Is the Obama Administration serious about universal healthcare reform? Yes. At this point, any old Democrat health plan will do.
Will healthcare reform include coverage for illegal immigrants? Contrary to the infamous two-word wisecrack blurted out by a now well-known rightwing racist Senator from South Carolina, the answer is, “No way, Jose.”
If Congress worms its way to pass legislation on healthcare reform within the next few weeks, why would it not become effective until 2013? The obvious answer is that it will be less of a political issue in the 2010-midterm elections. But there appears to be a scheme a-brewing to provide coverage to not only a fair number of currently uninsured 45 million Americans but also to a few extra million immigrants.
On October 2 The New York Times printed an article on actions being implemented by the U.S. States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) that will reshape the social (unrest?) and cultural (shock?) makeup of America, resulting in an unprecedented change in political arenas, perhaps resulting in an eventual emergence of viable third party candidates. It may also become the defining moment that brings to fruition President Obama’s willful intent of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” In the meantime, demographics may give Democrats the upper hand, especially among Hispanics.
The Times’ article reported that CIS is taking the first steps to accommodate an anticipated stampede of illegal immigrants seeking visas in response to President Obama’s stated intention to propose to Congress legislation toward comprehensive immigration reform. As quoted by CIS director Alejandro Mayorkas, “We are under way to prepare for that.”
It’s a given fact there are well over 10 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., of which approximately 6 million are said to typically seek legal status each year. Since the CIS anticipates millions of immigrants will apply for legal status within a matter of weeks if immigration legislation passes Congress next year, the agency is on an immediate hiring spree to play catch-up with a current backlog of pending paperwork. More jobs, bigger government.
Some lawmakers have already expressed concern that, as CIS becomes overwhelmed with large volumes of applications, haste will result in poorly processed paperwork and lax review of background checks will create a national security crisis.
Regardless of what may come from immigration reform, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano this past week revealed a strategy that will overhaul the way immigration violators are held in detention centers. With over 60% of detainees classified as non-criminals, Napolitano said an initiative is under way “to make immigration detention more cohesive, accountable and relevant to the entire spectrum of detainees we are dealing with.”
Which means, in the coming weeks Napolitano will submit to Congress plans to renovate vacant hotels and nursing homes, and convert residential houses to provide less restrictive oversight of low-risk violators of immigration laws, primarily women and children. By doing so, savings are expected to lower the cost from $100 per day to about $14 per day for each detainee.
It’s believed the new policy will greatly reduce the annual cost of $2.4 billion currently spent on approximately 380,000 immigrants, of which many were arrested during the past two years when ICE agents followed a practice of raiding neighborhoods, factories and other workplaces known to employ immigrants, thus terrorizing people and traumatizing children.
Rather than targeting employees, current practice puts businesses on legal notice to verify the legal status of immigrants.
The perfect example is the 1,800 employees of American Apparel in Los Angeles who were terminated in early September by the company as a result of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents identifying discrepancies and mismatches in employment records when compared to immigration records of the Social Security Administration. That is to say, they were proven to be illegal immigrants.
The action came as a result of a 17-month investigation by ICE that began with the Bush Administration. LA Times journalist Tim Rutten called the action a “callous” turn of events under President Obama. It doesn’t seem to phase otherwise law-abiding, intelligent people that hiring and, at times, harboring illegal immigrants with subsidized housing are lawless un-American activities.
With the government displaying a change in sentiment toward the humanitarian aspects of non-violent immigrants, legal or not, new laws of this land will bring about change that we’ll all have to live with.
Provisions are now in the works to address detainee concerns about the lack of proper treatment for medical and mental health conditions. The fact that seriously ill detainees have died while in custody cannot be ignored. Therefore, they will have healthcare before uninsured Americans.
So, will President Obama’s healthcare reform include coverage for illegal immigrants? “No way, Jose.” By the time it’s implemented in 2013, many of those illegal immigrants will have become naturalized citizens.
Showing posts with label President Barak Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Barak Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Banking Executives vs Football Players
“Why is it we’re going to cap executive compensation for Wall Street bankers but not Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and NFL football players?”
On September 14, President Obama posed the question as he addressed Wall Street from Federal Hall on the anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Obama also stated that "we will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses." He continued, “And, of course, to embrace serious financial reform, not fight it."
The President had already set up a game plan months before. I should note that, although he wisely commented about excessive executive compensation during his campaign, Obama’s messages were all about “regulation”.
