2010 marks a new first: For the first time since the 1970s when the new budget rules went in to effect, there will be no budget resolution in the House of Representatives (what do you know, there is an election in November and the electorate's mood is pretty sour!).
Democrat majority is set to "deem" an enforcement resolution as passed which means they'll say it passed without voting on anything. This would allow appropriations committees to begin their spending processes without an actual budget, in other words let the porking up of federal spending continue at full speed!
This type of abdication of responsibility is, well, unprecedented (in Obama's favorite word).
You may recall that the Democrats were considering "deeming" the health care reform bill into existence as well - that is, until the public outcry made it too expensive politically to do so. So, with the buying of the critical few votes necessary, they were able to pass the legislation for which they will be paying a dear price at the polls come fall.
That was then, this is now. In politics, a few months is a lifetime. The little political cover Democrats thought they had in passing the healthcare reform bill that nearly two thirds of the public now rejects, is not present when it comes to deficit spending (as of now public enemy no.1) The political calculation has changed to the point that I am not so sure the Democrats are worried anymore about any of their actions being too "politically expensive".
They simply overreach until We the People squeal, retreat a little and call it compromise. They're like children who constantly test the boundaries of behavior for no reason other than to establish what they can get away with. And let there be no misunderstanding; they will attempt to get away with anything We the People permit.
Hey, on the lighter side, maybe this "deeming" things passed isn't so bad. I mean, this stuff has potential. Think of the possibilities.
Republicans regain control of both houses in Nov. and just deem Obama impeached, and remove him from office?
They can then deem Biden, Reid, Pelosi impeached, and remove them from office and congress as well (if any of them get re-elected, that is).
What about Holder? Deemed incompetent. Done!
All the czars? Deemed illegal. Done! Socialism? Deemed a crime against humanity. Done!
I think I'm getting the hang of this.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Politics of Patronage Inevitably Comes Home to Roost
Those in the know, who were predicting the Blagojevic trial to suck Obama in, were not so far off base afterall.
Remember the President saying that he had no involvement "directly or indirectly" with the pay-to-play scheme of the Illinois governor? He insisted vehemently that no one in his administration either had any contact with the governor or anyone else of influence wielding power. Well, not so fast.
Thomas Balanoff, a top SEIU leader, testified today that Obama called him about the Senate seat.
Oh well, excuse me, should I be shocked that there is gambling going on in the casino?
This whole administration, from top to bottom, are the products of the only game they know: politics of patronage.
Those who a couple of years ago bothered to find out about the past of every top administration official from Obama down to Valerie Jarrett are not surprised, and those ideologically blinded by their progressivism (like many in the media) don't care. In other words, keep on moving people, there is nothing to see here.
Remember the President saying that he had no involvement "directly or indirectly" with the pay-to-play scheme of the Illinois governor? He insisted vehemently that no one in his administration either had any contact with the governor or anyone else of influence wielding power. Well, not so fast.
Thomas Balanoff, a top SEIU leader, testified today that Obama called him about the Senate seat.
Oh well, excuse me, should I be shocked that there is gambling going on in the casino?
This whole administration, from top to bottom, are the products of the only game they know: politics of patronage.
Those who a couple of years ago bothered to find out about the past of every top administration official from Obama down to Valerie Jarrett are not surprised, and those ideologically blinded by their progressivism (like many in the media) don't care. In other words, keep on moving people, there is nothing to see here.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Latest Financial Reform Follies
Even a three year old who puts his hand on the hot stove and gets burnt learns not to do it again, but apparently not our esteemed politicians.
Believe it or not, HUD just announced "Obama administration unveils national strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness". No need for a doubletake, here is the link to the HUD announcement.
This is wrong on so many levels that it stunned me; that is, until I remembered the times we live in.
At its most fundamental level, it is not the government's role to end homelessness - it is the people's role, at the individual level. Every big government politician over the past 18 years (including Presidents Clinton, and G.W. Bush) have promoted this foolishness. To the gullible and the liberals among us, such nanny state policies represent the 'humanitarian' side of progressive politicians while they seem incapable of comprehending that growing government is positively correlated to progressively increasing power base for such politicians. A perfectly predictable cause and effect relationship that has perpetuated ever growing government intrusion in to people's lives (which ironically liberals hate when it comes to morality). The intellectual bankruptcy of progressive liberalism does not allow the most basic deductive reasoning process to understand that there is nothing humanitarian in creating layers upon layers of dependency classes with no sense of individual responsibility. This lack of critical thinking capability is also why it is virtually impossible to substantively and philosophically debate a progressive liberal.
At a more pragmatic level, one asks how does a government agency that is broke manage to stay afloat, let alone accomplish such a herculean task? Why, by raising the cost of Mortgage Insurance to the consumer of course! As Rep. Barney Frank (jokingly enough still the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee) wants it, VA, FHA, and Rural Housing Service loans are to be left out of risk retention. For those not familiar, risk retention is the new requirement for lenders to hold a 5% interest on any loan they make. In other words, consumers will be steered into more expensive loan products (mainly FHA and VA) by institutions in order to avoid what is essentially a forced reserve fund. The unintended consequences, which all liberal policies come with, will be harder to come by and more expensive loans.
Earlier, last week, the Congressional leaders also decided to leave the rating agencies out of the reform bill. Yes, the same agencies which graded what amounted to be piles of junk Mortgage Backed Securities AAA because of incestuous relationships with companies like Goldman Sachs - the poster child for crony capitalism!
How about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? So what if they cost the tax payer several times more than the combined total of all the other entities bailed out, they also are structurally untouched and unreformed.
Throw in the House bills provisions that create a permanent $200 billion bail out fund for financial firms that are too big and interconnected to fail, power to essentially take over and control (including all salaries) any firm deemed to be in trouble, overly regulatory (read: costs that will be passed down to the consumer) provisions and you have the makings of another proud Democrat bill.
With Barney Frank and Chris Dodd - two of the biggest shysters of the sub-prime mess still in charge - protected by their party instead of being investigated - nothing will change soon.
Believe it or not, HUD just announced "Obama administration unveils national strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness". No need for a doubletake, here is the link to the HUD announcement.
This is wrong on so many levels that it stunned me; that is, until I remembered the times we live in.
At its most fundamental level, it is not the government's role to end homelessness - it is the people's role, at the individual level. Every big government politician over the past 18 years (including Presidents Clinton, and G.W. Bush) have promoted this foolishness. To the gullible and the liberals among us, such nanny state policies represent the 'humanitarian' side of progressive politicians while they seem incapable of comprehending that growing government is positively correlated to progressively increasing power base for such politicians. A perfectly predictable cause and effect relationship that has perpetuated ever growing government intrusion in to people's lives (which ironically liberals hate when it comes to morality). The intellectual bankruptcy of progressive liberalism does not allow the most basic deductive reasoning process to understand that there is nothing humanitarian in creating layers upon layers of dependency classes with no sense of individual responsibility. This lack of critical thinking capability is also why it is virtually impossible to substantively and philosophically debate a progressive liberal.
At a more pragmatic level, one asks how does a government agency that is broke manage to stay afloat, let alone accomplish such a herculean task? Why, by raising the cost of Mortgage Insurance to the consumer of course! As Rep. Barney Frank (jokingly enough still the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee) wants it, VA, FHA, and Rural Housing Service loans are to be left out of risk retention. For those not familiar, risk retention is the new requirement for lenders to hold a 5% interest on any loan they make. In other words, consumers will be steered into more expensive loan products (mainly FHA and VA) by institutions in order to avoid what is essentially a forced reserve fund. The unintended consequences, which all liberal policies come with, will be harder to come by and more expensive loans.
Earlier, last week, the Congressional leaders also decided to leave the rating agencies out of the reform bill. Yes, the same agencies which graded what amounted to be piles of junk Mortgage Backed Securities AAA because of incestuous relationships with companies like Goldman Sachs - the poster child for crony capitalism!
How about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? So what if they cost the tax payer several times more than the combined total of all the other entities bailed out, they also are structurally untouched and unreformed.
Throw in the House bills provisions that create a permanent $200 billion bail out fund for financial firms that are too big and interconnected to fail, power to essentially take over and control (including all salaries) any firm deemed to be in trouble, overly regulatory (read: costs that will be passed down to the consumer) provisions and you have the makings of another proud Democrat bill.
With Barney Frank and Chris Dodd - two of the biggest shysters of the sub-prime mess still in charge - protected by their party instead of being investigated - nothing will change soon.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Liberalism Gone Berserk
According to the latest NYT headline: In Law Schools, Grades Go Up, Just Like That.
According to the article, "in the last two years, at least 10 law schools have deliberately changed their grading systems to make them more lenient. These include law schools like New York University and Georgetown, as well as Golden Gate University and Tulane University, which just announced the change this month. Some recruiters at law firms keep track of these changes and consider them when interviewing, and some do not."
"Law schools seem to view higher grades as one way to rescue their students from the tough economic climate — and perhaps more to the point, to protect their own reputations and rankings. Once able to practically guarantee gainful employment to thousands of students every year, the schools are now fielding complaints from more and more unemployed graduates, frequently drowning in student debt."
"They have come up with a number of strategic responses. Besides the usual career counseling measures, many top schools have bumped up their on-campus interview weeks from the autumn to August, before the school year even starts, because they want their students to have a chance to nab a job slot before their counterparts at other schools do."
Any law firm that hires one of the graduates of these esteemed institutions over one where grades have to be earned, deserve what they get. Without a question, a concept arrived at by liberal elitist academicians/administrators - the kind that are so prominent a part of Washington these days. I guess it is just the natural extension of hairbrained progressive ideas like Outcome Based Education.
Then we wonder why students of other nations academically exceed those of ours.
According to the article, "in the last two years, at least 10 law schools have deliberately changed their grading systems to make them more lenient. These include law schools like New York University and Georgetown, as well as Golden Gate University and Tulane University, which just announced the change this month. Some recruiters at law firms keep track of these changes and consider them when interviewing, and some do not."
"Law schools seem to view higher grades as one way to rescue their students from the tough economic climate — and perhaps more to the point, to protect their own reputations and rankings. Once able to practically guarantee gainful employment to thousands of students every year, the schools are now fielding complaints from more and more unemployed graduates, frequently drowning in student debt."
"They have come up with a number of strategic responses. Besides the usual career counseling measures, many top schools have bumped up their on-campus interview weeks from the autumn to August, before the school year even starts, because they want their students to have a chance to nab a job slot before their counterparts at other schools do."
Any law firm that hires one of the graduates of these esteemed institutions over one where grades have to be earned, deserve what they get. Without a question, a concept arrived at by liberal elitist academicians/administrators - the kind that are so prominent a part of Washington these days. I guess it is just the natural extension of hairbrained progressive ideas like Outcome Based Education.
Then we wonder why students of other nations academically exceed those of ours.
More Evidence of Crisis Exploitation
President Obama is up to his usual Alinskyite methods to pass his Immigration Reform bill. This past Friday Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona told in this video how he and President Obama had a discussion, one on one, concerning the need to secure the border. Kyl went on to explain to the attendees what Obama said to him.
"The problem is,' (Obama) said, ‘if we secure the border then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.' In other words they're holding it hostage," Senator Kyl added. "They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform."
Yet again the ends justify the means when it comes to President Obama and his Saul Alinsky disciples.
Update:
The White House now denies the allegation by Senator Kyl. Considering there were two people in the room, and the prolific track record of lies by one of them, I know who to believe.
"The problem is,' (Obama) said, ‘if we secure the border then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.' In other words they're holding it hostage," Senator Kyl added. "They don't want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform."
Yet again the ends justify the means when it comes to President Obama and his Saul Alinsky disciples.
Update:
The White House now denies the allegation by Senator Kyl. Considering there were two people in the room, and the prolific track record of lies by one of them, I know who to believe.
Thank God 9-11 Did Not Happen Under Obama
Last week Barack Obama told Politico that the BP oil spill was like 9-11–
But, it’s been over 60 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and he’s only sent 20 of 2,000 US oil skimmer boats to the coast of Florida as the video above testifies to. Lemieux says that Obama is afraid to move them to Florida because there won’t be any in place in case there is an oil leak somewhere else.
Incompetence or crisis exploitation to achieve the much larger ideological goal of "fundamental transformation of America"?
Now, That is What I Call Reality TV
Obama’s Chicago Network brings the hottest, most drama-filled political intrigue to a national audience. President Obama brought to the White House both seasoned actors of the Chicago Way Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett, and David Axelrod, and fresh new faces Robert Gibbs and Jim Messina. Together they’re bringing Chicago-style politics to the biggest stars in DC. You may be sitting at home, but thanks to Obama’s Chicago Network, you’ll feel like you’re watching from the Wrigley bleachers eating a hot dog…except this dog gives you indigestion.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Biden Chides Rep. Barton For The "Shakedown" Comment
My, my...Aren't we getting sensitive when the "s" word is mentioned! No comment, however, was forthcoming from the Vice President on the six rounds of golf, at least three fundraisers (one the President attended instead of the memorial for the oil rig workers killed in the blast), and multitude of concerts and parties with the usual White House guests that the President occupied himself with during the first 59 days of this crisis. Is this still the U.S.of A. that we know or are we merely witnessing the modern version of Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns?
Congressman Barton made a mistake alright, however the mistake was not likening the $20 billion BP fund to a "shakedown" by this Administration. The mistake was not explaining his remarks to the American public and the CEO of B.P. Congressman Barton knows well and agrees that B.P. is the primarily liable entity here and should make all those affected by this catastrophe whole again. He is in no sense against that idea. But, unlike Congressional Democrats who admittedly don't bother reading bills before voting on them, and are there primarily to throw their power around in an endeavor of self agrandizing and enriching, Rep. Barton is a fair man who knows what happens in D.C. these days. Lets shed some light on to the matter.
