Opensecrets.org is a great site to explore, and I encourage everyone to go there and browse.
I was doing so today, and came across their list of heavy hitters: the biggest contributors to political campaigns over the last 20 years.
One clear thing is that labor unions were, as a group, by far the biggest givers, to the tune of $184,906,000. That is $184 Million.
ATT was the biggest single company at over $43 Million. Goldman Sachs managed only fourth place with over $31 Million. But they got several Secretaries of the Treasury for their trouble.
Go here and see who "owns" our politicians. Click at the bottom of the list of ten to see the whole list, and to which party the contributions were made.
Something has to change. Who will lead the revolution?
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The Next Financial Crisis
Its already coming. And, if the trends remain the same, it will be even worse than this one has been.
There is an excellent article in The New Republic with this title, written by Peter Boone and Simon Johnson.
The past crisis was certainly mitigated by the actions of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, but what they did sowed the seeds of the next crisis. And what they continue to do will make it worse.
This has happened many times before:
" We have seen this spectacle--the Fed saving us from one crisis only to instigate another--many times before. And, over the past few decades, the problem has become significantly more dire. The fault, to be sure, doesn’t lie entirely with the Fed. Bernanke is a prisoner of a financial system with serious built-in flaws. The decisions he made during the recent crisis weren’t necessarily the wrong decisions; indeed, they were, in many respects, the decisions he had to make. But these decisions, however necessary in the moment, are almost guaranteed to hurt our economy in the long run--which, in turn, means that more necessary but harmful measures will be needed in the future. It is a debilitating, vicious cycle. And at the center of this cycle is the Fed."
Back in the "old days" before the Federal Reserve was created, if you ran a bank and lost your depositors' money, the bankers' personal assets and income could be taken to help cover the losses.
"In the United States, there was great experimentation with banking during the 1800s, but those involved in the enterprise typically made a substantial commitment of their own capital. For example, there was a well-established tradition of “double liability,” in which stockholders were responsible for twice the original value of their shares in a bank. This encouraged stockholders to carefully monitor bank executives and employees. And, in turn, it placed a lot of pressure on those who managed banks. If they fared poorly, they typically faced personal and professional ruin. The idea that a bank executive would retain wealth and social status in the event of a self-induced calamity would have struck everyone--including bank executives themselves--as ludicrous."
In 1913 the Federal Reserve was created, and it went to work using liquidity loans and low interest rates to cushion banks in difficulty by reducing their costs.
"But, by insulating banks from the terrible consequences of their own blunders, these measures would also encourage them to keep taking unwise risks, and thereby lay the groundwork for future crises."
The Fed has made many errors with this. In the summer of 1927 it lowered interest rates, fueling the boom that crashed in the fall of 1929. It had belatedly raised rates in 1928, but that did not stop the frenzy. After the crash, it then kept interest too high into 1933, causing many banks to fail.
During the Great Depression, banking came under increasing regulation, and the rules were tightened so that risk taking was more difficult.
But:
"....eventually, banks would learn how to play the new game. They would spend serious money lobbying to keep regulations lax, hiring lawyers and accountants to find methods to minimize or avoid regulations, and incentivizing employees to hide risk from regulators. While the banking sector became more risky, creditors to banks (such as depositors and lenders) knew they could count on the Fed to engineer bailouts via lower interest rates and access to credit if times got tough--so banks had no trouble raising funding from creditors, and our financial system grew rapidly."
As time went on, the Fed continued to protect the banks. In the 1980s, Volcker lowered interest rates during the Latin American debt crisis [and simply ignored it when some banks were technically insolvent]. That caused a real estate boom that resulted in the S&L debacle of 1987. So interest rates were lowered again creating problems in real estate again, and then in the Asian markets. They crashed, then the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund created a "systemic risk" and rates were lowered again, fueling the Hi-tech bubble, also treated with low interest rates. which created the current burst bubble. You get the idea.
Saving the big banks from themselves is getting far more expensive than it used to be:
"Based on what we have seen over the past two decades, the cost of the next collapse will invariably be steep. Since the early 1980s, the Fed has gone back to its origins as the bailout machine for the financial sector. The only difference is that this sector has become much larger since 1907 or 1913. Back then, it accounted for around one percent of GDP. Now it is closer to 8 percent. The cost of bailouts--the current one and those to come--has skyrocketed as a result."
So, what do the big banks get from all of this? Its very simple:
"Consider the lessons learned in the past twelve months by our major banks. If they again get into serious financial trouble, the Fed can be counted on to lend them essentially unlimited amounts at effectively zero interest rates. What would you do with free money? You’d pay off all your old debts, then you’d find something to invest in that would yield a decent return. But then you’d reckon--why not take more risk? After all, if things go badly, you’ll get more free money."
They propose some solutions that might work, but may not be tough enough.
First, banks should have more capital to cover loan losses than is now permitted. Now, it is about 8%, which is ridiculously low.
Second, they propose that banks and their officers, directors and shareholders be at least partly responsible financially when their banks go broke [I would make them fully responsible].
Third, they say we should stop the merry-go-round from the banks to the government and back to the banks. My thought is that right now, because of this, we have the actual perpetrators of the crisis involved in bailing out their former companies. This is simply atrocious.
Last, they say the Fed should take more of a leadership role in regulation the system. My thought is that we should at least consider doing away with the Fed, or curtailing its powers to prevent this continual boom and bust cycle.
At least we should audit the Fed on a frequent basis. There is far too much secrecy there.
They conclude that if the Fed doesn't take the lead in better regulation, it will continue to be the "handmaiden to repeated bailouts." And that the peril to our system becomes even worse with each one.
This is a great article. I somewhat disagree with them in that they treat the Federal Reserve as something different from the banks. The Federal Reserve is owned by its member banks, and with the exception of the Chairman, now Mr. Bernanke, the banks elect the members. We therefore have the foxes guarding the hen house.
I highly recommend you go read the whole article here.
In addition, the two authors blog at The Baseline Scenario.
There is an excellent article in The New Republic with this title, written by Peter Boone and Simon Johnson.
The past crisis was certainly mitigated by the actions of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, but what they did sowed the seeds of the next crisis. And what they continue to do will make it worse.
This has happened many times before:
" We have seen this spectacle--the Fed saving us from one crisis only to instigate another--many times before. And, over the past few decades, the problem has become significantly more dire. The fault, to be sure, doesn’t lie entirely with the Fed. Bernanke is a prisoner of a financial system with serious built-in flaws. The decisions he made during the recent crisis weren’t necessarily the wrong decisions; indeed, they were, in many respects, the decisions he had to make. But these decisions, however necessary in the moment, are almost guaranteed to hurt our economy in the long run--which, in turn, means that more necessary but harmful measures will be needed in the future. It is a debilitating, vicious cycle. And at the center of this cycle is the Fed."
Back in the "old days" before the Federal Reserve was created, if you ran a bank and lost your depositors' money, the bankers' personal assets and income could be taken to help cover the losses.
"In the United States, there was great experimentation with banking during the 1800s, but those involved in the enterprise typically made a substantial commitment of their own capital. For example, there was a well-established tradition of “double liability,” in which stockholders were responsible for twice the original value of their shares in a bank. This encouraged stockholders to carefully monitor bank executives and employees. And, in turn, it placed a lot of pressure on those who managed banks. If they fared poorly, they typically faced personal and professional ruin. The idea that a bank executive would retain wealth and social status in the event of a self-induced calamity would have struck everyone--including bank executives themselves--as ludicrous."
