I feel like the frog that is placed in the pan of cool water which is slowly heated. I will not jump out because I feel comfortable. If I had been plunked into the pan of heated water, I would have bolted out of the pan without thought.
The pan in my analogy is the United States and Obama is slowly turning up the heat. We have seen the takeover of banks, autos and now the health care of America. Don't be fooled, this health care plan is just the first step to nationalization which I predict will happen either before 2014 or just afterward. There are two reasons for my negativity. First, the plan's penalty for not having insurance is meaningless. Rationally, would you rather pay a $695 penalty or $1200 per year for insurance? Most would rather pay the penalty especially since I can get insurance anytime I get sick or hurt. Remember there is no pre-existing clause after September. So I get sick, I go to the insurance company or cooperative of my choice and say "give me some of that insurance" and they have to. What is the incentive to purchase insurance when you are not
sick?
Employers also will do the math. Do they provide health insurance for their employees which might cost the corporation $7000-$12000 or more per year or pay the penalty of $2000? If the corporation does provide the insurance, their employees can go to the insurance companies or cooperatives and get their coverage. From a purely economic analysis, the companies are going to do what is in the best interests of the stockholders which is not to provide insurance but to pay the penalty.
Secondly, employer paid insurance will drop off significantly in the next 4 years to a point that Congress will wake to the horror that most people are using the cooperatives and/or personally owned insurance. To remain profitable, largely due to the lack of screening for pre-existing issues, the premium increases for all insurance will rise by double digits. To answer complaints by the populace Congress will declare the experiment of a quasi government/insurance company solution a failure and to declare that "we must control costs and the only entity that can do that is the government."
Whereupon Congress will create an American Health Plan entirely run and administered by the government. All those entities who bought into the current health plan namely AARP, the insurance companies, hospitals and doctors will lose their power and will be dictated to by the government. The heat in the pan just went up some more.
Agree? Disagree?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
November Elections--Another View
I had just posted the previous article and into my email box pops this article. Yes, it is great when I find others who are thinking "outside the box" and most importantly that agree with me!! However, I may not be the only looney toon out there when it comes to this Administration. I hope that I am 100% WRONG! Time will tell.
An open letter to America from Aaron Zelman,
Are Politicians Even Worried About The 2010 Elections?
An open letter to America from Aaron Zelman,
Founder and Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
To Those Who Care:
This letter is my personal opinion, and is not meant to reflect the viewpoint of JPFO or its members.
Since the election of Barack Obama, Congress has twice blatantly demonstrated its total lack of concern for the will of the American people. First, the mind boggling and completely secret bank bailouts, and now the passage of so-called “health care reform”.
Sharing some of my present thoughts with you would have seemed overly alarmist on the day Obama was sworn into office. But now? Now there are urgent questions that must be asked.
Now there are urgent questions that must be asked.
With a few laudable exceptions, Senators and Representatives in Washington D.C. do not seem to care about the upcoming elections in November of this year. With a less than eleven percent approval rating from their constituency, these politicians, in normal times, would be cringing at the thought of going home to their own States and Districts to face the wrath of a furious American public.
But look how these arrogant politicians are behaving. They don’t seem to care. Were elections held tomorrow the bums would be tossed out … by the truckload.
And so, the question must be asked: Are there even going to be elections in 2010? And, if there are, will they be honest?
Are there even going to be elections in 2010?
I repeat: On the day of Obama’s occupation of the White House this question would have been the fodder of no one but the most hardened and cynical “conspiracy theorists”.
But this Obama administration, and the Congress he dragged in with him, rival, and perhaps even surpass, the sweeping socialistic change in American life that FDR’s “New Deal”, and LBJ’s “Great Society” instigated. Two years ago, describing what has taken place in this nation recently would have been waved off as the wildest of fiction.
Two years ago, describing what has taken place in this nation recently would have been waved off as the wildest of fiction.
Along with my concern for the 2010 elections, I’ll list some other pertinent questions that can no longer be labeled irrelevant or fanciful:
1. Why is our military spread all over the world right now? These are loyal men and women who most rigidly hold to fundamental American values. They have the will and weapons training to defend these values against all enemies “foreign and domestic”. But now they are dispersed to places like Afghanistan and Iraq. To bring “democracy” to Islam? Additionally, there are hundreds of U.S. military bases in foreign lands around the globe, few of which serve any demonstrable vital purpose.
Why is our military spread all over the world right now?
The explanation given is that they are “fighting for us”. But might it be more appropriately reasoned that they are effectively being prevented from fighting for us (and with us) … right here in America, should that terrible possibility arise?
2. Why are our local police being wooed and seduced with sophisticated military hardware by federal agencies like Homeland Security, the FBI, and BATFE? The “war on drugs” has been the excuse for this militarization of our police departments, but why is there such emphasis now given to “crowd control” weapons?
Why are our local police being wooed and seduced …
3. We now officially have no right to privacy while speaking on a cell phone. How has this immense attack on our Fourth Amendment protection from government incursion into our lives been achieved? Again, there is always an excuse. In this case it is “terrorists”. But what was wrong with the due process procedure of obtaining a lawful search warrant? Have the American people at large become the enemy?
Have the American people at large become the enemy
4. When will the other boot drop on the Internet? Australia has already instituted massive censorship. France is stepping right into line. Is everyone who’d like privacy in their personal communications and web research a kiddie porn purveyor, or a “hate criminal”, or a drug dealer, or a “terrorist”?
When will the other boot drop on the Internet?