The "shakedown" comment by Rep. Barton is appropriate if we consider the left's affinity to the practice. Community organizing, which the president comes from, is the purest form of shakedown that likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (and formerly, our President) regularly make a grand living from. During this administration, we have already seen shakedowns of the drug companies, insurance companies, bank CEOs, Chyrysler and G.M. bond holders, and so on. The reason why creation of the B.P. fund should be characterized as a shakedown is not the why, but the how of the process. Any strongarm tactics used by the president, implying that he is the only one standing between an entity and the angry mob (remember the bank CEOs?), is not only un-presidential but should also be categorized as a shakedown. That is what the legal system is for, and though appropriate for President Putin, the stature of the U.S. president does not allow ghetto trash talking about kicking asses.
A day after Rep. Joe Barton, apologized to the CEO of BP for the government’s efforts to force the company to create a fund to pay out claims to victims of the Gulf oil spil, Rep. Bachmann also defended the worries that the account could turn into — in Barton’s words — a “slush fund.”
“I think that part of the concern that many members of Congress had are that the $20 billion fund not become political, because we have very recent evidence that it could be. We have another oil spill fund that the Democrats just three weeks ago tried to tap to use to pay unemployment benefits,” Congresswoman Bachmann said during an appearance on Fox News.
So it’s certainly reasonable and legitimate for members of Congress to be concerned that an oil spill fund goes specifically, 100 percent to make the victims of this environmental tragedy whole.
Congressman Barton made a mistake alright, however the mistake was not likening the $20 billion BP fund to a "shakedown" by this Administration. The mistake was not explaining his remarks to the American public and the CEO of B.P. Congressman Barton knows well and agrees that B.P. is the primarily liable entity here and should make all those affected by this catastrophe whole again. He is in no sense against that idea. But, unlike Congressional Democrats who admittedly don't bother reading bills before voting on them, and are there primarily to throw their power around in an endeavor of self agrandizing and enriching, Rep. Barton is a fair man who knows what happens in D.C. these days. Lets shed some light on to the matter.
The "shakedown" comment by Rep. Barton is appropriate if we consider the left's affinity to the practice. Community organizing, which the president comes from, is the purest form of shakedown that likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (and formerly, our President) regularly make a grand living from. During this administration, we have already seen shakedowns of the drug companies, insurance companies, bank CEOs, Chyrysler and G.M. bond holders, and so on. The reason why creation of the B.P. fund should be characterized as a shakedown is not the why, but the how of the process. Any strongarm tactics used by the president, implying that he is the only one standing between an entity and the angry mob (remember the bank CEOs?), is not only un-presidential but should also be categorized as a shakedown. That is what the legal system is for, and though appropriate for President Putin, the stature of the U.S. president does not allow ghetto trash talking about kicking asses.
A day after Rep. Joe Barton, apologized to the CEO of BP for the government’s efforts to force the company to create a fund to pay out claims to victims of the Gulf oil spil, Rep. Bachmann also defended the worries that the account could turn into — in Barton’s words — a “slush fund.”
“I think that part of the concern that many members of Congress had are that the $20 billion fund not become political, because we have very recent evidence that it could be. We have another oil spill fund that the Democrats just three weeks ago tried to tap to use to pay unemployment benefits,” Congresswoman Bachmann said during an appearance on Fox News.
So it’s certainly reasonable and legitimate for members of Congress to be concerned that an oil spill fund goes specifically, 100 percent to make the victims of this environmental tragedy whole.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Just What Cabinet Are You In Charge Of, Madam Secretary ?
Have you noticed that the basic professionalism that we have taken for granted as long as this country has existed seems nowhere to be found in this administration? Unless you are a progressive, it is highly unlikely that you have missed the strange and unique (to this administration) phenomena of cross cabinet duty sharing among the Secretaries.
Among the guilty, none is more prolific than Her Highness Hillary Rodham Clinton.
First, it was taxation and GDP growth in Brazil. Now it is illegal immigration and legality of the Arizona law. I am starting to get confused, so help me out here Madam Secretary: Are you heading the State, Treasury, Justice, or the Homeland Security Department? I am sorry if I missed other cabinet level duties that you probably have meddled in but there is only so much attention one can humanly pay to this administration's daily gaffes without running out of hours in the day.
It is normally the President who has the latitude to speak on such diverse issues on the record. Secretaries generally stick to issues that are directly connected to their own departments. Call it proper statesmanship, if you like. This meddling we are witnessing inevitably occurs when there are bigger agendas than just doing your job well. It is not easy for the President to keep his word to fundamentally change this country all by himself, you know. Come hell or high water, that seems to be the only campaign promise he intends on keeping, with the help of his gang, errr..cabinet, of course.
By the way, don't let it slide by in the confusion of the moment that Madam Secretary let the cat out of the bag in Ecuador 10 days ago during a media interview. I am curious, was there no American press in the room, and if so, why on earth wouldn't they think it highly news worthy that the President of this country has been caught in yet another deception thanks to the egg Her Highness laid? Or are they too busy rubber stamping Administration policies to realize when news stares them squarely in the eye? Just the fact that the governor of a state has to learn such a news from the press of another nation, before she and the citizens that the Secretary is representing were granted the courtesy, should have been stunning enough to any journalist with a trace of integrity left in their useless body.
Furthermore, I though the Justice Department was studying the law which, by the way, they hadn't read yet as of the beginning of this month. This President decieving the American public (who support the law by a 2:1 margin) and the governor of Arizona that they were dutifully studying the issue, all the while it was a forgone conclusion that Justice Department will be suing the state? Hmmmm. Hard to believe if for the past year and a half you've been living in a cave in Afghanistan or something!
Silly me. Wasting my time on irrelevant issues such as the systematic destruction of almost everything that has made us the resounding success story America is.
Among the guilty, none is more prolific than Her Highness Hillary Rodham Clinton.
First, it was taxation and GDP growth in Brazil. Now it is illegal immigration and legality of the Arizona law. I am starting to get confused, so help me out here Madam Secretary: Are you heading the State, Treasury, Justice, or the Homeland Security Department? I am sorry if I missed other cabinet level duties that you probably have meddled in but there is only so much attention one can humanly pay to this administration's daily gaffes without running out of hours in the day.
It is normally the President who has the latitude to speak on such diverse issues on the record. Secretaries generally stick to issues that are directly connected to their own departments. Call it proper statesmanship, if you like. This meddling we are witnessing inevitably occurs when there are bigger agendas than just doing your job well. It is not easy for the President to keep his word to fundamentally change this country all by himself, you know. Come hell or high water, that seems to be the only campaign promise he intends on keeping, with the help of his gang, errr..cabinet, of course.
By the way, don't let it slide by in the confusion of the moment that Madam Secretary let the cat out of the bag in Ecuador 10 days ago during a media interview. I am curious, was there no American press in the room, and if so, why on earth wouldn't they think it highly news worthy that the President of this country has been caught in yet another deception thanks to the egg Her Highness laid? Or are they too busy rubber stamping Administration policies to realize when news stares them squarely in the eye? Just the fact that the governor of a state has to learn such a news from the press of another nation, before she and the citizens that the Secretary is representing were granted the courtesy, should have been stunning enough to any journalist with a trace of integrity left in their useless body.
Furthermore, I though the Justice Department was studying the law which, by the way, they hadn't read yet as of the beginning of this month. This President decieving the American public (who support the law by a 2:1 margin) and the governor of Arizona that they were dutifully studying the issue, all the while it was a forgone conclusion that Justice Department will be suing the state? Hmmmm. Hard to believe if for the past year and a half you've been living in a cave in Afghanistan or something!
Silly me. Wasting my time on irrelevant issues such as the systematic destruction of almost everything that has made us the resounding success story America is.
Presidency of Deficits
I decided to call the Obama presidency The Presidency of Deficits. I am talking about deficits of vision (both here and abroad), leadership, and, of course, the literal fiscal deficits of unparalleled proportions that seriously threaten our very survival as far as the eye can see.
Tuesday night's televised address from the Oval Office was the latest display of the Presidency of Deficits. The speech was supposed to sooth the nerves of those affected by the Gulf spill by providing a clear picture of what the game plan is - both in the near and long term - to deal with this tragedy and future energy needs. Instead, during an 18-minute rant, we got more of what we have come to expect from this administration: the blame game and using the tragedy to advance Al Gore-like dubious energy policies.
Everyone, anywhere on the political spectrum, know that B.P. is the sole responsible party for this tragedy, and accordingly is liable for all the damages arising from it. That being said, I along with millions of others expected to witness confidence exuding leadership with a solid game plan, but this was to be just the latest in a long line of disappointments.
I did not hear the President taking proactive, concrete steps like waiving the 1920 Jones Act, which would allow other nations' state-of-the-art oil clean up ships to help with the clean up despite the fact that many of them are not manned by Americans or union workers as mandated by the Act. There are now more than a dozen nations whose offers of assistance have been turned down. It is not that such a waiver has not been requested either. The latest request came from the A.G. of Florida, to which the administration's response through Press Secretary Gibbs on last Thursday was "if there is need for any type of waiver it will be granted". Excuse me?! If there is need? Yes, this is the responsiveness of this administration 59 days into an ecological disaster. That is what happens when you are inextricably in the pockets of the labor unions who are opposing non-union involvement, trial lawyers who obviously stand to gain even more as the magnitude of the disaster increases, and green environmentalists who (as aptly coined by a German politician) are the new red (Marxists for the clueless) willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary to advance their radical agenda.
Nor did I hear last night, the President lifting all restrictions on red tape to allow the myriad of private enterprises jumping at the chance to get involved. But then again, I did not really expect that from an administration that is almost entirely made up of academicians and career bureaucrats - one where private sector experience is clearly despised and shunned (unless you are a player in the corporate cronies like G.E. or Goldman Sachs - in other words, enemies of free markets)
I did not hear him announcing any type of a future state-of-the-art spill clean up contingency plan of any type either (but much to my relief, I heard the creation of a new czardom to add to the existing bureaucracy)
I didn't hear him admit that while American taxpayers have spent billions of dollars over the years since our last energy illiterate president (Carter for those who are clueless) established the DOE, bureaucracies are not there to solve problems, they are their to maintain them - to insure full employment of the bureaucrats.
I did not hear him reversing the moratorium his administration imposed on new drilling despite the recommendations not to impose one by the experts whose opinions they distorted shamelessly. There was no solution offered to the tens of thousands of jobs that would be lost as a result, or the valuable and rare drilling platforms and equipment being diverted elsewhere. Nor did I hear an admission of the hypocrisy of lending billions to Brazil for deep water drilling off their shores because George Soros, his other patron (and the puppet master if you ask me), has a vested interest in Brazil off-shore drilling.
I listened hard to catch any criticism of the MMS (Minerals Management Service) - the agency that is supposed to both maximize natural resource royalties from federal lands and regulate the same folks doing the extracting. That sort of self-defeating mission is a recipe for exactly the sort of incompetence and criminality evidenced in not only granting BP the permit to operate this particular platform last year, but over its entire existence. But I shouldn't have held my breath since his belief in the superiority of governmental bureaucracies is absolute and now that the MMS is the President's own baby in bed with the same companies which donated to his candidacy more than anyone else's.
Regarding energy policy, I did not hear any tax credits, easing of regulations, or other incentives to develop America's 400 year supply of untapped natural gas, drill in the arctic, invest in clean coal technologies, or new generation of nuclear power plants. We got an earful on green energy and imaginary technologies of tomorrow - costs and American economy be damned -, utilizing among other technologies wind turbines and solar energy, which have amounted to nothing short of economy and job killing ventures in Spain and other EU countries.
Elections have consequences, therefore I do not think that the President's unpresidential attributes, lack of vision and leadership qualities, or his administration's thuggish Chicago way of conducting business can be complained about. They are simply lessons to be learned by those willing to buy a good story. As much as majority of the country now deplores this administration's policies as a whole and condemn their actions both here and abroad, this is the price America must pay for its gullibility.
So which is it, Mr. President? Are you progressives intent on solving any problems, or are you there only to exacerbate them to accrete power under the pretense solving them?
When even the most ardent media supporters of the President (those in the media responsible for getting this disaster elected in 2008), Keith Olbermann and Chris "thrill up my legs" Matthews, severely criticize the pre-hyped up speech for lack of leadership and vision, or when reliably progressive David Broder of Washington Post characterizes the Administration's response to the crisis impotent, you know that this Presidency of Deficits is on life support. At this point, we can only hope for an early demise.
Tuesday night's televised address from the Oval Office was the latest display of the Presidency of Deficits. The speech was supposed to sooth the nerves of those affected by the Gulf spill by providing a clear picture of what the game plan is - both in the near and long term - to deal with this tragedy and future energy needs. Instead, during an 18-minute rant, we got more of what we have come to expect from this administration: the blame game and using the tragedy to advance Al Gore-like dubious energy policies.
Everyone, anywhere on the political spectrum, know that B.P. is the sole responsible party for this tragedy, and accordingly is liable for all the damages arising from it. That being said, I along with millions of others expected to witness confidence exuding leadership with a solid game plan, but this was to be just the latest in a long line of disappointments.
I did not hear the President taking proactive, concrete steps like waiving the 1920 Jones Act, which would allow other nations' state-of-the-art oil clean up ships to help with the clean up despite the fact that many of them are not manned by Americans or union workers as mandated by the Act. There are now more than a dozen nations whose offers of assistance have been turned down. It is not that such a waiver has not been requested either. The latest request came from the A.G. of Florida, to which the administration's response through Press Secretary Gibbs on last Thursday was "if there is need for any type of waiver it will be granted". Excuse me?! If there is need? Yes, this is the responsiveness of this administration 59 days into an ecological disaster. That is what happens when you are inextricably in the pockets of the labor unions who are opposing non-union involvement, trial lawyers who obviously stand to gain even more as the magnitude of the disaster increases, and green environmentalists who (as aptly coined by a German politician) are the new red (Marxists for the clueless) willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary to advance their radical agenda.
