Obama will have a Bud Lite

In a bid to paper over his (Cambridge cops) "acted stupidly" comment, Obama has invited Professor Gates and Officer Crowley to the White House to make a great show of letting bygones be bygones by having all parties sit down over a beer to hash out their differences, like real men do.

Problem is, what kind of real man drinks Bud Lite?

Make His a Bud Light: Obama Picks Best-Selling Beer

July 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama will have Bud Light tomorrow when he hosts an old friend and the police officer who arrested him.

Obama, 47, has picked the top-selling beer in the U.S. for his get-together at the White House with Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge, Massachusetts, police Sergeant James Crowley, according to an administration official who asked to remain anonymous. The official wouldn’t say what the guests would be drinking.

Political strategists and marketing experts called the pick an easy, non-controversial choice for a meeting designed to defuse the tension sparked by the July 16 arrest of Gates by Crowley.

“He’s trying to send a message that he’s an average American and these are two other average Americans,” said Matt Mackiowack, a Republican strategist. “If you complicate that by making an exotic choice, or an import, or too expensive, you can be too cute by half.”

Obama invited Crowley and Gates to the White House after the president drew criticism in a July 22 news conference for saying the Cambridge police “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates at his home on a disorderly conduct charge, which was later dropped. Obama spoke hours after police union officials in Cambridge called on him to apologize.

Two days later, Obama called Crowley and Gates, an old friend, to invite them to the White House for a beer.

Mr. President, I know you are trying to seem like an authentic American--a real regular Joe--but if you think you are convincing us real regular Joes that you are just one of the guys by drinking a Bud Lite, I am sorry to inform you and your political handlers that you missed this one by a mile. Toss caution into the political wind and have a drink you actually enjoy--even if it is a white wine spritzer with an extra lemon twist. Try authentic authenticity for once. You're going to be judged no matter what you drink, you may as well enjoy it. For crissakes, at least have a regular strength Budweiser.

I think they should all drink Black and Tans. Aside from being politically correct and appropriate for such a kumbaya occasion, they're delicious!

Though if I were Officer Crowley, I would have respectfully declined the invitation in the first place. I can't think of a more pointless, contrived, uncomfortable situation--with no upside--to voluntarily place myself in.

Having beers and yucking it up is something you do with friends, not with a privileged, ivory tower race baiter and the Leader of the Free World, who says he doesn't have all the details of the situation then in the next breath says you "acted stupidly."

Seems to me Professor Gates is the only one who acted stupidly. Common sense dictates that you never talk back to a cop, even if you feel you are being mistreated. If you truly have been mistreated, file a complaint and sort it out in a lawsuit after wards. Here's another piece of common sense. When a cop comes to investigate a reported break in at your house, maybe you should consider thanking the officer for putting his life on the line to protect your property.

(Full disclosure: I have been known to drink a Bud Lite from time to time, but that is only when the choice is either brackish water or nothing at all.)

Testing the waters

One of my current concerns as I voiced in a previous post is that the Obama administration may try to take over the Federal Reserve by using the strong arm of a Democratic Congress. Looks like they may be testing the waters:

Bloomberg article: Fed Said to Retreat From Seeking Power to Sell Its Own Bills

At the House Budget hearing, a lawmaker brought up the idea of making Fed district-bank presidents subject to Senate confirmation. Currently the presidents are nominated by the banks’ boards of directors and approved by the U.S.-appointed Fed governors in Washington.

Representative Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio Democrat, asked Bernanke during the hearing whether he supported the idea. “No,” the chairman replied.

“The last thing the Fed wants is for its independence of monetary policy to be challenged,” said David M. Jones, president of DMJ Advisors LLC in Denver and a former Fed economist. “It’s very unlikely this debt thing would be pursued.”

