Archive for December, 2009
The Real Party of Wall Street & Big Business….The Democratic Party
Posted by Tom in Business, Centrally Managed Economy, Congress, Government Regulation, Politics on December 12, 2009
The Republican Party has been the party tagged with the Wall Street-Big Business Label. This has presented Democrats with a convenient collection basket which they pass around rather effectively. At the same time they promote the Republican business-association fallacy.
The Huffington Post’s November 19th article, The 15 Biggest Congressional Recipients of Wall Street Campaign Cash, is revealing. For the 2010 election cycle so far 11 0f the top 15 recipients are Democrats. Here’s the list.
| Rank | Recipient | Party | Amount |
| 15 | Barney Frank | D | $387,749.00 |
| 14 | Carolyn Maloney | D | $396,750.00 |
| 13 | Ron Wyden | D | $404,750.00 |
| 12 | John Thune | R | $407,950.00 |
| 11 | Jim Himes | D | $430,123.00 |
| 10 | Richard Shelby | R | $502,150.00 |
| 9 | Blanche Lincoln | D | $515,000.00 |
| 8 | Eric Cantor | R | $516,197.00 |
| 7 | Arlen Specter | D | $552,175.00 |
| 6 | Mark Kirk | R | $557,375.00 |
| 5 | Michael Bennet | D | $612,804.00 |
| 4 | Chris Dodd | D | $752,698.00 |
| 3 | Harry Reid | D | $1,038,210.00 |
| 2 | Kirsten Gillibrand | D | $1,173,400.00 |
| 1 | Charles Schumer | D | $2,167,300.00 |
And it’s not only Wall Street. Jonah Goldberg’s December 9th post in National Review Online, The Real Fat-Cat Party, praises Tim Carney’s new book “Obamanomics” citing the drug industry’s contribution to Obama was 3.58 time its contribution to McCain. Jonah also mentions GE’s leadership of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership not because GE is a tree hugger but because it “stands to make billions from carbon pricing, thanks largely to investments in technologies that cannot survive in a free market without massive subsidies from Uncle Sam.”
The economists call this corporate influence buying “rent seeking,” that is the manipulation of government regulation and subsidies to attain revenue and business advantage that could not otherwise be attained in the free market. The political corollary for this is “vote seeking” or more appropriately, “power seeking!” The Democrats wrote the book on that.
So in essence we have a symbiotic relationship between big business-wall street and Congressional Democrats. I became personally aware of that when I questioned an old friend who was a partner in a Wall Street hedge fund on that fund’s employment of John Edwards the former Democratic Senator and VP Candidate. My chiding question was, is your firm going into the plaintiffs trial lawyer business! His response, no all these guys are Democrats and that’s where their money goes! In truth their connected at the hip and it has paid off for both sides. Just consider: the financial bailout, TARP, Obamacare, the House cap and trade bill, and the House financial regulatory package.
Who are the losers? We the taxpayers are. The small businesses which create a majority of the jobs and a majority of the innovation in this country are also losers. Likewise the younger generation will lose with the gigantic intergenerational transfer of benefits; the younger generation will get stuck with increasing deficits, an unsustainable mountain of debt, and a lower standard of living.
So the next time someone tries to blame it on the Republicans as the party of big business, set ‘em straight. It’s those damn Democrats!
Tom Motherway
Out of Step, A Bit Perhaps, With America?
Posted by Tom in Education Facts & Policies, Law, Morality & Religion in the Public Square, National Character on December 11, 2009
Obama has made some dumb appointments, like Charles Freeman as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council; remember the guy with ties to China who downplayed China’s brutal suppression of dissent and ties to Saudi Arabia who bashed Israel. Or Green Jobs Czar Van Jones the black nationalist, anti-capitalist, and self-declared Communist revolutionary. The list is long including some still serving like a Secretary of the Treasury who knowingly refused to pay taxes. But by far one of the most out of step is Kevin Jennings who is Obama’s “safe school czar.”
Kevin Jennings founded the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in 1990; he had to take a cut in pay from that organization when Obama appointed him to run the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools in the Education Department. In all fairness he worked in the Obama campaign and was very successful in fundraising co-chair for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered) community. Now political paybacks are fine, but couldn’t Obama have found a better job for this guy?
According to a December 9th editorial in the Washington Times, Obama’s Risky-sex Czar, Jennings was involved in teaching 13-year-olds strange sex techniques! This at a youth conference at Tuffs University in March 2000. There are evidently tapes of some of the sessions which are nothing but vile smut. Things like oral sex and “fisting” were discussed with these youngsters. Evidently Jennings is also a big supporter of Harry Hay and the North American Man Boy Love Association.