Nor did I hear last night, the President lifting all restrictions on red tape to allow the myriad of private enterprises jumping at the chance to get involved. But then again, I did not really expect that from an administration that is almost entirely made up of academicians and career bureaucrats - one where private sector experience is clearly despised and shunned (unless you are a player in the corporate cronies like G.E. or Goldman Sachs - in other words, enemies of free markets)
I did not hear him announcing any type of a future state-of-the-art spill clean up contingency plan of any type either (but much to my relief, I heard the creation of a new czardom to add to the existing bureaucracy)
I didn't hear him admit that while American taxpayers have spent billions of dollars over the years since our last energy illiterate president (Carter for those who are clueless) established the DOE, bureaucracies are not there to solve problems, they are their to maintain them - to insure full employment of the bureaucrats.
I did not hear him reversing the moratorium his administration imposed on new drilling despite the recommendations not to impose one by the experts whose opinions they distorted shamelessly. There was no solution offered to the tens of thousands of jobs that would be lost as a result, or the valuable and rare drilling platforms and equipment being diverted elsewhere. Nor did I hear an admission of the hypocrisy of lending billions to Brazil for deep water drilling off their shores because George Soros, his other patron (and the puppet master if you ask me), has a vested interest in Brazil off-shore drilling.
I listened hard to catch any criticism of the MMS (Minerals Management Service) - the agency that is supposed to both maximize natural resource royalties from federal lands and regulate the same folks doing the extracting. That sort of self-defeating mission is a recipe for exactly the sort of incompetence and criminality evidenced in not only granting BP the permit to operate this particular platform last year, but over its entire existence. But I shouldn't have held my breath since his belief in the superiority of governmental bureaucracies is absolute and now that the MMS is the President's own baby in bed with the same companies which donated to his candidacy more than anyone else's.
Regarding energy policy, I did not hear any tax credits, easing of regulations, or other incentives to develop America's 400 year supply of untapped natural gas, drill in the arctic, invest in clean coal technologies, or new generation of nuclear power plants. We got an earful on green energy and imaginary technologies of tomorrow - costs and American economy be damned -, utilizing among other technologies wind turbines and solar energy, which have amounted to nothing short of economy and job killing ventures in Spain and other EU countries.
Elections have consequences, therefore I do not think that the President's unpresidential attributes, lack of vision and leadership qualities, or his administration's thuggish Chicago way of conducting business can be complained about. They are simply lessons to be learned by those willing to buy a good story. As much as majority of the country now deplores this administration's policies as a whole and condemn their actions both here and abroad, this is the price America must pay for its gullibility.
So which is it, Mr. President? Are you progressives intent on solving any problems, or are you there only to exacerbate them to accrete power under the pretense solving them?
When even the most ardent media supporters of the President (those in the media responsible for getting this disaster elected in 2008), Keith Olbermann and Chris "thrill up my legs" Matthews, severely criticize the pre-hyped up speech for lack of leadership and vision, or when reliably progressive David Broder of Washington Post characterizes the Administration's response to the crisis impotent, you know that this Presidency of Deficits is on life support. At this point, we can only hope for an early demise.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Leadership !
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." -- FDR
"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." -- JFK
"...there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." -- Ronald Reagan
and now.........
"Even though I'm president of the United States, my power is not limitless, so I can't dive down there and plug the hole. I can't suck it up with a straw." -- Obama
-------------------------
How inspiring! An alpha dog displays infinitely more leadership while leading a pack!
"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." -- JFK
"...there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." -- Ronald Reagan
and now.........
"Even though I'm president of the United States, my power is not limitless, so I can't dive down there and plug the hole. I can't suck it up with a straw." -- Obama
-------------------------
How inspiring! An alpha dog displays infinitely more leadership while leading a pack!
Monday, June 14, 2010
What Was that Again Regarding Keeping Our Plans, Mr. President?
Ahhh the gullible ones who bought the obvious lie that they could keep their health plan if they liked it! Only if they applied an ounce of critical thinking, they too would have seen the absolute disaster we are headed in to.
According to internal administration draft document on regulations for implementing the new health care reform law that was leaked to congressional Republicans and posted by Congressman Bill Posey, up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare. Here is the graphical illustration of the findings of the 83 page HHS, IRS, and the Labor Department's study:
Under the new health law, current employer-based health plans will be grandfathered — that is, they will not have to follow many Obama-Care provisions that take effect on Jan. 1, 2014. These include benefit mandates, caps on out-of-pocket expenses and limits on age-based premiums.
But they forfeit that grandfathered status if they make changes to the plans by 2014. If so, firms may have to adopt new plans or drop coverage and pay the penalty.
Under the regulations in the document, a plan is no longer considered to be grandfathered if:
• It eliminates benefits related to diagnosis or treatment of a particular condition.
• It increases the percentage of a cost-sharing requirement (such as co-insurance) above its level as of March 23, 2010.
• It increases the fixed amount of cost-sharing such as deductibles or out-of-pocket limits by a total percentage measured from March 23, 2010, that is more than the sum of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points.
• It increases co-payments from March 23, 2010, by an amount that is the greater of: medical inflation plus 15 percentage points or medical inflation plus $5.
• The employer's share of the premium decreases more than 5 percentage points below what the share was on March 23, 2010.
Analyzing data on employer-provided plans from 2008 and 2009, the report stated: "Many employers who made changes between 2008 and 2009 that would have caused them to relinquish grandfather status did so based on exceeding one of the cost-sharing limits."
In total, 66% of small businesses and 47% of large businesses made a change in their health care plans last year that would have forfeited their grandfathered status.
"These rules will ensure that up to 69% of employees — and 80% of workers in small business — will lose their current plan within three years," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., a physician. "The reality is this: 58% of Americans want ObamaCare repealed because they fear they will lose their health care — and even their jobs — once this law is fully implemented."
Furthermore, last month the Congressional Budget Office released a revised cost estimate of the new health care reform law upping the total cost by $115 billion thereby virtually eliminating the earlier estimated cost savings that was touted by the Majority when the bill passed in March. We all know that even the trillion dollar price tag is a sham since it does not include the critical costs of the Medicare physicians fix, double counts savings since the half trillion from Medicare is going in to Medicaid, and take in to account the favorible impact of factoring 10 years worth of revenues against only six years of costs.
Did anyone honestly think the summonning of the CBO chief to the White House early last year - an unprecedented move by any President till the Chicago Gang - was for a simple social gathering?
Possibly up to half the people losing their plans and much higher costs than originally reported! And progressive "useful idiots" still think that this was not designed to get us to a single payer system as many Democrats, including the President, openly admitted?
Well, at least one Democrat was honest regarding this whole mess: Nancy Pelosi when she said "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it"
Is There No End to The Lows This Administration Will Stoop To ?
The seven experts who advised President Obama on how to deal with offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon explosion are accusing his administration of misrepresenting their views to make it appear that they supported a six-month drilling moratorium — something they actually oppose.
The experts, recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar modified their report last month, after they signed it, to include two paragraphs calling for the moratorium on existing drilling and new permits.
Salazar’s report to Obama said a panel of seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs and an immediate halt to drilling operations. All seven experts flatly denied the claim.
In a letter the experts sent to Salazar, they said his primary recommendation "misrepresents" their position and that halting the drilling is actually a bad idea.
They also said that because the floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide, they will not simply sit in the Gulf idle for six months. The rigs will go to the North Sea and West Africa, possibly preventing the U.S. from being able to resume drilling for years. The best and most advanced rigs will be the first to go, leaving the U.S. with the older and potentially less safe rights operating in the nation’s coastal waters.
Is this another calculated move? I am not sure but under a Republican administration this alone would be a major scandal. But be assured, because we have one party media, this unbelievable and dangerous bit of deceit will pass largely unnoticed.
The experts, recommended by the National Academy of Engineering, say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar modified their report last month, after they signed it, to include two paragraphs calling for the moratorium on existing drilling and new permits.
Salazar’s report to Obama said a panel of seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells being drilled using floating rigs and an immediate halt to drilling operations. All seven experts flatly denied the claim.
In a letter the experts sent to Salazar, they said his primary recommendation "misrepresents" their position and that halting the drilling is actually a bad idea.
They also said that because the floating rigs are scarce and in high demand worldwide, they will not simply sit in the Gulf idle for six months. The rigs will go to the North Sea and West Africa, possibly preventing the U.S. from being able to resume drilling for years. The best and most advanced rigs will be the first to go, leaving the U.S. with the older and potentially less safe rights operating in the nation’s coastal waters.
Is this another calculated move? I am not sure but under a Republican administration this alone would be a major scandal. But be assured, because we have one party media, this unbelievable and dangerous bit of deceit will pass largely unnoticed.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Debt in Perspective: Europe, Here We Come
Reuters headlines a Treasury Department report to Congress: U.S. debt to rise to $19.6 trillion by 2015.
That is a $6 trillion increase (44%) from the current estimated debt of $13.6 trillion by the end of 2010 and a debt to GDP ratio of 102%. That also represents a $9 trillion (85%) increase in national debt since Obama took over the helm in 2009, and about $10 trillion (105%) increase since his socialist wannabe buddies took over the congress in 2006 (latter figure being more important since it is the president that proposes, but the congress who disposes). To top it all, the debt figures above are best case scenarios, and we all know about the truly pathetic track record of government estimates with actual overruns ranging from 7 to well over 20 times their original estimates. Before any of my progressive friends accuse me of partisanship, of course none of the liberal Democrat excesses like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 excuses the G.W. Bush administration's ten-year, $800 billion landmark legacy: Medicare Prescription Plan (or Part D).
Just think for a minute. In less than 9 years since 2006, we will have more than doubled the debt which took the U.S. the first 230 years of its existence to accumulate. The annual interest paid on that debt alone will likely reach nearly $1 trillion, or $3,200 per each U.S. citizen regardless of age, by 2015.
We have a dual prong problem here in the U.S. First, an ideological one between the socialist and free market view, and second, one of a flawed political system where self preservation stops the less principled politicians from doing the right thing. I will write seperate blog entries about these later.
Seriously, are there still so-called economists out there who think that we can grow and prosper if we keep on this debt trajectory (other than Paul Krugman)? What will it take for serious entitlement reforms to be implemented (since entitlement spending is two thirds of the federal budget and growing)? Democrat and Republican alike, just paying lip service to reversing the ballooning debt will not prevent the eventual catastrophe that awaits us - collapse of our currency and default at the worst case scenario.
Finally it is becoming clearer by the day: We have succeeded in emulating Europe better than many realize.
That is a $6 trillion increase (44%) from the current estimated debt of $13.6 trillion by the end of 2010 and a debt to GDP ratio of 102%. That also represents a $9 trillion (85%) increase in national debt since Obama took over the helm in 2009, and about $10 trillion (105%) increase since his socialist wannabe buddies took over the congress in 2006 (latter figure being more important since it is the president that proposes, but the congress who disposes). To top it all, the debt figures above are best case scenarios, and we all know about the truly pathetic track record of government estimates with actual overruns ranging from 7 to well over 20 times their original estimates. Before any of my progressive friends accuse me of partisanship, of course none of the liberal Democrat excesses like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 or the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 excuses the G.W. Bush administration's ten-year, $800 billion landmark legacy: Medicare Prescription Plan (or Part D).
Just think for a minute. In less than 9 years since 2006, we will have more than doubled the debt which took the U.S. the first 230 years of its existence to accumulate. The annual interest paid on that debt alone will likely reach nearly $1 trillion, or $3,200 per each U.S. citizen regardless of age, by 2015.
We have a dual prong problem here in the U.S. First, an ideological one between the socialist and free market view, and second, one of a flawed political system where self preservation stops the less principled politicians from doing the right thing. I will write seperate blog entries about these later.
Seriously, are there still so-called economists out there who think that we can grow and prosper if we keep on this debt trajectory (other than Paul Krugman)? What will it take for serious entitlement reforms to be implemented (since entitlement spending is two thirds of the federal budget and growing)? Democrat and Republican alike, just paying lip service to reversing the ballooning debt will not prevent the eventual catastrophe that awaits us - collapse of our currency and default at the worst case scenario.
Finally it is becoming clearer by the day: We have succeeded in emulating Europe better than many realize.
Responsibility or Lack Thereof ?
How ironic.....the man with unquestionably the thinnest skin in politics, who has incessantly blamed everything on nearly everyone from the previous administration to Wall Street to corporate greed, preaches about responsibility and not pointing a finger at others for our own failings.
How about taking your share of the responsibility, and apologizing for:
- having temporarily fooled the gullible 53% of the electorate that you were a moderate and that it would not be business as usual in Washington after you took office
- having more than a dozen lobbyists as well as all sorts of self admitted revolutionary, Marxist radicals (the ones you could not stay away from throughout your life) in your administration
- using Chicago style strong arm tactics in dealing with anyone or group who disagrees with your radical left views
- your administration's scandalous actions such as firing Inspector General Walprin for having caught your corrupt friends red handed, or dropping the ball on prosecuting the Black Panthers for intimidating voters with baseball clubs, or any one of literally dozens of other scandals that your water carriers in the media have tried to cover up for you
- the private investors that you threw overboard in favor of your buddies in the labor unions,
effectively transferring their wealth
- the reckless and lackluster government response to the Gulf oil spill
- the persistent, near 10%, unemployment rate that you said would not surpass 8% if the congress passed the failed trillion+ dollar so-called stimulus and subsequent spending bills
- having abdicated the leadership (moral and otherwise) of the U.S. and thus turned the world order upside down, where tyrannical regimes in Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, etc. have gained stature in the face of your appeasement policies, while our friends in Israel, Colombia, Honduras, and elsewhere are paying the price of your lack of vision, experience, and belief in American exceptionalism
- continued disregard for the American public opinion on the health care reform bill, enforcement of immigration laws, a wide range of environmental initiatives including the cap and trade bill, and continued deficit spending - all of which the public opposes by a 2:1 to 3:1 margin.............