The car of the future

A friend of mine snapped this picture while traveling through rural Indiana last week:

Observing the weathervane

This quote summarizes this week’s sentiment rather succinctly: "There will likely be a growing steady recognition that in trying to prevent a Depression, the transfer of risk has been shifted from the private sector to the public purses and this may create a longer, more drawn out problem."

• Geithner admits overnight that the US credit rating is in jeopardy in light of our heavy issuance
• PIMCO's Bill Gross said the U.S. will eventually lose its AAA rating
  
• Moody's did say Thursday it is comfortable with the triple-A sovereign rating on the United States, but it is not guaranteed forever
• Goldman Sachs said the hike in oil prices this week was due to real oil market fundamentals and not just hedging against a weak dollar and equity market rallies. "The oil market was shocked by disruptions in Nigeria, refinery problems in the U.S. and a strong gasoline market," Goldman said in a research note. (Not sure why they think they have any credibility. Last year when oil was at $140/bbl they were calling for $200/bbl by year end. Their prop desk was probably getting short on the call, but I digress...--Ed)
• US Treasury was getting hit hard at the end of the day yesterday as the market was getting ready for big new supply coming next week - $101B of fresh Treasuries to be auctioned
• WAPO reported that the Obama administration is preparing to send GM into bankruptcy as early as the end of next week under a plan that would give the auto maker tens of billions of dollars more in public financing
• Mastercard will lose more than half of a $59B portfolio of debit-card users after JPMorgan Chase & Co. decided to shift more business to Visa
  
• The FDIC seized BKUNA, the 34th bank failure of the year, with $12.8B in assets, $8.6B in deposits and 85 branches
• AIG announced that Chairman and CEO Edward Liddy will step down and also proposed a 1-for-20 reverse stock split

I think that at some point in the not too distant future the Obama Administration, with the help of Congress, will attempt to take over the Fed. I bet the majority of Americans will see nothing wrong with that, at least the ones who have no idea (and don't care to have one) what the Federal Reserve system is and why it was created in the first place.

Trickle up poverty

Ed Yardeni once again nails it:

The politicians in Washington, DC have an advantage over many of us: They don’t work for a living. So they have plenty of free time to figure out ways to take money away from those of us who do. Working stiffs like us don’t have much time to stop them. We need a national Tea Party to check and balance the Kleptocrat Party running amuck on both sides of the aisle of our nation’s capitol. On April 15, there were tea parties in several cities around the nation to protest ballooning federal deficits and rising taxes. Most of the demonstrations were held during lunch time when people could get away for an hour from work!

The authors of our Constitution intended that it would protect the liberties of the individual and limit the power of the government. They intentionally designed a political system of checks and balances so that it would more often than not result in gridlock. Both the Democrats and the Republicans, and all the special interest groups that support them, have been chipping away at this system for decades. Rather than fight one another to a draw, they’ve come up with lots of compromises, and have compromised the checks and balances system. They couldn’t have done so if their spending were constrained by a balanced budget amendment. Nevertheless, until this year, there was some sense of fiscal limits, if not discipline left in Washington. This is no longer the case.

The current Administration has proposed, and Congress is likely to enact, a dramatic expansion of social welfare spending over the next 10 years. At the same time, more and more Americans are getting excused from paying any taxes if their incomes are low enough. Many may effectively benefit from a negative income tax. That leaves fewer and fewer Americans to pick up the government’s tab. These remaining taxpayers may be relatively well off, but there aren’t enough of them to pay the government’s bills. So the federal government is scrambling to find new taxes, though such taxes won’t come close to filling the gap between federal spending and revenues. Let’s review some recent developments focusing on the government’s trivial pursuit of additional nickel-and-dime revenues:

(1) The Office of Management and Budget now estimates that the deficit will be $1.84tn this fiscal year, a 5% increase over the Administration's estimate released in February.

(2) Over the next 10 years, the federal deficit is projected to total nearly $10tn. The Administration proposes to cut taxes by $736bn for middle-income families and $99bn for small businesses during the same period.