5. How long can the Second Amendment remain relevant when our military and police forces keep getting equipped with hi-tech “crowd control” weapons that are prohibited to the rest of us? The Second Amendment was created in recognition of a G-d* (see:footnote) given right to preserve one’s life, and to be a defense against government-gone-bad. Why this escalating domestic “arms race” against the armed citizenry of America? Check out this interesting device.
6. Vast detention camps are being built on U.S. soil. See: New York Times ,and Fox News. Notice the tricky use of the word “immigration” in these stories.
Why has the government been at all secretive about this? Why not just come out and tell us what is being done for our protection and security in case of a bio or nuke attack on an American city?
Why has the government been at all secretive about this?
During the Cold War, civil defense signs pointed out the way to every local bomb shelter. School kids took tours of our missile defense installations. Why keep the location of relocation camps a secret? It instills deep suspicion instead of healthy confidence.
7. What kind of suicidal lunacy allows Islamic Jihadists to come here and get a foothold in our nation? Political correctness will crush us. Why are these America haters even allowed off the plane or across the border? And why aren’t they being profiled and deported by the shipload?
What kind of suicidal lunacy allows Islamic Jihadists to come here and get a foothold in our nation?
8. What do you call ten million illegal aliens in America? Why can’t we call it what it is? It’s an invasion.
Look around. Any American in their right mind has the right to ask what is going on, and not be labeled a “racist”. Our nation is being given away right under our noses. Does anyone else see this? And, it is pretty obvious that the Obama cabal plans to grant all illegal aliens amnesty…and the right to vote. See Washington Times.
Why can’t we call it what it is? It’s an invasion.
9. Why hasn’t computer vote counting been completely abolished in America? The Pentagon’s computers have been hacked. The FBI’s computers have been hacked. The Social Security Administration’s computers have been hacked. But we are supposed to assume that vote counting computers cannot be hacked? What is wrong with hand counted paper ballots? So what if it takes three days to finalize election results? So what?
Why hasn’t computer vote counting been completely abolished in America?
This one is particularly troubling to me. This has happened in America before. See: "Battle of Athens, Tennessee". Because if elections (along with bogus opinion polls that legitimize the staged outcome) become simply a form of cyber social engineering, the ballot box doesn’t mean a thing anymore. At that point, the only recourse we have left is ……
At that point, the only recourse we have left is…
We don’t have time to wait for the 2010 elections to begin our retrieval of the freedom ground we have lost. We must use any and all forms of lawful pressure that can be brought to bear against the leftists who have plunged us into this immense tar pit. They must be reminded of the mistake they have made every minute of their waking lives. They must be reminded that there is a price they will now start paying. Taking a hint from their own guru, Saul Alinsky, we now must “target” them ruthlessly. It doesn’t start in November…it starts now.
It doesn’t start in November…it starts now.
In order to initiate a change in the flow of events, seeds must be planted in people’s minds. In many ways this is a battle for the hearts and minds of our friends, families and neighbors. It is a painful realization, but our complacency is the root cause of what is happening. So do something for Freedom each day:
♦ First, circulate this letter to everyone you know.
♦ Understand the liberty you are losing! JPFO has the Bill of Rights in fifteen languages. The English version has a layman’s explanation of the legalese. Make sure you share this information with others.
♦ Understand the ultimate dangers of “gun control”. Visit JPFO’s “Gun Control/Genocide Chart”. Realize that Obama and his minions would see you completely unarmed. There can now be no question that this is their goal. A socialist takeover of America is happening before our eyes.
♦ Use JPFO’s electronic handbills. They put the heat on our enemies. They can be circulated as you wish. If you have thoughtful ideas for an electronic handbill or cartoon, let me hear from you.
♦ In conversation with friends, speak out! This nation wasn’t born in silence. It was firebrands who brought freedom to America. To get in touch with your real American roots, read Patrick Henry’s famous speech.
Then think about this one: If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or James Madison came back to life, are you enough of an American that they’d break bread with you?
I will close with a quote from Sir Winston Churchill. All freedom loving Americans should somberly contemplate these words:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Wake up America. Wake up now!
Sincerely,
Aaron Zelman, Founder and Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
p.s. I’d like to hear your comments and thoughts, so that I may share them with others who care.
* Out of respect, observant Jews do not use the name of the Almighty in secular texts.
Suggested reading. Here are two very articulate insights into what has happened to us: "Destroying America from Within" and "American Tyranny".
2010 Elections--Are They Going To Be Held?
I wrote this article in January and am posting it now in light of the health care bill passage. I was amazed that so many Democratic Representatives and Senators would not listen to their constituents who opposed the bill. Was there a reason? Did they feel they knew better than their voters or did they know there was no downside for them to vote for the bill? If they knew there would be elections in the fall, would their vote have been different?
What is your opinion?
What is your opinion?
2010-A Year of Infamy
Tom Vorenberg
January 7, 2010
The recent decisions by Senators Dodd and Dorgan as well as Governor Bill Ritter of Colorado not to seek re-election must give all Democrats pause. Do these guys really see a bloodbath coming and if so, what does that mean for the legacy of President Barack Obama? The answer is that it means nothing. Either there will be no elections in November or if we do, they will be irrelevant.
You are probably thinking—What….. are you crazy? We have had elections every two years since the country was founded, right? Well my friends, it will not happen this time.
