buy into Rio Tinto.
What a way to negotiate!
The funeral story we should be following, but won't
Right after I posted the foregoing on Michael Jackson's funeral coverage, a friend sent me a story from the Orlando Sentinel.
Its a story of a Little League father who loved his son, and when it came down to it was willing to give his life that his son might play. Briefly, here is what happened:
"As Austin was swimming in that mountain river, he got caught in the current, his foot got jammed beneath a rock and he couldn't pull free. We all say we would give our own life for the life of our child, and we would. But Mike did it. He actually did it.
He plunged into the icy river like a shot, made his way to Austin and got himself stuck between two rocks to keep his balance. He then proceeded to hold his son's head above water for 30 minutes until he and others were able to dislodge Austin, who is named after the city where Mike went to college and rooted on his treasured Texas Longhorns."
They got a rope to Austin and the Dad gave a last heave and they pulled Austin free. But:
"Moments after he saw Austin being lifted to safety, he died in the river of hypothermia, exhaustion, drowning."
He was buried on July 2. No TV. no national coverage, no sympathy from our free press, except in Orlando.
This Dad was a better man than an infinite number of Michael Jacksons.
Perhaps we can determine the character of people by whom they celebrate. If so, there are a lot of Americans who fail the test.
Sad.
Its a story of a Little League father who loved his son, and when it came down to it was willing to give his life that his son might play. Briefly, here is what happened:
"As Austin was swimming in that mountain river, he got caught in the current, his foot got jammed beneath a rock and he couldn't pull free. We all say we would give our own life for the life of our child, and we would. But Mike did it. He actually did it.
He plunged into the icy river like a shot, made his way to Austin and got himself stuck between two rocks to keep his balance. He then proceeded to hold his son's head above water for 30 minutes until he and others were able to dislodge Austin, who is named after the city where Mike went to college and rooted on his treasured Texas Longhorns."
They got a rope to Austin and the Dad gave a last heave and they pulled Austin free. But:
"Moments after he saw Austin being lifted to safety, he died in the river of hypothermia, exhaustion, drowning."
He was buried on July 2. No TV. no national coverage, no sympathy from our free press, except in Orlando.
This Dad was a better man than an infinite number of Michael Jacksons.
Perhaps we can determine the character of people by whom they celebrate. If so, there are a lot of Americans who fail the test.
Sad.
Excess is right
A friend just called me to say that he had scrolled through his TV to find the news, and had discovered that the nine major networks had set aside 3 hours of broadcasting to cover Michael Jackson's funeral.
William Katz over at urgent Agenda has some excellent comments. Among them:
"Say nothing bad about the dead. I'm sure Jackson was an exciting entertainer. But the excess here is vulgar, a sad reflection on the values of many Americans. "
Vulgar, indeed. If one wanted to see exactly what is wrong with our news system, here it is.
It also speaks to the inanity in so many lives that they would spend that time on a person of that character, without regard to how good an entertainer one might think he was.
Shameful.
William Katz over at urgent Agenda has some excellent comments. Among them:
"Say nothing bad about the dead. I'm sure Jackson was an exciting entertainer. But the excess here is vulgar, a sad reflection on the values of many Americans. "
Vulgar, indeed. If one wanted to see exactly what is wrong with our news system, here it is.
It also speaks to the inanity in so many lives that they would spend that time on a person of that character, without regard to how good an entertainer one might think he was.
Shameful.
Calfornia's bonds now near "junk" status
CNNMoney.com is now reporting that Fitch has reduced California's debt to a rating of BBB, just shy of "junk" status. And they are still on "watch" for further downgrade. The other ratings agencies still have California rated higher, but one must remember that they rated all that subprime paper that has defaulted AAA up until the day it all crashed.
Would you buy California paper?
Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, the big banks won't accept their IOU's.
Of course, the state's employees and the politicians don't have to worry, they got cash. The next to worthless IOUs are held by the poor and elderly, who really need the money to live on. (California says the IOUs will be repaid in October, but they will be in a $17 billion hole then.)
What's more, the state has now added to the pain by changing the terms of the IOUs to require a notarized bill of sale before anyone but the recipient can cash one. That means that the holders are stuck with them until they can be redeemed.
Talk about a train wreck.
Would you buy California paper?
Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, the big banks won't accept their IOU's.