(3) Over the next 10 years, the Administration hopes to raise $210bn by closing tax loopholes for multinational corporations. This is likely to put US corporations at a competitive disadvantage since most other countries don't require their companies to pay taxes on foreign earnings.

(4) Over the next 10 years, $58bn in additional tax revenue will come from changing the way assets in estates are valued ($24.2bn), from modifying rules for some life insurance company products and contracts ($12.8bn), and from changing the way income is treated for some dealers of equity options and commodities ($2.6bn).

(5) Treasury officials also recently outlined plans to eliminate $36bn in tax breaks for oil companies for activities such as exploration and drilling and to reinstate excise taxes used to help clean up federal Superfund environmental sites. The excise taxes expired in 1996 and would generate about $16.7bn over 10 years.

(6) On April 20, President Obama convened his Cabinet for the first time, and ordered its members to identify a combined $100mn in budget cuts over the next 90 days. That’s millions, not billions.

The long-term problem is that the federal government continues to expand nondiscretionary spending on more social welfare programs. These are open-ended commitments that are politically difficult to cut. They also create an unhealthy codependence as more Americans depend on the government, and politicians expect that the beneficiaries of government spending will keep them in office. In personal income, government social benefits were equivalent to 31% of wages and salaries in March. That’s a record high. During the 1960s, it was around 10%. By the 1980s, it was around 20%. The gap between these benefits and employee and employer payroll taxes to pay for them widened from nearly zero at the start of 2001 to a record $514.5bn in March of this year.

This morning, Bloomberg reports that the Social Security trust fund will run out of assets in 2037, four years sooner than previously forecast. Medicare’s hospital fund will be exhausted by 2017, two years earlier than predicted a year ago. The current Administration claims that their reforms of the health care industry will lower growth in health-care costs even as they push to make sure that all Americans have access to “affordable” health care. In a statement yesterday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner promised that after pulling off this miracle, the President will “build a bipartisan consensus to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security.” David Axelrod, a senior White House adviser, said that Obama is “committed to a serious effort to confront that issue.” Good luck with that. Then again, it took a conservative president to recognize China. Maybe a liberal one can finally reform Social Security by imposing means testing. That should be popular with all the populists that support this Administration’s social welfare policies.

(H/T Yardeni Research)

The noose tightens

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn’t think you could do before.”--Rahm Emanuel

Today, governments around the world are taking power back from free markets, particularly financial markets, under the pretext that they have failed. In fact, the markets were hobbled by a combination of anti-market regulations and the lack of enforcement of regulations that leveled the competitive playing fields. In the US, the power grab is spreading to banking, autos, energy, and health care. Here is a brief chronology of recent developments around the world in this epic power struggle:

(1) It started with TARP, which was proposed by Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke and enacted by Congress on October 3, 2008. This politicized the financial rescue program in the US. It gave the government the power to dictate how recipients must manage their companies. On October 13, Paulson forced nine major banks to take some of the TARP money even though most of them didn’t need it or want it.

(2) In December, Ken Lewis, the CEO of Bank of America, had buyer’s remorse after having agreed to purchase Merrill Lynch in mid-September. Mr. Lewis contends that Paulson and Bernanke also advised him not to share his second thoughts with BofA shareholders who were about to approve the deal.

(3) On February 26, the Obama administration unveiled its budget, which includes significant increases in spending on social welfare, especially health care. The resulting deficits are projected to total more than $9tn over the next 10 years.

(4) On March 30, 2009, the White House fired Rick Wagoner, the head of General Motors. The Obama administration is orchestrating the restructuring of the auto industry. President Obama declared that the US government stands behind GM's warranties.

(5) The government is pushing legislation aimed at bringing down credit card fees.

(6) The Obama administration is pushing to have student loans made by the government rather than private lenders.

(7) Democrats in Congress are moving to make the Obama administration’s health care proposals filibuster proof by pushing the proposed legislation as part of the budget reconciliation process.

