There has been a lot of moisture out here in West Texas the last few months. Right now, we are at about 2 1/2 times normal, and our rainy season has just begun. I suppose its the El Nino that has been in progress, but the Winter sure felt like Global Cooling.
That does bring to mind the issue of Global Warming that all the liberals were panicked about. We have not heard a lot about that lately, since the science has been shown to have been unscientific. It appears that a lot of it was based upon scientists wanting to be politically corrrect so they could get more government money for research. The rest was based upon doctored evidence that was never disclosed, and "conveniently" lost before it could be checked.
Poor Al Gore. It now appears he will not make the billions of dollars he would have made if the "cap and trade" fiasco had passed.
The problem is, the globe does warm and does cool, and we should be prepared for it. Right now there appears to be temporary cooling, but by the time we really establish that, it may well be warming again.
That is what the earth does. It warms for a while, then it cools. In the last 100,000 years we have had several cycles of warming and cooling. Humans have always adapted to it. We need to be prepared to adapt to it again. We can't stop it, and to try would be foolish.
Back to the rain. It caused the postponement of the Tax Day Tea Party on Thursday. Too bad. I was going to go, as I did last year.
It has been very interesting to see how our political left and their minions in the media have treated the Tea Partys over the last year.
At first they were "right wing extremists" then moved on to be racists and Nazis. That did not work, of course, because none of it was true. They also tried to set up some individuals as "leaders" of the Tea Party and tried to tear the Partiers down by attacking those "leaders." That didn't work, either, mainly because the Tea Party groups are all local folks. Its a movement, not an organization.
The lastest is a New York Times/CBS poll that asserts they are rich and well educated, and not representative of a cross section of the citizenry. That will fail as well, because its not true. Obviously, the media has not covered the actual Tea Partys enough to have a clue about them. Or they don't care about the truth.
I wonder what they will try to come up with next.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
On a Personal Note
Back when I started this blog, I knew little about it, but did so because a friend of mine did it, and I thought it might be fun to do.
At the time, knowing that there is nothing really anonymous on the Internet, I determined that I would not hide my identity, and that I would scrupulously abide by the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
As a result, I have kept my commentary entirely on political issues of national interest, and have not posted on any issues that might ever come before me when sitting by assignment.
I welcome and encourage comments on the issues presented on this blog. I know that there are many who do not agree with my viewpoint, and welcome your input.....as long as it is on issue.
Lately I have been having another kind of commenter......some who would use the comments to anonymously criticize rulings or decisions I have made. These comments are not welcome, and have been, and will continue to be deleted.
All I can say to those people is that if you do not agree with me, just appeal the case.
If you wish to complain to me, then call me. I probably will not discuss any case with anyone, but at least you can honestly express your opnion before I hang up.
Those who would be cowardly and try to hide behind anonymity.....well, reread the second paragraph.
At the time, knowing that there is nothing really anonymous on the Internet, I determined that I would not hide my identity, and that I would scrupulously abide by the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.
As a result, I have kept my commentary entirely on political issues of national interest, and have not posted on any issues that might ever come before me when sitting by assignment.
I welcome and encourage comments on the issues presented on this blog. I know that there are many who do not agree with my viewpoint, and welcome your input.....as long as it is on issue.
Lately I have been having another kind of commenter......some who would use the comments to anonymously criticize rulings or decisions I have made. These comments are not welcome, and have been, and will continue to be deleted.
All I can say to those people is that if you do not agree with me, just appeal the case.
If you wish to complain to me, then call me. I probably will not discuss any case with anyone, but at least you can honestly express your opnion before I hang up.
Those who would be cowardly and try to hide behind anonymity.....well, reread the second paragraph.
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Ides of March
This year the Ides of March bring the new "final" push by the Democrats to impose Obamacare on a very reluctant nation.
Rasmussen says that the current bill (to the extent anyone knows what is in it) is supported by 43% of the country, while 53% are opposed.
They do not appear to have the votes to pass the bill by ordinary means, so we are seeing all kinds of manipulations in the House to try to force it through.
We will see how many House Democrats are willing to walk the plank for Obama and Nancy Pelosi.
Meanwhile, Paul Ryan, a Republican Congressman, has an excellent article up in the Washington Post today. Read the whole thing. Its good.
His analysis, in part, includes the following:
Rasmussen says that the current bill (to the extent anyone knows what is in it) is supported by 43% of the country, while 53% are opposed.
They do not appear to have the votes to pass the bill by ordinary means, so we are seeing all kinds of manipulations in the House to try to force it through.
We will see how many House Democrats are willing to walk the plank for Obama and Nancy Pelosi.
Meanwhile, Paul Ryan, a Republican Congressman, has an excellent article up in the Washington Post today. Read the whole thing. Its good.
His analysis, in part, includes the following:
"...Through any analytical lens, the legislation will not address the central problem of skyrocketing health-care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that families' premiums could rise 10 to 13 percent; private-sector actuarial estimates top these already high numbers. The higher costs are driven by federalizing the regulation of insurance, narrowing consumers' options and reducing competition among providers. The health-care market would be dominated by government programs and the largest insurance companies, operating as de facto government utilities........"
"This legislation includes a range of job-killing tax hikes and controls on all Americans -- to fund this new entitlement and to penalize employers and individuals who don't play by Washington's new rules........"
The bill is a bad one that really does not address the real concerns that the public has about health care. Rising costs are not solved.
So what are the real purposes of the bill? Ryan explains:
"....If this debate had actually been about health care, we could have worked together to get a grip on costs, make quality care more accessible, address exclusions for preexisting conditions and realign the incentives of insurance companies with those of patients and doctors. Yet this process -- including its embarrassing conclusion -- demonstrates that the debate has never been about health-care policy but, instead, paternalistic ideology....."(emphasis mine)
His conclusion:
"...Should the Democrats' health-care train wreck make it to the president's desk, it will be a pyrrhic victory, and its devastating consequences will take their toll on our health-care system, our budget and our economy."
I emphatically agree. But a bright side of all of this is that the legislation, the way it has been forced on Congress by the Democratic leadership, and all of the shenanigans involved in its passage, will likely doom the Democratic Party to minority status for some time to come.
Now what we need to see is a Republican Party that will step up. So far, when given the chance, they have failed to do so.
Maybe some of the young leaders like Paul Ryan will be the Republican Party of the future.
The leaders of the past have largely failed.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Don't tell us......
On February 19, 2009, a guy named Rick Santelli, a CNBC business news broadcaster, set the Internet afire with a rant about taxpayers having to bail out defaulting mortage holders. A Youtube version of the rant spread over the Internet like wildfire. You can find it here.
In it he called for a Chicago Tea Party to protest the bailouts.
Boy did the idea catch on. All over America, mad citizens determined to protest what was happening in our government. It was a spontaneous movement, not created or led by anyone, unless you want to credit Mr. Santelli with it. He, of course, had no idea how his rant would catch on with the people.
Now in its second year politicians and press from all sides of the spectrum seem to amazed, even frightened by the movement. They should be.
Many are even setting up strawmen in the movement to tear it down. We see the press trying to set up a lot of people as "leaders" of the movement, then attempting to discredit the movement by being critical of the "leaders." (Some of the people they have described as "leaders" or "founders" of the tea party are pretty bad people, others very controversial.)
This is an attempt by them to discredit a grassroots citizens' movement falsely and by design.
There is no particular leader, although there are many activists who speak up. Most who claim to be leaders are doing so for their own purposes. So don't believe it.
But on to the title point.
A dear friend of mine, who happens to be a liberal, sent me two articles today from Politico.com, a reputable online source for political news.
One titled Republicans woo wary tea partiers dicusses how GOP Chairman Steele is engaging with 50 "leaders" of the tea party in hopes of enticing them into the Republican Party. For most of them, that will not work.
The other article was entitled Conservative manifesto coming soon. This is a story about a large group of Republican leaders and thinkers are getting together a new manifesto describing the basic Republican mission statement. This is also a response to the tea party movement.
I want to break the news to Mr. Steele and the other Republicans and to the Democrats: you people have had your chance. You had the chance to govern well and you blew it. Badly. Both parties.
The time is over for you to tell the people how and what you will or will not do. No more top down pontificating and then continuing on as usual. That day is over for now.
It is time that political power again starts flowing from the citizens to the politicians rather than the reverse.
What we want to see from you is actions. Your words are not meaningful. So listen instead of talk. Act instead of pontificate.
Show us.
In it he called for a Chicago Tea Party to protest the bailouts.
Boy did the idea catch on. All over America, mad citizens determined to protest what was happening in our government. It was a spontaneous movement, not created or led by anyone, unless you want to credit Mr. Santelli with it. He, of course, had no idea how his rant would catch on with the people.
Now in its second year politicians and press from all sides of the spectrum seem to amazed, even frightened by the movement. They should be.
Many are even setting up strawmen in the movement to tear it down. We see the press trying to set up a lot of people as "leaders" of the movement, then attempting to discredit the movement by being critical of the "leaders." (Some of the people they have described as "leaders" or "founders" of the tea party are pretty bad people, others very controversial.)
This is an attempt by them to discredit a grassroots citizens' movement falsely and by design.
There is no particular leader, although there are many activists who speak up. Most who claim to be leaders are doing so for their own purposes. So don't believe it.
But on to the title point.
A dear friend of mine, who happens to be a liberal, sent me two articles today from Politico.com, a reputable online source for political news.
One titled Republicans woo wary tea partiers dicusses how GOP Chairman Steele is engaging with 50 "leaders" of the tea party in hopes of enticing them into the Republican Party. For most of them, that will not work.