No pundits or commentators are looking at this possibility. They are not imagining the un-imaginable. No one is thinking “outside” the traditional American political lines. Just as we could not imagine people flying planes into buildings, we cannot imagine anything happening in our political system that has never happened before
The current administration came to power by pledging to be the most open, honest and up front that we have ever seen. However, in practice we see the back door deals and absolute lack of transparency. By many measures it has been one of the worst we have ever seen. And this is what we know about. It is scary to think what might have been missed. So how do I get from here to no or meaningless elections?
The Obama Administration believes it is empowered to do whatever it takes regardless of prevailing laws or precedent. We have seen the trampling of bankruptcy and dealer franchise laws that occurred in the case of GM and Chrysler. Today, it was reported that Secretary of the Treasury Gaithner told AIG not to report on the special deal they were getting from the Fed even though it was in essence a bailout of the major banks and contravened SEC regulations.
Laws, which had been on the books for years, were merely shunted aside to do what the Administration wanted. Whether you feel these companies should have been saved is an issue about which we might argue, however, they were saved but at what future cost. If the Administration can terminate laws and make special deals, what else could it do?
President Obama came to office with the “mandate” of 53% of the population who believed they were voting for a person who would change America. What that change meant, most could not verbalize, however, it was going to be different. So what is happening now? His poll numbers are well under 50%. He also has the distinction of being the first President who had angry protestors (tea-baggers) in the streets on April 15th, which was less than two and a half months after his inauguration.
And now, Democrats across the nation are deciding not to run for re-election or in the case of Representative Parker Griffith of Alabama, changing parties. This is not a good sign for someone who wants to advance his program and get himself re-elected in three years.
Should the upcoming election have the disastrous results that appear to be on the horizon, what would happen to President Obama’s program? Could he get it passed if the House was Republican? One would think it would be significantly tougher. So what is Obama to do?
The tea leaves in the bottom of my cup say there are two alternatives. The first is for the President to accept the decision of the American people. Work hard to get critical Representatives and Senators re-elected and then work across the aisle to bring the necessary Republicans on board to get his program passed. I would call this the traditional approach. Clinton had to do that after 1994. It means moving to the political center and governing from there. This, however, would require Mr. Obama to give up on many of his ultimate goals of “changing” America. Would he be willing to do that? Would his ego allow it?
President Obama is a man that believes that for him to succeed as President, he must pass his program. In his mind, it does not matter that the citizens do not approve or want his program. He knows better. Recent polls have indicated that less than one third of the public wants health care as it is currently being proposed. Even prominent Democrats like former Governor and DNC head Howard Dean are not in favor of the plan. Does that stop him? Absolutely not, in his mind, it is the best thing for America. So how does he get his program passed when the Democrats do not control the House and Senate?
It would require an event, a traumatic catalyst that could be used to focus the American people and Congress on the need for immediate Presidential action. It could be a financial crisis that plunges the economy into depression or a massive terrorist attack against the country. Either of these or a number of other events could be used to bring the country together as 9/11 did. A President at this time in history could get anything passed by Congress. Political bickering would go away as we are told that we must all stand behind our President.
With most other men, this would not be an issue. We could depend on the President to make decisions that would be in the best interests of the country like Roosevelt in 1941 or Lincoln during the Civil War. Both of these Presidents presided at times of war and victory in that war took precedence over everything else. However, with President Obama it is different. Yes, we are at war, however, in the midst of war (and economic distress), he has proposed the largest increase in domestic spending. This occurs after taking over the banks and car companies. His appetite for government control is immense and government control of everything is a significant part of his program.
Internationally, in the past year, President Obama has shown his distaste for America whether it was in his speeches in Cairo and Germany, his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize (for what accomplishments?), and his allowing Interpol to interview Americans in the United States and not to have them afforded the rights citizens are granted by the Constitution.
Domestically, he has increased the monitoring of communications within the United States. This expanded monitoring includes calls within the country and not only those, which involved foreign countries, which had been the rule under the Bush Administration. The Administration also has had legislation introduced to control the Internet and in “times of emergency” to shut down this form of communication.
By his actions, President Obama has shown that he cannot be trusted to lead this country during or after a national emergency. His reaction would be to seize the opportunity as in the words of his Chief of Staff, Rham Emanuel, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste”
He will be to seize (yes, that is the word) the reins of power by either Presidential proclamation or by having Congress pass a law that gives him unlimited power.
Would this prevent elections from being held? Initially, elections might be delayed for a couple reasons. First, the argument would be made that an “emergency” exists and the President and Congress should not be distracted from the important work that needed to get done. Campaigning would be a distraction! Secondly and probably more important, to pass his program he would need a compliant Congress, one that would be dependable to follow the President’s lead. A new Congress might not be reliable.
New Congressional elections would bring new Representatives and Senators who would want to make their impact on the nations business. Additionally, if the majority of new Senators and Representatives were Republican, gridlock might result and the President’s program would not get any traction. Elections would not be good for the program.
With the President in total control, he could pass his program without much discussion or disagreement. Congressional grand standing would be meaningless, as he would have total control. He can successfully “change” America to his vision without any distraction.
Eventually the emergency would pass and the people would demand elections. However, what would be the effect of the President having the unlimited power he had either usurped or been granted? Could Congress be effective or would the traditional balance of power that had existed between the branches of government be forever damaged beyond repair? And most importantly, would the President relinquish the power he had received or taken? All are questions that thinking Americans should ponder.
This is one possibility in the world of many. We must think outside the “nine dots” and to contemplate the unimaginable. If not, we are allowing ourselves to be surprised when the unthinkable occurs. 9/11 should have taught us that we should not be comfortable with “what has always happened before.”
