Tag Archives: Democrat

Brand New Day

I still think that we’ll lose this, but my oh my, this would be HUGE!

Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.

Does this mean Brown is gonna win?  No way.  This is too big for the Dems to lose for them not to rally.  But serious, this guy was down by 30 3 months ago.  He is surging and surging huge.

Why?  Because no one wants this health care to pass.  Not even those in Kennedy’s home state:

…it appears Kennedy’s quest for universal health care has fallen out of favor, with 51 percent of voters saying they oppose the “national near-universal health-care package” and 61 percent saying they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it.

Further, this race has massive a massive impact in Washington politics.  It is so big that Obama doesn’t know what to do about this race.  He can not afford to support a Democrat that loses a major race; see Jersey Govna’.  Yet, he desperately needs to support the winner.  And right now, he’s stuck.  Does he fly to Massachusetts and risk losing or does he stay home and risk winning without him?

Gotta tell ya, this is an interesting time.  Who woulda thunk that the Senate seat held by royalty could go Red?

Wherein Pino Shades Purple

I am beginning to feel that I am slightly less red than I thought.  And with the New Year tried to talk myself into coming out.  That resolution is turning out to be harder than I thought.  See, I am convinced that both parties are flawed and am often dismayed that by claiming allegiance to one side or the other locks you into the whole bill of goods of either.  So, with that said, there are several {many} times when I think the right, or at least far right, has it wrong.  And when I am discussing or commenting, I always feel that if I come to defend the more liberal or “Democrat”‘ish view, I will be defending ALL of the policies of the Left.  And somehow that seems worse than letting the Right get a free pass.

Maybe I can try harder and allow my trend toward the Purple shine.

So, without further ado, I wanna say that I think this is good news:

The American Law Institute, the organization that provided the framework for our current capital punishment system, has washed its hands of the whole sorry mess. Abandoning the death penalty was necessary “‘in light of the current intractable institutional and structural obstacles to ensuring a minimally adequate system for administering capital punishment.’” In other words, we don’t have a fair system, and we’re not ever gonna get one. Better to stick a fork in it than to keep pretending it will ever be workable.

Now, to be clear.  I firmly and absolutely feel that there are things that members of our tribe can do that should result in death.  When your actions are so egregious that the survival of all of us is risked, you have, in essence, self selected out.  This is not punishment or deterrence.  It’s just you can’t be part of us any longer.

With that said, our current system of laws and courts, as good as it is, simply can not and will not apply the death penalty fairly.  As such, it just can’t be part of us any longer.

A Lesson in the Tender Mercies Of Organized Labor

November results for car makers:

Ford’s U.S. sales surge 33% in December

GM handed in a 6.1% sales decline

Chrysler…reported a 4% dip

Toyota Motor Corp. said its U.S. sales increased 32.3%

Gawd, it is SO nice to be right.

That Didn't Work Out Exactly as Planned

So, the Obama administrations latest attempt to “Talk and Communicate” with the world’s bad guys closed another chapter:

Iranian lawmakers have rejected Sen. John Kerry’s request to visit their country, saying the United States needs to change its policies toward Iran before such talks can be effective, according to Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency.

I have always maintained that discussing things like health care, the economy and terrorism are subjects that lend themselves to public debate.  While there is some gamesmanship going on to be sure, there is no real “statecraft” going on.

When it comes to international diplomacy, there is a need to be purposefully subtle about our intentions.  At times, out right deceitful.  To that end, the government can not be expected to be completely transparent when it comes to things of this nature.

It’s why I have always suspected that we invaded Iraq for reasons that none of us have even debated.  I’m pretty sure it had nothing to do with oil, WMD, terror or revenge.  Maybe it had something to do with Iran?

How Cities Benefit by Labor Unions

How does a public pension fund respond after losing more than $70 billion of its $260 billion fund?

“It is important for you to know that the current credit crisis does not directly affect your retirement benefits, which are securely protected by law, or our ability to pay benefits.”

Translation: Not to worry; the taxpayers will have to bail us out.

Excellent.

And what does it mean to tax payers when said fund loses more than $70 billion of its $260 billion fund?

In the end, taxpayers stand to pay plenty for all this, either through increased taxes or diminished public services — closed libraries and shelters for battered women, fewer trash pickups, shuttered courts, slower police and fire response times, more potholes, early county jail prisoner releases and much more — if local governments see layoffs and furloughs as their only way out.

This is your bed, California.  I really REALLY hope that only YOU have to lie in it.

