Barney Frank Agrees With Evan Bayh
Feb 17, 2010 Commentary
Barney Frank agrees with Evan Bayh that the climate in the Congress is not operating as it should and that there is too much partisanship. Frank thinks it would be better if Senator Bayh stays on and helps to end the filibuster, a procedure that allows bills to be stalled or killed.
Both parties have used the filibuster and both have threatened to kill it in order to pass their agendas. The filibuster is only good when one is in the minority and bad when one is in the majority. Minorities love using it.
The filibuster is a thorn in the side of the majority because invoking it requires a 3/5 (60 vote) cloture to end it. This means that each time the filibuster is used it requires more than a simple majority to get things passed.
The Constitution describes a quorum as a majority of a particular chamber present. This suggests that a majority is all that is needed to conduct business and to get things done. However, the Constitution also allows each chamber to make its own rules and the rules of the Senate allow for the filibuster and requires 3/5 to end it. They can change those rules but that would require 2/3 (67 votes) to vote for the change. It is unlikely that the Senate could get 67 people to vote on ending the filibuster as a rule change.
If Democrats were to succeed then it is likely they would ask for the filibuster in the future and would want a rule change to get it. Remember, the minority party loves the filibuster. If they could get 67 votes they might get satisfaction now but regret it later when a Republican Congress and President could do what it wanted with no opposition from Democrats.
Another option is the Nuclear or Constitutional option. This is a procedure where the filibuster is declared unconstitutional and then must be voted on. In order to pass, a simple majority of 51 votes is needed. In other words, the Democrats could declare the filibuster unconstitutional and then use 51 votes to end it (Republicans do not have enough votes to stop it).
This is what Bill Frist threatened to do when Bush nominees were being denied an up or down vote. The Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate if Frist invoked the nuclear option. The filibuster was obviously important to them at that time and they were willing to shut down the Senate to keep it.
I am not sure how they could have shut down the Senate but one would have to assume the Republicans could do the same thing.
If the Democrats declare the filibuster unconstitutional then it would likely be lost forever. How could any Congress later state that it was not unconstitutional after all? Of course, how can they declare it unconstitutional when they have been using it since the mid 1800s?
As for Barney Frank, he is not part of the Senate so his input really matters little since he cannot vote on the Matter. Besides, he has been one of the most partisan people in Congress.
His idea of partisanship is when Republicans do what the Democrats want. Frank has little concern for the ideas of the other side.
I did not like Ted Kennedy but he knew how to broker a deal and to reach across the aisle on occasion. He worked with Republicans and Republicans worked with him to get legislation passed.
Was it always good legislation? No but they did work together.
We do not need to end the filibuster, we need to end the tenure of the people in Congress. It is time to sweep out the people who have been there for way too long.
In the last election the youth of America embraced Barack Obama as young and in tune. They discounted McCain, in part, because of his age and length of service.
It is time they did the same to the people in Congress by embracing younger people who are not career politicians.
Most Americans are not far left or far right. I am conservative on some things and moderate on others. Adam and Darrel, who comment here, are liberal on some things and moderate on others. We can have the debates about policy and what we think is good for America and we can either agree or agree to disagree. In the end we have more in common than not though we differ on how to get to where we need to be as a country (and where we need to be). One thing is certain though, we cannot get anywhere as long as we allow people to take up residence in DC and have decades long careers. We need fresh blood.
Vote for the new person in the primary and then let the parties fight it out in the general election. Let us show them who they work for and let us hold them accountable.
I will not vote for any incumbent in November. I urge everyone else to do the same.
[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: barney frank, conservative, evan bayh, incumbent, liberal, Obama
Tea Baggers Protest In DC
Oct 11, 2009 Political
The Tea Party protests are comprised of people from all walks of life and all political persuasions. These are people who are tired of out of control government and want real reform in how it is run. The moniker Tea Party is a reference to the celebrated Boston Tea Party:
The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Wikipedia
The morons on the left attacked Tea Party protesters (the modern day ones) as a bunch of conservative racists and used disparaging words when referring to them. One such phrase, used by the likes of Jeanine Garafalo and Anderson Cooper, is Tea Baggers. Tea Bagger is a vulgar reference to a sex act commonly associated with homosexual men though heterosexuals can engage in the act. Lesbian women are the only group that cannot engage in this particular act.
