Obama's Wreckovery Plan

The GOP produced this ad highlighting the inconsistencies in O's statements regarding the wreckovery package. It's a pretty good ad. Check out Hot Air for more on this.

Goldman-Sachs Web of Deceit

Just in case the whole ObamaCare thing isn't enough to make your blood boil, watch this breakdown of the controversy surrounding the bailouts and AIG/Goldman-Sachs, courtesy of Glenn Beck. One thing Glenn doesn't mention is that Goldman-Sachs is also widely believed to own the Fed. Is it just me, or is it insane that we entrust a private business to control the supply of money in our country, and that we don't even know who actually runs the Fed??? Are you kidding me? Anyway, enjoy this video. DISCLAIMER: You may want to wrap your head in duct tape before watching it, just in case.

Bill Whittle Issues Cali Beatdown

I just love this guy. Watch the following beatdown of politicians in California...and America, courtesy of Bill Whittle and PJTV.

Big Brother is Looming

I've spent most of my waking moments since 26 June thinking about that monstrosity of a bill known fondly as Cap-&-Tax that recently passed the House. What is especially frustrating about the passage of the bill (we'll get to the atrocities that are actually in the bill in a moment) is that not a single representative read the entire, completed bill. How could they, with the final 300 page amendment not being submitted until around 3a the morning it was voted on? Apparently those of us that think our representatives and senators should be held 100% accountable for what they vote on (meaning they should actually, oh I don't know, read the bill) are insane. Just ask House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.

Hoyer was responding to a question from CNSNews.com on whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote.

In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said.

Anyone with any shred of self-respect should be fuming right now. Our "representatives" mock us "common folk" at every turn. If it's not getting a speed-reader to read part of the porkulus bill, that it's claiming that Americans don't care about pork. There aren't words to explain how incensed I am.

Then there's the whole premise of the bill being based on "scientific" data that is still very questionable. The Obamanation would have you belief that the science is settled, but that is far from true. This bill attempts to regulate every aspect of our private lives (we'll cover that in a moment, too, just in case you think I'm blowing this out of proportion) based on the assumption that global warming and climate change are real and man-made. It strips us of our individual liberties, and the fact that the EPA suppressed a 98 page report by EPA senior research analyst Alan Carlin draws serious questions about climate change.

Carlin's report found "that global temperatures have declined for 11 years; that new research predicts Atlantic hurricanes will be unaffected; that there’s 'little evidence' that Greenland is shedding ice at expected levels; and that solar radiation has the largest single effect on the earth’s temperature." These findings are not what the administration wanted to get out right before the vote on climate change legislation.

The EPA justified suppressing this report by saying that Carlin is not a scientist. In her weekly column Michelle Malkin points out that "neither is Al Gore. Nor is environmental czar Carol Browner. Nor is cap-and-trade shepherd Nancy Pelosi." Carlin does, however, hold a B.S. in physics and has been with the EPA for 35 years.

So with regards to the bill itself, I've read bits and pieces of it (probably more than any single representative has). AIP has a great article on one particular section (304) that should make you tremble with rage. Let me just highlight a couple of other mildly interesting sections of the bill.

- This bill will creates a new energy tax (remember, Obama himself claimed that energy prices would necessarily skyrocket under Cap-&-Tax) at a time when America is facing one of the worst recessions (bordering on depressions) in history.

- This bill will force jobs overseas. The Obamanation claims it create all these wonderful "green jobs," windmill farms, solar panels and so on (ask Spain how that's working out for them). Meanwhile, coal plants will be pushed out of business as will refineries and many small businesses. We will lose many jobs overseas, and if we try to impose some kind of import tariff to prevent that from happening, we will successfully start a trade war at a time when we manufacture absolutely nothing, and consume everything. The Heritage Foundation predicts that this bill will "destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs."

- There are light bulb restrictions (no more than 60 watts in your candelabra); in fact there's a whole section that deals with lamps.

