Obama Bites The Hand That Feeds Him
Feb 5, 2009 Political
Though Democrats like to portray the the Republican party as the party of rich people the left has quite a number of wealthy folks and they write big checks for Democrats. In the last election cycle Barack Obama received a heck of a lot more money from Wall Street than did John McCain and Democrats in general fared better than Republicans.
Today Barack Obama bit the hand that feeds him by limiting the salary of executives to half a million dollars if their companies received bailout money. I certainly understand the sentiment but there are issues here that I am having some trouble with.
I believe that if this is going to be a condition then it should have been spelled out in the bill when it was signed. It could have easily stated that the CEO of any company that receives bailout money will have his salary reduced to [whatever number] by whatever date. Doing it after the fact just looks like bad practice. Can Obama add stipulations like this?
Another thing I have a problem with is, how can the president or any other government official regulate the salary of employees in a private business? What part of the Constitution gives Obama the legal authority to decide what a person in a private company can make? I understand that the government is providing them bailout money but it is also my understanding that the money is a loan to the companies. As I stated, if it was not spelled out as a precondition, how can he add it now? Isn’t that a legislative function?
The limit on executive salary might also hurt New York. They are complaining that many good money managers might leave for better jobs if their salaries are cut per Obama’s orders. The first thing to ask is, if these are such good money managers why did their companies need bailouts? The second thing is, where are they going to get a better job in this economy, especially in the financial market?
One way this might actually hurt New York is the drastic drop in income tax revenues. A CEO making 10 or 15 million dollars a year certainly pays a lot more in taxes than one who makes half a million. The amount of tax revenue to New York might drop quite a bit.
I am not in favor of CEOs getting huge paychecks when they are the ones who ran their companies into the ground. However, I am in favor of doing things ethically and fairly. That means ensuring that Obama has the authority to do this and if he does not then getting it done correctly before imposing it. Also, bailout money cannot be forced on any institution. The rule must be, if they don’t want it then they cannot be forced to take it.
I have no sympathy for any of the CEOs and I was not in favor of any bailout/stimulus that has come along. I feel the companies should succeed or fail on their own merits and not be saved on the back of the taxpayer. The rules about salary and the bailout money are nothing more than huge government intrusion.
Government intrusion is what caused this mess in the first place.
Obama can rail about these people and their excessive salaries but I am willing to bet they paid their taxes…
I also bet the cap on salary will be challenged in court and I think Obama will lose the case.
Anyone taking bets on whether he will get as much money from them when he runs for reelection.?
Sources:
WCBSTV
Tags: bailout, Obama, pay freeze, salary cap
Using Crisis To Advantage, House Democrats Pass Stimulus
Jan 29, 2009 Political
Rahm Emanuel said that they should never let a crisis go to waste. He said that they should use a crisis to pass legislation that they would never be able to pass otherwise. Thus we get statements telling us of the dire consequences if we fail to act.
- “We don’t have a moment to spare,” Obama declared at the White House as congressional allies hastened to do his bidding in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
- “Another week that we delay is another 100,000 or more people unemployed. I don’t think we want that on our consciences,” said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the leading architects of the legislation.
The first thing I will mention is that most Americans only want 535 people to lose their jobs next week and those people are in Congress. Secondly, if we are going to lose 100,000 jobs a week we are going to do so for a long time even if this passes and is signed into law tonight. The bill contains very few things that will stimulate the economy and create jobs.
The jobs it will create are jobs working for the government rebuilding infrastructure and those projects will not start for months and maybe a year or more down the road because it takes time to draw up plans, get approvals and put things in place. It might take longer because the Obama administration has been advised not to hire skilled or white workers for the projects. Unskilled minorities are best, according to Robert Reich.
The bill includes great amounts of money for things that will NOT stimulate the economy. The bill contains money for contraception, sexually transmitted disease prevention, voter fraud organizations (ACORN), a mob museum and a number of other items. These things will not stimulate the economy and they will not provide enough jobs (if any) to change the unemployment rate. Other than those involved in building a mobster museum, I can’t think of anything on this list that would create a job. I would love for my liberal commenters to explain these things and tell me how they help the economy.
Please don’t tell me they stop births or improve health or other nonsense because none of that has anything to do with the economy.