As the late radio talk host, Mark Scott used to say, “I love my country, but I fear my government.”
Let’s all hope that he was wrong..
2010-A Year of Infamy
Tom Vorenberg
January 7, 2010
The recent decisions by Senators Dodd and Dorgan as well as Governor Bill Ritter of Colorado not to seek re-election must give all Democrats pause. Do these guys really see a bloodbath coming and if so, what does that mean for the legacy of President Barack Obama? The answer is that it means nothing. Either there will be no elections in November or if we do, they will be irrelevant.
You are probably thinking—What….. are you crazy? We have had elections every two years since the country was founded, right? Well my friends, it will not happen this time.
No pundits or commentators are looking at this possibility. They are not imagining the un-imaginable. No one is thinking “outside” the traditional American political lines. Just as we could not imagine people flying planes into buildings, we cannot imagine anything happening in our political system that has never happened before
The current administration came to power by pledging to be the most open, honest and up front that we have ever seen. However, in practice we see the back door deals and absolute lack of transparency. By many measures it has been one of the worst we have ever seen. And this is what we know about. It is scary to think what might have been missed. So how do I get from here to no or meaningless elections?
The Obama Administration believes it is empowered to do whatever it takes regardless of prevailing laws or precedent. We have seen the trampling of bankruptcy and dealer franchise laws that occurred in the case of GM and Chrysler. Today, it was reported that Secretary of the Treasury Gaithner told AIG not to report on the special deal they were getting from the Fed even though it was in essence a bailout of the major banks and contravened SEC regulations.
Laws, which had been on the books for years, were merely shunted aside to do what the Administration wanted. Whether you feel these companies should have been saved is an issue about which we might argue, however, they were saved but at what future cost. If the Administration can terminate laws and make special deals, what else could it do?
President Obama came to office with the “mandate” of 53% of the population who believed they were voting for a person who would change America. What that change meant, most could not verbalize, however, it was going to be different. So what is happening now? His poll numbers are well under 50%. He also has the distinction of being the first President who had angry protestors (tea-baggers) in the streets on April 15th, which was less than two and a half months after his inauguration.
And now, Democrats across the nation are deciding not to run for re-election or in the case of Representative Parker Griffith of Alabama, changing parties. This is not a good sign for someone who wants to advance his program and get himself re-elected in three years.
Should the upcoming election have the disastrous results that appear to be on the horizon, what would happen to President Obama’s program? Could he get it passed if the House was Republican? One would think it would be significantly tougher. So what is Obama to do?
The tea leaves in the bottom of my cup say there are two alternatives. The first is for the President to accept the decision of the American people. Work hard to get critical Representatives and Senators re-elected and then work across the aisle to bring the necessary Republicans on board to get his program passed. I would call this the traditional approach. Clinton had to do that after 1994. It means moving to the political center and governing from there. This, however, would require Mr. Obama to give up on many of his ultimate goals of “changing” America. Would he be willing to do that? Would his ego allow it?
President Obama is a man that believes that for him to succeed as President, he must pass his program. In his mind, it does not matter that the citizens do not approve or want his program. He knows better. Recent polls have indicated that less than one third of the public wants health care as it is currently being proposed. Even prominent Democrats like former Governor and DNC head Howard Dean are not in favor of the plan. Does that stop him? Absolutely not, in his mind, it is the best thing for America. So how does he get his program passed when the Democrats do not control the House and Senate?
It would require an event, a traumatic catalyst that could be used to focus the American people and Congress on the need for immediate Presidential action. It could be a financial crisis that plunges the economy into depression or a massive terrorist attack against the country. Either of these or a number of other events could be used to bring the country together as 9/11 did. A President at this time in history could get anything passed by Congress. Political bickering would go away as we are told that we must all stand behind our President.
With most other men, this would not be an issue. We could depend on the President to make decisions that would be in the best interests of the country like Roosevelt in 1941 or Lincoln during the Civil War. Both of these Presidents presided at times of war and victory in that war took precedence over everything else. However, with President Obama it is different. Yes, we are at war, however, in the midst of war (and economic distress), he has proposed the largest increase in domestic spending. This occurs after taking over the banks and car companies. His appetite for government control is immense and government control of everything is a significant part of his program.
Internationally, in the past year, President Obama has shown his distaste for America whether it was in his speeches in Cairo and Germany, his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize (for what accomplishments?), and his allowing Interpol to interview Americans in the United States and not to have them afforded the rights citizens are granted by the Constitution.
Domestically, he has increased the monitoring of communications within the United States. This expanded monitoring includes calls within the country and not only those, which involved foreign countries, which had been the rule under the Bush Administration. The Administration also has had legislation introduced to control the Internet and in “times of emergency” to shut down this form of communication.
By his actions, President Obama has shown that he cannot be trusted to lead this country during or after a national emergency. His reaction would be to seize the opportunity as in the words of his Chief of Staff, Rham Emanuel, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste”
He will be to seize (yes, that is the word) the reins of power by either Presidential proclamation or by having Congress pass a law that gives him unlimited power.
Would this prevent elections from being held? Initially, elections might be delayed for a couple reasons. First, the argument would be made that an “emergency” exists and the President and Congress should not be distracted from the important work that needed to get done. Campaigning would be a distraction! Secondly and probably more important, to pass his program he would need a compliant Congress, one that would be dependable to follow the President’s lead. A new Congress might not be reliable.