- If you decide to build a new home, it must meet new and specific energy requirements. If you decide to sell your existing home, a federal inspector must inspect your home, determine it's energy rating, and if your home is found to be unacceptable then you must retrofit and make changes before you will be able to sell, or have your home official labeled and registered as non-compliant and non-energy efficient (this is the infamous section 304 that you absolutely must read).

- There are "scientific based measurements outlining the species and minimum distance required between trees planted...in addition to the minimum required distance to be maintained between such trees and building foundations, air conditioning units, driveways and walkways...". Yes, you read that right. The government is going to tell you what kind of trees you can plant, and where you are going to plant them.

- There's a section dealing with outdoor lighting that determines the kind of landscape lights, lights in your swimming pool, lights on artwork and other architectural lighting that you are allowed to install. The federal government is going to tell you what wattage that light can be and how many you can have.

- The government will regulate water dispensers, hot tubs and other appliances. They'll regulate water usage and wood stoves (in fact, any wood stove that does not meet regulation must be "destroyed and recycled").

- The bill dictates where plugs for your hybrid cars must be, and deals extensively with transportation.

There is precious little time to stop this. The democrats already possess that crucial 60th vote in the senate, are now filibuster-proof. That means that we must get democratic senators to defect to prevent this egregious trampling of our individual liberties to pass. Contact your senators, and make sure they know you strongly and vehemently oppose this bill. Unless you like paying higher taxes and doing exactly what you're told. Then you don't have to do anything.

Wimpynomics

Remember Wimpy, the loveable character from Popeye? Well, California (and soon the rest of America) is taking a page straight out of the Wimpy's Guide to Economic Insovlency. I call it "Wimpynomics." Here's how it works:

California is mired in a budget deficit of more than $24 billion, and is now planning on issuing $3.3 billion in IOU's in July alone. Sucks for Californians. So what's the larger implication? With Cap-&-Tax having passed the House, and Obamacare looming, then we could very well end up paying for it with IOU's worth less than California's.

Obama has bet everything on passing health care this year. The publicity surrounding the California debt fiasco almost assures his resounding defeat.

It takes years and years to make a mess as terrible as the California debacle, but the recipe is simple. All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors.

California has engaged in an orgy of spending, but, compared with our federal government, its legislators should feel chaste. The California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.

The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S. I would imagine that he would be the intergalactic champion as well, if we could gather the data on deficits on other worlds. Obama has taken George W. Bush’s inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.

The Obama administration has no shame, and is willing to abandon reason altogether to achieve its short-term political goals. Ronald Reagan ran up big deficits in part because he believed that his tax cuts would produce economic growth, and ultimately pay for themselves. He may well have been excessively optimistic about the merits of tax cuts, but at least he had a story.

Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth. Nobody believes that it will pay for itself. Everyone understands that higher spending today begets higher spending tomorrow. That means that his economic strategy simply doesn’t add up.

But there may be some signs that there is still some semblance of sanity in Washington. Obamacare will cost more than $1 trillion (yes, trillion with a T). Opposition to the plan is now spreading to moderate Democrats (and should spread to any politician gives one iota about keeping their job). The only foreseeable way to pay for this thing is to increase/implement new taxes of some kind, and any option involving taxes is going to be widely unpopular (we won't mention Obama's commitment to not increase taxes for those making under $250,000/yr). So that leaves basically two options. Either health care reform fails completely, or Congress passes some weak bill that carries the name "health care", but doesn't actually do anything. With the Democrats now gaining the 60th vote in the Senate, the latter option is the most likely.

h/t: Bloomberg

Another Day, Another Lie

Chalk another lie up in the "Obama Opens his Mouth" column. Man, it's exhausting trying to keep up with them all. Maybe the Whitehouse should spend a little more time censuring Obama, and not worry so much at Bozo the VP. On 06 July, Obama gave an interview to the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, during which he said that the US "import[s] more oil today than ever before." With all due respect, Mr. President, that's not exactly accurate. Not even close.