The references to the Tea Party protesters contained a lot of sexual innuendo and the phrase Tea Bagger is almost always one of them.
In DC this weekend, there is a protest going on and the group contains actual tea baggers. DC is the site of a gay protest where homosexuals are looking for Obama to keep his word on rescinding the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy of gays serving in the military, homosexual marriage, and any number of other gay agenda items. Those topics and their validity are for another post at another time.
Barney Fwank, an openly gay member of Congress, thinks the Tea Baggers in DC are not being as effective as they could if they stayed home and protested their members of Congress in home districts. He has a point with regard to this weekend because most members of Congress are in their home districts for the Columbus Day holiday (which is about a week long for them). The Tea Baggers will be protesting but just who will they be protesting to?
The Tea Bagging crowd even has dissension in its ranks because some in the group agree with Fwank, they think they should be protesting their own officials at their home bases. Those who decided on a national protest are tired of working the home crowd and want to appeal to Obama directly. He did not let them down and appeared at a dinner and vowed to end DADT:
“I will end ‘don’t ask-don’t tell,'” Obama said Saturday night to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group. He offered no timetable or specifics and he acknowledged some may be growing impatient.
“I appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough,” Obama said. “Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach.” My Way News
Many of the Tea Baggers are skeptical because the agenda has not moved quickly enough for them. They want an end to DADT NOW. It might happen and if it does every gay who fought for it should have to enlist in the military and back up what they wanted. If that were a requirement they would not be fighting for it.
Obama is not moving quickly enough for them but they should cut him some slack. He has had to work on lowering sea levels (a messiah can do this), eliminating CO2 (so we can all die), wrecking the economy, fighting a losing battle for the Olympics, increasing unemployment, running up huge deficits, attempting to take over health care, going on a number of mini vacations with his Klingon wife, and selecting a dog. Along the way he had to make time for his I might do something in the future Nobel Appease Prize.
The Tea Baggers, like any other group that supports the left, expect payback NOW. They supported Obama and they want their piece of the pie right now. They see him paying back his supporters in the unions and in ACORN and they want theirs. This is why they sashayed into DC to protest.
They are entitled to that right as Americans but I wonder. Will Cooper, Garafalo and the other liberal morons report on this protest and if they do will they call the protesters Tea Baggers since it more aptly describes them.
Or is that vulgarity reserved exclusively for the people who protest out of control government?
[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: barney frank, dadt, gays, homosexuals, Military, Obama, tea baggers
Obama Untruthful About Bonuses; Frank To Endanger AIG Employees
Mar 19, 2009 Political
Barack Obama and his lackeys have been running around screaming about the perfectly legal bonuses that some AIG employees received. I understand the uproar but the politicians have created an atmosphere of hatred and it is getting dangerous. Employees of AIG have been threatened as have their families and this is all because of the frenzy whipped up by the administration and the members of Congress who actually allowed the bonuses to happen.
Today the CEO of AIG was being grilled by Congress and limp wristed Barney Rubble, I mean Frank asked for the names of the employees who had received bonuses. Mr. Liddy said he would not give them unless he could be assured they would not be made public and Frank said he would make no such promise and that he would issue a subpoena for the names if he had to. Then Liddy read some of the hate mail that had been received including one that said the employees and their families should be strung up by piano wire. Frank said that he thought that it was just talk and he wanted the names.
No one treats it as just talk when people make any statement about Obama that in any way can be interpreted as a threat. I am willing to bet that if letters and emails started arriving at Frank’s office saying that he should be killed he would have protection and he would have investigations to find out who it is. And if there is anyone who should be strung up by piano wire it is that light in the loafers jackass. Frank seems not to care too much about the employees and their families.
If he releases the names and anything happens to those people Frank should be executed immediately. However, it is unlikely he would be held accountable for his actions. He is a major reason we had the economic collapse and he is still in office.
As for Obama, he is playing fast and loose with the facts. He claims that he only learned of the bonuses last week but a number of media outlets are reporting that he was aware of them before he took office. A number of people in government, many who are now feigning righteous indignation, knew about this months ago. It was not until the story enraged the public that most became upset.
The AP reports, via Yahoo News:
While administration officials insisted Tuesday that neither Obama nor Geithner learned of the impending bonus payments until last week, the problem wasn’t new. AIG’s plans to pay hundreds of millions of dollars were publicized last fall, when Congress started asking questions about expensive junkets the company had sponsored. A November SEC filing by the company details more than $469 million in “retention payments” to keep prized employees.
