Wednesday's Wall Street Journal carried an editorial excoriating Ron Phipps, president of the National Association of Realtors, for his misleading and largely false letter to the editor in the same edition of the paper.
Here's Phipps' letter in its entirety:
The Wall Street Journal would have people believe that hard-working, middle-class families are not affected by lower conforming loan limits, when nothing could be further from the truth ("More McMansion Subsidies," Review & Outlook, Nov. 1). The representatives in Congress who support higher loan limits understand that this is not a partisan issue, as you are trying to make it out to be.
The majority of markets impacted by the loan-limit decline are not high-cost areas. For example, more than 100 counties throughout the Midwest and more than 200 counties in the South have seen loan limits decline by more than $64,000.
And despite how your editorial tries to position the issue, the loan limits are not the same as reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Allowing the mortgage loan limits to expire in October was an arbitrary decision. Creating more market disruptions before reforming mortgage markets will only hurt our recovery.
The Senate measure to reinstate the limits is temporary—restoring the higher limits while the housing and mortgage markets stabilize. Recently, economist Mark Zandi said policy makers could shore up the housing market by "extending the current higher conforming loan limits that are set to decline in a few weeks." Borrowers, not taxpayers, will bear the entire cost of the higher loan-limits provision.
As people across the country are trying to gain a foothold in these trying times, we need to give them the resources to do so. The National Association of Realtors applauds the members of Congress who are standing up for America's families rather than turning their backs on them.
Ron Phipps
President
National Assn. of Realtors
Washington
Here's the related staff editorial referring to Phipps' letter:
To understand why 90% of U.S. mortgages are still underwritten by taxpayers, look no further than the nearby letter from Ron Phipps of the Realtors lobby. He makes clear that the Realtors, like the rest of the housing-subsidy crowd, are working hard to get Congress to reinstate a $729,750 loan-limit for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guarantees.
Notice how Mr. Phipps doesn't mention that dollar figure, perhaps because it makes a howler of his claim that the loan-limit reduction in October to $625,500 is somehow a blow to the "middle class." As House Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus and several colleagues note in a November 7 letter to GOP appropriations conferees, "the lower loan limits only affect a very small slice of wealthier homeowners in high cost areas." Only 1.3% of all loans done by Fannie, Freddie and the Federal Housing Administration would be affected by the change.
Another lobby classic is Mr. Phipps's claim that letting the loan-limit fall in October was "arbitrary" and that the Realtors only want a "temporary" extension. But any temporary program has to end sometime, and Congress first raised the loan limit on a temporary basis in 2008. It has since extended the higher loan-limit three times, and if it were extended again the Realtors would no doubt plead for another "temporary" extension the next time it expires, ad infinitum.
Reducing the loan limit is a modest attempt to restore some private competition to the mortgage market, at least at the high end. Mr. Phipps says this issue shouldn't be "partisan," by which he seems to mean that both parties should remain wholly owned Realtor subsidiaries. For Republicans who run the House, this is not a test of their partisanship. It is a test of their alleged free-market, tea-party principles.
The Realtor letter is at least educational, a reminder that one reason the U.S. economy is so burdened with government is that many alleged capitalists want government to guarantee their business. That's known as crony capitalism.
I wrote in this recent post concerning a Paul Ryan speech vilifying this sort of crony capitalism. It's helpful to see it up close in Phipps' letter. This is what my Congressman, Leonard Lance, is supporting, as I explained in this recent post.
John Boehner's House GOP will continue to be vulnerable so long as morons like Lance consent to be used by crony capitalists like Phipps to mindlessly feather the nests of the nation's realtors while those house brokers lie about the real situation.
Mark Zandi is a liberal, neo-Keynesian, hacked-up economist who believes in more government in business and more government spending for everything. He's a Democratic patsy.
Realtors don't want housing prices to fall to market-clearing levels because they'll share the pain of falling prices, not to mention that their business is fighting off competition from cheaper, online-based sales channels for housing.
It's also very clear now, in the wake of a decade of disastrous federal housing policies, primarily driven by wrongheaded Congressional mandating of stupid GSE mortgage-backed bond guarantees for low-income housing, that housing isn't and shouldn't be a major drive of the US economy.
Housing isn't a good bet as an investment for most Americans. It retards labor mobility and exposes owners to bad local and state fiscal policies which result in higher property taxes and lower housing values.
It's time we put an end to this particular variant of crony capitalism. John Boehner and Paul Ryan would be well-advised to muzzle the GOP House members who are supporting Phipps and his association in trying to prolong higher lending limits for GSEs and, instead, speed exit of the GSEs from the market, then kill them.
Showing posts with label House. Show all posts
Showing posts with label House. Show all posts
Friday, November 11, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
The Two GOP House Special Elections Wins
By now I guess it's old news that the two Republicans contesting special elections in a heavily-Democratic NYC district and a district in Nevada both won.
The NYC district is famous for two reasons. First, it was disgraced Anthony Weiner's home, and, second, it had been represented by a Democrat since 1923.
The national import of these election results was so great as to merit a column from Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal this past weekend. Despite her baseless tendency to ignore the venality of Wonderboy's administration and its various extremely socialist and liberal staffers, Noonan actually became bold enough to claim that these two elections mark a national dissatisfaction with the president.
Indeed, they do. It's almost impossible to believe that, with each passing week, Wonderboy unveils new taxes in hopes that they will rally lower-income voters to him, as he exhorts Congress to pass another stimulus bill. Then he goes out on the stump or commands television coverage for some speech on the same topic.
To say the guy has a tin ear is no longer even remotely sufficient to describe his isolation from the sentiments of the broad US electorate.
But if you needed a barometer to gauge how badly he's doing across America, those two special elections would be hard to beat. One victory in a long-time Democratic stronghold, the other in a district which had just a 55 vote difference in the 2008 presidential election, but went overwhelmingly for the GOP candidate last week.
Kind of evokes Bob Dylan, doesn't it?
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
The NYC district is famous for two reasons. First, it was disgraced Anthony Weiner's home, and, second, it had been represented by a Democrat since 1923.
The national import of these election results was so great as to merit a column from Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal this past weekend. Despite her baseless tendency to ignore the venality of Wonderboy's administration and its various extremely socialist and liberal staffers, Noonan actually became bold enough to claim that these two elections mark a national dissatisfaction with the president.
Indeed, they do. It's almost impossible to believe that, with each passing week, Wonderboy unveils new taxes in hopes that they will rally lower-income voters to him, as he exhorts Congress to pass another stimulus bill. Then he goes out on the stump or commands television coverage for some speech on the same topic.
To say the guy has a tin ear is no longer even remotely sufficient to describe his isolation from the sentiments of the broad US electorate.
But if you needed a barometer to gauge how badly he's doing across America, those two special elections would be hard to beat. One victory in a long-time Democratic stronghold, the other in a district which had just a 55 vote difference in the 2008 presidential election, but went overwhelmingly for the GOP candidate last week.
Kind of evokes Bob Dylan, doesn't it?
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Paul Ryan On The Latest Senate "Gang of Six" Proposal
On Tuesday evening, I caught Paul Ryan's interview on Sean Hannity's Fox News program. It was quite revealing.
I think I was most surprised and, in a way, heartened, by Ryan's reference to an old House saying,
'The other party is your adversary but the Senate is the enemy.'
And so it seems this week.
Smarmy Democratic Senator Kent Conrad, who never met a tax hike he didn't like, declares earnestly that his mix of taxes increases, called 'reform' by the suspect Conrad, entitlement 'reforms,' and spending cuts will address the country's deficit problems.
But Conrad already tips his hand by piling on other issues to what is a spending problem, not a deficit problem, per se.
What is inexplicable is why Tom Coburn joined this latest travesty.
Ryan was quite sanguine and blunt in saying that the alleged several trillion dollars of lower deficits from the Senate plan were neither clear nor specific, with no details whatsoever on what spending was to be cut. But what was clear is that the Senators are playing games, claiming cuts from 'baselines,' rather than absolute cuts. The Senate, meaning Conrad, hasn't passed a budget in 800+ days, or nearly three years.
Since the House originates funding bills, and Ryan is chairman of it's Budget Committee, I take Ryan's comments to heart. He doesn't trust the Senate, and he doesn't mention party affiliation.
Once more, I find solace in the midst of this comedy involving the debt limit by seeing the Founders' checks and balances at work.
It seems to me that Ryan sees the Senate as detached from reality, not focused on what Ryan and his freshman, Tea Party-backed colleagues, understand, which is that, more than anything else, Americans want federal spending cut.
Yes, entitlement and tax reform are good things to accomplish. But lumping them in with the debt limit and spending cuts suggests that all these items are negotiable.
I think Ryan and his House colleagues realize what Senators do not, i.e., the debt limit issue is about current and near-term spending. Not taxes or entitlements, per se.
From Ryan's answers to Hannity, it doesn't seem likely that House GOP members are interested in budging from passing a debt limit increase only upon cutting current and near-term spending significantly. Period. Rand Paul was interviewed on Sean Hannity's program last night, and his position is essentially identical to Ryan's positions. Paul castigated Conrad's so-called 'plan,' saying it's not a plan and legislation written to implement it would result in another multi-thousand-page bill finished only hours before a vote to pass it, like the stimulus and health care bills.
Right now I'm hearing Democratic blowhard Barney Frank whine and complain about House GOP members, calling them inflexible, too conservative, etc. In short, they are getting in the way of his need to wastefully spend more of your tax dollars, and whatever borrowed Chinese money he needs, too.