This chart is from the US Energy and Information Administration, and clearly shows that oil imports peaked in Nov 2005, and have steadily decreased since then. I wonder at what point Americans will start holding His Holiness accountable for what comes out of his mouth.

h/t: factcheck

Shifting Polls

Rasmussem Reports has some interesting polls available today:

The presidential approval index has been steadily falling over the last couple of months, and is now at a -2 (more people strongly disapprove than strongly approve).

69% of Americans think that the stimulus has either hurt or not helped the economy.

74% trust their own judgment more than Congress' when it comes to economic issues. (Gee, you don't think the Crap & Tax bill had anything to do with that, do you?

Only 37% believe the country is headed in the right direction.

76% think that the government is likely to waste stimulus money. And yet we're looking at another stimulus package looming on the horizon.

So, will all this public "discontent" actually translate into something substantive? If history is any indication, the answer will be no. The 2010 congressional elections will see the same corrupt politicians (republican and democrat alike) weasel their way back into office. Will Americans care enough to be informed and vote for a candidate who actually represents them? We'll just have to wait and see. I still have a small amount of faith in the American spirit, but that diminishes with each election cycle.

Presenting: Arnie the Amazing!

Step right up! Step right up, folks! Be the first to witness the magnificent! The incredible! Arnie the Amazing Magician! That's right, folks, not only can he eliminate robots, aliens, barbarians, and about 500 Colombians, but he'll eliminate California's budget deficit right before your very eyes! "How?", you might ask. Well, my friends, a good magician never reveals his tricks. But since Arnie isn't a very good magician (or governor, for that matter), I'll let you in on a little secret: it's called...shhh...budget magic! Here's how it works:

Need an extra $2.3 billion? Easy — just make people pay more of next year's taxes this year, by increasing paycheck withholdings and estimated tax payments.

How about selling a chunk of a state insurance fund? That's good for a cool $1 billion on paper, even if experts say it's highly uncertain the sale would fetch that much, if it can be executed at all.

Expenses still too high? Here's a really creative one: Push back state employees' monthly paychecks in June 2010 by a single day — from June 30 to July 1 — and thus onto the next fiscal year's books. Just like that, $1.2 billion "saved."

This virtual ponzi scheme would shave an estimated $10 billion off California's $24 billion budget shortfall. Wow! What a wonderfully marvelous idea! How could this possibly go wrong? Why didn't anything think of this earlier? Wait, maybe because it's illegal!

Edward Chiang, a certified public accountant in San Jose, said it would be hard for [the Governor] to get away with the kind of financial accounting coming out of Sacramento.

"It's borderline kiting," said Chiang, referring to an accounting term that Webster's defines as "to get money or credit by using bad checks."

"Basically you use one receipt to pay for another and keep shifting it down the line, kind of like what Bernie Madoff did," he explained. "You can keep borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, as long as you don't run out of Peters." (Chiang added that he wasn't accusing anyone, particularly our muscle-bound governor, of doing anything illegal.)

Ultimately, Sacramento's number-crunchers believe an economic recovery will rescue the state from a Madoff-like fiasco. When the economy picks up, the thinking goes, tax revenue will shoot up and allow California to square its expenses with actual revenue.

"The odds are, there is a point during the next budget year that (revenue) will bottom out," said former Assemblyman John Laird, D-Santa Cruz.

So they're betting that all their economic woes will magically come to end and they'll make a surplus of money by next year, and they'll do it all without having to cut necessary programs like health care and scholarships for illegal aliens. Again I say to you, what could possibly go wrong? This plan, although proposed by state dems, was actually initially weakly opposed by the Governator.

When Schwarzenegger last week criticized the Democrats for including one-time "gimmicks" in that plan, a reporter pointed out that he had done the same thing.

"Very good point," the governor responded.

