Paul Ryan (Obama Owned the transcript)

Stolen from here:

Many viewers were wowed by the president's performance at the health care summit, his command of facts and ability to rebut every point the Republicans made. We must have been watching another channel.

'Obama dominates the room at health care summit" was the headline on a Reuters dispatch that found the president "always in command not only of the room but also the most intricate policy details, as he personally rebutted every point he disagreed with."

In a Washington Post column titled "Professor Obama schools lawmakers on health care reform," Dana Milbank marveled at how the president "controlled the microphone and the clock, (using) both skillfully to limit the Republicans' time, to rebut their arguments and to always have the last word."

Milbank went on to tell how Sen. John McCain got his "knuckles rapped" by the learned professor, how Sen. Mitch McConnell was made to "look small in his chair" and how various other Republican low-achievers felt the sting of Obama's "big rhetorical paddle."

But neither Reuters nor Milbank — nor many others, it seems — noticed Obama's conspicuous non-rebuttal to Rep. Paul Ryan.

It was the Wisconsin congressman who made the most pointed remarks about Obama's reform proposal. For example:

• "This bill does not control costs (or) reduce deficits. Instead, (it) adds a new health care entitlement when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have."

• "The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. The true 10-year cost (is) $2.3 trillion."

• "The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits."

• "The bill takes $72 billion from the CLASS Act (long-term care insurance) benefit premiums and claims them as offsets."

• "The bill treats Medicare like a piggy bank, (raiding) half a trillion dollars not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program."

• "The chief actuary of Medicare (says) as much as 20% of Medicare providers will either go out of business or have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries."

• "Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage (Medicare through a private insurer) will lose the coverage that they now enjoy."

• "When you strip out the double-counting and ... gimmicks, the full 10-year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit."

• "The 'doc fix' (restoring cuts in Medicare reimbursements) costs $371 billion ... a price tag (that) made the score look bad. (So) that provision was taken out, and (put) in stand-alone legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending."

• "Are we bending the cost curve down or are we bending the cost curve up? If you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare, we're bending it up. He's claiming that we're going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have."

In response to all this, Obama basically talked up the benefits of Medicare Advantage. Call us sticklers, but we expected something a little more, uh, professorial.

Obama OWNED (the video link)

If you don't watch anything else this week, you absolutely have to watch this.

Health Care Anyone?

"We cannot have another yearlong debate about this," Obama declared. "I'm not sure we can bridge the gap."

1.  There is no "gap" - the GOP will not support a government takeover of this much of the economy.  You knew this a year ago when you completely shut them out.
2.  Reconciliation here we come
3.  Don't forget that it will take 10 years to pay for 6 years of this plan
4.  There is no need for a provision that takes away the ability of a future Congress to repeal this bill.  Entitlements never die.  Example:
1. Greece 
2. California 
3. Social Security 
4. Medicare

Biased Media

When did the NY Times become a reliable news source? I agree that Fox News leans to the right, just like CNBC and ALL of the networks lean left.  So tell me, when I want the news and JUST the news, where can I go? The papers are not unbiased, nor is TV.  Where can I go to find out the truth about what is contained in a 2000+ page bill?

Tha answer is simple. You go to the opposition. These will be the only ones that you can count on to discover key points in a bill and point out its fundamental flaws.

The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute released its 2009 survey on “Trust and Satisfaction with the National News Media.” The September 2009 poll of 800 Americans found large majorities believe the media are “very or somewhat biased,” played a “very or somewhat strong” role in electing Barack Obama in 2008, and were “promoting the Obama presidency” and the President’s health care effort “without objective criticism.”


KEY FINDINGS:

•“Poll results found 83.6% saw national news media organizations as very or somewhat biased while just 14.1% viewed them as somewhat unbiased or not at all biased.”

•“A large majority, 89.3%, suggested the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect President Obama. Just 10.0% suggested the national media played little or no role.”

•“Further, 69.9% agreed the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama presidency while 26.5% disagreed.”

•“Over half of Americans surveyed, 56.4%, said they agreed that the news media are promoting President Obama’s health care reform without objective criticism.”

•Six out of seven Americans (86.6%) “strongly or somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political and public policy positions and attempt to influence public opinion.” Just over 70 percent felt that way in 2003.