(8) In Russia, the government is in effect nationalizing the industries that were once controlled by the oligarchs, who borrowed too much and must now be rescued by their comrades in the Kremlin.

(9) In China, the government is pumping large sums of money into infrastructure projects aimed at stimulating economic growth to offset the shuttering of thousands of manufacturers as a result of the plunge in exports.

(10) Governments are raising taxes, especially on high income earners. The Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire at the end of 2010. States from New York to California are raising income tax rates and user fees. Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government laid out plans on Wednesday for more than $1tn in deficit spending over the next five years, a scale of public debt that critics say is without precedent in Britain. In addition, his government now plans to hike the top marginal income tax rate from 40% to 50%, rather than to 45%.

(h/t Ed Yardeni Research)

The Black Hole of fiscal responsibility

I'll withhold the niceties: anybody that thinks government is a good custodian of your current and future tax dollars is a moron.

Congress needs Google to find out where stimulus money went

On February 14, with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Congress shoveled $787 billion of stimulus money out the door. Now they're using Google to find out where it went.

During the stimulus debate, the bill's supporters stressed that it included strong oversight safeguards. But audits and reports are months, if not years, away. Oversight will be after the fact; right now, with the money actually beginning to flow, members of Congress have little or no idea where it is going. What, for example, is the Department of Housing and Urban Development doing with the $1.5 billion Congress approved for a new program called the Homeless Prevention Fund? Lawmakers don't know.

Read the whole thing.


"No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session."--Judge Gideon Tucker 1866

There's that saying...

Oh you know the one, something about pictures and what they're worth in words...

Budget deficit: past, present and future (source: Wapo)



This one has words and pictures. That doubles its value!

The Dodd Amendment

I do believe that the Obama administration and his congressional enablers finally have a plan in place to remove the last vestiges of faith in the federal government any of us may still harbor exempt their campaign contributors from having to take unsavory responsibility for their bad business decisions:

While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The provision, now called “the Dodd Amendment” by the Obama Administration provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.

He was for the bonuses before he was against them. John Kerry would appreciate that. Also, it's pretty rich that they want to "tax" these bonuses. As the tax laws already stand the federal government will get about 35% of the gross amount. And depending on what state the recipients live in, they'll be lucky to see 55% of the gross amount after the local governments are through.

Dodd’s original amendment did not include that exemption, and the Connecticut Senator denied inserting the provision.

"Idunnoitwasn'tme!" Classic 3rd grade denial.

“I can't point a finger at someone who was responsible for putting those dates in,” Dodd told FOX. “I can tell you this much, when my language left the senate, it did not include it. When it came back, it did.”

Of course he can't point a finger. If he did there would be three pointing back at at him. I bet even Senator Dodd can understand that 3>1.

This explains a lot (click to enlarge):




The WSJ has an editorial today that gets to the heart of the matter:

The Washington crowd wants to focus on bonuses because it aims public anger on private actors, not the political class. But our politicians and regulators should direct some of their anger back on themselves -- for kicking off AIG's demise by ousting Mr. Greenberg, for failing to supervise its bets, and then for blowing a mountain of taxpayer cash on their AIG nationalization.

The best insurance policy AIG ever invested in was political donations to the left side of the aisle.

UPDATE 3/19/09: Dodd admits Role in AIG Controversy

Why does this guy still have a job?

AIG's earmarks

The latest outrage washing across the political landscape is over AIG's decision to honor a commitment to pay out $165 million in bonuses to certain employees. Obama has said that he will "pursue every single legal avenue to block" the payout.

At issue are retention bonuses for employees of AIG's financial-products division, whose credit default swaps brought AIG to the brink of collapse. The government controls AIG through an 80% equity stake and as a major lender and doesn't have legal authority to freeze payments on its own. The U.S. has committed $173.3 billion to AIG, including $70 billion from Treasury's rescue fund.