With little fanfare, Kenneth Feinberg, appointed by the Treasury Department in June and dubbed “pay czar” with the official title of Special Master, the same post he was given to distribute aid to victims after 9/11, has remained a behind-the-scenes administrator, which indicates he’s little more than an Obama implant to promote oversight of financial institutions by means of some regulatory scheme rather than by putting ceilings on executive compensation.
On September 25, Feinberg stated that, when he releases a report next month on the executive compensations of bail-out companies, “ We don’t want specific names next to dollars.” And that, "Avoiding excessive risk means different things to different people in different situations." The wording indicates a degree of coaching from Treasury Secreaty Timothy Geithner who, in turn, may have been teleprompted by Team Obama.
Unlike German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkoz, both of whom prefer strict governance over banking bonuses, The Administration seems to be treading lightly toward a resolution with Wall Street egos and their troves of lobbyists to relegate satisfactory action to Congress.
Obama’s apparent disdain of Simi Valley entrepreneurs who provide innovation and evolutionary advancements in e-commerce technologies is misplaced as displayed by the Forbes list of the top 10 CEOs and their levels of compensation.
Although Oracle CEO Lawrence Ellison tops the list in compensation ($556M), petroleum CEOs of Occidental ($222M), Hess ($154M), Ultra Petroleum ($116M), and EOG Resources ($90M) round up the top remaining five companies that handsomely reward their CEOs with fortunes. Of course, the President dare not rile the money-mongering emissaries of greenhouse gases.
Nor should Obama attempt to tackle the salaries of football players.
In 2008, Ben Roethlisberger of the NFL Pittsburgh Steelers made $27M. Of other sports figures, Kevin Garnett of the NBA Boston Celtics was paid $27M; Alex Rodriguez of the MLB New York Yankees received $33M; in the NHL Dany Heatley of the Ottawa Senators earned $10M. Not too shabby by any measure of success.
Which takes me back to the interests of Wall Street. When the dot-com bubble burst at the turn of the century, an estimated $7-trillion were lost to investors, primarily in tech stocks. When Wall Street got burned, it was quick to regain its fortunes in the housing market.
In 2005, Yale economist Robert Shiller said, “Once stocks fell, real estate became the primary outlet for the speculative frenzy that the stock market had unleashed. Where else could plungers apply their newly acquired trading talents? The materialistic display of the big house also has become a salve to bruised egos of disappointed stock investors.”
Over these past two years, it’s estimated that U.S. households have lost $7-trillion in home equity, $2-trillion in retirement funds, and $8-trillion in the stock market. But to this day Wall Street shows no shame.
Lawrence White, a professor at New York University's Stern School of Business, said Wall Street believes its pay is justified and that, “The big Wall Street view is 'Hey, we work hard, we achieve a lot, and we deserve what we get paid.” Recent articles and Op-Ed columns in The New York Times shows that many Lehman Brothers ex-employees are remorseful of only one thing: the loss of the jobs that had brought them such riches they may never see again.
According to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an outplacement company, only slightly more than 300,000 jobs were lost in the finance industry since the beginning of 2008, as compared to all the other 7.4M jobs lost since the beginning of the recession.
It should be no surprise that, according to an Ipsos Public Affairs survey conducted September 11-14 of 1,000 adults, 60% of Americans are angry about excessive compensation to investment executives.
President Obama should leave Simi Valley alone, let sports fans judge the worth of football players and address the concerns that Americans have about the fortunes that Wall Street executives have reaped at the expense of present day and future taxpayers.
On September 14, President Obama posed the question as he addressed Wall Street from Federal Hall on the anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Obama also stated that "we will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses." He continued, “And, of course, to embrace serious financial reform, not fight it."
The President had already set up a game plan months before. I should note that, although he wisely commented about excessive executive compensation during his campaign, Obama’s messages were all about “regulation”.
With little fanfare, Kenneth Feinberg, appointed by the Treasury Department in June and dubbed “pay czar” with the official title of Special Master, the same post he was given to distribute aid to victims after 9/11, has remained a behind-the-scenes administrator, which indicates he’s little more than an Obama implant to promote oversight of financial institutions by means of some regulatory scheme rather than by putting ceilings on executive compensation.
On September 25, Feinberg stated that, when he releases a report next month on the executive compensations of bail-out companies, “ We don’t want specific names next to dollars.” And that, "Avoiding excessive risk means different things to different people in different situations." The wording indicates a degree of coaching from Treasury Secreaty Timothy Geithner who, in turn, may have been teleprompted by Team Obama.