The other article was entitled Conservative manifesto coming soon. This is a story about a large group of Republican leaders and thinkers are getting together a new manifesto describing the basic Republican mission statement. This is also a response to the tea party movement.
I want to break the news to Mr. Steele and the other Republicans and to the Democrats: you people have had your chance. You had the chance to govern well and you blew it. Badly. Both parties.
The time is over for you to tell the people how and what you will or will not do. No more top down pontificating and then continuing on as usual. That day is over for now.
It is time that political power again starts flowing from the citizens to the politicians rather than the reverse.
What we want to see from you is actions. Your words are not meaningful. So listen instead of talk. Act instead of pontificate.
Show us.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
We Have Met the Enemy............
Yes, POGO had it right all the time. Its us. We did it to ourselves. Can't blame anybody else.
What, you ask? The answer is a huge mountain of debt as high as one can see.
Last week, the Congress of the United States passed an amendment raising the debt limit by $1,900,000,000,000.00. That is $1.9 TRILLION.
The debt is already in excess of $14,000,000,000,000.00. That is $14 TRILLION.
But that is not all. There is an additional $60,000,000,000,000.00 ( $60 TRILLION) in unfunded future liabilities for things like Social Security, Medicare and other so-called entitlement programs.
We can't pay it.
We have about $2.5 Trillion in tax revenues coming into the Federal Government annually. The Federal budget for the upcoming fiscal year is in excess of $3.8 TRILLION. For the first time in history, the Social Security tax will not bring in enough to pay current obligations. Left unchanged, it probably never will again.
None of this even counts the huge debts of states like California, or the huge consumer debt load that exists.
Who will pay for all of this? How will they pay it?
There are those who blame the politicians for the mess. There is a lot of blame to go around, certainly. The situation in Washington is corrupt, dysfunctional, and overly partisan. Both political parties have bought into spending money that we don't have. Each side wants to reap the rewards of power and have the free rein to funnel public money or tax and regulatory breaks to their friends and contributors. Almost every one of the elected officials in Washington should be thrown out for having bought into that system
But its too easy to just blame the politicians. Our country is pretty evenly split between folks who are "conservative" and want low taxes and smaller government, and "liberals" who want higher taxes and more government.
Usually, there is a healthy tension between the sides that keeps the government more or less to a center course. But since the politicians of both sides are committed to spending rather than saving, we get more debt.
Let a liberal want to raise taxes to help pay for all of this, and every taxpayer gets riled. If a conservative wants to cut spending and cut taxes, then the other side gets riled.
We the people put a lot of pressure on Congress to preserve our pet spending programs or tax breaks or regulatory scheme.
The result has often been cutting taxes and increasing spending. Sometimes its been raising taxes and raising spending.
It just doesn't work. We need a new paradigm in Washington.
We are in such deep trouble that we must come together and make some changes. Everyone is going to have to give up something in order to cure the problem.
Spending will have to be cut; taxes will have to be raised. Everyone will have to pitch in. We just can't go on this way.
Nothing will get done unless everyone is called upon to make the sacrifices necessary.
If we don't stop, we become a Banana Republic, and our children and their children will suffer greatly.
What, you ask? The answer is a huge mountain of debt as high as one can see.
Last week, the Congress of the United States passed an amendment raising the debt limit by $1,900,000,000,000.00. That is $1.9 TRILLION.
The debt is already in excess of $14,000,000,000,000.00. That is $14 TRILLION.
But that is not all. There is an additional $60,000,000,000,000.00 ( $60 TRILLION) in unfunded future liabilities for things like Social Security, Medicare and other so-called entitlement programs.
We can't pay it.
We have about $2.5 Trillion in tax revenues coming into the Federal Government annually. The Federal budget for the upcoming fiscal year is in excess of $3.8 TRILLION. For the first time in history, the Social Security tax will not bring in enough to pay current obligations. Left unchanged, it probably never will again.
None of this even counts the huge debts of states like California, or the huge consumer debt load that exists.
Who will pay for all of this? How will they pay it?
There are those who blame the politicians for the mess. There is a lot of blame to go around, certainly. The situation in Washington is corrupt, dysfunctional, and overly partisan. Both political parties have bought into spending money that we don't have. Each side wants to reap the rewards of power and have the free rein to funnel public money or tax and regulatory breaks to their friends and contributors. Almost every one of the elected officials in Washington should be thrown out for having bought into that system
But its too easy to just blame the politicians. Our country is pretty evenly split between folks who are "conservative" and want low taxes and smaller government, and "liberals" who want higher taxes and more government.
Usually, there is a healthy tension between the sides that keeps the government more or less to a center course. But since the politicians of both sides are committed to spending rather than saving, we get more debt.
Let a liberal want to raise taxes to help pay for all of this, and every taxpayer gets riled. If a conservative wants to cut spending and cut taxes, then the other side gets riled.
We the people put a lot of pressure on Congress to preserve our pet spending programs or tax breaks or regulatory scheme.
The result has often been cutting taxes and increasing spending. Sometimes its been raising taxes and raising spending.
It just doesn't work. We need a new paradigm in Washington.
We are in such deep trouble that we must come together and make some changes. Everyone is going to have to give up something in order to cure the problem.
Spending will have to be cut; taxes will have to be raised. Everyone will have to pitch in. We just can't go on this way.
Nothing will get done unless everyone is called upon to make the sacrifices necessary.
If we don't stop, we become a Banana Republic, and our children and their children will suffer greatly.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Good News?
The headline story on Drudge this morning was about the reported 5.7% increase in GDP this morning. If it were real, that would be very good, and an important improvement in the economy.
Unfortunately, its a statistical gimmick more than anything else.
All but 2.2% of the improvement was because inventories have stopped declining so fast.
"About 60 percent of the fourth quarter's growth resulted from a sharp slowdown in the reduction of inventories as firms began to rebuild stockpiles depleted by the recession."
The best of it was a large increase (from a very low level) in exports, but that was tempered by a decrease in the growth of consumer spending.
The elephant in the room, of course, is employment and wages. My view has always been that there is no real economic recovery without employment improving. So far that is not on the horizon.
Megan McArdle, over at The Atlantic, says it pretty well:
"But man cannot live by GDP alone. I'd argue that the better measure of whether the economy has returned to health is employement--at least, that's when the improvement starts to translate into improvements in peoples' real lives. Prolonged unemployment is one of the most crippling things that can afflict people in the modern world."
Ed Yardeni in an article at the Washington Post, commented before the numbers came out:
"A lot of it is the arithmetic of inventories," said Yardeni, who is expecting a 6.5 percent jump in the GDP number. "Even if there is a very strong number for the fourth quarter, if it's [all because of] inventories, it will raise real questions about the strength of the economy in 2010."
There will be more reaction to the GDP release. I will try to keep updating this post as more comes out.
UPDATE:
The Wall Street Journal has reported on wages for 2009:
"Wage and benefit costs, both before and after adjusting for inflation, grew more slowly 2009 than any year since the U.S. government began tracking data in 1982 as double-digit unemployment weakened workers’ ability to command higher pay.
"Over the past 12 months, the cost of wages and benefits for workers other than those employed by the federal government rose 1.5%, according to the Labor Department’s employment cost index. Over the same period, consumer prices rose 2.7%."
There can be no recovery in the economy until good paying jobs come back.
UPDATE 2:
The Economic Policy Institute points out that the measure of demand from US households and businesses is still decelerating:
"A measure of the strength of demand coming from U.S.-based households and businesses (final sales to domestic purchasers, a measure that excludes export growth and includes import growth) grew at only a 1.7% rate in the quarter, actually decelerating from the third quarter growth rate of 2.3%. In fact, this quarter saw the largest divergence since 1987 between the overall GDP growth figure and the growth rate of domestic demand. In short, nothing about today’s report should lead to upward revisions in forecasts for economic growth over the next year, which generally hover around the 3% mark. This projected pace of growth would likely not even drive the unemployment rate below 10% by the end of 2010."
It appears that some parts of the economy may have some improvement, but its not yet reaching Main Street.
UPDATE 3:
Mish Shedlock finishes off the day with:
"Digging beneath the surface there is nothing to cheer about in the GDP numbers. Moreover, this weakness is in the face of the largest stimulus measures the world has ever seen, not just in the US, but globally. Money supply in China is growing at 30% and housing bubbles are likely to pop in Australia, Canada, and the UK. Problems in Greece, Spain, and Iceland continue to mount."
And:
"GDP is a mirage of sand blowing in the wind. So is global growth. It is a mistake to believe government spending can possibly provide a solid foundation for a lasting recovery."
It should also be noted that the huge pop in the commercial real estate bubble that is impending cannot support a recovery absent another huge bailout of the banks by the taxpayers.
I will repeat my view: There will not be a real recovery without jobs. Anything else will be smoke and mirrors.
Unfortunately, its a statistical gimmick more than anything else.
All but 2.2% of the improvement was because inventories have stopped declining so fast.
"About 60 percent of the fourth quarter's growth resulted from a sharp slowdown in the reduction of inventories as firms began to rebuild stockpiles depleted by the recession."
The best of it was a large increase (from a very low level) in exports, but that was tempered by a decrease in the growth of consumer spending.
The elephant in the room, of course, is employment and wages. My view has always been that there is no real economic recovery without employment improving. So far that is not on the horizon.
Megan McArdle, over at The Atlantic, says it pretty well:
"But man cannot live by GDP alone. I'd argue that the better measure of whether the economy has returned to health is employement--at least, that's when the improvement starts to translate into improvements in peoples' real lives. Prolonged unemployment is one of the most crippling things that can afflict people in the modern world."