It was a foregone conclusion that the bill would pass in the House. The Democrats have a large enough majority that they can pass anything they want on a strictly party line vote. Obama wanted Republicans on board so that if (in his mind, when in mine) it fails he can say it was a bipartisan effort and that they all hold some of the responsibility. As he stated in his meeting, he won’t get reelected if things go badly.
Every Republican except one voted no. There was one Republican who did not vote. Eleven Democrats voted no with the balance voting for it. The final tally was 244-188.
The real battle will be in the Senate. The Republicans can filibuster this and keep it from passing.
Of course, there are a number of concerns with the RINOs who might vote with the Democrats. I am hoping Gillibrand, the new Democrat from New York, continues her opposition to a bailout but she is 99th in seniority and might be forced (ahem, coerced) to go along. Time will tell.
It is time for people to call their Republican Senators and tell them to vote no and to filibuster it to death. They need to be warned that if they vote for it they will be targeted in the next election. They only understand their political careers so that is what they need to see as a consequence of voting for it. This is true of Blue Dog Democrats as well. They will be vulnerable in the next election and their vote could make the difference in where they work in 2011.
This “stimulus” plan will not work. It contains a ton of pork that has nothing to do with the economy and it will saddle us with even more debt. This debt will come from the party that criticized the debt under George Bush which will seem like a drop of water in the ocean compared to this mess. This debt will also be passed on to our children, our grandchildren and to generations of people who are not even born yet.
One warning. Don’t listen to those who say that it will take a few years or that estimates about how money will be spent are incorrect. The reality is that the politicians know it will take quite some time for the economy to recover (it will recover with or without the stimulus) and they want to prepare people now so they do not get shelled in the 2010 midterm elections.
If Senate Republicans follow the House’s lead then at least the Democrats can’t claim it was a bipartisan effort when campaigning for your votes.
To be fair though, if it passes and is a success (by my standards, not a politician’s) then I will give them credit. Of course, I know it will not be successful. History has shown us as much.
Walter E. Williams has an excellent article out that concludes with this:
In stimulus package language, if Congress taxes to hand out money, one person is stimulated at the expense of another, who pays the tax, who is unstimulated. A visual representation of the stimulus package is: Imagine you see a person at work taking buckets of water from the deep end of a swimming pool and dumping them into the shallow end in an attempt to make it deeper. You would deem him stupid. That scenario is equivalent to what Congress and the new president proposes for the economy. A far more important measure that Congress can take toward a healthy economy is to ensure that the 2003 tax cuts don’t expire in 2010 as scheduled. If not, there are 15 separate taxes scheduled to rise in 2010, costing Americans $200 billion a year in increased taxes. In the face of a recession, we don’t need that. [emphasis mine]
The article explains the situation and tells why the “stimulus” will not work. Please take the time to read it.
Then call your Senators…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Stimulus Nears 1.6 TRILLION Dollars
Jan 28, 2009 Political
The economic stimulus package that must urgently be passed is nearing 900 BILLION dollars. Combine that with the 700 Billion that has already been spent and we are nearing 2 TRILLION dollars in stimulus spending, most of which will not stimulate the economy. There are questions as to whether it will actually create any jobs.
I give Obama credit for meeting with Republicans and telling them he was open to suggestions because this is more than the Democrats in Congress have done. But the reality is, bipartisanship and agreement are defined by Democrats as when you agree to what they want.
I have little doubt the stimulus will pass in the House because Democrats have a large majority there. There are enough votes to allow vulnerable Democrats to vote no. The Senate will be more tricky but it is likely that a few Republicans will defect to the other side and pass this boondoggle. Look how easily they rolled over on the nominations of Obama’s nominees…
Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans should be very careful. The next elections are not that far away and the public had had enough. A vote for the bailout could be a bad career move especially if the economy is still in turmoil when 2010 rolls around.
The stimulus is a bad idea. The first one did not work so the solution is to throw more money at the problem. This is like being in a boat with a hole in the bottom and deciding the way to fix the problem is to make the hole bigger.
The special interests are lined up in DC with their hands out for money we don’t have and that our grandchildren will be paying back.
This is no way to run a country.
Sources:
WSJ
My Way News
al Reuters
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bailout, democrat, republican, stimulus, trillion
Who Worries About Objectivity In The Press?