Unlike German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkoz, both of whom prefer strict governance over banking bonuses, The Administration seems to be treading lightly toward a resolution with Wall Street egos and their troves of lobbyists to relegate satisfactory action to Congress.
Obama’s apparent disdain of Simi Valley entrepreneurs who provide innovation and evolutionary advancements in e-commerce technologies is misplaced as displayed by the Forbes list of the top 10 CEOs and their levels of compensation.
Although Oracle CEO Lawrence Ellison tops the list in compensation ($556M), petroleum CEOs of Occidental ($222M), Hess ($154M), Ultra Petroleum ($116M), and EOG Resources ($90M) round up the top remaining five companies that handsomely reward their CEOs with fortunes. Of course, the President dare not rile the money-mongering emissaries of greenhouse gases.
Nor should Obama attempt to tackle the salaries of football players.
In 2008, Ben Roethlisberger of the NFL Pittsburgh Steelers made $27M. Of other sports figures, Kevin Garnett of the NBA Boston Celtics was paid $27M; Alex Rodriguez of the MLB New York Yankees received $33M; in the NHL Dany Heatley of the Ottawa Senators earned $10M. Not too shabby by any measure of success.
Which takes me back to the interests of Wall Street. When the dot-com bubble burst at the turn of the century, an estimated $7-trillion were lost to investors, primarily in tech stocks. When Wall Street got burned, it was quick to regain its fortunes in the housing market.
In 2005, Yale economist Robert Shiller said, “Once stocks fell, real estate became the primary outlet for the speculative frenzy that the stock market had unleashed. Where else could plungers apply their newly acquired trading talents? The materialistic display of the big house also has become a salve to bruised egos of disappointed stock investors.”
Over these past two years, it’s estimated that U.S. households have lost $7-trillion in home equity, $2-trillion in retirement funds, and $8-trillion in the stock market. But to this day Wall Street shows no shame.
Lawrence White, a professor at New York University's Stern School of Business, said Wall Street believes its pay is justified and that, “The big Wall Street view is 'Hey, we work hard, we achieve a lot, and we deserve what we get paid.” Recent articles and Op-Ed columns in The New York Times shows that many Lehman Brothers ex-employees are remorseful of only one thing: the loss of the jobs that had brought them such riches they may never see again.
According to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an outplacement company, only slightly more than 300,000 jobs were lost in the finance industry since the beginning of 2008, as compared to all the other 7.4M jobs lost since the beginning of the recession.
It should be no surprise that, according to an Ipsos Public Affairs survey conducted September 11-14 of 1,000 adults, 60% of Americans are angry about excessive compensation to investment executives.
President Obama should leave Simi Valley alone, let sports fans judge the worth of football players and address the concerns that Americans have about the fortunes that Wall Street executives have reaped at the expense of present day and future taxpayers.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Obama, Sally and Stimulus Attitudes
Sally Rae has an attitude. In but the fewest of words there was a flare of disgust and a tinge of anger about the overindulgence homeowners had exercised during the sublime years of sub-prime loans and second-mortgage frenzies.
Although typically calm, cool and in control, Sally’s uncomely attitude was spurred by the Making Homes Affordable Plan. She grumbled for a moment but, quicker than Obama can swat a fly on the back of his hand, her demeanor returned to the sweet, charming little lady she is.
The Home Affordable Refinance Program targets 4 to 5 million homeowners with loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to lower their monthly payments. The Home Affordable Modification Program aims to keep an additional 3 to 4 million Americans from facing foreclosure.
The $75B allocated to the programs intends to lower interests rates to as low as 2% and/or give loan extensions up to 40 years – anything to bring the payment below 31% of pretax income, thus stemming the flow of bankruptcies and short-sales – but only applicable to owner-occupied, primary residences, not speculators or house-flippers, for up to $729,750 in unpaid balances. How sweet it is! For some, not all.
Sally has a problem with her tax dollars being given to irresponsible people who, with just a bit of common sense should have known the bottom-line monthly payment shown on the closing papers was unaffordable with their given incomes. An oversized house is nice to live in but when there’s a family to consider you not only have to plan for retirement but also consider college costs for the kids and, accept it or not, emergencies.
You can only blame lending practices so far because, in the end, it’s the person who signed the loan papers who are just as much at fault. Irresponsible indeed, dear sister, but I can top your angst with lenders who were too eager to give unsecured loans in the form of credit cards with little oversight of the individual’s ability of repayment.