•Americans prefer objective reporting to coverage that just reflects their own point of view. “In results that were nearly three-to-one, 59.0% suggested they made their selection based on objective reporting, while 19.0% chose their favorite because they share the same views on issues.”

•Less than one-fourth of Americans (24.3%) “indicated they believe all or most news media reporting.”

•Two-thirds (67.9%) “agreed with a statement that read: ‘Old-style, traditional objective and fair journalism is dead.’”

What is Insurance?

Lifted from Here:

Now let’s discuss risk assessment. Ignoring pre-existing conditions might sound compassionate, but it is equivalent to declaring that a fire-insurance company must charge the same amount for a modern house with smoke detectors and interior fireproofing as for a century-old, wooden-frame former stable, complete with some hay left over, and a basement full of painting supplies. Taking the analogy further, the same premium must be charged for a well-protected, unscathed house as for one that is already on fire.


The business of insurance is about determining risk and charging accordingly. It’s why insurance companies exist. If we eliminate that, medical insurers are just form-processing companies for the government. Worse, we lose a valuable economic input: that of accurate risk assessment and pricing, without which sensible management of medical expenses is impossible.

‘Don’t Ask’

The desire to help those with pre-existing conditions is laudable. The way to do this is to help. If someone needs more medical care than he or she can pay for, direct state subsidy is far more efficient than making insurance companies pretend that the patient isn’t ill or at high risk of becoming ill. We can separately debate the degree of generosity of this subsidy, but it is efficient and honest. Making insurance companies play “don’t ask, don’t tell” with health status is neither.

Though you wouldn’t know it from the headlines, our system today, and our discussion of reform, isn’t about insurance. It’s about the total provision of health care, largely by employers, with costs hidden from individuals. Furthermore, much of the proposed reform is about eliminating the main function of an insurance company: the assessment and pricing of risk.

Creating a system of real health insurance, along with honest subsidy where necessary, is the simple solution to many of our problems, and an honest first step toward tackling the rest.

Dennis Kucinich

This guy is a complete genius.  He had the audacity to go on TV today and state his plan for creating job growth.  Now get this, his plan is to lower the age for early Social Security retirement so that old people can leave their jobs earlier thereby creating openings that can be filled by younger people currently out of work.  

So, once again another career politician comes up with a solution to a problem that will both not solve the problem but have various other negative impacts.  Lets discuss:

First, and in my estimation most concerning, is the issue of adding more people to the rolls of Social Security that will be draining this insovent fund for an even longer period of time.  Just another example of short-sighted leadership from a career politician.  We should at least require an online MBA for these guys, but that would likely require that we review that standard as well.

Second, this plan does not help witht he creation of any new jobs.  It merely shuffles the deck, no net gains whatsoever.  This plan basically states that if your unemployment percentage starts to run high, jsut take workers out of the mix.  Perhaps if too few people vounteer for the program, he can suggest another method of culling the mass of working aged persons.  I hope the "permanent solution" does not occur to him. 

Third, what about the cost to companies?  I know that many of these faceless evil corporations have the temerity to turn a profit while so many "average" americans are suffering, but lets follow this to the logical conclusion.  How many of these aged retirees will actually be replaced?  Just as likely as replacing the departing personnel is the retirement of the position.  If they are replaced, how much will it cost these companies to train the incomming  personnel? (this is money that will be written-off at tax time)

Given more time I could likely come up with more.  But gee wiz, I only put an hour of thought into this so far.  I am not so smart a guy that I can outthink a congressman's entire staff, but I have done so yet again.  I expect that there will be a ton of bloggers and editorials on this.  However, I doubt a plan like this will ever see itself voted on by the general assembly.  I am just staggered by how obtuse our elected officials are.

I think it is time that we stop blaming the elected officials and just start back-handing each and every voter.

Obama continues to fight the housing bubble

In his town hall in NV today Obama unveiled plans today to "buy up vacant homes and turn them into affordable housing."  Great plan.  Kudos on both his generosity and foresight in taking the tough steps to make sure that the housing crisis does not go to waste, but can be used to further the socialist agenda. 