I see no difference between this and the earmark-laden bills that regularly get passed through Congress with nary a peep. Now that AIG is a de facto government owned entity, the bonus payments--just like earmarks--are a form of patronage. We already know how Obama feels about the AIG earmarks, and he has repeatedly said he is against all earmarks, though it seems that some earmarks are worse than others. Namely the ones that originate in Congress are OK, but the ones that originate in the private sector are not. Seems he's just blowing hot air of out his yapper.

Lest you think that the banks who have taken TARP money are going to sit still and let the government dictate a new, equal and just pay structure, think again. Reminds me of a beggar with a stick.

For the record, I am against all earmarks and all bailouts. Does anybody think that AIG would be paying bonuses if they'd been allowed to go bankrupt?

The wisdom of Ogden Nash

In honor of our new socialist overlords, I though I would share a poem that was written during another era that has an increasing number of parallels to today; an era known as the Great Depression.

One From One Leaves Two

Higgledy piggledy, my black hen,
She lays eggs for gentlemen.
Gentlemen come every day
To count what my black hen doth lay.
If perchance she lays too many,
They fine my hen a pretty penny;
If perchance she fails to lay,
The gentlemen a bonus pay.

Mumbledy pumbledy, my red cow,
She’s cooperating now.
At first she didn’t understand
That milk production must be planned;
She didn’t understand at first
She either had to plan or burst,
But now the government reports
She’s giving pints instead of quarts.

Fiddle de dee, my next-door neighbors,
They are giggling at their labors.
First they plant the tiny seed,
Then they water, then they weed,
Then they hoe and prune and lop,
They they raise a record crop,
Then they laugh their sides asunder,
And plow the whole caboodle under.

Abracadabra, thus we learn
The more you create, the less you earn.
The less you earn, the more you’re given,
The less you lead, the more you’re driven,
The more destroyed, the more they feed,
The more you pay, the more they need,
The more you earn, the less you keep,
And now I lay me down to sleep.
I pray the Lord my soul to take
If the tax-collector hasn’t got it before I wake.

Ogden Nash

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."--Mark Twain

The mortgage plan is revealed

U.S. Sets Rules for Mortgage Modifications, 2% Mortgages

March 4 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration set loan modification guidelines for its $75 billion homeowner rescue plan, agreeing to pay lenders for altering troubled mortgages while reducing borrowers’ interest rates to as low as 2 percent.

2 percent? sign me up! Sadly, I do not think I'll qualify, as I am current in my mortgage payments and have chosen to not live beyond my means. However I am troubled by all of this government intervention in the mortgage market. Though I don't think that's the kind of "troubled mortgage" candidate they're looking for.

The voluntary initiative, announced on Feb. 18, would require applicants to fully document their income with pay stubs and tax returns, and sign an affidavit attesting to “financial hardship,” according to documents released by the U.S. Treasury in Washington today. The second, larger part of the plan relies on government-run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to refinance loans.

Here's a really stupid, naive question: how does one document the ultimate financial hardship--losing one's job--by providing pay stubs and tax returns?

I hope mentioning the fact that Fannie and Freddie will be relied upon to refinance these loans is not meant to inspire confidence.

“This is not going to save every person’s home,” presidential Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said during a briefing. The plan offers help “for those who have played by the rules.”

Mr Gibbs, I played by the rules. Can you please be more specific?

President Barack Obama’s initial proposal, the biggest federal foray into real estate since the Great Depression, ignited criticism from Republican lawmakers that the government would end up subsidizing homeowners who are financially capable of surviving the economic slump on their own.

It would be encouraging to see that the GOP has lately re-discovered that one of their founding principles used to be opposition to Big Government if it weren't so unabashedly pathetic.

Lenders likely won’t be able to offer the loan modifications for a few weeks as they update their technology to process the applications, a mortgage-industry official said on a conference call today with Obama administration officials.

Not surprising since they've laid off virtually all of their employees.