Yes, Mr. President, there is a lot more shameful, scandalous, radical actions you and your fellow progressives have taken that need to be taken responsibility for, but those whose political philosophy has evolved around skirting responsibility, destroying anything to do with free markets, and rewarding behaviors that undermine the civil society can not be expected to do so.
As for you comments to the high school students whose futures your policies are destroying, if it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.
Friday, June 4, 2010
A Crisis That Seemingly Will Not Be Wasted
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Though a sentiment expressed by the President's right hand man, Rahm Emanuel, it embodies the Chicago way of doing business - the only way - this White House is fond of. Could the Obama Administration's non-timely response to the environmental disaster in the Gulf have been calculated to achieve a desired result? You judge.
The Hill reported yesterday that Mr. Obama's speech to the graduates of Carnegie Mellon University included his committment to getting the votes necessary to pass a Senate version of the disasterous climate bill that the House passed last year. Until recently, climate bill was left for dead in the senate as voters are in no mood for economy killing measures.
Obama said the Gulf of Mexico oil spill shows that “we have to acknowledge that there are inherent risks to drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth — risks that are bound to increase the harder oil extraction becomes.” (of course, never mind the simple fact that the same lefy environmentalists are the reason why BP is drilling in deep water rather than shallow water or on dry land in Anwar)
It is a little more than just suspicious that a dead bill would be resuccitated this soon after an environmental disaster, which the Administration did not respond to with any urgency.
The way President Obama and his aides tell it, his administration instantly grasped the severity of what had happened.
"I want to emphasize, from Day 1, we have prepared and planned for the worst," Obama said.
Well, not exactly...not before or since the disaster ocurred.
The MMS (Minerals Management Service) is a government agency under the control of Obama. Obama cannot separate himself from the role of MMS in this matter and he is ultimately responsible for the successes or failure of that agency. Obama appointed S. Elizabeth Birmbaum to be the head of that agency in 2009. It was Obama's MMS that gave BP a waiver on April 6, 2009 that exempted BP from EPA requirements.
It was Obama's MMS that gave BP (and many others) permission to drill that well without a NOAA permit.
It was Obama's MMS that decided in 2009 that an acoustically-controled shut-off valve (BOP) would not be required as a last resort against underwater spills at this and other sites.
It was the Obama administration that dithered when this episode first started, and that seems to have led to a much more devastating incident. Obama did not address the issue for more than a week because he was busy traveling around complaining about an Arizona immigration enforcement law that he had not read, and he had fund raising dinners to attend. Obama's EPA head couldn't address the issue for more than a week because she was busy attending Earth Day events all over the country and appearing on the Daily Show with John Stewart.
The government had plans in place to address an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that were included in legislation and regulations passed in 1986, 1990, 1994 and later. NOAA had the "In-Situ-Burn plan that was developed in 1994 to respond to this type of incident. The 1994 plan included a burn waiver that would have allowed responders to immediately begin burning off oil without having to go through the 10 day plus federal permit process. Did Obama implement the "In-Situ-Burn" plan? No!
The burn plan was not implemented because the government did not own a fire resistant oil boom. The booms only cost a few hundred thousand dollars each, and one boom is capable of burning 75,000 gallons of oil an hour or 1,800,000 gallons a day. The Gulf of Mexico was calm enough to use the booms for the first 3 days of the incident, and one boom could have burned 5.4 million gallons of oil during that 3 day period.
The government should have had a stockpile of those booms laying around the Gulf states in case of an emergency. Each boom costs less than a half million dollars and it's not like the government didn't have the money. In 1986 Congress created the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. That fund placed a tax on every gallon of oil pumped out of the ground in this country, and the money was to be used to address the costs associated with oil spills. The president signed a law into place in 1990 which authorized the use of the money deposited in the Fund. There should have been plenty of money in the fund to buy a few spare oil booms. We don't know if the administrations of Bush 1, Clinton or Bush 2 never bought the booms in the first place, or were the booms lost or damaged, but that doesn't matter. What we do know is that this spill happened 16 months into the Obama term. The lack of oil booms is Obama's responsibility.
The Obama administration eventually got around to asking a midwest contractor if they could borrow their oil boom almost a week into the incident. By that time the gulf was too rough to effectively use the booms. The government also asked the contractor to contact other countries to see if we could borrow their booms. Obama was too busy to contact other world leaders (you know.., the world leaders who supposedly love Obama) to borrow their booms and left that responsibility to the small contractor who really had no connection to the issue.
It almost looks as if someone in the administration let this thing go on to capitalize of the negative publicity towards oil drilling it would garner. Why wasn't Obama on the phone asking for help from countries that are experts on oil spill incidents? Maybe Obama was not calling the leaders of those other countries because those countries were calling us with offers of help. It has now been discovered that many countries contacted us with offers to help, but the Obama regime made a deliberate decision to refuse their assistance.
"Late Wednesday evening, the State Department emailed reporters identifying the 13 entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.
"These offers include experts in various aspects of oil spill impacts, research and technical expertise, booms, chemical oil dispersants, oil pumps, skimmers, and wildlife treatment," the email read.
"While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future."
Who in the heck in this administration is going to get fired for deciding to ask a small oil contractor in the midwest to call around the world begging for oil booms when officials in the Obama administration refused the help of at least 13 countries that are experts in oil spill operations. I'm no law expert, but to me the refusal of the Obama administration to accept the help of the other countries that raced to help us appears to almost be criminal, and certainly made a bad situation worse.
Then, of course, we have the request by Louisiana governor to build sand berms to salvage the coastline and marshes that are being decimated. How long did it take the Army Corps of Engineers to allow 4 berms to be built (not the 16 requested)? Try 14 days! All this while this president was entertaining singers and travelling for political fundraising. Remind you a little of Nero while Rome was burning?
The situation in fact got so bad that it is not only James Carville (the Democrat attack dog of choice) but the president's closest media allies who started complaining.
The simple question boils down to this: Is the Obama Administration this incompetent (being staffed to the hilt with nothing but academicians, and other non private sector ideologues, the answer is yes) or is there another agenda? My money is split between the two since this crisis is clearly not being wasted in Rahm Emanuel's words.
The Hill reported yesterday that Mr. Obama's speech to the graduates of Carnegie Mellon University included his committment to getting the votes necessary to pass a Senate version of the disasterous climate bill that the House passed last year. Until recently, climate bill was left for dead in the senate as voters are in no mood for economy killing measures.
Obama said the Gulf of Mexico oil spill shows that “we have to acknowledge that there are inherent risks to drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth — risks that are bound to increase the harder oil extraction becomes.” (of course, never mind the simple fact that the same lefy environmentalists are the reason why BP is drilling in deep water rather than shallow water or on dry land in Anwar)
It is a little more than just suspicious that a dead bill would be resuccitated this soon after an environmental disaster, which the Administration did not respond to with any urgency.
The way President Obama and his aides tell it, his administration instantly grasped the severity of what had happened.
"I want to emphasize, from Day 1, we have prepared and planned for the worst," Obama said.
Well, not exactly...not before or since the disaster ocurred.
The MMS (Minerals Management Service) is a government agency under the control of Obama. Obama cannot separate himself from the role of MMS in this matter and he is ultimately responsible for the successes or failure of that agency. Obama appointed S. Elizabeth Birmbaum to be the head of that agency in 2009. It was Obama's MMS that gave BP a waiver on April 6, 2009 that exempted BP from EPA requirements.
It was Obama's MMS that gave BP (and many others) permission to drill that well without a NOAA permit.
It was Obama's MMS that decided in 2009 that an acoustically-controled shut-off valve (BOP) would not be required as a last resort against underwater spills at this and other sites.
It was the Obama administration that dithered when this episode first started, and that seems to have led to a much more devastating incident. Obama did not address the issue for more than a week because he was busy traveling around complaining about an Arizona immigration enforcement law that he had not read, and he had fund raising dinners to attend. Obama's EPA head couldn't address the issue for more than a week because she was busy attending Earth Day events all over the country and appearing on the Daily Show with John Stewart.
The government had plans in place to address an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that were included in legislation and regulations passed in 1986, 1990, 1994 and later. NOAA had the "In-Situ-Burn plan that was developed in 1994 to respond to this type of incident. The 1994 plan included a burn waiver that would have allowed responders to immediately begin burning off oil without having to go through the 10 day plus federal permit process. Did Obama implement the "In-Situ-Burn" plan? No!
The burn plan was not implemented because the government did not own a fire resistant oil boom. The booms only cost a few hundred thousand dollars each, and one boom is capable of burning 75,000 gallons of oil an hour or 1,800,000 gallons a day. The Gulf of Mexico was calm enough to use the booms for the first 3 days of the incident, and one boom could have burned 5.4 million gallons of oil during that 3 day period.
The government should have had a stockpile of those booms laying around the Gulf states in case of an emergency. Each boom costs less than a half million dollars and it's not like the government didn't have the money. In 1986 Congress created the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. That fund placed a tax on every gallon of oil pumped out of the ground in this country, and the money was to be used to address the costs associated with oil spills. The president signed a law into place in 1990 which authorized the use of the money deposited in the Fund. There should have been plenty of money in the fund to buy a few spare oil booms. We don't know if the administrations of Bush 1, Clinton or Bush 2 never bought the booms in the first place, or were the booms lost or damaged, but that doesn't matter. What we do know is that this spill happened 16 months into the Obama term. The lack of oil booms is Obama's responsibility.
The Obama administration eventually got around to asking a midwest contractor if they could borrow their oil boom almost a week into the incident. By that time the gulf was too rough to effectively use the booms. The government also asked the contractor to contact other countries to see if we could borrow their booms. Obama was too busy to contact other world leaders (you know.., the world leaders who supposedly love Obama) to borrow their booms and left that responsibility to the small contractor who really had no connection to the issue.
It almost looks as if someone in the administration let this thing go on to capitalize of the negative publicity towards oil drilling it would garner. Why wasn't Obama on the phone asking for help from countries that are experts on oil spill incidents? Maybe Obama was not calling the leaders of those other countries because those countries were calling us with offers of help. It has now been discovered that many countries contacted us with offers to help, but the Obama regime made a deliberate decision to refuse their assistance.
"Late Wednesday evening, the State Department emailed reporters identifying the 13 entities that had offered the U.S. oil spill assistance. They were the governments of Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations.
"These offers include experts in various aspects of oil spill impacts, research and technical expertise, booms, chemical oil dispersants, oil pumps, skimmers, and wildlife treatment," the email read.
"While there is no need right now that the U.S. cannot meet, the U.S. Coast Guard is assessing these offers of assistance to see if there will be something which we will need in the near future."
Who in the heck in this administration is going to get fired for deciding to ask a small oil contractor in the midwest to call around the world begging for oil booms when officials in the Obama administration refused the help of at least 13 countries that are experts in oil spill operations. I'm no law expert, but to me the refusal of the Obama administration to accept the help of the other countries that raced to help us appears to almost be criminal, and certainly made a bad situation worse.
Then, of course, we have the request by Louisiana governor to build sand berms to salvage the coastline and marshes that are being decimated. How long did it take the Army Corps of Engineers to allow 4 berms to be built (not the 16 requested)? Try 14 days! All this while this president was entertaining singers and travelling for political fundraising. Remind you a little of Nero while Rome was burning?
The situation in fact got so bad that it is not only James Carville (the Democrat attack dog of choice) but the president's closest media allies who started complaining.
The simple question boils down to this: Is the Obama Administration this incompetent (being staffed to the hilt with nothing but academicians, and other non private sector ideologues, the answer is yes) or is there another agenda? My money is split between the two since this crisis is clearly not being wasted in Rahm Emanuel's words.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Response to Hillary's Dubious Claim
"Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what - they're growing like crazy." -- Hillary Clinton
...And now for reality:
Data source: Google (based on World Bank data).
Growth in GDP (market prices based on constant local currency) from 1990 to 2008:
Panama: 189%
Chile: 168%
Costa Rica: 154%
Peru: 121%
Argentina: 111%
Brazil: 63%
Tax revenue as percent of GDP (most recent year):
Panama: 10.7%
Chile: 18.9%
Costa Rica: 15.2%
Peru: 15.7%
Argentina: 24.5%
Brazil: 35.3%
Sources: Google (based on World Bank data) and Heritage Foundation's 2010 Index of Economic Freedom (use the "Find Your Country" search and look at fiscal data)
So much for the "smartest woman" in politics, as the left likes to refer to her. You know, facts and progressives - they do not mix well!
...And now for reality:
Data source: Google (based on World Bank data).
Growth in GDP (market prices based on constant local currency) from 1990 to 2008:
Panama: 189%
Chile: 168%
Costa Rica: 154%
Peru: 121%
Argentina: 111%
Brazil: 63%
Tax revenue as percent of GDP (most recent year):
Panama: 10.7%
Chile: 18.9%
Costa Rica: 15.2%
Peru: 15.7%
Argentina: 24.5%
Brazil: 35.3%
Sources: Google (based on World Bank data) and Heritage Foundation's 2010 Index of Economic Freedom (use the "Find Your Country" search and look at fiscal data)
So much for the "smartest woman" in politics, as the left likes to refer to her. You know, facts and progressives - they do not mix well!
