Wonderboy's Demonizing of Legitimate Creditors

I try not to watch Wonderboy's speeches. The mere sound of his voice sickens me, so I head for the 'mute' button as fast as possible.

However, this afternoon, CNBC replayed some of the First Rookie's noon speech concerning Chrysler.

If you ever needed more evidence of why government should not interfere in private sector affairs, that speech was it.

Not that the presidential limousines are Chryslers, but our new president assured the nation that he, too, loves Chrysler cars and hopes we all buy one.

Gee, don't you typically have to pay for advertising? Will Alan Mulalley be demanding equal Oval Office time for his company's cars? I guess Wonderboy could shill for GM, since his actions are making that company the next likely government-owned auto maker.

But the low point was when he demonized legitimate bondholders by claiming that they are the only ones not sacrificing enough for Chrysler's survival. As if that is some pre-destined good.

No, Wonderboy heaped public opprobrium on those who lent money to Chrysler with an expectation of repayment, and clear legal rights if that doesn't occur.

How is that a lawyer, as president, is taking the lead in using thuggery and recommending the explicit ignorance and breaking of laws?

Is this the change we were to believe in?

As bad as George Bush's economic policies were, beginning in late 2007 by not amending mark-to-market methodologies via executive order, Wonderboy is much, much worse.

He's publicly choosing not only which companies will win, and which will not be granted government funding. He now is turning to specific investor classes and calling for senior secured debt holders to relinquish their legal rights.

This is surely government gone way, way too far with intervention into the private sector.

Shelby Steele On The Attraction of Conservatism

Monday's Wall Street Journal featured an incredibly well-written, personal view on the GOP's challenge in luring minority voters, as expressed by prominent black conservative and Hoover Institute member Shelby Steele.

Steele explained, by way of personal attestation,

"What drew me to conservatism years ago was the fact that it gave discipline a slightly higher status than virtue. This meant it could not be subverted by passing notions of the good. It could be above moral vanity. And so it made no special promises to me as a minority. It neglected me in every way except as a human being who wanted freedom. Until my encounter with conservatism I had only known the racial determinism of segregation on the one hand and of white liberalism on the other -- two varieties of white supremacy in which I could only be dependent and inferior."

This is something that I have always suspected. That is, open- and fair-minded minorities eventually realize that liberalism plays on their sense of inferiority and victimhood, rather than their equality as a person, irrespective of the very attribute which characterized their minority status.

But Steele went further, writing elsewhere in his piece,

"When redemption became a term of power, "redemptive liberalism" was born -- a new activist liberalism that gave itself a "redemptive" profile by focusing on social engineering rather than liberalism's classic focus on individual freedom. In the '60s there was no time to allow individual freedom to render up the social good. Redemptive liberalism would proactively engineer the good. Name a good like "integration," and then engineer it into being through a draconian regimen of school busing. If the busing did profound damage to public education in America, it gave liberals the right to say, "At least we did something!" In other words, we are activists against America's old sin of segregation. Activism is moral authority in redemptive liberalism.

But conservatism sees moral authority more in a discipline of principles than in activism. It sees ideas of the good like "diversity" as mere pretext for the social engineering that always leads to unintended and oppressive consequences. Conservatism would enforce the principles that ensure individual freedom, and then allow "the good" to happen by "invisible hand."

And here is conservatism's great problem with minorities. In an era when even failed moral activism is redemptive -- and thus a source of moral authority and power -- conservatism stands flat-footed with only discipline to offer. It has only an invisible hand to compete with the activism of the left. So conservatism has no way to show itself redeemed of America's bigoted past, no way like the Great Society to engineer a grand display of its innocence, and no way to show deference to minorities for the oppression they endured. Thus it seems to be in league with that oppression."

Steele is, in my opinion, completely correct. Conservatism's "invisible hand" offers no splashy and expensive programs to demonstrate itself. Rather, it relies on each person's comfort in the security of their own beliefs and the liberty to pursue their self-determined goals without government intervention or interference.

For a white to state these things is suspect. Coming from Shelby Steele, however, they are both elegant and credible.

CNBC's Political Slip

I saw an interesting example of GE's networks' ultra-liberal, left-leaning politics yesterday.

As CNBC was covering the 'fiscal responsibility summit,' anchor Bill Griffith said, to paraphrase as closely as I can recall,

'President Obama is targeting to cut this deficit in half by the end of his first term. That's the term he is currently serving.'