Thanks to the Constitution's checks and balances, Wonderboy's attempt to rush through tax increases and future spending cuts that will never occur, in order to get his debt limit increase, look unlikely to succeed.
I think I was most surprised and, in a way, heartened, by Ryan's reference to an old House saying,
'The other party is your adversary but the Senate is the enemy.'
And so it seems this week.
Smarmy Democratic Senator Kent Conrad, who never met a tax hike he didn't like, declares earnestly that his mix of taxes increases, called 'reform' by the suspect Conrad, entitlement 'reforms,' and spending cuts will address the country's deficit problems.
But Conrad already tips his hand by piling on other issues to what is a spending problem, not a deficit problem, per se.
What is inexplicable is why Tom Coburn joined this latest travesty.
Ryan was quite sanguine and blunt in saying that the alleged several trillion dollars of lower deficits from the Senate plan were neither clear nor specific, with no details whatsoever on what spending was to be cut. But what was clear is that the Senators are playing games, claiming cuts from 'baselines,' rather than absolute cuts. The Senate, meaning Conrad, hasn't passed a budget in 800+ days, or nearly three years.
Since the House originates funding bills, and Ryan is chairman of it's Budget Committee, I take Ryan's comments to heart. He doesn't trust the Senate, and he doesn't mention party affiliation.
Once more, I find solace in the midst of this comedy involving the debt limit by seeing the Founders' checks and balances at work.
It seems to me that Ryan sees the Senate as detached from reality, not focused on what Ryan and his freshman, Tea Party-backed colleagues, understand, which is that, more than anything else, Americans want federal spending cut.
Yes, entitlement and tax reform are good things to accomplish. But lumping them in with the debt limit and spending cuts suggests that all these items are negotiable.
I think Ryan and his House colleagues realize what Senators do not, i.e., the debt limit issue is about current and near-term spending. Not taxes or entitlements, per se.
From Ryan's answers to Hannity, it doesn't seem likely that House GOP members are interested in budging from passing a debt limit increase only upon cutting current and near-term spending significantly. Period. Rand Paul was interviewed on Sean Hannity's program last night, and his position is essentially identical to Ryan's positions. Paul castigated Conrad's so-called 'plan,' saying it's not a plan and legislation written to implement it would result in another multi-thousand-page bill finished only hours before a vote to pass it, like the stimulus and health care bills.
Right now I'm hearing Democratic blowhard Barney Frank whine and complain about House GOP members, calling them inflexible, too conservative, etc. In short, they are getting in the way of his need to wastefully spend more of your tax dollars, and whatever borrowed Chinese money he needs, too.
Thanks to the Constitution's checks and balances, Wonderboy's attempt to rush through tax increases and future spending cuts that will never occur, in order to get his debt limit increase, look unlikely to succeed.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
GOP Game-Playing with Budget Cuts
I read with disgust Kim Strassel's recent Wall Street Journal editorial spotlighting GOP House member Frank Lucas, chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
After spending- and deficit-hawk Jeff Flake had done some remarkable work to rein in payments to high-income farmers, Lucas
"swept in and used a procedural maneuver on the House floor to strike the Flake language. This helped ensure that an estimated $160 million in payments would continue to flow to farmers in states like his own, Oklahoma."
Strassel's piece makes the point that, if done correctly, the House spending cuts will be eliminating a lot of useless pork, thus contradicting Wonderboy's concerns that the only cuts are coming to seniors and the like.
Of course, as Strassel emphasizes, even in this era of focus on spending cuts, old GOP House bulls like Frank Lucas still don't get it. This is why voters are so angry. It's why the Tea Party gained so much momentum.
And why, if Boehner continues to let antics like Lucas' continue, the GOP could lose seats in the House next year.
It's time the GOP really meant it when it claims to hear voters and want to cut spending and eliminate nonsensical use of taxpayer funds. The Agriculture department is one which, like Education, could be wiped out and it's debatable that anyone but those collecting payments from those entities would really notice.
After spending- and deficit-hawk Jeff Flake had done some remarkable work to rein in payments to high-income farmers, Lucas
"swept in and used a procedural maneuver on the House floor to strike the Flake language. This helped ensure that an estimated $160 million in payments would continue to flow to farmers in states like his own, Oklahoma."
Strassel's piece makes the point that, if done correctly, the House spending cuts will be eliminating a lot of useless pork, thus contradicting Wonderboy's concerns that the only cuts are coming to seniors and the like.
Of course, as Strassel emphasizes, even in this era of focus on spending cuts, old GOP House bulls like Frank Lucas still don't get it. This is why voters are so angry. It's why the Tea Party gained so much momentum.
And why, if Boehner continues to let antics like Lucas' continue, the GOP could lose seats in the House next year.
It's time the GOP really meant it when it claims to hear voters and want to cut spending and eliminate nonsensical use of taxpayer funds. The Agriculture department is one which, like Education, could be wiped out and it's debatable that anyone but those collecting payments from those entities would really notice.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Weiner's Leave of Absence Request
In perhaps his most arrogant move yet, compromised setexter and New York Democratic House member Anthony Weiner is now requesting a "leave of absence" from his Congressional post.
Does it get more imperious than this? That a Representative with a self-inflicted career wound won't resign, but, instead, puts himself ahead of his constituents and wants a "leave of absence."
Never mind the needs of his district. Or that his own behavior led to this point.
If he really cared about his voters, he'd resign and say something like,
'If I demonstrate that I've gotten help and resolved my behavioral issues, I'll see if voters are willing to put me back in office.'
Instead, he's clinging to power for dear life. How repugnant. How indicative of corruption and an imperial attitude toward his Congressional seat.
In effect, Weiner thinks the seat is his to do with what he chooses, and, so typically, those pesky voters and their needs are an inconvenience.
Disgusting.
Does it get more imperious than this? That a Representative with a self-inflicted career wound won't resign, but, instead, puts himself ahead of his constituents and wants a "leave of absence."
Never mind the needs of his district. Or that his own behavior led to this point.
If he really cared about his voters, he'd resign and say something like,
'If I demonstrate that I've gotten help and resolved my behavioral issues, I'll see if voters are willing to put me back in office.'
Instead, he's clinging to power for dear life. How repugnant. How indicative of corruption and an imperial attitude toward his Congressional seat.
In effect, Weiner thinks the seat is his to do with what he chooses, and, so typically, those pesky voters and their needs are an inconvenience.
Disgusting.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Regarding Anthony Weiner's Twitter Troubles
I refrained from writing about New York Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner's Twitter-based troubles until now because I felt he would eventually admit to that of which he was accused. Yesterday, he did.
The backstory is probably familiar by now. Andrew Breitbart, the conservative new media publicist and crusader, broke the story of Weiner's Twittering a suggestive picture of himself in briefs, and his leg, to a young woman in Seattle. Breitbart asserted last night on Hannity's Fox New program that several people were addresses of the retwitted message and picture, among them radical left-wing publisher Ariana Huffington.
Breitbart was the one who ran with the story, and instantly became smeared by the left wing new media and blogs as having hacked Weiner's Twitter account.
I've seen Weiner's appearances on CNBC and Fox News quite a few times. He's aggressive, rabidly liberal and kind of geeky. But he's not stupid.
So I took particular notice of Weiner's carefully-phrased excuses, imagined causes for the sent image, and adroit evasion of answering "yes," or "no," to the simple question,
"Is that you in the picture?"
You see, I think Weiner realized that if he lied, saying it was not a picture of himself, and then, as would eventually have to occur, he later admitted it was, he'd be disgraced and out of a job. Maybe he'd even have gone so far as to perjure himself before a House Ethics Committee.
So Weiner grew testy and combative, castigating Fox's Bret Baier and others for continuing to simply ask if the picture was of him, without ever answering it. Then saying he had answered all questions and spent enough time on the topic. Had to get back to work ,don't you know?
That behavior led me to believe that the reality would be far worse, and the picture was, of course, of Weiner, sent by him.
Now we know, after Weiner's tearful admissions yesterday, that the married Representative had sent lewd pictures of himself to as many as six young women via Twitter. Brietbart, again on Hannity last night, promised that he would not publish the worst of the Weiner pictures sent to him by women who'd received them from the Congressman. But when pressed, he basically described one image as Weiner's naked body sporting an erect appendage.
As part of his long, tearful press appearance yesterday, Weiner rapidly glossed over a brief four word apology to Breitbart, who'd been pilloried in the press and left-wing blogosphere, while Weiner sat back and allowed the damage to Breitbart to grow, knowing the smear was unfounded.
Weiner's very Clintonian initial denials and reaching for the 'I've been hacked' excuse, then carefully avoiding handing the matter over to the FBI or a House committee, and, instead, turning to a private attorney and security firm, told you all you really need to know. Weiner knew the FBI would discover the truth quickly, and be uncontrollable.
What drives such bizarre, arrogant behavior by federal elected officials who become media darlings? Carl Albert, Jim Wright, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Wilbur Mills, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer. They all seem to lose their bearings when the media spotlight shines, don't they?
It's possible that Weiner's marriage and political career are not over. But his days as a model spokesman in Congress for the far left are definitely over.
A liberal pundit on Hannity last night noted that New York has to eliminate one upstate and one metro-area Congressional district for 2012- why not Weiner's, thus removing him from the scene painlessly? In the meantime, the pundit, Bob Beckel, predicted Weiner will get a call from Bubba Clinton and resign by month's end.
