Judging by Lindsay Graham's vote against the debt limit bill, he must be getting worried 4 years early.
Last year and earlier this year, the South Carolina Republican Senator was a periodic target of former Fox News program host Glenn Beck. Beck rightly pilloried Graham for having become a closet progressive.
Suddenly, Graham is trying to look and act like a Tea Party activist. Funny, though, how he was absent from the big Washington Tea Party rallies on 9/12/2010 and during the final stages of the Democratic push on ObamaCare.
Jim DeMint, his Senate colleague from the same state, however, was very visible.
I'm thinking that with Nicki Haley's election as a very conservative governor of his state, Graham is worried that he's going to be challenged from the right when he runs again in 2014.
My earliest memories of Graham are from my college days, when he and two other then-Democratic Representatives- Phil Gramm of Texas and Trent Lott of Mississippi- all deserted their party to become GOP members. They were known as the Boll Weevils. All subsequently ran for the Senate and won there, too.
Gramm left the Senate quite a few years ago. Lott was effectively forced out for comments taken by the liberal media as racist.
Though Graham hasn't made a major faux pas like that, he's long in the tooth now. Too many years, I believe, cutting deals and changing patterns like a chameleon to remain in power.
Now, he's just a RINO trying to slip on Tea Party colors while hoping nobody will notice. With luck, either he'll decide to retire after this term, or get shellacked by some young, truly conservative Republican in South Carolina.
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
A Rant Without Evidence- Socialist Senator Bernie Sander's WSJ Editorial
Bernie Sanders, the independent- read 'socialist'- Senator from Vermont, is a member of the Senate Budget Committee and author of a detail-less rant in Friday's Wall Street Journal.
"The rich are getting richer. Their effective tax rate, in recent years, has been reduced to the lowest in modern history. Nurses, teachers and firemen actually pay a higher tax rate than some billionaires. It's no wonder the American people are angry."
Where's Bernie's evidence? Actually Stephen Moore recently wrote a Journal editorial last Thursday in which he debunked the myth of "the rich" paying lower tax rates than lower income filers. Moore wrote,
"During Monday night's national address, President Obama recited the Buffet line that millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. Democrats in Congress routinely cite Mr. Buffett's tax confessions as irrefutable evidence that tax rates on the very rich are too low and the system is unfair. And the system would be unfair, if Mr. Buffett's tax facts were the whole truth. But they aren't.
I don't know the details of Warren Buffet's personal taxes, and he hasn't made them public. But the IRS does provide reliable data on effective tax rates—the overall share of their income that various groups pay in federal income taxes (not including state or local taxes) after accounting for all deductions and exemptions. These are different than marginal tax rates, which are paid on the next dollar of income and now peak at 35% for individuals.
IRS data for 2008, for example, show that households in the top 10% of earners (above about $114,000) paid 19% of their income to the feds. Those in the top 1% (above $380,000) paid 23.3%. The top 0.1% of earners, with incomes of $2 million or more, end up paying a slightly lower tax of 22.7%, because they get more of their income from investments (more about this below).
So what about the rest of us? According to IRS data, a median-income household ($35,000) in 2008 paid about 4% of its income in federal income tax.
Mr. Buffett may have been referring to all federal taxes, not just income taxes, when he said the rich pay less than others. His secretary and most workers in America do pay a lot in Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, but even accounting for them the federal system is highly progressive.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), middle-class families in 2007 (earning between $34,000 and $50,000) paid an effective 14.3% of their income in all federal taxes. The top 5% of income earners paid 27.9% and the top 1% paid 29.5%. And what about the highest earners? Americans with annual incomes above $2 million paid an average 32% of their income in federal taxes in 2005 (the most recent year for which data are available).
So how does Mr. Buffett arrive at such a low personal tax rate? He may have been referring to a 2010 IRS study of the 400 richest American taxpayers, a list he's probably on. It showed those people paid an effective federal income tax of 18.1% in 2008.
Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.
Mr. Buffett owns about one-quarter of his investment company Berkshire Hathaway, and his shares are worth about $38 billion. This wealth is mostly stored in what are technically called "unrealized capital gains." Eventually when those gains are converted into income, he will pay a capital gains tax. Even so, in 2008 Berkshire paid $3 billion in corporate taxes. And since Mr. Buffett is the principal owner, he shoulders a big share of that tax.
The reason for the light capital gains and dividend tax is that corporations pay up to a 35% tax on their profits before a dime of it is passed on to shareholders. The real tax rate on corporate income paid to individuals through capital gains and dividends is not 15%. It is closer to 45% once you count the tax on corporate profits. If the dividend tax rises to 20% next year from 15% today, then the total tax on dividends paid to shareholders would be closer to 50%, and that doesn't include state and local taxes.
Overall, though, Warren Buffett is wrong on taxes. The tax system is already far too reliant on the wealthy to pay the government's bills. Taxes on millionaires and billionaires are already near a record high in terms of the share of all income taxes paid. And the effective tax rate on this group is much higher, not lower, than any other income category. The best way to balance the budget is for the economy to produce a lot more American success stories like Warren Buffett."
So, on his first point, score Bernie Sanders a liar.
Then the Senator continues,
"Many corporations, including General Electric and Exxon-Mobil, have made billions in profits while using loopholes to avoid paying any federal income taxes. We lose $100 billion every year in federal revenue from companies and individuals who stash their wealth in tax havens off-shore like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. The sum of all the revenue collected by the Treasury today totals just 14.8% of our gross domestic product, the lowest in about 50 years.
In the midst of this, Republicans in Congress have been fanatically determined to protect the interests of the wealthy and large multinational corporations so that they do not contribute a single penny toward deficit reduction."
Corporate tax preference items are frequently cited by Democrats interested in class warfare over tax policy. I don't know the source of GE's tax preference items, but Exxon-Mobil makes use of oil depletion accounting which Congress granted decades ago to encourage American oil exploration and production. The company is simply using what Congress granted because Congress wanted more oil production. What's wrong with that?
Does Sanders want less US oil production? Further, American business wouldn't have these tax preference items if members of Congress like Sanders, and their staffs, didn't sell their power to write tax law for various favors- campaign contributions, for example- now and in the future. Think senior executive posts and/or board seats.
If Congress now wants fewer tax preference items with lower, simpler, fewer rates, by all means they should reform the tax code. But Republicans aren't necessarily defending the tax codes, and the companies Sanders mentioned aren't doing anything illegal.
Sanders then turns to entitlements with these passages,
"If the Republicans have their way, the entire burden of deficit reduction will be placed on the elderly, the sick, children and working families. In the midst of a horrendous recession that is already causing severe pain for average Americans, this approach is morally grotesque. It's also bad economic policy.
President Obama and the Democrats have been extremely weak in opposing these right-wing extremist proposals. Although the United States now has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major industrialized country, Democrats have not succeeded in getting any new revenue from those at the top of the economic ladder to reduce the deficit.
Instead, they've handed the wealthy even more tax breaks. In December, the House and the Senate extended President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich and lowered estate tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. In April, to avoid the Republican effort to shut down the government, they allowed $38.5 billion in cuts to vitally important programs for working-class and middle-class Americans.
The Reid plan is bad. The constantly shifting plan by House Speaker John Boehner is much worse. His $1.2 trillion plan calls for no cuts in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it requires a congressional committee to come up with another $1.8 trillion in cuts within six months of passage.
Those cuts would mean drastic reductions in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. What's more, Mr. Boehner's plan would reopen the debate over the debt ceiling, which is now paralyzing Congress, just six months from now.
