And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Posts Tagged ‘Republicans

Republican Sellout Watch | Cato @ Liberty.

As most of you know I was royally peed off when the lame duck

Republicans caved and gave Obama everything  and more. Those miserable whimps!  So now we have come to the new House and the new Republicans and I am afraid to hope.  the first problems is the debt ceiling and raising it.  I say NO! NO! NO!  Let our so-called credit rating fail.  Not one thing  will happen to the life of Brenda B or Joe Blow.  the only thing that will happen is that maybe the rest of the world will have to find some other soft touch country to extort billions from year after year.  Maybe it will mean our politicians in Washington will not be able to take their little all expense paid overseas junkets and be sucked up to in order to sucker these political thieves into giving up more billions of our money to pay the host countries for their free golf holidays.  Abut aside from that the world will not end!

 

What may happen is that our politicians will have to get serious bout cutting or the government will shut down.  Frankly I personally could easily see the country getting by with out the Education Department for half a year or forever.  then there is the Transportation Department that I fail to see any real need for. Perhaps some politicians in congress can google “ineffective government programs” like I did and find 341,000 entries.  This would be a good place to start in making cuts!

 

So here I sit watching the big whigs and experts and good old boys tell me again and again how we can not allow the United States to hit bottom by not lifting the Debt Ceiling.  I say a big BS to you all.  BB

**************************************

Republican Sellout Watch

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Grousing about the GOP’s timidity in the battle against big government will probably become an ongoing theme over the next few months. Two items don’t bode well for fiscal discipline.

First, it appears that Republicans didn’t really mean it when they promised to cut $100 billion of so-called discretionary spending as part of their pledge. According to the New York Times,

As they prepare to take power on Wednesday, Republican leaders are scaling back that number by as much as half, aides say, because the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, will be nearly half over before spending cuts could become law.

This is hardly good news, particularly since the discretionary portion of the budget contains entire departments, such as Housing and Urban Development, that should be immediately abolished.

That being said, I don’t think this necessarily means the GOP has thrown in the towel. The real key is to reverse the Bush-Obama spending binge and put the government on some sort of diet so that the federal budget grows slower than the private economy. I explain in this video, for instance, that it is simple to balance the budget and maintain tax cuts so long as government spending grows by only 2 percent each year.

It is a good idea to get as much savings as possible for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, to be sure, but the real key is the long-run trajectory of federal spending.

The second item is the GOP’s apparent interest in retaining Douglas Elmendorf, the current director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Many of you will remember that the CBO cooked the books last year to help ram through Obamacare. Under Elmendorf’s watch, CBO also was a relentless advocate and defender of Obama’s failed stimulus. And CBO under Elmendorf published reports saying higher taxes would improve economic performance.

But Elmendorf’s statist positions apparently are not a problem for some senior Republicans, as reported by The Hill.

The new House Budget Committee chairman, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), gave a very public endorsement of the embattled head of the Congressional Budget Office during his first major speech as committee head Wednesday night. …“You’re doing a great job at CBO, Doug,” Ryan said after receiving the first annual Fiscy Award for his efforts at tackling the national debt. He added that he looked forward to crunching budget numbers with him in the future.

In the long run, the failure to deal with the problems at CBO (as well as the Joint Committee on Taxation) may cause even more problems than the timidity about cutting $100 billion of waste from the 2011 budget. Given the rules on Capitol Hill, it makes a huge difference whether CBO and JCT are putting out flawed numbers.

I’ve already written that fixing the mess at CBO and JCT is a critical test of GOP resolve, and I actually thought this would be a relatively easy test for them to pass. It is an ominous sign that Republicans aren’t even trying to clean house.

Advertisements

Morning Bell: The Protectionist Threat of Another Great Depression | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News..

Yes by all means start a trade war with China.  Bring on the tariffs so they can bring on the tariffs and back and forth.  The United States took this route once before and it lead to the Great Depression.  BB

The Protectionist Threat of Another Great Depression

A financial bubble fueled by easy money and loose credit bursts. Unemployment shoots up, and gross domestic product falls sharply. Some in the U.S. Congress blame foreigners for unfair trade practices and pass a trade bill that prompts widespread retaliation, exacerbates the popping of the bubble, and sends the country into further economic trouble. That is what happened with the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 and the Great Depression. Americans might hope our leaders would learn from our past mistakes. But the leftist majority in Congress, aided by some misguided members of the minority, is trying to repeat this terrible history.