New Congressional elections would bring new Representatives and Senators who would want to make their impact on the nations business. Additionally, if the majority of new Senators and Representatives were Republican, gridlock might result and the President’s program would not get any traction. Elections would not be good for the program.
With the President in total control, he could pass his program without much discussion or disagreement. Congressional grand standing would be meaningless, as he would have total control. He can successfully “change” America to his vision without any distraction.
Eventually the emergency would pass and the people would demand elections. However, what would be the effect of the President having the unlimited power he had either usurped or been granted? Could Congress be effective or would the traditional balance of power that had existed between the branches of government be forever damaged beyond repair? And most importantly, would the President relinquish the power he had received or taken? All are questions that thinking Americans should ponder.
This is one possibility in the world of many. We must think outside the “nine dots” and to contemplate the unimaginable. If not, we are allowing ourselves to be surprised when the unthinkable occurs. 9/11 should have taught us that we should not be comfortable with “what has always happened before.”
As the late radio talk host, Mark Scott used to say, “I love my country, but I fear my government.”
Let’s all hope that he was wrong..
Government Workers Earn More Than Private Sector
It has been reported several times regarding the disparity between government workers and the private sector. In Michigan, the state with the highest unemployment rate, the Legislature recently granted all employees of the State, a three percent increase in pay. To me that makes no sense. The State of Michigan is essentially bankrupt, has the highest unemployment in the country, has most of its young people leaving the state for ANY opportunity and has school districts dramatically cutting their budgets and the state employees get an increase. I think that is the definition of insanity. When is it going to end?
Friday, March 12, 2010
A Muslim's View of Britian's Future
Please view this clip. From the mouths of those who would like to "change" the world. Scary at best!
Are you just going to sit there and let it happen?
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2388.htm
Are you just going to sit there and let it happen?
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2388.htm
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
America's Voracious Financial Appetite
Today, Pat Buchanan writes about Senator Bunning's fine hour last week. At least one Senator knows what is going on! (If only the other 99 would wake up.) This letter should be sent to your Senators, we need to bring their incomptency to their attention.
THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW - March 9, 2010
Pitching for America
by Pat Buchanan
It was Father's Day, 1964, when the Phillies' Jim Bunning,
a father of seven, took the mound against the Mets.
Ninety pitches later, Bunning had struck out 10 and allowed
not one batter to reach first base. Twenty-seven up, 27
down. The first perfect game in 86 years in the National
League, and the finest hour of the Hall of Famer's baseball
career.
Beginning last week, Jim Bunning took the Senate floor for
five straight days to object to Harry Reid's call for
unanimous consent to waive through a $10 billion spending
bill. First, the Kentucky senator demanded, show me how
we're going to pay for it.
His own leadership abandoned Bunning. Susan Collins of
Maine assured the Senate and country that Republicans did
not back their colleague: "Senator Bunning's views do not
represent a majority of the caucus. It's important that
the American people understand that there is bipartisan
support for extending these vital programs."
Vital programs?
Had Bunning blocked rescue flights to Port au Prince or
Santiago, or ammunition for the Marines in Marja?
No. Bunning had held up for a couple of days a vote on a
$10 billion bill to extend unemployment benefits, make
payments to doctors under Medicare and extend satellite
TV to rural America. Reportedly, some 2,000 Transportation
Department workers were furloughed for a few days.
"If we cannot pay for a bill that all 100 senators
support," Bunning said, "how can we tell the American
people with a straight face that we will ever pay for
anything?"
Good question.
Indeed, the behavior of senators suggests that neither
party appreciates the depth of the crisis we are in or
the pain that will be required to get us out. Last week,
Bunning did more than any senator in many moons to raise
the consciousness of the country to the magnitude of the
deficit-debt crisis.
His taking to the barricades may have inconvenienced some,
but Bunning forced us all, briefly, to stare into the
chasm.
Consider. Congress this year will spend $1.6 trillion more
than it collects in revenue, with the largest outlays in
that FY 2010 budget for defense at $719 billion and Social
Security at $721 billion.
Thus, if the U.S. Government on Oct. 1, 2008, had shut down
the Pentagon and furloughed every soldier and civilian here
and around the world, and announced that it would not send
out a Social Security check for a full year to any of the
50 million retired and elderly, we would still be $160
billion short of balancing the budget. If you zeroed out
federal benefits to veterans for a full year, that, added
in, would bring us close.
Such is the magnitude of the fiscal crisis facing the
country.
To balance the budget this year would require a 43 percent
across-the-board cut in every category of federal spending
-- defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Homeland
Security, highways, etc. -- or, if one used taxes alone, a
72-percent increase in federal tax revenues.
Budget cuts of that magnitude are impossible. They would
cause a revolution. And any attempt at tax hikes of that
magnitude would drain off all available consumer capital
and hurl the economy into another Depression.
For the foreseeable future, then, this nation is going
deeper into debt.
And when Harry Reid and colleagues wave through yet another
$10 billion for unemployment checks and making sure farm
folks get yard dishes to see reruns of "The Sopranos,"
the United States must go to Beijing, Tokyo or Riyadh and
borrow the money.
That is the hole we are in.
And when one stares at some of those budget numbers, the
priorities of the Obama administration seem almost surreal.
In George W. Bush's last full year in office, we spent
$29 billion for "international affairs." The lion's share
of that was foreign aid. In FY 2011, the year for which
Congress has begun to budget, spending for international
affairs and foreign aid is to jump to $54 billion and
continue to surge through the Obama years.