While all of this is going on in Washington, the American people have consistently stated, in poll after poll, that they want wealthy individuals and large corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. They also want bedrock social programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to be protected. For example, a July 14-17 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 72% of Americans believe that Americans earning more than $250,000 a year should pay more in taxes."
I wrote these two posts- here and here- recently on my business blog, building upon this July 4th post, America's Porkiest Generation. The theme of those posts is that the US Congress and various administrations of both parties have misled the American public into believing that three existing and one newly-created, poorly-designed, common-pool, defined-benefit social welfare programs- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare- were and are affordable, sustainable and constitute valid, binding promises by future generations to pay for pensions and healthcare of prior ones.
Sanders includes some numbers in those passages from his editorial, but not ones that matter to the point at hand- whether the four programs are, in reality, unenforceable Ponzi schemes whose promises were never valid. It's no surprise that a socialist would cherry pick from many polls, though he does not enumerate the "poll after poll," to claim that "the American people have consistently stated that they want wealthy individuals and large corporations to pay their fair share of taxes." Of course, not only do we not know the sample compositions, sizes, etc., of those alleged many polls to which Sanders refers, but we also do not know whether those polled believed that "wealthy individuals and large corporations" already "pay their fair share of taxes," do we? Further, as I wrote in those prior linked posts, who is to say what is fair?
Bernie Sanders? The Democratic party? I think not.
As I cited in this recent post, AEI head Arthur Brooks noted that,
"Between 1986 and 2009, the percentage of Americans who pay zero or negative federal income taxes has increased to 51% from 18.5%. And all this is accompanied by an increase in our national debt to 100% of GDP today from 42% in 1980."
So it should come as no surprise, when 51% of Americans pay no federal tax, that, in some survey whose provenance is unknown, an alleged 72% want Americans earning over $250,000/year, hardly a 'wealthy' income for a family anymore, to pay more in taxes.
Having failed to clearly justify any of his points thus far, Sanders concludes his rant by asserting,
"In other words, Congress is now on a path to do exactly what the American people don't want. Americans want shared sacrifice in deficit reduction. Congress is on track to give them the exact opposite: major cuts in the most important programs that the middle class needs and wants, and no sacrifice from the wealthy and the powerful.
Is it any wonder, therefore, that the American people are so angry with what's going on in Washington? I am too."
I want "shared sacrifice" in spending reductions, not merely deficit reductions. The former are real spending cuts, whereas the latter is the difference between tax receipts and spending. A significant matter over which Sanders silently glides. In my view, that shared sacrifice means cutting the unearned, unaffordable, unfunded, larded-up defined-benefits to various groups from the four entitlement programs which are bankrupting our nation.
That would be true shared sacrifice- for every federal largess recipient to experience the same effects of inflation, higher taxes, average wage change and overall US GDP growth each year as the average working, tax-paying American.
How about Bernie? Want to go there in the name of fairness and shared sacrifice?
"The rich are getting richer. Their effective tax rate, in recent years, has been reduced to the lowest in modern history. Nurses, teachers and firemen actually pay a higher tax rate than some billionaires. It's no wonder the American people are angry."
Where's Bernie's evidence? Actually Stephen Moore recently wrote a Journal editorial last Thursday in which he debunked the myth of "the rich" paying lower tax rates than lower income filers. Moore wrote,
"During Monday night's national address, President Obama recited the Buffet line that millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. Democrats in Congress routinely cite Mr. Buffett's tax confessions as irrefutable evidence that tax rates on the very rich are too low and the system is unfair. And the system would be unfair, if Mr. Buffett's tax facts were the whole truth. But they aren't.
I don't know the details of Warren Buffet's personal taxes, and he hasn't made them public. But the IRS does provide reliable data on effective tax rates—the overall share of their income that various groups pay in federal income taxes (not including state or local taxes) after accounting for all deductions and exemptions. These are different than marginal tax rates, which are paid on the next dollar of income and now peak at 35% for individuals.
IRS data for 2008, for example, show that households in the top 10% of earners (above about $114,000) paid 19% of their income to the feds. Those in the top 1% (above $380,000) paid 23.3%. The top 0.1% of earners, with incomes of $2 million or more, end up paying a slightly lower tax of 22.7%, because they get more of their income from investments (more about this below).
So what about the rest of us? According to IRS data, a median-income household ($35,000) in 2008 paid about 4% of its income in federal income tax.
Mr. Buffett may have been referring to all federal taxes, not just income taxes, when he said the rich pay less than others. His secretary and most workers in America do pay a lot in Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, but even accounting for them the federal system is highly progressive.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), middle-class families in 2007 (earning between $34,000 and $50,000) paid an effective 14.3% of their income in all federal taxes. The top 5% of income earners paid 27.9% and the top 1% paid 29.5%. And what about the highest earners? Americans with annual incomes above $2 million paid an average 32% of their income in federal taxes in 2005 (the most recent year for which data are available).
So how does Mr. Buffett arrive at such a low personal tax rate? He may have been referring to a 2010 IRS study of the 400 richest American taxpayers, a list he's probably on. It showed those people paid an effective federal income tax of 18.1% in 2008.
Yet that study crucially omits the corporate income tax, which is mostly borne by the owners of companies.
Mr. Buffett owns about one-quarter of his investment company Berkshire Hathaway, and his shares are worth about $38 billion. This wealth is mostly stored in what are technically called "unrealized capital gains." Eventually when those gains are converted into income, he will pay a capital gains tax. Even so, in 2008 Berkshire paid $3 billion in corporate taxes. And since Mr. Buffett is the principal owner, he shoulders a big share of that tax.
The reason for the light capital gains and dividend tax is that corporations pay up to a 35% tax on their profits before a dime of it is passed on to shareholders. The real tax rate on corporate income paid to individuals through capital gains and dividends is not 15%. It is closer to 45% once you count the tax on corporate profits. If the dividend tax rises to 20% next year from 15% today, then the total tax on dividends paid to shareholders would be closer to 50%, and that doesn't include state and local taxes.
Overall, though, Warren Buffett is wrong on taxes. The tax system is already far too reliant on the wealthy to pay the government's bills. Taxes on millionaires and billionaires are already near a record high in terms of the share of all income taxes paid. And the effective tax rate on this group is much higher, not lower, than any other income category. The best way to balance the budget is for the economy to produce a lot more American success stories like Warren Buffett."
So, on his first point, score Bernie Sanders a liar.
Then the Senator continues,
"Many corporations, including General Electric and Exxon-Mobil, have made billions in profits while using loopholes to avoid paying any federal income taxes. We lose $100 billion every year in federal revenue from companies and individuals who stash their wealth in tax havens off-shore like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. The sum of all the revenue collected by the Treasury today totals just 14.8% of our gross domestic product, the lowest in about 50 years.
In the midst of this, Republicans in Congress have been fanatically determined to protect the interests of the wealthy and large multinational corporations so that they do not contribute a single penny toward deficit reduction."
Corporate tax preference items are frequently cited by Democrats interested in class warfare over tax policy. I don't know the source of GE's tax preference items, but Exxon-Mobil makes use of oil depletion accounting which Congress granted decades ago to encourage American oil exploration and production. The company is simply using what Congress granted because Congress wanted more oil production. What's wrong with that?
Does Sanders want less US oil production? Further, American business wouldn't have these tax preference items if members of Congress like Sanders, and their staffs, didn't sell their power to write tax law for various favors- campaign contributions, for example- now and in the future. Think senior executive posts and/or board seats.
If Congress now wants fewer tax preference items with lower, simpler, fewer rates, by all means they should reform the tax code. But Republicans aren't necessarily defending the tax codes, and the companies Sanders mentioned aren't doing anything illegal.