Ed Yardeni in an article at the Washington Post, commented before the numbers came out:
"A lot of it is the arithmetic of inventories," said Yardeni, who is expecting a 6.5 percent jump in the GDP number. "Even if there is a very strong number for the fourth quarter, if it's [all because of] inventories, it will raise real questions about the strength of the economy in 2010."
There will be more reaction to the GDP release. I will try to keep updating this post as more comes out.
UPDATE:
The Wall Street Journal has reported on wages for 2009:
"Wage and benefit costs, both before and after adjusting for inflation, grew more slowly 2009 than any year since the U.S. government began tracking data in 1982 as double-digit unemployment weakened workers’ ability to command higher pay.
"Over the past 12 months, the cost of wages and benefits for workers other than those employed by the federal government rose 1.5%, according to the Labor Department’s employment cost index. Over the same period, consumer prices rose 2.7%."
There can be no recovery in the economy until good paying jobs come back.
UPDATE 2:
The Economic Policy Institute points out that the measure of demand from US households and businesses is still decelerating:
"A measure of the strength of demand coming from U.S.-based households and businesses (final sales to domestic purchasers, a measure that excludes export growth and includes import growth) grew at only a 1.7% rate in the quarter, actually decelerating from the third quarter growth rate of 2.3%. In fact, this quarter saw the largest divergence since 1987 between the overall GDP growth figure and the growth rate of domestic demand. In short, nothing about today’s report should lead to upward revisions in forecasts for economic growth over the next year, which generally hover around the 3% mark. This projected pace of growth would likely not even drive the unemployment rate below 10% by the end of 2010."
It appears that some parts of the economy may have some improvement, but its not yet reaching Main Street.
UPDATE 3:
Mish Shedlock finishes off the day with:
"Digging beneath the surface there is nothing to cheer about in the GDP numbers. Moreover, this weakness is in the face of the largest stimulus measures the world has ever seen, not just in the US, but globally. Money supply in China is growing at 30% and housing bubbles are likely to pop in Australia, Canada, and the UK. Problems in Greece, Spain, and Iceland continue to mount."
And:
"GDP is a mirage of sand blowing in the wind. So is global growth. It is a mistake to believe government spending can possibly provide a solid foundation for a lasting recovery."
It should also be noted that the huge pop in the commercial real estate bubble that is impending cannot support a recovery absent another huge bailout of the banks by the taxpayers.
I will repeat my view: There will not be a real recovery without jobs. Anything else will be smoke and mirrors.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The State of the United States
No, not the speech, although I will get to it later, perhaps.
The state of our country is not good. We are mired in a deep recession with high and growing unemployent, and only the huge institutions that were bailed out by the government are showing profits. Main Street still suffers.
We are in a situation caused by a huge expansion of credit wherein large financial institutions, both private and semi-public engaged in wild speculation, creating a bubble in real estate, and then the bubble popped.
This had the effect of destroying much of the capital of the financial institutions, but also the capital of the general public.
With the bubble gone, the US Government under George W. Bush stepped in to socialize the huge losses of the financial institutions, but not, of course, the huge losses that had been imposed upon the general public. (I call this the Golden Rule) In fact, the general public will end up paying for the financial institutions' losses as well as their own.
Hope and Change gets elected and promptly nationalizes General Motors and to some extent, Chrysler.
Relief for the general public? Hardly.
Next is a huge "stimulous" bill that goes primarily to large Democratic political constituencies, adds nearly a trillion to the deficit, and accomplishes nothing but add further burdens on the general public.
We then get a Cap and Trade Bill that is rushed through the House without being read. This bill would add hundreds of billions to the costs of energy....to be ultimately paid by whom? You got it. The general public.
With the first of these matters a movement began to form: The Tea Parties. The public was awakening. But the politicians ignored them or put them down as extremists. Who were the partiers? The general public.
After Cap and Trade passed the House, the Pelosi crowd began to attempt to socialize our country's medical care. Behind closed doors.
It was if the Iron Curtain was rebuilt right there in Washington, D.C. Everything was done behind closed doors. In secrecy. Few know what kind of deals were made to buy "support" for the bill, but what is known is that it was terribly unfair to.........the general public.
A similar bill is now pending in the Senate, where the majority party is still trying to push it through, in spite of the opposition of....the general public.
So here we are after one year of Hope and Change. We have no hope, and only a change for the worse.
Elections in Virginia and Massachusetts have given the general public a chance to be heard, but from the State of the Union speech last night, it is clear that the lessons have been lost by the politicians in our government.
Maybe they should all watch and listen to the ad that newly elected Senator Scott Brown ran during the campaign in Massachusetts. It is one of the very best I have heard in my over fifty years in politics.
You can find it here. If you do nothing else, go to this ad.
The public will get little, if any, relief from the policies spoken of by the President last night.
But we can get relief in November when we have the opportunity to throw all the rascals out. There is Hope, after all.
Who will lead the revolution?
The state of our country is not good. We are mired in a deep recession with high and growing unemployent, and only the huge institutions that were bailed out by the government are showing profits. Main Street still suffers.
We are in a situation caused by a huge expansion of credit wherein large financial institutions, both private and semi-public engaged in wild speculation, creating a bubble in real estate, and then the bubble popped.
This had the effect of destroying much of the capital of the financial institutions, but also the capital of the general public.
With the bubble gone, the US Government under George W. Bush stepped in to socialize the huge losses of the financial institutions, but not, of course, the huge losses that had been imposed upon the general public. (I call this the Golden Rule) In fact, the general public will end up paying for the financial institutions' losses as well as their own.
Hope and Change gets elected and promptly nationalizes General Motors and to some extent, Chrysler.
Relief for the general public? Hardly.
Next is a huge "stimulous" bill that goes primarily to large Democratic political constituencies, adds nearly a trillion to the deficit, and accomplishes nothing but add further burdens on the general public.
We then get a Cap and Trade Bill that is rushed through the House without being read. This bill would add hundreds of billions to the costs of energy....to be ultimately paid by whom? You got it. The general public.
With the first of these matters a movement began to form: The Tea Parties. The public was awakening. But the politicians ignored them or put them down as extremists. Who were the partiers? The general public.
After Cap and Trade passed the House, the Pelosi crowd began to attempt to socialize our country's medical care. Behind closed doors.
It was if the Iron Curtain was rebuilt right there in Washington, D.C. Everything was done behind closed doors. In secrecy. Few know what kind of deals were made to buy "support" for the bill, but what is known is that it was terribly unfair to.........the general public.
A similar bill is now pending in the Senate, where the majority party is still trying to push it through, in spite of the opposition of....the general public.
So here we are after one year of Hope and Change. We have no hope, and only a change for the worse.
Elections in Virginia and Massachusetts have given the general public a chance to be heard, but from the State of the Union speech last night, it is clear that the lessons have been lost by the politicians in our government.
Maybe they should all watch and listen to the ad that newly elected Senator Scott Brown ran during the campaign in Massachusetts. It is one of the very best I have heard in my over fifty years in politics.
You can find it here. If you do nothing else, go to this ad.
The public will get little, if any, relief from the policies spoken of by the President last night.
But we can get relief in November when we have the opportunity to throw all the rascals out. There is Hope, after all.
Who will lead the revolution?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Election Lessons
Neither side gets it.....yet.
The election of Scott Brown to the US Senate from Massachusetts has been the big election story of the past week.
Republicans are ecstatic and they think that this was a triumph for Republicans.
Democrats are, of course, very disheartened, but blame the loss on a poor campaign, not their policies.
They are both wrong. It was a victory for the great political center of our country.
What is occuring is that the political center of the country is , to paraphrase Finch's yell from Network, mad as Hell, and they aren't going to take it any more.
In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned as a "post-partisan" who was going to bring change in the way Washington works. He promised more transparency and a bi-partisan approach.
This was what the center wanted to see, John McCain represented the old ways, so they moved into the Democratic column and voted largely for Obama.
Of course, the economy was headed into the tank and the Bush administration had started a huge Federal bailout of the very people who caused the problem, and that had everyone unhappy as well.
Hope and change seemed to be a good thing, so Obama won the election handily.
Almost by the time of his inauguration, it had become clear that hope and change meant more of the same. A huge and mostly wasteful stimulus bill was rushed through Congress, and it became apparent that the United States was facing huge deficits as far as one could project. Cap and Trade was pushed through without any debate and without anyone knowing exactly what was in the bill. And the huge bailouts continued.
All that could be discerned was that the Cap and Trade bill was going to be extremely costly to ordinary Americans, but that the owners of the trading markets, such as Al Gore, were going to get very rich.
So the Tea Party movement started....and grew and grew.
During the Summer of 2009 the ObamaCare bills started to be crafted....in the dark. Rather than transparency, we saw secrecy. People became more outraged, and appeared at Town Hall meetings to protest.
Democrats in the House and Senate were very disparaging of the folks that were protesting.
Tone deaf.
The gubernatorial election in Virginia followed wherein a huge turnaround from the vote in 2008 occurred and a Republican was elected. The Democrats remained tone deaf and continued to try to ram ObamaCare through Congress.
So we get to the election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. A liberal Democrat runs in the traditionally liberal Democratic state, and is deemed a shoe in. She even took a vacation in the midst of the campaign!
Her opponent, running on the Republican ticket was not a conservative. It was, after all, Massachusetts. But he did tap into the anger of the regular folks.
And he won.
In the aftermath, both political parties remain tone deaf.
The Democrats think they ran a poor campaign and they did not sell their program very well.
The Republicans think the election means a turn toward conservative Republican principles.