What is the rationale for the United States, the world's
greatest debtor nation, putting itself deeper in debt to
China to send foreign aid to nations that will never repay
us and that vote habitually with China and against us in
the United Nations?
This city does not seem to grasp that the days of wine and
roses are over. We are not in the 1950s or 1960s anymore.
Then, we could throw open our markets to imports from the
world. Then, we could dish out foreign aid and fight wars
in Vietnam with 500,000 men, while maintaining 50,000
troops in Korea and 300,000 in Europe.
America is headed for a time when, like the British Empire,
she is going to have to make painful choices, or have them
forced upon us.
He may have been booed all last week, but Jim Bunning
pitched one of the best games of his career.
END OF Conservative Review
Copyright 2010 by NextEra Media. All rights reserved.
Please feel free to forward this, in its entirety, to others.
THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW - March 9, 2010
Pitching for America
by Pat Buchanan
It was Father's Day, 1964, when the Phillies' Jim Bunning,
a father of seven, took the mound against the Mets.
Ninety pitches later, Bunning had struck out 10 and allowed
not one batter to reach first base. Twenty-seven up, 27
down. The first perfect game in 86 years in the National
League, and the finest hour of the Hall of Famer's baseball
career.
Beginning last week, Jim Bunning took the Senate floor for
five straight days to object to Harry Reid's call for
unanimous consent to waive through a $10 billion spending
bill. First, the Kentucky senator demanded, show me how
we're going to pay for it.
His own leadership abandoned Bunning. Susan Collins of
Maine assured the Senate and country that Republicans did
not back their colleague: "Senator Bunning's views do not
represent a majority of the caucus. It's important that
the American people understand that there is bipartisan
support for extending these vital programs."
Vital programs?
Had Bunning blocked rescue flights to Port au Prince or
Santiago, or ammunition for the Marines in Marja?
No. Bunning had held up for a couple of days a vote on a
$10 billion bill to extend unemployment benefits, make
payments to doctors under Medicare and extend satellite
TV to rural America. Reportedly, some 2,000 Transportation
Department workers were furloughed for a few days.
"If we cannot pay for a bill that all 100 senators
support," Bunning said, "how can we tell the American
people with a straight face that we will ever pay for
anything?"
Good question.
Indeed, the behavior of senators suggests that neither
party appreciates the depth of the crisis we are in or
the pain that will be required to get us out. Last week,
Bunning did more than any senator in many moons to raise
the consciousness of the country to the magnitude of the
deficit-debt crisis.
His taking to the barricades may have inconvenienced some,
but Bunning forced us all, briefly, to stare into the
chasm.
Consider. Congress this year will spend $1.6 trillion more
than it collects in revenue, with the largest outlays in
that FY 2010 budget for defense at $719 billion and Social
Security at $721 billion.
Thus, if the U.S. Government on Oct. 1, 2008, had shut down
the Pentagon and furloughed every soldier and civilian here
and around the world, and announced that it would not send
out a Social Security check for a full year to any of the
50 million retired and elderly, we would still be $160
billion short of balancing the budget. If you zeroed out
federal benefits to veterans for a full year, that, added
in, would bring us close.
Such is the magnitude of the fiscal crisis facing the
country.
To balance the budget this year would require a 43 percent
across-the-board cut in every category of federal spending
-- defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Homeland
Security, highways, etc. -- or, if one used taxes alone, a
72-percent increase in federal tax revenues.
Budget cuts of that magnitude are impossible. They would
cause a revolution. And any attempt at tax hikes of that
magnitude would drain off all available consumer capital
and hurl the economy into another Depression.
For the foreseeable future, then, this nation is going
deeper into debt.
And when Harry Reid and colleagues wave through yet another
$10 billion for unemployment checks and making sure farm
folks get yard dishes to see reruns of "The Sopranos,"
the United States must go to Beijing, Tokyo or Riyadh and
borrow the money.
That is the hole we are in.
And when one stares at some of those budget numbers, the
priorities of the Obama administration seem almost surreal.
In George W. Bush's last full year in office, we spent
$29 billion for "international affairs." The lion's share
of that was foreign aid. In FY 2011, the year for which
Congress has begun to budget, spending for international
affairs and foreign aid is to jump to $54 billion and
continue to surge through the Obama years.
What is the rationale for the United States, the world's
greatest debtor nation, putting itself deeper in debt to
China to send foreign aid to nations that will never repay
us and that vote habitually with China and against us in
the United Nations?
This city does not seem to grasp that the days of wine and
roses are over. We are not in the 1950s or 1960s anymore.
Then, we could throw open our markets to imports from the
world. Then, we could dish out foreign aid and fight wars
in Vietnam with 500,000 men, while maintaining 50,000
troops in Korea and 300,000 in Europe.
America is headed for a time when, like the British Empire,
she is going to have to make painful choices, or have them
forced upon us.
He may have been booed all last week, but Jim Bunning
pitched one of the best games of his career.
END OF Conservative Review
Copyright 2010 by NextEra Media. All rights reserved.
Please feel free to forward this, in its entirety, to others.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Fears of a Second Crash Are Real, but Congress Lacks "Appetite" For Action
Danny Schechter writes today in Media Channel about the lack of government will to do the right thing now.
What Are They Waiting For? Whither Financial Reforms?
What will it take? What are they waiting for? What part of the reality of a systemic crisis that will get worse don’t they get?
