This story from theChicago Tribune details The very profitable 14 month stint of President Obama's chief of staff at Freddie Mac. (He netted over $320,000 in 14 months.)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story?page=1
While other directors had responsibilities on board committees, Mr. Emanuel did not. They met no more than six times per year. During his "service" on the board, the board was made aware of accounting tricks used to push income out to future years (misleading shareholders, and making the company seem profitable for years to come ... while ensuring the large bonuses for management.) They also were presented a "political risk assessment" that outlined a plan to mute calls for increased governmental oversight. Emanuel also received financial support (often from legally prohibited company campaign activities) after leaving the board.
In Congress, Emanuel served on the Financial Services Committee, and sat on a sub-committee that directly oversaw Freddie Mac. At least that failed organization can claim that in this instance, they got what they paid for!
The Obama administration (which promised us transparency and openness) rejected a freedom of information act request for board minutes and e-mails (a lawyer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency ruled they amounted to "commercial information" exempt from disclosure.
The Obama administration is living up to their commitment to set a new standard for ethics ... a new low. Tax cheats, political insiders, and lobbyists have all been welcomed with open arms.
We were promised better than this. We deserve better than this. We can hold these "public servants" accountable for their votes, misdeeds, and broken commitments. Vote for REAL change!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Not-so-creeping Socialism
The administration is pushing Congress to enable an overarching regulatory authority (such as the Federal Reserve) to take over non-bank financial companies whose failure could topple the entire financial system.
That is nationalization of our financial system.
The real issue here is that the process would be politicized. Whether or not the company was in danger of imminent failure, and whether or not the failure of that company would jeopardize the economy would be come decision made by administration appointees. Once the government controls the financial system of the country, they have control of everything.
Look at the TARP mess. That started as an injection of capital to stabilize the banks. (Some were forced to take the funds, whether or not they wanted them.) That was followed by increased regulation of executive compensation, additional oversight, and more restrictions on those companies. Several of them have notified Treasury they want to pay back the TARP loans, and have not been permitted to do so.
All this, and Obama thought a reporter was joking when he was asked if he's trying to move us toward socialism?
It's real, and it's not a joke!
That is nationalization of our financial system.
The real issue here is that the process would be politicized. Whether or not the company was in danger of imminent failure, and whether or not the failure of that company would jeopardize the economy would be come decision made by administration appointees. Once the government controls the financial system of the country, they have control of everything.
Look at the TARP mess. That started as an injection of capital to stabilize the banks. (Some were forced to take the funds, whether or not they wanted them.) That was followed by increased regulation of executive compensation, additional oversight, and more restrictions on those companies. Several of them have notified Treasury they want to pay back the TARP loans, and have not been permitted to do so.
All this, and Obama thought a reporter was joking when he was asked if he's trying to move us toward socialism?
It's real, and it's not a joke!
Reconciliation process
President Obama is trying to slip his proposed cap-and-trade policy into the reconciliation process.
The reconciliation process is designed to permit quick action on financial measures, in the vote on the compromise (or reconciliation) of the House and Senate versions of a bill. There are some rules ... it's supposed to only be used in cases where the economic impact to the U.S. is positive (reduction in spending, or increase in revenue.) However, debate is limited, and no filibuster is permitted. That makes items submitted through the reconciliation process difficult to stop.
This was the path used by President Bush to push his tax cuts through Congress.
The use of this procedural device to avoid fully vetting and debating something of this magnitude is underhanded and wrong. This is not the bi-partisan, transparent government the voters thought they were getting!
The reconciliation process is designed to permit quick action on financial measures, in the vote on the compromise (or reconciliation) of the House and Senate versions of a bill. There are some rules ... it's supposed to only be used in cases where the economic impact to the U.S. is positive (reduction in spending, or increase in revenue.) However, debate is limited, and no filibuster is permitted. That makes items submitted through the reconciliation process difficult to stop.
This was the path used by President Bush to push his tax cuts through Congress.
The use of this procedural device to avoid fully vetting and debating something of this magnitude is underhanded and wrong. This is not the bi-partisan, transparent government the voters thought they were getting!
Hold Onto Your Wallets!
President Obama's budget is facing serious opposition, even in the Democratically-controlled Congress. (It seems there may be some remnants of sanity still present in that body after all!)
First, Obama went on a "sales trip" to try to garner public support for his budget (an extension of his "perpetual campaign.") That included his website pledge project, attempting to mobilize his supporters to promote his budget to friends and contacts, and appearances on TV entertainment and infotainment programs. It didn't work. (Seems the electorate is less enthusiastic about his specific programs than they were about his nebulous "Hope! Change! Improve! Invest!" rhetoric.)