Back then, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., began pumping Liddy for information on the bonuses and pressing him to scale them back. “There was outrage brewing already,” Cummings said. “I’m saying (to Liddy), ‘Be a good citizen. … Do something about this.’ ”
Around the same time, outside lawyers hired by the Federal Reserve started reviewing the bonuses as part of a broader look at retention and compensation plans, according to government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. The outside attorneys examined the possibility of making changes to the company plans — scaling them back, delaying them or rescinding them. They ultimately concluded that even if AIG’s bonuses were withheld, the company would probably be sued successfully by its employees and be forced to pay them, the officials said.
Obama had to know about this or he is even more incompetent than I thought. All his players knew about it and it was part of SEC filings. The article goes on to explain how there were a number of discussions about how to stop it and that when the stimulus bill was being crafted they passed up a chance to stop the bonuses and instead inserted a Dodd amendment that allowed them. Dodd initially denied he added the amendment but today fessed up and said he was responsible for the loophole that allowed the bonuses to be paid. It looks like the Democrats are losing even more credibility by the minute.
Obama’s time line does not square with what is being reported. Like I said, he had to have known or he is completely incompetent. I think it is both but if he continues to deny knowing then he is admitting that he does not know what is going on and that is a sign of an incompetent “leader.”
Then again, he showed that he was incompetent when he signed a bill he did not read.
Obama is not getting a honeymoon period because he and his minions have used most of his political capital. The only people who are steadfastly sticking to him are the toadies who worship the ground he walks on.
Most others are starting to wake up and, like the hungover college kid who awakens next to an ugly woman, ask themselves what did I do?
Obama gets caught in a lie just about every week. He is caught breaking campaign promises just about every week and he is using the fabricated crisis to push through things that would never pass muster during times of tranquility.
One thing is certain and that is Obama and his toadies knew about the bonuses and they made them possible by adding amendments to bills and signing things that were never read.
It is a piss poor way to run a country if you ask me.
Related:
Shep Smith at Fox goes off on Congress and the Administration.
Barney Frank defended Fannie and Freddie while they were sinking but making Democrats rich and now it looks like they will be paying bonuses. Will Congress go after them as well? Stay tuned…
[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: aig, barney frank, bonuses, Congress, dodd, fox, lies, murder, Obama, shep smith
Obama And Dodd Are To Blame For AIG Mess
Mar 18, 2009 Political
There is a big uproar about the retention bonuses that were paid to AIG employees after the company received over 170 billion dollars of bailout money. There are a lot of players involved but Barack Obama and Christopher Dodd are the primary culprits in this mess. More on that later.
The idea of bailing out AIG or any other company did not appeal to me and I was against it from the start. There are many people who felt that we had to bail the companies out to keep the economic foundation from collapsing. To you folks who wanted this, you got what you deserved.
The government, that is the taxpayer, should not be bailing out companies. They make it on their own or they fail and someone else takes over. By allowing government intervention we have opened a Pandora’s Box. All that happens as a result of the government sticking its nose where it does not belong is that things get even more screwed up. Very few of the people in Congress have any experience actually running a business so this, coupled with the speed with which the first bailout was passed, was a recipe for disaster and a disaster it was. The people in Congress (along with the Bush administration) who wrote the bailout bill failed to provide oversight and they failed to ensure that there were strict guidelines as to how the money could be spent.
The Obama administration took over and he asked for more money to be released. He also, with reckless abandon, pushed a bill through that he dubbed a stimulus plan. That plan was absolutely needed and if it was not passed the world would come to an end, or at least this is how Obama presented it.
This is where Obama and Dodd assumed the liability for the mess. AIG employees were not paid bonuses because the issue was not addressed. They were paid bonuses because it was addressed and Dodd made sure they could get paid. Dodd added an amendment to the stimulus bill that specifically allowed the bonuses to be paid. The members of Congress were well aware of the bonuses that were due and they were aware last year when all this was being worked on. They ignored that issue until Dodd put these words in the bill:
Crack down on bonuses, retention awards and incentive compensation:
Bonuses can only be paid in the form of long-term restricted stock, equal to no greater than 1/3 of total annual compensation, and will vest only when taxpayer funds are repaid. There is an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009.For institutions that received assistance totaling less than $25 million, the bonus restriction applies to the highest compensated employee; $25 million to $250 million, applies to the top five employees; $250 million to $500 million, applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 10 employees; and more than $500 million applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 20 employees (or such higher number as the Secretary determines is in the public interest). Fox Business (includes graphs showing who AIG donated money to. Now you know why Dodd added the amendment) [emphasis mine]
Dodd’s amendment allowed the bonuses to be paid. Let me write that again; Dodd added an amendment that allowed the bonuses to be paid.