Am I the only one that sees the amazing flaw in this latest plan?  What happens when the home next to yours is taken over by the government and turned into "affordable" housing?  Lets assume that the people (for the most part) that live in your neighborhood worked hard to afford those homes right next door to yours.  They likely manicure their lawns, do regular maintenance on their homes, and do the various other things necessary to keep the entire neighborhood looking good.  These same folks also are more apt to instill in their children the values and work ethic that helped them achieve a similar level of success that you yourself have achieved.  What happens when the $300,000 dollar home similar to the one that you have sacrificed, saved, and worked hard for (which also happens to be right next door) is sold for $150,000 or even $200,000?  Does the school that still has the "best teachers" get to maintain its lofty standards even though the children now attending it are not pushed to study by their parents?  Administrators and teachers can only do so much with a student that will not study. 

This new program proposal from the administration can be defined in only two words.  SOCIAL ENGINEERING  I can assure you that the same family that bought the $300,000 home could have had the $200,000 neighbor if they had wanted to from day one. 

Guess what? 
They did not want it. 
Guess what? 
They're gonna get it anyway.

I have an alternative to the President's plan.  Stop spending money that you do not have.  Start reducing the deficits that you "inherited."  Trust me, I know it's not your fault.  However, feel free to start by reworking the budget YOU just submitted.  You know, the one with the largest deficit in history. 

I guess it really does all come back to education.  Obama admitted today that he did not always do his math homework.  Not a huge shocker given his track record for ignoring America's huge deficit.

Biden "Going Rogue"

In his latest "Going Rogue" event, Joe Biden stated "Washington right now is broken" and the country is in "deep trouble" unless it attacks ballooning federal deficits.


One year and a few days in and the VP is attacking the President. I guess the honeymoon is over.

However, in classic Progressive faux pas fashion he also argued that money invested in both private and public-sector initiatives has saved as many as 2 million jobs, "I don't think they realize it." He goes on to say the Stimulus program, now a year old, was designed to be implemented in two stages, saying "we've only been halfway through the act."

The facts are that we are just over a third of the way through the "act," a significant portion of the reported "saved/created" jobs are lies, and many of the "shovel ready" projects were delayed for political reasons. So lets see some math. (787B/3 = 262B/2M = 131,000) Awesome!! Each job created only cost us $131,000. Given that the average private sector employee makes roughly 40k/yr. We have created limited time jobs (these jobs will not last after the money stops coming in) for the low low cost of 3x the pay scale. I gotta give ol' Bidey the credit here, that is a great feat given that it is government. It would devastate his argument, but help his over-all credibility should they actually be able to post real numbers that do not crumble under the most mild of investigations.

Tea Party Agenda

You want a good chuckle today?  The Tea Partyists agenda almost exactly mirrors most of Obama's campaign promises.

There were promises of transparency and of a new kind of collaborative politics where establishment figures listened to ordinary Americans. We were going to see net spending cuts, tax cuts for nearly all Americans, an end to earmarks, legislation posted online for the public to review before it is signed into law and a line-by-line review of the federal budget to remove wasteful programs.

President Obama knew what the people wanted and promised it to them.  He openly stated his desire for universal health care, but with the caveat that it would not happen if it added "even one dime" to the budget.  What nobody realized was the Enron-esq accounting that he would allow to play into the plan. 

Given this, I am shocked that anyone has the ability to be blase about the Tea Party movement.  The inside joke on Capitol Hill has been, for quite some time, that lawmakers will tell you exactly what you want to hear to get elected and then forget their promises (many of which their position would never have let them accomplish). 

Can we please let some of the standards from the private sector filter into the public sector?  I am pretty sure that if I lie on my job application and my employer finds out, then I can be summarily fired.  Put this standard into place and let these guys fight for their jobs (which have about 4x the average pay for private sector and staggeringly better benefits).  What's the issue?  Other than the completely empty buildings we would have on Capitol Hill.

MARTA changes 'yellow' train line name

(AP) -- The "yellow" train line in Atlanta is now going to be called the "gold" line after members of the local Asian community complained that it was racially insensitive.

In related news, the Yellow River will now be called the golden stream and all rice will be white as eating yellow and brown rice is considered racist.

Seriously, I am too tired for this crap today.

Equality

Definition: The state or quality of being equal.

Equal - Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.