As a coda to the story, Breitbart warned anyone who would attempt to persecute the women who had retweeted Weiner's photos "not to go there." Similar to attempts to attack the credibility of rape victims, Breitbart was worried that the far left bloggers would attempt to smear the women with whom Weiner had been Tweeting and to whom he'd sent pictures.
So perhaps the entire affair isn't really over just yet.
The backstory is probably familiar by now. Andrew Breitbart, the conservative new media publicist and crusader, broke the story of Weiner's Twittering a suggestive picture of himself in briefs, and his leg, to a young woman in Seattle. Breitbart asserted last night on Hannity's Fox New program that several people were addresses of the retwitted message and picture, among them radical left-wing publisher Ariana Huffington.
Breitbart was the one who ran with the story, and instantly became smeared by the left wing new media and blogs as having hacked Weiner's Twitter account.
I've seen Weiner's appearances on CNBC and Fox News quite a few times. He's aggressive, rabidly liberal and kind of geeky. But he's not stupid.
So I took particular notice of Weiner's carefully-phrased excuses, imagined causes for the sent image, and adroit evasion of answering "yes," or "no," to the simple question,
"Is that you in the picture?"
You see, I think Weiner realized that if he lied, saying it was not a picture of himself, and then, as would eventually have to occur, he later admitted it was, he'd be disgraced and out of a job. Maybe he'd even have gone so far as to perjure himself before a House Ethics Committee.
So Weiner grew testy and combative, castigating Fox's Bret Baier and others for continuing to simply ask if the picture was of him, without ever answering it. Then saying he had answered all questions and spent enough time on the topic. Had to get back to work ,don't you know?
That behavior led me to believe that the reality would be far worse, and the picture was, of course, of Weiner, sent by him.
Now we know, after Weiner's tearful admissions yesterday, that the married Representative had sent lewd pictures of himself to as many as six young women via Twitter. Brietbart, again on Hannity last night, promised that he would not publish the worst of the Weiner pictures sent to him by women who'd received them from the Congressman. But when pressed, he basically described one image as Weiner's naked body sporting an erect appendage.
As part of his long, tearful press appearance yesterday, Weiner rapidly glossed over a brief four word apology to Breitbart, who'd been pilloried in the press and left-wing blogosphere, while Weiner sat back and allowed the damage to Breitbart to grow, knowing the smear was unfounded.
Weiner's very Clintonian initial denials and reaching for the 'I've been hacked' excuse, then carefully avoiding handing the matter over to the FBI or a House committee, and, instead, turning to a private attorney and security firm, told you all you really need to know. Weiner knew the FBI would discover the truth quickly, and be uncontrollable.
What drives such bizarre, arrogant behavior by federal elected officials who become media darlings? Carl Albert, Jim Wright, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Wilbur Mills, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer. They all seem to lose their bearings when the media spotlight shines, don't they?
It's possible that Weiner's marriage and political career are not over. But his days as a model spokesman in Congress for the far left are definitely over.
A liberal pundit on Hannity last night noted that New York has to eliminate one upstate and one metro-area Congressional district for 2012- why not Weiner's, thus removing him from the scene painlessly? In the meantime, the pundit, Bob Beckel, predicted Weiner will get a call from Bubba Clinton and resign by month's end.
As a coda to the story, Breitbart warned anyone who would attempt to persecute the women who had retweeted Weiner's photos "not to go there." Similar to attempts to attack the credibility of rape victims, Breitbart was worried that the far left bloggers would attempt to smear the women with whom Weiner had been Tweeting and to whom he'd sent pictures.
So perhaps the entire affair isn't really over just yet.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Frisco Nan Aims To Be Next House Minority Leader
You cannot make this story up. After having led House Democrats to a 60+ seat loss last Tuesday, California's Nancy Pelosi is demanding to be returned to the leadership of her party's House members.
Of course, most sensible people would have exited the scene, the better to facilitate independent voters forgetting why they swept so many Democrats out of the House last week.
It must be near the height of arrogance for Frisco Nan to insist on staying at the helm for House Democrats, albeit now in the minority. Not to mention stupidity on the part of the remaining Democratic House members who don't think it matters that Nan's antics led them to defeat. Can you get more clueless than that? I don't think so.
Given that the GOP is similarly mistaken in keeping Boehner in their leadership team, they are truly lucky that Nan is eager to remain in the public eye for the next two years. Otherwise, voters might forget why they chose to give control over to the Republicans for a couple of years.
Of course, most sensible people would have exited the scene, the better to facilitate independent voters forgetting why they swept so many Democrats out of the House last week.
It must be near the height of arrogance for Frisco Nan to insist on staying at the helm for House Democrats, albeit now in the minority. Not to mention stupidity on the part of the remaining Democratic House members who don't think it matters that Nan's antics led them to defeat. Can you get more clueless than that? I don't think so.
Given that the GOP is similarly mistaken in keeping Boehner in their leadership team, they are truly lucky that Nan is eager to remain in the public eye for the next two years. Otherwise, voters might forget why they chose to give control over to the Republicans for a couple of years.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Now They Tell Us! Brian Baird Comes Clean About Pelosi
This past weekend's Wall Street Journal in-depth interview, by John Fund, was with retiring Washington state Democratic Representative Brian Baird. He alleges that he's retiring "because the brutal congressional commute makes it impossible for him to see his twin five-year-old boys grow up." Fair enough. As a 12-year veteran, he's not running out just because he'll be in the minority come January.
I find Baird's comments totally disingenuous. Consider these passages from the interview,
""It's been an authoritarian, closed leadership. That style plus a general groupthink mentality didn't work when Tom DeLay called the shots," Mr. Baird says. "We've made some of the same damn mistakes, and we were supposed to be better. That's the heartbreak."
Mr. Baird, 54, is a loyal Democrat who voted for all of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's legislative priorities, including the stimulus bill, cap and trade and ObamaCare. But he admits all three have serious flaws."
So for all his sanctimony in the interview, remember, Baird was a party-line Pelosi soldier. He is one of those morons who believes that passing bad legislation on which people must rely, and must obey, is okay. Then serially fixing said flawed legislation, creating even more uncertainty- well, that's okay too.
"Democrats also watered down efforts to practice fiscal responsibility. "We initially had numbers a bit more honest than the Republicans—we at least included war costs in the budget," he says. "Now we're authorizing programs for three years instead of five in an attempt to pretend we're saving money."
When President Obama was elected in 2008, Mr. Baird was again optimistic that Democrats could bring real reform. But fierce Republican partisanship and the White House decision not to focus on job creation as its "number one, two and three" priority dashed that hope.
"Obama decided we weren't going to have a highway transportation bill because it might have required a gas tax increase," he recalls. After passing a misdirected stimulus bill, Mr. Obama made the fatal error of pushing forward with other priorities: cap and trade, financial services reform, ObamaCare. Each became compromised quickly.
For some of the shortcomings of financial regulatory reform, Mr. Baird blames the disillusioning battle over ObamaCare. "When the House had to pass the Senate version of health care unchanged, some members asked why should they invest the mental effort in mastering the details" of financial reform. Mr. Baird found parts of the bill mind-numbing.
Although he voted for it, he says he was troubled that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the entities at the heart of the housing meltdown, weren't addressed. They have clearly exercised undue influence on Capitol Hill, he notes. "When I was first elected I was puzzled why they were holding events in my honor as a mere freshman. I asked myself, why is a federal entity so involved in political activity?" "
I find these statements, again, disingenuous. So Baird had all these insights about and issues with various legislative proposals. But where was he on CNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc., complaining about them? Did he do so, and I missed those interviews? The last comment is hilarious, except it indicates how stupid Baird must be. Only "troubled" that Barney Frank's magical bill omitted Freddie and Fannie? C'mon, is anyone really this dense? They started the housing meltdown, led by Frank's directives from Congress. Was, and is, Baird so naive about the GSEs that he really 'asked' why they held an event for a freshman Rep?
"Regarding health care, his specialty, Mr. Baird gave House Democrats real heartburn. He voted against the first version of ObamaCare in November 2009, because the Congressional Budget Office and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hadn't yet analyzed the bill's impact on insurance premiums and medical costs.
"What the hell were we doing voting on this? I had labor groups come to me and insist the bill was so important we couldn't wait to know what was in it," he recalls. "I asked them if they were handed a new union contract and told it was so important they had to agree to it without reading it, would they go along?" They continued to insist he vote for the bill and threatened him with a primary challenger.
Mr. Baird had developed his own health-care proposal that drew on his 23 years of experience as a licensed clinical psychologist treating patients with cancer and brain injuries. His plan would have provided universal health care but held down costs through vouchers for the poor, medical savings accounts for the middle class, and reform of malpractice insurance.
He admits to being frustrated that ideas like his never got a fair hearing in a Congress dominated by inertia and interest groups. "Our problems are now so grave we can't afford petty partisanship and closed thinking," he tells me."
All well and good, but, again, why was Baird silent? So long as these back-benchers remain silent, the parties will both continue to behave badly. Baird was elected by people in Washington, not Pelosi, Hoyer, Frank, et.al. Whose interests was he really serving with his silence?
"Mr. Baird stands by his vote for ObamaCare, noting that something had to be done for those denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions. But he acknowledges that the bill carried within it the seeds of its unpopularity. These include the nightmare mandate that all companies report to the IRS all of their business-to-business transactions over $600, so the government can capture unreported business income. At a recent forum with small business owners in his district, Mr. Baird was stunned at the complexity of the rules they now must follow.
"I warned my fellow Democrats that the insurance companies they were whacking could increase premiums just before the midterm election and blame them for it," he sighs. "I pointed out that the major benefits wouldn't kick in till 2014, but the costs were up front. I asked them, where was the political win? There was no real answer.""