A recent article in The NY Times related a cardholder who had been contacted by a lender that offered a 20% write-off on a $5,486 balance to which he declined but whose counter-offer of 50% was immediately accepted. An elderly gentleman who owed $112,00 on four credit cards, through a third-party settlement company that charged him a 12% fee, was able to reduce the balance to 35% of the outstanding balance, thus whittling down to 47% the outstanding balances.
In neither case was there a hint of them having to relinquish any of their assets. They had their cake and ate it too, and the rest of us are left with the crap that came out in the end – paying for the tasty morsels of their consumerism in the form of credit card companies jacking up interest rates much too quickly and all to often, even to those who continue to make on-time payments.
Obama’s Congress passed the Credit Card Act in May but the rule on 45 days advance notice of major changes won’t take affect until September and the majority of the new rules don’t apply until February next year. Consumers are of little concern compared to the demands of the corps or corporations.
The actions people took to enhance their immediate lifestyles were shameful. Whether by means of uncontrolled credit card usage or double-mortgage abuse, they set aside common sense for the good-time feeling of keeping up with other consumers who went on swanky spending sprees.
They beset themselves on the most difficult of futures with purchases of joyful trinkets like big screen TVs and monstrous vehicles that lose value the moment they’re taken off the showroom floor. Phantasmagoric vacations too, I’m sure.
There’s also the woman whose arrogance came out in full bloom when she bragged about the home equity loan she took, knowing the additional payment couldn’t be met. She pocketed the money. Despicably American.
The ones deserving of compassion, which doesn’t help them one bit, are those who became indebted due to health costs. I could make a wager and be fairly certain that, minus their conditions, their homes would still be secure investments, their stomachs less empty, their electric bills paid and they’d in be in much better off than the ones who pillaged their financial security for earthly pleasures.
Perhaps against Sally’s recommendation but in reader interest, particularly those faced with foreclosure, I suggest you visit www.financialsecurity.gov for information and www.makinghomeaffordable.gov to start the process that could ease your weary mind from the fears of losing your home. The entitlement was given by Obama. As far as other debt, call the number on the back of your credit card(s) and cry, “Fools!” You and them but the rest of us most of all.
Although typically calm, cool and in control, Sally’s uncomely attitude was spurred by the Making Homes Affordable Plan. She grumbled for a moment but, quicker than Obama can swat a fly on the back of his hand, her demeanor returned to the sweet, charming little lady she is.
The Home Affordable Refinance Program targets 4 to 5 million homeowners with loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to lower their monthly payments. The Home Affordable Modification Program aims to keep an additional 3 to 4 million Americans from facing foreclosure.
The $75B allocated to the programs intends to lower interests rates to as low as 2% and/or give loan extensions up to 40 years – anything to bring the payment below 31% of pretax income, thus stemming the flow of bankruptcies and short-sales – but only applicable to owner-occupied, primary residences, not speculators or house-flippers, for up to $729,750 in unpaid balances. How sweet it is! For some, not all.
Sally has a problem with her tax dollars being given to irresponsible people who, with just a bit of common sense should have known the bottom-line monthly payment shown on the closing papers was unaffordable with their given incomes. An oversized house is nice to live in but when there’s a family to consider you not only have to plan for retirement but also consider college costs for the kids and, accept it or not, emergencies.
You can only blame lending practices so far because, in the end, it’s the person who signed the loan papers who are just as much at fault. Irresponsible indeed, dear sister, but I can top your angst with lenders who were too eager to give unsecured loans in the form of credit cards with little oversight of the individual’s ability of repayment.
A recent article in The NY Times related a cardholder who had been contacted by a lender that offered a 20% write-off on a $5,486 balance to which he declined but whose counter-offer of 50% was immediately accepted. An elderly gentleman who owed $112,00 on four credit cards, through a third-party settlement company that charged him a 12% fee, was able to reduce the balance to 35% of the outstanding balance, thus whittling down to 47% the outstanding balances.
In neither case was there a hint of them having to relinquish any of their assets. They had their cake and ate it too, and the rest of us are left with the crap that came out in the end – paying for the tasty morsels of their consumerism in the form of credit card companies jacking up interest rates much too quickly and all to often, even to those who continue to make on-time payments.
Obama’s Congress passed the Credit Card Act in May but the rule on 45 days advance notice of major changes won’t take affect until September and the majority of the new rules don’t apply until February next year. Consumers are of little concern compared to the demands of the corps or corporations.