It is important that we keep sight of the when equality is important.  We want to ensure equality of opportunity and equality in the application of law, but no one has the right to equality of outcome.  The next time someone is telling you that your ideals do not lead to fairness, that there is no equality at the end of your rainbow, please take the time to remind them that someone has to step up to their equal opportunities in order to acheive an equal outcome.

Equality simply cannot be measured by outcome.

How to Improve Economic Opportunities

Today Obama met with African-American leaders today to talk about ideas to improve economic opportunities for "blacks."  No Hispanic, Asian, nor Jewish leadership attended.  I have not seen the invitation list, but I am going out on a limb to say that they were not invited.  I will also assume that Benjamin Jealous, president of the NAACP; Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League; and the Rev. Al Sharpton, president of the National Action Network all had the best interests of all minorities in mind and not just the minority that they belong to.  That's a leap, but let's just assume.

President Obama has continually stated that he cannot enact strategies that will only help African Americans, but that he is willing to do regionally targeted economic strategies.  Taken on its face, that is a very righteous philosophy.  He has stated "This is about place.  It's not about race."  Mr. Obama, I could not agree more.

So lets get down to it.  Realizing that we are living in a post-racial era, the color of someone's skin no longer prevents them from getting a job.  So, what is the issue here?  I think it could be education.  That's right, Obama hit the nail right on the head.  The problem is with place.  Specifically speaking, just look at school statistics.  The places that have been hit the worst in regards to job loss also have the worst schools.  The government can do all the short-term, capital injection, handout programs it wants to, but none of this will help the people that are in need feed themselves tomorrow.  I am not saying that these programs cannot be pursued, but they are completely ineffective without accompanying long-term goals as well. 

Lets fix our education system.  That is the long-term solution to this mess that we have now.  As with so many of the other issues that our government faces, we cannot just patch the system that is in place and expect a better result tomorrow.  We need real change, this is ground-up change.  Will there be capital investment?  YES.  But we are not going to burn the schools to the ground, we can use them in the new system.  We need to look at these large issues facing us like a child looks at legos.  The piece, once disassembled, will (mostly) have uses in the new system.

Why does our government seem to always want to take something that is failing and "slap a new coat of paint on it" then tell us that everything will be OK.  News flash, most of the systems that our government has put in place are failing.  Please stop "fixing" things that should be rebuilt from the ground up.  Only then will you truly have anything nearing equality of economic advantage.

It is not a good thing that people continue to say that race is the issue.  I am not saying that there is no longer any racial tension, but race is no longer the biggest factor in economic inequality.  Education is.  Look for the underlying reasons for the educational imbalance and fix the problem at the root level.  That is the movement I will support. 

Sarah Palin

Like many, I was quite taken with Sarah Palin after McCain gave her the nod for the VP spot on his ticket.  I honestly felt that she was the third most qualified individual on either ticket for the spot.  I say qualified because if we have to look at job experience neither she nor Obama are anything of the sort. 

I fell prey to her history as a reformer, her ability to get into the mud pit (political arena) to kick some bureaucratic ass, and her moral character.  Having said that, I also felt that her gaffes were a result of insufficient preparation time.  She was called up to the "big leagues" too soon, taken from the safety of issues that belonged solely to her state and given only talking points for interview prep.  The result was that she was not prepared for some of the questions she had to take in interviews.  That is where she fumbled.  I laughed pretty hard when I saw the interview where she could not name the papers that she read to gain her world-view.  Although, I would have laughed harder had she said something like NY Times.

She was remarkable for her sincerity, which was never better showcased than in her moments of "going rogue."  But sincerity alone will not get you there.  I also liked her ideals, but ideals without the thoughtfulness necessary to both articulate and argue them are not enough.  I do not think that Sarah Palin is some intellectual powerhouse, and I never did. 

As I watch her now, 15 months later, I am struck by how far she has NOT progressed.  Now let me be clear, I do not want her to be a Progressive, but I would like to see some progress in her ability to handle some off-point questions.  Glenn Beck did an interview with here and threw some pretty easy softballs, but she muffed these almost as badly as she had the newspaper question. 

If America wants someone "smarter" than themselves to lead, then they should be satisfied with what they have now.  If America wants someone better (morally, constitutionally, ethically) than themselves, then Palin may not be a horrible choice.  Personally, I am holding out for that essential person that has the ethics, morals, and smarts; but that is still (against all odds) willing to answer the call to defend our great Constitution.