Sanders then turns to entitlements with these passages,
"If the Republicans have their way, the entire burden of deficit reduction will be placed on the elderly, the sick, children and working families. In the midst of a horrendous recession that is already causing severe pain for average Americans, this approach is morally grotesque. It's also bad economic policy.
President Obama and the Democrats have been extremely weak in opposing these right-wing extremist proposals. Although the United States now has the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major industrialized country, Democrats have not succeeded in getting any new revenue from those at the top of the economic ladder to reduce the deficit.
Instead, they've handed the wealthy even more tax breaks. In December, the House and the Senate extended President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich and lowered estate tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. In April, to avoid the Republican effort to shut down the government, they allowed $38.5 billion in cuts to vitally important programs for working-class and middle-class Americans.
The Reid plan is bad. The constantly shifting plan by House Speaker John Boehner is much worse. His $1.2 trillion plan calls for no cuts in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it requires a congressional committee to come up with another $1.8 trillion in cuts within six months of passage.
Those cuts would mean drastic reductions in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. What's more, Mr. Boehner's plan would reopen the debate over the debt ceiling, which is now paralyzing Congress, just six months from now.
While all of this is going on in Washington, the American people have consistently stated, in poll after poll, that they want wealthy individuals and large corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. They also want bedrock social programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to be protected. For example, a July 14-17 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 72% of Americans believe that Americans earning more than $250,000 a year should pay more in taxes."
I wrote these two posts- here and here- recently on my business blog, building upon this July 4th post, America's Porkiest Generation. The theme of those posts is that the US Congress and various administrations of both parties have misled the American public into believing that three existing and one newly-created, poorly-designed, common-pool, defined-benefit social welfare programs- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare- were and are affordable, sustainable and constitute valid, binding promises by future generations to pay for pensions and healthcare of prior ones.
Sanders includes some numbers in those passages from his editorial, but not ones that matter to the point at hand- whether the four programs are, in reality, unenforceable Ponzi schemes whose promises were never valid. It's no surprise that a socialist would cherry pick from many polls, though he does not enumerate the "poll after poll," to claim that "the American people have consistently stated that they want wealthy individuals and large corporations to pay their fair share of taxes." Of course, not only do we not know the sample compositions, sizes, etc., of those alleged many polls to which Sanders refers, but we also do not know whether those polled believed that "wealthy individuals and large corporations" already "pay their fair share of taxes," do we? Further, as I wrote in those prior linked posts, who is to say what is fair?
Bernie Sanders? The Democratic party? I think not.
As I cited in this recent post, AEI head Arthur Brooks noted that,
"Between 1986 and 2009, the percentage of Americans who pay zero or negative federal income taxes has increased to 51% from 18.5%. And all this is accompanied by an increase in our national debt to 100% of GDP today from 42% in 1980."
So it should come as no surprise, when 51% of Americans pay no federal tax, that, in some survey whose provenance is unknown, an alleged 72% want Americans earning over $250,000/year, hardly a 'wealthy' income for a family anymore, to pay more in taxes.
Having failed to clearly justify any of his points thus far, Sanders concludes his rant by asserting,
"In other words, Congress is now on a path to do exactly what the American people don't want. Americans want shared sacrifice in deficit reduction. Congress is on track to give them the exact opposite: major cuts in the most important programs that the middle class needs and wants, and no sacrifice from the wealthy and the powerful.
Is it any wonder, therefore, that the American people are so angry with what's going on in Washington? I am too."
I want "shared sacrifice" in spending reductions, not merely deficit reductions. The former are real spending cuts, whereas the latter is the difference between tax receipts and spending. A significant matter over which Sanders silently glides. In my view, that shared sacrifice means cutting the unearned, unaffordable, unfunded, larded-up defined-benefits to various groups from the four entitlement programs which are bankrupting our nation.
That would be true shared sacrifice- for every federal largess recipient to experience the same effects of inflation, higher taxes, average wage change and overall US GDP growth each year as the average working, tax-paying American.
How about Bernie? Want to go there in the name of fairness and shared sacrifice?
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.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Marco Rubio On The Debt Ceiling
Florida's newly-elected Senator, Marco Rubio, wrote an editorial in last Wednesday's Wall Street Journal explaining Why (He) Won't Vote to Raise the Debt Limit.
There's been a lot of ink spilled by the left on this issue. As I wrote this post on Friday morning, CNBC's political reporter, 'Red' John Harwood, breathlessly explained, after a clip of Indiana Republican Representative Mike Pence, that it looked like the Tea Party-controlled GOP legislators were going to shut down the federal government and imperil the country's credit rating, the economy, peace on earth, etc. In short, the world balances on whether some GOP members of Congress hold fast to demand Democratic agreement to some reasonable spending cuts of only tens of billions, for now.
Treasury Secretary Geithner has been proclaiming that not raising the debt ceiling means defaulting on US obligations, which, of course, is simply untrue. If Tim really believes that, then he's just not smart enough to hold his cabinet position.
Wonderboy's folks even corralled banking crony Jamie Dimon, CEO of Chase, to declare that it was just crazy talk not to raise the debt limit. Good ol' Jamie. Give him a few regulatory breaks and let him visit the Oval office, and he's good for whatever propaganda and scare talk you need from him.
Fact is, though, Rubio and his colleagues who are against raising the debt limit are, I believe, correct this time.
As Rubio notes in his Journal piece, Wonderboy and the Democrats are offering a 2012 budget with a ten-year spending level of $46 trillion. You'd think in this time of serious deficits and excessive spending, the federal government could manage a balanced budget for 2012? No, it can't even do that.
This is Rubio's point. There's no seriousness on the part of Democrats to do anything about spending. They won't discuss any significant cuts. Rubio wrote,
"....instead of simply raising the debt limit, we should reassure job creators by setting a firm statutory cap on our public debt-to-GDP ratio.
Some say we will go into default if we don't increase the debt limit. But if we simply raise it once again, without a real plan to bring spending under control and get our economy growing, America faces the very real danger of a catastrophic economic crisis."
He also notes that in 2006, Senator Wonderboy voted against raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion, saying at the time,
"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."
Hmm. What's that saying about goose...gander.....well, you get the point.
Having attended a couple of Tea Party events in the past two years, I'm not encouraged by the GOP rolling over on this one. I don't think anyone wants a government shutdown. But if our Congressional branch can't direct Treasury in how to prioritize payments while getting spending reduced in order to either meet the debt limit or credibly nudge it up temporarily, then we're lost on a much larger scale than simply the debt limit.
I guess we'll all see how this develops later this week, won't we?
There's been a lot of ink spilled by the left on this issue. As I wrote this post on Friday morning, CNBC's political reporter, 'Red' John Harwood, breathlessly explained, after a clip of Indiana Republican Representative Mike Pence, that it looked like the Tea Party-controlled GOP legislators were going to shut down the federal government and imperil the country's credit rating, the economy, peace on earth, etc. In short, the world balances on whether some GOP members of Congress hold fast to demand Democratic agreement to some reasonable spending cuts of only tens of billions, for now.
Treasury Secretary Geithner has been proclaiming that not raising the debt ceiling means defaulting on US obligations, which, of course, is simply untrue. If Tim really believes that, then he's just not smart enough to hold his cabinet position.
Wonderboy's folks even corralled banking crony Jamie Dimon, CEO of Chase, to declare that it was just crazy talk not to raise the debt limit. Good ol' Jamie. Give him a few regulatory breaks and let him visit the Oval office, and he's good for whatever propaganda and scare talk you need from him.