In 1913 the Federal Reserve was created, and it went to work using liquidity loans and low interest rates to cushion banks in difficulty by reducing their costs.
"But, by insulating banks from the terrible consequences of their own blunders, these measures would also encourage them to keep taking unwise risks, and thereby lay the groundwork for future crises."
The Fed has made many errors with this. In the summer of 1927 it lowered interest rates, fueling the boom that crashed in the fall of 1929. It had belatedly raised rates in 1928, but that did not stop the frenzy. After the crash, it then kept interest too high into 1933, causing many banks to fail.
During the Great Depression, banking came under increasing regulation, and the rules were tightened so that risk taking was more difficult.
But:
"....eventually, banks would learn how to play the new game. They would spend serious money lobbying to keep regulations lax, hiring lawyers and accountants to find methods to minimize or avoid regulations, and incentivizing employees to hide risk from regulators. While the banking sector became more risky, creditors to banks (such as depositors and lenders) knew they could count on the Fed to engineer bailouts via lower interest rates and access to credit if times got tough--so banks had no trouble raising funding from creditors, and our financial system grew rapidly."
As time went on, the Fed continued to protect the banks. In the 1980s, Volcker lowered interest rates during the Latin American debt crisis [and simply ignored it when some banks were technically insolvent]. That caused a real estate boom that resulted in the S&L debacle of 1987. So interest rates were lowered again creating problems in real estate again, and then in the Asian markets. They crashed, then the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund created a "systemic risk" and rates were lowered again, fueling the Hi-tech bubble, also treated with low interest rates. which created the current burst bubble. You get the idea.
Saving the big banks from themselves is getting far more expensive than it used to be:
"Based on what we have seen over the past two decades, the cost of the next collapse will invariably be steep. Since the early 1980s, the Fed has gone back to its origins as the bailout machine for the financial sector. The only difference is that this sector has become much larger since 1907 or 1913. Back then, it accounted for around one percent of GDP. Now it is closer to 8 percent. The cost of bailouts--the current one and those to come--has skyrocketed as a result."
So, what do the big banks get from all of this? Its very simple:
"Consider the lessons learned in the past twelve months by our major banks. If they again get into serious financial trouble, the Fed can be counted on to lend them essentially unlimited amounts at effectively zero interest rates. What would you do with free money? You’d pay off all your old debts, then you’d find something to invest in that would yield a decent return. But then you’d reckon--why not take more risk? After all, if things go badly, you’ll get more free money."
They propose some solutions that might work, but may not be tough enough.
First, banks should have more capital to cover loan losses than is now permitted. Now, it is about 8%, which is ridiculously low.
Second, they propose that banks and their officers, directors and shareholders be at least partly responsible financially when their banks go broke [I would make them fully responsible].
Third, they say we should stop the merry-go-round from the banks to the government and back to the banks. My thought is that right now, because of this, we have the actual perpetrators of the crisis involved in bailing out their former companies. This is simply atrocious.
Last, they say the Fed should take more of a leadership role in regulation the system. My thought is that we should at least consider doing away with the Fed, or curtailing its powers to prevent this continual boom and bust cycle.
At least we should audit the Fed on a frequent basis. There is far too much secrecy there.
They conclude that if the Fed doesn't take the lead in better regulation, it will continue to be the "handmaiden to repeated bailouts." And that the peril to our system becomes even worse with each one.
This is a great article. I somewhat disagree with them in that they treat the Federal Reserve as something different from the banks. The Federal Reserve is owned by its member banks, and with the exception of the Chairman, now Mr. Bernanke, the banks elect the members. We therefore have the foxes guarding the hen house.
I highly recommend you go read the whole article here.
In addition, the two authors blog at The Baseline Scenario.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Capitalism After the Crisis
This is the title of an essay in a new publication called National Affairs.
It is a new quarterly publication that perhaps is the successor to The Public Interest, which was started in 1965, but is no longer published.
In the essay, author Luigi Zingales examines the state of capitalism in the United States and the way that public attitudes may change with regard to it.
He wonders if the concentration of so much power in a few huge institutions which caused the crisis, and the bailouts of some of them, and of others, might move the US in the direction of European style corporatism and crony capitalism one sees elsewhere.
"Capitalism has long enjoyed exceptionally strong public support in the United States because America's form of capitalism has long been distinct from those found elsewhere in the world — particularly because of its uniquely open and free market system. Capitalism calls not only for freedom of enterprise, but for rules and policies that allow for freedom of entry, that facilitate access to financial resources for newcomers, and that maintain a level playing field among competitors. The United States has generally come closest to this ideal combination — which is no small feat, since economic pressures and incentives do not naturally point to such a balance of policies. While everyone benefits from a free and competitive market, no one in particular makes huge profits from keeping the system competitive and the playing field level."[My bold]
Of course, the true competitive market has no lobby. All the lobbyists are looking for a competitive edge granted to them by the government.[This is what keeps Congressional coffers full of money.]
American capitalism is special, and mainly because support for capitalism by the public is based upon the tenets that hard work, not luck, determines one's success, and is not contingent upon corruption. Many of our current billionaires made their money through hard work in competitive business with no government intervention.
Elsewhere, that is not true. Many billionaires come from countries where their government connections and concessions guaranteed their success, not initiative and enterprise.
"A healthy financial system is crucial to any working market economy. Widespread access to finance is essential to harnessing the best talents and allowing them to prosper and grow. It is crucial for drawing new entrants into the system, and for fostering competition. The system that allocates finance allocates power and rents; if that system is not fair, there is little hope that the rest of the economy can be. And the potential for unfairness or abuse in the financial system is always great."
This is why our Founding Fathers distrusted banks, and Andrew Jackson even created a severe financial crisis when he vetoed the Second National Bank Bill in 1837 because he saw the bank as an instrument of political corruption. This was because it was found to have tried to influence the election of public officials with its money and power.[Try going to http://www.opensecrets.org/ and check out the money given to political campaigns by the big banks. Jackson would be horrified.]
"The finance sector's increasing concentration and growing political muscle have undermined the traditional American understanding of the difference between free markets and big business. This means not only that the interests of finance now dominate the economic understanding of policymakers, but also — and perhaps more important — that the public's perception of the economic system's legitimacy is at risk."
And that is the problem. All the huge banks have so much influence, no matter who holds political power, that is creates a very serious problem. When we see the perpetrators of the financial calamity being placed in charge of curing it, and then granting their former companies huge benefits out of the Federal Treasury, it calls into serious question the integrity of both the Treasury and the large banks.
"We thus stand at a crossroads for American capitalism. One path would channel popular rage into political support for some genuinely pro-market reforms, even if they do not serve the interests of large financial firms. By appealing to the best of the populist tradition, we can introduce limits to the power of the financial industry — or any business, for that matter — and restore those fundamental principles that give an ethical dimension to capitalism: freedom, meritocracy, a direct link between reward and effort, and a sense of responsibility that ensures that those who reap the gains also bear the losses. This would mean abandoning the notion that any firm is too big to fail, and putting rules in place that keep large financial firms from manipulating government connections to the detriment of markets. It would mean adopting a pro-market, rather than pro-business, approach to the economy."
This is the right way to go. The concept of "too big to fail" must be abandoned, and continued bailouts of the worst perpetrators must be stopped.
Does our current government have the guts that Jackson had?
No. And neither does the opposition, the Republicans.
Go read the whole essay here.
It is a new quarterly publication that perhaps is the successor to The Public Interest, which was started in 1965, but is no longer published.
In the essay, author Luigi Zingales examines the state of capitalism in the United States and the way that public attitudes may change with regard to it.