Obama is seeking to curb a jump in foreclosures that, along with a drop in consumer credit, is lowering property values, dragging down the economy and keeping prospective homebuyers away. The housing market lost $3.3 trillion in value last year, and almost one in six owners with mortgages owed more than their homes were worth, according to a report last month by Zillow.com.

“This plan will help make home ownership more affordable for 9 million American families and in doing so, help to stop the damaging impact that declining home prices have on all Americans,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a statement.

Please somebody--anybody--show me where it is written that housing prices are only allowed to go up. I'm sure it's written right under the rule that states certain banks and insurance companies are "too big to fail".

For a loan modification, lenders would have to reduce the mortgage payments to no more than 38 percent of the borrower’s income. Then, the Treasury would share the cost for lenders to cut that debt-to-income ratio to 31 percent, the government said.

The modifications would allow a lender to drop the interest rate to as little as 2 percent to achieve the ratio, and if necessary, extend the term or amortization of the loan to as long as 40 years. If more effort is needed, lenders can forbear the principal and in some cases forgive, or reduce, portions of the principal altogether, the documents show.

Sounds like an excellent incentive to work as little as possible.

The proposal, Garrett said, may violate requirements that homeowners put up at least 20 percent of the appraised value of a home or carry mortgage insurance.

“Due to falling home values, many of the potential applicants for Treasury’s foreclosure mitigation refinancing plan will now find themselves” below that level, Garrett said. “There is no specific language under this title that provides the regulator of these two entities any discretion for when or how to apply this requirement.”

The problem with making stuff up as you go is that you often run afoul of the rule of law--not that that matters too much to our current administration. They're acting "for our own good" so there's nothing to worry about. Paging unintended consequences...


At least some vacant houses in Florida are being put to good use:

Kids Party in Foreclosed Homes, Leave Wake of Vandalism

As one astute commenter at the bottom of the article put it, ""These kids DO own these houses and will be paying for them for generations...!"

Geithner to fight himself; Obama channels Jim Cramer

Everytime I see Treasury Sec Geithner's mug on TV, this is how I envision him:


Geithner: Obama to fight international tax dodgers

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's Treasury secretary says the administration will unveil a series of rules and measures in the coming months to limit the ability of international companies to avoid U.S. taxes.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday that Obama will propose legislation to limit U.S. companies' ability to shelter foreign earnings from taxation in the U.S. He also said the administration will try to limit wealthy Americans' ability to use tax havens to avoid taxation.

He did not immediately provide details.

Separately, Obama had this to say about the stock market:

"What you're now seeing is profit and earnings ratios are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal"

I'm no CFA, but even I know there is no such thing as a profit and earnings ratio, let alone multiple "profit and earnings ratios" . I know that the very useful price to earnings (P/E) ratio exists, but a profit to earnings ratio? No such thing. Perhaps it was just a gaffe, and he really meant P/E ratio. I would give him the benefit of the doubt if I thought that he actually knew anything about finance or wealth creation. But as a self described community organizer and a lawyer to boot, I will assume he is as well-versed in finance as the rest of his cohort. By that I mean he only knows how to take wealth from those who create it and give it to those who do not.

By the way, WTF is the President of the United States of America doing making a market timimg call in the first place?

It is done

It looks like both houses of Congress have agreed to the 1,000+ page, $787,000,000,000 "stimulus" package that is going to save our country from the abyss.

Before you accuse our elected officials of vigorously scratching the itch to spend our children's money, remember, it could have been worse:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the stimulus package will cost $787 billion, rather than $789 billion lawmakers estimated earlier this week.

That is what passes as fiscal responsibility on Capitol Hill.

And this, from San Francisco's favorite carpetbagging daughter:

“The jobs the American people care about most -- their own -- will be dramatically safer the day that President Obama signs this plan into law,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.

I know I feel much safer about my job after reading that. Please, somebody find me one sound-byte that falls out of her yapper that isn't plum-crazy talk.