Both are wrong.
Each party has its right or left wings, but both of them have to attract the center to govern. Both of them need to understand what the center does and does not want, and neither seem to have a clue that what they have both been offering is not what is wanted. Or needed.
Bush fooled them, and Obama fooled them.
My suspicion is that incumbents of either party are going to have a hard time. They should.
It is time that both parties get a clue, or there will be a party that comes along that will.
The election of Scott Brown to the US Senate from Massachusetts has been the big election story of the past week.
Republicans are ecstatic and they think that this was a triumph for Republicans.
Democrats are, of course, very disheartened, but blame the loss on a poor campaign, not their policies.
They are both wrong. It was a victory for the great political center of our country.
What is occuring is that the political center of the country is , to paraphrase Finch's yell from Network, mad as Hell, and they aren't going to take it any more.
In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned as a "post-partisan" who was going to bring change in the way Washington works. He promised more transparency and a bi-partisan approach.
This was what the center wanted to see, John McCain represented the old ways, so they moved into the Democratic column and voted largely for Obama.
Of course, the economy was headed into the tank and the Bush administration had started a huge Federal bailout of the very people who caused the problem, and that had everyone unhappy as well.
Hope and change seemed to be a good thing, so Obama won the election handily.
Almost by the time of his inauguration, it had become clear that hope and change meant more of the same. A huge and mostly wasteful stimulus bill was rushed through Congress, and it became apparent that the United States was facing huge deficits as far as one could project. Cap and Trade was pushed through without any debate and without anyone knowing exactly what was in the bill. And the huge bailouts continued.
All that could be discerned was that the Cap and Trade bill was going to be extremely costly to ordinary Americans, but that the owners of the trading markets, such as Al Gore, were going to get very rich.
So the Tea Party movement started....and grew and grew.
During the Summer of 2009 the ObamaCare bills started to be crafted....in the dark. Rather than transparency, we saw secrecy. People became more outraged, and appeared at Town Hall meetings to protest.
Democrats in the House and Senate were very disparaging of the folks that were protesting.
Tone deaf.
The gubernatorial election in Virginia followed wherein a huge turnaround from the vote in 2008 occurred and a Republican was elected. The Democrats remained tone deaf and continued to try to ram ObamaCare through Congress.
So we get to the election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. A liberal Democrat runs in the traditionally liberal Democratic state, and is deemed a shoe in. She even took a vacation in the midst of the campaign!
Her opponent, running on the Republican ticket was not a conservative. It was, after all, Massachusetts. But he did tap into the anger of the regular folks.
And he won.
In the aftermath, both political parties remain tone deaf.
The Democrats think they ran a poor campaign and they did not sell their program very well.
The Republicans think the election means a turn toward conservative Republican principles.
Both are wrong.
Each party has its right or left wings, but both of them have to attract the center to govern. Both of them need to understand what the center does and does not want, and neither seem to have a clue that what they have both been offering is not what is wanted. Or needed.
Bush fooled them, and Obama fooled them.
My suspicion is that incumbents of either party are going to have a hard time. They should.
It is time that both parties get a clue, or there will be a party that comes along that will.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Happy and Sad
A couple of years ago when I decided to try blogging, the main objective that I had was to not become a slave of writing on a schedule. I don't think anyone can say that I have, since it has been so long since I have posted here.
Another of my intentions was to do it for fun. Often it has not been.
Since I retired I have been enjoying life, with a great family, a faithful dog, wonderful friends and good health, at least for an old codger.
My family, friends and I have lived the American Dream. It has been great, and I hope that we can preserve that opportunity for our children and their children.
The above is the happy part.
It is a cultural thing, I suppose, for the elderly to disapprove of what the younger generations are doing. My parents disapproved of our teen music, just as my generation doesn't appreciate the kind of music and culture of the current teens. That is just natural, and is not something that I am that concerned about.
What I am concerned with is the direction in which our country, and particularly our government, is headed.
This is the sad part.
One can read past posts and get an idea of the things that are so sad. A quick summation would be that our people are increasingly losing their liberty to an ever growing and increasingly uncontrollable government.
Since at least the last Great Depression we have all looked increasingly toward the national government to solve every problem, and increasingly let our state and local governments become so hooked on Federal funds that they can only respond to the Feds, and not to the desires of the people.
It is not my intent to go into great detail about the hows and whens, but we all must realize that we have been letting our government drift out of control for several decades.
The more this happens, the less free we become.
This is Christmas time, and I am going to be happy, and I wish happiness and a Merry Christmas to all of you.
After this happy period, I am not going to be sad any more.
I am going to be mad as Hell.
Another of my intentions was to do it for fun. Often it has not been.
Since I retired I have been enjoying life, with a great family, a faithful dog, wonderful friends and good health, at least for an old codger.
My family, friends and I have lived the American Dream. It has been great, and I hope that we can preserve that opportunity for our children and their children.
The above is the happy part.
It is a cultural thing, I suppose, for the elderly to disapprove of what the younger generations are doing. My parents disapproved of our teen music, just as my generation doesn't appreciate the kind of music and culture of the current teens. That is just natural, and is not something that I am that concerned about.
What I am concerned with is the direction in which our country, and particularly our government, is headed.
This is the sad part.
One can read past posts and get an idea of the things that are so sad. A quick summation would be that our people are increasingly losing their liberty to an ever growing and increasingly uncontrollable government.
Since at least the last Great Depression we have all looked increasingly toward the national government to solve every problem, and increasingly let our state and local governments become so hooked on Federal funds that they can only respond to the Feds, and not to the desires of the people.
It is not my intent to go into great detail about the hows and whens, but we all must realize that we have been letting our government drift out of control for several decades.
The more this happens, the less free we become.
This is Christmas time, and I am going to be happy, and I wish happiness and a Merry Christmas to all of you.
After this happy period, I am not going to be sad any more.
I am going to be mad as Hell.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Are we living in a satire?
A good question. When we consider what is going on around us every day, it just has to be satire.
The President of the United States tours the world apologizing for everything our country has been.
The President of the United States offends and insults the friends and allies of our country, but snuggles up to the tyrants and dictators of the world in very obsequious ways.
The Russians are now threatening the US with nuclear preemption.
The Iranians and the North Koreans and every other two-bit dictatorship thumbs their noses at the US, correctly assuming that our President is weak.
A Republican President of the United States permits a financial coup de' etat of our economy by the huge financial institutions in New York, and his Democratic successor further enables it.
The President of the United States is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, having been nominated therefor not later than 12 days after he took office, joining others to hold the prize like Yassir Arafat and Jimmy Carter.
The politicians in Washington are proposing huge and expensive changes in our medical care system in the middle of the worst economy in decades.
They are also proposing huge new taxes on energy use at the same time.
They are continuing to try to solve the problems in the economy caused by too much debt by going further into debt at historical rates.
When one looks at Washington, all one sees is business as usual.
We are living in Wonderland, with Alice.
Who will lead the revolution?
The President of the United States tours the world apologizing for everything our country has been.
The President of the United States offends and insults the friends and allies of our country, but snuggles up to the tyrants and dictators of the world in very obsequious ways.
The Russians are now threatening the US with nuclear preemption.
The Iranians and the North Koreans and every other two-bit dictatorship thumbs their noses at the US, correctly assuming that our President is weak.
A Republican President of the United States permits a financial coup de' etat of our economy by the huge financial institutions in New York, and his Democratic successor further enables it.
The President of the United States is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, having been nominated therefor not later than 12 days after he took office, joining others to hold the prize like Yassir Arafat and Jimmy Carter.
The politicians in Washington are proposing huge and expensive changes in our medical care system in the middle of the worst economy in decades.
They are also proposing huge new taxes on energy use at the same time.
They are continuing to try to solve the problems in the economy caused by too much debt by going further into debt at historical rates.
When one looks at Washington, all one sees is business as usual.
We are living in Wonderland, with Alice.
Who will lead the revolution?
Friday, October 2, 2009
Not in our strategic interests?
Afghanistan is in the news with the US undertaking still another review of the strategy and tactics needed there. Although I am a hawk on a lot of matters, I am thinking we should step back and take a look at Afghanistan.
What is our strategic interest there? Is the conflict there so important that it involves our nation's really strategic interests? In other words, is it something so important all the resources we have should should be used to accomplish the objective? Stated another way, is Afghanistan so important to us that we should expend large numbers of lives and billions or trillions of dollars to make Afghanistan "safe for democracy,"or whatever we are trying to do?
If we left Afghanistan to a fight between the factions there, would it really have any kind of effect on our national interests? How much?
Or is our objective just to make it unsafe for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda?
My thought is that it is appropriate to have a well defined objective, and one that is based upon our important strategic interests.
I really have not seen anyone articulate a firm objective.
Our decision must be measured against some known facts. Many of the best armies in the history of the world have tried to pacify Afghanistan: Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the British in the 19th Century, and the Soviet Union in the 20th Century.
They all failed. The terrain and tribalism makes it extremely difficult to do.
The Afghanis don't like outsiders, and we have become the outsiders once NATO and the regular forces moved in.
If we try to increase our force levels and go all out to pacify the country, it will be extremely costly, and, like the other great powers of the past, we may likely fail as they did.
And we would be diverting badly needed resources from other areas, such as the Middle East, where we absolutely do have very important strategic interests, and where they may be needed soon. Think Iran.
So again, one must ask the question: Is it worth it?
I am having doubts that it would be.
What is our strategic interest there? Is the conflict there so important that it involves our nation's really strategic interests? In other words, is it something so important all the resources we have should should be used to accomplish the objective? Stated another way, is Afghanistan so important to us that we should expend large numbers of lives and billions or trillions of dollars to make Afghanistan "safe for democracy,"or whatever we are trying to do?