Saturday, May 29, 2010
As I Say, There Is No Such Animal As A Moderate Democrat
The good old days of JFK and Reagan Democrats is a distant memory. Those who fail to understand the complete transformation of the Democrat party from an all-encompassing, broad based political party until the latter part of the twentieth century to one that has been taken over by stealth-socialists (and I only say that because they refuse to be honest enough to calll themselves socialists with the exception of Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont) should listen to moderate Democrats like Senator Zell Miller (author of A National Party No More), Pat Caddell, and Dick Morris for a perspective from within!
Or better yet, listen to our esteemed Secretary of State, who couldn't help herself take a swipe at "the rich" during a speech on National Security Strategy:
Now, of course we all know that she is blowing off some progressive smoke since her claim has no relationship to reality. But, more importantly, why the heck is a Secretary Of State, while talking about national security, delving in to areas that a truly professional statesperson should stay out of?
As I said, they just cannot help themselves.
Or better yet, listen to our esteemed Secretary of State, who couldn't help herself take a swipe at "the rich" during a speech on National Security Strategy:
Now, of course we all know that she is blowing off some progressive smoke since her claim has no relationship to reality. But, more importantly, why the heck is a Secretary Of State, while talking about national security, delving in to areas that a truly professional statesperson should stay out of?
As I said, they just cannot help themselves.
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. ... I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
--Benjamin Franklin
Amazing how much wiser some were two centuries ago than today's progressives!!
--Benjamin Franklin
Amazing how much wiser some were two centuries ago than today's progressives!!
Assertion:
“President Obama didn’t accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign.”
Ben LaBolt – Obama Spokesman
Fact:
BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals. During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.
----------------------------------------------
No comment needed.
“President Obama didn’t accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign.”
Ben LaBolt – Obama Spokesman
Fact:
BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals. During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.
----------------------------------------------
No comment needed.
The Blamer-In-Chief
George W. Bush was blamed for the federal response to Katrina, even though state sovereignty issues hung in the balance and the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans, both governed by Democrats at the time, dropped the ball as first and primary responders.
It wasn't Bush who ordered people into the Superdome instead of out of the city. It wasn't Bush who left school buses to sit empty in a flooded parking lot. Nevertheless, Bush got all the blame from the Democrats with the help of their allies in main stream media. This time around, the disaster is on Obama's watch and on federal territory - a huge distinction.
Unlike Katrina, where disputes and confusion quickly arose between federal, state and local authorities over who should have done what and when, the handling of this accident in federal waters was a clear federal responsibility. It was the failure of this administration to implement contingency plans in place since 1994 to contain and burn the oil that made the situation far worse (and no, they were not precluded from taking this action as some on the left falsely claim!).
Moreover, Governor Jindal of Louisiana has had to go to the extreme of threatening to break federal laws and building sand berms (to protect the shoreline) himself since his request has been held up by the Army Corps of Engineers for about two weeks now while his state's coast line is being ravaged.
We all know that BP is culpable, and as such primarily responsible, as the company whose actions contributed to this environmental disaster. However, this does not change the fact that disaster took place in federal waters that BP is leasing from the feds, and as such, there is no excuse for the indifference the Administration has astonishingly shown as even some of the most ardent allies of the president have pointed out over the last few days.
As the St. Petersburg Times editorialized on the first Friday of the BP blowout: "President Obama met U2's Bono in the Oval Office on Friday when he should have been headed to the Gulf Coast"; and while the oil washed up in Louisiana marshes, Obama took time out to raise money for the re-election of Barbara "Call Me Senator" Boxer in California.
It took exactly 9 days for the Administration to acknowledge the severity of this crisis. Even then, the rhetoric has been one of condemnation of the industry as well as the previous administration. What gall! What else should one expect from a President who has done nothing since day one but blame everyone else for everything under the sun while systematically dismantling the American Way.
No wonder why they are headed towards an epic downfall that will make 1994 look enviable to Democrats next November.
------
P.S. A possible theory now that the Administration is suspending any notion of off-shore drilling for a year (or more). Was the non-response of the federal government to the Gulf spill calculated to achieve a desired result? Hmmmm...... It is a sad day when your governments actions over the past year and a half lead you to think such devious thoughts!
It wasn't Bush who ordered people into the Superdome instead of out of the city. It wasn't Bush who left school buses to sit empty in a flooded parking lot. Nevertheless, Bush got all the blame from the Democrats with the help of their allies in main stream media. This time around, the disaster is on Obama's watch and on federal territory - a huge distinction.
Unlike Katrina, where disputes and confusion quickly arose between federal, state and local authorities over who should have done what and when, the handling of this accident in federal waters was a clear federal responsibility. It was the failure of this administration to implement contingency plans in place since 1994 to contain and burn the oil that made the situation far worse (and no, they were not precluded from taking this action as some on the left falsely claim!).
Moreover, Governor Jindal of Louisiana has had to go to the extreme of threatening to break federal laws and building sand berms (to protect the shoreline) himself since his request has been held up by the Army Corps of Engineers for about two weeks now while his state's coast line is being ravaged.
We all know that BP is culpable, and as such primarily responsible, as the company whose actions contributed to this environmental disaster. However, this does not change the fact that disaster took place in federal waters that BP is leasing from the feds, and as such, there is no excuse for the indifference the Administration has astonishingly shown as even some of the most ardent allies of the president have pointed out over the last few days.
As the St. Petersburg Times editorialized on the first Friday of the BP blowout: "President Obama met U2's Bono in the Oval Office on Friday when he should have been headed to the Gulf Coast"; and while the oil washed up in Louisiana marshes, Obama took time out to raise money for the re-election of Barbara "Call Me Senator" Boxer in California.
It took exactly 9 days for the Administration to acknowledge the severity of this crisis. Even then, the rhetoric has been one of condemnation of the industry as well as the previous administration. What gall! What else should one expect from a President who has done nothing since day one but blame everyone else for everything under the sun while systematically dismantling the American Way.
No wonder why they are headed towards an epic downfall that will make 1994 look enviable to Democrats next November.
------
P.S. A possible theory now that the Administration is suspending any notion of off-shore drilling for a year (or more). Was the non-response of the federal government to the Gulf spill calculated to achieve a desired result? Hmmmm...... It is a sad day when your governments actions over the past year and a half lead you to think such devious thoughts!
"Please don't put your faith in market forces. It's a popular idea: that Adam Smith's invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can. I find little evidence that market forces relying on consumers choosing among an array of products, with competitors fighting it out, leads to the healthcare system you want and need. In the U.S., competition is a major reason for our duplicative, supply driven, fragmented care system."
--Dr. Donald Berwick, nominated by Barack Obama to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who idolizes Britain's socialized National Health System (NHS).
----------
In case Dr. Berwick hasn't seen the reports on the NHS since the publication of his article, it's deep in debt and delivering substandard service, with new critical reports published almost daily about its state of disgrace causing untold deaths and unnecessary suffering. Adam Smith's invisible hand gave the U.S. the best medical care in the world. The people know this, which is why the vast majority reject ObamaCare, the American NHS wannabe.
--Dr. Donald Berwick, nominated by Barack Obama to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who idolizes Britain's socialized National Health System (NHS).
----------
In case Dr. Berwick hasn't seen the reports on the NHS since the publication of his article, it's deep in debt and delivering substandard service, with new critical reports published almost daily about its state of disgrace causing untold deaths and unnecessary suffering. Adam Smith's invisible hand gave the U.S. the best medical care in the world. The people know this, which is why the vast majority reject ObamaCare, the American NHS wannabe.
"I think there's a comprehension gap"
--Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) who thinks that Democrats aren't getting the credit they deserve for all the work they've done for America by confiscating wealth and giving it largely to their constituents in the unions, etc.
Or as the Boston Herald puts it, us commoners "just don’t understand his greatness, nor that of his fellow national Democrats, from Barack Obama on down."
"Is this comprehension gap anything like the media in 2008 describing Bush’s 5.5 percent unemployment rate as a precursor of the next Great Depression? But now with the unemployment rate under Obama at 9.9 percent, we are told by the exact same media that it’s the “new normal,” a lagging indicator of the alleged recovery. Praise Barack.
--Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) who thinks that Democrats aren't getting the credit they deserve for all the work they've done for America by confiscating wealth and giving it largely to their constituents in the unions, etc.
Or as the Boston Herald puts it, us commoners "just don’t understand his greatness, nor that of his fellow national Democrats, from Barack Obama on down."
"Is this comprehension gap anything like the media in 2008 describing Bush’s 5.5 percent unemployment rate as a precursor of the next Great Depression? But now with the unemployment rate under Obama at 9.9 percent, we are told by the exact same media that it’s the “new normal,” a lagging indicator of the alleged recovery. Praise Barack.
"One of my biggest differences with the Bush administration, and even with the Clinton administration, was that they overdid that. I have always been critical of this effort to equate a decent home with homeownership. I think we should have been doing more to provide rental housing. My efforts have been to try and get affordable rental housing. I was very much in disagreement with this push into home ownership, and I think the federal government should not be artificially doing that."
--Barney Frank, May 21, 2010
-----------------
Of course, in June 2005, Frank's story was quite different:
"We have, I think, an excessive degree of concern right now about homeownership and its role in the economy. ... Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level, but you're not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble. And so those of us on our committee in particular will continue to push for homeownership."
Barney must not be aware that what he said five years ago is readily available on the internet.
For leftists, history starts with their current public statement.
--Barney Frank, May 21, 2010
-----------------
Of course, in June 2005, Frank's story was quite different:
"We have, I think, an excessive degree of concern right now about homeownership and its role in the economy. ... Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level, but you're not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble. And so those of us on our committee in particular will continue to push for homeownership."
Barney must not be aware that what he said five years ago is readily available on the internet.
For leftists, history starts with their current public statement.
"The Democratic Congress and the Obama administration share a strong commitment to fiscal discipline and common sense in our budget, and we must continue to do everything in our power to boost our economic recovery, rein in the deficits we inherited, and remain responsible stewards of the public purse. After President Bush and Republicans in Congress turned record surpluses into record deficits and nearly doubled the national debt, Democrats are returning our nation to a course of fiscal responsibility."
--House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on her own party's quadrupling of even the worst Bush deficit
(a.k.a. Mrs. "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it")
--House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on her own party's quadrupling of even the worst Bush deficit
(a.k.a. Mrs. "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it")
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
One of the Few Times They Actually Told the Truth...
"We're going to make sure that in every policy, every decision, we don't lose sight of the folks that brought us to the dance."
Vice President Joe Biden at the AFL-CIO's Executive Committee, March 2009
Boy, have they! A bill making its way through the Senate would bail out union pension funds to the tune of $165 billion. The bill's author, Democrat Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, wants the public to pay for the gold-plated union retirement benefits that the funds have mismanaged into oblivion.
This has to be galling to average working saps who watch as their 401(k)s and IRAs plummet, only to be asked to pony up billions of dollars in subsidies for unionized workers — many of whom get to retire while still in their 50s.
Casey's bill isn't the only gift that the White House and Congress have for the unions. Last year, economist Ben Stein estimated that as much as half of the $862 billion stimulus would go to unions, directly or indirectly. Even that might underestimate organized labor's take.
And just last week, the White House proposed $23 billion in aid to states for education. For education? Well, in point of fact, increased federal involvement in education has had zero positive effect on test scores. Neither has increased spending per pupil helped with problems stemming from social issues rather than financial woes. Some of the highest spending school systems, from Chicago to Washington, D.C., still are the worse school systems in the country when it comes to achievement. Who will the $23 billion benefit? Try NEA and AFT - two unions that palyed an important role in labor unions raising over $400 million in 2008 elections, virtually all of it for for Democrats.
So beholden to the unions have the Democrats become, it's fair to say they are a de facto Organized Labor Party — a far more accurate name than "Democrats." Welcome to the workers' paradise.
Vice President Joe Biden at the AFL-CIO's Executive Committee, March 2009
Boy, have they! A bill making its way through the Senate would bail out union pension funds to the tune of $165 billion. The bill's author, Democrat Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, wants the public to pay for the gold-plated union retirement benefits that the funds have mismanaged into oblivion.
This has to be galling to average working saps who watch as their 401(k)s and IRAs plummet, only to be asked to pony up billions of dollars in subsidies for unionized workers — many of whom get to retire while still in their 50s.
Casey's bill isn't the only gift that the White House and Congress have for the unions. Last year, economist Ben Stein estimated that as much as half of the $862 billion stimulus would go to unions, directly or indirectly. Even that might underestimate organized labor's take.
And just last week, the White House proposed $23 billion in aid to states for education. For education? Well, in point of fact, increased federal involvement in education has had zero positive effect on test scores. Neither has increased spending per pupil helped with problems stemming from social issues rather than financial woes. Some of the highest spending school systems, from Chicago to Washington, D.C., still are the worse school systems in the country when it comes to achievement. Who will the $23 billion benefit? Try NEA and AFT - two unions that palyed an important role in labor unions raising over $400 million in 2008 elections, virtually all of it for for Democrats.
So beholden to the unions have the Democrats become, it's fair to say they are a de facto Organized Labor Party — a far more accurate name than "Democrats." Welcome to the workers' paradise.
Brussels - the New Capital of the Free World?
In what way, Mr. Vice President? Economically (while EU is collapsing under the weight of its own unsustainable socialist policies)? Militarily (while majority of their soldiers are running copiers in Afghanistan)? Diplomatically (having resolved no issue ever, from the Middle East to N. Korea)?
This administration reminds me of an army of termites, eating away at the underpinnings of the 'home' they live in.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Whatever Happened to America First?
There are certain unwritten rules in life. You do not double cross your own family is an important one of them. That rule applies not just to individuals but also in a larger sense to society and governments. Honor, patriotism, and loyalty demands that we are unified against any attacks on our sovereign policies with few exceptions in extreme cases such as post World War II denouncement of the Holocaust by the German people. Well, the rule applied in a truly universal way, that is until the Obama administration had to be the first to break it.