Do you see the embedded liberal slant?

Griffith didn't say 'by the end of his term.'

No. He said "first" term. As in,

'he'll be getting re-elected, no question. So we need to identify this as his first term already, to distinguish what he'll do with his second four year stint as President.'

And, of course, Griffith got away with it. The only conservative on the program at that hour, Michelle Caruso Cabrera, probably has been told not to meddle excessively in conservative politics. Economics and business, yes. Politics, nyet.

So Griffith's implicit support for the inept Democratic President went unchallenged.

So much for independent news sources, even about business.

The Political Costs of Economic Illiteracy

I had a very disturbing conversation last night with a friend and squash partner.


J is a lifelong Democrat and resident of the Garden State, as well as a practicing attorney. I, on the other hand, consider myself to still be moving through a period of living in New Jersey, and, because independents can't vote in primaries, am a registered Republican. Not so much because I trust them, but because I know I can't and don't trust the Democrats- especially in this state.


I began by gently needling J about Wonderboy's cabinet nominees' tax cheats, and the various waivers on lobbyists that our First Rookie wants in his administration. Then I moved on to the bloated, ill-considered 'stimulus' bill.


J retorted with his usual lead, that of hating former President Bush and anything he did. J excoriated the greed of financial institution CEOs, which, he is convinced, is the only reason we have any economic problems whatsoever. From there, he moved on to claiming that the Bush era saw a lack of regulation, which happens to be factualy so far from the truth as to not even be funny.


Then J claimed that Wonderboy's stimulus of nearly $1T was payback for Bush overspending on Iraq. Hey, J's liberal, so he has to get a whack in on Iraq. And that 'some economists even say we should spend more.'


Oh boy.


I like J. He's a nice guy, very ethical and principled. But he is economically misinformed. In effect, economically illiterate.

He refuses to acknowledge research in the past decade that conclusively proves FDR's own New Deal failed to revive the American economy. He also probably doesn't know, and wouldn't believe, that Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad took bribes from lenders like Countrywide to let them securitize low-doc and no-doc, low-downpayment mortgages via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

What's sad is that his final comment was something to the effect that,

'We both have our scripts. And we believe them. So there's no point talking about these topics.'

Were that it was so simple.

Instead, it's more like this. I understand economics, have read and observed economics for several decades, and note that socializing economies does not bring about long term productive growth and wealth creation. J just believes what the latest Democratic candidates tell him is true.

Even when it's not.

For example, Wonderboy evidently had a lot of fun declaring FDR's New Deal successful, saying something like,

'I thought we all knew what the New Deal accomplished.'

Then he wrongly referred to Republicans objections to his wasteful spending by saying that

'Tax cuts for the rich have been tried and failed. The Republicans are advocating failed solutions.'

That's just false. Even JFK's economic advisor, Walter Heller, cut marginal rates to stimulate economic growth in the early 1960s.

While we're at it, let's understand that there's a lot to the Ayn Rand view that the productive, creative entrepreneurs in American become wealthy because they succeed economically. And by succeeding, create jobs, tax revenues, etc.

Which do you think will create more value in the American economy: cutting taxes for a successful entrepreneur with capital and income, or; sending checks to jobless poor who can only spend the money, rather than invest it to create more value?

Unfortunately, J won't think about any of these ideas. I guess he just listens to Democrats and figures they'd never lie. And they know all the economic facts, too. Which they would accept, even if the facts did not support the large spending programs they intend to create and propagate for decades to come.

Why Democrats Have A Media Edge

Even in the midst of last week's Republican National Convention, the freshman Senator from Illinois drew attention by his comments that McCain and Palin were not 'speaking about the issues.'

The liberal mainstream media, of course, ate this up. The fact that the rookie from Illinois was wrong did not bother them.

Why do Democrats, year in, year out, seem to dominate the networks and print media with their speeches, proposals and 'solutions?'

Perhaps because, as liberals, they strongly believe in a government-paid solution to anyone's problem.

They propose programs for every ill, imagined or not. They believe every economic down-draft and cycle should be eliminated, or, if not, ameliorated by compensating voters. If even one American experiences a bad day due to their own lack of judgment or poor choices, the Black Adder, Frisco Nan and Harry Reid are there to assure them that, if these latter pols have their way, Uncle Sam will be sending a check to the self-damaged voter muy pronto.