At issue is H.R. 2378 or the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act. The bill would grant new powers to the Obama administration, allowing them to raise tariffs on imports if the Commerce Department determines that an exporting country is manipulating its currency. Its not known what President Obama would do should this bill hit his desk. A real leader would let it be known loud and clear that it faces certain veto. The protectionist proponents of this bill believe that Chinese currency manipulation is artificially lowering the price of Chinese goods imported into the United States while inflating the price of U.S.-made exports. In 1930, the protectionists thought they could help American manufacturers by punishing foreigners. They were tragically wrong. The same misguided logic is being applied to China now. Heritage Foundation Research Fellow Derek Scissors explains why higher tariffs on Chinese imports would not help the U.S. economy:

Applying duties to Chinese goods would not suddenly make the American textile, toy, furniture, or even computer-assembly industries globally competitive, and these are the primary imports from the PRC. Globalization means the U.S can punish China, but it cannot simply turn Chinese losses into American gains.

The Congressional Budget Office certified this analysis yesterday when it released a report showing that the new tariffs would raise only $20 million a year compared to the more than $1 billion a day in trade the United States does with China. The reason: “Many imports do not injure domestic firms because there are no competitors currently operating in the United States.”

But while raising tariffs on Chinese goods would have no economic benefit for the U.S. economy, it would definitely risk much wider economic harm. Morgan Stanley Asia chairman Stephen Roach warns in today’s New York Times: “China could very well retaliate against American exporters, and buy goods from elsewhere (a worrisome development in what is now America’s third-largest export market).” And former U.S. trade official Timothy Stratford tells Bloomberg: “This step would make it harder for us to export to China, not easier.”

China is no angel here. Its June announcement of an end to the dollar peg was fraudulent, and the exchange rate is only one part of China’s non-cooperative policy. And the mainstream media is just beginning to notice that the country’s Communist Party has been exercising more and more state control over the economy. But then again, so has our government with massive bank bailouts, government ownership of car companies, and a government takeover of the health care sector. Our answer to China must not be, cannot be, to become more like China.

Instead of going down a path toward protectionism and yet more government control of our economy, we must return to our nation’s strengths: free trade, the rule of law and a commitment to free enterprise. We must make the United States a better place to do business. Cutting the corporate tax rate, reducing government involvement in commercial decision making, reining-in runaway spending and deficits, freeing our businesses from red tape, and unleashing our natural resources to meet our energy needs: this is what Congress should be doing to return us to economic prosperity.

(NOTE:  The 800 pound guerilla in this is that fact that china owns the United States debt. We pee them off and they call their markers is not a good thing.  BB)

The Pledge to America is ready for action. Click here to read the whole document, including our plans for creating jobs, cutting taxes and spending, and reforming how Congress does business.

An Anemic “Pledge To America”.

This article says very well what I feel about the Republican Pledge to America.  Republicans are not “doers” they are “status quoers” at the best of times.   And the Party Elite who are now in office, or hope to be in office, simply have not yet gotten the message We the People are sending loud and clear.  We have  written our wishes on signs in plain language, held the signs high as we gathered and marched thru cities all across the country and in Washington several times; now what else can we do to connect with  our so-called leaders?   The only thing that comes to mind is to throw them out and put in  new people who have gotten the message (or appear to have gotten the message–I can not forget turncoat Scott Brown).    Perhaps Scott Brown was the best we could do with ultra liberal Massachusetts  so I won’t continue to beat that horse,  but I use him as an example of what We the People will not tolerate.

The Republicans Pledge to America is in my view another ‘Scott Brown Compromise’.  The Republicans in Congress  who are promoting this Pledge to America, and not even a majority are as yet, are only luke warm and not fired up to  undo the radical changes in our government the Democrats and Obama have made. The Pledge states they will repeal Obamacare why then is the talk all “starving Obamacare” by not funding it.  Arguments against that route are many but just two are: 1)  by not repealing the entire bill the government has still grown by 128 agencies and  75,000 new federal workers that have already been installed.  The Republicans in office haven’t  the guts to close down these agencies and fire all of these new employees for fear of angering the public.    What they don’t seem to understand is that the public was and is angry over the creation of these 128 agencies and the hiring of 75,000 more federal workers who will be paid more and have more benefits than private sector workers.  The public wants the agencies closed down and the employees put out here with the rest of us tax payers!  and 2) unless the entire bill is rescinded it will eventually  be funded in pieces until Obamacare becomes the law of the land in reality. Republicans are just more moderate and slow moving liberals when it comes to government controlling the people.   And, you can not “starve”  a government program forever because Congress is too happy passing spending bills.  Spending bills after all have  become the Congressional Piggy Bank  stuffed with ear marks!