Fact is, though, Rubio and his colleagues who are against raising the debt limit are, I believe, correct this time.
As Rubio notes in his Journal piece, Wonderboy and the Democrats are offering a 2012 budget with a ten-year spending level of $46 trillion. You'd think in this time of serious deficits and excessive spending, the federal government could manage a balanced budget for 2012? No, it can't even do that.
This is Rubio's point. There's no seriousness on the part of Democrats to do anything about spending. They won't discuss any significant cuts. Rubio wrote,
"....instead of simply raising the debt limit, we should reassure job creators by setting a firm statutory cap on our public debt-to-GDP ratio.
Some say we will go into default if we don't increase the debt limit. But if we simply raise it once again, without a real plan to bring spending under control and get our economy growing, America faces the very real danger of a catastrophic economic crisis."
He also notes that in 2006, Senator Wonderboy voted against raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion, saying at the time,
"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."
Hmm. What's that saying about goose...gander.....well, you get the point.
Having attended a couple of Tea Party events in the past two years, I'm not encouraged by the GOP rolling over on this one. I don't think anyone wants a government shutdown. But if our Congressional branch can't direct Treasury in how to prioritize payments while getting spending reduced in order to either meet the debt limit or credibly nudge it up temporarily, then we're lost on a much larger scale than simply the debt limit.
I guess we'll all see how this develops later this week, won't we?
Monday, March 28, 2011
Dick Durbin's Debit Card Games
Part of the Dodd-Frank bill passed last year that is soon to have serious consequences for consumers was a last-minute, virtually unread provision added by Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin to aid retailers and hurt banks.
Essentially, Durbin's amendment caps the debit transaction fee at 12 cents, which is much lower than current typical fees. I can't personally attest to whether Durbin's campaign funding benefited from the likes of Wal-Mart, Target, et.al., or not. But his amendment clearly distorts what were previously market-determined pricing structure for debit card processing.
Merchants receive major benefits from debit card usage. They don't pay a percentage of revenues as a discount fee which credit card purchases exact. And having customers use debit cards provides instant collection, reduces costs and risks related to the handling of physical currency, and, quite likely, enables more purchases for higher amounts than would otherwise be made with cash.
Why the US Senate needed to step in and set prices for this service is unclear. But that's what Durbin has done.
Now, with the law scheduled to take effect on Friday, people are becoming aware of his actions.
As a Wall Street Journal editorial points out, loss of debit fee income by banks will force them to raise prices on other services. As they wrote,
"Do you like free checking? Enjoy it while you can, because unless you're a high roller you will soon be paying for check-writing privileges. The price controls have also caused banks to deny credit to marginal borrowers- i.e., those with low incomes."
According to the editorial, something like $12B-14B will be lost to banks and accrue to merchants from the new law. But don't expect to see any impact on prices you pay in stores because the merchants pay lower debit card fees.
The Journal piece goes on to identify Senators who voted for this prior to November's election, but now have 'seen the light' and want to reverse it, if only for two years. This includes 17 Republicans.
My point in writing about this is to do two things.
First, to highlight what a nefarious numb scull Dick Durbin is. It's legislation like this which simply has no place in our federal laws and/or Congressional process.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, a contributor on Fox News and retired NJ judge, reminds viewers often that the Constitution stipulates that Congress' laws shall apply to all citizens. It's not supposed to be a special favors shop.
Durbin's gambit is a fine example of why voters have come to loathe and mistrust so many Senators and Representatives. Who in the hell is Dick Durbin to legislate what should be market-determined pricing for debit card transaction fees?
Why do these morons who become Congressional legislators suddenly feel that they know enough about anything to pass laws like this? Certainly, Durbin does not. Care to guess his pedigree?
You might have assumed, as I did, correctly, that his academic background was- law school. Meaning he has virtually no practical knowledge about anything regarding the US economy. But it's much worse than that.
Durbin interned with and apprenticed to one of the lesser lights of Illinois' contributions to the US Senate- Paul Simon. No wonder Durbin has a huge appetite for legislation which contrasts with his apparent non-existent common sense. A chip off the old uber-liberal block of bow-tie Paul, Durbin is essentially a lifer- a professional federal politician. His bio mentions no real work experience between being Simon's staffer, then running for a House seat.
The most vile, despicable breed of Congressional legislator- the lifetime federal hack.
Between ObamaCare, the Dodd-Frank bill, and the EPA's assault on coal, oil and natural gas, It seems there's nothing Washington won't try to legislate or dictate to us anymore.
I guess the silver lining in Durbin's crafty, disingenuous behavior is that it provides such a clear example of what's wrong with Congress.
Essentially, Durbin's amendment caps the debit transaction fee at 12 cents, which is much lower than current typical fees. I can't personally attest to whether Durbin's campaign funding benefited from the likes of Wal-Mart, Target, et.al., or not. But his amendment clearly distorts what were previously market-determined pricing structure for debit card processing.
Merchants receive major benefits from debit card usage. They don't pay a percentage of revenues as a discount fee which credit card purchases exact. And having customers use debit cards provides instant collection, reduces costs and risks related to the handling of physical currency, and, quite likely, enables more purchases for higher amounts than would otherwise be made with cash.
Why the US Senate needed to step in and set prices for this service is unclear. But that's what Durbin has done.
Now, with the law scheduled to take effect on Friday, people are becoming aware of his actions.
As a Wall Street Journal editorial points out, loss of debit fee income by banks will force them to raise prices on other services. As they wrote,
"Do you like free checking? Enjoy it while you can, because unless you're a high roller you will soon be paying for check-writing privileges. The price controls have also caused banks to deny credit to marginal borrowers- i.e., those with low incomes."
According to the editorial, something like $12B-14B will be lost to banks and accrue to merchants from the new law. But don't expect to see any impact on prices you pay in stores because the merchants pay lower debit card fees.
The Journal piece goes on to identify Senators who voted for this prior to November's election, but now have 'seen the light' and want to reverse it, if only for two years. This includes 17 Republicans.
My point in writing about this is to do two things.
First, to highlight what a nefarious numb scull Dick Durbin is. It's legislation like this which simply has no place in our federal laws and/or Congressional process.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, a contributor on Fox News and retired NJ judge, reminds viewers often that the Constitution stipulates that Congress' laws shall apply to all citizens. It's not supposed to be a special favors shop.
Durbin's gambit is a fine example of why voters have come to loathe and mistrust so many Senators and Representatives. Who in the hell is Dick Durbin to legislate what should be market-determined pricing for debit card transaction fees?
Why do these morons who become Congressional legislators suddenly feel that they know enough about anything to pass laws like this? Certainly, Durbin does not. Care to guess his pedigree?
You might have assumed, as I did, correctly, that his academic background was- law school. Meaning he has virtually no practical knowledge about anything regarding the US economy. But it's much worse than that.
Durbin interned with and apprenticed to one of the lesser lights of Illinois' contributions to the US Senate- Paul Simon. No wonder Durbin has a huge appetite for legislation which contrasts with his apparent non-existent common sense. A chip off the old uber-liberal block of bow-tie Paul, Durbin is essentially a lifer- a professional federal politician. His bio mentions no real work experience between being Simon's staffer, then running for a House seat.
The most vile, despicable breed of Congressional legislator- the lifetime federal hack.
Between ObamaCare, the Dodd-Frank bill, and the EPA's assault on coal, oil and natural gas, It seems there's nothing Washington won't try to legislate or dictate to us anymore.