For example, right now, Obama claims our economy is 'fragile.' Is it? It's not even in a recession yet, as measured by agreed-upon, conventional methodology. So how can we need even more transfer payments?


Thus, Democrats always have a new program to 'fix' something, whereas Republicans, who tend to believe in self-reliance and weathering natural cycles, do not.

McCain and Palin did address numerous economic issues last week at their convention. However, none of their solutions involved new federal programs. Or expanding existing one.

No, instead, they dwelt on individual responsibility, reforming existing job retraining programs, and reining in Federal spending, i.e., the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Thus, media bandwidth and time are taken up by Democrats preaching 'solutions' for each misfortune, while Republicans are made to look insensitive, flinty and uncaring.

And every time a Steny Hoyer, Frisco Nan Pelosi, Harry Reid, "Lying" Joe Biden, or even Obama speak, they are sure to the new spending and programmatic 'solution' they are proposing for real or imagined ills.

Cashing In- The Clintons' Tax Returns

This past Friday's publication of the Clinton tax returns for 2000-06 pretty much completes the picture of the former First Couple as a pair of hypocrites. But of the two, I think it's fair and timely to paint Hillary as the worse of the two.

For someone who keeps referring on the campaign trail to 'poor working families,' 'hard working families,' and, alternatively, 'the rich,' she has a lot of gall.

She and Bill earned over $100MM in the time period covered by the published returns. Most of it- some $80MM- came from his speaking fees and books. Talk about 'unearned' income.

In Hillary's new world of the working poor and a gloomy America, what possible 'value' could she and Bill have created with all of his hot air and their joint scribblings? Neither of them ever did anything material in the private sector, and Bill made a mockery of the Presidency.

Coming from the Midwest, I have to wonder how many of the centrist, Reagan Democrats now on the fence regarding voting for John McCain, will lean harder in his direction as they learn that the woman who rails against Wall Street has a husband who was paid $15MM by venture capitalist Ron Burkle for 'investment advice.'

What advice? Buy the blue dress- it has investment potential?

And how about when those voters learn that Bill essentially monetized the Presidency in his afterlife to the tune of some $80MM. Would anyone have cared what Bill thought or said if he hadn't become President? Doubtful.

Then there are two other interesting tidbits. The woman who is running on a platform to soak the rich- paid $33MM in taxes for the period of the tax returns!

That's substantially more paid in taxes in six years than most voters will earn in a lifetime.

Then there's the typical Clinton self-dealing in the form of 'charity.' By 'charity,' the Clintons mean lining their own tax-free pockets by contributing to their own charitable foundation.

This foundation then becomes a sinkhole to which their 'friends' can also contribute, and/or the Clintons can use, as they did in South Carolina, to make donations which become quid pro quos for non-economic favors in the political arena.

Pretty nice deal, if you can get it, eh? Of course, you have to come up with the $10MM to fund the personal charitable foundation, first.

It doesn't get much better for a conservative than to watch a grasping, ambitious liberal like Hillary rail against the very thing she then demonstrates herself- and her husband- to be. That is, white-collar rich folks making money with their connections and wits, rather than stocking shelves, fixing cars or welding metal out on 'the line.'

You'd like to think that Hillary might write a big check to the US Treasury, in order to demonstrate her common cause with the poor on whose behalf she alleges to campaign. Fat chance.

If these tax returns don't make middle Americans think twice about the hypocritical witch from New York, I guess nothing will.

Slick Willie Demonstrates Why We Distrust Politicians

In a shocking display of ill-gotten gains, the Wall Street Journal ran an article yesterday detailing Bill Clinton's looming multi-million dollar payoff from being President.

This is the sort of post-office holding development that enrages voters. Or at least it enrages me. Bill Clinton would have none of this, had he not been elected President. In fact, as the article notes, much of his wealth actually resulted from political favor-seekers helping him to raise money to pay his impeachment-related legal bills.

It's ironic, of course, that Slick Willie is now the type of corporate fat cat that his 'partner,' Hillary, would soak with her tax hike plans.

According to the article,

"Former President Clinton stands to reap around $20 million -- and will sever a politically sensitive partnership tie to Dubai -- by ending his high-profile business relationship with the investment firm of billionaire friend Ron Burkle.