Of course, the state's employees and the politicians don't have to worry, they got cash. The next to worthless IOUs are held by the poor and elderly, who really need the money to live on. (California says the IOUs will be repaid in October, but they will be in a $17 billion hole then.)
What's more, the state has now added to the pain by changing the terms of the IOUs to require a notarized bill of sale before anyone but the recipient can cash one. That means that the holders are stuck with them until they can be redeemed.
Talk about a train wreck.
Who killed California's economy?
There's a good article at Forbes by Joel Kotkin that tries to answer that. He points out 5 suspects: the governor, the public employees, the environmentalists, the business community, and the public.
He is not kind to any of them, because all of them are responsible.
About the public sector:
"Who needs an economy when you have fat pensions and almost unlimited political power? That's the mentality of California's 356,000 workers and their unions, who make up the best-organized, best-funded and most powerful interest group in the state."
The environmentalists have their share of the blame:
"In California today, everyone who makes a buck in the private sector--from developers and manufacturers to energy producers and farmers--cringes in fear of draconian regulations in the name of protecting the environment. The activists don't much care, since they get their money from trust-funders and their nonprofits."
The business community has failed to make its case:
"...so far California's business executives have failed to adopt a strategy to make this case to the public. Nor can they count on the largely clueless Republicans for support, since GOP members are often too narrowly identified as anti-tax and anti-immigration zealots to make much of a case with the mainstream voter."
And the general public has also failed:
"At some point Californians--the ones paying the bills and getting little in return--need to rouse themselves. The problem could be demographic. Over the past few years much of our middle class has fled the state, including a growing number to "dust bowl" states like Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas from which so many Californians trace their roots."
But the governor won't be much help:
" Now he's posturing as the strong man who stands up to dominant liberal interests. But few on the left, few on the right or few in the middle take him seriously anymore. He may still earn acclaim from Manhattan media offices or Barack Obama's EPA, but in his home state he looks more an over-sized lame duck, quacking meaninglessly for the cameras. "
What needs to be said, though, is that what got California in trouble was excessive credit. They, like the United States, borrowed against the future without regard to having to pay back the money. They thought the party could go on forever, or at least it would be someone else's problem when the bills came due.
That is a terrible way to run a government. We have all been responsible at the national level. It is time we put a stop to it. Only we can do it.
He is not kind to any of them, because all of them are responsible.
About the public sector:
"Who needs an economy when you have fat pensions and almost unlimited political power? That's the mentality of California's 356,000 workers and their unions, who make up the best-organized, best-funded and most powerful interest group in the state."
The environmentalists have their share of the blame:
"In California today, everyone who makes a buck in the private sector--from developers and manufacturers to energy producers and farmers--cringes in fear of draconian regulations in the name of protecting the environment. The activists don't much care, since they get their money from trust-funders and their nonprofits."
The business community has failed to make its case:
"...so far California's business executives have failed to adopt a strategy to make this case to the public. Nor can they count on the largely clueless Republicans for support, since GOP members are often too narrowly identified as anti-tax and anti-immigration zealots to make much of a case with the mainstream voter."
And the general public has also failed:
"At some point Californians--the ones paying the bills and getting little in return--need to rouse themselves. The problem could be demographic. Over the past few years much of our middle class has fled the state, including a growing number to "dust bowl" states like Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas from which so many Californians trace their roots."
But the governor won't be much help:
" Now he's posturing as the strong man who stands up to dominant liberal interests. But few on the left, few on the right or few in the middle take him seriously anymore. He may still earn acclaim from Manhattan media offices or Barack Obama's EPA, but in his home state he looks more an over-sized lame duck, quacking meaninglessly for the cameras. "
What needs to be said, though, is that what got California in trouble was excessive credit. They, like the United States, borrowed against the future without regard to having to pay back the money. They thought the party could go on forever, or at least it would be someone else's problem when the bills came due.
That is a terrible way to run a government. We have all been responsible at the national level. It is time we put a stop to it. Only we can do it.
Wondering why
Starting the blogging day today wondering why Obama gets along better with dictators and tyrants that are our enemies than he does with democratically elected friends of the United States, particularly those in Britain, Germany and Israel.
Monday, July 6, 2009
July 6, 2009
Doing away with independent Inspectors General? It certainly looks like it. The Washington Post has the story.
Obama has already run off three of them, illegally, of course. The guy in charge of "hope and change" turns out to be another corrupt Chicago pol. No surprise except to those who drank the Koolaid.