How is it possible that after near three years of economic turmoil, with possibly hundreds of TRILLIONs down the rabbit hole—not that anyone is counting or apparently can count—that the geniuses who run our economy still don’t “get” that the sh*t has already hit the fan? How many more jobs and homes have to be lost?
Michael Moore is not the only one predicting a second crash. Paul Krugman is all out of words excoriating the Administration for its tepidness. Nouriel Roubini, who forecast the first meltdown, now says we are in serious danger of a “double-dip,” a lethal combo of rising inflation and deeper recession.
Woe to us if we can’t see the handwriting on so many walls.
The people in-the-know know that nothing has been fixed, that all the stimuli have barely stimulated, that the new jobs bill will never generate the number of jobs that are needed, and that the banks have obscenely been raking in oodles of money thanks to all the financing taxpayers pumped into their coffers.
Even as the Obamaites finally get around to proposing a measure to break up the big banks and erode the notion of financial institutions being too big to fail, we have the New York Times telling us that Congress does not have the “appetite”—that’s the word they use—to tackle even modest financial reforms.
The “appetite” is missing. In the real world of appetites, food companies are recalling unsafe products every day because the food we eat is subjected to federal inspections. Not so for financial products.
The reason? Politics of course, but also the jillions that the financial services industry has “invested” in bill-killing, compromise-making, and just plain corrupting the legislative process.
This past week, the Roosevelt Institute sponsored a conference over at the Time Warner Center called “Make Markets Be Markets” (Makemarketsbemarkets.org), published a book of essays and heard from a who’s who in the world of influential economists and analysts who gave high powered presentations, one after another, each more lucid than the next.
There was enough brainpower in the room to save the economy, but, alas, no one seems to be listening. Some business media were there collecting sound bites, but the urgency of the warnings did not transcend the limits of the bubble of financial journalism.
For a long time, I wined about being ignored in not getting heard on the economic collapse, which of course, I am, but here were people with Nobel Prizes and PhDs and track records of making millions also being dissed and pissed.
Setting the stage was Joe Stiglitz, who won a Nobel Prize for his work, and who left the World Bank with disgust over what they do. Stiglitz should be in Obama’s cabinet. Instead, he is one of its critics.
The presentations started off with Simon Johnson, the former chief economist at the IMF, talking about the DOOM CYCLE—how we are just going around in cycles without really addressing the systemic nature of the crisis. He writes in the NY Times and on BaselineScenario.com, which you should read every day. He calls the cycle “unsustainable and crazy” and says that “the destructive power of the down-cycle will overwhelm the restorative ability of government like it did in 1929-31.”
Translation: Here we go again.
And then, there was the super-articulate Raj Date who says we have to get rid of Frannie Mae and Freddy Mac before they get rid of our housing market. His analysis was detailed and textured. His conclusion simple: “they must be eliminated.” What is the Obama Administration doing about this? Nada.
It got better when the only woman on the panel, Harvard’s Elizabeth Warren mesmerized the room. She has become a TV fixture because of how charming, honest and forthright she has been in defending consumers from the rip-offs that we are all menaced by. She is the chairperson of the House oversight committee on TARP and a leading advocate of an independent consumer protection agency. She is now watching as Senator Dodd and some of his GOP cronies try to bury it in the Federal Reserve Bank, a move that many of the conference criticized in light of the Fed’s history of doing so little to protect the rights of consumers.
After all the speakers presented their arguments, there were comments by George Soros, who also criticized the economics profession for missing the crisis, and businessman Jim Chanos who finally brought the discussion around to the presence of massive fraud and criminality in our financial markets. I spoke to that issue, which I have just written a book on and made a film about when I got a chance to ask a question.
All too quietly, Wall Street firms are being sued for their many transgressions. A study by Gary Null found that over $430 billion has been paid to victimized parties by Wall Street firms in over 1500 cases.
Some examples:
* Bank of America has spent $14.9 billion to settle 15 cases alleging various charges such as securities violations and mismanagement;
* Citigroup has spent over $13.9 billion to settle 12 cases alleging various charges including abusive lending practices and involvement in fraudulent activities;
* Merrill Lynch has spent $12.2 billion to settle cases involving various allegations including negligence and mismanagement of funds;
* Morgan Stanley has spent over $5 billion to settle 11 cases involving various allegations including failure to disclose material information to customers;
* Wachovia has spent over $9.5 billion to resolve allegations including misleading investors and conflicts of interest;
* UBS has spent $19.5 billion to settle 6 cases with various charges including misleading investors.
So much information is now out there, but to what effect? What more do we need to know?
There is a time for research and a time for advocacy, a time to try to lobby in the suites and a time for marching in the streets. Students on US campuses and workers in Greece have been battling the effects of the crisis.
It is now time to go after the causes.
The public is open to acting. The most recent Zogby poll reports:
# 32% of U.S. adults say they have ‘considered moving some or all of (their) banking from a large national bank to a community bank or credit union because (they) are unhappy with the policies or behavior of large national banks.’
# 14% have moved some of their banking in the past year from a large national bank to a community bank or credit union.
# 9% of all U.S. adults have moved some of their business from large national banks as a protest.
People are pissed, far angrier than the media lets on. The lines are being drawn. That hard rain is going to fall.
– News Dissector Danny Schechter is a blogger, author and filmmaker. His latest work is Plunder The Crime of Our Time on the financial crisis as a crime story (Plunderthecrimeofourtime.com)
What Are They Waiting For? Whither Financial Reforms?
What will it take? What are they waiting for? What part of the reality of a systemic crisis that will get worse don’t they get?