Now that it's become evident to him that spending at these levels, generating deficits at these levels, has no potential for passage, he's focused on increasing the government's revenue. Today, they announced they will attempt to close the "revenue gap" (the difference between taxes owed, and taxes collected.) He also has appointed a commission to overhaul the tax code. This group has been given broad latitude ... claiming "the only constraint" is that taxes should not be increased in 2009 or 2010, and that taxes should not be increased on families making less than $250,000.
Watch out!
During the campaign, Obama defended his plan to deliver "tax relief" to 95% of the public, even though a substantial portion of the public pays no income tax. He claimed payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare, as well as other direct and indirect taxes) counted toward who received "relief."
Now, that position seems to be shifting ... only income taxes count when "no increase" is the standard.
The cap and trade proposal (which will almost certainly NOT be passed) is nothing more than a tax on carbon. That means everyone who consumes energy (gasoline, natural gas, electricity) will pay higher prices to offset the new 'tax' levied on the energy companies. (Personally, I would rather have them keep their $13 per week in "tax relief" than see gasoline, and all other forms of energy increased in price!)
The higher taxes (either through rates, reduction in deductions and "loopholes", etc.) that businesses will pay will be passed on to consumers (including those who previously qualified for "relief.") Corporations do not pay taxes; their owners and/or their customers do. Shareholders will demand a certain rate of return, and sell the stock to invest elsewhere if they don't get it. Companies don't want to see their stock price (and market capitalization) reduced, so the higher cost from the higher taxes is passed on to consumers.
We will ALL be paying higher taxes, whether we pay them directly to the government, or indirectly in higher prices so that companies can pay the government.
With respect to those making more than $250,000, the plan to return those rates to "the same ones paid during the Clinton administration" is no longer the complete story. Additionally, families in that bracket will see reduced (or eliminated) deductions for mortgage interest and charitable deductions. The effective tax rate they pay will be far greater than under Clinton.
These moves are, according to our President, "the right thing to do." However, little sense can be made from eliminating the mortgage interest deduction on those most able to buy new homes (especially when the housing market is in serious trouble in much of the nation.) Reducing the incentive for the wealthy to contribute to charity is also counter-productive. Charitable organizations provide a wealth of services to their communities (more efficiently and less expensively than government.)
In an attempt to play the populist, and appear to not favor businesses or the wealthy, President Obama is:
Punishing corporate trips and retreats (especially for "bail-out" recipients) - which had the unintended consequence of punishing resorts, conference centers, and the travel industry.
Reducing mortgage deduction- suppressing home sales and new (performing!) mortgages.
Reducing charitable deductions - inhibiting community services by non-governmental entities.
Raising business costs - increasing prices and suppressing employment.
We simply can't afford President Obama's budget, and we'll all pay more under his policies. It's becoming evident that the "change" we need refers not to his reform plans, but to the small portion of our income we'll be able to spend on what we want!
First, Obama went on a "sales trip" to try to garner public support for his budget (an extension of his "perpetual campaign.") That included his website pledge project, attempting to mobilize his supporters to promote his budget to friends and contacts, and appearances on TV entertainment and infotainment programs. It didn't work. (Seems the electorate is less enthusiastic about his specific programs than they were about his nebulous "Hope! Change! Improve! Invest!" rhetoric.)
Now that it's become evident to him that spending at these levels, generating deficits at these levels, has no potential for passage, he's focused on increasing the government's revenue. Today, they announced they will attempt to close the "revenue gap" (the difference between taxes owed, and taxes collected.) He also has appointed a commission to overhaul the tax code. This group has been given broad latitude ... claiming "the only constraint" is that taxes should not be increased in 2009 or 2010, and that taxes should not be increased on families making less than $250,000.
Watch out!
During the campaign, Obama defended his plan to deliver "tax relief" to 95% of the public, even though a substantial portion of the public pays no income tax. He claimed payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare, as well as other direct and indirect taxes) counted toward who received "relief."
Now, that position seems to be shifting ... only income taxes count when "no increase" is the standard.
The cap and trade proposal (which will almost certainly NOT be passed) is nothing more than a tax on carbon. That means everyone who consumes energy (gasoline, natural gas, electricity) will pay higher prices to offset the new 'tax' levied on the energy companies. (Personally, I would rather have them keep their $13 per week in "tax relief" than see gasoline, and all other forms of energy increased in price!)
The higher taxes (either through rates, reduction in deductions and "loopholes", etc.) that businesses will pay will be passed on to consumers (including those who previously qualified for "relief.") Corporations do not pay taxes; their owners and/or their customers do. Shareholders will demand a certain rate of return, and sell the stock to invest elsewhere if they don't get it. Companies don't want to see their stock price (and market capitalization) reduced, so the higher cost from the higher taxes is passed on to consumers.