If you think that the Constitution is a "living document" (ei. no longer relevant), then please do not have the audacity to swear to defend it.  Disingenuous is the least offensive word that I can use to describe a person like that.

Obama is tackling healthcare... still?

Obama is having a "bipartisan" meeting to discuss healthcare reform on Feb. 25.  This is great!  Now instead of barring Republicans from the meeting altogether, he is going to have them right there in the room so that they can be ignored. 

Republicans have made it very clear that they have heard the people and will not support a federal take-over of healthcare.  This means that the entire legislative process needs to be restarted.  Obama still thinks that he can bribe Republicans enough to get them to sign onto this rediculous plan.  There is really no solution that will work in the long run because the fundamentals are the problem.  Neither the Democrat (Progressive) nor the currently recommended Republican plans for changing the system will work to fix the insolvency issue that is our current entitlement fiasco.

The fundamental issues are that as life-expectancy has increased, the retirement age has not and too many people have no "skin in the game" concerning medical costs.  This means that programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are eternally doomed. 

Look at Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future" lifted in part from here:

Medicare and Social Security would be preserved for those currently receiving benefits, or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today). Both programs would be made permanently solvent.

Universal access to affordable health care would be guaranteed by refundable tax credits ($2,300 for individuals, $5,700 for families) for purchasing portable coverage in any state. As persons under 55 became Medicare eligible, they would receive payments averaging $11,000 a year, indexed to inflation and pegged to income, with low-income people receiving more support.

Ryan's plan would fund medical savings accounts from which low-income people would pay minor out-of-pocket medical expenses. All Americans, regardless of income, would be allowed to establish MSAs -- tax-preferred accounts for paying such expenses.

Ryan's plan would allow workers under 55 the choice of investing more than one-third of their current Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts similar to the Thrift Savings Plan long available to, and immensely popular with, federal employees. This investment would be inheritable property, guaranteeing that individuals will never lose the ability to dispose every dollar they put into these accounts.

Ryan would raise the retirement age. If, when Congress created Social Security in 1935, it had indexed the retirement age (then 65) to life expectancy, today the age would be in the mid-70s. The system was never intended to do what it is doing -- subsidizing retirements that extend from one-third to one-half of retirees' adult lives.

Look at these common sense solutions, then look at the quagmire that is the 2,000 page Progressive solution to healthcare.  Tell me which one makes sense for both current and future stability.

Climate Change Reality

I lifted this word for word here.  I found it to be both informative and accurate.

The media is ignoring the growing global controversy over the credibility of climate change research and in particular, of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?


For example, unless you read the international press, especially the mainstream U.K. newspapers such as The Times, Telegraph and Guardian, you probably haven’t heard much about any of the following controversies in recent days.

(1) John Sauven, director of Greenpeace U.K., until now one of the strongest allies of IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, has called for Pachauri’s resignation, saying his judgment is flawed and a new IPCC chairman — the most important climate change job in the world — is needed to restore public confidence in climatic science.

(2) That the reason for this is increasing controversy over the credibility of the IPCC and Pachauri himself, related to the contents of its last major report released in 2007, including, but by no means limited to, a bogus claim Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — as iconic an image of the potential consequences of man-made global warming in Europe and Asia, as was the (inaccurate) one of polar bears stranded, starving and drowning on melting ice floes in North America. Worse, when the Indian government pointed out the glacier prediction was nonsense, Pachauri accused it of peddling “voodoo science,” before being forced to admit the IPCC was wrong and had ignored repeated warnings it was wrong.

(3) In the wake of Climategate, the U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office concluded officials at the world-famous Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia — the most prominent academic institution on which the IPCC relies for its science on man-made global warming — broke the law when they refused requests for their raw data under the Freedom of Information Act. They can’t be prosecuted due to a technicality — the complaint occurred more than six months after the violations.

(4) What had been billed as “gold standard,” “robust” and “peer reviewed” scientific research in the IPCC’s 2007 report, released to massive media publicity at the time, has recently been revealed to have relied, in some cases, upon such things as an article in a mountain-climbing magazine, a student dissertation using anecdotal evidence from mountain guides, and the unvetted claims of environmental groups.