We are, by now, used to the near constant apologies of the President and criticism of his predecessors while abroad. Cutting the U.S. down to size and admonishing our friends while directly or indirectly elevating the status of the world's dictators/bullies is this administration's demented way of changing the 'negative image' of the U.S. abroad. The examples of minimizing American exceptionalism while blaming the U.S. for the world's ills are too numerous to count. Mr. Obama dazzled ecstatic world citizens on every single continent with citations of the offenses against international goodwill and humanity committed by the nation he leads. The more memorable ones include his apologies in France for our past arrogance and dismissiveness/derisiveness towards Europe, failure to tie our progress to that of Latin America at the OAS, moral responsibility of using the atom bomb while in Prague, and placing the responsibility for financial woes of the world squarely on our own shoulders while in London. And that is just a few of the dozens of unprecedented examples!
As bad as criticizing the U.S. while abroad may sound, a new line was crossed recently. First, high ranking administration official criticized the the new Arizona law passed to enforce existing federal laws against illegal immigration while meeting with the Chinese last week. Yes, the Chinese - who are not ranked far ahead of the North Koreans or the Cubans when it comes to human rights! As if that wasn't bad enough, earlier past week, President Obama reiterated the same criticism while meeting with President Calderon of Mexico (whose country's immigration laws are a lot more stringent than ours - both on paper and in enforcement) at the White House last Wednesday. This time around, criticism came indirectly - by way of the President's silence while standing next to a foreign head of state who was openly promoting an ongoing, aggressive, illegal, and often violent invasion of America. To add insult to injury, President Calderon, while addressing the U.S. Congress, admonished the Arizona law as being anti-human rights and unworthy of the United States. On multiple occasions, he received enthusiastic standing ovation from the Democrats in his audience.
Although it is good to see that Obama is not the only ungracious, unpresidential head of state who, like a dinner guest who criticizes the food, has a thing or two to learn about presidential decorum while visiting another country, one cannot help but stop and wonder whatever happened to the unwritten rule of not criticizing your own, especially on your own soil?
We are, by now, used to the near constant apologies of the President and criticism of his predecessors while abroad. Cutting the U.S. down to size and admonishing our friends while directly or indirectly elevating the status of the world's dictators/bullies is this administration's demented way of changing the 'negative image' of the U.S. abroad. The examples of minimizing American exceptionalism while blaming the U.S. for the world's ills are too numerous to count. Mr. Obama dazzled ecstatic world citizens on every single continent with citations of the offenses against international goodwill and humanity committed by the nation he leads. The more memorable ones include his apologies in France for our past arrogance and dismissiveness/derisiveness towards Europe, failure to tie our progress to that of Latin America at the OAS, moral responsibility of using the atom bomb while in Prague, and placing the responsibility for financial woes of the world squarely on our own shoulders while in London. And that is just a few of the dozens of unprecedented examples!
As bad as criticizing the U.S. while abroad may sound, a new line was crossed recently. First, high ranking administration official criticized the the new Arizona law passed to enforce existing federal laws against illegal immigration while meeting with the Chinese last week. Yes, the Chinese - who are not ranked far ahead of the North Koreans or the Cubans when it comes to human rights! As if that wasn't bad enough, earlier past week, President Obama reiterated the same criticism while meeting with President Calderon of Mexico (whose country's immigration laws are a lot more stringent than ours - both on paper and in enforcement) at the White House last Wednesday. This time around, criticism came indirectly - by way of the President's silence while standing next to a foreign head of state who was openly promoting an ongoing, aggressive, illegal, and often violent invasion of America. To add insult to injury, President Calderon, while addressing the U.S. Congress, admonished the Arizona law as being anti-human rights and unworthy of the United States. On multiple occasions, he received enthusiastic standing ovation from the Democrats in his audience.
Although it is good to see that Obama is not the only ungracious, unpresidential head of state who, like a dinner guest who criticizes the food, has a thing or two to learn about presidential decorum while visiting another country, one cannot help but stop and wonder whatever happened to the unwritten rule of not criticizing your own, especially on your own soil?
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office.
Ludwig von Mises
Ludwig von Mises
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Obama Slams Electronic Gadgets, Promotes Smoke Signals
This was too good not to reprint. A bit of satire from our friends at the People's Cube (click on the title for the site).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Barack Obama cautioned college students last week about the harmful effects of the free flow of information - a social ill typically associated with unfettered technological advancements in a capitalist economy. Speaking to thousands of graduates, their family and friends, the president shared his concern over what his latest intelligence report characterized as "students' misuse of awareness-enhancing gadgets and empowering tools" as merely entertainment devices."
Today's college graduates are coming of age at a difficult time when the alternative media is not always presenting the current truth according to our specs and we're just wasting valuable time writing detailed instructions for them," he said."
Even our seasoned media watchdogs are having a hard time sifting through the many voices clamoring for attention on blogs, on cable, on talk radio. Not only does this unnecessarily pressure you to think for yourself and make the so-called 'informed choices,' it also impedes my ability as president to game the system. Let's face it, even some of the craziest internet parodies can quickly become a reality. I've had some experience with that myself," said Obama.
Speaking of electronic organizers and mind-boggling memory chips, president Obama assured his audiences that a string tied to his finger can do all that and more.
Keeping his criticism constructive, the president then proposed to replace the decadent iPhone with a rope and two coconut shells - a nature-friendly device that had been successfully tested on Gilligan's Island but never made it to mainland due to corporate greed and obstructionism of the telephone companies.
President Obama urged students to learn from other cultures who have created many alternatives to long-distance communications - from "talking drums" to crystal skulls to smoke signals."
While not entirely carbon-neutral, smoke signals are nonetheless a time-tested First-American custom that needs no infrastructure, promotes outdoorspersonship, and can be safe when supervised by a caring EPA official," Obama said. "Visible to all, smoke signals strengthen the communal spirit by sparking collective outcry if the sender deviates from the majority norms, thus preventing any chance of a conspiracy or developing anti-social, individualistic traits.""
When I promised breathtaking change, I didn't mean you would be upgrading your iPods and video game consoles every few months," the president continued. "My change only referred to the way we slice the American pie, so that you'd vote for me if you want a bigger share. But getting elected was only the beginning; I still need your help. If you want your slices to be equally big, you must continue to empower the government. And to do that you must quit playing your stupid games, dammit, and empower yourselves by raising your awareness about what's in your neighbor's lunchbox and saying 'I want that.' Because empowerment means awareness of your entitlement to your neighbor's lunch.""
The era of single-player video games has been detrimental to raising class consciousness," the president said. "PlayStations and Xboxes aren't conducive to dividing people into oppressed groups and nurturing their collective grievances. Every hour spent on playing video games is an hour not spent with your local community organizer or in a group meeting developing groupthink strategies. And without strong groupthink, without the ability to categorize people by their grievances, we won't be able to win elections and you will be doomed to work for a living and keep what you earn."
President Obama then suggested an easy politically correct alternative to the anti-democratic gadgets. Reaching underneath his colorful ceremonial robe, he produced a puzzle that looked like the Rubik's Cube only it was equally red on all sides: the People's Cube."
Having all squares of one and the same color guarantees certainty of results and eliminates the stress associated with competition and risk-taking," the president said, rotating the cube and solving it within seconds. "Playing with this puzzle, no group of players can outperform any other group. This completely levels the playing field and guarantees equal outcomes for all. It's what we're also trying to achieve in real life with our mind-blowing economic reforms. A great educational tool, the People's Cube can teach you more about the theory and practice of progressivism than any video game ever could. What's more, it's colorblind-friendly!" (Click here for operating manual)."
To summarize, popular electronic devices have become an obstacle to our steady march towards a better future. Giving them up will be a necessary sacrifice worthy of the dreams of our fathers."
Obama finished reading from his hi-tech teleprompter and held his head up at a photogenic angle, enabling high definition cameras to stream his image to various TV networks feeding the infotainment-hungry nation. Backstage, presidential staff hectically typed his speech into Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace pages, transmitting it through a number of live podcasts, and posting web-ready iPod-snapped photos on the official White House blog.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Barack Obama cautioned college students last week about the harmful effects of the free flow of information - a social ill typically associated with unfettered technological advancements in a capitalist economy. Speaking to thousands of graduates, their family and friends, the president shared his concern over what his latest intelligence report characterized as "students' misuse of awareness-enhancing gadgets and empowering tools" as merely entertainment devices."
Today's college graduates are coming of age at a difficult time when the alternative media is not always presenting the current truth according to our specs and we're just wasting valuable time writing detailed instructions for them," he said."
Even our seasoned media watchdogs are having a hard time sifting through the many voices clamoring for attention on blogs, on cable, on talk radio. Not only does this unnecessarily pressure you to think for yourself and make the so-called 'informed choices,' it also impedes my ability as president to game the system. Let's face it, even some of the craziest internet parodies can quickly become a reality. I've had some experience with that myself," said Obama.
Speaking of electronic organizers and mind-boggling memory chips, president Obama assured his audiences that a string tied to his finger can do all that and more.
Keeping his criticism constructive, the president then proposed to replace the decadent iPhone with a rope and two coconut shells - a nature-friendly device that had been successfully tested on Gilligan's Island but never made it to mainland due to corporate greed and obstructionism of the telephone companies.
President Obama urged students to learn from other cultures who have created many alternatives to long-distance communications - from "talking drums" to crystal skulls to smoke signals."
While not entirely carbon-neutral, smoke signals are nonetheless a time-tested First-American custom that needs no infrastructure, promotes outdoorspersonship, and can be safe when supervised by a caring EPA official," Obama said. "Visible to all, smoke signals strengthen the communal spirit by sparking collective outcry if the sender deviates from the majority norms, thus preventing any chance of a conspiracy or developing anti-social, individualistic traits.""
When I promised breathtaking change, I didn't mean you would be upgrading your iPods and video game consoles every few months," the president continued. "My change only referred to the way we slice the American pie, so that you'd vote for me if you want a bigger share. But getting elected was only the beginning; I still need your help. If you want your slices to be equally big, you must continue to empower the government. And to do that you must quit playing your stupid games, dammit, and empower yourselves by raising your awareness about what's in your neighbor's lunchbox and saying 'I want that.' Because empowerment means awareness of your entitlement to your neighbor's lunch.""
The era of single-player video games has been detrimental to raising class consciousness," the president said. "PlayStations and Xboxes aren't conducive to dividing people into oppressed groups and nurturing their collective grievances. Every hour spent on playing video games is an hour not spent with your local community organizer or in a group meeting developing groupthink strategies. And without strong groupthink, without the ability to categorize people by their grievances, we won't be able to win elections and you will be doomed to work for a living and keep what you earn."
President Obama then suggested an easy politically correct alternative to the anti-democratic gadgets. Reaching underneath his colorful ceremonial robe, he produced a puzzle that looked like the Rubik's Cube only it was equally red on all sides: the People's Cube."
Having all squares of one and the same color guarantees certainty of results and eliminates the stress associated with competition and risk-taking," the president said, rotating the cube and solving it within seconds. "Playing with this puzzle, no group of players can outperform any other group. This completely levels the playing field and guarantees equal outcomes for all. It's what we're also trying to achieve in real life with our mind-blowing economic reforms. A great educational tool, the People's Cube can teach you more about the theory and practice of progressivism than any video game ever could. What's more, it's colorblind-friendly!" (Click here for operating manual)."
To summarize, popular electronic devices have become an obstacle to our steady march towards a better future. Giving them up will be a necessary sacrifice worthy of the dreams of our fathers."
Obama finished reading from his hi-tech teleprompter and held his head up at a photogenic angle, enabling high definition cameras to stream his image to various TV networks feeding the infotainment-hungry nation. Backstage, presidential staff hectically typed his speech into Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace pages, transmitting it through a number of live podcasts, and posting web-ready iPod-snapped photos on the official White House blog.
Friday, May 14, 2010
A Case of Poetic Justice
For the good part of last two years, I and other defenders of the free market capitalism had to endure the left, both in this country and in Europe, telling the rest of us how the financial crisis of 2008 signalled the futility of the free market system. German lawmaker Martin Schulz, chairman of the Socialists in the EU assembly, said “This crisis underlines the excesses and uncertainties of a casino capitalism that has only one logic -- lining your pocket. It also shows the bankruptcy of 'law of the jungle' capitalism that no longer invests in companies and job creation, but instead makes money out of money in a totally uncontrolled way.” The French leader reiterated his earlier attacks on American capitalism as well. "We cannot continue along the same lines because the same problems will trigger the same disasters," said Mr Sarkozy. "This is no longer acceptable. This is no longer possible. This sort of capitalism is a betrayal of the sort of capitalism we believe in." They were joined in similar attacks by politicians from Austria to Spain, while the American left (and the pretenders on the right) made the most of the crisis to their political benefit.
Flash forward two years, and now the shoe seems to be on the other foot. Despite their recent condemnations of the free market system, the EU is singing a different tune these days. The one trillion dollar rescue package (which the U.S. tax payer will partially shoulder) to stabilize the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain) has been a great source of anxiety. The European markets, and the Euro as its principal currency, have been jittery and in decline for an excellent reason: the very survival of the EU as an intact entity is being questioned in the markets all across the globe - will France and Germany, the two relatively healthier members of the union, be able to prevent a domino effect, or will the one trillion dollar anchor around their neck prove to be the eventual demise of the 27 nation club. The culprit, this time around, is not a temporary financial crisis (which was in good part the doing of the government - most important factor being the "recourse rule" instituted in 2001) as in 2008 being passed as the deficiencies of the free market capitalist system. No, this time around what stares Europe in the face is the undeniable and inescapable permanent effects of European style socialist capitalism. The time to pay the piper has finally come and the economically weakest members of the union have started to crumble under the weight of their sovereign debt.