Anyhow, unless I hear something this weekend on one of the many talk forums that will be taking up the Republican’s Pledge to America this  rather  sums up my  conclusions.  BB

While the Republican’s newly unveiled “Pledge To America” is debatably better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, it’s lame, anemic “platform,” isn’t anything to write home about. (Link)

//
//

It follows the all too familiar strategy of “retreat, hold, retreat, hold….” that Republicans have followed for the last century.

When they have the political upper hand, liberals historically push through programs that bloat the size of the federal bureaucracy; take away our freedoms piecemeal (always in the name of “giving” us “rights”), and increase our dependency on government.  (Link)

When the Republicans have the political upper hand, they mainly do nothing but “hold the line”—i.e. they defend the new, liberalized, status quo.  Which means that, while no new massive liberal programs are passed, neither are most of the programs instituted under the previous liberal administration repealed.

There are exceptions to this scenario, but by and large, that’s how the game has been played for the past hundred years. (Link)

Well, I have news for the Republican Power Elites—(shhh, listen up)—THE STATUS QUO IS NO LONGER WORTH DEFENDING!!!  (Link)

The old ploy of “retreat-hold” will no longer work, because there is no longer any free-enterprise republic, worth defending.  The country has been incrementally forced so far to the left, that only a massive, powerful, surge to the right, will restore America to being the free republic that it was intended  to be.

As highlighted by the political establishment’s arch dismissal of Sarah Palin, and more recently, Christine O’Donnell; having the proper “political pedigree,” is much more important than, “content of character,” to the Power Elites—left, and right.  (Link)

“We the people” are more concerned with content of character, than charisma and polish, these days.  We know where charisma and polish have brought us, and we’re sick and tired of the s.o.s. (same old—stuff). (Link) (Remember the gentleman who was running for the House in up state New york who couldn’t seem to put two sentences together coherently?  He didn’t win but he did get a lot of votes and would have gotten mine because he had the ‘content of character’ we need in our leaders.  the man who did win unfortunately had the outside polish but was just and empty shirt who would go along to get along and get elected.  BB)

Where’s the pledge to put a stop to the double-standard that exists between “we the people” and our political rulers?  Where’s the pledge to pursue a version of the 28th Amendment?

“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.” (Link)

Where’s a pledge to pursue tort reform

Where’s a pledge to pursue tort reform, and at least, somewhat, rein-in the ACLU-style lawyers, and judicial activists, who practice non-stop “lawfare” against America? (Link) (Lawyer like our own NC John Edwards  Poor Boy become Millionaire used to extort  millions from our free enterprise system therefore increasing the costs of goods and services  for the rest of us.  We don’t need these lawsuits to get rid of bad products and services because the market competition will get rid of them.  And in a true egregious case of harm from a person or product there are other laws that will serve the purpose of justice even better.  Al;so, these are the tactics the Muslims are using to take over the United ; states–our laws against us!  BB)

Where’s the pledge to pursue term limits?  To meaningfully downsize the bloated federal government?  To revamp, or dismantle, the federal tax system?  To audit the Fed?  To outlaw lobbying, and lobbyists? (Link) and (Link) and (Link)

Where’s the determination to make America energy independent?

Where’s the determination to make America energy independent?  Where’s your strong pro-life, pro-gun, or pro-God, stance? (Link)

Where’s the call to end America’s suicidal “hear no evil, see no evil” attitude towards Islam’s jihad—by both terrorists, and the “moderate” Muslims, who play off of the terrorists? (Link)

Where’s the recognition that the UN and Agenda 21 are “clear and present dangers” to American sovereignty?  Or that global corporations and banking cabals have been financially raping the United States? (Link) (Link)

Where’s the courage to confront the fact that our government, judiciary, military, and educational system, are riddled with traitorous Far Left/NWO Political Elites? (Link)

Where’s the pledge to restore Judeo-Christian morality into our government and culture?

Where’s the pledge to restore Judeo-Christian morality into our government and culture? (Link)

Where indeed—and this is only a partial list, mind you.  There are a multitude of serious problems that need to be addressed.