This is interesting:

Lawmakers dropped provisions barring funds from going to museums, arts centers and theaters. A ban on money to casinos, golf courses, zoos and swimming pools was retained.

I like museums, arts centers and theaters as much as the next guy, which is why when I use them, I pay the price of admission which I assume is structured to cover the costs of doing business. Why they should get free money from the government; while casinos, golf courses, zoos and swimming pools(??) are all forced to survive in the capitalist--sorry--socialist wilderness on their own is beyond me. Well if this results in a reduction of the $25 price of admission to the shiny new California Academy of Sciences I suppose I will be forced to reconsider my stance on the entire "stimulus" bill.

Lawmakers deleted provisions requiring businesses receiving stimulus funding to use E-Verify, a government program used to ensure workers are in the country legally.

By all means, we must not upset the largest potential block of new democratic voters, at least not until after the 2010 census. If Obama successfully wrestles control of the census count away from the Dept. of Commerce and into the White House--which is illegal if the US Constitution is your guiding principle anyhow--illegal aliens will be a permanent fixture of the democratic machine.

Most senators had left the chamber’s floor hours before the final tally was announced. The vote was held open for five hours until Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, returned from his home state to cast the deciding vote for the bill. Brown had been in Ohio following the death of his mother earlier this week.

Rest In Peace Mrs. Brown; government has yet to invent a way to tax you in the afterlife. And if you thought curious, inquiring congressional minds may want to stick around and read what they just signed , you'd be wrong:

“It is over a thousand pages,” said Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican. “It is physically impossible for any member to have read this bill.”

I've been reading the abridged version of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire for almost 3 years now. It comes in a little under 1,000 pages. It is taking me a long time to read because it is a lot to digest, and nobody is paying me to read it. Maybe I should just thumb through it and tell people I read it instead. At least I wouldn't let contemplating any of the details hold me back from taking a first-class trip to Europe.

On a more positive note, what we need are more economists like Michelle talking no-nonsense economics with Obama supporters, capturing it on video and broadcasting it on YouTube.


(h/t texas rainmaker via instapundit for the image at the top of the page. Probably photoshopped or a prank, but it does capture the spirit of the Obama rapture rather well.)

Too handsome to lampoon

Two hours and thirty five minutes into Obama's presidency, and already he's off limits to least one European cartoonist:

Obama too handsome for good satire -caricaturist

Tuesday, January 20, 2009 11:35:00 AM (GMT-08:00) BRUSSELS, Jan 20 (Reuters) -

U.S. President Barack Obama is too good looking to provide inspiration for cartoons in the same way George W. Bush served as fodder for some of their most biting commentary, a caricaturist on said Tuesday.

"It's never a gift for a caricaturist to draw a handsome man," said Pierre Kroll, from Belgium, which prides itself on its comic book culture including Tintin.

"Somehow, we prefer overweight people, people with a beard, huge noses, ridiculous glasses ... If caricaturists could elect presidents, we would choose people with faces we enjoy drawing, and not a playboy like him," said Kroll whose works appears in the Belgian daily "Le Soir".

Kroll said positive public sentiment towards the incoming U.S president might also make it harder for caricaturists whose portraits have to underline a person's weaknesses and flaws.

"Caricaturists like to be a bit nasty and here, he comes with a lot of sympathy, it's harder for us to do our job and mock him while Bush had become a favourite target for cartoonists," he said.

(Reporting by Bate Felix and Marine Hass)

I feel sorry for poor Pierre Kroll. He is so blinded by Bush-hatred that he fails to see that Obama's ears are almost as big as Dumbo the Elephant's. If those suckers aren't perfect caricature-fodder I don't know what is. Then he goes on to describe what really makes a good caricature, "overweight people, people with a beard, huge noses, ridiculous glasses" without stopping to consider that Bush possessed none of those features, yet they had a field day with him. I hope he has another skill to fall back on, because caricatures of the former President Bush are going to start to look a little out dated pretty quickly. Maybe he makes a really bitchen' Belgian waffle!