I guess the silver lining in Durbin's crafty, disingenuous behavior is that it provides such a clear example of what's wrong with Congress.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Harry Reid's Budget Priorities
It looks like the Senate won't come to a compromise on budget cuts in time to avoid a suspension of some government activities at the end of March or early April, thanks to the Democrats' intransigence on spending cuts.
The House Republicans agreed, I believe, on less than $100B in cuts, but more than $40B, for the continuing resolution to fund the remainder of 2011.
In response, I believe Democrats have agreed to what was recently characterized as the daily rate at which our federal government over-spends its budget- $4B.
Here's Harry Reid explaining his budget priorities.
Precious, isn't it? Cowboy poetry requires federal subsidization. There's no way it could occur without federal aid. All those thousands of people spending money in Nevada won't come if private capital has to be risked.
You truly cannot make this sort of thing up, can you? Reid, the leader of our upper chamber in the federal government- the alleged deliberative body- comes off as an idiot.
The House Republicans agreed, I believe, on less than $100B in cuts, but more than $40B, for the continuing resolution to fund the remainder of 2011.
In response, I believe Democrats have agreed to what was recently characterized as the daily rate at which our federal government over-spends its budget- $4B.
Here's Harry Reid explaining his budget priorities.
Precious, isn't it? Cowboy poetry requires federal subsidization. There's no way it could occur without federal aid. All those thousands of people spending money in Nevada won't come if private capital has to be risked.
You truly cannot make this sort of thing up, can you? Reid, the leader of our upper chamber in the federal government- the alleged deliberative body- comes off as an idiot.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Is Jeff Flake Jon Kyl's Replacement?
Within a day or so of Jon Kyl's retirement announcement, GOP House budget hawk Jeff Flake (R-AZ) announced that he will run for the seat.
There doesn't seem to be much to keep Flake from securing Kyl's base. And, just now, I think Arizonans are probably more concerned with economics than with fringe social issues. But, then again, I don't live there, nor do I travel there frequently.
With the GOP's overwhelming majority, they can afford to send an economic true believer up to the Senate to assist Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint.
Let's hope Flake gets the nomination and the seat in 2012.
There doesn't seem to be much to keep Flake from securing Kyl's base. And, just now, I think Arizonans are probably more concerned with economics than with fringe social issues. But, then again, I don't live there, nor do I travel there frequently.
With the GOP's overwhelming majority, they can afford to send an economic true believer up to the Senate to assist Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint.
Let's hope Flake gets the nomination and the seat in 2012.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Jon Kyl's Retirement
Many will probably express regret that conservative GOP Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona has announced that he won't stand for re-election in 2012.
In contrast, I am rather pleased that he's not waiting to be carried out feet first, or until he's nearly senile. Moreover, I appreciated his sentiment that it's time someone else had a turn in his seat.
Yes, the Senate is rather narrowly balanced now. Conservatives and Republicans can easily complain that every seat needs to be protected Democratic contenders.
But I feel it's more important for members of both parties to stop viewing Congress and, in fact, politics in general, as a lifetime career. According to one source, Kyl served in the House from 1986, then for the Senate in 1994. That makes 8 years in the lower chamber, and 18 years in the upper one. Long enough, indeed.
It's high time that citizens came to expect Representatives and Senators to make such service a temporary interlude in their lives. As such, Kyl's retirement sets a good example, regardless that he's been sensible, intelligent and, by most accounts, a good Senator.
Hopefully, Arizona's Republican party has a worthy successor ready to replace Kyl. If not, well, they should. And maybe there would be, were Congressional members not expected as lifetime office-holders.
In contrast, I am rather pleased that he's not waiting to be carried out feet first, or until he's nearly senile. Moreover, I appreciated his sentiment that it's time someone else had a turn in his seat.
Yes, the Senate is rather narrowly balanced now. Conservatives and Republicans can easily complain that every seat needs to be protected Democratic contenders.
But I feel it's more important for members of both parties to stop viewing Congress and, in fact, politics in general, as a lifetime career. According to one source, Kyl served in the House from 1986, then for the Senate in 1994. That makes 8 years in the lower chamber, and 18 years in the upper one. Long enough, indeed.
It's high time that citizens came to expect Representatives and Senators to make such service a temporary interlude in their lives. As such, Kyl's retirement sets a good example, regardless that he's been sensible, intelligent and, by most accounts, a good Senator.
Hopefully, Arizona's Republican party has a worthy successor ready to replace Kyl. If not, well, they should. And maybe there would be, were Congressional members not expected as lifetime office-holders.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Jim Webb's Retirement from the Senate
I was pleasantly shocked this morning to read of Jim Webb's (D-VA) announcement that he won't run for re-election to the Senate in 2012. I thought I heard it on some news program last night, through a drowsy haze.
Turns out it is true.
I haven't yet seen a reason for Webb's departure, but one wonders why he would have run, won, and then chosen to serve only a single term. Can he really be that concerned about being re-elected amidst a Virginia voter tide running toward the GOP? Or, as a moderate in an increasingly extremely liberal Congressional Democratic tribe, did Webb see a dark, uncomfortable future for himself in the Senate amidst such extremists?
Whatever the reason, pundits are already giving the seat back to George Allen. Citing a probable two-seat pickup for the GOP in the Senate due to Webb's and Kent Conrad's retirements, an LA Times article suggests that the four needed for a GOP majority is easily within reach. That would be insufficient to get to 60 votes, but enough to make Wonderboy's next term, if that occurs, either a pointless liberal nightmare, or force him unwillingly to the center, in order to avoid having nothing positive to show for two terms.
Turns out it is true.
I haven't yet seen a reason for Webb's departure, but one wonders why he would have run, won, and then chosen to serve only a single term. Can he really be that concerned about being re-elected amidst a Virginia voter tide running toward the GOP? Or, as a moderate in an increasingly extremely liberal Congressional Democratic tribe, did Webb see a dark, uncomfortable future for himself in the Senate amidst such extremists?
Whatever the reason, pundits are already giving the seat back to George Allen. Citing a probable two-seat pickup for the GOP in the Senate due to Webb's and Kent Conrad's retirements, an LA Times article suggests that the four needed for a GOP majority is easily within reach. That would be insufficient to get to 60 votes, but enough to make Wonderboy's next term, if that occurs, either a pointless liberal nightmare, or force him unwillingly to the center, in order to avoid having nothing positive to show for two terms.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Impeachable New Start Behavior By Reid & Wonderboy?
I'm beginning to think that Harry Reid, Wonderboy and all the Senators voting to rush the flawed New Start nuclear weapons treaty through a vote in this lame duck session should be impeached.
After all, are they not violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution, meaning "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," including, one supposes, the part about "provide for the common defense."
By rushing this treaty through a lame duck session and denying it appropriate time for debate, these office-holders are effectively abdicating their responsibilities.
And what about China? Why is such a treaty only with Russia? Is equal effort being expended on similar efforts with the Chinese? If not, isn't it nutty to only deal with Russia, possibly dealing away our rights to missile defense systems by virtue of an agreement with only one other nation?
So much about this thing smells that it just seems wrong to ratify it. Certainly not in a lame duck session when so many Senators won't be around in two weeks. And with insufficient time for debate and public reaction.
I can't really believe our nation has come to the point of twisting Congressional rules to ram a bloated, unaffordable healthcare bill through, then add insult to injury by doing the same with a treaty that helps to strip away our defenses.
The Chinese must be laughing themselves silly, believing Christmas is especially fruitful this year.
Subsequent Congresses may be capable of reversing the health care fiasco, but I don't know that they will be able to undo the damage done by ill-considered ratification of this treaty.
After all, are they not violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution, meaning "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," including, one supposes, the part about "provide for the common defense."