Talk about the role of government. It can be open to wide dispute on many issues. But I doubt the dispute would be wide at all when it comes to teaching children about kinky sex. As the Times editorial states, “Teaching children sexual techniques is simply not appropriate.” Indeed!
I for one (with six grandchildren) don’t want Kevin Jennings anywhere around an educational system, here or elsewhere! Maybe you could find something for Kevin in the prison system, Mr. President. There at least he could do less harm!
Oh, and by the way, you previously said to judge you by your appointments…so far that judgement is that you are either “one brick short of a load” or more than a little out of touch with America. Neither of these makes one feel sanguine for America while you’re at the helm!
Tom Motherway
Spirit of 1776 Lives-in Iran, This Time With Bits & Bites!
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Defense, National Character, Statism on December 10, 2009
Don’t let anyone ever tell you the spirit of freedom is dead. It lives on and is healthy in Iran. Technology is its weapon, twitter, texting, blogging, video, stills, Facebook, and sundry websites chronicle the fight against tyranny. AND IT IS GREAT, HEART WARMING!
Christopher Rhoads pens an article in Tuesday’s WSJ that references one Mehdi Saharkhiz, the 27 year old graphic designer, son of an imprisoned Iranian journalist, saying of the techies, “they have become their own news agency!” Indeed, they have figured out a way around the government stops, filters, and goons! Some of his videos can be seen on YouTube here.
Two points are worth making: One, Obama and his minions missed their chance to support a potential overthrow of this vile and dangerous statist regime. Obama seeks instead to curry favor with that regime. He is betting on the outcome and practical in that regard but wholly without the values that made this country great. He’d rather take the easy “mi amigo” course that he does with Chavez. Learn that lesson well.
Two: School yourselves on the latest technology. As was often true in the events leading up to 1776, the pen was indeed mighty, and indeed necessary. Today technology is the ink. It would be wise to learn that lesson as well!
Tom Motherway
In Need of Some Levity?
Posted by Tom in Environment on December 9, 2009
Gordon Crovitz penned a pleasant oped in Monday’s WSJ, Climate of Uncertainty Heats Up. In it he debunks the liberals cry against the bloggers that there is no editorial board to fact-check and edit the reporters’ articles. As expected he notes that the MSM (Main Stream Media) has fallen on its collective ass, or sword or whatever, or alternatively, has been muzzled by the editors and publishers. No surprises here. But the latest scandal unearthed by the online conspirators is Climategate, heretofore ignored by the MSM, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the Democratic demagogues now in control.
But it’s not as glum as Obama giving away $10 Billion of your grandchildren’s money and condemning them to serfdom. Crovitz notes that Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony! Gordon also included a reference to “Hide the Decline” on YouTube, enjoy:
Industry Appeals For Regulation-To Avoid Obama Dictatorship
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Economics, Energy Facts & Policies, Environment, Government Regulation on December 8, 2009
How sad it is that this once great democracy has devolved to a leftist dictatorship with Obama as its head.
His EPA on Monday declared emissions of “greenhouse gasses” including carbon dioxide and five others to be a danger to human health. That’s right, Obama’s administrative agency has declared carbon dioxide hazardous to your health. Think of it, when you flatulate (pass gas), the EPA says it is harmful to your health. I wonder if it would be harmful if you stopped flatulating, even though it would more pleasant for the rest of us!
But I joke, only to show the silliness and seriousness of this very dangerous action. No doubt this announcement was timed to coincide with the opening of the Copenhagen climate talks where our erstwhile leader plans to contribute his “fair share,” $10 Billion of your money. Our young US prince rides into town with his nobel peace prize in hand and leads the US and Europe into economic collapse. And this in face of evidence that the global warming data has been manipulated to show a preordained conclusion that profits the Al-Gorelike prophets of doom. Could Alice in Wonderland have been in a more sane environment?
US industry is worried because in a sense our economy and in fact our country runs on things that produce CO2. Whether its that Big Mac you eat, the CNN show you watch, or the electric light switch you flip on, carbon dioxide is produced. The utilities are particularly worried, worried that some unelected bureaucrat at Obama’s EPA will shut them down. Or shut them down economically by requiring expensive processes and equipment that will raise the cost of production beyond affordability. Yes, in the end this all translates into a carbon tax that the American consumer will pay. Now the EPA is not required to consider economics in its rule making.
But never fear, an EPA spokeswoman–excuse me spokesperson–in defending the “dangerous to human health” finding, said ” we invite the public to review the extensive scientific analysis informing” it. (Yeah, right!) Yet Obama and his EPA totally ignore the East Anglia University email fraud debunking global warming, otherwise known as Climategate.