If we left Afghanistan to a fight between the factions there, would it really have any kind of effect on our national interests? How much?
Or is our objective just to make it unsafe for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda?
My thought is that it is appropriate to have a well defined objective, and one that is based upon our important strategic interests.
I really have not seen anyone articulate a firm objective.
Our decision must be measured against some known facts. Many of the best armies in the history of the world have tried to pacify Afghanistan: Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the British in the 19th Century, and the Soviet Union in the 20th Century.
They all failed. The terrain and tribalism makes it extremely difficult to do.
The Afghanis don't like outsiders, and we have become the outsiders once NATO and the regular forces moved in.
If we try to increase our force levels and go all out to pacify the country, it will be extremely costly, and, like the other great powers of the past, we may likely fail as they did.
And we would be diverting badly needed resources from other areas, such as the Middle East, where we absolutely do have very important strategic interests, and where they may be needed soon. Think Iran.
So again, one must ask the question: Is it worth it?
I am having doubts that it would be.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Thoughts on a return to blogging
It has been a long and busy three weeks, and I have not been able to even gather thoughts in order to blog. Sorry.
There was some time to keep up with email, and to read some articles. Given what is happening in our world, there is a lot to blog about. I will try to do so with a bit more regularity than lately.
Looking about, one sees the United States, once respected, if disliked, has changed to being disrespected and still disliked.
All of that in a period of eight months.
This is because of the deliberate policies of our current government. It has sucked up to our enemies and offended and abandoned our friends. Intentionally.
Iran has just been given another pass, in spite of its threat. North Korea is ignored, to do whatever nuke development they wish.
Castro and Chavez to our south are being helped, rather than isolated, while Honduras and Colombia, our allies, are treated quite poorly.
The situation in Afghanistan is eroding, and the government is holding "meetings." There seems to be no sense of urgency, even though the President accorded Afghanistan important status when running for office.
Domestically, the economy is in the tank while the "stimulus" is spent to shore up supporters and arms of the Democratic Party. The big banking and financial institutions have been bailed out with nearly three trillion dollars of taxpayers' money, but the government entities refuse to account to the people for the money.
The majority party is trying to cram health "reform" down the throat of the 85% of the people who are satisfied with their health insurance, in order to make coverage available to an additional 11% of the people (and, of course, 12 million illegal aliens).
They are also trying to pass a "cap and trade" regime, which will enrich a few, but will constitute a huge energy tax on everyone else, even the poor. This is being done in a time of deep recession and increasing unemployment.
In the media, I notice that the New York Times has as the lead article a story about Senator John Ensign (R-Nev) and his affair, but there is not a mention anywhere of Charles Rangel (D-NY) and his series of felonies, nor of the bastard child of John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, even though there is some here on Politico.
Enough.
A couple of weeks ago, as I sat out on my patio enjoying the evening with my puppy dog and an adult beverage, I had something of a premonition. Nothing specific at all, just a thought that something bad might happen. A friend that I told about it said he was having somewhat similar thoughts.
I think that when one considers the above, along with everything else, there is good reason to worry.
Perhaps that can be covered a bit in succeeding posts.
There was some time to keep up with email, and to read some articles. Given what is happening in our world, there is a lot to blog about. I will try to do so with a bit more regularity than lately.
Looking about, one sees the United States, once respected, if disliked, has changed to being disrespected and still disliked.
All of that in a period of eight months.
This is because of the deliberate policies of our current government. It has sucked up to our enemies and offended and abandoned our friends. Intentionally.
Iran has just been given another pass, in spite of its threat. North Korea is ignored, to do whatever nuke development they wish.
Castro and Chavez to our south are being helped, rather than isolated, while Honduras and Colombia, our allies, are treated quite poorly.
The situation in Afghanistan is eroding, and the government is holding "meetings." There seems to be no sense of urgency, even though the President accorded Afghanistan important status when running for office.
Domestically, the economy is in the tank while the "stimulus" is spent to shore up supporters and arms of the Democratic Party. The big banking and financial institutions have been bailed out with nearly three trillion dollars of taxpayers' money, but the government entities refuse to account to the people for the money.
The majority party is trying to cram health "reform" down the throat of the 85% of the people who are satisfied with their health insurance, in order to make coverage available to an additional 11% of the people (and, of course, 12 million illegal aliens).
They are also trying to pass a "cap and trade" regime, which will enrich a few, but will constitute a huge energy tax on everyone else, even the poor. This is being done in a time of deep recession and increasing unemployment.
In the media, I notice that the New York Times has as the lead article a story about Senator John Ensign (R-Nev) and his affair, but there is not a mention anywhere of Charles Rangel (D-NY) and his series of felonies, nor of the bastard child of John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, even though there is some here on Politico.
Enough.
A couple of weeks ago, as I sat out on my patio enjoying the evening with my puppy dog and an adult beverage, I had something of a premonition. Nothing specific at all, just a thought that something bad might happen. A friend that I told about it said he was having somewhat similar thoughts.
I think that when one considers the above, along with everything else, there is good reason to worry.
Perhaps that can be covered a bit in succeeding posts.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
What are they buying?
Opensecrets.org is a great site to explore, and I encourage everyone to go there and browse.
I was doing so today, and came across their list of heavy hitters: the biggest contributors to political campaigns over the last 20 years.
One clear thing is that labor unions were, as a group, by far the biggest givers, to the tune of $184,906,000. That is $184 Million.
ATT was the biggest single company at over $43 Million. Goldman Sachs managed only fourth place with over $31 Million. But they got several Secretaries of the Treasury for their trouble.
Go here and see who "owns" our politicians. Click at the bottom of the list of ten to see the whole list, and to which party the contributions were made.
Something has to change. Who will lead the revolution?
I was doing so today, and came across their list of heavy hitters: the biggest contributors to political campaigns over the last 20 years.
One clear thing is that labor unions were, as a group, by far the biggest givers, to the tune of $184,906,000. That is $184 Million.
ATT was the biggest single company at over $43 Million. Goldman Sachs managed only fourth place with over $31 Million. But they got several Secretaries of the Treasury for their trouble.
Go here and see who "owns" our politicians. Click at the bottom of the list of ten to see the whole list, and to which party the contributions were made.
Something has to change. Who will lead the revolution?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The Next Financial Crisis
Its already coming. And, if the trends remain the same, it will be even worse than this one has been.
There is an excellent article in The New Republic with this title, written by Peter Boone and Simon Johnson.
The past crisis was certainly mitigated by the actions of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, but what they did sowed the seeds of the next crisis. And what they continue to do will make it worse.
This has happened many times before:
" We have seen this spectacle--the Fed saving us from one crisis only to instigate another--many times before. And, over the past few decades, the problem has become significantly more dire. The fault, to be sure, doesn’t lie entirely with the Fed. Bernanke is a prisoner of a financial system with serious built-in flaws. The decisions he made during the recent crisis weren’t necessarily the wrong decisions; indeed, they were, in many respects, the decisions he had to make. But these decisions, however necessary in the moment, are almost guaranteed to hurt our economy in the long run--which, in turn, means that more necessary but harmful measures will be needed in the future. It is a debilitating, vicious cycle. And at the center of this cycle is the Fed."
Back in the "old days" before the Federal Reserve was created, if you ran a bank and lost your depositors' money, the bankers' personal assets and income could be taken to help cover the losses.
"In the United States, there was great experimentation with banking during the 1800s, but those involved in the enterprise typically made a substantial commitment of their own capital. For example, there was a well-established tradition of “double liability,” in which stockholders were responsible for twice the original value of their shares in a bank. This encouraged stockholders to carefully monitor bank executives and employees. And, in turn, it placed a lot of pressure on those who managed banks. If they fared poorly, they typically faced personal and professional ruin. The idea that a bank executive would retain wealth and social status in the event of a self-induced calamity would have struck everyone--including bank executives themselves--as ludicrous."
In 1913 the Federal Reserve was created, and it went to work using liquidity loans and low interest rates to cushion banks in difficulty by reducing their costs.
"But, by insulating banks from the terrible consequences of their own blunders, these measures would also encourage them to keep taking unwise risks, and thereby lay the groundwork for future crises."
The Fed has made many errors with this. In the summer of 1927 it lowered interest rates, fueling the boom that crashed in the fall of 1929. It had belatedly raised rates in 1928, but that did not stop the frenzy. After the crash, it then kept interest too high into 1933, causing many banks to fail.
During the Great Depression, banking came under increasing regulation, and the rules were tightened so that risk taking was more difficult.
But:
"....eventually, banks would learn how to play the new game. They would spend serious money lobbying to keep regulations lax, hiring lawyers and accountants to find methods to minimize or avoid regulations, and incentivizing employees to hide risk from regulators. While the banking sector became more risky, creditors to banks (such as depositors and lenders) knew they could count on the Fed to engineer bailouts via lower interest rates and access to credit if times got tough--so banks had no trouble raising funding from creditors, and our financial system grew rapidly."
As time went on, the Fed continued to protect the banks. In the 1980s, Volcker lowered interest rates during the Latin American debt crisis [and simply ignored it when some banks were technically insolvent]. That caused a real estate boom that resulted in the S&L debacle of 1987. So interest rates were lowered again creating problems in real estate again, and then in the Asian markets. They crashed, then the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund created a "systemic risk" and rates were lowered again, fueling the Hi-tech bubble, also treated with low interest rates. which created the current burst bubble. You get the idea.