He wonders if the concentration of so much power in a few huge institutions which caused the crisis, and the bailouts of some of them, and of others, might move the US in the direction of European style corporatism and crony capitalism one sees elsewhere.
"Capitalism has long enjoyed exceptionally strong public support in the United States because America's form of capitalism has long been distinct from those found elsewhere in the world — particularly because of its uniquely open and free market system. Capitalism calls not only for freedom of enterprise, but for rules and policies that allow for freedom of entry, that facilitate access to financial resources for newcomers, and that maintain a level playing field among competitors. The United States has generally come closest to this ideal combination — which is no small feat, since economic pressures and incentives do not naturally point to such a balance of policies. While everyone benefits from a free and competitive market, no one in particular makes huge profits from keeping the system competitive and the playing field level."[My bold]
Of course, the true competitive market has no lobby. All the lobbyists are looking for a competitive edge granted to them by the government.[This is what keeps Congressional coffers full of money.]
American capitalism is special, and mainly because support for capitalism by the public is based upon the tenets that hard work, not luck, determines one's success, and is not contingent upon corruption. Many of our current billionaires made their money through hard work in competitive business with no government intervention.
Elsewhere, that is not true. Many billionaires come from countries where their government connections and concessions guaranteed their success, not initiative and enterprise.
"A healthy financial system is crucial to any working market economy. Widespread access to finance is essential to harnessing the best talents and allowing them to prosper and grow. It is crucial for drawing new entrants into the system, and for fostering competition. The system that allocates finance allocates power and rents; if that system is not fair, there is little hope that the rest of the economy can be. And the potential for unfairness or abuse in the financial system is always great."
This is why our Founding Fathers distrusted banks, and Andrew Jackson even created a severe financial crisis when he vetoed the Second National Bank Bill in 1837 because he saw the bank as an instrument of political corruption. This was because it was found to have tried to influence the election of public officials with its money and power.[Try going to http://www.opensecrets.org/ and check out the money given to political campaigns by the big banks. Jackson would be horrified.]
"The finance sector's increasing concentration and growing political muscle have undermined the traditional American understanding of the difference between free markets and big business. This means not only that the interests of finance now dominate the economic understanding of policymakers, but also — and perhaps more important — that the public's perception of the economic system's legitimacy is at risk."
And that is the problem. All the huge banks have so much influence, no matter who holds political power, that is creates a very serious problem. When we see the perpetrators of the financial calamity being placed in charge of curing it, and then granting their former companies huge benefits out of the Federal Treasury, it calls into serious question the integrity of both the Treasury and the large banks.
"We thus stand at a crossroads for American capitalism. One path would channel popular rage into political support for some genuinely pro-market reforms, even if they do not serve the interests of large financial firms. By appealing to the best of the populist tradition, we can introduce limits to the power of the financial industry — or any business, for that matter — and restore those fundamental principles that give an ethical dimension to capitalism: freedom, meritocracy, a direct link between reward and effort, and a sense of responsibility that ensures that those who reap the gains also bear the losses. This would mean abandoning the notion that any firm is too big to fail, and putting rules in place that keep large financial firms from manipulating government connections to the detriment of markets. It would mean adopting a pro-market, rather than pro-business, approach to the economy."
This is the right way to go. The concept of "too big to fail" must be abandoned, and continued bailouts of the worst perpetrators must be stopped.
Does our current government have the guts that Jackson had?
No. And neither does the opposition, the Republicans.
Go read the whole essay here.
Obama and the Schoolchildren
When I first heard that Obama was going to address the schoolchildren and the Department of Education has sent out a "lesson plan" to be followed, my immediate response was to object. This comes mainly from my feelings of distrust toward Obama.
After some thought, I changed my mind, at least about the Obama speech (I think the "lesson plan" was a bit over the top).
Obama has every right to address schoolchildren about appropriate subjects, and it turns out that the speech he made was fine (perhaps a bit too much "I" but that happens whenever he opens his mouth). I just hope that the kids listened and took it seriously.
One of the most serious problems in our society is the high rate of school dropouts, particularly from within the poor and minority communities. We are raising generation after generation of children from those communities without sufficient education to be much of a factor in the workplace.
Someone like Obama can make a difference there, if he will. But speeches will not be enough. More is needed, and the teacher's unions seemingly refuse to take the kinds of steps needed to improve the schools. But that is another story.
Why would Obama address the kids when there is so much on his plate? Well, for the same reason that George H. W. Bush did in 1991, and George W. Bush was doing much the same when the planes hit the towers on 9/11.....politics, purely and simply.
Folks like politicians that pay attention to the children, from kissing babies all the way to making speeches to them. So politicians do that. It makes them seem human to everyone.
Why do other politicians object? Politics again. They don't want someone on the other side to gain from such a display.
That is why the Democrats had Bush, Sr.'s speech investigated by the GAO (which found it to be perfectly legal).
The point is: its fine to address the kids if you say the right things, but it is not fine to turn it into a political show. The kids need to be left out of politics. They will have to deal with them too soon anyway.
After some thought, I changed my mind, at least about the Obama speech (I think the "lesson plan" was a bit over the top).
Obama has every right to address schoolchildren about appropriate subjects, and it turns out that the speech he made was fine (perhaps a bit too much "I" but that happens whenever he opens his mouth). I just hope that the kids listened and took it seriously.
One of the most serious problems in our society is the high rate of school dropouts, particularly from within the poor and minority communities. We are raising generation after generation of children from those communities without sufficient education to be much of a factor in the workplace.
Someone like Obama can make a difference there, if he will. But speeches will not be enough. More is needed, and the teacher's unions seemingly refuse to take the kinds of steps needed to improve the schools. But that is another story.
Why would Obama address the kids when there is so much on his plate? Well, for the same reason that George H. W. Bush did in 1991, and George W. Bush was doing much the same when the planes hit the towers on 9/11.....politics, purely and simply.
Folks like politicians that pay attention to the children, from kissing babies all the way to making speeches to them. So politicians do that. It makes them seem human to everyone.
Why do other politicians object? Politics again. They don't want someone on the other side to gain from such a display.
That is why the Democrats had Bush, Sr.'s speech investigated by the GAO (which found it to be perfectly legal).
The point is: its fine to address the kids if you say the right things, but it is not fine to turn it into a political show. The kids need to be left out of politics. They will have to deal with them too soon anyway.
About "Deconstructing the 'Whup Ass'"
Those are titles of two essays among several that I missed reading while I have been tied up the last few weeks. They are written by Victor Davis Hanson.
The good professor is a favorite of mine, as many of you may know.
He is Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and one of the best writers around about current affairs.
His writings can be found at "Works and Days" and at "Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers." The sites are also listed to the right of this blog.
In "Decontructing," he takes on the recent situation regarding Van Jones, an admitted communist on Obama's staff who just resigned and the inevitable cries of "racism" that have accompanied his departure.
He also mentions other of Obama's friends and associates:
"What we are now seeing with Obama’s coterie is a sort of Billy Carterism—after a while what seems at first outlandish gradually becomes repugnant. Half of the country is now furious at Obama because they are starting to see that Ayers, Khalidi, Meeks, Pfleger, and Wright were representational, rather than aberrational; that is, the associates that for 30 years were the natural friends and role models of Obama proved hard to shake and appear buffoonish 24/7. And stranger still, Obama himself seems surprised that they keep reappearing, as if one so easily can throw under the bus decades of choices, attitudes, and second natures."