So today the WSJ reports that US industry is asking Congress to regulate it! How often to you see businessmen asking to be regulated? You would expect industry executives to oppose regulation. In fact, they generally do oppose it. But where they fear something worse, like uninformed fiat imposed by a dictator’s unaccountable minions, they need to influence the outcome. Thus they want to bring the regulatory proposals into the political process, talk to representatives and senators who depend on contributions to be re-elected. So for the businessmen it’s the lesser of two evils and understandable.
What’s puzzling though is why Obama would want to take uneconomic action, especially job-killing action in the midst of a recession, and at a time when his deficits are breaking records, his national debt pile up is beyond sustainability and the action will produce no environmental results. Can hubris be that strong? Or ignorance that deep? Or lust for power that blinding? I’m at a loss for an answer.
‘Tis a sad day for America, indeed!
Tom Motherway
Pelosi’s Lap Dog, Harry Reid, Has His Political Parties Mixed Up
Posted by Tom in Nationalized Health Care, Nevada, Politics on December 7, 2009
Reid compared opponents of Obamacare to supporters of slavery! When at a loss for an intelligent argument old Harry resorts to libelous name-calling. In reality it was a Harry Reid’s fellow Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957. And it was a Republican, Abe Lincoln who abolished slavery.
Our less than intelligent, less than honest Nevada Senator also refuses to admit that the leftists liberals and progressives–that would be Reid and his handler Pelosi–are the ones who want to make America a European-like welfare state, addicting the population to the dole, the giveaway largess that buys votes from the dependents they help create.
Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Frank, et al have fed at that same public trough for too long. They have hardly worked a day in their lives and have contributed nothing to American success and exceptionalism. They are however effective drug dealers, addicting poor dumb voters to welfare and thus keeping them poor, dumb and addicted. They work in perfect lockstep with the NEA, the SEIU, and ACORN.
The problem is that Reid, Pelosi, Obama and company are using your hard earned money to buy the “drugs” that they use to addict the voters. In so doing, they are bankrupting the country. Your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for their folly for a long time.
Nevada will have a chance to retire Reid next year–it can’t come too soon for me!
Tom Motherway
“Fair Share” Most Dangerous Words in the English Language!
Posted by Tom in Economics, Environment, Foreign Policy on December 6, 2009
I mused several posts ago whether Obama would have the moral courage to expose the Climate-gate fraud which has already bilked taxpayers here and across the pond of millions of dollars and euros and which threatens a serious crippling of our economy. I initially had hope that Obama would–in light of the fraud–avoid US commitment to the global warming folly, since he was due to merely stop by the Copenhagen meeting early on his way to pick up his much earned Nobel peace prize. Well my hopes were dashed when he changed his schedule to join other leaders at the end of the meeting to conclude a “meaningful” climate deal.
The White House announced that the U.S. is prepared to pay its “fair share” of $10 Billion. That would be its “fair share” of your money, or rather–since Obama is borrowing that amount in addition to the trillions of deficit already committed–your children’s, grandchildren’s and great-grandchildren’s money.
So instead of questioning the scientists’, destruction of contrary climate data, their inability to explain the lack of warming this last decade, the manipulation of hockey-stick models, and the suppression of peer review, Obama has decided to affirm his allegiance to the old-time global warming religion.
Now we know Gore, another Nobel peace prize laureate has serious personal investments in the green revolution. And we know that Obama has allocated a significant part of our money in the phony stimulus package to the green revolution. But could there be any other motivation for his apparent blindness?
Why would he amidst a significant recession, double-digit unemployment, a weakened dollar, historic deficits and crippling debt commit this country to an additional tax and regulatory environment the consequences of which portend only downside? And what is fair about a “fair share” of $10 Billion? What is the other side of the fairness equation? Will U.S. taxpayers get any consideration, any quid pro quo? How was this “fair share” negotiated?
After many years of hearing the words “fair share” usually spouted by progressives and leftists, I’ve come to the conclusion that they are a disguise for theft and expropriation used by charlatans to advance an agenda. There is nothing fair about fair share. Any time you hear these words, be on guard and very skeptical!
Tom Motherway
Afghanistan Was the Easy Decision
Posted by Tom in Defense, Foreign Policy, National Character on December 3, 2009
After months of agonizing meetings Obama made the decision to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in support of General McChrystal’s request. Give him credit he made an unpopular decision–unpopular with his base; yes he offended his leftist base. I believe this is the first such decision of his presidency. Hopefully it will not be his last.