We will ALL be paying higher taxes, whether we pay them directly to the government, or indirectly in higher prices so that companies can pay the government.
With respect to those making more than $250,000, the plan to return those rates to "the same ones paid during the Clinton administration" is no longer the complete story. Additionally, families in that bracket will see reduced (or eliminated) deductions for mortgage interest and charitable deductions. The effective tax rate they pay will be far greater than under Clinton.
These moves are, according to our President, "the right thing to do." However, little sense can be made from eliminating the mortgage interest deduction on those most able to buy new homes (especially when the housing market is in serious trouble in much of the nation.) Reducing the incentive for the wealthy to contribute to charity is also counter-productive. Charitable organizations provide a wealth of services to their communities (more efficiently and less expensively than government.)
In an attempt to play the populist, and appear to not favor businesses or the wealthy, President Obama is:
Punishing corporate trips and retreats (especially for "bail-out" recipients) - which had the unintended consequence of punishing resorts, conference centers, and the travel industry.
Reducing mortgage deduction- suppressing home sales and new (performing!) mortgages.
Reducing charitable deductions - inhibiting community services by non-governmental entities.
Raising business costs - increasing prices and suppressing employment.
We simply can't afford President Obama's budget, and we'll all pay more under his policies. It's becoming evident that the "change" we need refers not to his reform plans, but to the small portion of our income we'll be able to spend on what we want!
Monday, March 23, 2009
Cult of Personality Continues
President Obama doesn't seem to realize he's no longer campaigning. He continues to make the news circuits, hold events, and otherwise attempt to dominate the 24-hour news cycle ... exactly the behavior one would expect in a campaign.
His campaign website is still up and running strong, too. In fact, he's trying to use his incredible campaign machine to drum up support for his "plan." (Put in quotes because it is more a hope than a plan ... certainly far less than a strategy.)
On his site, he outlines the "plan" as follows:
"President Obama's plan will rebuild and renew America by creating jobs and investing in the three areas most critical to our future:
Energy — Transforming America's economy to run on clean and renewable energy in order to create new American jobs and industries
Health care — Comprehensively reforming health care so that families, businesses, and government are relieved from the crushing costs that impede economic growth and prosperity
Education — Reforming and investing in America's education system so that citizens are prepared to compete in a global economy."
To the right of that, there is a sign-up block that invites users to pledge their support:
"I support President Obama's bold approach for renewing America's economy
I will ask friends, family, and neighbors to pledge their support for this plan
First name: *
Last name: *
Email: *
Zip: * "
I cannot recall any President asking citizens to "pledge their support" to the president's broad goals (isn't that what elections are for?) This sounds more like the adoration required of the populace of Hitler's Germany, North Korea, or some South American dictatorships than anything seen in the U.S.A.
Enough of the "transforming" and "reforming" broad strokes, Mr. President! If you're going to ask Americans to support your plans, at least be honest enough to tell us what they really are. That "transforming America's economy to run on clean renewable energy" really means that gas, oil, and coal will be taxed into unaffordability. That "comprehensively reforming health care" means the end of private health insurance (perhaps not immediately, but that will be the outcome.) That "investing in education" means building new schools in cities where they're already closing existing schools due to declining enrollment.
There is a ray of hope in all this: even the Democratic Senators who are questioning Obama's budget say they haven't felt any pressure from his "army" of supporters.
Perhaps our fellow citizens are starting to wake up to the reality that we made a poor choice.
His campaign website is still up and running strong, too. In fact, he's trying to use his incredible campaign machine to drum up support for his "plan." (Put in quotes because it is more a hope than a plan ... certainly far less than a strategy.)
On his site, he outlines the "plan" as follows:
"President Obama's plan will rebuild and renew America by creating jobs and investing in the three areas most critical to our future:
Energy — Transforming America's economy to run on clean and renewable energy in order to create new American jobs and industries
Health care — Comprehensively reforming health care so that families, businesses, and government are relieved from the crushing costs that impede economic growth and prosperity
Education — Reforming and investing in America's education system so that citizens are prepared to compete in a global economy."
To the right of that, there is a sign-up block that invites users to pledge their support:
"I support President Obama's bold approach for renewing America's economy
I will ask friends, family, and neighbors to pledge their support for this plan
First name: *
Last name: *
Email: *
Zip: * "
I cannot recall any President asking citizens to "pledge their support" to the president's broad goals (isn't that what elections are for?) This sounds more like the adoration required of the populace of Hitler's Germany, North Korea, or some South American dictatorships than anything seen in the U.S.A.