About Jones, he points out after cataloging some of his statements:
"... But such are the times we live in, that a Jones feels he can abuse the public discourse and insult the intelligence of the public, confident that when called on it, the refuge of “racist”! is always there."
And, Hanson finally concludes:
"Barak Obama did not transcend race as promised. Nor was there a racial backlash against him as his supporters both feared and now charge.
Rather the mood is weariness. One major reason Obama’s polls have dropped is the public resentment of this spate of allegations of racism."
And:
"Nothing is so fatal to a con as boredom. Tragically, when a Rangel, Paterson, Jones, or Obama—all enjoying privileges and successes that 300 million Americans might only dream of—start in on the now accustomed trope, the public turns the channel and sighs “Been there, done that.” And I think they really mean it this time."
There are several fine essays at the two sites. I highly recommend that you bookmark them, and return to read all of them.
The good professor is a favorite of mine, as many of you may know.
He is Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and one of the best writers around about current affairs.
His writings can be found at "Works and Days" and at "Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers." The sites are also listed to the right of this blog.
In "Decontructing," he takes on the recent situation regarding Van Jones, an admitted communist on Obama's staff who just resigned and the inevitable cries of "racism" that have accompanied his departure.
He also mentions other of Obama's friends and associates:
"What we are now seeing with Obama’s coterie is a sort of Billy Carterism—after a while what seems at first outlandish gradually becomes repugnant. Half of the country is now furious at Obama because they are starting to see that Ayers, Khalidi, Meeks, Pfleger, and Wright were representational, rather than aberrational; that is, the associates that for 30 years were the natural friends and role models of Obama proved hard to shake and appear buffoonish 24/7. And stranger still, Obama himself seems surprised that they keep reappearing, as if one so easily can throw under the bus decades of choices, attitudes, and second natures."
About Jones, he points out after cataloging some of his statements:
"... But such are the times we live in, that a Jones feels he can abuse the public discourse and insult the intelligence of the public, confident that when called on it, the refuge of “racist”! is always there."
And, Hanson finally concludes:
"Barak Obama did not transcend race as promised. Nor was there a racial backlash against him as his supporters both feared and now charge.
Rather the mood is weariness. One major reason Obama’s polls have dropped is the public resentment of this spate of allegations of racism."
And:
"Nothing is so fatal to a con as boredom. Tragically, when a Rangel, Paterson, Jones, or Obama—all enjoying privileges and successes that 300 million Americans might only dream of—start in on the now accustomed trope, the public turns the channel and sighs “Been there, done that.” And I think they really mean it this time."
There are several fine essays at the two sites. I highly recommend that you bookmark them, and return to read all of them.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Bailing out the crooks
The New York Times reports that not only did we bail out Fannie Mae, but the taxpayers are paying millions of dollars for lawyers for the guys that drove it into the ground.
$6.3 million so far for them. This is to defend them from shareholder suits brought because of their wrongdoing.
"With all the turmoil of the financial crisis, you may have forgotten about the book-cooking that went on at Fannie Mae. Government inquiries found that between 1998 and 2004, senior executives at Fannie manipulated its results to hit earnings targets and generate $115 million in bonus compensation. Fannie had to restate its financial results by $6.3 billion.
Almost two years later, in 2006, Fannie’s regulator concluded an investigation of the accounting with a scathing report. “The conduct of Mr. Raines, chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard, and other members of the inner circle of senior executives at Fannie Mae was inconsistent with the values of responsibility, accountability, and integrity,” it said. "
Now taxpayers are having to pay to protect them from their manipulations.
Does anybody but me see anything wrong with that?
They are all Democrats.
A tip of the hat to Ed Morrissey. See his blog post here.
$6.3 million so far for them. This is to defend them from shareholder suits brought because of their wrongdoing.
"With all the turmoil of the financial crisis, you may have forgotten about the book-cooking that went on at Fannie Mae. Government inquiries found that between 1998 and 2004, senior executives at Fannie manipulated its results to hit earnings targets and generate $115 million in bonus compensation. Fannie had to restate its financial results by $6.3 billion.
Almost two years later, in 2006, Fannie’s regulator concluded an investigation of the accounting with a scathing report. “The conduct of Mr. Raines, chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard, and other members of the inner circle of senior executives at Fannie Mae was inconsistent with the values of responsibility, accountability, and integrity,” it said. "
Now taxpayers are having to pay to protect them from their manipulations.
Does anybody but me see anything wrong with that?
They are all Democrats.
A tip of the hat to Ed Morrissey. See his blog post here.
Labor Day
The unofficial end of Summer has arrived, and with it all sorts of things.
College football got under way last week, starting my favorite time of the year. My Texas Longhorns won, while our arch-rival Oklahoma lost at home to Brigham Young. OU's Heisman quarterback was injured, but its extent is yet unknown. I wish him a speedy recovery. He is an outstanding young man.
With it comes a breath of Fall, particularly in the mornings and evenings in West Texas. Temps at night are 10-12 degrees cooler than a month ago, and there is a freshness in the breeze. Even a few leaves are beginning to drift down in the back yard
New polls shown unions to be unpopular with the folks. That is not surprising, because now that their man is President, and they own the Congress, we are all able to see what jerks most of them are. See articles here and here.
Obama had the whistle blown on one of the several outright communists in his administration. There are more, but good riddance to Van Jones. An article here. Another is here.
Take note that the large media never covered the story until he left, and than tried to paper it over. No wonder they are all going broke. Most of them are simply an adjunct to Obama's propaganda machine. Something closely akin to Lenin's "useful idiots." One simply cannot trust anything most of them say.
This Labor Day finds us with a reported 9.7% unemployment rate, with the direction still headed down. If one were to use the same measure as was used during the Great Depression, it would be closer to 17%. Very sad.
All the liberal pundits like to talk about "green shoots" in the economy, and a "recovery" about to start. My view is that there is no recovery until jobs come back. Even Obama says that won't be until well into next year.
The use of the "stimulus" bill to pay off ACORN and other large Democratic constituencies is turning into a nightmare for unemployed Americans. Will there be any accountability for this? Probably not. Maybe November, 2010. We will see.
There are other things to cover that have arisen since I last posted. More later.
College football got under way last week, starting my favorite time of the year. My Texas Longhorns won, while our arch-rival Oklahoma lost at home to Brigham Young. OU's Heisman quarterback was injured, but its extent is yet unknown. I wish him a speedy recovery. He is an outstanding young man.
With it comes a breath of Fall, particularly in the mornings and evenings in West Texas. Temps at night are 10-12 degrees cooler than a month ago, and there is a freshness in the breeze. Even a few leaves are beginning to drift down in the back yard
New polls shown unions to be unpopular with the folks. That is not surprising, because now that their man is President, and they own the Congress, we are all able to see what jerks most of them are. See articles here and here.
Obama had the whistle blown on one of the several outright communists in his administration. There are more, but good riddance to Van Jones. An article here. Another is here.
Take note that the large media never covered the story until he left, and than tried to paper it over. No wonder they are all going broke. Most of them are simply an adjunct to Obama's propaganda machine. Something closely akin to Lenin's "useful idiots." One simply cannot trust anything most of them say.
This Labor Day finds us with a reported 9.7% unemployment rate, with the direction still headed down. If one were to use the same measure as was used during the Great Depression, it would be closer to 17%. Very sad.
All the liberal pundits like to talk about "green shoots" in the economy, and a "recovery" about to start. My view is that there is no recovery until jobs come back. Even Obama says that won't be until well into next year.