The South Plainsman
The Best of the Web with James Taranto follows up my initial question of the day about Honduras with one of his own.
After the following quote from Rosalinda Cruz, a Justice on the Honduran Supreme Court:
"The only thing the armed forces did was carry out an arrest order," Cruz, 55, said in a telephone interview from the capital, Tegucigalpa. "There's no doubt he was preparing his own coup by conspiring to shut down the congress and courts.",
he asks his own question:
Why won't Obama listen? Does he have something against wise Latina women?
My speculation is that Obama won't listen because he likes and feels close to leftist dictators.
The South Plainsman
The Telegraph in the UK is saying the "US is lurching toward a debt explosion with interest rates on course to double."
That is not particularly a new concept, but it is rare to see the media actually report it. Of course this is from the UK, so the US media is not implicated in telling a bad truth about the economy. That would reflect upon their Messiah, Mr. Obama.
They quote a paper from 2003 by the senior Economist at the Federal Reserve, Thomas Laubach. You can read the paper here.
Really, what it says is that the more the government borrows and spends, the higher the debt gets and the higher interest rates go. Who knew?
Actually, they just predict a doubling of interest rates. My view is that they are quite likely to go even higher. But it doesn't matter. Any higher will prolong recovery.
The conclusion of the story:
"Should the cost of raising or refinancing public debt in the markets double, “the debt could just explode”, he said, adding that it would come to a head in “five to 10 years”. "
Have I worn out the Banana Republic reference? Sorry, it just keeps coming to mind.
The South Plainsman
14% Unemployment? Surely not. But that is what Louis Woodhill is predicting over at Real Clear Markets.
But what about simulus? Well, he says it won't work:
""Stimulus" is based upon the superstition that government borrowing and spending creates "demand". In reality, it does no such thing. "Stimulus" is like trying to raise the level of the Hudson River by dipping out a bucket of water, walking five feet downstream, and pouring it back in. The only difference between the Bush and Obama plans is that Obama's bucket is bigger (and will create more debt). Ironically, the July 2 jobs report prompted calls from leftist economists for Obama to go back to the river with an even bigger bucket."
His conclusion:
"Virtually everything the Obama administration wants to do will have the effect of increasing unemployment. As bad as joblessness is now, be prepared for it to get much, much worse."
It is really that simple. Our problems are caused by too much government, too much spending and too much debt. Obama's main aims are to expand each of them as far as he can.
Anybody ever been broke before?
The South Plainsman
Correcting the President. Scott Ott, who writes some great satire at his site Scrappleface is now also blogging over at Townhall, seriously. He has a great piece posted on July 4 in response to Obama's invocation of the Founding Fathers this weekend to justify his programs. Go to the site for the whole thing, which is great. Here is the conclusion:
"Finally, Mr. President, the 13 colonies did not become free and independent states by confiscating wealth from the productive sector of society and doling it out to the unproductive sector in a way that guarantees the perpetual enslavement of both.
"This new nation, conceived in liberty, was brought forth by people who said 'Enough' to a tyrant who capriciously ruled from afar -- people who were willing to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor that succeeding generations might live the freedom they bought with blood.
"Mr. President when you compare your socialized insurance program, your speculative wealth confiscation program or your Niagara Falls of spending with the endeavors of those bold patriots, you trivialize their sacrifice while you crown yourself with the Styrofoam diadem of a clown."
Well said.
The South Plainsman
California IOUs. According to the Financial Times, Wall Street is gearing up to trade in California's IOUs. And so are opportunistic entrepreneurs on Craigslist.
“If you are receiving a California IOU and you need cash immediately,
please contact me. I may be of assistance,” reads one posting."
How much are those things worth? Well, one guy wants to pay half price:
"Brandon Schlichter, a 23-year-old self-employed online marketer and blogger from
Columbus, Ohio, is among those advertising on Craigslist. He is hoping to buy
the IOUs for about half face value and has set up a website to connect buyers
and sellers for 5-10 per cent commission."
Will US Treasuries be next? Don't be so sure they won't if Obama and the liberals in Congress have their way.
Does the term "Banana Republic" ring a bell with anyone?
The South Plainsman
Robert McNamara has died. The Washington Post accurately calls him the "architect" of the Viet Nam War, which he was.