The actions people took to enhance their immediate lifestyles were shameful. Whether by means of uncontrolled credit card usage or double-mortgage abuse, they set aside common sense for the good-time feeling of keeping up with other consumers who went on swanky spending sprees.
They beset themselves on the most difficult of futures with purchases of joyful trinkets like big screen TVs and monstrous vehicles that lose value the moment they’re taken off the showroom floor. Phantasmagoric vacations too, I’m sure.
There’s also the woman whose arrogance came out in full bloom when she bragged about the home equity loan she took, knowing the additional payment couldn’t be met. She pocketed the money. Despicably American.
The ones deserving of compassion, which doesn’t help them one bit, are those who became indebted due to health costs. I could make a wager and be fairly certain that, minus their conditions, their homes would still be secure investments, their stomachs less empty, their electric bills paid and they’d in be in much better off than the ones who pillaged their financial security for earthly pleasures.
Perhaps against Sally’s recommendation but in reader interest, particularly those faced with foreclosure, I suggest you visit www.financialsecurity.gov for information and www.makinghomeaffordable.gov to start the process that could ease your weary mind from the fears of losing your home. The entitlement was given by Obama. As far as other debt, call the number on the back of your credit card(s) and cry, “Fools!” You and them but the rest of us most of all.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Right On, Rush Limbaugh!
The First 100 Days handed populist President Barack Obama a high-five regardless which poll happened to cross your eyes. A CBS/The New York Times poll of 973 adults presented a 68% approval rating while a USA Today/Gallup poll shows that of the 1,051 Americans polled, 79% view his performance as having been at least "okay."
But what of Obama’s acclaimed nemesis, Rush Limbaugh? On January 16, in response to an invitation to express, in writing, his hopes of the new Administration, the talk-radio host decided to go loco-vocal, saying, “I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: ‘Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.’ Somebody's gotta say it.”
He expressed this hopelessness of the 44th President, “I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.” He then added, “….what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails?”
At the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference in February, he discussed 50 years of Democrats bridling Americans with a welfare system that has held so many back from being successful members of society. “… I want everyone in this room and every one of you around the country to succeed. I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail.”
During a March broadcast of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, the host offered his interpretation of the Limbaugh broadcast that, instead of wanting the president to fail, it’s the policies to which Obama adheres that Rush wants to fail. Mr. Wallace was affectively chastised for his statement but, when taken in context, Limbaugh pointed out his personal concern for the country and the kids and grandchildren of Americans when he questioned, “Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, ‘I hope he fails.’”
On his April 22 radio show, Limbaugh said of the First 100 Days, “I'd like to refer to it, my friends, as “finals week.” And his take on Obama’s performance? “It's embarrassing incompetence and inexperience.”
He rattled off a roll call of Obama embarrassments: “Fidel Castro, one of Obama’s idols, call him superficial.” “We had the nomination of tax cheats to his cabinet… five tax cheats in the Obama administration.” “He has run around the world and apologized for the greatest, the most compassionate, the most innovative and freedom-loving country in world history.”
Speaking on behalf of his American followers, Rush said, “Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He doesn't know all this that's happening in his administration.”
Of DHS Secretary, “Janet Napolitano said the 9/11 hijackers actually got into our country through Canada. So now the Canadians are up in arms and the National Post in Canada today has a piece asking how in the hell did this woman get her job?”
Right on, Rush! You could justly question how other members of the Obama Administration were chosen for such high profile positions.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is said to be the “wonder boy” but Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve chairman and now head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, of which Geithner is also a member, told Congress during a February hearing that it was “shameful” Geithner has no assistants. Not so. Former Secretaries Lawrence Summers, his mentor, and Robert Rubin, a protégé, Geithner’s policies are anything but void of others’ influences. His experience relies on that of others.
Just as the president is pressing UBS to hand over a list of American companies guilty of tax evasion in Swiss bank accounts, the same should be pursued by Geithner for the billions of dollars handed over to Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and his cozy attachment to American bankers.
As a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Austan Goolsbee appeared more juvenile than an American Idol contestant with his wrinkled nose and a childish grin during an interview defending the President’s intent on closing tax loopholes and tax havens for American companies. With achievements as a debater and an acclaimed economist, he remains an inexperienced cabinet member.
Perhaps most questionable of Obama’s appointments is that of Robert Gibbs as Press Secretary. If ever a person were in need of a teleprompter, Gibbs is the prime candidate; a robot would be a welcome improvement over his inexperience as a public speaker.