Again, nice sentiments....now. Where was he nine months ago with this stuff in public? It's great to be brave now. How about when it mattered and might have affected legislative results? Sorry, Brian, you get no credit here for after-action honesty and 'courage.'
"In his new book, "Character, Politics and Responsibility," Mr. Baird argues that in order to afford caring for the needy, liberals will have to challenge "unsustainable entitlements." "I would eliminate the concept of entitlements and move to needs-based social insurance," he says. "The key is to both promote personal responsibility while lowering expenditures by not promising or giving money or other benefits to those who don't need it.""
Nice. Why wasn't this published online as an alternative view, rather than silently voting for Pelosi's bill?
"I ask Mr. Baird what he would tell the incoming class of freshmen Republicans if given the chance to address them before the new Congress convenes. He summarized his bottom line:
"Governing isn't as easy as you think. Many of you have taken pledges that are contradictory—to balance the budget and cut taxes, for example. You must be honest about the numbers, since our annual deficit now exceeds all discretionary spending combined. If you set as your goal to roll back the size of government, you have an obligation to answer the tough questions and show real courage, not just appeal to ideology. Treat the voters like adults." "
Not as easy as you think? I don't know about that. That pledge is feasible. The fact that Baird believes it is not means he is in the camp of believing people work harder as you raise tax rates. What an idiot!
Sure, honesty about numbers is important. So is treating voters as adults. But, as his former colleagues will likely see tomorrow/Wednesday morning, that's probably going to be the rule now, no longer an exception. And it will go for Republican in two more years, as well.
A different kind of tipping point, politically, may now have been reached.
I find Baird's comments totally disingenuous. Consider these passages from the interview,
""It's been an authoritarian, closed leadership. That style plus a general groupthink mentality didn't work when Tom DeLay called the shots," Mr. Baird says. "We've made some of the same damn mistakes, and we were supposed to be better. That's the heartbreak."
Mr. Baird, 54, is a loyal Democrat who voted for all of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's legislative priorities, including the stimulus bill, cap and trade and ObamaCare. But he admits all three have serious flaws."
So for all his sanctimony in the interview, remember, Baird was a party-line Pelosi soldier. He is one of those morons who believes that passing bad legislation on which people must rely, and must obey, is okay. Then serially fixing said flawed legislation, creating even more uncertainty- well, that's okay too.
"Democrats also watered down efforts to practice fiscal responsibility. "We initially had numbers a bit more honest than the Republicans—we at least included war costs in the budget," he says. "Now we're authorizing programs for three years instead of five in an attempt to pretend we're saving money."
When President Obama was elected in 2008, Mr. Baird was again optimistic that Democrats could bring real reform. But fierce Republican partisanship and the White House decision not to focus on job creation as its "number one, two and three" priority dashed that hope.
"Obama decided we weren't going to have a highway transportation bill because it might have required a gas tax increase," he recalls. After passing a misdirected stimulus bill, Mr. Obama made the fatal error of pushing forward with other priorities: cap and trade, financial services reform, ObamaCare. Each became compromised quickly.
For some of the shortcomings of financial regulatory reform, Mr. Baird blames the disillusioning battle over ObamaCare. "When the House had to pass the Senate version of health care unchanged, some members asked why should they invest the mental effort in mastering the details" of financial reform. Mr. Baird found parts of the bill mind-numbing.
Although he voted for it, he says he was troubled that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the entities at the heart of the housing meltdown, weren't addressed. They have clearly exercised undue influence on Capitol Hill, he notes. "When I was first elected I was puzzled why they were holding events in my honor as a mere freshman. I asked myself, why is a federal entity so involved in political activity?" "
I find these statements, again, disingenuous. So Baird had all these insights about and issues with various legislative proposals. But where was he on CNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc., complaining about them? Did he do so, and I missed those interviews? The last comment is hilarious, except it indicates how stupid Baird must be. Only "troubled" that Barney Frank's magical bill omitted Freddie and Fannie? C'mon, is anyone really this dense? They started the housing meltdown, led by Frank's directives from Congress. Was, and is, Baird so naive about the GSEs that he really 'asked' why they held an event for a freshman Rep?
"Regarding health care, his specialty, Mr. Baird gave House Democrats real heartburn. He voted against the first version of ObamaCare in November 2009, because the Congressional Budget Office and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hadn't yet analyzed the bill's impact on insurance premiums and medical costs.
"What the hell were we doing voting on this? I had labor groups come to me and insist the bill was so important we couldn't wait to know what was in it," he recalls. "I asked them if they were handed a new union contract and told it was so important they had to agree to it without reading it, would they go along?" They continued to insist he vote for the bill and threatened him with a primary challenger.
Mr. Baird had developed his own health-care proposal that drew on his 23 years of experience as a licensed clinical psychologist treating patients with cancer and brain injuries. His plan would have provided universal health care but held down costs through vouchers for the poor, medical savings accounts for the middle class, and reform of malpractice insurance.
He admits to being frustrated that ideas like his never got a fair hearing in a Congress dominated by inertia and interest groups. "Our problems are now so grave we can't afford petty partisanship and closed thinking," he tells me."
All well and good, but, again, why was Baird silent? So long as these back-benchers remain silent, the parties will both continue to behave badly. Baird was elected by people in Washington, not Pelosi, Hoyer, Frank, et.al. Whose interests was he really serving with his silence?
"Mr. Baird stands by his vote for ObamaCare, noting that something had to be done for those denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions. But he acknowledges that the bill carried within it the seeds of its unpopularity. These include the nightmare mandate that all companies report to the IRS all of their business-to-business transactions over $600, so the government can capture unreported business income. At a recent forum with small business owners in his district, Mr. Baird was stunned at the complexity of the rules they now must follow.
"I warned my fellow Democrats that the insurance companies they were whacking could increase premiums just before the midterm election and blame them for it," he sighs. "I pointed out that the major benefits wouldn't kick in till 2014, but the costs were up front. I asked them, where was the political win? There was no real answer.""
Again, nice sentiments....now. Where was he nine months ago with this stuff in public? It's great to be brave now. How about when it mattered and might have affected legislative results? Sorry, Brian, you get no credit here for after-action honesty and 'courage.'
"In his new book, "Character, Politics and Responsibility," Mr. Baird argues that in order to afford caring for the needy, liberals will have to challenge "unsustainable entitlements." "I would eliminate the concept of entitlements and move to needs-based social insurance," he says. "The key is to both promote personal responsibility while lowering expenditures by not promising or giving money or other benefits to those who don't need it.""
Nice. Why wasn't this published online as an alternative view, rather than silently voting for Pelosi's bill?
"I ask Mr. Baird what he would tell the incoming class of freshmen Republicans if given the chance to address them before the new Congress convenes. He summarized his bottom line:
"Governing isn't as easy as you think. Many of you have taken pledges that are contradictory—to balance the budget and cut taxes, for example. You must be honest about the numbers, since our annual deficit now exceeds all discretionary spending combined. If you set as your goal to roll back the size of government, you have an obligation to answer the tough questions and show real courage, not just appeal to ideology. Treat the voters like adults." "
Not as easy as you think? I don't know about that. That pledge is feasible. The fact that Baird believes it is not means he is in the camp of believing people work harder as you raise tax rates. What an idiot!
Sure, honesty about numbers is important. So is treating voters as adults. But, as his former colleagues will likely see tomorrow/Wednesday morning, that's probably going to be the rule now, no longer an exception. And it will go for Republican in two more years, as well.
A different kind of tipping point, politically, may now have been reached.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Eric Cantor's WSJ Interview
Last weekend's 'Weekend Interview,' by Steve Moore, was GOP House leadership member Eric Cantor of Virginia.
One could wax on at length about Cantor's comments. I'm a huge fan of both Cantor and Moore, and can only guess how much fun they both had in the interview.
For me, though, the major insight came near the end. Moore was probing about how Cantor really gets along with Boehner. Specifically, he wrote,
"I can't avoid asking about the rumors that his relationship with Mr. Boehner has become prickly. "First, I support Boehner as speaker, period. And it's a good working relationship," Mr. Cantor says. But he doesn't deny there are policy disagreements, which he attributes to the fact that "he's in a different generation." Then he hastens to add: "It's the Democrats who are in utter disarray right now . . . Pelosi can't hold her caucus together. We're the ones who are unified." "
You can almost hear Cantor's relief when he seizes on Pelosi and the Democrats, thus steering the conversation completely away from Boehner's values and policies.
A few days later, on CNBC one morning, Cantor was drilled about the differences in values between him and Boehner. About earmarks, and why they weren't in the Pledge.
Well, in Moore's interview, he quotes Cantor as saying,
"Don't mistake this year's Republican caucus with next year's," Mr. Cantor responds. "We're going to do real earmark reform even though it was missing from the pledge. If you look at the makeup of the conference right now, and then add on that the incoming freshmen class, those folks aren't coming to Washington [for]....pork-barrel spending. They really aren't."
I believe Cantor's right. I also believe he is simply ignoring the obvious- that those same freshmen who will force earmark reform, probably over Jerry Lewis' still-warm corpse, will also, without prompting, vote for Cantor to be the next Speaker.
It's even reasonable that the three authors of the just-released "Young Guns" book, of which Cantor is one, will brace Boehner, if the latter is allowed, against common sense, to be elected Speaker by a GOP House majority.
I think Cantor is simply biding his time, saying the right things in public, giving nobody, least of all Boehner, cause to eject him from the caucus pre-emptively.