By rushing this treaty through a lame duck session and denying it appropriate time for debate, these office-holders are effectively abdicating their responsibilities.
And what about China? Why is such a treaty only with Russia? Is equal effort being expended on similar efforts with the Chinese? If not, isn't it nutty to only deal with Russia, possibly dealing away our rights to missile defense systems by virtue of an agreement with only one other nation?
So much about this thing smells that it just seems wrong to ratify it. Certainly not in a lame duck session when so many Senators won't be around in two weeks. And with insufficient time for debate and public reaction.
I can't really believe our nation has come to the point of twisting Congressional rules to ram a bloated, unaffordable healthcare bill through, then add insult to injury by doing the same with a treaty that helps to strip away our defenses.
The Chinese must be laughing themselves silly, believing Christmas is especially fruitful this year.
Subsequent Congresses may be capable of reversing the health care fiasco, but I don't know that they will be able to undo the damage done by ill-considered ratification of this treaty.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Much Ado About Earmarks
Thank God Mitch McConnell finally got some sense slapped into him by more conservative, sensitive GOP Senators like Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint. Senators who actually bothered to notice the Tea Party activists and their fury over federal spending.
Leave to old mossbacks like McConnell to turn a deaf ear to the very movement that gave him 6 additional Senators to work with.
Sure, now he's repenting and beating his breast in support of a Republican Senate ban on earmarks. But what about his obstinacy to the idea for the past few weeks? Even John Boehner managed to man up and bow to his younger, more in-tune colleagues, like Eric Cantor.
Frankly, I just don't trust McConnell. I'd much rather see Coburn, Corker or DeMint heading up the GOP Senate caucus.
What the Congressional House and Senate leadership seem to miss is that it's not the party loyalists, but the independents whom they have to convince, for the next two years, that they have really, finally gotten it.
Because a failure to do so could swing control in Congress right back the other way again. And with Wonderboy at the top of the ticket next time, and maybe a better economic scenario, don't think it can't happen.
Leave to old mossbacks like McConnell to turn a deaf ear to the very movement that gave him 6 additional Senators to work with.
Sure, now he's repenting and beating his breast in support of a Republican Senate ban on earmarks. But what about his obstinacy to the idea for the past few weeks? Even John Boehner managed to man up and bow to his younger, more in-tune colleagues, like Eric Cantor.
Frankly, I just don't trust McConnell. I'd much rather see Coburn, Corker or DeMint heading up the GOP Senate caucus.
What the Congressional House and Senate leadership seem to miss is that it's not the party loyalists, but the independents whom they have to convince, for the next two years, that they have really, finally gotten it.
Because a failure to do so could swing control in Congress right back the other way again. And with Wonderboy at the top of the ticket next time, and maybe a better economic scenario, don't think it can't happen.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Senate Control Through 2012
Several conservative pundits, most notably Fred Barnes, in a recent Wall Street Journal, post-election editorial, have opined that control of the Senate won't necessarily be in Harry Reid's hands for the next two years.
With this month's election already in the rear view mirror, these pundits are already looking forward to November, 2012, when something like twice as many Democratic Senators are up for election, relative to only about 12 Republicans.
With so many Democrats at risk, and the potential for the Tea Party-inspired conservative pressure on spending and reversing liberal social legislation and regulation, these observers contend that perhaps as many as half of these Democrats in the Senate will want to appear more moderate, if not conservative. This could mean surprising majorities for Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Even if a few Northeast liberal Republicans (Snowe, Collins) defect, they could be more than replaced by ten Democratic Senators suddenly allying themselves with McConnell's agenda, at least in some cases.
Should make for an interesting next two years, as House GOP control could occasionally be joined by occasional Senate GOP control, as well.
With this month's election already in the rear view mirror, these pundits are already looking forward to November, 2012, when something like twice as many Democratic Senators are up for election, relative to only about 12 Republicans.
With so many Democrats at risk, and the potential for the Tea Party-inspired conservative pressure on spending and reversing liberal social legislation and regulation, these observers contend that perhaps as many as half of these Democrats in the Senate will want to appear more moderate, if not conservative. This could mean surprising majorities for Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Even if a few Northeast liberal Republicans (Snowe, Collins) defect, they could be more than replaced by ten Democratic Senators suddenly allying themselves with McConnell's agenda, at least in some cases.
Should make for an interesting next two years, as House GOP control could occasionally be joined by occasional Senate GOP control, as well.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Ted Kaufman- Instant Senate Mossback
Delaware's appointed Democratic Senator Ted Kaufman was on CNBC again this morning, blowing hot air as hard as usual.
There are several things about Kaufman which astound me. First, he tries to come off as an outsider appointed to fill Biden's last two years. But as his bio reveals, Kaufman has been an aide to Biden for nearly two decades, first working for him as a volunteer in the latter's first Senate campaign.
Recently, though not an attorney, Kaufman has been teaching a course concerning "The Congress" at his undergraduate alma mater, Duke's law school. From this, Kaufman seems to have acquired a patina of academic and non-partisan nature. Neither of which is true.
But Kaufman is not leaving politics after next January. Instead, he's been tapped by the current Democratic Senate leadership to replace financial-scold-in-chief, Elizabeth Warren, as head of the TARP oversight committee. Other than his anti-Wall Street disposition, Kaufman has no particular background whatsoever for this position.
In fact, to the contrary, Kaufman is completely naive and wrong-headed about the sector. He blabbered about how there was no regulation in 2008. That's simply untrue. In prior posts of mine, and elsewhere in business literature. many have noted that we had more than enough regulators and regulations. What we didn't have was effective people doing their jobs when already sufficiently empowered to do so.
So much for enlightened leadership from the new TARP oversight comittee head. He's an idiot who has no understanding of what he's about to oversee.
This is all of interest to me because, in the many appearances Kaufman has made on CNBC's morning program, he is introduced as a novice appointed Senator and academic. Clearly gross misrepresentation. In fact, Kaufman is a Delaware Democratic political hack who has served Biden since his first election to the Senate.
Thus, Kaufman's raging anti-business comments are positioned by the on-air staff as those of moderate near-non-partisan Senator.
This morning, for example, they bemoaned his leaving the Senate, grouping him with Evan Bayh and a few other retiring Democrats as the moderates who would be necessary to forge compromise in the new Senate.
Nevermind that there's been two years of take-no-prisoners, uncompromising legislative stiff-arming by the Democrats.
Kaufman went on to savage Republicans and laugh about how they are leaderless, when asked to handicap the prospects of various potential presidential candidates in the GOP.
For what it's worth, the GOP has a history of nominating candidates from among a large field, who have frequently gone on to the White House. This was certainly true of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Even Nixon, for that matter.
Anyway, I began the post thinking that Kaufman was some outsider from Delaware who became a cynical, hacked-up mossback in just 20+ months. Now, however, I realize he's had nearly two decades of training on Senate staffs and in political election fights.
He did become a Senate mossback instantly. But after reviewing his past, it's understandable, because he is precisely the sort of Senator most Americans no longer want in office, i.e., a man who's been a professional political aide for nearly two decades. Feeding at the public trough while adding nothing of any particular or notable value.
There are several things about Kaufman which astound me. First, he tries to come off as an outsider appointed to fill Biden's last two years. But as his bio reveals, Kaufman has been an aide to Biden for nearly two decades, first working for him as a volunteer in the latter's first Senate campaign.
Recently, though not an attorney, Kaufman has been teaching a course concerning "The Congress" at his undergraduate alma mater, Duke's law school. From this, Kaufman seems to have acquired a patina of academic and non-partisan nature. Neither of which is true.