I have never understood why the voters blame the Republicans for the war when the Democrats started it, screwed it up royally, then did everything they could to undermine Republican effforts to end it honorably.
I guess if you have the press, fiction can become some version of truth. We are seeing more of that phenomenum every day.
The South Plainsman
Good news for coffee drinkers! From the University of South Florida:
"The new findings provide evidence that caffeine could be a viable 'treatment' for established Alzheimer's disease, and not simply a protective strategy," said lead author Gary Arendash, PhD, a USF neuroscientist with the Florida ADRC. "That's important because caffeine is a safe drug for most people, it easily enters the brain, and it appears to directly affect the disease process."
The whole story is here.
The South Plainsman
Ross Douthat writing in the New York Times, says Palin should have just said "no." I have to agree with that. She was not ready for prime time.
He goes on to point out that her popularity has as much to do with class as ideology
In this sense, she really is the perfect foil for Barack Obama. Our president
represents the meritocratic ideal — that anyone, from any background, can grow
up to attend Columbia and Harvard Law School and become a great American success story. But Sarah Palin represents the democratic ideal — that anyone can grow up to be a great success story without graduating from Columbia and Harvard.
She probably never understood the wringer she would be put through for agreeing to run with McCain, until it happened. Woefully unprepared, she blew it. She "tarnished" the "democratic ideal."
But, he says, its also been tarnished by the elites themselves, including the media, by the way they have treated her. I have to agree that they went far overboard, and still are doing so. The purveyors of "hope and change" have continued with the same old gutter politics we have come to expect from them. They hate anyone that is not like them.
Shame.
The South Plainsman
Kevin Hasset over at Bloomberg says that California's nightmare will cause Obamanomics a lot of trouble.The California morass has Democrats in Washington trembling. The reason is simple. If Obama’s health-care plan passes, then we may well end up paying for it with federal slips of paper worth less than California’s. Obama has bet everything on passing health care this year. The publicity surrounding the California debt fiasco almost assures his resounding defeat.
The cause is simple, he says:
All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.
This sounds awfully familiar. In fact it seems like the pols in Washington have been doing the same thing for four decades.
The result will be the same, too. Busted!
The South Plainsman
Starting out the blogging day wondering why Obama is siding with the socialist/communist dictators in the Caribbean and South America, guys like Castro and Chavez, against the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras, who removed the President thereof for having violated their constitution. Birds of a feather?
Sunday, July 5, 2009
July 5, 2009
Sarah Palin
It seems the whole world is talking about Sarah Palin, and her resignation as Governor of Alaska.
What is she going to do? Is she still running for President? Is she leaving politics? Did she commit political suicide, or is it a smart tactic? Why in the world would she do that?
Some of those questions are impossible to answer....only she and time will be able to do that. The answer to the last question above may be easier.
Ever since she exploded upon the national scene with her appointment as McCain's VP, the liberals and the press (sorry for the redundancy) have scrutinized her every move and every word, all quite critically. They have even done the same to her family. In my seventy years, I have never seen anything quite like it.
Why would they hate her so? One could easily conclude that the have that visceral anti-Palin feeling because she scares them.
She is different from them. She is not an elite like they are. She is pretty much a down home ordinary type of lady who happened to be bright enough to get herself elected Governor of her state. She is not afraid to take on the left, but had a good record of bi-partisanship in Alaska before the destruction began in earnest.
Her speech at the GOP Convention electrified the base of the party, something that neither John McCain nor any of the other candidates could do. She was not up on the national issues, and was not really ready for prime time, but she struck a real chord with the people who were dissatisfied with the nominee and all of the other choices. This is probably what frightened the left.
So the left set out to destroy her. They have done a lot of damage to her and her family. Much of what they did has been beyond the pale. We will see if that ever comes back to haunt them.
Will she be back? I suspect so. A friend pointed out that in 2020 she will only be 52. That is prime age for national leaders.
Will she come back prepared? We will see.
She is going to have to spend some time in the political wilderness, study, learn, get around and meet people, and build a base in the electorate.
Perhaps with the resignation, the media will now go elsewhere for a while.
The South Plainsman
David Boaz talks about how our current politicians from both political powers misuse quotes and misstate beliefs of the Founders of our country for their own purposes in The Politicians and the Founders over at Cato. Both Obama and McCain were guilty of this in their radio broadcasts this weekend. His conclusion after having given examples:
"....Maybe each week there should be three national radio broadcasts: one from the incumbent president, one from the other big-government party, and one reflecting the views of the Founders."