But after the election, if the GOP retakes the House, look for Cantor to be open to running a close second to Boehner come the post-swearing-in GOP leadership elections.
Cantor knows most of the prospective incoming GOP Representatives won't prefer Boehner to one of the Young Guns. Ryan's a bit too wonky and focused on the budget.
No, Cantor is the best choice for Speaker in a GOP-controlled House come January.
One could wax on at length about Cantor's comments. I'm a huge fan of both Cantor and Moore, and can only guess how much fun they both had in the interview.
For me, though, the major insight came near the end. Moore was probing about how Cantor really gets along with Boehner. Specifically, he wrote,
"I can't avoid asking about the rumors that his relationship with Mr. Boehner has become prickly. "First, I support Boehner as speaker, period. And it's a good working relationship," Mr. Cantor says. But he doesn't deny there are policy disagreements, which he attributes to the fact that "he's in a different generation." Then he hastens to add: "It's the Democrats who are in utter disarray right now . . . Pelosi can't hold her caucus together. We're the ones who are unified." "
You can almost hear Cantor's relief when he seizes on Pelosi and the Democrats, thus steering the conversation completely away from Boehner's values and policies.
A few days later, on CNBC one morning, Cantor was drilled about the differences in values between him and Boehner. About earmarks, and why they weren't in the Pledge.
Well, in Moore's interview, he quotes Cantor as saying,
"Don't mistake this year's Republican caucus with next year's," Mr. Cantor responds. "We're going to do real earmark reform even though it was missing from the pledge. If you look at the makeup of the conference right now, and then add on that the incoming freshmen class, those folks aren't coming to Washington [for]....pork-barrel spending. They really aren't."
I believe Cantor's right. I also believe he is simply ignoring the obvious- that those same freshmen who will force earmark reform, probably over Jerry Lewis' still-warm corpse, will also, without prompting, vote for Cantor to be the next Speaker.
It's even reasonable that the three authors of the just-released "Young Guns" book, of which Cantor is one, will brace Boehner, if the latter is allowed, against common sense, to be elected Speaker by a GOP House majority.
I think Cantor is simply biding his time, saying the right things in public, giving nobody, least of all Boehner, cause to eject him from the caucus pre-emptively.
But after the election, if the GOP retakes the House, look for Cantor to be open to running a close second to Boehner come the post-swearing-in GOP leadership elections.
Cantor knows most of the prospective incoming GOP Representatives won't prefer Boehner to one of the Young Guns. Ryan's a bit too wonky and focused on the budget.
No, Cantor is the best choice for Speaker in a GOP-controlled House come January.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The Truth About Those Democratic House Blue Dogs
Chris Chocola, president of the Club for Growth, wrote a highly useful and informative editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal concerning the deceit being perpetrated on American voters by the Democratic so-called Blue Dog caucus in the House.
Mr. Chocola began by providing some history,
"In the House of Representatives, the 54 members of the Blue Dog Coalition are the self-described fiscal conservatives in the Democratic caucus. Unfortunately, the description doesn't fit.
Organizing into a coalition after the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, the Blue Dogs branded themselves loyal but conservative Democrats. They were, in the words of Rep. Pete Geren of Texas, yellow dogs who had been "choked blue" by the strident economic liberalism of their party leaders.
In their first Congress, the Blue Dogs mostly lived up to the hype (albeit in an economically conservative environment). In 1995, the average Blue Dog's score on the National Taxpayers Union's congressional score card—which measures how well members vote on matters of taxes, spending and debt—was 52%, while the average Democratic score was 28%."
So far, so good, right? It would seem that this group was poised to limit the worst excesses of Frisco Nan's legislative lurch leftward. Instead, as Mr. Chocola relates,
"Afterward, though, the Blue Dogs' performance fell precipitously. Democrats retook the House in 2006, partly because of victories by Blue Dogs such as Brad Ellsworth in Indiana and Heath Shuler in North Carolina. Blue Dogs' average NTU scores since then, during Nancy Pelosi's first three years as House speaker, were 10%, 15% and 18%—hardly distinguishable from the average Democratic scores of 6%, 11% and 8%.
Every year since 2007, the Democratic advantage in the House has been fewer than the number of seats held by Blue Dogs: If they had wanted to, the Blue Dogs could have made themselves masters of the House. They could have held an effective veto over any bill they pleased, insisting that Mrs. Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid and even President Obama himself heed their call for fiscal responsibility.
Instead, the Blue Dogs became Mrs. Pelosi's lap dogs, voting with her 80% of the time on economic issues. Every one of them voted for the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Sixty-three percent voted for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program; 91% voted for the stimulus package in February 2009; 85% voted for the cash-for-clunkers program; 74% voted for President Obama's debt-tripling 2010 budget; 73% voted for the auto bailout; and 54% voted for the federal takeover of health care.
The evidence is overwhelming: The Blue Dogs are not fiscal conservatives, and only a few can credibly claim even to be fiscal moderates."
Thus, Mr. Chocola removes the Blue Dogs' cloak of importance and moderation. They are, he reveals, all bark, as it were, and no bite.
For example, he notes,
"Consider the Blue Dogs' signature legislative priority: "paygo," the pay-as-you-go rule requiring the House to offset any new spending and tax cuts with spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the budget. In 2007, to much Blue Dog fanfare, House Democrats established paygo as a standing rule of the House.
Yet the House has since voted 31 times to grease the skids for new spending by waiving the paygo rule—and Blue Dogs supported the waivers 86% of the time. Five Blue Dogs have voted to waive paygo every single time.
The Blue Dog Coalition isn't a vehicle to help conservative Democrats influence policy. It is a marketing brand to help vulnerable Democrats deceive voters.
If there is one thing voters dislike more than our fiscal crisis, it is the self-serving cynicism of their elected representatives. On both scores, the Blue Dogs are part of the problem, not the solution."
Hopefully, voters will realize this, with the help of Mr. Chocola and others. Perhaps the election coming in less than 40 days will replace these frauds with some truly fiscal conservative legislators.
Mr. Chocola began by providing some history,
"In the House of Representatives, the 54 members of the Blue Dog Coalition are the self-described fiscal conservatives in the Democratic caucus. Unfortunately, the description doesn't fit.
Organizing into a coalition after the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, the Blue Dogs branded themselves loyal but conservative Democrats. They were, in the words of Rep. Pete Geren of Texas, yellow dogs who had been "choked blue" by the strident economic liberalism of their party leaders.
In their first Congress, the Blue Dogs mostly lived up to the hype (albeit in an economically conservative environment). In 1995, the average Blue Dog's score on the National Taxpayers Union's congressional score card—which measures how well members vote on matters of taxes, spending and debt—was 52%, while the average Democratic score was 28%."
So far, so good, right? It would seem that this group was poised to limit the worst excesses of Frisco Nan's legislative lurch leftward. Instead, as Mr. Chocola relates,
"Afterward, though, the Blue Dogs' performance fell precipitously. Democrats retook the House in 2006, partly because of victories by Blue Dogs such as Brad Ellsworth in Indiana and Heath Shuler in North Carolina. Blue Dogs' average NTU scores since then, during Nancy Pelosi's first three years as House speaker, were 10%, 15% and 18%—hardly distinguishable from the average Democratic scores of 6%, 11% and 8%.
Every year since 2007, the Democratic advantage in the House has been fewer than the number of seats held by Blue Dogs: If they had wanted to, the Blue Dogs could have made themselves masters of the House. They could have held an effective veto over any bill they pleased, insisting that Mrs. Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid and even President Obama himself heed their call for fiscal responsibility.
Instead, the Blue Dogs became Mrs. Pelosi's lap dogs, voting with her 80% of the time on economic issues. Every one of them voted for the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Sixty-three percent voted for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program; 91% voted for the stimulus package in February 2009; 85% voted for the cash-for-clunkers program; 74% voted for President Obama's debt-tripling 2010 budget; 73% voted for the auto bailout; and 54% voted for the federal takeover of health care.
The evidence is overwhelming: The Blue Dogs are not fiscal conservatives, and only a few can credibly claim even to be fiscal moderates."
Thus, Mr. Chocola removes the Blue Dogs' cloak of importance and moderation. They are, he reveals, all bark, as it were, and no bite.
For example, he notes,
"Consider the Blue Dogs' signature legislative priority: "paygo," the pay-as-you-go rule requiring the House to offset any new spending and tax cuts with spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the budget. In 2007, to much Blue Dog fanfare, House Democrats established paygo as a standing rule of the House.
Yet the House has since voted 31 times to grease the skids for new spending by waiving the paygo rule—and Blue Dogs supported the waivers 86% of the time. Five Blue Dogs have voted to waive paygo every single time.
The Blue Dog Coalition isn't a vehicle to help conservative Democrats influence policy. It is a marketing brand to help vulnerable Democrats deceive voters.
If there is one thing voters dislike more than our fiscal crisis, it is the self-serving cynicism of their elected representatives. On both scores, the Blue Dogs are part of the problem, not the solution."
Hopefully, voters will realize this, with the help of Mr. Chocola and others. Perhaps the election coming in less than 40 days will replace these frauds with some truly fiscal conservative legislators.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
John Harwood's Lies on CNBC
This morning, on CNBC, I watched John Harwood lie about the newly-publish Republican Congressional Pledge.
In discussing the Pledge, and its companion itemized legislation, Harwood dismissed it as just a rehash of old GOP bills.
But Harwood has spent the last year and a half, like most mainstream, and thus, liberal media mouthpieces, describing the Republicans as "the party of NO," with no ideas of their own.