Americans Deputized to Bail Out Incapable Government

Remember way back when President Obama promised that Americans would be able to track "every dime" of the $787 billion stimulus bill? Well, rest assured, he has every intention of keeping his promise. It just won't happen in the near future. And by "every dime", he means "every dime that we on Capitol Hill decide you need to see." Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which manages www.recovery.gov, said the government's website currently shows the programs being funded by the stimulus money, but won't actually show where exactly the money is going until at least October. And that projected date is optimistic at best. Devaney told a House subcommittee on Tuesday that it will be a challenge to have the information available and online in just 5 months (he actually said that they don't have enough storage capacity to track all the information).

But even if the White House can manage to find a server powerful enough to track the equivalent of a 689 mile high stack of $100 bills, you and I won't be able to see exactly who gets the money. As it stands, the administration is only requiring the first 2 recipients of funding to report the usage of stimulus money. So if a state gets funding, and then gives it to a city, that's all you get to see. You won't be able to find out which contractors or agencies will actually be getting the money. Nice, huh?

So who's going to fill in the gaps in tracking government spending? Why, you and I are, of course!

"We are, in essence, deputizing the entire American citizenry to help with the oversight of this program," said Rep. Brad Miller, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology's subcommittee on investigations and oversight.

I'm going to have millions of citizens to help me," he said, comparing run-of-the-mill Americans to inspectors general, the high-ranking officials charged with ferreting out waste and abuse in federal agencies.

"I'm going to have a million little IGs running around," the chairman said Tuesday after his testimony before the subcommittee.

And perhaps that's just as well, given the turnout of the panel tasked with keeping track of thousands of millions of dollars. Just three of the 10 members bothered to show up for the subcommittee's second meeting.

Wow. It's great to know that the Obamanation is taking its job so seriously. And since we're all a bunch of "little IGs running around," does that mean we're going to get subpoena power? Be able to execute search warrants? Make arrests? Just call me Deputy Dawg.

On a side note, when asked at the hearing how the board would be able to verify Obama's claim that the stimulus money will create of save 4 million jobs, Devaney responded, "Sir, we haven't really received any information about that on the Web site." What? The government is clueless? Simply shocking.

GASP! Green Jobs Bad for the Economy?!

The word is starting to leak out that Obama's drive to create more green jobs might just actually end up costing the economy more than it helps it. I know, I know. That's crazy. I mean, the Messiah himself said it would help the country, so it has to be true, right?

The Big O has often used Spain as an example of how a nation can use federal funds to stimulate the economy through green initiatives.

Think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy. They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.

Their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments — investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs — jobs they won’t lose to other countries. There is no reason we can’t do the same thing right here in America...In the process, we’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.

Don't see anything wrong with that plan? Maybe the Great One should have actually looked at the result of these projects before committing to them. Gabriel Calzada Alvarez, PhD, a researcher from the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has issued a report entitled, "Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy sources," that identifies the green projects that Spain has undertaken, and their economic consequences. Even if you only read the table of contents, you get a great idea of how successful their green initiatives have been. My favorite quote? Here you go (emphasis mine).

Thus, on average, the subsidized green job destroys the resources required to have created 2.2 jobs in the economy.

Consequently, through the use of both methods [two different calculations] we have reached a similar conclusion: for every green job, we can be highly confident that 2.2 jobs are destroyed elsewhere in the economy [or about 9 jobs destroyed for every 4 created], to which we have to add those jobs that the non-subsidized investment would have created.

Yup. Sounds like a great model. I'll bet the Obamanation was as thorough in researching this hair-brained ideas as they were in vetting so many cabinet-level candidates. Calzada goes on to say,

The study’s results show how such ‘green jobs’ policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil.

But what does a Spaniard know about the environment and economic progress? We should ask American who specializes in these things, like Pat Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the CATO Institute. What's that? We already did? He said that he was not surprised with the findings, and that we should expect similar results here.

But for the Obamanation, it has never actually been about benefiting Americans. Instead, it has always been about ramming the progressive, liberal, left-wing agenda down our throats while assuring us that this is really what we want (remember, you should never waste a good crisis!). Besides, those kooks over at the CATO Institute are just a bunch of Right-Wing Extremists, anyway. Off with their heads!