Read it all.
The South Plainsman
John Hinderaker over at Powerline quotes Mark Steyn who is discussing horrors of the British medical system:
"......When we quote stories like these at NRO, we get a lot of e-mail saying these are just "anecdotes". And yes, if you look on yourself as being part of a government health system of millions of people, getting a bedsore and dying in hideous pain is no big deal in the scheme of things. But I look on myself as being part of the Mark Steyn health system. So if I get a bedsore and die, as far as I'm concerned, that's a 100% systemic failure. The difference between government health care and a private system is that, under the latter, you're free to say, "This dump's filthy. I'm going to the state-of-the-art joint five miles up the road." You may have to get out your checkbook, but ultimately the decisions are yours.
In a government system, the decisions are the bureaucrats', and that's that. My father is currently ill, and the health "system" is doing its best to ensure it's fatal. When an ambulance has to be called, they take him to a different hospital according to the determinations of the bed-availability bureaucrats and which facility hasn't had to be quarantined for an infection outbreak. At the first hospital, he picked up C Difficile. At the second, MRSA. At the third, like the lady above, he got septicaemia. He's lying there now, enjoying the socialized health care jackpot - C Diff, MRSA, septicaemia. None of these ailments are what he went in to be treated for. They were given to him by the medical system......"
The discussion was about a woman who went to the hospital in Britain and died from a bedsore which was ignored by the staff.
Read the whole thing here.
The South Plainsman
Thought for the day:
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same." Ronald Reagan
The South Plainsman
Now Biden chimes in: the US will not stand in the way of an Israel attack on Iran. Is it the official word? Or is he just running his mouth again with his brain disengaged? How would we know?
The New York Times has the story, and an editorial comment within the story:
"....Mr. Biden’s comments came at a particularly sensitive time, amid the continuing tumult over the disputed Iranian elections, and seemed to risk handing a besieged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a new tool with which to fan nationalist sentiments in Iran....."
A policy change for the Obama administration? Don't bet on it.
The South Plainsman
David Warren, who writes for the Ottawa Citizen hits the nail on the head when discussing affairs in the United States. Today he says we are crazy, and getting crazier for trying to solve problems in the economy which were caused by too much debt by adding much more debt. And , he says, even crazier, at the same time we are socializing medicine at great cost and initiating "cap and trade" law that will further ruin the economy. Crazy, indeed.
Read the whole thing. [link is fixed now]
The South Plainsman
The Saudis will do what we won't. The Times has the story. The Saudis will permit the Israelis to fly over Saudi Arabia to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The US won't let them use the somewhat more direct route over Iraq.
The South Plainsman
It seems the whole world is talking about Sarah Palin, and her resignation as Governor of Alaska.
What is she going to do? Is she still running for President? Is she leaving politics? Did she commit political suicide, or is it a smart tactic? Why in the world would she do that?
Some of those questions are impossible to answer....only she and time will be able to do that. The answer to the last question above may be easier.
Ever since she exploded upon the national scene with her appointment as McCain's VP, the liberals and the press (sorry for the redundancy) have scrutinized her every move and every word, all quite critically. They have even done the same to her family. In my seventy years, I have never seen anything quite like it.
Why would they hate her so? One could easily conclude that the have that visceral anti-Palin feeling because she scares them.
She is different from them. She is not an elite like they are. She is pretty much a down home ordinary type of lady who happened to be bright enough to get herself elected Governor of her state. She is not afraid to take on the left, but had a good record of bi-partisanship in Alaska before the destruction began in earnest.
Her speech at the GOP Convention electrified the base of the party, something that neither John McCain nor any of the other candidates could do. She was not up on the national issues, and was not really ready for prime time, but she struck a real chord with the people who were dissatisfied with the nominee and all of the other choices. This is probably what frightened the left.
So the left set out to destroy her. They have done a lot of damage to her and her family. Much of what they did has been beyond the pale. We will see if that ever comes back to haunt them.
Will she be back? I suspect so. A friend pointed out that in 2020 she will only be 52. That is prime age for national leaders.
Will she come back prepared? We will see.
She is going to have to spend some time in the political wilderness, study, learn, get around and meet people, and build a base in the electorate.
Perhaps with the resignation, the media will now go elsewhere for a while.