As I said, the “Pledge To America” is better than a poke in the eye, but it doesn’t leave me shouting “hallelujah,” and I definitely won’t be writing home about it.

Nice try Power Elites—let us know when you’re ready to get serious.  “We the people” will be here, prepared to do what we must to save America.

Laus Deo.

Budgeting and Spending Failure: Where’s the Outrage!? – The WashingtonWatch.com Blog.
We only hear of the big spending bills that come up like TARP and STIMULUS and BUDGETS.  But these are just the tip of the iceberg that is the spending that goes on almost daily behind the scenes in Congress.

If any of you have subscribed to the  WashingtonWatch.com Blog then you, like me, probably get a  heavy dose of heart burn on a daily basis.  I don’t know why I put myself thru this but I just can’t seem to stop; just plain silly I guess :).

Anyhow, please read the spending that our Congressmen are currently looking at and approving.  Probably the whole bunch will be put together and voted with one vote so the Congress men can get on to more important things like a round of golf!   I truly hope we  have a clean sweep of this entrenched smug elitist group of  both Democrats and Republicans this November. BB

Budgeting and Spending Failure: Where’s the Outrage!?

Posted by Jim Harper, September 19, 2010 at 4:10 pm

money-fallingThe new fiscal year starts on October 1st. That’s less than two weeks away. And almost a full slate of spending bills for the coming year have been introduced in the Senate. That’s right—the Senate has only just begun working on spending plans for the new fiscal year. The House has introduced a mere two spending bills.

The whole budgeting and spending process was supposed to be completed by the end of June. This is one of Congress’ most basic responsibilities. One might think that the government is on auto-pilot…

But what’s most interesting is that nobody seems to notice! The Sunday shows this weekend focused mostly on the candidacy of Tea Party favorite and Sarah Palin endorsee Christine O’Donnell (R) in Delaware.

There are interesting things happening there. But if the Tea Party is interested in spending, taxing, and borrowing, some of the biggest spending decisions of the year are being made right now, somewhere in the halls of Congress.

[Update: Well, someone noticed. The folks at DownsizeDC.org blogged about it a couple of weeks ago.]

So, what do you do about it?

Your member of Congress is up for election in November. Many senators are too. Why don’t you call them and ask what is going to happen with budgeting and spending for the new fiscal year, starting October 1.

You might pay special attention if you’re represented by a few key people—or if you know someone who is.

Below are the states that have representatives serving on the appropriations committees—the committees that handle the annual spending bills. If there’s an asterisk next to the state, a senator from that state is on the Appropriations Committee. Non-asterisk states only have someone in the House. Some states might have both. Alabama,* Alaska,* Arizona, Arkansas,* California,* Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,* Idaho, Illinois,* Indiana, Iowa,* Kansas,* Kentucky,* Louisiana,* Maine,* Maryland,* Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,* Missouri,* Montana,* Nebraska,* New Hampshire,* New Jersey,* New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,* Ohio,* Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,* Rhode Island,* South Dakota,* Tennessee,* Texas,* Utah,* Vermont,* Virginia, Washington,* West Virginia, Wisconsin.*

Now look at these two lists: House / Senate. See who from your state is on the House or Senate Appropriations Committee.

If it’s your senator or representative, call and ask what’s going on. Dial (202) 224-3121 and ask for your representative’s office. (When you get through, be nice.) Maybe you could report what you learn in the comments below. But just asking about this will communicate that you want things to change. If they don’t, you have a vote in November. And you also should help organize others to put pressure on Congress.

If you aren’t represented by anyone on one of the Appropriations Committees, send this blog post to a friend or family member in a state who is!

Ask them to touch base with Congress to find out what is happening with the federal budget and the spending bills for fiscal year 2011. Again, the new fiscal year starts October 1st—that’s right around the corner.

Here are the current bills and the amount of money they spend per U.S. family. (Please understand that these amounts may look small but that is money coming out of your pocket directly.  It is only the small amount your family owes for the entire bill! Multiply that amount by all the families in the United States.  Tip: When stating the amount of taxes per family studies always include  in the count the 47% of  families who pay no taxes.  So if you are one who does pay income taxes just double the amount shown.  This being the case and me not being one who pays income taxes you might think that I don’t really care what it costs you “fat cats”, but it does because it is you “fat cats” who employ my friends neighbors and family most likely.  And if you “fat cats” decide to stop spending your investment dollars on businesses that employ people then my  friends, neighbors and family are in bad trouble; trouble like we are in right now in fact.  BB) The House has barely gotten out of the gate. The total amount the Senate proposes to spend—so far—is just over $20,000 per U.S. family. It’s up to you to oversee the Congress that oversees that spending.