How is it possible that after near three years of economic turmoil, with possibly hundreds of TRILLIONs down the rabbit hole—not that anyone is counting or apparently can count—that the geniuses who run our economy still don’t “get” that the sh*t has already hit the fan? How many more jobs and homes have to be lost?
Michael Moore is not the only one predicting a second crash. Paul Krugman is all out of words excoriating the Administration for its tepidness. Nouriel Roubini, who forecast the first meltdown, now says we are in serious danger of a “double-dip,” a lethal combo of rising inflation and deeper recession.
Woe to us if we can’t see the handwriting on so many walls.
The people in-the-know know that nothing has been fixed, that all the stimuli have barely stimulated, that the new jobs bill will never generate the number of jobs that are needed, and that the banks have obscenely been raking in oodles of money thanks to all the financing taxpayers pumped into their coffers.
Even as the Obamaites finally get around to proposing a measure to break up the big banks and erode the notion of financial institutions being too big to fail, we have the New York Times telling us that Congress does not have the “appetite”—that’s the word they use—to tackle even modest financial reforms.
The “appetite” is missing. In the real world of appetites, food companies are recalling unsafe products every day because the food we eat is subjected to federal inspections. Not so for financial products.
The reason? Politics of course, but also the jillions that the financial services industry has “invested” in bill-killing, compromise-making, and just plain corrupting the legislative process.
This past week, the Roosevelt Institute sponsored a conference over at the Time Warner Center called “Make Markets Be Markets” (Makemarketsbemarkets.org), published a book of essays and heard from a who’s who in the world of influential economists and analysts who gave high powered presentations, one after another, each more lucid than the next.
There was enough brainpower in the room to save the economy, but, alas, no one seems to be listening. Some business media were there collecting sound bites, but the urgency of the warnings did not transcend the limits of the bubble of financial journalism.
For a long time, I wined about being ignored in not getting heard on the economic collapse, which of course, I am, but here were people with Nobel Prizes and PhDs and track records of making millions also being dissed and pissed.
Setting the stage was Joe Stiglitz, who won a Nobel Prize for his work, and who left the World Bank with disgust over what they do. Stiglitz should be in Obama’s cabinet. Instead, he is one of its critics.
The presentations started off with Simon Johnson, the former chief economist at the IMF, talking about the DOOM CYCLE—how we are just going around in cycles without really addressing the systemic nature of the crisis. He writes in the NY Times and on BaselineScenario.com, which you should read every day. He calls the cycle “unsustainable and crazy” and says that “the destructive power of the down-cycle will overwhelm the restorative ability of government like it did in 1929-31.”
Translation: Here we go again.
And then, there was the super-articulate Raj Date who says we have to get rid of Frannie Mae and Freddy Mac before they get rid of our housing market. His analysis was detailed and textured. His conclusion simple: “they must be eliminated.” What is the Obama Administration doing about this? Nada.
It got better when the only woman on the panel, Harvard’s Elizabeth Warren mesmerized the room. She has become a TV fixture because of how charming, honest and forthright she has been in defending consumers from the rip-offs that we are all menaced by. She is the chairperson of the House oversight committee on TARP and a leading advocate of an independent consumer protection agency. She is now watching as Senator Dodd and some of his GOP cronies try to bury it in the Federal Reserve Bank, a move that many of the conference criticized in light of the Fed’s history of doing so little to protect the rights of consumers.
After all the speakers presented their arguments, there were comments by George Soros, who also criticized the economics profession for missing the crisis, and businessman Jim Chanos who finally brought the discussion around to the presence of massive fraud and criminality in our financial markets. I spoke to that issue, which I have just written a book on and made a film about when I got a chance to ask a question.
All too quietly, Wall Street firms are being sued for their many transgressions. A study by Gary Null found that over $430 billion has been paid to victimized parties by Wall Street firms in over 1500 cases.
Some examples:
* Bank of America has spent $14.9 billion to settle 15 cases alleging various charges such as securities violations and mismanagement;
* Citigroup has spent over $13.9 billion to settle 12 cases alleging various charges including abusive lending practices and involvement in fraudulent activities;
* Merrill Lynch has spent $12.2 billion to settle cases involving various allegations including negligence and mismanagement of funds;
* Morgan Stanley has spent over $5 billion to settle 11 cases involving various allegations including failure to disclose material information to customers;
* Wachovia has spent over $9.5 billion to resolve allegations including misleading investors and conflicts of interest;
* UBS has spent $19.5 billion to settle 6 cases with various charges including misleading investors.
So much information is now out there, but to what effect? What more do we need to know?
There is a time for research and a time for advocacy, a time to try to lobby in the suites and a time for marching in the streets. Students on US campuses and workers in Greece have been battling the effects of the crisis.
It is now time to go after the causes.
The public is open to acting. The most recent Zogby poll reports:
# 32% of U.S. adults say they have ‘considered moving some or all of (their) banking from a large national bank to a community bank or credit union because (they) are unhappy with the policies or behavior of large national banks.’
# 14% have moved some of their banking in the past year from a large national bank to a community bank or credit union.
# 9% of all U.S. adults have moved some of their business from large national banks as a protest.
People are pissed, far angrier than the media lets on. The lines are being drawn. That hard rain is going to fall.
– News Dissector Danny Schechter is a blogger, author and filmmaker. His latest work is Plunder The Crime of Our Time on the financial crisis as a crime story (Plunderthecrimeofourtime.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)