The South Plainsman
David Boaz talks about how our current politicians from both political powers misuse quotes and misstate beliefs of the Founders of our country for their own purposes in The Politicians and the Founders over at Cato. Both Obama and McCain were guilty of this in their radio broadcasts this weekend. His conclusion after having given examples:
"....Maybe each week there should be three national radio broadcasts: one from the incumbent president, one from the other big-government party, and one reflecting the views of the Founders."
Read it all.
The South Plainsman
John Hinderaker over at Powerline quotes Mark Steyn who is discussing horrors of the British medical system:
"......When we quote stories like these at NRO, we get a lot of e-mail saying these are just "anecdotes". And yes, if you look on yourself as being part of a government health system of millions of people, getting a bedsore and dying in hideous pain is no big deal in the scheme of things. But I look on myself as being part of the Mark Steyn health system. So if I get a bedsore and die, as far as I'm concerned, that's a 100% systemic failure. The difference between government health care and a private system is that, under the latter, you're free to say, "This dump's filthy. I'm going to the state-of-the-art joint five miles up the road." You may have to get out your checkbook, but ultimately the decisions are yours.
In a government system, the decisions are the bureaucrats', and that's that. My father is currently ill, and the health "system" is doing its best to ensure it's fatal. When an ambulance has to be called, they take him to a different hospital according to the determinations of the bed-availability bureaucrats and which facility hasn't had to be quarantined for an infection outbreak. At the first hospital, he picked up C Difficile. At the second, MRSA. At the third, like the lady above, he got septicaemia. He's lying there now, enjoying the socialized health care jackpot - C Diff, MRSA, septicaemia. None of these ailments are what he went in to be treated for. They were given to him by the medical system......"
The discussion was about a woman who went to the hospital in Britain and died from a bedsore which was ignored by the staff.
Read the whole thing here.
The South Plainsman
Thought for the day:
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same." Ronald Reagan
The South Plainsman
Now Biden chimes in: the US will not stand in the way of an Israel attack on Iran. Is it the official word? Or is he just running his mouth again with his brain disengaged? How would we know?
The New York Times has the story, and an editorial comment within the story:
"....Mr. Biden’s comments came at a particularly sensitive time, amid the continuing tumult over the disputed Iranian elections, and seemed to risk handing a besieged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a new tool with which to fan nationalist sentiments in Iran....."
A policy change for the Obama administration? Don't bet on it.
The South Plainsman
David Warren, who writes for the Ottawa Citizen hits the nail on the head when discussing affairs in the United States. Today he says we are crazy, and getting crazier for trying to solve problems in the economy which were caused by too much debt by adding much more debt. And , he says, even crazier, at the same time we are socializing medicine at great cost and initiating "cap and trade" law that will further ruin the economy. Crazy, indeed.
Read the whole thing. [link is fixed now]
The South Plainsman
The Saudis will do what we won't. The Times has the story. The Saudis will permit the Israelis to fly over Saudi Arabia to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. The US won't let them use the somewhat more direct route over Iraq.
The South Plainsman
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Musings
Just musing today after reading all of the frightening economic and political news.
The stock market is up good today on the news that Citi made a profit. I will bet it is not net of all the taxpayer dollars that have been and will be poured into it. Absurd.
There is news that the Democrats have introduced the "Employee Freedom of Choice Act." This is one that actually does away with freedom of employees to have a secret ballot when deciding whether or not to unionize. Typically of Democrats, its all a lie.
I note that some people are saying that the next shoe to fall on the banks will be huge credit card losses. Not a surprise. Banks were sending out many cards for years, not only to adult people, but to children, dogs, cats and canaries. Without regard to credit ratings. Now we are going to have to bail the banks out for that, too.
Does anybody know how many trillions of dollars all this bailout business is going to cost?
No?
Didn't think so.
Does anybody know who is going to pay for it?
Your children and grandchildren, that's who.
Sigh.
The stock market is up good today on the news that Citi made a profit. I will bet it is not net of all the taxpayer dollars that have been and will be poured into it. Absurd.
There is news that the Democrats have introduced the "Employee Freedom of Choice Act." This is one that actually does away with freedom of employees to have a secret ballot when deciding whether or not to unionize. Typically of Democrats, its all a lie.