Even Microsoft Needs a Little Stimulus Love

The Microsoft Corporation is, by nearly any measure, the poster child for an efficient and effective business model. Whether or not you like the company or its products, it's tough to argue with the numbers. While the US economy grew just over 1% in 2008 (although it lost over 6% in Q4 alone), and many companies saw net losses last year, Microsoft still posted moderate gains. In 2008, Microsoft posted $60 bn in revenue, an operating income of $22 bn, and a net income of $17 bn. At the end of last year, Microsoft also reported $72 bn in total assets, and $36 bn in total equity. Granted, their earnings may have not been what they have in the past, but the company still netted a significant amount of money last year.

So it's no wonder that some residents of Redmond, WA are very upset about a plan for Microsoft to use $11 million of stimulus money to build a bridge that will connect 2 campuses at Microsoft's headquarters.

Here's the thing. Microsoft is spending $17.5 million of its own money to build the public access bridge, and studies have estimated that Microsoft would account for around 42% of the bridge's traffic. (For those of you mathematically challenged, they're paying about 49% of the bill). So that kind of seems fair, right? Opponents are arguing that while Microsoft's contribution is certainly significant, the public money that will be diverted could be better spent elsewhere.

I understand both sides of this debate. But here's the thing. The porkulus bill that was passed was one big pet project/earmark cesspool, so if you're going to get upset at anyone, be upset at your legislators and senators for voting for the thing (without reading it, I might add). Microsoft is simply doing what it does best; making decisions that are in the best interest of Microsoft and it's employees and investors. In fact, if you're a Microsoft investor, you should be grateful that the company has the common sense to take advantage of savings opportunities when presented to them (including laying off 5000 employees). Maybe the auto industry wouldn't be such a mess if they had the cajones to make tough decisions (curse you, UAW). At least this pet project is being partially funded (almost 50%) with private money and will benefit the community, and is only a drop in the $11 Trillion (that's Trillion with a capital T) bucket. Unlike a certain senator's maglev project.

Barackian Economic Theory 101

Class, today's lesson is going to cover the Barackian Theory of Economics, so please try to stay awake. The major cause of the economic problem facing our nation right now is that we (consumers) spent too much money. So consumers are no longer spending as much money because we've over-extended our finances. Because consumers are not spending as much money, businesses aren't spending as much money. There is no incentive for businesses to continue to spend money and produce for a market that is not purchasing, right? Therefore, because neither consumers nor businesses are spending money, the economy is slowing down.

Seems pretty straight forward, right? Now here's where the Barackian Economic Theory kicks in. Please try to keep up, and be sure to wrap your head in duct tape if you feel it starting to explode. In order to "jump-start" (don't you love that term?) the economy, the government needs to tax the consumers (who are over-extended already) and the businesses (who aren't profitable or producing because consumers aren't spending). The government then needs to take that money and give it to the banks in the form of a bailout so that...are you ready for this? Wait for it...wait for it...the banks can then give loans back to people who are over-extended and the businesses who aren't profitable, who will then be charged interest on the money that was theirs to begin with!!!

I'm no economist, but wouldn't it just be easier to let everybody keep their own money?

#@$$!!!@%(*!$^%U(

Please see previous post.

Daniel Hannan Throws Down the Gauntlet

Hat tip to Lak for posting the video regarding UK MEP Daniel Hannan's verbal beatdown of UK PM Gordon Brown as shown on the Glenn Beck television program last night. You can watch Mr. Hannan's full lambast of el Gordo below. Seriously, we need this guy to emigrate.

UPDATE: If I would have paid attention, I would have seen that Lak already posted that video. Oh, well. The more viral it gets, the better, right?