The use of the "stimulus" bill to pay off ACORN and other large Democratic constituencies is turning into a nightmare for unemployed Americans. Will there be any accountability for this? Probably not. Maybe November, 2010. We will see.
There are other things to cover that have arisen since I last posted. More later.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Busy, busy
Have been very busy the last two weeks, and will be the next three weeks it appears. I only thought I had retired. LOL
There is a lot going on in the political world, and I will try to be commenting a bit about some of it, but time will be short.
After they get Teddy buried, I suspect some will try to use any emotion generated by his death to help push through their socialized medicine bill. Let's hope they fail.
I feel about as good about TedKennedyCare as Mary Jo Kopechne would.
The liberal press continues to give proven corrupt Democrats a pass. Rangel would lead the list, of course. One cannot count his felonies on one hand, but he still leads the House Ways and Means Committee. Apparently the majority party approves of his corruption.
Bill Richardson escaped indictment through a rules breaking decision by the Attorney General to drop proceedings against him. I guess apologies are due the Grand Jurors who spent a year doing the investigation.
Then there is Christopher Dodd and Kent Conrad, who got sweetheart deals from CountryWide as it was going busted, but a Senate committee has decided it wasn't unethical.
The list goes on. And on. And on.
Of course, there have been Republicans on such a list as well, but we were promised in 2006 that the Democrats would do away with the "culture of corruption" in Washington.
Instead, they have accelerated it.
If the House and the Senate cannot enforce ethical conduct among their members, how can we expect them to make correct decisions on anything else?
We need to throw them all out, and start over. Beginning at the very top.
There is a lot going on in the political world, and I will try to be commenting a bit about some of it, but time will be short.
After they get Teddy buried, I suspect some will try to use any emotion generated by his death to help push through their socialized medicine bill. Let's hope they fail.
I feel about as good about TedKennedyCare as Mary Jo Kopechne would.
The liberal press continues to give proven corrupt Democrats a pass. Rangel would lead the list, of course. One cannot count his felonies on one hand, but he still leads the House Ways and Means Committee. Apparently the majority party approves of his corruption.
Bill Richardson escaped indictment through a rules breaking decision by the Attorney General to drop proceedings against him. I guess apologies are due the Grand Jurors who spent a year doing the investigation.
Then there is Christopher Dodd and Kent Conrad, who got sweetheart deals from CountryWide as it was going busted, but a Senate committee has decided it wasn't unethical.
The list goes on. And on. And on.
Of course, there have been Republicans on such a list as well, but we were promised in 2006 that the Democrats would do away with the "culture of corruption" in Washington.
Instead, they have accelerated it.
If the House and the Senate cannot enforce ethical conduct among their members, how can we expect them to make correct decisions on anything else?
We need to throw them all out, and start over. Beginning at the very top.
Friday, August 21, 2009
What About Social Security?
With all the heat over the health care issues, the issue of Social Security is being ignored. That is a shame, because Social Security presents us with a far more pressing problem than health care.
Because of the current recession, it now appears that the point at which SS revenues become less than its benefit payments has advanced from 2017 as reported by the Government Accountability Office to 2012 or sooner. That means that SS is basically broke, because there is no money in the SS Trust Fund.
Benefits will have to be paid out of general revenue after that. Congress has spent the Trust Fund on other things. And there is no fiduciary responsibility for the Trust Fund as there would be for private ones. How clever.
According to the GAO in 2005( go there, it is a great report), it would take $12 Trillion dollars paid in now to fully fund future SS benefits at current levels. Try that on for size.
As a result, Social Security needs some real change, not talk. There are several ways to cure the problem and make sure that our children have some semblance of retirement security.
We could do what most private companies have done, and what most state and local governments are going to have to do. That is, go to a defined contribution plan, as opposed to the current defined benefit plan we have.
I suspect that will be a non-starter for Democrats, because the defined benefit plan has a large amount of wealth redistribution in it. That was why they were so adamantly opposed to Bush's partial privatization, which was really making part of SS a defined contribution plan.
On to other possibilities.
We could raise the tax on wages. An increase of 15% in payroll taxes today would do it. If we wait until 2041, it would have to be 41%. Of course, with the latter date, general revenue (with its tax stream) would have to finance it until then. I do not favor this. I think it would be unfair to our young people.
We could raise the cap on wages taxed. This would require those with a higher income to pay much higher taxes, but get higher benefits, though far from dollar for dollar because of the redistributionist benefit schedule. Now the maximum wage taxed is $102,000 per year.
We could change the benefits, either by reducing them significantly or by delaying the payment of them.
Both of those benefit changes would have to be phased in over a decently long period for it to be fair to those already receiving SS or nearing eligibility. Probably the way they extended the eligibility date to age 67 may be appropriate.
Delaying the benefits may be the best way. When SS was set up, the age of 65 was very old. The primary reason SS is broke is that people receiving benefits are living much longer than we used to, and so each person receives far more in benefits than planned.
The quite simple way to solve this problem is to extend the eligibility date as the life expectancy increases.
It is imperative that Congress addresses this issue. It is extremely difficult politically to do so, but there is also not much time. Support for Social Security is beginning to evaporate as more and more young people become politically active. Few of them believe that they will ever receive SS, but realize that it is they who are paying for what their elders are getting.
They understand that this is terribly unfair....and it is.
This week, in a poll done by Rasmussen, he found the following:
"Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters say working Americans should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and provide for their own retirement planning."
In addition:
"Sixty percent (60%) of voters are not confident that the Social Security system will pay them all promised benefits during their lifetime, with 36% not very confident and 24% not at all confident."
This does not bode well for the future of Social Security, and may be signalling a widening generational dispute.
If support is to be maintained for SS, then it must be made fair to everyone, and that includes sacrifices from us all.
This is a very emotional subject, and has been the source of a lot of demagoguing by politicians on both sides of the issues. It is time for that to stop. There has to be room for responsible compromise on the various choices. Some combination of the above will probably do the job.
Both sides of the issues need to sit down and work something out. The hyperpartisanship we have seen in Washington the last few years is not getting the job done, and will not.
Both sides had better realize that the folks back home are getting impatient. We want a government that works for all of us. But not one that is intrusive into our private lives.
That means that the "my way or the highway" attitudes by our political class has to be discarded, and the pols need to get to work.
Or else.
Because of the current recession, it now appears that the point at which SS revenues become less than its benefit payments has advanced from 2017 as reported by the Government Accountability Office to 2012 or sooner. That means that SS is basically broke, because there is no money in the SS Trust Fund.
Benefits will have to be paid out of general revenue after that. Congress has spent the Trust Fund on other things. And there is no fiduciary responsibility for the Trust Fund as there would be for private ones. How clever.
According to the GAO in 2005( go there, it is a great report), it would take $12 Trillion dollars paid in now to fully fund future SS benefits at current levels. Try that on for size.
As a result, Social Security needs some real change, not talk. There are several ways to cure the problem and make sure that our children have some semblance of retirement security.
We could do what most private companies have done, and what most state and local governments are going to have to do. That is, go to a defined contribution plan, as opposed to the current defined benefit plan we have.
I suspect that will be a non-starter for Democrats, because the defined benefit plan has a large amount of wealth redistribution in it. That was why they were so adamantly opposed to Bush's partial privatization, which was really making part of SS a defined contribution plan.
On to other possibilities.
We could raise the tax on wages. An increase of 15% in payroll taxes today would do it. If we wait until 2041, it would have to be 41%. Of course, with the latter date, general revenue (with its tax stream) would have to finance it until then. I do not favor this. I think it would be unfair to our young people.