Which is it, John?
Harwood cleverly managed to avoid disclosing any of the details. See, back when they were introduced, Harwood would ignore them, claiming the Republicans had no 'new ideas.'
Now that they are reorganized into a framework as supporting items for the GOP Congressional Pledge, Harwood avoids the details by claiming they are 'nothing new.'
Pretty tricky, eh?
So much for honesty and truth in reporting from major US media outlets.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Turncoat Democratic Lobbyist Dick Gephardt
The Wall Street Journal ran an article earlier this week concerning Chinese telecom vendor Huawei Technologies.
At issue is the alleged connections Huawei may have with the Chinese military. It goes without saying that it would be a mistake to allow a telecom provider from a potential enemy country, with ties to that nation's military, to sell equipment into the US telecom networks.
To overcome this impression, Huawei has recruited the usual cast of US lobbyists with connections into the political arena.
To me, most notable among these is former Democratic House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt.
Whether Huawei has connections to the Chinese military is, in Gephardt's case, beside the point. Instead, consider that he was a rabid unionist when he was a Representative and Minority Leader.
So how can a staunch American union apologist now lobby for a foreign firm? Isn't it likely that Huawei's success will mean fewer American jobs and more Chinese ones?
Isn't this about the ultimate in whorish, hypocritical behavior by a one-time US elected official?
I guess so much for deeply-held convictions, beliefs and values by Dick Gephardt. Instead, he's as shallow and mercenary as they come.
At issue is the alleged connections Huawei may have with the Chinese military. It goes without saying that it would be a mistake to allow a telecom provider from a potential enemy country, with ties to that nation's military, to sell equipment into the US telecom networks.
To overcome this impression, Huawei has recruited the usual cast of US lobbyists with connections into the political arena.
To me, most notable among these is former Democratic House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt.
Whether Huawei has connections to the Chinese military is, in Gephardt's case, beside the point. Instead, consider that he was a rabid unionist when he was a Representative and Minority Leader.
So how can a staunch American union apologist now lobby for a foreign firm? Isn't it likely that Huawei's success will mean fewer American jobs and more Chinese ones?
Isn't this about the ultimate in whorish, hypocritical behavior by a one-time US elected official?
I guess so much for deeply-held convictions, beliefs and values by Dick Gephardt. Instead, he's as shallow and mercenary as they come.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
What The Republicans Don't Get
I saw House Republican Leader John Boehner on Larry Kudlow's CNBC program last night. Evidently a very personal, public fight has developed between Wonderboy and Boehner, with the former visiting Ohio sites to stump for more stimulus.
I wish Boehner weren't so presumptuous. Last night, he was speaking as if he would be the next Speaker of the House, ticking off the things that would occur, including rules changes. As is the popular thing to say, he, too, like Frisco Nan, promised that his House would be the most transparent, responsive, blah blah blah in history.
Don't make promises you can't keep, John.
Look that the mess involving Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters et. al. Does anyone really believe Boehner won't still behave like a hack, protecting his friends, submarining inconvenient ethics investigations, and generally trying to bully the newly-elected House members who would prospectively provide the GOP majority that might elect Boehner as the next Speaker?
Boehner is still tarred with the GOP House antics of 6 and 4 years ago. He has that surreal tan that so many others also notice and rarely fail to mention. And the apparently endless rounds of golf.
If the Republicans elect Boehner as Speaker, should they retake the House, I think it's going to be a short and ugly ride until they either lose it again in just 2 years, or suffer a revolt that deposes Boehner and his leadership team.
Seeing Boehner behaving like he will simply be crowned Speaker is disgusting to me. It demonstrates that Boehner, as presumptive Speaker for the GOP, and his party, is little different than Frisco Nan, and hers, when it comes to wanting power before working for the people who elected the House members.
If there were ever an instance to show people that the power game in Congress is rigged, it surely is Boehner counting votes of new members not yet elected, and simply taking on the role of Speaker in Waiting.
That's not what the many independents, one of which I consider myself, who will decide the outcome of many of the 435 races, as well as the 30+ Senate races, want to see and hear from Congress right now.
I wish Boehner weren't so presumptuous. Last night, he was speaking as if he would be the next Speaker of the House, ticking off the things that would occur, including rules changes. As is the popular thing to say, he, too, like Frisco Nan, promised that his House would be the most transparent, responsive, blah blah blah in history.
Don't make promises you can't keep, John.
Look that the mess involving Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters et. al. Does anyone really believe Boehner won't still behave like a hack, protecting his friends, submarining inconvenient ethics investigations, and generally trying to bully the newly-elected House members who would prospectively provide the GOP majority that might elect Boehner as the next Speaker?
Boehner is still tarred with the GOP House antics of 6 and 4 years ago. He has that surreal tan that so many others also notice and rarely fail to mention. And the apparently endless rounds of golf.
If the Republicans elect Boehner as Speaker, should they retake the House, I think it's going to be a short and ugly ride until they either lose it again in just 2 years, or suffer a revolt that deposes Boehner and his leadership team.
Seeing Boehner behaving like he will simply be crowned Speaker is disgusting to me. It demonstrates that Boehner, as presumptive Speaker for the GOP, and his party, is little different than Frisco Nan, and hers, when it comes to wanting power before working for the people who elected the House members.
If there were ever an instance to show people that the power game in Congress is rigged, it surely is Boehner counting votes of new members not yet elected, and simply taking on the role of Speaker in Waiting.
That's not what the many independents, one of which I consider myself, who will decide the outcome of many of the 435 races, as well as the 30+ Senate races, want to see and hear from Congress right now.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Paul Ryan: Canary In The Coal Mine?
The lead staff editorial in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago was entitled Washington vs. Paul Ryan. Very apropos.
The occasion of the piece was liberal economist Paul Krugman's calling Ryan "the flim-flam man" in his New York Times column of the prior week.
Krugman further alleged that Ryan's "roadmap" to fiscal responsibility was,
"a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America's fiscal future."
For the sin of acknowledging that Medicare is, as presently run, insolvent, and should be replaced by a voucher for purchase of insurance to provide the same services, Ryan is being crucified by Democrats, and ignored by many of his own Republican colleagues.
As with so many contemporary issues in Washington, this is one having many facets: macroeconomic, deficit, government control, and the loss of individual liberty, to name just a few.
The Journal editorial put it this way,
"In that sense, Mr. Ryan is really presenting Washington with a philosophical choice between ever-more indebted government and a plan to pay for the promises we've made while still preserving free markets and economic growth. The firehose of invective pointed at Mr. Ryan is in part an effort to scare voters and in part an effort to prevent voters from understanding that there is in fact a choice."
Ironic, in that virtually every non-partisan pundit you see on, say, CNBC, endorses Congress taking meaningful steps to address Medicare and other out of control spending. Yet, when Ryan offers realistic approaches to doing so, members of both parties react in predictably, unproductive partisan manners.
Democrats paint Ryan as a demon who is trying to destroy Medicare and old-age benefits, while members of his own party try to distance themselves from his comprehensive views and proposals for many needed government budget excesses.
Ryan doesn't confine himself to the usual 'waste cutting' solutions, but goes after the big stuff. As the quoted editorial passage notes, the real gut issues of who controls choice, how spending is done, and how services are provided.
I've argued in a prior post regarding ObamaCare that it is based on three horribly-flawed program designs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. All feature general pots of taxpayer funds out of which individuals are paid on a sort of first-come, first-served basis. Individualized accounts would have been a far more rational approach.
Unfortunately, our federal government is too-often run by people, both elected and civil service, who weren't the brightest candles on the cake, so to speak. Thus, these social welfare programs were designed and run under unrealistic assumptions of ever-increasing tax revenues and voter appetite for social spending. Not to mention ever-increasing appetites of global investors for US debt obligations.
None of these turned out to be true for as long as these programs have to run.
Whether you like Ryan's proposals or not, he deserves credit for saying what he thinks is right for the country, despite his own party members' attempt to acknowledge this. In a Congress dominated by power struggles between the parties, rather than either one focusing on lasting, sustainable solutions for serious problems involving federal deficits, spending, taxes and personal liberties, Ryan stands out as someone who is willing to take positions on issues his colleagues would prefer to ignore.
He deserves much better than Krugman's attacks. But, then, that's all Krugman seems to understand how to do.
The occasion of the piece was liberal economist Paul Krugman's calling Ryan "the flim-flam man" in his New York Times column of the prior week.
Krugman further alleged that Ryan's "roadmap" to fiscal responsibility was,
"a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America's fiscal future."
For the sin of acknowledging that Medicare is, as presently run, insolvent, and should be replaced by a voucher for purchase of insurance to provide the same services, Ryan is being crucified by Democrats, and ignored by many of his own Republican colleagues.
As with so many contemporary issues in Washington, this is one having many facets: macroeconomic, deficit, government control, and the loss of individual liberty, to name just a few.
The Journal editorial put it this way,
"In that sense, Mr. Ryan is really presenting Washington with a philosophical choice between ever-more indebted government and a plan to pay for the promises we've made while still preserving free markets and economic growth. The firehose of invective pointed at Mr. Ryan is in part an effort to scare voters and in part an effort to prevent voters from understanding that there is in fact a choice."
Ironic, in that virtually every non-partisan pundit you see on, say, CNBC, endorses Congress taking meaningful steps to address Medicare and other out of control spending. Yet, when Ryan offers realistic approaches to doing so, members of both parties react in predictably, unproductive partisan manners.