The Euro debt crisis is educational in multiple levels. Greece, the most immediate concern, was told in no uncertain terms by the IMF and the European Central Bank that they will need to agree on an austerity program as well as a higher 23% VAT. Among the considerations Greece was asked to undertake were the privatization of their public healthcare, energy, and transportation sectors. The Times reports that economists — not right-wingers opposed to health care who want to blow up Times Square — say liberalizing "the health care industry would help bring down prices which are among the highest in Europe." Is this not a tacit admission by the same socialists that state involvement in crucial sectors is a cost killer?
As Dan Henninger points out in the Wall Street Journal today, the state of Europe can be summed up in one word: stagnation. Jean-Claude Trichet, the European Central Bank president who just agreed to monetize the debt that Europeans can't or won't pay, noted in a 2006 speech that "over the period from 1996 to 2005, euro area output grew on average 1.3 percentage points less than in the U.S., and the gap appears to be persistent." Angus Maddison, the eminent European historian of world economic development who died days before Europe's debt crisis, wrote in 2001: "The most disturbing aspect of West European performance since 1973 has been the staggering rise in unemployment. In 1994-8 the average level was nearly 11% of the labor force. This is higher than the depressed years of the 1930s." Stagnation isn't death but rather a purgatory which is very difficult to get out of. Economies don't usually die. Greece proves that. They slow down. Europe's low growth rates allow its populations to pretend that real, productive work is being done somewhere by someone. But new jobs are created slowly, if at all. Younger workers lose hope. Those who need more evidence of this purgatory's near inescapableness by employing Keynesian economic policies can ask the Japanese about their ever continuing 20+ year experience with it despite the staggering level of government involvement in their static economy (which got them little other than an unparalleled 200% debt to GDP ratio).
Chris Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics also emphasized the point today in Tech Ticker that the investors worldwide are nervously wondering how badly Europe's sovereign debt crisis is affecting the banking system -- both over there and here at home. "In some ways European banks are worse than ours. They're certainly less transparent. It's a strange time. And I think it talks to the basic lack of competitiveness, the lack of productivity really, in Europe." In the last sentence, of course, he was referring to the underlying problem of persistent economic woes.
Regardless of what end of the spectrum one may be at - whether one believes that the sovereign debt crisis will be at least temporarily overcome, or questions the viability of the EU and/or the Euro like Paul Volcker, - we must accept the inescapable logical conclusions EU is teaching us. Social democracies of the world, without exception, are failures. More specifically, socialism cannot co-exist with free market capitalism as it by nature must drain resources from the producers of any society (a very simple and logical fact that liberals cannot see despite a world of evidence). The one trillion dollars that the productive citizens and job creators of Europe, Asia, and the U.S. will not have to grow economies is neither the first, nor will it likely be the last waste of money. However, in a sick way, it still feels good to see the shoe on the other foot so soon after free market capitalism - the only economic system that has been proven to work successfully - was brutalized by the liberal elites of Europe.
Lest we forget the pearls of wisdom uttered by Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of others' money"
Flash forward two years, and now the shoe seems to be on the other foot. Despite their recent condemnations of the free market system, the EU is singing a different tune these days. The one trillion dollar rescue package (which the U.S. tax payer will partially shoulder) to stabilize the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain) has been a great source of anxiety. The European markets, and the Euro as its principal currency, have been jittery and in decline for an excellent reason: the very survival of the EU as an intact entity is being questioned in the markets all across the globe - will France and Germany, the two relatively healthier members of the union, be able to prevent a domino effect, or will the one trillion dollar anchor around their neck prove to be the eventual demise of the 27 nation club. The culprit, this time around, is not a temporary financial crisis (which was in good part the doing of the government - most important factor being the "recourse rule" instituted in 2001) as in 2008 being passed as the deficiencies of the free market capitalist system. No, this time around what stares Europe in the face is the undeniable and inescapable permanent effects of European style socialist capitalism. The time to pay the piper has finally come and the economically weakest members of the union have started to crumble under the weight of their sovereign debt.
The Euro debt crisis is educational in multiple levels. Greece, the most immediate concern, was told in no uncertain terms by the IMF and the European Central Bank that they will need to agree on an austerity program as well as a higher 23% VAT. Among the considerations Greece was asked to undertake were the privatization of their public healthcare, energy, and transportation sectors. The Times reports that economists — not right-wingers opposed to health care who want to blow up Times Square — say liberalizing "the health care industry would help bring down prices which are among the highest in Europe." Is this not a tacit admission by the same socialists that state involvement in crucial sectors is a cost killer?
As Dan Henninger points out in the Wall Street Journal today, the state of Europe can be summed up in one word: stagnation. Jean-Claude Trichet, the European Central Bank president who just agreed to monetize the debt that Europeans can't or won't pay, noted in a 2006 speech that "over the period from 1996 to 2005, euro area output grew on average 1.3 percentage points less than in the U.S., and the gap appears to be persistent." Angus Maddison, the eminent European historian of world economic development who died days before Europe's debt crisis, wrote in 2001: "The most disturbing aspect of West European performance since 1973 has been the staggering rise in unemployment. In 1994-8 the average level was nearly 11% of the labor force. This is higher than the depressed years of the 1930s." Stagnation isn't death but rather a purgatory which is very difficult to get out of. Economies don't usually die. Greece proves that. They slow down. Europe's low growth rates allow its populations to pretend that real, productive work is being done somewhere by someone. But new jobs are created slowly, if at all. Younger workers lose hope. Those who need more evidence of this purgatory's near inescapableness by employing Keynesian economic policies can ask the Japanese about their ever continuing 20+ year experience with it despite the staggering level of government involvement in their static economy (which got them little other than an unparalleled 200% debt to GDP ratio).
Chris Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics also emphasized the point today in Tech Ticker that the investors worldwide are nervously wondering how badly Europe's sovereign debt crisis is affecting the banking system -- both over there and here at home. "In some ways European banks are worse than ours. They're certainly less transparent. It's a strange time. And I think it talks to the basic lack of competitiveness, the lack of productivity really, in Europe." In the last sentence, of course, he was referring to the underlying problem of persistent economic woes.
Regardless of what end of the spectrum one may be at - whether one believes that the sovereign debt crisis will be at least temporarily overcome, or questions the viability of the EU and/or the Euro like Paul Volcker, - we must accept the inescapable logical conclusions EU is teaching us. Social democracies of the world, without exception, are failures. More specifically, socialism cannot co-exist with free market capitalism as it by nature must drain resources from the producers of any society (a very simple and logical fact that liberals cannot see despite a world of evidence). The one trillion dollars that the productive citizens and job creators of Europe, Asia, and the U.S. will not have to grow economies is neither the first, nor will it likely be the last waste of money. However, in a sick way, it still feels good to see the shoe on the other foot so soon after free market capitalism - the only economic system that has been proven to work successfully - was brutalized by the liberal elites of Europe.
Lest we forget the pearls of wisdom uttered by Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of others' money"
Friday, May 7, 2010
The Carbon Connection (or Why Goldman Sachs and GE are in bed with the Obama Administration)
It is no secret that corporations generally favor the party in power in their political giving. The same is true for industries at a macro level. For example, the defense sector as a whole favored the Democrats by 57% and 51% during the most recent two election cycles (2010 and 2008) despite the common perception that, as a whole, they generally support Republicans by a similar margin. When it comes to corporate political giving, the rule of thumb is simple: in order to influence favorable legislative agenda, give primarily to those candidates who will likely remain in, or come in to, power. The same has been true for all other industries except for Oil and Gas industry which has steadfastly supported Republicans through thick and thin. At the risk of being side tracked, I would like to point out that they have not got their money’s worth since oil exploration remains a daunting task in Washington; and, at least in the U.S., they have paid record taxes and royalties unlike any other sector of the economy.
It is only ideologically driven special interest groups like the unions and trial attorneys that usually favor one party over the other consistently. It all made sense, that is until earlier this week.
A ‘progressive’ friend and I were discussing Goldman Sachs and I did not really know why GS was so much more Democrat leaning in their political giving than any other Wall Street institution (though others all leaned to Democrats in 2008, obviously it was for political convenience since they slightly leaned the other way pre 2006 – but not GS, which has always favored the Democrats). For the readers' benefit:
Year..................Contributions.................% given to Democrats
2008.................$5,938,700...................................75%
2006.................$3,458,800...................................62%
2004.................$6,411,000...................................62%
2002.................$3,487,800...................................66%
2000.................$4,432,000..................................62%
1998..................$1,938,200...................................63%
.
.
Totals..............$31,684,500..................................64%
Source: Open Secrets
It took me a while to put one and one together, but eventually it all clicked when I researched some of my archived articles.
The mechanism for carbon trading in the U.S. is in the form of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). The Joyce Foundation (which is tightly linked to The Soros Open Society – a powerful advocacy lobby that envisions global socialism) in 2000 and 2001 provided the seed money to start CCX when Barack Obama sat on its board. This is where it starts getting really interesting: The largest single shareholder of CCX is Goldman Sachs. Other CCX founders include former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood, as well as Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs.
CCX founder Richard Sandor estimates the climate trading market could one day (soon) be "a $10 trillion dollar market." Not bad for trading an intangible, kind of like complex financial instruments of various kinds Goldman is so familiar with. GS seems really good in making money out of 'thin air'.
From another angle, one might wonder why then would GS give any money at all to Republicans who would de-rail their gravy train in the way of Cap and Trade? Well they haven’t really. Of the 25% of their contributions to Republicans, some of the biggest recipients were:
McCain
Specter (was a Rep. then)
John Sununu
Chris Shays
Mark Kirk
…..All liberal Republicans with luke warm views towards Cap and Trade legislation! GS gave, by my calculations, less than 10% to non cap and trade friendly Republicans, mainly to hedge their bets in a very minor way.
Well, the 'carbon connection' does not end there because, then there is General Electric. GE - a giant corporation that paid $0 in U.S. taxes last year - as we all know, is the parent company of the NBC family, including MSNBC and CNBC; or also known as the unofficial press organ of the Obama White House. Was it a coincidence that, as Pew and other surveyors of the political scene pointed out, NBC group distinguished itself from every other news outlet in one sided favorable coverage of the Obama campaign, and later the administration while the CEO and the parent company tilted heavily, 2:1, to the Democrats in their giving? Is it a coincidence that Jeffrey Immelt sits on the President's economic council, presumably having the ear of the president and having influence over economic policies? Furthermore, is it coincidence that the combined alternative energy market and medical record transcription businesses - both Democrat only ideas - that are estimated at $2-3 trillion, happen to benefit GE directly and disproportionately?
For those not in the know, GE has not tried to hide its massive lobbying efforts on behalf of Cap and Trade legislation. They are not only the single largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world, but also stand to be the sole secondary market trader of carbon credits. Under the Obama plan, those cap and trade credits would be issued by the federal government, and ultimately traded like any other stock or bond. GE has created an entire unit that would deal in the secondary market trading of the carbon credits. In other words, first they are going to take in billions from government contracts in wind energy. Second, they are going to have exclusive control over the secondary market for these credits. That effectively makes GE the gate keeper for every dollar produced by the carbon scheme which will cover all carbon emmiting energy sources including the manufacture of almost all consumer goods using these resources.
Thus is the explanation of what I suspected before: Obama (+Democrats in general) is in bed with GS and GE; and there are potentially 10 trillion+ excellent reasons. Follow the money. But then again, as my friend claims, I am delusional and there are absolutely no connections to be made in these incestuous relationships that I highlighted.
It is only ideologically driven special interest groups like the unions and trial attorneys that usually favor one party over the other consistently. It all made sense, that is until earlier this week.
A ‘progressive’ friend and I were discussing Goldman Sachs and I did not really know why GS was so much more Democrat leaning in their political giving than any other Wall Street institution (though others all leaned to Democrats in 2008, obviously it was for political convenience since they slightly leaned the other way pre 2006 – but not GS, which has always favored the Democrats). For the readers' benefit:
Year..................Contributions.................% given to Democrats
2008.................$5,938,700...................................75%
2006.................$3,458,800...................................62%
2004.................$6,411,000...................................62%
2002.................$3,487,800...................................66%
2000.................$4,432,000..................................62%
1998..................$1,938,200...................................63%
.
.
Totals..............$31,684,500..................................64%
Source: Open Secrets
It took me a while to put one and one together, but eventually it all clicked when I researched some of my archived articles.
The mechanism for carbon trading in the U.S. is in the form of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). The Joyce Foundation (which is tightly linked to The Soros Open Society – a powerful advocacy lobby that envisions global socialism) in 2000 and 2001 provided the seed money to start CCX when Barack Obama sat on its board. This is where it starts getting really interesting: The largest single shareholder of CCX is Goldman Sachs. Other CCX founders include former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood, as well as Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs.
CCX founder Richard Sandor estimates the climate trading market could one day (soon) be "a $10 trillion dollar market." Not bad for trading an intangible, kind of like complex financial instruments of various kinds Goldman is so familiar with. GS seems really good in making money out of 'thin air'.
From another angle, one might wonder why then would GS give any money at all to Republicans who would de-rail their gravy train in the way of Cap and Trade? Well they haven’t really. Of the 25% of their contributions to Republicans, some of the biggest recipients were:
McCain
Specter (was a Rep. then)
John Sununu
Chris Shays
Mark Kirk
…..All liberal Republicans with luke warm views towards Cap and Trade legislation! GS gave, by my calculations, less than 10% to non cap and trade friendly Republicans, mainly to hedge their bets in a very minor way.