We could raise the cap on wages taxed. This would require those with a higher income to pay much higher taxes, but get higher benefits, though far from dollar for dollar because of the redistributionist benefit schedule. Now the maximum wage taxed is $102,000 per year.
We could change the benefits, either by reducing them significantly or by delaying the payment of them.
Both of those benefit changes would have to be phased in over a decently long period for it to be fair to those already receiving SS or nearing eligibility. Probably the way they extended the eligibility date to age 67 may be appropriate.
Delaying the benefits may be the best way. When SS was set up, the age of 65 was very old. The primary reason SS is broke is that people receiving benefits are living much longer than we used to, and so each person receives far more in benefits than planned.
The quite simple way to solve this problem is to extend the eligibility date as the life expectancy increases.
It is imperative that Congress addresses this issue. It is extremely difficult politically to do so, but there is also not much time. Support for Social Security is beginning to evaporate as more and more young people become politically active. Few of them believe that they will ever receive SS, but realize that it is they who are paying for what their elders are getting.
They understand that this is terribly unfair....and it is.
This week, in a poll done by Rasmussen, he found the following:
"Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters say working Americans should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and provide for their own retirement planning."
In addition:
"Sixty percent (60%) of voters are not confident that the Social Security system will pay them all promised benefits during their lifetime, with 36% not very confident and 24% not at all confident."
This does not bode well for the future of Social Security, and may be signalling a widening generational dispute.
If support is to be maintained for SS, then it must be made fair to everyone, and that includes sacrifices from us all.
This is a very emotional subject, and has been the source of a lot of demagoguing by politicians on both sides of the issues. It is time for that to stop. There has to be room for responsible compromise on the various choices. Some combination of the above will probably do the job.
Both sides of the issues need to sit down and work something out. The hyperpartisanship we have seen in Washington the last few years is not getting the job done, and will not.
Both sides had better realize that the folks back home are getting impatient. We want a government that works for all of us. But not one that is intrusive into our private lives.
That means that the "my way or the highway" attitudes by our political class has to be discarded, and the pols need to get to work.
Or else.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Horse Soldiers
That is the name of a book I have just read written by Doug Stanton.
It is the fabulous story of how fewer than fifty Special Forces troops took down the Taliban in two months, rather than the two years the Pentagon thought it would take.
They and about 15,000 irregular troops of the Northern Alliance, mounted on horseback, defeated 50-60,000 Taliban and Al Quaeda, and took the fortress at Mazar-i-Sharif.
With B-52s or FA-18s circling overhead to assist with GPS guided bombs, these guys conducted cavalry charges against tanks, other armored vehicles and machine guns, and prevailed against tough and tenacious fighters.
When they finally took Mazar-i-Sharif, half of the Special Forces guys stayed behind while the Northern Alliance and the other half continued the pursuit of the Taliban.
After they were gone, some 600 Taliban prisoners kept in the fort got their hands on weapons stored there and staged a revolt, killing a CIA agent there to interrogate some of them. John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, was among the prisoners.
In a 96 hour long battle, the Special Forces fought the prisoners until the Northern Alliance came back from Konduz, and a few reinforcements from the 10th Mountain Division arrived.
They were later reinforced with other Special Forces, but what happened back then is that about a total of 350 American Special Forces and 100 CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, managed to do something that the Chinese, the British, and the Soviet Union had all failed to do. Conquer Afghanistan.
Read the book and get an inkling why we are going to lose it back, and why we really are losing or have lost Iraq.
Its a fabulous story.
To bad Hollywood is too left wing to produce a movie about it.
It is the fabulous story of how fewer than fifty Special Forces troops took down the Taliban in two months, rather than the two years the Pentagon thought it would take.
They and about 15,000 irregular troops of the Northern Alliance, mounted on horseback, defeated 50-60,000 Taliban and Al Quaeda, and took the fortress at Mazar-i-Sharif.
With B-52s or FA-18s circling overhead to assist with GPS guided bombs, these guys conducted cavalry charges against tanks, other armored vehicles and machine guns, and prevailed against tough and tenacious fighters.
When they finally took Mazar-i-Sharif, half of the Special Forces guys stayed behind while the Northern Alliance and the other half continued the pursuit of the Taliban.
After they were gone, some 600 Taliban prisoners kept in the fort got their hands on weapons stored there and staged a revolt, killing a CIA agent there to interrogate some of them. John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, was among the prisoners.
In a 96 hour long battle, the Special Forces fought the prisoners until the Northern Alliance came back from Konduz, and a few reinforcements from the 10th Mountain Division arrived.
They were later reinforced with other Special Forces, but what happened back then is that about a total of 350 American Special Forces and 100 CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, managed to do something that the Chinese, the British, and the Soviet Union had all failed to do. Conquer Afghanistan.
Read the book and get an inkling why we are going to lose it back, and why we really are losing or have lost Iraq.
Its a fabulous story.
To bad Hollywood is too left wing to produce a movie about it.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Throwing gasoline on a deficit fire
Sometime in the next week or so, the Obama Administration is going to deliver the delayed Mid Session Review, which is a budget document that updates the administration's economic and budget forecasts.
It was delayed because they wanted it to come out during the dog days of August when everyone was out of Washington. You can imagine why.
Keith Hennessy has an article over at Real Clear Politics entitled "Understanding the Upcoming Deficit Numbers" that gives a pretty good idea of what is coming.
Deficits are already estimated at huge numbers, but will have to be significantly increased because of actions already taken by Congress.
Growth is predicted at too high numbers already and will have to be reduced if they are honest. They probably won't be.
The deficits are so bad because they are 4 times the average the last 20 years. What does that do?
"Budget deficits crowd our private borrowing and raise interest rates. It costs more to get a mortgage, a car loan, or a student loan. Higher interest rates and their effect on the dollar cause the U.S. economy to grow more slowly, meaning fewer jobs are created and wage growth slows."
What will happen?
"The President has boxed himself in with different messages on fiscal policy and health policy. He argues we must slow the growth of long-term health spending, but has not offered policies that unbiased analysts say would achieve that goal. In health care reform, Congress is in no mood to make the painful choices needed to reduce future deficits, so the President has fallen back to a more modest goal of not increasing future deficits. If health care reform should actually become law this year, expect the long-run budget picture to get dramatically worse. Pending bills would create a rapidly-growing enormous new spending commitment that would quickly outstrip the proposed spending cuts and tax increases. In an effort to rescue health care reform the President has shifted away from a cost control message. Congress will read this signal and look for ways to avoid the pain of deficit reduction, knowing that the President will sign any bill that reaches his desk."
The President entered office with a bad situation. We all grant that. But he has determined to plow ahead and force through a liberal social program that will make a bad situation much worse.
"The President’s social policy agenda is throwing gasoline on a deficit fire."
Read the whole thing here.
It was delayed because they wanted it to come out during the dog days of August when everyone was out of Washington. You can imagine why.
Keith Hennessy has an article over at Real Clear Politics entitled "Understanding the Upcoming Deficit Numbers" that gives a pretty good idea of what is coming.
Deficits are already estimated at huge numbers, but will have to be significantly increased because of actions already taken by Congress.
Growth is predicted at too high numbers already and will have to be reduced if they are honest. They probably won't be.
The deficits are so bad because they are 4 times the average the last 20 years. What does that do?
"Budget deficits crowd our private borrowing and raise interest rates. It costs more to get a mortgage, a car loan, or a student loan. Higher interest rates and their effect on the dollar cause the U.S. economy to grow more slowly, meaning fewer jobs are created and wage growth slows."