Spending Bill
House Bill
Senate Bill
Final Votes
Public Law
Bill
Cost*
Vote (Y-N)
Bill
Cost*
Vote (Y-N)
House (Y-N)
Senate (Y-N)
Budget Resolution
$30,810
President does not sign
Agriculture
$1,210
Commerce/Justice/Science S. 3636
$670
Defense S. 3800
$6,420
Energy & Water
$440
Financial Services
$460
Homeland Security
$460
Interior and Environment
Labor/HHS/Education S. 3686 $7,420
Legislative Branch
$30
Military/Veterans
$1,740
$1,450
State/Foreign Operations S. 3676 $500
Transportation/HUD H.R. 5850 $1,320 S.3644 $1,310

* Cost per average-sized U.S. family; amounts are approximate; changes in interest rates alter net present value calculation

Oh. and I forgot to mention:  When Congress passes a spending bill you can bet that at a minimum one fourth of the money is for ear marks!  BB  Don’t know what ear marks are?  you really should look it up.  BB


Morning Bell: Labor Day Has Become Government Day | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News..

Government workers are more and more members of unions and are shaking the tax payers down.

Blackmail is the name of the game:  You give us more or we shut off your water or fail to deliver you mail causing you to be late on payments due.  Or we shut down your schools and sent all the students home for working families to have to make other arrangements for child care.  the list of things the unions can do to get their way is endless when the unions control our governments which provided needed services.

Should Government employees be allowed to join unions?  There was a time when the job security these jobs offered was considered adequate compensation for not allowing union and bargaining for wages and benefits.

I heard on FOXNEWS  today that just two unions are giving  are giving a total of $90 Million to Democrats for this election alone.  Democrats because of this money extorted from workers in the guise of union dues  is being used to  enhance the campaign funds of politicians they feel will give them even more of a hold over the tax payer.

And don’t be fooled by the fact that this election the Democrats are getting the unions dollars because may Republicans in the past have been buddies with the union also.  Watch carefully who you vote for and get his/her promise to reduce the power of unions in our public sector (government employees).BB

This Labor Day marks a milestone in the history of the U.S. union movement. It is the first Labor Day on which a majority of union members in United States work for the government. In January the Department of Labor reported that union membership in government has overtaken that in the private sector. Three times as many union members work in the Post Office as in the entire domestic auto industry. The face of the union movement is not a worker on the assembly line but a clerk at the DMV.

This is a dramatic shift for the union movement. The early trade unionists did not believe that unions had a place in government. They believed the purpose of unions was to redistribute business profits from owners to workers and the government makes no profits. Not until the 1960s did unionizing government employees become widespread. Now government employees make up 52 percent of all union members.

So what? Why should Americans care if unions are now dominated by workers who get their paychecks from governments, instead of workers who get their paychecks from private firms? There’s one simple reason: private firms face competition; governments don’t.

Collective bargaining, the anti-trust exemption at the heart the labor movement’s power, was created to help workers seize their “fair share” of business profits. But if a union ends up extracting a contract from a private firm that eats up too much of the profits, then that firm will be unable to reinvest those resources and will lose out to competitors. But when a union extracts a generous contract from a government, there is no check on that spending. Instead of being forced out by more efficient competitors, the government just raises taxes.

The shift from private to public sector has fundamentally changed organized labor’s priorities. Unions used to support policies that would help their private sector employers grow. But now that they are largely dependent on the government, the only growth that unions are interested in is the growth of government. So unions push for tax increases across the country. Consider recent union activism:

Government unions are the backbone of the Obama dependency economy. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize union campaigns, much less those that call for tax increases. At the very least Congress should end the automatic payroll deduction of union dues.

Related Posts

This articles may also interest you:

Obama’s Immigration Get out of Court Free Card

Hugo Chavez: “Your Land is My Land!”

This is what Obama’s moratorium on drilling in the Gulf and coastal waters is leading to.  We will be forced to buy more oil from Chevez!