(5) The U.K. government’s chief scientific advisor, John Beddington, has acknowledged some climate scientists exaggerated the impact of global warming and called for more honesty in explaining to the public the inherent uncertainties of predictions based on computer climate models, adding: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper skepticism.”

(6) China’s senior climate official, Xie Zhenua, has called for “an open attitude” towards “the alternative view” to man-made global warming. That is, that climate change is mainly “caused by cyclical trends in nature itself.” Considering no global climate deal is possible without China — the world’s top greenhouse gas emitter — Xie’s statement that these views should be incorporated into the next major IPCC report in 2014, has huge implications for the future of climate science.

I’ve chosen half-a-dozen examples above of controversies now engulfing the IPCC and climate research. I could have mentioned others about the now-disputed basis for IPCC claims regarding the impact of global warming on the Amazon rain forest, hurricanes and floods, and new questions about the reliability of weather station data used to make some IPCC claims.

Plus, there’s a growing public perception the IPCC has abandoned its proper role as a dispassionate presenter of scientific research to policy makers, to become just another environmental group preaching warmist hysteria.

None of this disproves anthropogenic global warming, or proves mankind’s influence on climate is a scientific hoax. But it illustrates the absurdity of the radical warmists’ claim the debate is over, the science is settled and we must all immediately take a vow of poverty to “save the planet.”

Why has th media largely ignored this growing controversy? Perhaps the best answer is embarrassment. Having shilled for warmist hysteria for so long, having dismissed any questioning of man-made climate change orthodoxy as equivalent to Holocaust denial, they don’t know how to climb down, or cope with the tidal wave (pardon the pun) of controversy now hitting climate science all over the world.

Thus they remain paralyzed, desperately, frantically, pretending no controversy exists.

Except it does. And it’s growing.

AGW may one day be proven, but it is an issue that is sucking all the oxygen out of the environmental movement related to some near term extremely urgent things.  Overpopulation and species depletion in major global ecosystems, including reef and S Hemisphere oceanic reservoirs.  Deforestation, desertification, and loss of fossil water inventory, fossil fuels, and mineral resources needed to supply an overpopulated planet with food, fertilizer, materials...  The emergence of true Malthusian Traps like Haiti and Yemen. These are all going to be hitting us hard long before the worst AGW alarmist thinks the polar bears will be vexed or the by then-20 million Haitians have to seek higher ground...

AIG Bonuses

There is a lot of talk about the AIG bonuses that are now being paid for the second year in a row.  The 100 million is a very large sum of money to come from an organization that would not even exist if not for a public bailout.  I understand the anger, but what do you expect? 

The AG for Connecticut was on the Kudlow Report last night talking about these bonuses and about his attempts to get them back.  Where was he when the bailout was occurring?  Where was the Fed making sure that bonuses were discontinued at the inception of the bailout?  Perhaps they did not know that AIG gives bonuses.  Perhaps they did.  This is the classic stance of governmental bureaucrats.  They stick their heads in the sand until a calamity happens.  They were warned about the looming mortgage crises (that they created), and did nothing.  Barney Frank and many other Democrats actually opposed legislation introduced in 2000, 2003, and 2004 that could have seriously mitigated the meltdown saying that worries about Fannie and Freddie were "overblown." 

Clinton: I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Why would you assume that someone who takes enormous risks, gets in trouble, gets bailed out with "no strings attached"; would learn a lesson?  Depository banks traditionally operate in a low-risk environment.  It is exactly that type of environment that makes a depositor feel safe.  However, investment "banks" (you should really use the work financial institutions) operate in a high-risk environment.  This is precisely the environment people turn to in "up" times to get the most return for their money.  When you reward this high-risk behavior with bailouts, you prove to these managers that their taking risks can have huge rewards with only minimal downsides.  What are we trying to teach here?  It flys directly in the face of the constitution to void these bonus contracts.