Enough of the "transforming" and "reforming" broad strokes, Mr. President! If you're going to ask Americans to support your plans, at least be honest enough to tell us what they really are. That "transforming America's economy to run on clean renewable energy" really means that gas, oil, and coal will be taxed into unaffordability. That "comprehensively reforming health care" means the end of private health insurance (perhaps not immediately, but that will be the outcome.) That "investing in education" means building new schools in cities where they're already closing existing schools due to declining enrollment.
There is a ray of hope in all this: even the Democratic Senators who are questioning Obama's budget say they haven't felt any pressure from his "army" of supporters.
Perhaps our fellow citizens are starting to wake up to the reality that we made a poor choice.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Deficit promises ... not the "change we need!"
During the campaign, Barak Obama vowed to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. The budget he presented to Congress purported to do that, based on the administrations economic projections.
Today, the non-partisan (whatever) Congressional Budget Office released their analysis. Here's the quote from the Breitbart article:
______________
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to the latest congressional estimates, significantly worse than predicted by the White House just last month.
The Congressional Budget Office figures, obtained by The Associated Press Friday, predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget.
Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.
______________
Please let your non-representative representatives know that we don't want the runaway inflation, spiraling interest rates, declining dollar, and crushing taxes the proposed budget will bring. Regardless of your stand on the "goodies" in the President's plans, we simply cannot afford them.
Today, the non-partisan (whatever) Congressional Budget Office released their analysis. Here's the quote from the Breitbart article:
______________
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to the latest congressional estimates, significantly worse than predicted by the White House just last month.
The Congressional Budget Office figures, obtained by The Associated Press Friday, predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget.
Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.
______________
Please let your non-representative representatives know that we don't want the runaway inflation, spiraling interest rates, declining dollar, and crushing taxes the proposed budget will bring. Regardless of your stand on the "goodies" in the President's plans, we simply cannot afford them.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Another TRILLION dollars created yesterday
While we were all following the story of the A.I.G. $165 million bonuses, yesterday the FED "created" another $1 TRILLION ... which they will spend to buy long-term treasury securities (a first for them ... always bought the short-term ones to control the money supply) and buy mortgage securities.
This is uncharted territory ... no one has tried anything like this before (such a massive government money creation at this point in a recession.) Many have tried it later, and to date NONE of them have succeeded. We all need to pray this works, or the future of our children will be changed forever. (The markets are not confident ... the dollar is dropping in value, and gold increased $75 in 18 hours.)
How much is a trillion? It's so huge it's a really difficult concept to grasp. Let's look at something we do understand ... a one pound box of salt.
A trillion boxes of salt would be 500,000,000 (yes, 500 million) TONS of salt.
A trillion boxes of salt would take 25,000,000 trucks to haul (if each truck carried 40,000 pounds of salt.)
A trillion boxes of salt laid end-to-end would stretch over 94,000,000 miles. (For comparison, the sun is 93,000,000 miles from the Earth.)
And our elected representatives spend that like it's nothing!
And that's not the end of it. The supposedly non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report today that the budget submitted by President Obama will result in $1 trillion more deficit than the administration projected.
We simply can't afford all the debt our government is piling up! Write your Senators and Representatives, and let them know they've already gone too far ... the insane cycle of spending and bail-outs need to stop, now. If it does not, the 10%+ unemployment, 10%+ inflation, and 17% mortgage rates during the Carter years may look like the "good old days!"
This is uncharted territory ... no one has tried anything like this before (such a massive government money creation at this point in a recession.) Many have tried it later, and to date NONE of them have succeeded. We all need to pray this works, or the future of our children will be changed forever. (The markets are not confident ... the dollar is dropping in value, and gold increased $75 in 18 hours.)
How much is a trillion? It's so huge it's a really difficult concept to grasp. Let's look at something we do understand ... a one pound box of salt.
A trillion boxes of salt would be 500,000,000 (yes, 500 million) TONS of salt.
A trillion boxes of salt would take 25,000,000 trucks to haul (if each truck carried 40,000 pounds of salt.)
A trillion boxes of salt laid end-to-end would stretch over 94,000,000 miles. (For comparison, the sun is 93,000,000 miles from the Earth.)
And our elected representatives spend that like it's nothing!
And that's not the end of it. The supposedly non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a report today that the budget submitted by President Obama will result in $1 trillion more deficit than the administration projected.
We simply can't afford all the debt our government is piling up! Write your Senators and Representatives, and let them know they've already gone too far ... the insane cycle of spending and bail-outs need to stop, now. If it does not, the 10%+ unemployment, 10%+ inflation, and 17% mortgage rates during the Carter years may look like the "good old days!"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)