The Obama Budget: Expanding Welfare, Undermining Marriage

Remember this is one of the important parts of turning a population to Communism is to degrade their morals.  Even tho it has been proven again and again in studies that single family (usually welfare families unfortunately) headed by an unmarried mother leads to undermined chances for success by their children people still continue to “shack up” and the government of Obama is doing more to make it possible and even profitable!

While Unemployment Rises, 15 Minutes to Tee Time

Mothers’ Intuition Trumps Feminist Ideology

Co-opting the Anti-Spenders | Cato @ Liberty.

This article says what I have been thinking and not wanting to believe about the options available to we who love our country and are still sane.  The Democrats are gone; they have been totally taken over by the Leftist Socialists.  That leaves us with the Republicans because to try to introduce a third party would merely ensure that the Democrats stay in power.  But  those who will be in leadership positions in a Republican Congress are of the old school of spend and grow.   Yes the Republicans can take back the House and the Senate with new people this November but how much power will these new people have to shape legislation?  None!  So unless the current Republican leadership has an epiphany  I am not sure Obamacare and Dodd-Frank will not continue  and Obama will continue to rule.  Hope I am wrong, but some smarter than me are feeling this way too.  BB

Co-opting the Anti-Spenders

Posted by Tad DeHaven

Voters who recognize the need to make major cuts to federal spending and think returning Republicans to power will accomplish this feat could be in for a big disappointment. Recent comments to the Washington Post made by former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-MS) make it clear that anti-spending candidates elected in November will be fighting against their own party — not just the Democrats.

From the article:

Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. “We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples,” Lott said in an interview. “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”

Lott actually provided one of the more memorable moments in my career as a Senate staffer. The scene took place in the office of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) at a regular meeting of “conservative” Republican senators to discuss politics and policy. The setting was several months before the 2006 fall elections in which voters sent the Republican majority packing.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who I was working for at the time, was pleading with his colleagues to make a last ditch effort to cut spending. Coburn argued, correctly, that voters were fed up with Republican profligacy. In the midst of the discussion, Trent Lott entered. Strolling about the office while chomping on snacks, Lott dismissed Coburn’s suggestion in his good-ole-boy southern style.

Instead, Lott said the Republicans needed to tell voters that putting the Democrats in charge of post-911 America would leave the country vulnerable to terrorist attacks. In other words, Lott’s solution was to scare voters into keeping the Republicans in charge.

Lott might be gone, but the current GOP leadership seems to share the same aversion to actually reforming government. They will attempt to “co-opt” candidates who come to Washington on an anti-spending platform. (See my post on Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)).

In a recent Washington Times piece, John Ellis makes a compelling case for why 2010 is not going to be a replay of 1994:

Nobody can doubt that House Minority Leader John A. Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell are good and loyal Republicans, but they lack everything that made Mr. Gingrich the author of success in 1994. Both are passive and timid and lack the drive and energy a real leader needs. Both are primarily managers rather than public voices of their caucuses. Neither can dominate a TV screen as Mr. Gingrich could, and neither is able to capture the public’s attention by focusing issues sharply and succinctly. Mr. Boehner is a wooden personality devoid of Mr. Gingrich’s charisma, and the slogan: “Boehner for Speaker,” which is beginning to appear, is hardly inspiring. Mr. McConnell is amiable but retiring, never arresting or incisive.

Indeed, the current Republican leadership bemoans the Obama administration’s reckless big spending and deficits. But other than complain and insist that the president should “pay for” additional spending, the GOP leadership has given no evidence that it recognizes — or even believes — that we actually need a smaller government.

Instead, the GOP has trotted out timid half-measures that they think will play well to the country’s anti-spending mood, but that would actually accomplish very little.

Tad DeHaven • July 22, 2010 @ 9:12 am
Filed under: Government and Politics; Tax and Budget Policy
Tags: , , , , , ,

// ShareThis Print This Post

Morning Bell: The Fatal Flaws of the Wall Street Bailout Bill | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

So the guys all got together behind closed doors and over beers and decided on the best way to put Wall Street bankers on Easy Street forever and ever more.  This Financial Reform Bill is like the Health Care Reform Bill  in that the more you learn the sicker you get!