Government Regulation at Work

As the Obama administration becomes more and more involved in the day-to-day business of more and more businesses, you have to wonder what his real goal is?  If it is to drive the best and brightest from the industry in question, well, then this should be seen as a sign of success:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A top executive at American International Group Inc has resigned because of pay curbs imposed by the Obama Administration’s pay czar, the insurer said on Wednesday.

Anastasia Kelly, AIG’s vice chairman for legal, human resources, corporate affairs and corporate communications, resigned effective December 30 for “good reason” and is eligible for severance pay under the terms of the company’s executive severance plan, the insurer said.

Kelly stands to be paid about $2.8 million in severance, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Kelly’s resignation comes after Kenneth Feinberg, who is charged with monitoring pay levels at companies that received taxpayer funds, imposed pay caps for AIG’s top executives.

Earlier this month, Feinberg set the compensation structures for the 26th through 100th highest-paid employees at four firms, including AIG, limiting most cash salaries to $500,000.

And she’s not the only one.  Apparently there are other top execs ready to walk:

She was among five executives reported by The Wall Street Journal to have notified the insurer that they were prepared to resign and collect severance benefits if their pay was cut sharply by Feinberg. Chief Executive Robert Benmosche separately also had considered quitting because of the pay constraints, the Journal has reported.

And the impact to the bank:

Cornelius Hurley, director of the Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law at Boston University, said no AIG employee was irreplaceable.

“We have been duped into thinking that these AIG employees have some kind of secret code that no other employee could discover if they were hired to replace them and therefore they are able to basically hold the company ransom,” Hurley said.

Imagine if the government bailed out the Minnesota Vikings.  And then, in order to make them competitive, demanded that the team could only pay their QB $500,000.  Brett Favre walks.  The Vikes finish 3-13.  As it stands today, they are the number 2 seed and a decent bet at playing in their 5th Super Bowl.

Hope for Change.

California: Part V

What do you do when you’re short money?  Do you spend less?  Go try and earn more?  Or do you go and hold your hat on the street?

California can’t t spend less.  They won’t do what it takes to earn more.  The only option left open to them is to ask you and I for money:

California’s political leaders, who are facing the daunting challenge of closing an estimated $20.7 billion budget deficit this year, are looking to Washington for help. Just don’t call it a bailout.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said he plans to head to the nation’s capital “early and often” seeking federal assistance. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger already has put the federal government on notice that he wants billions he says the state is owed. And outgoing Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista (Los Angeles County), said she would head east as soon as this month.

Awesome.  California continues to drive themselves deeper and deeper into debt and insolvency.  And then, when the well is dry, they come running to the Federal government for help.

Only in America.

Hard to See This Coming

In an effort to curb banks from “predatory lending” and “profit taking”, Washington lawmakers enacted legislation that our Dear Beloved Leader signed into law.  Basically the new law makes it harder for banks to raise rates it charges folks who fail to make payments.

First, I often find it hilarious when groups of people chastise banks or lenders for trying to make money for “selling money” or lending money to people.  Especially when these people fail to pay that money back.  Fail to pay it back either “on time” or “at all”.  As if these lending institutions exist for the sole purpose of handing out discretionary money.  At times likes these, I always ALWAYS trot out my favorite “put your money where your mouth is” argument.  { by the way, didja catch that pun?!?  money where your mouth is? }.  If someone you know, or even if it’s you in this situation, think that people, banks or institutions should lend money without regard to being paid back, go to prosper.com and lend your own money to people who can’t afford to pay it back.  This is the perfect opportunity.  You don’t have to be a fancy shmancy bank with billions of dollars.  Even a couple hundred bucks would be appreciated.

Okay, back to the point.  When banks are restricted in their ability to sell their product to a group of people, they will react by:

  1. Stop selling that product
  2. Charging the non-regulated customers more for the same product
  3. Like the force of water, work around the obstacle

In this case, the banks choose option #3:

(AP) It’s no mistake. This credit card’s interest rate is 79.9 percent.

Typically, the First Premier card comes with a minimum of $256 in fees in the first year for a credit line of $250. Starting in February, however, a new law will cap such fees at 25 percent of a card’s credit line.

In a recent mailing for a preapproved card, First Premier lowers fees to just that limit – $75 in the first year for a credit line of $300. But the new law doesn’t set a cap on interest rates. Hence the 79.9 APR, up from the previous 9.9 percent.

The new law restricts the fees for selling money.  So, in response, the banks just raise the rate of interest.  Awesome.

But even with these new rates, does a credit card appeal to certain people?

As harsh as First Premier’s terms seem, that could be a blow to those who rely on the card, said Odysseas Papadimitriou, CEO of CardHub.com.