Democrats paint Ryan as a demon who is trying to destroy Medicare and old-age benefits, while members of his own party try to distance themselves from his comprehensive views and proposals for many needed government budget excesses.
Ryan doesn't confine himself to the usual 'waste cutting' solutions, but goes after the big stuff. As the quoted editorial passage notes, the real gut issues of who controls choice, how spending is done, and how services are provided.
I've argued in a prior post regarding ObamaCare that it is based on three horribly-flawed program designs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. All feature general pots of taxpayer funds out of which individuals are paid on a sort of first-come, first-served basis. Individualized accounts would have been a far more rational approach.
Unfortunately, our federal government is too-often run by people, both elected and civil service, who weren't the brightest candles on the cake, so to speak. Thus, these social welfare programs were designed and run under unrealistic assumptions of ever-increasing tax revenues and voter appetite for social spending. Not to mention ever-increasing appetites of global investors for US debt obligations.
None of these turned out to be true for as long as these programs have to run.
Whether you like Ryan's proposals or not, he deserves credit for saying what he thinks is right for the country, despite his own party members' attempt to acknowledge this. In a Congress dominated by power struggles between the parties, rather than either one focusing on lasting, sustainable solutions for serious problems involving federal deficits, spending, taxes and personal liberties, Ryan stands out as someone who is willing to take positions on issues his colleagues would prefer to ignore.
He deserves much better than Krugman's attacks. But, then, that's all Krugman seems to understand how to do.
Monday, August 16, 2010
....And Maxine Waters Is Ethically Challenged, Too
With all the recent attention on corrupt Charlie Rangel, California's differently, but equally corrupt Democratic Representative, Maxine Waters' behavior has almost gone unnoticed.
How important to her? As Waters told the Office of Congressional Ethics, which conducted the preliminary investigation of her activities, "You don't use your chits for nothing. You call when there is an important issue."
The issue broadly involved the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and its impact on minority-owned banks. But when Paulson's aides got to the meeting, they discovered that all but one of the banking industry participants were from one such institution: OneUnited.
On whose board Waters's husband had served until a few months earlier. In which he continued to have investments worth $500,000 to $1 million. A fact Waters somehow neglected to mention to Paulson -- although she was most certainly aware of it. As the report notes, Waters mentioned to Congressman A -- better known as Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank -- that "Sydney's been on the board." Frank twice advised Waters to "stay out of it."
The obvious question is: What is wrong with these people? The tempting answer: They're members of Congress."
You know someone is dense and stupid when even Barney Frank knows better than they do. Look at Waters' attitude- her "chits" are only for important usages. Hey, how about forgetting your own personal, corrupt uses of your legislative position, and think about the voters who sent you there?
Hopefully, the idiotic Waters will have the book thrown at her. But, with a liberal Democratic House majority, and a fellow Californian as Speaker, don't hold your breath. And one doubts even Waters' constituents have the sense or backbone to throw her out.
Here's a passage from a recent Washington Post column,
"Which gets to my favorite part of the ethics report on Waters. Fast-forward a few months after Rangel's meeting with AIG, to the first weeks of September 2008. This was, to put it mildly, a rather busy time for then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. The economy was tanking. Lehman Brothers was about to go down. But when a senior member of the Financial Services Committee calls, the Treasury secretary tends to listen.
Waters said she had "some people in town who were important to her," Paulson recalled, and asked for a meeting with Treasury officials to discuss their concerns.How important to her? As Waters told the Office of Congressional Ethics, which conducted the preliminary investigation of her activities, "You don't use your chits for nothing. You call when there is an important issue."
The issue broadly involved the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and its impact on minority-owned banks. But when Paulson's aides got to the meeting, they discovered that all but one of the banking industry participants were from one such institution: OneUnited.
On whose board Waters's husband had served until a few months earlier. In which he continued to have investments worth $500,000 to $1 million. A fact Waters somehow neglected to mention to Paulson -- although she was most certainly aware of it. As the report notes, Waters mentioned to Congressman A -- better known as Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank -- that "Sydney's been on the board." Frank twice advised Waters to "stay out of it."
The obvious question is: What is wrong with these people? The tempting answer: They're members of Congress."
You know someone is dense and stupid when even Barney Frank knows better than they do. Look at Waters' attitude- her "chits" are only for important usages. Hey, how about forgetting your own personal, corrupt uses of your legislative position, and think about the voters who sent you there?
Hopefully, the idiotic Waters will have the book thrown at her. But, with a liberal Democratic House majority, and a fellow Californian as Speaker, don't hold your breath. And one doubts even Waters' constituents have the sense or backbone to throw her out.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Will Duke & Charlie Be Cell Mates?
Reading about corrupt New York Democrat and former House Ways and Means Committee chairman Charlie Rangel, I keep seeing references to his service in the Korean war.
So here's my question: Will Charlie get to share a cell with Randy "Duke" Cunningham? Here's a video clip of Cunningham discussing his most famous dogfight.
Cunningham is the former California House member and Vietnam Navy fighter ace/hero who went to prison for soliciting bribes while, I believe, on the House Armed Services Committee.
Can they be cell mates, since both forgot that, as House members, they served the people, not the other way 'round? That supposes Rangel gets prison time, which would be appropriate if the charges concerning his tax evasion are true.
In Cunningham's case, though I can't find a clip of the scene, he was tearful as he faced cameras after his conviction. He didn't blubber and excuse his behavior by recalling his military service.
I doubt we'll be so lucky in Rangel's case. Expect him to hide behind his being black and a veteran, claim special circumstances, and totally deny culpability for his criminal behavior.
So here's my question: Will Charlie get to share a cell with Randy "Duke" Cunningham? Here's a video clip of Cunningham discussing his most famous dogfight.
Cunningham is the former California House member and Vietnam Navy fighter ace/hero who went to prison for soliciting bribes while, I believe, on the House Armed Services Committee.
Can they be cell mates, since both forgot that, as House members, they served the people, not the other way 'round? That supposes Rangel gets prison time, which would be appropriate if the charges concerning his tax evasion are true.
In Cunningham's case, though I can't find a clip of the scene, he was tearful as he faced cameras after his conviction. He didn't blubber and excuse his behavior by recalling his military service.
I doubt we'll be so lucky in Rangel's case. Expect him to hide behind his being black and a veteran, claim special circumstances, and totally deny culpability for his criminal behavior.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Charlie Rangel Assailed By Luke Russert
Last week, or thereabouts, ethically-challenged New York Democratic House power Charlie Rangel was assailed by MSNBC's Luke Russert. Here's the video.
I never liked Tim Russert. He was a liberal media lapdog. But his kid has potential. Note Rangel hoping to diss Luke Russert by alleging smarmy motives. I guess Charlie was projecting, eh?
Still, it's a priceless piece of raw evidence illustrating the contempt for and low regard in which Rangel holds voters, whom he allegedly serves. Basically ignoring media questions, impugning only base motives to what Jefferson held as a more valuable, necessary service than government- a free press' inquiry into government's actions.
Here's just one of many articles on Rangel's situation which you can find by Googling the topic 'Charlie Rangel ethics.'
What I find sad, yet predictable, is Rangel's continued insistence that his stark violations of tax law be seen as 'honest mistakes' or 'oversights.'
There's the abuse of a rent-controlled apartment as an office. The failure to pay taxes on the Dominican vacation home.
For these, Rangels pleads confusion and inadvertent, unintended non-payment of taxes, for which he should be forgiven and not penalized.
What Rangel fails to realize, as have his party's Congressional leaders for the several years that this travesty has been unfolding, is that this attitude infuriates voters everywhere.
Try Charlie's defense for yourself with the IRS, and you, or I, would be in jail. Charlie, on the other hand, is brazenly showing the contempt that so many in Congress feel for the rest of us.
They are different. They deserve exemption and blanket pardons for violations of the law.
First Geithner. Then Daschell. Now Rangel. They all plead 'honest mistakes.'
They all should be in jail. Now.
It's also a measure of the cynicism of Congressional Democrats that they now believe merely tossing Rangel to the wolves of public opinion will help them stave off defeat in November.
His transgressions were affordable until the Democrats' poll numbers became to awful. Now, he's got to go, because his sacrifice will, they calculate, have value.
Forget right and wrong. Forget being answerable to the law, like everyone else. Congressional members seem to have rejected these concepts long ago.
Thus the years-long fumbling by the so-called House Ethics Committee over Rangel's obvious law-breaking.
I never liked Tim Russert. He was a liberal media lapdog. But his kid has potential. Note Rangel hoping to diss Luke Russert by alleging smarmy motives. I guess Charlie was projecting, eh?
Still, it's a priceless piece of raw evidence illustrating the contempt for and low regard in which Rangel holds voters, whom he allegedly serves. Basically ignoring media questions, impugning only base motives to what Jefferson held as a more valuable, necessary service than government- a free press' inquiry into government's actions.
Here's just one of many articles on Rangel's situation which you can find by Googling the topic 'Charlie Rangel ethics.'
What I find sad, yet predictable, is Rangel's continued insistence that his stark violations of tax law be seen as 'honest mistakes' or 'oversights.'
There's the abuse of a rent-controlled apartment as an office. The failure to pay taxes on the Dominican vacation home.
For these, Rangels pleads confusion and inadvertent, unintended non-payment of taxes, for which he should be forgiven and not penalized.
What Rangel fails to realize, as have his party's Congressional leaders for the several years that this travesty has been unfolding, is that this attitude infuriates voters everywhere.
Try Charlie's defense for yourself with the IRS, and you, or I, would be in jail. Charlie, on the other hand, is brazenly showing the contempt that so many in Congress feel for the rest of us.