Kabuki Theater of AIG Outrage

Remember all the fist-pounding hellfire and damnation Congress has been calling upon all those evil AIG employees that received bonuses? Very reminiscent of the Japanese-style Kabuki theater, known for it's dramatic and extravagant style. And just in case there is any doubt over the complete and utter ineptitude of those who call themselves our leaders, this should serve as the proverbial nail in the coffin. The NY Times Op-Ed section ran this story today, and, contrary to most NY Times articles, is exceptionally well presented (probably because the NY Times contributor made no comments about it, other than to give context for the article). The article is a letter from Jake DeSantis, an Executive VP of AIG's Financial Products divisions to AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy. It is a little lengthy, but well worth the read.

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis

Toxic Assets No More!

HOORAY! The government's done it! They've cleared the books of all toxic assets! We don't need to worry any more! The economy will bounce back! Taxes will decline! Wages will increase! Universal health care will work and we'll all live in that creepy paradise displayed in the Watchtower pamphlets!

UPDATE: It has been brought to my attention that toxic assets no longer exist because we are now calling them legacy assets. The PC pixies strike again.

Bailed Out Companies Owe Back Taxes

I've been behind for the last couple of days. I changed the template of the blog (and believe me, I'm DEFINITELY a newbie at this), and I screwed some of the editing features up. But I'm back up and running. And in case you're wondering, I'm still flabbergasted by our federal government.

This was released over the weekend, but I've been meaning to post it here. It turns out that 13 firms that are receiving bailout funds from the porkulus packages actually OWE back taxes to the federal government to the tune of over $220 million (which admittedly seems minuscule when compared to the billions and trillions we're spending now).

At least 13 companies receiving billions of dollars in bailout money owe a total of more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes, a key lawmaker said Thursday.

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., chairman of a House subcommittee overseeing the federal bailout, said two companies owe more than $100 million apiece.

The House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight discovered the unpaid taxes in a review of tax records from 23 companies receiving the most money, Lewis said as he opened a hearing on the issue.

The absolute hilarity of it all would be sidesplitting if it weren't so nauseating. But never fear. Democrats are on the case! '"This is shameful. It is a disgrace," said Lewis. "We are going to get to the bottom of what is going on here."'

Of course you are. So you're going to review all 470 institutions that received money, right? "Lewis said the panel plans to review tax records from other firms receiving federal money, but he was unsure if it would look at every one of them."

But why, Mr. Lewis? Shouldn't we review all the bailout recipients to make sure that there isn't money owed elsewhere? No, apparently we operate on the honor system. "Banks and other companies receiving federal money were required to sign contracts stating they had no unpaid taxes, Lewis said. But he said the Treasury Department did not ask them to turn over their tax records." How's that working out for ya'?

Well, we should at least get the Treasury Department involved, since this kinda sorta concerns them, right?

No one from the Treasury Department appeared at Thursday’s hearing. Lewis said he asked Treasury officials for a private briefing on their efforts to uncover unpaid taxes, as well as someone to testify at Thursday’s hearing.

“They said no one was available,” Lewis said in an interview.

They're probably just too busy.

But don't worry, dear readers. The IRS is aware of the situation and will handle it.

The Internal Revenue Service “has every expectation that these amounts will be paid and is committed to collect every dollar of taxes that are owed,” IRS spokesman Frank Keith said in a statement. “The IRS recognizes that those entities that receive taxpayer support have a special obligation to pay their taxes, and these taxpayer accounts will remain closely monitored by the IRS to ensure that the full amount of taxes due are paid.”

Fascism, Primera Parte

Not that I'm an alarmist, but I'm just sayin'...

Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence. Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race...Fascist governments permanently forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.