The former president has had links to Yucaipa since early 2002, when Mr. Burkle -- a longtime friend and political contributor -- offered him a role there. Mr. Clinton's association with the firm began at a time when he was looking to earn large amounts of money, partly to pay heavy legal bills accumulated to defend himself and Mrs. Clinton from several investigations during his presidency.

Profits from the sales helped to push the funds above the earnings threshold needed to generate a multimillion-dollar payday for the former president, according to public documents related to the sales and other information.

The deals were announced in February and March 2007, respectively -- around the time Mr. Clinton's involvement as an adviser to the domestic funds was set to expire. By not closing out his Yucaipa relationship before those sales were completed, President Clinton probably increased the amount of money ultimately due him, say people familiar with such transactions."

Thus, we see that Slick Willie gained access to tens of millions of dollars of profits from 'unearned' income that most of those who voted for him could never achieve. More than any other former President, the former First Philanderer has traded on his term of office to make a fortune. While his wife, a Senator, rails against....exactly what he is doing.

The Yucaipa connection became public recently, as I noted in this post from last September.

Then we have the incredibly rich irony described in this passage,

"Mr. Clinton is also looking to close out partnership interests in a Yucaipa fund that focuses on investing in foreign companies. This fund -- called Yucaipa Global Partnership Fund LP -- has raised several hundred million dollars from a range of investors. Unlike his deal to advise the two Yucaipa domestic funds, Mr. Clinton invested an undisclosed sum of his own money in the global fund and has a limited partnership interest.

Mr. Clinton is also one of three owners of the global fund's general partner. The others are Mr. Burkle, who is the managing member, and an entity connected to the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum.

Severing the tie to Dubai, a U.S. ally, will remove a potentially tricky problem for Mrs. Clinton. Questions raised about the activities of sovereign wealth funds -- giant pools of money controlled by foreign governments -- have become a campaign issue, as the funds have made a spate of multibillion-dollar investments in such corporate giants as Citigroup Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. In a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, Mrs. Clinton said such purchases are "a source of concern," partly because the foreign funds "lack transparency" and could be used by foreign governments as "instruments of foreign policy." "

So here we see Bill making hay while the sun shone, with his Dubai partners. Then, as soon as his wife's bid for the Presidency made that investment questionable, he dumped it- but not the profit, of course.

This way, Hillary has her funding, and the contradictory, hypocritical political position, too.

What, precisely, did Slick Willie do for Burkle that allowed him to earn- and I use the term incredibly loosely- all that money? The Journal piece states,

"Mr. Clinton's duties and activities as a Yucaipa adviser have never been completely clear to outsiders. He has met at times with people involved in various Yucaipa business deals. And the former president's vast global network of contacts probably has been an asset for Mr. Burkle in dealings with business, labor and political leaders. Over the years, Mr. Burkle has said publicly that Mr. Clinton's prestige and connections have helped Yucaipa get its business proposals in front of top corporate decision makers.

Asked about the unwinding of the Yucaipa relationship, a spokesman for Mr. Clinton said the former president "is taking steps to ensure" that there will be "an appropriate transition" for the business relationship should Mrs. Clinton win the Democratic presidential nomination.

The spokesman added it isn't yet known how much Mr. Clinton will receive from his involvement in Yucaipa. A Yucaipa spokesman declined to comment on the firm's relationship with Mr. Clinton.

As part of the effort to sever financial connections that could complicate Mrs. Clinton's presidential bid, the couple in June disclosed that they had sold millions of dollars worth of stock in public companies and put the funds in cash accounts."

Before reading this article, I thought John Edwards' working at the hedge fund Fortress, described here, was the height of hypocrisy.

I was wrong.

Slick Willie has sold his status as ex-President for something north of $20MM. Not content to have stained the office while actually holding it, he now continues to dishonor it by brazenly turning it into cash. Reading Burkle's contention that just by having Slick Willie's name associated with business proposals, they get attention, confirms that the former President is 'doing' nothing for the millions he is paid by Yucaipa.

While masquerading as a champion of the poor and disenfranchised, the Slick One from Arkansas has managed to monetize all those millions of votes from his two Presidential election.

Disgusting. Just stomach-turning. It's exactly why voters in America have become so jaded by the political, governing class. Nothing is ever done out of a public service ethic. There's always a payday around the corner from every public office held.

I shudder to think of what the Billary could concoct, should she actually be elected to even one term in the Oval Office.