“Even when the cost of credit is astronomical, for people in true emergencies, it’s much better than not having access to credit,” said Papadimitriou.

Sure.  In fact, for some people, even at these rates, the borrowed money passes the marginal value threshold.  Then again, so did the flat rates the government restricted.

"This One Time…..In Band Camp…"

I’m relatively new to really REALLY watching politics.  I guess, in the past, I didn’t care.  Mostly I was single, renting and didn’t make enough money to care about taxes.  The last decade has seen that ALL change.  I am no longer single, I have children, own a home, make more money and am seriously considering starting my own business.  I also spend more time at home than I used to spend before all the changes aforementioned.   Combine this with the very compelling story of last year’s election; first time in many years that a  President or Vice President wasn’t running, and you have good drama.  AND we would have the opportunity to see America’s first woman or black Presidential candidate.  All good political drama.

Back to my point.  I am really pretty new to political theater.  So, maybe as I say this, it’s really not so unusual.  Could even be par for the course.  But to me, this is absolutely stunning.  Not only in the hypocrisy of it all, but in the sheer ignorance of any semblance of economic thinking.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration pledged on Thursday to back beleaguered mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac no matter how big their losses may be in the next three years.

Serious?  Banks are paying BACK their TARP funds and these guys are asking for, and getting, more money?  At least they’ll have to be smart in their use of it, right?

It also jettisoned a demand that the two companies cut the size of their mortgage-related investment portfolios next year, allowing them to provide even more support in the near term for a housing market recovering from its worst slump in decades.

Nope.  Business as usual; continue to sell money to people who can’t afford it.

So, how is it that some businesses are capped and controlled and can’t WAIT to get out from under government control while others seem unable to even WANT to get out?  Is it political or is it simply a way of life?  Is it really possible that the Obama administration is giving political favors to supporters or, perhaps, does he simply think that a fascist* banking system is the most effective method by which to establish financial systems?

The Treasury’s announcement came just hours after the companies said their chief executives would be paid up to $6 million on an annualized basis for 2009.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are congressionally chartered companies that buy up mortgages from banks and other originators to keep mortgage markets liquid. Some of the debt is repackaged as securities and sold off to investors, and the government has been buying an increasing share.

Sadly, for Liberty loving people, it would seem that the answer is “Both”.  Obama is both paying political favors, $6 million to the CEOs, AND feels that economic fascism is the preferred method of financial systems.

Like I said, I am new to this.  Maybe this is business as usual.  But from the cheap seats, this is ugly.

*   From wiki:  Fascists promoted their ideology as a “Third Position” between capitalism and communism.  Italian Fascism involved corporatism, a political system in which the economy is collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at national level.  Fascists advocated a new national class-based economic system, variously termed “national corporatism”, “national socialism” or “national syndicalism”.  The common aim of all fascist movements was elimination of the autonomy or, in some cases, the existence of large-scale capitalism.

Fascist governments exercised control over private property but did not nationalise it. They pursued economic policies to strengthen state power and spread ideology, such as consolidating trade unions to be state or party-controlled.

Chinese Pander Bear

In a stunning display of economic brilliance, the Obama Administration announced today:

WASHINGTON (AP) – The U.S. government is imposing new duties on imports of steel pipes from China…

The U.S. International Trade Commission voted Wednesday to impose duties between 10.36 percent and 15.78 percent on the pipes

Once again, our administration is trying to stifle and regulate trade when no such need is required.  If a product or service is introduced into the market at a price the seller is willing to sell, a buyer should be able to enter into contract with that seller if he wants.  Right now, the administration is needlessly preventing such an arrangement at the price being offered.  This will have the effect of punishing the purchasing party and raising the costs of that parties goods.  Further, the demand for that product will be artificially lowered causing an imbalance in the allocation of scare resources which have alternative uses.

On the other hand, we must never forget that the business of politics is inherently, ahh, political.  And if we read a little deeper we see:

The move is in response to a complaint filed in April by U.S. Steel and six other steel manufacturers, as well as the United Steelworkers’ union.

Ahh, I see.  One of the largest group of Obama supporters would like the United States government to intervene on its behalf in order to make their product more cost competitive in the market place.  Interesting.  But surely, there must be a group whose interests are HURT by the rising cost of Chinese steel?

The U.S. International Trade Commission voted Wednesday to impose duties between 10.36 percent and 15.78 percent on the pipes, which are mostly used in the oil and gas industries.

Masterful stroke.  With one stone, Obama gets two birds; assistance for his Union thugs and a penalty to the dirty nasty oil and gas industries.