The financial institutions have been rewarding their employees the same way for well over 20 years, they have been preying on the upper and middle class for decades before that.  Why would the government think that these zebras would change their stripes now?  The government did nothing to stop these bonuses when they crafted TARP.  I don't understand why they act so indignant now.  If they had wanted these contracts broken, they should have done so as a condition of TARP funding.  They also could have provided back-stop funding for a managed restructuring of debt and all other contractual obligations (bankruptcy).  That option would have been the best for the American people since it would have allowed us to buy into these corporations much more cheaply.  The government chose to forgo these options.  It is a little more than a bit disingenuous to complain about things now.

I can guarantee you that the same people that the government "hopes" has learned their lesson have not.  More importantly, what I am hoping is that "we the people" have learned how our "protectors" play their games (and games they are).  There is not much more than CYA (cover your a$$) going on in politics.  As long as we have a culture that punishes the self-sufficient, independent man and rewards the selfish lay-about; we will have no shot whatsoever at becoming the great country that the US was intended to be.

Why did Republicans flip?

The President's biggest talking point these days is the Republicans' flip on the bi-partisan budget commission.  Now, I think this is a great talking point.  However, his talking points skip the fact that there are often major changes in a bill between its inception and the vote on its passage.  Lets look at the reasons for this "flip."

1.  Congressional votes on the proposals issued by the commission would be cast before new members of Congress elected in November are seated.  This would, unfortunately, allow disposed members to affect law that the voters will likely not want.

2.  No outside sources can be used to obtain estimates contrary to the finding of the commission.  WHAT!!!  Huge red flag.

3.  Limited chance for opposing views to be presented.  Meaning only the commissions findings would even be available for a vote.

Given these 3, I would rather think that the "flip" was the responsible thing to do.

Judd Gregg Kicks Some Ass

I came across this today and am ecstatic that someone GETS IT.  There is no way I could have said it better mayself.  In fact I said it much worse last night.

TARP Money

I hate to belabor a point, but when did the TARP funds become available for other things?  If the money is not needed for its originally intended purposes anymore, THEN RETURN IT!!  It is not a slush fund that the administration can just pull money from indiscriminantly.  If the banks are not about to fail anymore (and you are saying that they are not), then please return the money to us taxpayers.  God knows we do not want to be taxed tomorrow because you found some great social program to spend it on.

Hell, what does it take to get our elected officials to see the forest through the trees?

Ummmmm... Spending Freeze?

I have not been able to get my head around this spending freeze that has been proposed.  I just got a terrible feeling while watching CNBC.  They were talking about the big rises in the programs that are about to be frozen.  Wow.  What would be the best way to get guaranteed spending on programs you want to funnel more money to over the next few years when you know you are likely to lose control of Congress? 

They don't have 60 votes to get some of their efforts through, but the nuclear option can be used for budgetary matters and this is nothing if not a budgetary matter.  With only 51 votes needed to push this huge pile of garbage through the Senate, the administration can lay the groundwork for the next 3 years of bloated spending.

Just a thought from a very tired guy.

Obama on YouTube

I wish I could say that it was super interesting and informative, but it was only moderately so. He noted a few items of interest. Amongst those are Healthcare, student loan repayment, net neutrality, education, terrorism, and energy. See the full video here.

Healthcare - nothing new here, he still wants the government to run it.

Student loan repayment - nothing new here either. I am still struck by his thinking on this one though. Why would you let the debt expire for someone making (on average) 40k/yr after 20 years, but let someone making (on average) 70k/yr have theirs forgiven after only 10 years? The incongruity here is staggering. For that matter, why would you forgive any of this debt at all? God knows I am still paying my student loans. Instead of seeing them as a burden that I can foist off on others, I see them as the price I pay for access to the quality of life I enjoy. It is a slippery path you start down when you view your quality of life as being the responsibility of others.

Net Neutrality - wow, this is truly a can-of-worms. Please take the time to educate yourself on this point. I do not want to spoon feed anyone on this. My opinion on it - VERY BAD.

Higher Education - makes you a better citizen. Ouch.

Terrorism - I am actually pretty in-line with Obama's approach on this. I agree with each strategic decision he has made given where he found himself. I still regret going into Iraq under the pretenses that we did. Not that it did not need to be done, but we needed more concrete proof and justification for what we did there.

Energy - We are pretty much on the same page here. I advocate truly "clean" energy based on its proven ability to lower pollutants in the atmosphere. I do not endorse his indefensible opinion on climate change. We just have two separate roads to the same conclusion.