What will happen?
"The President has boxed himself in with different messages on fiscal policy and health policy. He argues we must slow the growth of long-term health spending, but has not offered policies that unbiased analysts say would achieve that goal. In health care reform, Congress is in no mood to make the painful choices needed to reduce future deficits, so the President has fallen back to a more modest goal of not increasing future deficits. If health care reform should actually become law this year, expect the long-run budget picture to get dramatically worse. Pending bills would create a rapidly-growing enormous new spending commitment that would quickly outstrip the proposed spending cuts and tax increases. In an effort to rescue health care reform the President has shifted away from a cost control message. Congress will read this signal and look for ways to avoid the pain of deficit reduction, knowing that the President will sign any bill that reaches his desk."
The President entered office with a bad situation. We all grant that. But he has determined to plow ahead and force through a liberal social program that will make a bad situation much worse.
"The President’s social policy agenda is throwing gasoline on a deficit fire."
Read the whole thing here.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The Biggest Lie
"I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help you."
That's it. You have all heard that. There are other big lies, but this is the biggest.
Government, if left to its own devices, as the liberals would have it, is only here to enslave us.
We need an effective governemnt to do those things that we, in the Constitution, have asked it to do.
We do not need a slavemeaster.
Think about it.
That's it. You have all heard that. There are other big lies, but this is the biggest.
Government, if left to its own devices, as the liberals would have it, is only here to enslave us.
We need an effective governemnt to do those things that we, in the Constitution, have asked it to do.
We do not need a slavemeaster.
Think about it.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Obamacare and the Constitution
Someone is finally raising a very valid point about the attempt at a Federal takeover of health care.
Is is Constitutional?
That is a complex question, because the Supreme Court has over the years seriously broadened the powers of the government beyond those contemplated by the Framers, and expressly stated in the Constitution itself.
So, although I do not believe that the Constitution permits it, there is the potential that the Supreme Court might find otherwise.
Rob Natelson, over at Electric City Weblog, writes a bit about the question today, stating:
"Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers – eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. (The exact number depends on how you count.) None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories."
The catch, however is:
"To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power. "
Thanfully, there is a "but":
"But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal” justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go."
My view is that if it is not a power ennumerated in the Constitution, then it is governed by the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sounds pretty clear, doesn't it.
Questions like these are what Supreme Court selection is all about. The left wants appointees who will ignore the Constitution and approve every harebrained idea they have, while the right wants appointees who will preserve the Constitution.
Roosevelt, when he was President, forced the Supreme Court to back off the concept of due process with regard to the taking of property, by threatening to "pack" the Court by expanding the number of justices above the traditional nine.
That caused a lot of very questionable legislation to be passed and approved by the Court
Will Obama and the Democrats do that again? Or will the present Court just let them have what they want? What will Justice Kennedy do?
Perhaps the bill can be defeated and then we won't have to worry.
Is is Constitutional?
That is a complex question, because the Supreme Court has over the years seriously broadened the powers of the government beyond those contemplated by the Framers, and expressly stated in the Constitution itself.
So, although I do not believe that the Constitution permits it, there is the potential that the Supreme Court might find otherwise.
Rob Natelson, over at Electric City Weblog, writes a bit about the question today, stating:
"Enumerated powers. The Constitution grants the federal government about thirty-five specific powers – eighteen in Article I, Section 8, and the rest scattered throughout the document. (The exact number depends on how you count.) None of those powers seems to authorize control of the health care system outside the District of Columbia and the federal territories."
The catch, however is:
"To be sure, since the late 1930s, the Supreme Court has been tolerant of the federal welfare state, usually justifying federal ad hoc programs under specious interpretations of the congressional Commerce Power. "
Thanfully, there is a "but":
"But, except in wartime, the Court has never authorized an expansion of the federal scope quite as large as what is being proposed now. And in recent years, both the Court and individual justices – even “liberal” justices – have said repeatedly that there are boundaries beyond which Congress may not go."
My view is that if it is not a power ennumerated in the Constitution, then it is governed by the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Sounds pretty clear, doesn't it.
Questions like these are what Supreme Court selection is all about. The left wants appointees who will ignore the Constitution and approve every harebrained idea they have, while the right wants appointees who will preserve the Constitution.
Roosevelt, when he was President, forced the Supreme Court to back off the concept of due process with regard to the taking of property, by threatening to "pack" the Court by expanding the number of justices above the traditional nine.
That caused a lot of very questionable legislation to be passed and approved by the Court
Will Obama and the Democrats do that again? Or will the present Court just let them have what they want? What will Justice Kennedy do?
Perhaps the bill can be defeated and then we won't have to worry.
Did you know
Almost two thirds of Government Motors car sales in the first half of the year were outside North America?
And the new, inexpensive subcompact car they are going to manufacture will be made possibly (probably) in Asia?
The story is here.
Interesting.
And the new, inexpensive subcompact car they are going to manufacture will be made possibly (probably) in Asia?
The story is here.
Interesting.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Public Option Off the Table?
The New York Times is quoting Kathleen Sibelius, the HHS Secretary, that a government insurer "is not an essential element" to the health insurance reform bill.
If that is the case, and they will let that part go, then one of the worst parts of the bill will have been taken out.
Hooray for the good guys!
Now, if we could only find out what is in the rest of the bill.
Some reform does need to be done, but it has to be done in a way that keeps the government out of our business.
Liberals want the government in our business, so we must be vigilant. Pelosi and Reid can be very sneaky, as we have seen with the stimulus bill and the cap and trade bill.
If that is the case, and they will let that part go, then one of the worst parts of the bill will have been taken out.
Hooray for the good guys!
Now, if we could only find out what is in the rest of the bill.
Some reform does need to be done, but it has to be done in a way that keeps the government out of our business.
Liberals want the government in our business, so we must be vigilant. Pelosi and Reid can be very sneaky, as we have seen with the stimulus bill and the cap and trade bill.
Its Not Just About Health Care
A lot of liberals are making the mistake in thinking that all of the protesting out there by the citizenry is just about the health care bills.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Some of it is....it is the issue du jour. But there is a lot more. A lot.
Victor Davis Hanson, is great essay, says it this way:
"There is a growing sense of a “we’ve been had”, bait-and-switch. Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats — apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president — voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out-of-control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort."
Read the whole thing here.
Professor Hanson goes on the give reasons for why "we have been had" but there are others he misses.
And he misses one important thing: these protests are also against the Republican policies of the last few years.
The people are tired of the government messing everything up. They are tired of the corruption, the power of the big lobbyists, the huge and growing deficits, the move to have the government control every aspect of our lives, the terrible, huge bailouts of the financial institutions, the nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors with the concurrent gift of 40% of the stock in GM to the United Auto Workers, an adjunct of the Democratic Party, and a whole list of other things.
While the Democrats may be the worst offenders, Republicans started us down the path to the bailouts and the nationalizations, and certainly were running up huge deficits. They also really enjoyed slopping at the trough when they were in power.
Much of this anger is directed at the entire political process. Some did, as Hanson points out, foolishly think that Obama might really change things, and hope that government could be made to work better.
Obama's only interest is to make it work better for his political allies. Anyone who thinks differently is still being foolish.
My view is that Americans do want their government to work better than it has, but they also want it to be limited to those things government can do best.
They want the government to stay out of things that the government is incapable of doing, like making medical choices for over 300 million Americans. Some regulation, yes. Deciding when to put granny down, or whether grandpa can have a knee replaced, or a neonate should be saved or not, no.
Hell no.