There are a couple of core tenets of Fascism:

Nationalism: This sounds harmless enough, right? A nationalist is simply someone that has deep national pride. But nationalism as an ideology maintains that "the people" in the doctrine of popular sovereignty is the nation, not the individual. So you know that little phrase "We the People" in the preamble to the Constitution? Nationalism defines "the people" as a collective, referring to them not as a collection of individuals, but as a singular nation. Do you see how this is dangerous? By limiting the definition of "people" to the nation, we are now not concerned with individual liberties and rights, but instead are concerned ONLY with the collective good (think of it kind of like a law of averages...individual felicity is inconsequential so long as collective felicity is maintained). Subsequently, only nation-states founded on the principle of national (not individual) self-determination are considered legitimate. This runs in direct opposition to our unalienable rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence. In addition, the Declaration states that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," in order to secure these individual rights. This government was instituted to ENSURE our individual rights and liberties, not take them away and give them to someone else in the name of "equality." Individual self-determination becomes inconsequential. Eoin O'Duffy, an Irish Nationalist, said,

We must lead the people always; nationally, socially and economically. We must clear up the economic mess and right the glaring social injustices of to-day by the corporative organization of Irish life; but before everything we must give a national lead to our people...The first essential is national unity. We can only have that when the Corporative system is accepted.

That sounds vaguely familiar, doesn't it?

Authoritarianism: This one seems a little more obvious, doesn't it? An authoritarian government is one that centralizes all authority with the nation-state. But before you lightly brush this system aside as an impossible actuality in the United States, consider Theodore M Vestal's characterization of authoritarianism. An authoritarian regime has a highly concentrated and centralized power structures, in which political power is generated and maintained by a "repressive system that excludes potential challengers" and uses political parties and mass organizations to "mobilize people around the goals of the government." It is also based on the following principles: rule of men, not rule of law (I won't even begin to list all the violations of the Constitution...that's another rant for another day); rigged or unfair/biased elections (an excellent article, btw); all important political decisions are made by officials behind closed doors; a bureaucracy operated quite independently of rules, the supervision of elected officials, or concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve; the informal and unregulated exercise of political power. There is no guarantee of civil liberties or tolerance for meaningful opposition. There is a weakening of civil society, with "no freedom to create a broad range of groups, organizations, and political parties to compete for power or question the decisions of rulers," with instead an "attempt to impose controls on virtually all elements of society. Political stability is maintained by, among other things, "a pervasive bureaucracy staffed by the regime, control of internal opposition and dissent, and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization." (Read: dependency).

In the Segunda Parte, we'll look at several traditionally fascist policies and compare them to policies that the current administration is proposing.

Rant...

Wow...I thought I could rant, y'all. I've just been put to shame. Sit back and enjoy 'Zo.

Harry Reid predicts optimistic future

The clairvoyant Harry Reid has definitively stated that the economy is on the cusp of recovery. “We tend to talk about the negative. ... Things are beginning to turn and I think the American people are going to feel that very soon.” Really? You might to double-check with the Savior-in-Chief about that.

But I'm not worried. After reading this report from the Tax Policy Center, I feel snug as bug in a rug:

In 2009, the federal deficit will be larger as a share of the economy than at any time since the 1940s. After 2009, we project an average deficit of $1 trillion per year for the next 10 years, under optimistic assumptions. The longer-run picture is even bleaker, with a fiscal gap of 7-9 percent of GDP -- between $1 trillion and $1.3 trillion annually in current dollars. Recent trends in credit default swap markets suggest that although fiscal policy problems are usually described as medium- and long-term issues, these problems may be upon us much sooner than previously expected.

Reid went on to say that "We're [Democrats] betting on success." Awesome. They're betting on success? Yeah, that's what I want. A government that gambles with the economic future of America. Yup. Everything's going to be just fine.

Su casa no es mi casa

How about bus driver Minta Garcia? Upside down in her $800,000 mortgage (house is now valued at $675,000), she wants the rest of America to help her pay her mortgage. Lady, your $800,000 problem is NOT my problem. Here's the clip, in typical CNN sob-story fashion:


So just to recap:

ACOSTA: Like countless other Americans, Garcia admits she and her husband bought more house than they could afford, but she says the lender made the purchase all too easy. Now her mortgage is worth more than her house. [emphasis added]

Countless? How about the 93% of owners/renters who are NOT delinquent?

And did you get that folks? "Yeah, we screwed up, but it was the bank's fault for letting us." That's the kind of responsibility that President Hussein preaches. Everyone's responsible but me.