Certainly the amendment had to be voted on so there is no excuse for people not to know that the bonuses were going to be paid. Obama pushed this bill through at light worker speed. The bill was over a thousand pages long and no one had time to read it before it was voted upon. Obama did not read it before he signed it. So what we have is a trail of incompetence.
Senator Dodd is now trying to get the money back. He suggested heavily taxing the money and that moron Chuck Schumer stated today that the new CEO of AIG had better convince the employees to return the bonuses or Congress was going to tax nearly 100% of it to ensure it got back to where it belongs “in the hands of the taxpayer.”
First of all, it will never get to our hands. Congress will spend it on something else. Second of all, why all this phony concern for taxpayers now? They had no concern for us when they passed the trillion dollar, pork laden, spending bill and they had no concern for us when they passed the omnibus and its 9000 items of pork. Why the righteous indignation now? And who does Dodd think he is to vocally oppose this when he added the amendment that allowed it to happen?
Obama and Dodd as well as all the other screamers (like Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer) are trying to cover up the fact that they screwed this up royally. They are now using the power of Congress to punish people who only got that to which they were entitled by virtue of a contract and a bill signed into law by Obama.
I don’t like the idea that AIG got the money and I don’t like the idea that these issues were not addressed when the original bailout was written and that they were not addressed correctly when the pork filled stimulus was crafted. But, the fact is, under the law, the people who received bonuses are entitled to them.
Another fact is that Obama, Dodd and the others are trying to put this on AIG when these morons knew this was going to happen. When the news broke and people started complaining these so called leaders all of the sudden acted like this was a shock to them. They acted like it was irresponsible and an affront to taxpayers when they all knew about it and they codified it; Dodd with the amendment, members for voting on it, and Obama for signing it.
Another thing to address is whether Congress can make a law that specifically taxes specific employees in one particular company. Does Congress have the authority to write a law that says that a certain group of people in a certain company must pay 90 or 100% tax on a specific bonus? I would imagine that this would be an issue for the Supreme Court to decide under the issue of equal protection.
If Congress can do this then what would stop them from deciding that that a certain job class or certain workers in other companies made too much money and then pass laws taking as much of that income as they wanted? This is a very important issue and it gets at the heart of just how much power Congress actually has.
If they screw these workers out of their bonuses (sorry folks but no matter how you feel about it, they are entitled to them) then they could be asking for trouble. Congress sunk 170 billion dollars in AIG because if AIG fails then the economy will follow it, at least according to those who pushed the bailout. What would stop AIG from saying screw it and closing its doors. What would stop them from just shutting down and causing turmoil? The government owns about 80% of the company now but the government can’t run it.
Speaking of owning 80% of the company, the entire issue shows just how wrong it was to bail them out in the first place. Government said they were buying up shares in companies in order to help them get back on their feet. We were told they had no interest in nationalizing these companies (at least no more than short term) and that government had no interest in controlling them.
Today Barney Frank said that we [the government] own 80% of the company and that it was time to exercise ownership and stop the bonuses from happening. This is nothing more than a push closer to socialism. Government tells you how much you can make and how much you have to give back. Government takes control of companies and decides what employees can or cannot do regardless of contractual obligations. Government erodes the freedoms that people enjoy and soon instead of building wealth government ensures that all of us are equally poor.
Those who voted for Obama, this is what you voted for. Those who wanted the bailouts, this is what you asked for. You have no right to complain and you have no right to be upset about what is taking place because you wanted this to happen.
As for those of you that are threatening the lives of AIG workers and directing your anger at them; you are wrong. Your anger should be directed at Obama and Dodd and everyone else who voted for the stumulus package. Dodd added the wording and Obama signed it into law. THEY KNEW ALL ABOUT IT FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND THEY ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN.
Direct your anger at Congress and at Obama. They deserve your wrath.