But Kaufman is not leaving politics after next January. Instead, he's been tapped by the current Democratic Senate leadership to replace financial-scold-in-chief, Elizabeth Warren, as head of the TARP oversight committee. Other than his anti-Wall Street disposition, Kaufman has no particular background whatsoever for this position.
In fact, to the contrary, Kaufman is completely naive and wrong-headed about the sector. He blabbered about how there was no regulation in 2008. That's simply untrue. In prior posts of mine, and elsewhere in business literature. many have noted that we had more than enough regulators and regulations. What we didn't have was effective people doing their jobs when already sufficiently empowered to do so.
So much for enlightened leadership from the new TARP oversight comittee head. He's an idiot who has no understanding of what he's about to oversee.
This is all of interest to me because, in the many appearances Kaufman has made on CNBC's morning program, he is introduced as a novice appointed Senator and academic. Clearly gross misrepresentation. In fact, Kaufman is a Delaware Democratic political hack who has served Biden since his first election to the Senate.
Thus, Kaufman's raging anti-business comments are positioned by the on-air staff as those of moderate near-non-partisan Senator.
This morning, for example, they bemoaned his leaving the Senate, grouping him with Evan Bayh and a few other retiring Democrats as the moderates who would be necessary to forge compromise in the new Senate.
Nevermind that there's been two years of take-no-prisoners, uncompromising legislative stiff-arming by the Democrats.
Kaufman went on to savage Republicans and laugh about how they are leaderless, when asked to handicap the prospects of various potential presidential candidates in the GOP.
For what it's worth, the GOP has a history of nominating candidates from among a large field, who have frequently gone on to the White House. This was certainly true of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Even Nixon, for that matter.
Anyway, I began the post thinking that Kaufman was some outsider from Delaware who became a cynical, hacked-up mossback in just 20+ months. Now, however, I realize he's had nearly two decades of training on Senate staffs and in political election fights.
He did become a Senate mossback instantly. But after reviewing his past, it's understandable, because he is precisely the sort of Senator most Americans no longer want in office, i.e., a man who's been a professional political aide for nearly two decades. Feeding at the public trough while adding nothing of any particular or notable value.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Pat Leahy's Unconstitutional Supreme Court Plans
Leahy wants to certify ex-Supreme Court judges to replace those who recuse themselves, to avoid potential 4-4 splits.
This is a classic example of an unconstitutional 'solution' for a non-existent problem. The nation has functioned since 1789 without the benefit of this enlightened fix.
Why is Leahy so concerned now?
A Wall Street Journal article in yesterday's edition noted that just-seated justice Kagan will likely recuse herself, as former Solicitor General, from dozens of cases. In order to get a liberal tilt to any decision, Leahy wants to use retired justices, all of whom are either liberal, or more liberal than conservative (Sandra Day O'Connor).
It's a very transparent and cynical ploy on Leahy's part. And likely totally unconstitutional, as well.
But when has that ever stopped either party's Congressional Members in the last hundred years?
This is a classic example of an unconstitutional 'solution' for a non-existent problem. The nation has functioned since 1789 without the benefit of this enlightened fix.
Why is Leahy so concerned now?
A Wall Street Journal article in yesterday's edition noted that just-seated justice Kagan will likely recuse herself, as former Solicitor General, from dozens of cases. In order to get a liberal tilt to any decision, Leahy wants to use retired justices, all of whom are either liberal, or more liberal than conservative (Sandra Day O'Connor).
It's a very transparent and cynical ploy on Leahy's part. And likely totally unconstitutional, as well.
But when has that ever stopped either party's Congressional Members in the last hundred years?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Another Example of The Hazards of Government Intervention In The Private Sector: Harry Reid's Green Energy Donors
Last Wednesday's Wall Street Journal published a staff editorial detailing one of the negative consequences of allowing government to direct economic choices in the private sector.
The case in point is Harry Reid's new financial donors from the "renewable energy" sector.
As the editorial notes,
"The companies that belong to the American Wind Energy Association or the Solar Energy Industries Association (among the fundraiser's hosts) produce costly products that can't compete against traditional fuels. Their business plans are written around Washington subsidies and mandates. They're obviously worried a Republican majority might pare back the grants, loans and tax credits, in the name of cutting government waste."
This is what happens when government gets into the business of funding specific technologies or sectors with subsidies, rather than contracting for competitive bids without subsidies.
The editorial also notes,
"Mr. Reid has been a strong advocate of this transfer, and the industry is showing it knows how to give back."
Essentially, allowing government at any level, including states, to use government, i.e., taxpayers' money, to directly fund private enterprises, invites reciprocal bribery in the form of campaign donations to help the benevolent elected officials remain in office, the better to keep the gravy flowing back to the private companies.
It's corruption, pure and simple. And sort of embezzlement, in that public money is appropriated by an elected official for a favored few private entities, knowing they will repay her/him directly through campaign contributions.
Do you think that's why the Constitution mandates that Congress' laws must apply to all citizens, and never just a select group?
The case in point is Harry Reid's new financial donors from the "renewable energy" sector.
As the editorial notes,
"The companies that belong to the American Wind Energy Association or the Solar Energy Industries Association (among the fundraiser's hosts) produce costly products that can't compete against traditional fuels. Their business plans are written around Washington subsidies and mandates. They're obviously worried a Republican majority might pare back the grants, loans and tax credits, in the name of cutting government waste."
This is what happens when government gets into the business of funding specific technologies or sectors with subsidies, rather than contracting for competitive bids without subsidies.
The editorial also notes,
"Mr. Reid has been a strong advocate of this transfer, and the industry is showing it knows how to give back."
Essentially, allowing government at any level, including states, to use government, i.e., taxpayers' money, to directly fund private enterprises, invites reciprocal bribery in the form of campaign donations to help the benevolent elected officials remain in office, the better to keep the gravy flowing back to the private companies.
It's corruption, pure and simple. And sort of embezzlement, in that public money is appropriated by an elected official for a favored few private entities, knowing they will repay her/him directly through campaign contributions.
Do you think that's why the Constitution mandates that Congress' laws must apply to all citizens, and never just a select group?
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.
Carly Fiorina, Lucent & The California Senate Election
I get a huge number of hits on my first two Carly Fiorina-related posts concerning her past at Lucent.
At the time that I wrote them, Fiorina was locked in a death struggle for the GOP Senate nomination in California. I thought it worthwhile to remind Republican voters just how thin is the corporate "success" story on which all of Fiorina's appeal had been based.
But, for better or for worse, Carly won that primary. Yet, the hits keep on coming to those posts.
So let me state, for what it's worth, unequivocally that if I were a California resident/voter choosing between Fiorina and Boxer in the upcoming election, I'd vote for Carly.
Despite her dubious corporate achievements, and unprovable but suspect involvement in the Lucent sales forecasting caper, those are now moot points.
You have to ask yourself which candidate will do a better job cutting government spending and scope as the next California Senator. And that's indisputably going to be Fiorina.
You can worry in six years about her entrenchment, abuse of power, etc. But, in the current environment, if Christine O'Donnell, with fewer life accomplishments than Carly, can run as the GOP Senate candidate in Delaware, why not elect Fiorina over Boxer in California?
At the time that I wrote them, Fiorina was locked in a death struggle for the GOP Senate nomination in California. I thought it worthwhile to remind Republican voters just how thin is the corporate "success" story on which all of Fiorina's appeal had been based.
But, for better or for worse, Carly won that primary. Yet, the hits keep on coming to those posts.