And people this is not going to stop here by any means.  Recall at the G21 Conference right after Obama took office and his willingness with Britain’s PM Brown to form a Global Financial Regulatory Agency?  Well once Obama gets his hands on the countries Financial industry he intends to turn it all over to the  international organization.  Now I would guess that the biggest boys  on Wall Street have already bought their seats at that particular table.  BB

04/23/2010The Fatal Flaws of the Wall Street Bailout Bill

Speaking to an audience of big business and big labor executives (including Goldman Sachs’ Lloyd Blankfein, Bank of America’s Bruce Thompson and SEIU’s Andy Stern) at New York’s Cooper Union, President Barack Obama noted “the furious efforts of industry lobbyists to shape” the financial regulation bill “to their special interests.” Obama then admitted, “I am sure that many of those lobbyists work for some of you. But I am here today because I want to urge you to join us, instead of fighting us in this effort.” Obama should have saved his breath. Wall Street and big labor lobbyists have already joined forces to make sure the current Senate legislation has become a Wall Street Bailout Bill.

Big labor’s ties to this White House are already well documented. Less known is just how close Obama administration interests align with the big firms that benefit most from the TARP bailout. The Washington Examiner reports that at Goldman Sachs, the nation’s largest investment bank, four of the five in-house lobbyists were Democratic Capitol Hill staffers — the remaining one gave $1,000 to Hillary Clinton last election. And USA Today notes that Goldman Sachs alone has given nearly $900,000 since January 2009 to congressional candidates, with 69% of that cash lining Democrat pockets. Finally, then-candidate Obama collected almost $1 million from Goldman executives and employees in 2008, more than the combined Goldman haul of every Republican running for president, Senate and the House.

So what have Wall Street lobbyists bought with their campaign cash and high priced lobbyists? A bill that gives permanent TARP-like authority to Washington regulators, thus enshrining Washington as a permanent bailout machine. Specifically, the bill:

Creates a protected class of too big to fail firms. Section 113 of the bill establishes a “Financial Stability Oversight Council,” charged with identifying firms that would “pose a threat to the financial security of the United States” if they encounter “material financial distress.” While these firms would be subject to enhanced regulation, such a designation would also signal to the marketplace that these firms are too important to be allowed to fail and, perversely, allow them to take on undue risk.

Creates permanent bailout authority. Section 204 of the bill authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to “make available … funds for the orderly liquidation of [a] covered financial institution.” Although no funds could be provided to compensate a firm’s shareholders, the firm’s other creditors would be eligible for a cash bailout. The situation is much like the bailout AIG in 2008, in which the largest beneficiaries were not stockholders but rather other creditors, such as Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs.

Provides for seizure of private property without meaningful judicial review. The bill, in Section 203(b), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to order the seizure of any financial firm that he finds is “in danger of default” and whose failure would have “serious adverse effects on financial stability.” This determination would be virtually irreversible in court.

Establishes a $50 billion fund to pay for bailouts. Funding for bailouts is to come from a $50 billion “Orderly Resolution Fund” created within the U.S. Treasury in Section 210(n)(1), funded by taxes on financial firms. However, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the ultimate cost of bank taxes will fall on the customers, employees and investors of each firm.

Opens a “line of credit” to the Treasury for additional government funding. Under Section 210(n)(9), the FDIC is effectively granted a line of credit to the Treasury Department that is secured by the value of failing firms in its control, providing another taxpayer financial support.

Authorizes regulators to guarantee the debt of solvent banks. Bailout authority is not limited to debt of failing institutions. Under Section 1155, the FDIC is authorized to guarantee the debt of “solvent depository institutions” if regulators declare that a liquidity crisis (“event”) exists.

Imposes one-size-fits-all reform in derivative markets. Derivatives are already increasingly being traded on clearinghouses thanks to private efforts coordinated by the New York Fed. But the Senate bill would require virtually all derivative contracts to be settled through a clearinghouse rather than directly between the parties. Applying such ill-designed blanket regulation would make financial derivatives more costly, more difficult to customize, and, consequently, less widely used—which would increase overall risk in the economy.

According to Rasmussen Reports, 64% of Americans are not confident that policymakers in Washington know what they’re doing with regards to Wall Street. They have every reason to be concerned. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) tells National Review: “From the beginning, I’ve thought that the deal Goldman Sachs got via Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner on their bad bets through AIG kind of stunk. They got $13 billion from AIG last year.” DeFazio doesn’t seem to realize that the bill Obama is pushing would empower Secretary Geithner to repeat the AIG bailout ad infinitum. No need to ever go back to Congress for a new TARP. The Senate bill is a permanent TARP. Which is exactly what Goldman Sachs and the rest of their Wall Street lobbyists wanted all along.


See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

Advertisements