However “un-American” people view his repeated hopes for Obama to fail, I respect Rush Limbaugh for upholding the most precious of our freedoms: the First Amendment.
“Right” on, Rush!
But what of Obama’s acclaimed nemesis, Rush Limbaugh? On January 16, in response to an invitation to express, in writing, his hopes of the new Administration, the talk-radio host decided to go loco-vocal, saying, “I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: ‘Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.’ Somebody's gotta say it.”
He expressed this hopelessness of the 44th President, “I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.” He then added, “….what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails?”
At the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference in February, he discussed 50 years of Democrats bridling Americans with a welfare system that has held so many back from being successful members of society. “… I want everyone in this room and every one of you around the country to succeed. I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail.”
During a March broadcast of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, the host offered his interpretation of the Limbaugh broadcast that, instead of wanting the president to fail, it’s the policies to which Obama adheres that Rush wants to fail. Mr. Wallace was affectively chastised for his statement but, when taken in context, Limbaugh pointed out his personal concern for the country and the kids and grandchildren of Americans when he questioned, “Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, ‘I hope he fails.’”
On his April 22 radio show, Limbaugh said of the First 100 Days, “I'd like to refer to it, my friends, as “finals week.” And his take on Obama’s performance? “It's embarrassing incompetence and inexperience.”
He rattled off a roll call of Obama embarrassments: “Fidel Castro, one of Obama’s idols, call him superficial.” “We had the nomination of tax cheats to his cabinet… five tax cheats in the Obama administration.” “He has run around the world and apologized for the greatest, the most compassionate, the most innovative and freedom-loving country in world history.”
Speaking on behalf of his American followers, Rush said, “Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He doesn't know all this that's happening in his administration.”
Of DHS Secretary, “Janet Napolitano said the 9/11 hijackers actually got into our country through Canada. So now the Canadians are up in arms and the National Post in Canada today has a piece asking how in the hell did this woman get her job?”
Right on, Rush! You could justly question how other members of the Obama Administration were chosen for such high profile positions.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is said to be the “wonder boy” but Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve chairman and now head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, of which Geithner is also a member, told Congress during a February hearing that it was “shameful” Geithner has no assistants. Not so. Former Secretaries Lawrence Summers, his mentor, and Robert Rubin, a protégé, Geithner’s policies are anything but void of others’ influences. His experience relies on that of others.
Just as the president is pressing UBS to hand over a list of American companies guilty of tax evasion in Swiss bank accounts, the same should be pursued by Geithner for the billions of dollars handed over to Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and his cozy attachment to American bankers.
As a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Austan Goolsbee appeared more juvenile than an American Idol contestant with his wrinkled nose and a childish grin during an interview defending the President’s intent on closing tax loopholes and tax havens for American companies. With achievements as a debater and an acclaimed economist, he remains an inexperienced cabinet member.
Perhaps most questionable of Obama’s appointments is that of Robert Gibbs as Press Secretary. If ever a person were in need of a teleprompter, Gibbs is the prime candidate; a robot would be a welcome improvement over his inexperience as a public speaker.
However “un-American” people view his repeated hopes for Obama to fail, I respect Rush Limbaugh for upholding the most precious of our freedoms: the First Amendment.
“Right” on, Rush!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Buy American?!?!
“Buy American” must be the choice of the consumer, not the federal government. Otherwise, it’s acid rain on the free market system, the very premise of capitalism. Worse yet, it’s protectionist and has an alarming affect on free trade between nations.
Economic growth would tumble head over heals like a snowball growing in size, picking up debris and becoming larger than life in a downward cycle reflective of what’s happening on Wall Street and other investment vehicles – crash and boom.
It makes little sense to divert infrastructure funds from rebuilding deteriorating roads, bridges and dams to construct what states may deem new and improved transportation routes. Both have merit but when money is limited it makes more sense to put unemployed workers on jobs that have been too long ignored and will eventually have catastrophic results on people’s lives.
There should be no delay with these upgrades. Over time, when structures crumble, costs increase and other traffic routes become overcrowded, adding travel time, wasting precious dollars on unnecessary fuel costs, spewing more green house gases into the atmosphere and having a negative affect on employee productivity as they put angry discussion with coworkers of more importance for mental stability than performing their job functions.
These changes need not be done strictly with American steel and other domestic materials.
Buy American was a patriotic theme of Barack Obama as he edged closer to his eventual election victory. No sooner had he given his acceptance speech than I heard people talking about “eight years”. I was appalled at their expectation that he will actually take such miraculous actions to bring America back to its historical place as the land of good and plenty.