They are different. They deserve exemption and blanket pardons for violations of the law.
First Geithner. Then Daschell. Now Rangel. They all plead 'honest mistakes.'
They all should be in jail. Now.
It's also a measure of the cynicism of Congressional Democrats that they now believe merely tossing Rangel to the wolves of public opinion will help them stave off defeat in November.
His transgressions were affordable until the Democrats' poll numbers became to awful. Now, he's got to go, because his sacrifice will, they calculate, have value.
Forget right and wrong. Forget being answerable to the law, like everyone else. Congressional members seem to have rejected these concepts long ago.
Thus the years-long fumbling by the so-called House Ethics Committee over Rangel's obvious law-breaking.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
House Republicans Run Scared On Energy Bill
Want to know why independent conservatives like me hate so many GOP legislators almost as much as we hate Democrats?
Consider this recent Wall Street Journal article. In it were these passages,
"Senate Republicans are more than eager to debate and oppose a cap and tax bill going into the August recess. It polls badly when voters learn it is a vast new energy tax that will hit every sector of the economy. With unemployment at 9.5%, the public will settle for normal jobs in lieu of speculative "green jobs."
The danger is that some GOP Senators may relent on a "compromise" bill that includes the cap and tax Plan B of RPS. Democrats know an RPS might be palatable if it were expanded to include nuclear power, a Republican fixation. Democrats will also portray any bill as a response to the Gulf oil spill, and the press corps will ignore the boring details.
The potential for GOP panic was on display last week, as Henry Waxman's House energy committee unanimously passed the Blowout Prevention Act of 2010. Every committee Republican voted for industry tax increases and a federal takeover of the oil-and-gas permitting process for all drilling, even on state or private property. Never mind that the country's main source of carbon emissions—coal-fired power plants—had nothing to do with the spill.
Democrats are determined to pass something before their clock runs out in November, or even after the election in a lame duck session as Senator John Kerry told Politico.com yesterday.
The GOP can serve the public and itself by just saying no. Opposing any kind of new tax on energy won't cost Republicans a single seat in Congress, but letting Democrats win another huge liberal victory would demoralize potential GOP voters. The best Republican strategy now is to wait for this madhouse to collapse of its own destructive weight."
I wish that every Republican House member on that energy committee who stupidly voted for "industry tax increases and a federal takeover of the oil-and-gas permitting process for all drilling, even on state or private property" could be defeated and still hand the House to the Republicans this fall.
The editorial's conclusions are correct. These Republicans ran like scared rabbits, forsaking any thought that they could easily explain their opposition to this bad legislation.
With Republicans behaving like this, it's less clear why anyone should believe bad federal government behavior will cease just because the GOP wins control of either Congressional chamber.
Consider this recent Wall Street Journal article. In it were these passages,
"Senate Republicans are more than eager to debate and oppose a cap and tax bill going into the August recess. It polls badly when voters learn it is a vast new energy tax that will hit every sector of the economy. With unemployment at 9.5%, the public will settle for normal jobs in lieu of speculative "green jobs."
The danger is that some GOP Senators may relent on a "compromise" bill that includes the cap and tax Plan B of RPS. Democrats know an RPS might be palatable if it were expanded to include nuclear power, a Republican fixation. Democrats will also portray any bill as a response to the Gulf oil spill, and the press corps will ignore the boring details.
The potential for GOP panic was on display last week, as Henry Waxman's House energy committee unanimously passed the Blowout Prevention Act of 2010. Every committee Republican voted for industry tax increases and a federal takeover of the oil-and-gas permitting process for all drilling, even on state or private property. Never mind that the country's main source of carbon emissions—coal-fired power plants—had nothing to do with the spill.
Democrats are determined to pass something before their clock runs out in November, or even after the election in a lame duck session as Senator John Kerry told Politico.com yesterday.
The GOP can serve the public and itself by just saying no. Opposing any kind of new tax on energy won't cost Republicans a single seat in Congress, but letting Democrats win another huge liberal victory would demoralize potential GOP voters. The best Republican strategy now is to wait for this madhouse to collapse of its own destructive weight."
I wish that every Republican House member on that energy committee who stupidly voted for "industry tax increases and a federal takeover of the oil-and-gas permitting process for all drilling, even on state or private property" could be defeated and still hand the House to the Republicans this fall.
The editorial's conclusions are correct. These Republicans ran like scared rabbits, forsaking any thought that they could easily explain their opposition to this bad legislation.
With Republicans behaving like this, it's less clear why anyone should believe bad federal government behavior will cease just because the GOP wins control of either Congressional chamber.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Joe Barton & The GOP House's Gutless Leadership
Yet another reason John Boehner has to exit from the House GOP leadership.
Yesterday morning, I happened to be fortunate enough to hear, live, Texas GOP Representative Joe Barton, castigate Wonderboy's "shakedown" of BP for $20B. Here's the video from YouTube.
Late yesterday, the media reported that John Boehner threatened Barton with his 'ranking member' status on the committee if he didn't retract his statement.
Personally, I found Barton's original statement to be refreshing. Joe Biden's objection to it tells you Barton was on the right track.
After so many lies and outrageous statements from Frisco Nan these past few years, why would John Boehner care what Barton said? Especially when it was true, even though Barton prefaced it with many disqualifiers, distancing it from the GOP or his role as a House member.
Boehner seems to have his head up his ass on this. And so much else. The GOP House leadership should be proud that one of their own had the guts to call Wonderboy's thuggery for what it is, and uphold the rule of law in our republic.
Not take Barton to the woodshed and demand that he retract a statement which reflects reality.
This is the sort of behavior, by Boehner, to which I referred in my prior post, when I wondered whether a change in party domination of the House will really change anything of importance.
Yesterday morning, I happened to be fortunate enough to hear, live, Texas GOP Representative Joe Barton, castigate Wonderboy's "shakedown" of BP for $20B. Here's the video from YouTube.
Late yesterday, the media reported that John Boehner threatened Barton with his 'ranking member' status on the committee if he didn't retract his statement.
Personally, I found Barton's original statement to be refreshing. Joe Biden's objection to it tells you Barton was on the right track.
After so many lies and outrageous statements from Frisco Nan these past few years, why would John Boehner care what Barton said? Especially when it was true, even though Barton prefaced it with many disqualifiers, distancing it from the GOP or his role as a House member.
Boehner seems to have his head up his ass on this. And so much else. The GOP House leadership should be proud that one of their own had the guts to call Wonderboy's thuggery for what it is, and uphold the rule of law in our republic.
Not take Barton to the woodshed and demand that he retract a statement which reflects reality.
This is the sort of behavior, by Boehner, to which I referred in my prior post, when I wondered whether a change in party domination of the House will really change anything of importance.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Vermont's Congressman Welch Attacks Free Enterprise
A very liberal Democratic Congressman from Vermont named Welch was all over cable news yesterday insisting that BP, at the federal government's behest, suspend its dividend and public image advertising during the duration of the containment efforts and cleanup of the Gulf Coast oil spew.
As I wrote only yesterday, Wonderboy has also been busy intimidating BP and trying to coerce the company's management to do his bidding out of fear of federal government power.
Let me state this clearly: both Welch and Obama are wrong.
This is the type of government behavior that belongs in a banana republic or some African dictatorship. Not the United States of America.
When one network anchor suggested to Welch that his energy was better spent investigating why government regulators were asleep on the job, the Congressman promptly attempted to blame the Bush administration for the lack of regulatory oversight.
Welch is embarking on a very dangerous and, frankly, completely unconstitutional path. That is, government intervention in private sector activity out of frustration and anger.
Welch blathered about how BP wasn't doing its image any good by paying a dividend or spending money on ads. Just how would Congressman Welch, a member of one of the American institutions with the lowest public approval ratings on record (23%) know anything about how to improve the image of any other entity?
Further, in America, publicly-held companies answer to shareholders, not to government. If BP, by paying a dividend, causes acrimony among customers and, thus, by extension, investors, then its share price will fall. That will be sufficient penalty.
It's totally wrong-headed and politically dangerous for our society to have the president and/or members of Congress demanding that BP change its internal managerial decisions on subjects in which it has not acted illegally.
If it's BP today, which company will be next, and on what totally subjective, arbitrary bases?
As I wrote only yesterday, Wonderboy has also been busy intimidating BP and trying to coerce the company's management to do his bidding out of fear of federal government power.
Let me state this clearly: both Welch and Obama are wrong.
This is the type of government behavior that belongs in a banana republic or some African dictatorship. Not the United States of America.
When one network anchor suggested to Welch that his energy was better spent investigating why government regulators were asleep on the job, the Congressman promptly attempted to blame the Bush administration for the lack of regulatory oversight.
Welch is embarking on a very dangerous and, frankly, completely unconstitutional path. That is, government intervention in private sector activity out of frustration and anger.
Welch blathered about how BP wasn't doing its image any good by paying a dividend or spending money on ads. Just how would Congressman Welch, a member of one of the American institutions with the lowest public approval ratings on record (23%) know anything about how to improve the image of any other entity?
Further, in America, publicly-held companies answer to shareholders, not to government. If BP, by paying a dividend, causes acrimony among customers and, thus, by extension, investors, then its share price will fall. That will be sufficient penalty.
It's totally wrong-headed and politically dangerous for our society to have the president and/or members of Congress demanding that BP change its internal managerial decisions on subjects in which it has not acted illegally.
If it's BP today, which company will be next, and on what totally subjective, arbitrary bases?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