Yet the decision was fraught with compromise the most devastating part of which was his announcement to begin troop withdrawal in 18 months, mid-2011. This compromise was made no doubt to placate the same leftist base he offended. It unfortunately took away some of the firmness of his resolve and commitment. Yes, and this showed.
Ralph Peters in his December 2nd New York Post article, Setting Up Our Military To Fail, details the problems with the 2011 withdrawal just before the 2012 election. He characterizes the bait-and-switch as not just stupid but immoral, listing the following messages the speech sends: ”To our troops: Risk your lives for a mission I’ve written off. To our allies: Race you to the exit ramp. To the Taliban: Allah is merciful, your prayers will soon be answered. To Afghan leaders: Get your stolen wealth out of the country. To Pakistan: Renew your Taliban friendships now (and be nice to al Qaeda).” Let’s just hope Obama with subsequent firm action corrects some of these impressions.
And firm action along with unpopular decisions will soon be needed indeed. Afghanistan despite all the agonizing was the easy decision compared to what will be needed in Iran. Here we have a radical Islamist regime in illegitimate control. Soon it will have nuclear warheads for its missiles. It has vowed to destroy Israel and has as its ultimate goal the destruction of the United States. It freely exports terrorism in the region and to our own soil.
With regard to Iran Obama has not made any decisions unpopular with his base. On the contrary he has gone around apologizing for the US. He has curried favor with Ahmadinejad. He has all but abandoned Israel. And instead of supporting and encouraging the democratic Iranians contesting the mullahs and the rigged election, he has ignored them.
Ahmadinejad continues to refine nuclear fuel to weapon grade levels; he continues to build nuclear facilities; he laugh in the face of the useless UN inspectors; and he toys with Obama’s “tough talk.” Every time Obama draws a line in the sand, Ahmadinejad crosses it. Line-step, line-step, line-step, ad infinitum! Even France has suggested that Obama show some backbone to Iran. There have been so many lines in the sand crossed that the US no longer has any credibility with allies or foes. Anne Bayefsky in a December 3rd National Review Online post, The Iran Timeline, counts 13!
The real fact is that Islamists are a serious threat bent on controlling the world and not by democratic means. They have a gigantic worldwide presence. Europe will be Islamic within a generation and Sharia Law will rule. So far high birth rates and terrorism have been the tools of conquest. Intimidation both at the individual and societal level has also been used. The multiculturalists and internationalists have been their allies; and political correctness as we have recently have seen at Ft. Hood has been their protector.
But to date no Islamist state has nuclear weapons. Iran will change that within months. Then intimidation and terrorism will take on a whole new ugly character. Experts say that the hollow threats of sanctions, indeed sanctions themselves will not work to change Iran’s course. It’s pretty clear that Obama has wasted whatever credibility the US had with his smiles, bows and idle lines in the sand.
Thus one option is left, the military option. This is not a boots-on-the-ground option but an all out missile strike at the Iranian nuclear installations. It can either be preemptive and quick or as a counter attack in defense of Israel or other regional ally and prolonged. Barbara Lerner has posted a long and well reasoned article on National Review Online, The War for 21st-Century Freedom, December 3rd. Despite its length, I commend a full and thoughtful reading.
The front page of todays WSJ reports on an Iranian-American engineering student here receiving an email threat that if he didn’t stop criticizing Iran on Facebook, his family in Tehran would suffer; he thought it a joke until his mother called saying that his father had been arrested!
Yes, Obama’s Afghanistan decision was easy compared to those that lie before him on Iran. I pray for the sake of our country that he has the courage to make the hard ones.
Tom Motherway
Are These Guys Nuts?
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Deficit, Economics, Real Estate on December 2, 2009
Yesterday’s Reno Gazette-Journal front page shouted: “Mortgage industry pressed.” Turns out that the geniuses at the White House say the at-risk borrowers aren’t getting enough help. So, what are they going to do? Well, by golly, starting this week they are sending “three-person SWAT teams” to monitor the eight largest companies’ work and requesting ”twice-daily” reports on their progress!
OK, let’s say your 10 AM report shows that you are working on 10 Home Affordable Modification Program mortgages and that 8 of those HAMPs have potential. At your 3 PM meeting with the local SWAT team unfortunately 2 of the 8 potential HAMPs failed to make the third payment, or better yet, failed to get the paper work complete. Will the SWAT team then take out its SWAT weapons?
And what has the SWAT team done between the two meetings? How much of our money will the SWAT team receive in compensation for their hazardous duty on the team? Are they new hires, if not, what would they otherwise be doing? And, is that necessary?!