As an aside, this is the second time not reading a bill has caused embarrassment. Obama issued an EO allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and then signed the omnibus which specifically forbade using federal money to pay for it. He also signed the stimulus allowing the AIG employees to receive their bonuses.
One final point. If there are other companies with employees who had contracts for bonuses then they will be entitled as well. Dodd’s amendment was not specific to any company.
This is what happens when inexperienced, incompetent, self serving people run things. They gave us the financial meltdown and now this.
We need a do over. Let’s get rid of everyone in Congress and the Administration and replace them with competent folks.
**The Obama administration is claiming that it only found out about the bonuses a month ago despite media claims to the contrary. The bonus issue was known for quite some time by members of COngress and probably Geithner. Dodd certainly knew. He would have to know so he could take care of those who have contributed so much money to his campaign.
***Obama received 100 thousand dollars in donations from AIG
Also:
NewsMax
[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: aig, bailout, barney frank, contract, dodd, law, Obama, schumer, taxes
What Is The Big Deal About AIG Bonuses?
Mar 16, 2009 Political
Today the world is in turmoil because AIG is paying out 165 million dollars in bonuses that it is contractually obligated to pay. People are being whipped into a frenzy about this because AIG received about 170 BILLION dollars in taxpayer money as part of the bailout. The problem is, the government placed no restrictions on the money and now wants to dictate terms over existing contracts. If the government had provided proper oversight instead of handing out money like candy at Halloween then there would be room for this indignation but since it did not, oh well.
To be fair, the deal was made by the Bush administration and Obama inherited it but it was crafted by a Democratically controlled Congress. Many of the members of Congress (from both parties) who worked on this are still there and this is on them.
Barney Frank is claiming that the bonuses amount to rewarding incompetence. I think Frank’s pay is a reward for incompetence because he was instrumental in giving us this mess. In fact, nearly all of Congress gets rewarded for incompetence because people keep reelecting them.
The New York Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, wants the names of all people getting bonuses. Cuomo is going to investigate whether any of the recipients had anything to do with the decline of the company. What does it matter? They had contracts and contracts are legally binding.
Barack Obama said this can’t be justified. It can if you go by the rule of law and see that Congress and the Bush administration allowed Hank Paulson to write the rules and gave him blank checks to hand out. These are the same people that forced solvent banks to take the money so that the ones who needed it would not be singled out as failing thus causing more problems. Wells Fargo paid lower dividends and owes a fortune in interest because money they did not need was forced upon them.
Regardless of all this I want to know what the big deal really is. My understanding is that the companies have to pay back the bailout money. If that is the case what does it matter how they spend it especially if there were no rules?
Additionally, I have heard a number of members of Congress defend the earmarks they added (to the stimulus and the omnibus) by stating that they are a small percentage of the overall sum. Commenters at this site have made the same claim in justifying the spending. If that is the case, the money AIG spent on bonuses is only a small percentage of what it received in bailout money and it is even a smaller percentage of the overall amount spent to bailout all banks.
If the Congress can justify 9000 earmarks by claiming they are a small amount of the total package why can’t AIG do the same with regard to the bonuses?
The bottom line is, both expenditures involve taxpayer money. There is no reason AIG should not be able to live by the same rules that Congress sets for itself.
The other reality is that Congress did a poor job of overseeing this. For all their whining about oversight and checks and balances, they certainly dropped the ball on this one.
Of course, they dropped the ball in the first place and that allowed the collapse to happen. Thank the indignant banking queen Barney Frank and his partner in crime Chris Dodd for that. The subprime problem and Freddie and Fannie toppled the financial world. The other problems were collateral damage.
Suck it up Obama, Frank (maybe that is not the right phrase to use with Frank) and the rest of you whiners. I did not like the idea of the bailouts to begin with and your lack of oversight in the process makes it even worse.
But, those folks had contracts and since you did not address them then it is unlikely you will be able to address them now.
A contract is a contract and all the bluster from Obama, Frank, and Cuomo can’t change that. They can say it amounts to rewarding incompetence but who allowed it to happen? Not providing proper oversight is the definition if incompetence.
As an aside, the government has given AIG the bailout money in about four installments. Do they expect us to believe that they could not have set some kind of rules on any one of those occasions?
[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: aig, bailout, barney frank, bonuses, cuome, incompetence, Obama