I note that some people are saying that the next shoe to fall on the banks will be huge credit card losses. Not a surprise. Banks were sending out many cards for years, not only to adult people, but to children, dogs, cats and canaries. Without regard to credit ratings. Now we are going to have to bail the banks out for that, too.
Does anybody know how many trillions of dollars all this bailout business is going to cost?
No?
Didn't think so.
Does anybody know who is going to pay for it?
Your children and grandchildren, that's who.
Sigh.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Resuming, once again
It seems like every time I post here it has been a long time since the last one. When I started this, I had no intention of doing it daily. I just didn't want to be tied down to it. I still don't.
From the beginning, I have been operating under the strictures of the judicial code of ethics which limits us in commenting upon political candidates. As a result. most of my posts about politics were restrained, to say the least.
This year there are no candidates, so I can be less restrained, and that is a huge relief. There will be a lot to post about.
Last year I pointed out the strange relationships that now President Obama had with some really unsavory characters. The first three that come to mind are Reverend Wright, whose church Obama attended for around 20 years; Saul Alinsky, a radical community organizer whom Obama did not know, but whose philosophy and methods Obama faithfully follows; and the terrorist, Bill Ayers, who should still be in prison, but instead holds a prestigious job at a university in Chicago.
What do these three have in common? They are all radicals wanting to greatly change America. But is it the change we want?
Alinsky worked closely with Communists in much of his organizing. He says he was not one, but he certainly empowered them within the labor movements of the 1920s and 1930s.
Reverend Wright, of course, follows the Black Liberation Theology introduced by James Cone. It, in turn, is based upon the Liberation Theology that originated in Central America which clearly had Marxist roots. He and his followers clearly hate our America.
Ayers? Well, Bill Ayers was a terrorist. People died as a result of his efforts. He has no regrets.
Strange bedfellows? Of course. And the list doesn't include his pals in the Chicago and Illinois political machines, some (or many?) of whom are headed to prison.
Are you now still wondering who Obama is? If so, just look at what he has tried to do just since the inauguration.
He is exactly who he said he was if you had listened and heard what he really was saying. He is a Marxist/Socialist redistributionist who will destroy our free economy in search of equality of outcomes. Just like Marx preached.
The gloves are off.
From the beginning, I have been operating under the strictures of the judicial code of ethics which limits us in commenting upon political candidates. As a result. most of my posts about politics were restrained, to say the least.
This year there are no candidates, so I can be less restrained, and that is a huge relief. There will be a lot to post about.
Last year I pointed out the strange relationships that now President Obama had with some really unsavory characters. The first three that come to mind are Reverend Wright, whose church Obama attended for around 20 years; Saul Alinsky, a radical community organizer whom Obama did not know, but whose philosophy and methods Obama faithfully follows; and the terrorist, Bill Ayers, who should still be in prison, but instead holds a prestigious job at a university in Chicago.
What do these three have in common? They are all radicals wanting to greatly change America. But is it the change we want?
Alinsky worked closely with Communists in much of his organizing. He says he was not one, but he certainly empowered them within the labor movements of the 1920s and 1930s.
Reverend Wright, of course, follows the Black Liberation Theology introduced by James Cone. It, in turn, is based upon the Liberation Theology that originated in Central America which clearly had Marxist roots. He and his followers clearly hate our America.
Ayers? Well, Bill Ayers was a terrorist. People died as a result of his efforts. He has no regrets.
Strange bedfellows? Of course. And the list doesn't include his pals in the Chicago and Illinois political machines, some (or many?) of whom are headed to prison.
Are you now still wondering who Obama is? If so, just look at what he has tried to do just since the inauguration.
He is exactly who he said he was if you had listened and heard what he really was saying. He is a Marxist/Socialist redistributionist who will destroy our free economy in search of equality of outcomes. Just like Marx preached.
The gloves are off.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
"The World Turned Upside Down"
That is the title of the song played by the English band as the troops under Lord Cornwallis marched out to lay down their arms outside Yorktown on October 19, 1781. Indeed, the world was upside down in English eyes that day. After over six years of bloody rebellion and very hard times for the people of America, victory was at hand, although it took another two years before the signing of the Treaty of Paris.
It was amazing how Americans undertook every hardship, risked their lives and fortunes, to throw off the yoke of repressive government and bring freedom and liberty to their country.
Of course, it was not a country, yet. It was not until eight years after Yorktown that a new Constitution was hammered out and adopted, creating the United States of America.