Saving the big banks from themselves is getting far more expensive than it used to be:
"Based on what we have seen over the past two decades, the cost of the next collapse will invariably be steep. Since the early 1980s, the Fed has gone back to its origins as the bailout machine for the financial sector. The only difference is that this sector has become much larger since 1907 or 1913. Back then, it accounted for around one percent of GDP. Now it is closer to 8 percent. The cost of bailouts--the current one and those to come--has skyrocketed as a result."
So, what do the big banks get from all of this? Its very simple:
"Consider the lessons learned in the past twelve months by our major banks. If they again get into serious financial trouble, the Fed can be counted on to lend them essentially unlimited amounts at effectively zero interest rates. What would you do with free money? You’d pay off all your old debts, then you’d find something to invest in that would yield a decent return. But then you’d reckon--why not take more risk? After all, if things go badly, you’ll get more free money."
They propose some solutions that might work, but may not be tough enough.
First, banks should have more capital to cover loan losses than is now permitted. Now, it is about 8%, which is ridiculously low.
Second, they propose that banks and their officers, directors and shareholders be at least partly responsible financially when their banks go broke [I would make them fully responsible].
Third, they say we should stop the merry-go-round from the banks to the government and back to the banks. My thought is that right now, because of this, we have the actual perpetrators of the crisis involved in bailing out their former companies. This is simply atrocious.
Last, they say the Fed should take more of a leadership role in regulation the system. My thought is that we should at least consider doing away with the Fed, or curtailing its powers to prevent this continual boom and bust cycle.
At least we should audit the Fed on a frequent basis. There is far too much secrecy there.
They conclude that if the Fed doesn't take the lead in better regulation, it will continue to be the "handmaiden to repeated bailouts." And that the peril to our system becomes even worse with each one.
This is a great article. I somewhat disagree with them in that they treat the Federal Reserve as something different from the banks. The Federal Reserve is owned by its member banks, and with the exception of the Chairman, now Mr. Bernanke, the banks elect the members. We therefore have the foxes guarding the hen house.
I highly recommend you go read the whole article here.
In addition, the two authors blog at The Baseline Scenario.
There is an excellent article in The New Republic with this title, written by Peter Boone and Simon Johnson.
The past crisis was certainly mitigated by the actions of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, but what they did sowed the seeds of the next crisis. And what they continue to do will make it worse.
This has happened many times before:
" We have seen this spectacle--the Fed saving us from one crisis only to instigate another--many times before. And, over the past few decades, the problem has become significantly more dire. The fault, to be sure, doesn’t lie entirely with the Fed. Bernanke is a prisoner of a financial system with serious built-in flaws. The decisions he made during the recent crisis weren’t necessarily the wrong decisions; indeed, they were, in many respects, the decisions he had to make. But these decisions, however necessary in the moment, are almost guaranteed to hurt our economy in the long run--which, in turn, means that more necessary but harmful measures will be needed in the future. It is a debilitating, vicious cycle. And at the center of this cycle is the Fed."
Back in the "old days" before the Federal Reserve was created, if you ran a bank and lost your depositors' money, the bankers' personal assets and income could be taken to help cover the losses.
"In the United States, there was great experimentation with banking during the 1800s, but those involved in the enterprise typically made a substantial commitment of their own capital. For example, there was a well-established tradition of “double liability,” in which stockholders were responsible for twice the original value of their shares in a bank. This encouraged stockholders to carefully monitor bank executives and employees. And, in turn, it placed a lot of pressure on those who managed banks. If they fared poorly, they typically faced personal and professional ruin. The idea that a bank executive would retain wealth and social status in the event of a self-induced calamity would have struck everyone--including bank executives themselves--as ludicrous."
In 1913 the Federal Reserve was created, and it went to work using liquidity loans and low interest rates to cushion banks in difficulty by reducing their costs.
"But, by insulating banks from the terrible consequences of their own blunders, these measures would also encourage them to keep taking unwise risks, and thereby lay the groundwork for future crises."
The Fed has made many errors with this. In the summer of 1927 it lowered interest rates, fueling the boom that crashed in the fall of 1929. It had belatedly raised rates in 1928, but that did not stop the frenzy. After the crash, it then kept interest too high into 1933, causing many banks to fail.
During the Great Depression, banking came under increasing regulation, and the rules were tightened so that risk taking was more difficult.
But:
"....eventually, banks would learn how to play the new game. They would spend serious money lobbying to keep regulations lax, hiring lawyers and accountants to find methods to minimize or avoid regulations, and incentivizing employees to hide risk from regulators. While the banking sector became more risky, creditors to banks (such as depositors and lenders) knew they could count on the Fed to engineer bailouts via lower interest rates and access to credit if times got tough--so banks had no trouble raising funding from creditors, and our financial system grew rapidly."
As time went on, the Fed continued to protect the banks. In the 1980s, Volcker lowered interest rates during the Latin American debt crisis [and simply ignored it when some banks were technically insolvent]. That caused a real estate boom that resulted in the S&L debacle of 1987. So interest rates were lowered again creating problems in real estate again, and then in the Asian markets. They crashed, then the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund created a "systemic risk" and rates were lowered again, fueling the Hi-tech bubble, also treated with low interest rates. which created the current burst bubble. You get the idea.
Saving the big banks from themselves is getting far more expensive than it used to be:
"Based on what we have seen over the past two decades, the cost of the next collapse will invariably be steep. Since the early 1980s, the Fed has gone back to its origins as the bailout machine for the financial sector. The only difference is that this sector has become much larger since 1907 or 1913. Back then, it accounted for around one percent of GDP. Now it is closer to 8 percent. The cost of bailouts--the current one and those to come--has skyrocketed as a result."
So, what do the big banks get from all of this? Its very simple:
"Consider the lessons learned in the past twelve months by our major banks. If they again get into serious financial trouble, the Fed can be counted on to lend them essentially unlimited amounts at effectively zero interest rates. What would you do with free money? You’d pay off all your old debts, then you’d find something to invest in that would yield a decent return. But then you’d reckon--why not take more risk? After all, if things go badly, you’ll get more free money."
They propose some solutions that might work, but may not be tough enough.
First, banks should have more capital to cover loan losses than is now permitted. Now, it is about 8%, which is ridiculously low.
Second, they propose that banks and their officers, directors and shareholders be at least partly responsible financially when their banks go broke [I would make them fully responsible].
Third, they say we should stop the merry-go-round from the banks to the government and back to the banks. My thought is that right now, because of this, we have the actual perpetrators of the crisis involved in bailing out their former companies. This is simply atrocious.
Last, they say the Fed should take more of a leadership role in regulation the system. My thought is that we should at least consider doing away with the Fed, or curtailing its powers to prevent this continual boom and bust cycle.
At least we should audit the Fed on a frequent basis. There is far too much secrecy there.
They conclude that if the Fed doesn't take the lead in better regulation, it will continue to be the "handmaiden to repeated bailouts." And that the peril to our system becomes even worse with each one.
This is a great article. I somewhat disagree with them in that they treat the Federal Reserve as something different from the banks. The Federal Reserve is owned by its member banks, and with the exception of the Chairman, now Mr. Bernanke, the banks elect the members. We therefore have the foxes guarding the hen house.
I highly recommend you go read the whole article here.
In addition, the two authors blog at The Baseline Scenario.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Capitalism After the Crisis
This is the title of an essay in a new publication called National Affairs.
It is a new quarterly publication that perhaps is the successor to The Public Interest, which was started in 1965, but is no longer published.
In the essay, author Luigi Zingales examines the state of capitalism in the United States and the way that public attitudes may change with regard to it.
He wonders if the concentration of so much power in a few huge institutions which caused the crisis, and the bailouts of some of them, and of others, might move the US in the direction of European style corporatism and crony capitalism one sees elsewhere.
"Capitalism has long enjoyed exceptionally strong public support in the United States because America's form of capitalism has long been distinct from those found elsewhere in the world — particularly because of its uniquely open and free market system. Capitalism calls not only for freedom of enterprise, but for rules and policies that allow for freedom of entry, that facilitate access to financial resources for newcomers, and that maintain a level playing field among competitors. The United States has generally come closest to this ideal combination — which is no small feat, since economic pressures and incentives do not naturally point to such a balance of policies. While everyone benefits from a free and competitive market, no one in particular makes huge profits from keeping the system competitive and the playing field level."[My bold]
Of course, the true competitive market has no lobby. All the lobbyists are looking for a competitive edge granted to them by the government.[This is what keeps Congressional coffers full of money.]
American capitalism is special, and mainly because support for capitalism by the public is based upon the tenets that hard work, not luck, determines one's success, and is not contingent upon corruption. Many of our current billionaires made their money through hard work in competitive business with no government intervention.
Elsewhere, that is not true. Many billionaires come from countries where their government connections and concessions guaranteed their success, not initiative and enterprise.
"A healthy financial system is crucial to any working market economy. Widespread access to finance is essential to harnessing the best talents and allowing them to prosper and grow. It is crucial for drawing new entrants into the system, and for fostering competition. The system that allocates finance allocates power and rents; if that system is not fair, there is little hope that the rest of the economy can be. And the potential for unfairness or abuse in the financial system is always great."
This is why our Founding Fathers distrusted banks, and Andrew Jackson even created a severe financial crisis when he vetoed the Second National Bank Bill in 1837 because he saw the bank as an instrument of political corruption. This was because it was found to have tried to influence the election of public officials with its money and power.[Try going to http://www.opensecrets.org/ and check out the money given to political campaigns by the big banks. Jackson would be horrified.]