So let me state, for what it's worth, unequivocally that if I were a California resident/voter choosing between Fiorina and Boxer in the upcoming election, I'd vote for Carly.
Despite her dubious corporate achievements, and unprovable but suspect involvement in the Lucent sales forecasting caper, those are now moot points.
You have to ask yourself which candidate will do a better job cutting government spending and scope as the next California Senator. And that's indisputably going to be Fiorina.
You can worry in six years about her entrenchment, abuse of power, etc. But, in the current environment, if Christine O'Donnell, with fewer life accomplishments than Carly, can run as the GOP Senate candidate in Delaware, why not elect Fiorina over Boxer in California?
Liberal Bias By Panelist On Fox News
On Monday evening, Brett Baier's evening news and analysis program featured a liberal Washington print journalist on his panel discussing various political events. I don't recall the woman's name, but I hadn't seen her on the panel before, the usual liberals being either that woman from NPR or A B Stoddard.
The subject in question was Christine O'Donnell's emerging quirks as the GOP Senatorial candidate in Delaware.
The O'Donnell story making the rounds this week in the media is about witchcraft. However, in a video clip, O'Donnell was shown pointing out that her 'interest' in witchcraft was while she was in high school. And that, if it were working, she'd have Karl Rove out on the campaign trail with her. Funny stuff.
Conservative lion Charles Krauthammer gave O'Donnell high marks for humorously disarming the charge.
The liberal woman, however, wouldn't let go of it, pronouncing O'Donnell too weird and possessing too many irregularities to satisfy voters.
Brett Baier than brought up some wacky things in O'Donnell's opponent's, Chris Coons' past. To this, the liberal woman journalist now said something to the effect of,
'Well, any candidate will have a few skeletons in their closet.'
In other words, any blemish on O'Donnell's past is reason to vote against her, but anything in Coons' past is acceptable as just politics and human nature.
Can we say 'liberal double standard?'
The nice, useful characteristic of Fox News is that the liberal woman's obvious hypocrisy was clearly evident, in comparison to the conservatives, and, thus, needed no further highlighting.
The subject in question was Christine O'Donnell's emerging quirks as the GOP Senatorial candidate in Delaware.
The O'Donnell story making the rounds this week in the media is about witchcraft. However, in a video clip, O'Donnell was shown pointing out that her 'interest' in witchcraft was while she was in high school. And that, if it were working, she'd have Karl Rove out on the campaign trail with her. Funny stuff.
Conservative lion Charles Krauthammer gave O'Donnell high marks for humorously disarming the charge.
The liberal woman, however, wouldn't let go of it, pronouncing O'Donnell too weird and possessing too many irregularities to satisfy voters.
Brett Baier than brought up some wacky things in O'Donnell's opponent's, Chris Coons' past. To this, the liberal woman journalist now said something to the effect of,
'Well, any candidate will have a few skeletons in their closet.'
In other words, any blemish on O'Donnell's past is reason to vote against her, but anything in Coons' past is acceptable as just politics and human nature.
Can we say 'liberal double standard?'
The nice, useful characteristic of Fox News is that the liberal woman's obvious hypocrisy was clearly evident, in comparison to the conservatives, and, thus, needed no further highlighting.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Sharron Angel & Christine O'Donnell Move The Tea Party To The Center
A curious thing has happened as Tea Party-supported candidates for the Senate in several GOP races have won their nominations.
The victors, including Christine O'Donnell of Delaware and Sharron Angel of Nevada, have corrected the mainstream media's depiction of the Tea Party as a right-wing fringe group of nutcases.
Instead, both candidates, and, I'm sure, others, have correctly described their Tea Party supporters as simply mainstream, independent voters who are fed up with the same ever-expanding federalism they get from professional politicians and federal office-holders of both parties.
As much as I admired and liked George W. Bush, and, for that matter, his father, for several things they did, and for what they supported, they both helped expand the federal welfare state. So has the Republican-controlled Senate and House in recent years.
Tea Party activists aren't a splinter group of crazy idealogues. Rather, their- our- ideas are currently popular and credible: shrink the size, scope, taxes, borrowing and spending of our federal government. Restore the federal government back to its minimalist role as a jointly-agreed upon single entity, by vote of the states, which implements the necessary- and only the necessary- federal actions which are required by the United States.
Many of us who have attended Tea Party events and donated time or money to candidates voicing these views see the federal government as having been improperly become an entity unto itself. Perhaps the best example of how this has perverted the Constitution is the so-called Supremacy Doctrine, whereby, whenever the federal government chooses to weigh in on an issue, it automatically supercedes states rights.
Somewhere in the past century, the limits of federal power were conveniently ignored, so that the federal officials insert themselves in matters of dubious legitimacy.
It's sufficiently noxious to merit its own amendment. And, with a little luck, may bring that about in reaction.
But back to the main point. This sort of federal overreach is why Tea Partiers aren't a fringe. Most Americans are appalled at the last 19 months of federal autocracy, and want their country and government back.
O'Donnell and Angel are merely two Senate candidates who understand that their views and those of the Tea Party activists are far more prevalent than mainstream media outlets, and, sadly, even the GOP, dare acknowledge.
The victors, including Christine O'Donnell of Delaware and Sharron Angel of Nevada, have corrected the mainstream media's depiction of the Tea Party as a right-wing fringe group of nutcases.
Instead, both candidates, and, I'm sure, others, have correctly described their Tea Party supporters as simply mainstream, independent voters who are fed up with the same ever-expanding federalism they get from professional politicians and federal office-holders of both parties.
As much as I admired and liked George W. Bush, and, for that matter, his father, for several things they did, and for what they supported, they both helped expand the federal welfare state. So has the Republican-controlled Senate and House in recent years.
Tea Party activists aren't a splinter group of crazy idealogues. Rather, their- our- ideas are currently popular and credible: shrink the size, scope, taxes, borrowing and spending of our federal government. Restore the federal government back to its minimalist role as a jointly-agreed upon single entity, by vote of the states, which implements the necessary- and only the necessary- federal actions which are required by the United States.
Many of us who have attended Tea Party events and donated time or money to candidates voicing these views see the federal government as having been improperly become an entity unto itself. Perhaps the best example of how this has perverted the Constitution is the so-called Supremacy Doctrine, whereby, whenever the federal government chooses to weigh in on an issue, it automatically supercedes states rights.
Somewhere in the past century, the limits of federal power were conveniently ignored, so that the federal officials insert themselves in matters of dubious legitimacy.
It's sufficiently noxious to merit its own amendment. And, with a little luck, may bring that about in reaction.
But back to the main point. This sort of federal overreach is why Tea Partiers aren't a fringe. Most Americans are appalled at the last 19 months of federal autocracy, and want their country and government back.
O'Donnell and Angel are merely two Senate candidates who understand that their views and those of the Tea Party activists are far more prevalent than mainstream media outlets, and, sadly, even the GOP, dare acknowledge.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
David Malpass' Primary Defeat In NY
I was saddened to read of David Malpass' defeat in New York's GOP Senate primary.
Malpass is a very astute, credentialed, politically aware economist. Late of Bear Stearns, Malpass was a frequent guest on CNBC, where his frank and sensible comments were a delight to hear and watch.
Perhaps the silver lining of his defeat is a return to a business channel I watch. But New York and the Senate and, thus, the nation will be poorer for that.
Malpass is a very astute, credentialed, politically aware economist. Late of Bear Stearns, Malpass was a frequent guest on CNBC, where his frank and sensible comments were a delight to hear and watch.
Perhaps the silver lining of his defeat is a return to a business channel I watch. But New York and the Senate and, thus, the nation will be poorer for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