It was not easy to get there, of course. Then, like now, there were factions in the body politic, and they fought fiercely for their points of view.
One faction wanted a very strong central government, perhaps even a monarchy; another did not trust government at all, and wanted a very weak central government.
The result came down on the side of a central government that was strong enough to regulate commerce between the states and with foreigners, and to provide for national defense, but with very detailed limitations on the exercise of other powers. The real story is that the Constitution would not have been adopted without the first ten amendments that were added. All of those placed very specific restrictions upon the government, and reserved all those powers not specified in the Constitution to the states and to the People.
Through the years, disputes have continued, with some wanting to expand the powers of the central government far beyond the limitations of the Constitution, and others fighting to maintain appropriate limitations as provided by the Constitution. In spite of the tendencies of the courts to tinker with the limitations over the years, we still have had limited government to a large extent.
Until now.
Now we see the Treasury of the United States, in league with the Federal Reserve, engaged in distributing trillions of dollars to private institutions, mostly financial, without a shred of legal basis either in the Constitution or laws of the United States. Worse, they won't even tell the people or the Congress the specifics of how much and to whom.
George W. Bush, the lame duck President of the United States, who was elected supposedly supporting limited government, is now authorizing acts that go far beyond what is allowed by the Constitution. The Congress seems to be acquiescing, although it has certainly not passed any legislation permitting what they are doing.
It seems like the President and the Congress cannot just say "No" when the expenditure of large sums of money is concerned. Mr. Bush never has. The Congress gets its campaign funds with the ability to pass out taxpayers' money, so there is no hope there.
If one looks at where the money is going, one can immediately see that it is going to the big contributors to our politicians. Just check out the contributions by all those institutions to our politicians. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into political campaigns the last few years from those companies and their employees. Now we see what they have bought.
The most outrageous part of all of this bailout business is that the people who did everything wrong, who created this economic mess, who profited from it, who ought to be the big losers, are the ones getting all of this Federal money.
Who pays you might ask?
Everyone who did the right thing, that's who will pay.
"The World Turned Upside Down," indeed.
It was amazing how Americans undertook every hardship, risked their lives and fortunes, to throw off the yoke of repressive government and bring freedom and liberty to their country.
Of course, it was not a country, yet. It was not until eight years after Yorktown that a new Constitution was hammered out and adopted, creating the United States of America.
It was not easy to get there, of course. Then, like now, there were factions in the body politic, and they fought fiercely for their points of view.
One faction wanted a very strong central government, perhaps even a monarchy; another did not trust government at all, and wanted a very weak central government.
The result came down on the side of a central government that was strong enough to regulate commerce between the states and with foreigners, and to provide for national defense, but with very detailed limitations on the exercise of other powers. The real story is that the Constitution would not have been adopted without the first ten amendments that were added. All of those placed very specific restrictions upon the government, and reserved all those powers not specified in the Constitution to the states and to the People.
Through the years, disputes have continued, with some wanting to expand the powers of the central government far beyond the limitations of the Constitution, and others fighting to maintain appropriate limitations as provided by the Constitution. In spite of the tendencies of the courts to tinker with the limitations over the years, we still have had limited government to a large extent.
Until now.
Now we see the Treasury of the United States, in league with the Federal Reserve, engaged in distributing trillions of dollars to private institutions, mostly financial, without a shred of legal basis either in the Constitution or laws of the United States. Worse, they won't even tell the people or the Congress the specifics of how much and to whom.
George W. Bush, the lame duck President of the United States, who was elected supposedly supporting limited government, is now authorizing acts that go far beyond what is allowed by the Constitution. The Congress seems to be acquiescing, although it has certainly not passed any legislation permitting what they are doing.
It seems like the President and the Congress cannot just say "No" when the expenditure of large sums of money is concerned. Mr. Bush never has. The Congress gets its campaign funds with the ability to pass out taxpayers' money, so there is no hope there.
If one looks at where the money is going, one can immediately see that it is going to the big contributors to our politicians. Just check out the contributions by all those institutions to our politicians. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into political campaigns the last few years from those companies and their employees. Now we see what they have bought.
The most outrageous part of all of this bailout business is that the people who did everything wrong, who created this economic mess, who profited from it, who ought to be the big losers, are the ones getting all of this Federal money.
Who pays you might ask?
Everyone who did the right thing, that's who will pay.
"The World Turned Upside Down," indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)