Running Chrysler and General Motors, no.
Taxing energy and destroying our economy (even more), no.
Running up trillions more in national debt, no.
Expanding government at the expense of the private sector, no.
One could go on and on. Obama is trying to cram the very opposite down our throats. The Republicans so far have not really put forward credible and effective alternatives, at least none that have been well publicized.
Message to Republicans: don't try to regain power by saying "we will do better." Nobody will believe you.
Show us.
Message to Democrats: Get off the socialism now.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Some of it is....it is the issue du jour. But there is a lot more. A lot.
Victor Davis Hanson, is great essay, says it this way:
"There is a growing sense of a “we’ve been had”, bait-and-switch. Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats — apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president — voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out-of-control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort."
Read the whole thing here.
Professor Hanson goes on the give reasons for why "we have been had" but there are others he misses.
And he misses one important thing: these protests are also against the Republican policies of the last few years.
The people are tired of the government messing everything up. They are tired of the corruption, the power of the big lobbyists, the huge and growing deficits, the move to have the government control every aspect of our lives, the terrible, huge bailouts of the financial institutions, the nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors with the concurrent gift of 40% of the stock in GM to the United Auto Workers, an adjunct of the Democratic Party, and a whole list of other things.
While the Democrats may be the worst offenders, Republicans started us down the path to the bailouts and the nationalizations, and certainly were running up huge deficits. They also really enjoyed slopping at the trough when they were in power.
Much of this anger is directed at the entire political process. Some did, as Hanson points out, foolishly think that Obama might really change things, and hope that government could be made to work better.
Obama's only interest is to make it work better for his political allies. Anyone who thinks differently is still being foolish.
My view is that Americans do want their government to work better than it has, but they also want it to be limited to those things government can do best.
They want the government to stay out of things that the government is incapable of doing, like making medical choices for over 300 million Americans. Some regulation, yes. Deciding when to put granny down, or whether grandpa can have a knee replaced, or a neonate should be saved or not, no.
Hell no.
Running Chrysler and General Motors, no.
Taxing energy and destroying our economy (even more), no.
Running up trillions more in national debt, no.
Expanding government at the expense of the private sector, no.
One could go on and on. Obama is trying to cram the very opposite down our throats. The Republicans so far have not really put forward credible and effective alternatives, at least none that have been well publicized.
Message to Republicans: don't try to regain power by saying "we will do better." Nobody will believe you.
Show us.
Message to Democrats: Get off the socialism now.
The "Golden Years"
Last weekend while visiting an old friend who is rehabbing from an almost fatal stroke, I had the opportunity to spend a few hours in a combination nursing home and assisted living home.
Although my friend is slowly improving, it was a very saddening experience.
Actually, it is every old person's horror.
There were only two men that I saw in the facility, my friend and a retired pastor in his 90s. The remainder were little old ladies in various stage of physical and mental health, none of which seemed capable of providing for themselves.
The eyes haunt me. My friend and several of the ladies still had bright eyes...indicating to me, at least, that they still had mental acuity. This was generally proved by conversation.
Other eyes were dull, not bright, and those were the ones that may well have been the best off.
Now my friend appears to be on the way to recovery and escape from the home.
For the others with "bright eyes" there will likely be no escape other than eventual death.
Those with the "dull" eyes? Well, they probably don't appreciate what is going on that much. Their minds have likely already escaped, and their bodies will follow at a later date.
Back in the old days, when we had strong families throughout American society, a place like that would be unheard of. If one's mom or dad, or grandparents got in that shape, they would be taken into a family member's home until they passed on.
Now, however, they are placed in homes like these. And left alone.
Sad.
They way we treat our elderly is certainly a comment on our society the same way as the way we treat our youth is.
Although my friend is slowly improving, it was a very saddening experience.
Actually, it is every old person's horror.
There were only two men that I saw in the facility, my friend and a retired pastor in his 90s. The remainder were little old ladies in various stage of physical and mental health, none of which seemed capable of providing for themselves.
The eyes haunt me. My friend and several of the ladies still had bright eyes...indicating to me, at least, that they still had mental acuity. This was generally proved by conversation.
Other eyes were dull, not bright, and those were the ones that may well have been the best off.
Now my friend appears to be on the way to recovery and escape from the home.
For the others with "bright eyes" there will likely be no escape other than eventual death.
Those with the "dull" eyes? Well, they probably don't appreciate what is going on that much. Their minds have likely already escaped, and their bodies will follow at a later date.
Back in the old days, when we had strong families throughout American society, a place like that would be unheard of. If one's mom or dad, or grandparents got in that shape, they would be taken into a family member's home until they passed on.
Now, however, they are placed in homes like these. And left alone.
Sad.
They way we treat our elderly is certainly a comment on our society the same way as the way we treat our youth is.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Real Problem With the Health Care Debate
The real problem with health care is that they have done it in a way that nobody can really be informed. Clearly the Congress is not, and clearly the folks on both sides are not.
This is the crux of the matter: the whole issue has been presented in such a poor way that nobody really knows or appreciates what is actually in the various bills, and the attempt to rush it through with no debate, like the stimulus and the cap and trade bill, leaves the public to assume that the health care bill is as bad as the others.
This is just real poor politics by Obama and the Congressional leaders. Camille Paglia had it right.
People fear the unknown. The bill's provisions are unknown....deliberately. The Democrats are losing the fight for that reason, and should.
What needs to be done is that Obama needs to lay out the bill he wants, and then the various committees in Congress should hold public hearings and hear everyone's views.
After hearings and a fair markup debate, what comes out should be freely debated on the House floor (or the Senate, as the case may be) and voted up or down after any amendments. In other words, they should follow their own procedures.
Instead, the Democrat leadership in the House tried to rush something through without debate and without really informing the public what was in it.
This is not how a Democratic Republic like ours is supposed to work. It is a violation of all the tenets of fairness.
For that reason all of the bills should be voted down, and a new start made.
We were promised bi-partisanship by Obama. Instead, we have gotten worse partisanship than even Tom DeLay caused.
Shame on them all.
This is the crux of the matter: the whole issue has been presented in such a poor way that nobody really knows or appreciates what is actually in the various bills, and the attempt to rush it through with no debate, like the stimulus and the cap and trade bill, leaves the public to assume that the health care bill is as bad as the others.
This is just real poor politics by Obama and the Congressional leaders. Camille Paglia had it right.
People fear the unknown. The bill's provisions are unknown....deliberately. The Democrats are losing the fight for that reason, and should.
What needs to be done is that Obama needs to lay out the bill he wants, and then the various committees in Congress should hold public hearings and hear everyone's views.
After hearings and a fair markup debate, what comes out should be freely debated on the House floor (or the Senate, as the case may be) and voted up or down after any amendments. In other words, they should follow their own procedures.
Instead, the Democrat leadership in the House tried to rush something through without debate and without really informing the public what was in it.
This is not how a Democratic Republic like ours is supposed to work. It is a violation of all the tenets of fairness.
For that reason all of the bills should be voted down, and a new start made.
We were promised bi-partisanship by Obama. Instead, we have gotten worse partisanship than even Tom DeLay caused.
Shame on them all.
Health Care Reform
The last day or so I have managed to post some comments on this issue on a friend's blog.
Go here to check out the comments.
Go here to check out the comments.
Sorry about
the hiatus in blogging. As noted in the previous blog, I was out of town, and have been working since.
That has not left time to blog.
There are lots of things out there to blog about, so I will try to do better.
That has not left time to blog.
There are lots of things out there to blog about, so I will try to do better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)