Obama will have to prove his worth during the next forty some months before I decide which box I’ll mark in the 2012 presidential election. I want he and the Democratic Party to show their professed bipartisanship theme just as much as Republicans.
More important, consumers should to decide which products and services they purchase rather than be herded in the direction that would be most damaging to world peace and harmony. Competition is good.
Economic growth would tumble head over heals like a snowball growing in size, picking up debris and becoming larger than life in a downward cycle reflective of what’s happening on Wall Street and other investment vehicles – crash and boom.
It makes little sense to divert infrastructure funds from rebuilding deteriorating roads, bridges and dams to construct what states may deem new and improved transportation routes. Both have merit but when money is limited it makes more sense to put unemployed workers on jobs that have been too long ignored and will eventually have catastrophic results on people’s lives.
There should be no delay with these upgrades. Over time, when structures crumble, costs increase and other traffic routes become overcrowded, adding travel time, wasting precious dollars on unnecessary fuel costs, spewing more green house gases into the atmosphere and having a negative affect on employee productivity as they put angry discussion with coworkers of more importance for mental stability than performing their job functions.
These changes need not be done strictly with American steel and other domestic materials.
Buy American was a patriotic theme of Barack Obama as he edged closer to his eventual election victory. No sooner had he given his acceptance speech than I heard people talking about “eight years”. I was appalled at their expectation that he will actually take such miraculous actions to bring America back to its historical place as the land of good and plenty.
Obama will have to prove his worth during the next forty some months before I decide which box I’ll mark in the 2012 presidential election. I want he and the Democratic Party to show their professed bipartisanship theme just as much as Republicans.
More important, consumers should to decide which products and services they purchase rather than be herded in the direction that would be most damaging to world peace and harmony. Competition is good.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
TARP, ARRP and HARP
We Floridians are all too familiar with “tarp”, especially during summer months when hurricane force winds rip off shingles from rooftops and large sheets of the bright blue canvas are tacked over leaks to protect the inside of the home from additional damages. It takes weeks, even months, for an insurance company to assess the extent and dollar value of a loss.
Tarp is a makeshift remedy with no guarantee that there won’t still be scars on a structure, such as mold or mud-flooding, that aren’t covered by that hefty insurance premium. To make matters worse, if you’re like most people, your savings are pretty much nonexistent and your credit cards are maxed out and you don’t qualify for additional short-term loans. Tarp isn’t the answer to your troubles.
TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) has proven to be pretty much the same. The initial disbursement of the $700B government investment of taxpayer dollars was virtually wasted with the cash infusion to banks. The banking industry was given a blanket policy whereby their misdealing was covered by shoddy government workmanship.
The remaining $350B from TARP is being held in escrow with the Obama Administration in a quandary as to how to safely disburse the money without being snookered again by financial institutions. Instead of sparking up loans, banks want to be left alone to fan a smoke screen that will leave the economy smoldering for years and no assurance that in the end there won’t eventually be a raging firestorm of depressing proportions. This isn’t meant to discredit President Obama; it’s just a plain and simple belief that no one really knows what to do. It’s all guesswork.
Now we’re looking head-on at another program, ARRP (American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan), which is too much of a sound-alike to TARP. It’s not a bad omen though, with over $800B of funds to assist in resolving the somersaults of the worsening recession. Its effect on the economic meltdown isn’t likely to be enough to make an immediate difference to corporate or individual financial shortfalls.
For eight years, Democrats too easily played patsy to Bush politics. They had no backbone from the very start of the war in Iraq, doing their part to make billions of dollars available to keep the military ball rolling on foreign oil. Eventually, they tried to backtrack and admit it was a mistake but the alternative at the time was to confront a Republican-controlled Congress and be accused of being unpatriotic, even traitors.
To the very end, Democrats pledged taxpayer money by failing to properly earmark the initial $350B of TARP.
By the end of the Bush reign of errors, most Americans conceded Iraq was poorly planned and much too expensive. Heck, last year the Iraqi government had a surplus of $79B of what can be called as an American taxpayer relief fund. Iraq got a pretty darn good return on American monetary “investments” that cost us anywhere from $600B (Pentagon), $1T to $2T (Congressional Budget Office) or $3T (Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia University Professor, 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics, and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize). It’s kinda like what happened on the home front - trillions of dollars were lost to Wall Street.