"The finance sector's increasing concentration and growing political muscle have undermined the traditional American understanding of the difference between free markets and big business. This means not only that the interests of finance now dominate the economic understanding of policymakers, but also — and perhaps more important — that the public's perception of the economic system's legitimacy is at risk."
And that is the problem. All the huge banks have so much influence, no matter who holds political power, that is creates a very serious problem. When we see the perpetrators of the financial calamity being placed in charge of curing it, and then granting their former companies huge benefits out of the Federal Treasury, it calls into serious question the integrity of both the Treasury and the large banks.
"We thus stand at a crossroads for American capitalism. One path would channel popular rage into political support for some genuinely pro-market reforms, even if they do not serve the interests of large financial firms. By appealing to the best of the populist tradition, we can introduce limits to the power of the financial industry — or any business, for that matter — and restore those fundamental principles that give an ethical dimension to capitalism: freedom, meritocracy, a direct link between reward and effort, and a sense of responsibility that ensures that those who reap the gains also bear the losses. This would mean abandoning the notion that any firm is too big to fail, and putting rules in place that keep large financial firms from manipulating government connections to the detriment of markets. It would mean adopting a pro-market, rather than pro-business, approach to the economy."
This is the right way to go. The concept of "too big to fail" must be abandoned, and continued bailouts of the worst perpetrators must be stopped.
Does our current government have the guts that Jackson had?
No. And neither does the opposition, the Republicans.
Go read the whole essay here.
It is a new quarterly publication that perhaps is the successor to The Public Interest, which was started in 1965, but is no longer published.
In the essay, author Luigi Zingales examines the state of capitalism in the United States and the way that public attitudes may change with regard to it.
He wonders if the concentration of so much power in a few huge institutions which caused the crisis, and the bailouts of some of them, and of others, might move the US in the direction of European style corporatism and crony capitalism one sees elsewhere.
"Capitalism has long enjoyed exceptionally strong public support in the United States because America's form of capitalism has long been distinct from those found elsewhere in the world — particularly because of its uniquely open and free market system. Capitalism calls not only for freedom of enterprise, but for rules and policies that allow for freedom of entry, that facilitate access to financial resources for newcomers, and that maintain a level playing field among competitors. The United States has generally come closest to this ideal combination — which is no small feat, since economic pressures and incentives do not naturally point to such a balance of policies. While everyone benefits from a free and competitive market, no one in particular makes huge profits from keeping the system competitive and the playing field level."[My bold]
Of course, the true competitive market has no lobby. All the lobbyists are looking for a competitive edge granted to them by the government.[This is what keeps Congressional coffers full of money.]
American capitalism is special, and mainly because support for capitalism by the public is based upon the tenets that hard work, not luck, determines one's success, and is not contingent upon corruption. Many of our current billionaires made their money through hard work in competitive business with no government intervention.
Elsewhere, that is not true. Many billionaires come from countries where their government connections and concessions guaranteed their success, not initiative and enterprise.
"A healthy financial system is crucial to any working market economy. Widespread access to finance is essential to harnessing the best talents and allowing them to prosper and grow. It is crucial for drawing new entrants into the system, and for fostering competition. The system that allocates finance allocates power and rents; if that system is not fair, there is little hope that the rest of the economy can be. And the potential for unfairness or abuse in the financial system is always great."
This is why our Founding Fathers distrusted banks, and Andrew Jackson even created a severe financial crisis when he vetoed the Second National Bank Bill in 1837 because he saw the bank as an instrument of political corruption. This was because it was found to have tried to influence the election of public officials with its money and power.[Try going to http://www.opensecrets.org/ and check out the money given to political campaigns by the big banks. Jackson would be horrified.]
"The finance sector's increasing concentration and growing political muscle have undermined the traditional American understanding of the difference between free markets and big business. This means not only that the interests of finance now dominate the economic understanding of policymakers, but also — and perhaps more important — that the public's perception of the economic system's legitimacy is at risk."
And that is the problem. All the huge banks have so much influence, no matter who holds political power, that is creates a very serious problem. When we see the perpetrators of the financial calamity being placed in charge of curing it, and then granting their former companies huge benefits out of the Federal Treasury, it calls into serious question the integrity of both the Treasury and the large banks.
"We thus stand at a crossroads for American capitalism. One path would channel popular rage into political support for some genuinely pro-market reforms, even if they do not serve the interests of large financial firms. By appealing to the best of the populist tradition, we can introduce limits to the power of the financial industry — or any business, for that matter — and restore those fundamental principles that give an ethical dimension to capitalism: freedom, meritocracy, a direct link between reward and effort, and a sense of responsibility that ensures that those who reap the gains also bear the losses. This would mean abandoning the notion that any firm is too big to fail, and putting rules in place that keep large financial firms from manipulating government connections to the detriment of markets. It would mean adopting a pro-market, rather than pro-business, approach to the economy."
This is the right way to go. The concept of "too big to fail" must be abandoned, and continued bailouts of the worst perpetrators must be stopped.
Does our current government have the guts that Jackson had?
No. And neither does the opposition, the Republicans.
Go read the whole essay here.
Obama and the Schoolchildren
When I first heard that Obama was going to address the schoolchildren and the Department of Education has sent out a "lesson plan" to be followed, my immediate response was to object. This comes mainly from my feelings of distrust toward Obama.
After some thought, I changed my mind, at least about the Obama speech (I think the "lesson plan" was a bit over the top).
Obama has every right to address schoolchildren about appropriate subjects, and it turns out that the speech he made was fine (perhaps a bit too much "I" but that happens whenever he opens his mouth). I just hope that the kids listened and took it seriously.
One of the most serious problems in our society is the high rate of school dropouts, particularly from within the poor and minority communities. We are raising generation after generation of children from those communities without sufficient education to be much of a factor in the workplace.
Someone like Obama can make a difference there, if he will. But speeches will not be enough. More is needed, and the teacher's unions seemingly refuse to take the kinds of steps needed to improve the schools. But that is another story.
Why would Obama address the kids when there is so much on his plate? Well, for the same reason that George H. W. Bush did in 1991, and George W. Bush was doing much the same when the planes hit the towers on 9/11.....politics, purely and simply.
Folks like politicians that pay attention to the children, from kissing babies all the way to making speeches to them. So politicians do that. It makes them seem human to everyone.
Why do other politicians object? Politics again. They don't want someone on the other side to gain from such a display.
That is why the Democrats had Bush, Sr.'s speech investigated by the GAO (which found it to be perfectly legal).
The point is: its fine to address the kids if you say the right things, but it is not fine to turn it into a political show. The kids need to be left out of politics. They will have to deal with them too soon anyway.
After some thought, I changed my mind, at least about the Obama speech (I think the "lesson plan" was a bit over the top).
Obama has every right to address schoolchildren about appropriate subjects, and it turns out that the speech he made was fine (perhaps a bit too much "I" but that happens whenever he opens his mouth). I just hope that the kids listened and took it seriously.
One of the most serious problems in our society is the high rate of school dropouts, particularly from within the poor and minority communities. We are raising generation after generation of children from those communities without sufficient education to be much of a factor in the workplace.
Someone like Obama can make a difference there, if he will. But speeches will not be enough. More is needed, and the teacher's unions seemingly refuse to take the kinds of steps needed to improve the schools. But that is another story.
Why would Obama address the kids when there is so much on his plate? Well, for the same reason that George H. W. Bush did in 1991, and George W. Bush was doing much the same when the planes hit the towers on 9/11.....politics, purely and simply.
Folks like politicians that pay attention to the children, from kissing babies all the way to making speeches to them. So politicians do that. It makes them seem human to everyone.
Why do other politicians object? Politics again. They don't want someone on the other side to gain from such a display.
That is why the Democrats had Bush, Sr.'s speech investigated by the GAO (which found it to be perfectly legal).
The point is: its fine to address the kids if you say the right things, but it is not fine to turn it into a political show. The kids need to be left out of politics. They will have to deal with them too soon anyway.
About "Deconstructing the 'Whup Ass'"
Those are titles of two essays among several that I missed reading while I have been tied up the last few weeks. They are written by Victor Davis Hanson.
The good professor is a favorite of mine, as many of you may know.
He is Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and one of the best writers around about current affairs.
His writings can be found at "Works and Days" and at "Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers." The sites are also listed to the right of this blog.
In "Decontructing," he takes on the recent situation regarding Van Jones, an admitted communist on Obama's staff who just resigned and the inevitable cries of "racism" that have accompanied his departure.
He also mentions other of Obama's friends and associates:
"What we are now seeing with Obama’s coterie is a sort of Billy Carterism—after a while what seems at first outlandish gradually becomes repugnant. Half of the country is now furious at Obama because they are starting to see that Ayers, Khalidi, Meeks, Pfleger, and Wright were representational, rather than aberrational; that is, the associates that for 30 years were the natural friends and role models of Obama proved hard to shake and appear buffoonish 24/7. And stranger still, Obama himself seems surprised that they keep reappearing, as if one so easily can throw under the bus decades of choices, attitudes, and second natures."
About Jones, he points out after cataloging some of his statements:
"... But such are the times we live in, that a Jones feels he can abuse the public discourse and insult the intelligence of the public, confident that when called on it, the refuge of “racist”! is always there."
And, Hanson finally concludes:
"Barak Obama did not transcend race as promised. Nor was there a racial backlash against him as his supporters both feared and now charge.
Rather the mood is weariness. One major reason Obama’s polls have dropped is the public resentment of this spate of allegations of racism."
And:
"Nothing is so fatal to a con as boredom. Tragically, when a Rangel, Paterson, Jones, or Obama—all enjoying privileges and successes that 300 million Americans might only dream of—start in on the now accustomed trope, the public turns the channel and sighs “Been there, done that.” And I think they really mean it this time."