Finally, what is the purpose of all this? According to yesterday’s WSJ, HAMP would be a success if a large portion of trial mortgages in relief qualify for the permanent principal reduction and if the re-default rate on modified mortgages remains low. If HAMP fails, particularly because of the lenders-fearing the SWAT teams-become lax in approving the deals, it could still leave a large number of underwater mortgages ticking in the system! Sound familiar?
I can hear Barney Frank saying, “I want to roll the dice” on Fannie and Freddie!
But never fear at the other end of the spectrum the FHA which ostensibly wants tougher rules on mortgage lenders is propping up loans and extending its support of traditional real estate to upper-class buyers, that would be buyers in Speaker Pelosi’s own San Francisco. Those poor entitled liberals had no FHA supported loans two years ago, now the government is guaranteeing six mortgages a week!
And this largess even surprised its beneficiaries: Mike Rowland a 27-year old who with friends bought a million dollar duplex with little money down said, “It was kind of crazy we could get this big a loan!” Crazy…indeed!
John Stossel, a brilliant columnist at Real Clear Politics nails it in today’s post, Stop Insuring Mortgages. “Home ownership, all else equal, is a good thing. But when government lumbers into the market and subsidizes folly, that’s a very bad thing.” Seems we’re stuck with “very bad.” Japan was too, for the “lost decade!”
To cap things off, today’s WSJ reports that the FHA is short of capital and is looking for ways to boost reserves!
You know, it’s OK if Barney Frank wants to gamble with his own money, but in fact he’s gambling with yours! Taxpayers, get your checkbooks out…oh, and tell your great-grandchildren to get theirs out as well!
Tom Motherway
Sandoval’s Views on Judicial Legislation & Taxation?
Posted by Tom in Constitution, Judiciary, Nevada, Politics on December 1, 2009
Brian Sandoval’s rise in Nevada politics has been meteoric, so much so that he almost reminds me of that young fellow in Washington whose rise was built on blinding speed and little else. Although well grounded in the law and running as a candidate for the Republican nomination for governor, Sandoval should be prepared to explain his role as Governor Guinn’s Attorney General in 2003.
Some background is in order: In 1994 and 1996 Nevada voters overwhelmingly passed an amendment to the Nevada Constitution that required a 2/3 supermajority vote in the legislature to pass any tax increase. This amendment was added to a constitution that also required undefined funding for education.
In 2003 the Democratic majority in the legislature orchestrated a budget impasse by passing all budgetary items except for its proposed increase in funding in education which was blocked by over one third of the Assembly, all Republicans. The impasse continued through two special legislative sessions since the Democrats refused to cut the otherwise bloated budget and the Republicans refused to increase taxes.
Attorney General Brian Sandoval as the state’s chief legal officer advised Governor Guinn to sue the legislature in the Nevada Supreme Court. Sandoval personally delivered the petition to the high court seeking to get the court to intervene and get the increased public school budget passed.
Well, intervene the Supreme Court did, and in spades: In the infamous case of Guinn vs. Legislature, the court found a conflict between the two constitutional provisions and directed the legislature to ignore the 2/3 requirement and pass the increased taxes with a simple majority. The decision was ridiculed nationally by legal experts and by a majority of Nevada voters who found out that their vote meant nothing to Guinn and Sandoval. Governor Guinn a RINO would not face the press and had Sandoval take the heat. Sandoval’s explanation: “Everyone is going to have a different opinion on this, we just asked the court to require the legislature to balance the budget and fund education.”
The $836 million in additional taxes passed in 2003 produced such and embarrassing surplus that Guinn sought and got the Democrats to agree to a $300 million “give back” in 2005. The court’s decision was allegedly tainted by contact between Guinn and a couple of the justices so much so that Sandoval should have suspected the outcome before the petition was filed. The decision was subsequently repudiated by a succeeding Nevada Supreme Court.
The episode presents some serious questions as to Sandoval’s qualification for office.
Does Sandoval believe in the right of voters to expect that their vote means something? Over two thirds of the Nevada voters twice passed the constitutional amendment requiring a legislative super-majority to pass tax increases.
Does Sandoval believe in the separation of powers, legislative, executive and judicial provided by the Nevada and US constitutions? Legal scholars and the subsequent court decision confirm that courts have no more a right to compel legislation than governors do. Yet Sandoval asked the court to so compel the Nevada legislature. Political impasses demand political solutions–like budget cuts–which is exactly what the voters expected by passing the amendment twice!
Finally, and very troublesome, does Sandoval have any concept of economics and the effects of bloated state budgets and excessive taxes? His participation in the Democratic charade in 2003 would suggest he is as ignorant as Guinn in this regard.
I’m sure that the campaign for the nomination will vet these three important issues and more and I hope that our vigilant press will report them clearly and fairly.
Tom Motherway