The blame game is fairly pointless, although George “The Scourge” Bush is the primary culprit with his commandant-in-chief attitude, convincing every American that they too can become a homeowner. The resultant excesses of lackey lending institutions helped create the 10-digit budget deficit, a dollar figure that makes no sense.
And yet, Republicans in general are proving themselves to be afflicted with same-minded ideas with a rehash of the monetary policies of the past eight years. When the House passed the $819B stimulus package, Republicans in unison barked up the wrong money tree with their insistence that tax cuts and reduced spending would be an appropriate action to stimulate the economy. It was probably a token stance of solidarity – Senate Republicans will likely give passage to ARRP.
The National Republican Party is way out there in right field, no pitcher, no catcher, just a shortstop with Democrats hitting one left field hit after another. And yet, red and blue states alike are already making plans to spend their share of relief funds. Just how many friends (voters) do Republicans think they’ll make with such game plans?
Which leads me to suggest that any recovery package that Republicans might drum up would be labeled HARP (Hapless Anemic Republican Program). Let’s lay that idea to rest and canvas such a leaky premise with an oversized blanket of tarp.
Tarp is a makeshift remedy with no guarantee that there won’t still be scars on a structure, such as mold or mud-flooding, that aren’t covered by that hefty insurance premium. To make matters worse, if you’re like most people, your savings are pretty much nonexistent and your credit cards are maxed out and you don’t qualify for additional short-term loans. Tarp isn’t the answer to your troubles.
TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) has proven to be pretty much the same. The initial disbursement of the $700B government investment of taxpayer dollars was virtually wasted with the cash infusion to banks. The banking industry was given a blanket policy whereby their misdealing was covered by shoddy government workmanship.
The remaining $350B from TARP is being held in escrow with the Obama Administration in a quandary as to how to safely disburse the money without being snookered again by financial institutions. Instead of sparking up loans, banks want to be left alone to fan a smoke screen that will leave the economy smoldering for years and no assurance that in the end there won’t eventually be a raging firestorm of depressing proportions. This isn’t meant to discredit President Obama; it’s just a plain and simple belief that no one really knows what to do. It’s all guesswork.
Now we’re looking head-on at another program, ARRP (American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan), which is too much of a sound-alike to TARP. It’s not a bad omen though, with over $800B of funds to assist in resolving the somersaults of the worsening recession. Its effect on the economic meltdown isn’t likely to be enough to make an immediate difference to corporate or individual financial shortfalls.
For eight years, Democrats too easily played patsy to Bush politics. They had no backbone from the very start of the war in Iraq, doing their part to make billions of dollars available to keep the military ball rolling on foreign oil. Eventually, they tried to backtrack and admit it was a mistake but the alternative at the time was to confront a Republican-controlled Congress and be accused of being unpatriotic, even traitors.
To the very end, Democrats pledged taxpayer money by failing to properly earmark the initial $350B of TARP.
By the end of the Bush reign of errors, most Americans conceded Iraq was poorly planned and much too expensive. Heck, last year the Iraqi government had a surplus of $79B of what can be called as an American taxpayer relief fund. Iraq got a pretty darn good return on American monetary “investments” that cost us anywhere from $600B (Pentagon), $1T to $2T (Congressional Budget Office) or $3T (Joseph Stiglitz, Columbia University Professor, 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics, and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize). It’s kinda like what happened on the home front - trillions of dollars were lost to Wall Street.
The blame game is fairly pointless, although George “The Scourge” Bush is the primary culprit with his commandant-in-chief attitude, convincing every American that they too can become a homeowner. The resultant excesses of lackey lending institutions helped create the 10-digit budget deficit, a dollar figure that makes no sense.
And yet, Republicans in general are proving themselves to be afflicted with same-minded ideas with a rehash of the monetary policies of the past eight years. When the House passed the $819B stimulus package, Republicans in unison barked up the wrong money tree with their insistence that tax cuts and reduced spending would be an appropriate action to stimulate the economy. It was probably a token stance of solidarity – Senate Republicans will likely give passage to ARRP.
The National Republican Party is way out there in right field, no pitcher, no catcher, just a shortstop with Democrats hitting one left field hit after another. And yet, red and blue states alike are already making plans to spend their share of relief funds. Just how many friends (voters) do Republicans think they’ll make with such game plans?
Which leads me to suggest that any recovery package that Republicans might drum up would be labeled HARP (Hapless Anemic Republican Program). Let’s lay that idea to rest and canvas such a leaky premise with an oversized blanket of tarp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)