There are several fine essays at the two sites. I highly recommend that you bookmark them, and return to read all of them.
The good professor is a favorite of mine, as many of you may know.
He is Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and one of the best writers around about current affairs.
His writings can be found at "Works and Days" and at "Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers." The sites are also listed to the right of this blog.
In "Decontructing," he takes on the recent situation regarding Van Jones, an admitted communist on Obama's staff who just resigned and the inevitable cries of "racism" that have accompanied his departure.
He also mentions other of Obama's friends and associates:
"What we are now seeing with Obama’s coterie is a sort of Billy Carterism—after a while what seems at first outlandish gradually becomes repugnant. Half of the country is now furious at Obama because they are starting to see that Ayers, Khalidi, Meeks, Pfleger, and Wright were representational, rather than aberrational; that is, the associates that for 30 years were the natural friends and role models of Obama proved hard to shake and appear buffoonish 24/7. And stranger still, Obama himself seems surprised that they keep reappearing, as if one so easily can throw under the bus decades of choices, attitudes, and second natures."
About Jones, he points out after cataloging some of his statements:
"... But such are the times we live in, that a Jones feels he can abuse the public discourse and insult the intelligence of the public, confident that when called on it, the refuge of “racist”! is always there."
And, Hanson finally concludes:
"Barak Obama did not transcend race as promised. Nor was there a racial backlash against him as his supporters both feared and now charge.
Rather the mood is weariness. One major reason Obama’s polls have dropped is the public resentment of this spate of allegations of racism."
And:
"Nothing is so fatal to a con as boredom. Tragically, when a Rangel, Paterson, Jones, or Obama—all enjoying privileges and successes that 300 million Americans might only dream of—start in on the now accustomed trope, the public turns the channel and sighs “Been there, done that.” And I think they really mean it this time."
There are several fine essays at the two sites. I highly recommend that you bookmark them, and return to read all of them.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Bailing out the crooks
The New York Times reports that not only did we bail out Fannie Mae, but the taxpayers are paying millions of dollars for lawyers for the guys that drove it into the ground.
$6.3 million so far for them. This is to defend them from shareholder suits brought because of their wrongdoing.
"With all the turmoil of the financial crisis, you may have forgotten about the book-cooking that went on at Fannie Mae. Government inquiries found that between 1998 and 2004, senior executives at Fannie manipulated its results to hit earnings targets and generate $115 million in bonus compensation. Fannie had to restate its financial results by $6.3 billion.
Almost two years later, in 2006, Fannie’s regulator concluded an investigation of the accounting with a scathing report. “The conduct of Mr. Raines, chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard, and other members of the inner circle of senior executives at Fannie Mae was inconsistent with the values of responsibility, accountability, and integrity,” it said. "
Now taxpayers are having to pay to protect them from their manipulations.
Does anybody but me see anything wrong with that?
They are all Democrats.
A tip of the hat to Ed Morrissey. See his blog post here.
$6.3 million so far for them. This is to defend them from shareholder suits brought because of their wrongdoing.
"With all the turmoil of the financial crisis, you may have forgotten about the book-cooking that went on at Fannie Mae. Government inquiries found that between 1998 and 2004, senior executives at Fannie manipulated its results to hit earnings targets and generate $115 million in bonus compensation. Fannie had to restate its financial results by $6.3 billion.
Almost two years later, in 2006, Fannie’s regulator concluded an investigation of the accounting with a scathing report. “The conduct of Mr. Raines, chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard, and other members of the inner circle of senior executives at Fannie Mae was inconsistent with the values of responsibility, accountability, and integrity,” it said. "
Now taxpayers are having to pay to protect them from their manipulations.
Does anybody but me see anything wrong with that?
They are all Democrats.
A tip of the hat to Ed Morrissey. See his blog post here.
Labor Day
The unofficial end of Summer has arrived, and with it all sorts of things.
College football got under way last week, starting my favorite time of the year. My Texas Longhorns won, while our arch-rival Oklahoma lost at home to Brigham Young. OU's Heisman quarterback was injured, but its extent is yet unknown. I wish him a speedy recovery. He is an outstanding young man.
With it comes a breath of Fall, particularly in the mornings and evenings in West Texas. Temps at night are 10-12 degrees cooler than a month ago, and there is a freshness in the breeze. Even a few leaves are beginning to drift down in the back yard
New polls shown unions to be unpopular with the folks. That is not surprising, because now that their man is President, and they own the Congress, we are all able to see what jerks most of them are. See articles here and here.
Obama had the whistle blown on one of the several outright communists in his administration. There are more, but good riddance to Van Jones. An article here. Another is here.
Take note that the large media never covered the story until he left, and than tried to paper it over. No wonder they are all going broke. Most of them are simply an adjunct to Obama's propaganda machine. Something closely akin to Lenin's "useful idiots." One simply cannot trust anything most of them say.
This Labor Day finds us with a reported 9.7% unemployment rate, with the direction still headed down. If one were to use the same measure as was used during the Great Depression, it would be closer to 17%. Very sad.
All the liberal pundits like to talk about "green shoots" in the economy, and a "recovery" about to start. My view is that there is no recovery until jobs come back. Even Obama says that won't be until well into next year.
The use of the "stimulus" bill to pay off ACORN and other large Democratic constituencies is turning into a nightmare for unemployed Americans. Will there be any accountability for this? Probably not. Maybe November, 2010. We will see.
There are other things to cover that have arisen since I last posted. More later.
College football got under way last week, starting my favorite time of the year. My Texas Longhorns won, while our arch-rival Oklahoma lost at home to Brigham Young. OU's Heisman quarterback was injured, but its extent is yet unknown. I wish him a speedy recovery. He is an outstanding young man.
With it comes a breath of Fall, particularly in the mornings and evenings in West Texas. Temps at night are 10-12 degrees cooler than a month ago, and there is a freshness in the breeze. Even a few leaves are beginning to drift down in the back yard
New polls shown unions to be unpopular with the folks. That is not surprising, because now that their man is President, and they own the Congress, we are all able to see what jerks most of them are. See articles here and here.
Obama had the whistle blown on one of the several outright communists in his administration. There are more, but good riddance to Van Jones. An article here. Another is here.
Take note that the large media never covered the story until he left, and than tried to paper it over. No wonder they are all going broke. Most of them are simply an adjunct to Obama's propaganda machine. Something closely akin to Lenin's "useful idiots." One simply cannot trust anything most of them say.
This Labor Day finds us with a reported 9.7% unemployment rate, with the direction still headed down. If one were to use the same measure as was used during the Great Depression, it would be closer to 17%. Very sad.
All the liberal pundits like to talk about "green shoots" in the economy, and a "recovery" about to start. My view is that there is no recovery until jobs come back. Even Obama says that won't be until well into next year.
The use of the "stimulus" bill to pay off ACORN and other large Democratic constituencies is turning into a nightmare for unemployed Americans. Will there be any accountability for this? Probably not. Maybe November, 2010. We will see.
There are other things to cover that have arisen since I last posted. More later.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Busy, busy
Have been very busy the last two weeks, and will be the next three weeks it appears. I only thought I had retired. LOL
There is a lot going on in the political world, and I will try to be commenting a bit about some of it, but time will be short.
After they get Teddy buried, I suspect some will try to use any emotion generated by his death to help push through their socialized medicine bill. Let's hope they fail.
I feel about as good about TedKennedyCare as Mary Jo Kopechne would.
The liberal press continues to give proven corrupt Democrats a pass. Rangel would lead the list, of course. One cannot count his felonies on one hand, but he still leads the House Ways and Means Committee. Apparently the majority party approves of his corruption.
Bill Richardson escaped indictment through a rules breaking decision by the Attorney General to drop proceedings against him. I guess apologies are due the Grand Jurors who spent a year doing the investigation.
Then there is Christopher Dodd and Kent Conrad, who got sweetheart deals from CountryWide as it was going busted, but a Senate committee has decided it wasn't unethical.
The list goes on. And on. And on.
Of course, there have been Republicans on such a list as well, but we were promised in 2006 that the Democrats would do away with the "culture of corruption" in Washington.
Instead, they have accelerated it.
If the House and the Senate cannot enforce ethical conduct among their members, how can we expect them to make correct decisions on anything else?
We need to throw them all out, and start over. Beginning at the very top.
There is a lot going on in the political world, and I will try to be commenting a bit about some of it, but time will be short.
After they get Teddy buried, I suspect some will try to use any emotion generated by his death to help push through their socialized medicine bill. Let's hope they fail.
I feel about as good about TedKennedyCare as Mary Jo Kopechne would.
The liberal press continues to give proven corrupt Democrats a pass. Rangel would lead the list, of course. One cannot count his felonies on one hand, but he still leads the House Ways and Means Committee. Apparently the majority party approves of his corruption.
Bill Richardson escaped indictment through a rules breaking decision by the Attorney General to drop proceedings against him. I guess apologies are due the Grand Jurors who spent a year doing the investigation.
Then there is Christopher Dodd and Kent Conrad, who got sweetheart deals from CountryWide as it was going busted, but a Senate committee has decided it wasn't unethical.
The list goes on. And on. And on.
Of course, there have been Republicans on such a list as well, but we were promised in 2006 that the Democrats would do away with the "culture of corruption" in Washington.
Instead, they have accelerated it.
If the House and the Senate cannot enforce ethical conduct among their members, how can we expect them to make correct decisions on anything else?
We need to throw them all out, and start over. Beginning at the very top.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)