Jan 1, 2009 Political
It looks like two Connecticut newspapers might be out of business as soon as next week. The Bristol Press and The Herald have millions of dollars in debt and the slow economy is hurting them. They obviously do not have the circulation or ad revenue to sustain the business so they are headed for the recycle bin.
Or are they? A Connecticut lawmaker named Frank Nicastro wants to have the state bailout the newspapers. He believes they are vital to the community and that the people would be best served if the government used taxpayer money to keep them afloat.
He views it as his duty but there are others who think this is a dangerous move because it puts government in bed with the press. Some seem to think that the press is a watchdog over the government:
Relying on government help raises ethical questions for the press, whose traditional role has been to operate free from government influence as it tries to hold politicians accountable to the people who elected them. Even some publishers desperate for help are wary of this route.
Providing government support can muddy that mission, said Paul Janensch, a journalism professor at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut, and a former reporter and editor.
“You can’t expect a watchdog to bite the hand that feeds it,” he said. al-Reuters
I can understand where those with traditional views of government would have a problem with this whole idea much for the reasons stated. But one would have to be a complete lunatic to believe that the modern day press (all media for that matter) are objective and view it as their job to hold politicians accountable. None of them held Obama accountable.
The New York Times is a storied newspaper but it is only a watchdog over half of the government. If it is Republican they watch it and report anything (even national secrets) but if it is Democrat they ignore the story.
As a matter of fact, some in the media think it is their job to make Obama successful. These would be the same who worked tirelessly to harm the current president every chance they got.
There is nothing objective about most newspapers and none of the major ones are watchdogs over government.
When it comes to the press and Obama calling the newspapers guard dogs would be more appropriate.
Government does not belong using tax dollars to bail out ANY business including newspapers. That is the reason this should not happen.
If we actually had a press that acted like watch dogs over politicians then the arguments presented in the article would be valid but since they lost objectivity a long time ago there is no sense in pretending that this is an issue.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: bailout, bankrupt, government oversight, newspaper
Maybe They Should Have Invited Congress To Play Golf
Dec 28, 2008 Political
The Big Three automakers went to Washington to ask for bridge loans so they could make ends meet. There are quite a few Americans who do not want to lend this money to them and the left is bonkers over the idea that the Big Three could fail. There are a lot of union workers at the auto companies and the Democrats are indebted to them.
The UAW would not make immediate concessions and opted to give in a few years from now. This put an end to the deal from Congress but President Bush helped them out with some of the bailout money. The UAW figures it only needs enough to get by until Obama takes office and there are bigger majorities in the House and Senate. Then they will start cashing in IOUs.
The Big Three have shut down operations for various amounts of time to help get rid of existing inventory and to defer costs. The union employees will be paid 95% of their salaries to stay home so they got a paid vacation through the Christmas holiday season.
The union made sure to keep the deed to its $6 million golf course which is part of a $33 million retreat in Michigan. Too bad they were told to stay home with pay during the winter or they could have gotten some time in on the golf course. Hell, they should have invited the members of Congress to play a few rounds and maybe they would have gotten their handout.
Is it any wonder why the companies are doing badly? UAW members pay dues and the UAW uses them to buy golf courses. Truth be told, it is probably not the rank and file that gets to use it on a regular basis. But they are getting 95% of their pay to do nothing so it is not all bad for them.
The companies are taking it on the chin but this is what happens when they enter into contracts that give the world to the workers.
My friend Don Surber mentioned that Toyota posted a loss for the first time in its history and then asked if it meant that they make crappy cars that no one will buy. That has not been the issue with the Big Three and if anyone thinks that then they are mistaken.
For the most part the American companies make good cars. The labor costs to build them are higher and that is why it is hard for them to compete.
Maybe they could sell that golf course and use the money to offset the labor costs associated with the cars. Perhaps they could turn it into a profit maker (they lose money on it now) and use that money to pay employees who are not working.
Whatever happens, it is hard to have sympathy for CEOs who fly in on private jets to beg for money for workers whose union owns a $6 million golf course.
I guess they won’t have to worry for long. Obama owes the union so that golf course will probably be his new Summer retreat. He can sign the papers giving them the money right from the 19th hole.
Source:
Fox News
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: bailout, bridge loan, golf course, uaw