Well, the 'carbon connection' does not end there because, then there is General Electric. GE - a giant corporation that paid $0 in U.S. taxes last year - as we all know, is the parent company of the NBC family, including MSNBC and CNBC; or also known as the unofficial press organ of the Obama White House. Was it a coincidence that, as Pew and other surveyors of the political scene pointed out, NBC group distinguished itself from every other news outlet in one sided favorable coverage of the Obama campaign, and later the administration while the CEO and the parent company tilted heavily, 2:1, to the Democrats in their giving? Is it a coincidence that Jeffrey Immelt sits on the President's economic council, presumably having the ear of the president and having influence over economic policies? Furthermore, is it coincidence that the combined alternative energy market and medical record transcription businesses - both Democrat only ideas - that are estimated at $2-3 trillion, happen to benefit GE directly and disproportionately?
For those not in the know, GE has not tried to hide its massive lobbying efforts on behalf of Cap and Trade legislation. They are not only the single largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world, but also stand to be the sole secondary market trader of carbon credits. Under the Obama plan, those cap and trade credits would be issued by the federal government, and ultimately traded like any other stock or bond. GE has created an entire unit that would deal in the secondary market trading of the carbon credits. In other words, first they are going to take in billions from government contracts in wind energy. Second, they are going to have exclusive control over the secondary market for these credits. That effectively makes GE the gate keeper for every dollar produced by the carbon scheme which will cover all carbon emmiting energy sources including the manufacture of almost all consumer goods using these resources.
Thus is the explanation of what I suspected before: Obama (+Democrats in general) is in bed with GS and GE; and there are potentially 10 trillion+ excellent reasons. Follow the money. But then again, as my friend claims, I am delusional and there are absolutely no connections to be made in these incestuous relationships that I highlighted.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
River of Lies: Another IPCC Lie Exposed
Hat tip to IBD for the latest in the long string of IPCC lies.
-----------
Another shoe has dropped from the IPCC centipede as scientists in Bangladesh say their country will not disappear below the waves. As usual, the U.N.'s climate charlatans forgot one tiny detail.
After fraudulent claims about Himalayan glaciers, African crop harvests and Amazon rain forests, plus a 2007 assessment report based on anecdotal evidence, student term papers and non-peer-reviewed magazine articles, the panel's doomsday forecast for Bangladesh has been exposed as its latest hoax.
According to the 2007 report, melting glaciers and polar ice would lead to rising sea levels and just a three-foot rise would flood 17% of the low-lying country of Bangladesh by 2050 and create 20 million refugees.
Now comes a study from the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) that says the IPCC forgot to factor in the 1 billion tons of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers such as the Ganges and the Brahmaputra into Bangladesh every year.
CEGIS director Maminul Haque Sarker told AFP that "studies on the effects of climate change in Bangladesh, including those quoted by the IPCC, did not consider the role of sediment in the growth and adjustment process of the country's coast and rivers to the sea level rise." Even if sea levels rose according to IPCC predictions, Sarker says, natural sediment deposits would cancel the effect of any rise.
Apocalyptic changes forecast by climate change alarmists, according to Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the International Commission on Sea Level Change, are not in the cards. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years."
If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10 cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm."
Six times he and his expert team visited the Maldive Islands to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has, if anything, dropped in recent decades. Venice, Italy, has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr. Morner.
IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri defended his organization's predictions by warning that "on the basis of one study one cannot jump to conclusions." Yet he and the IPCC jumped to the conclusion that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from a magazine for mountain climbers. These claims have been withdrawn amid much laughter.
Still, Pachauri persists in his fables. "One single error doesn't take anything away from the major findings of the report," he said. "The fact is that the glaciers are melting." At least the glaciers in Iceland are, due to natural forces, namely volcanic activity. Even if real, not everything can be blamed on man.
In February, it was reported that India was pulling out of the IPCC because it could no longer trust the U.N. body's data or conclusions. The day after India's announcement, the Netherlands asked the U.N. to explain why the IPCC had said in its 2007 report, which helped it win its share of a Nobel Prize shared with Al Gore, that 55% of the country was below sea level, a figure the Dutch say is closer to 26%.
There's been a sea change in the consideration of the bogus claims of the IPCC, Gore, Britain's CRU and other climate charlatans. No longer accepted on faith, they are being challenged and disproven by scientific fact.
----------------
By the way, this is what happens to all scientists, like Mr. Morner, who shine the light of truth to what the environmentalists want you to believe - they become "former" heads of whatever organization they were heading.
-----------
Another shoe has dropped from the IPCC centipede as scientists in Bangladesh say their country will not disappear below the waves. As usual, the U.N.'s climate charlatans forgot one tiny detail.
After fraudulent claims about Himalayan glaciers, African crop harvests and Amazon rain forests, plus a 2007 assessment report based on anecdotal evidence, student term papers and non-peer-reviewed magazine articles, the panel's doomsday forecast for Bangladesh has been exposed as its latest hoax.
According to the 2007 report, melting glaciers and polar ice would lead to rising sea levels and just a three-foot rise would flood 17% of the low-lying country of Bangladesh by 2050 and create 20 million refugees.
Now comes a study from the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) that says the IPCC forgot to factor in the 1 billion tons of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers such as the Ganges and the Brahmaputra into Bangladesh every year.
CEGIS director Maminul Haque Sarker told AFP that "studies on the effects of climate change in Bangladesh, including those quoted by the IPCC, did not consider the role of sediment in the growth and adjustment process of the country's coast and rivers to the sea level rise." Even if sea levels rose according to IPCC predictions, Sarker says, natural sediment deposits would cancel the effect of any rise.
Apocalyptic changes forecast by climate change alarmists, according to Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the International Commission on Sea Level Change, are not in the cards. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years."
If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10 cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10 cm."
Six times he and his expert team visited the Maldive Islands to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has, if anything, dropped in recent decades. Venice, Italy, has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr. Morner.
IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri defended his organization's predictions by warning that "on the basis of one study one cannot jump to conclusions." Yet he and the IPCC jumped to the conclusion that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from a magazine for mountain climbers. These claims have been withdrawn amid much laughter.
Still, Pachauri persists in his fables. "One single error doesn't take anything away from the major findings of the report," he said. "The fact is that the glaciers are melting." At least the glaciers in Iceland are, due to natural forces, namely volcanic activity. Even if real, not everything can be blamed on man.
In February, it was reported that India was pulling out of the IPCC because it could no longer trust the U.N. body's data or conclusions. The day after India's announcement, the Netherlands asked the U.N. to explain why the IPCC had said in its 2007 report, which helped it win its share of a Nobel Prize shared with Al Gore, that 55% of the country was below sea level, a figure the Dutch say is closer to 26%.
There's been a sea change in the consideration of the bogus claims of the IPCC, Gore, Britain's CRU and other climate charlatans. No longer accepted on faith, they are being challenged and disproven by scientific fact.
----------------
By the way, this is what happens to all scientists, like Mr. Morner, who shine the light of truth to what the environmentalists want you to believe - they become "former" heads of whatever organization they were heading.
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Other "Reform Shoe" About to Fall
It has long been my opinion that the health care reform was about one thing and one thing only: Eventual take-over of the health care sector of the economy. The critical mechanism that was accidentally missing from the recently enacted legislation (thanks to law makers who do not read the bills they vote on) was the direct authority of the government to control pricing of health insurance premiums. Well, enter Senator Dianne Feinstein.
The good senator introduced a bill that would give the secretary of health and human services the authority to review health plan premiums and block "any rate increase found to be unreasonable."
This, after the public was told many times over that the Democrats' health care legislation would bring down costs and rein in those troublesome health insurance companies that are making so much money - you know, the obscene 2% profit margin that put them in no. 86 as an industry.
It doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to see where the Democrats are going with this. Their regulators will establish price controls, which will drive health plan providers out of business as the restrictions make it impossible or unreasonable for them to make profits. After all, if a company has to accept anyone with any pre-existing condition, where is the only place they can make up for the steep losses that will be incurred by those irresponsible new enrollees? Premium increases for everyone else. However, if you are not allowed to increase the premiums, what are the options? There really are two options. One is to cut down on approved treatments and reimbursement rates, or go out of business. Both of these options will run most insurance companies out of business one way or another because in the event of restricting treatments significantly, the government will be able to step in and force these insurance companies to comply or go out of business, with no one left but for government to take over.
To deal with the shortage of health plans, Democrats will then complete the government takeover of medicine by placing Washington in the position of being the sole provider of health care. Far fetched? Depends on your political view.
As usual, Democrats are demonstrating that they have little or no understanding of how markets work and the role profits play in business. Sen. Tom Harkin, who, as chairman of the Senate Health Committee, is ready to push Feinstein's bill, is the spokesman for the economically illiterate on this issue.
"Rate review authority," the Iowa Democrat told the New York Times, "is needed to protect consumers from insurance companies' jacking up premiums simply because they can."
No business raises its prices just because it can. Companies raise prices to generate profits, which they cannot stay in business without. They are not charities existing on the good will of contributors.
Nor are they agencies of the government that must do the bidding of self-serving lawmakers.
They are businesses that have to compensate employees and provide returns to investors. They have to pay their vendors, landlords and the lenders that advanced them funds to buy property and infrastructure. And they must compete against rivals.
They can do none of these things without profits.
Cynics would say that the Democrats understand markets and profits quite clearly and are laying out conditions under which businesses will fail so that they can respond with ever more government. As undoubtedly my uninformed progressive friends will say this is nothing but a conspiracy theory. A theory is by definition is an unproven assertion. This is no theory and the proof is plentiful and all around us.
The Democrats have been telegraphing their punches for years. President Obama, for instance, told AFL-CIO members in 2003 that he was a "proponent of a single-payer, universal health care coverage."
In 2007 he spoke at another union event — cosponsored by the SEIU and the Center for American Progress — this time talking about eliminating employer coverage, in the context of not being able to do it immediately.
More recently, Democrats were openly admitting that the public option for health insurance, which was in an early version of the Democrats' reform but not in the final bill, provided a path to a single-payer system.
But that's expected. In each session of Congress since 2003, Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan has introduced a national health care bill that would establish a single-payer, universal scheme similar to the system in Canada. The bill went from 25 cosponsors the first year to 88 in 2009.
The health care insurance industry is no more an angel than the automobile industry or the hotel industry. Nor is it a corrupt or monopolistic industry that can increase its profits simply by, in the words of the White House, jacking up rates as much as it wants.
What it does is provide a service that many Americans appreciate and don't want to lose. It operates through a system of voluntary exchange based on ground rules and actuarial calculations based on those rules, while government engages in coercion and is hopelessly corrupt when it doles out goods that it doesn't own.
Which is the better system? By any measure it's the one that the Democrats are trying to force out of business by choking its profits.
The good senator introduced a bill that would give the secretary of health and human services the authority to review health plan premiums and block "any rate increase found to be unreasonable."
This, after the public was told many times over that the Democrats' health care legislation would bring down costs and rein in those troublesome health insurance companies that are making so much money - you know, the obscene 2% profit margin that put them in no. 86 as an industry.
It doesn't take a Ph.D. in economics to see where the Democrats are going with this. Their regulators will establish price controls, which will drive health plan providers out of business as the restrictions make it impossible or unreasonable for them to make profits. After all, if a company has to accept anyone with any pre-existing condition, where is the only place they can make up for the steep losses that will be incurred by those irresponsible new enrollees? Premium increases for everyone else. However, if you are not allowed to increase the premiums, what are the options? There really are two options. One is to cut down on approved treatments and reimbursement rates, or go out of business. Both of these options will run most insurance companies out of business one way or another because in the event of restricting treatments significantly, the government will be able to step in and force these insurance companies to comply or go out of business, with no one left but for government to take over.
To deal with the shortage of health plans, Democrats will then complete the government takeover of medicine by placing Washington in the position of being the sole provider of health care. Far fetched? Depends on your political view.
As usual, Democrats are demonstrating that they have little or no understanding of how markets work and the role profits play in business. Sen. Tom Harkin, who, as chairman of the Senate Health Committee, is ready to push Feinstein's bill, is the spokesman for the economically illiterate on this issue.
"Rate review authority," the Iowa Democrat told the New York Times, "is needed to protect consumers from insurance companies' jacking up premiums simply because they can."
No business raises its prices just because it can. Companies raise prices to generate profits, which they cannot stay in business without. They are not charities existing on the good will of contributors.
Nor are they agencies of the government that must do the bidding of self-serving lawmakers.
They are businesses that have to compensate employees and provide returns to investors. They have to pay their vendors, landlords and the lenders that advanced them funds to buy property and infrastructure. And they must compete against rivals.
They can do none of these things without profits.
Cynics would say that the Democrats understand markets and profits quite clearly and are laying out conditions under which businesses will fail so that they can respond with ever more government. As undoubtedly my uninformed progressive friends will say this is nothing but a conspiracy theory. A theory is by definition is an unproven assertion. This is no theory and the proof is plentiful and all around us.
The Democrats have been telegraphing their punches for years. President Obama, for instance, told AFL-CIO members in 2003 that he was a "proponent of a single-payer, universal health care coverage."
In 2007 he spoke at another union event — cosponsored by the SEIU and the Center for American Progress — this time talking about eliminating employer coverage, in the context of not being able to do it immediately.
More recently, Democrats were openly admitting that the public option for health insurance, which was in an early version of the Democrats' reform but not in the final bill, provided a path to a single-payer system.
But that's expected. In each session of Congress since 2003, Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan has introduced a national health care bill that would establish a single-payer, universal scheme similar to the system in Canada. The bill went from 25 cosponsors the first year to 88 in 2009.
The health care insurance industry is no more an angel than the automobile industry or the hotel industry. Nor is it a corrupt or monopolistic industry that can increase its profits simply by, in the words of the White House, jacking up rates as much as it wants.
What it does is provide a service that many Americans appreciate and don't want to lose. It operates through a system of voluntary exchange based on ground rules and actuarial calculations based on those rules, while government engages in coercion and is hopelessly corrupt when it doles out goods that it doesn't own.
Which is the better system? By any measure it's the one that the Democrats are trying to force out of business by choking its profits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)