Inauguration Day Carbon Footprint

This sort of thing matters to some people--mostly to the anthropomorphic global warming disciples who do not understand that correlation does not imply causation. Fortunately it doesn't matter to me, but just in case anybody needs ammo when pointing out the hypocrisy among the patricians of our nation, well here ya go:

Carbon Bigfoot: 2009 Inauguration Expected to Generate More Than a Half-Billion Pounds of CO2

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- Next week scores of celebrities including Leonardo DiCaprio, Sharon Stone, Sting, and Steven Spielberg are all expected to flock to the nation's capitol, many by private jets, to the historic inauguration of Barack Obama. The swearing-in extravaganza will surely be the largest yet and is seeing ballooning costs and a major environmental footprint.
In a report released today, the Institute for Liberty (IFL) utilizes data from federal agencies, environmentalist organizations, and news accounts to extrapolate the estimated environmental impact for the 2009 Inauguration. IFL estimates that, given the millions of people expected to converge on the nation's capital. IFL concludes:

-- The 600 private jets expected to fly visitors to and from the event will
produce 25,320,000 POUNDS of CO2
-- Personal vehicles could account for 262,483,200 POUNDS of CO2
-- In the Inaugural parade, horses alone will produce more than 400 POUNDS of CO2
-- The total carbon footprint for the Inauguration will likely exceed 575
million POUNDS of CO2
-- It would take the average U.S. household 57,598 years to produce a
carbon footprint equal to that of the new president's housewarming
party

The Inauguration of President Obama is truly an historic occasion that should be celebrated," said IFL President Andrew Langer. "However, it would be very hypocritical for the scores of celebrities, VIPs and political elites to lecture on environmental policy to middle America and small businesses that are merely trying to survive in these difficult economic times, and then turn around and contribute to the half-billion pounds of emitted CO2. This is a celebration -- DC's small businesses, and thus DC's working families, are going to greatly benefit from this event. The rest of America should share in that opportunity."

Of course, the star-studded list of carbon offenders will be given a free pass by their would-be censors for at least two reasons. First, this is an historic occasion. Second, they're mostly the same people, so they'd be censoring themselves. They'll also give Obama a free pass on the estimated $146mil price tag for the whole affair; forgetting that just 4 years ago they pilloried Bush for his inauguration excesses which cost us taxpayers a fraction of what the Obama affair will cost.

It seems you just can't put a price tag--carbon or otherwise--on the celebration of tokenism, especially since the Senate voted to ban ticket scalping at the event. And anybody dumb enough to try to scalp a ticket to what is supposed to be a free event ought to be allowed to. Clearly, they have too much money. That's the kind of wealth redistribution I can get on board with.

Fiddling while Rome burns

In light of all the economic turmoil we are presently experiencing, if I were about to be inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States of America, I might think it wise to tone down my inaugural ceremony just a tad.

It seems that Obama is choosing the opposite course by allowing it to become the most expensive swearing in ceremony in history.

Barack Obama's inauguration is set to cost more than £100m ($146 million) making it the most expensive swearing-in ceremony in US history.

The President-elect will take less than a minute to recite the oath of office in front of an estimated two million people in the US capital next week.

But by the time the final dance has been held at one of the many inaugural balls the costs for the day will be a staggering £110m ($160.6 million).

So many people are expected in the U.S. capital that President Bush declared a state of emergency.

In doing so he paves the way for unlimited funding to be released to those local authorities responsible for staging the event. (who says democrats and republicans can't work together? -ed)

Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty revealed that is the amount that will be billed in the days after the January 20th event. US authorities had previously budgeted just £10m ($14.6 million) for the day based on previous inaugurations for George Bush and Bill Clinton.

Though questions remain as to the legality of the means utilized to raise the money, the fact is Obama raised $741.7 million during his presidential campaign. His inauguration is set to cost 10 times as much as his most recent predecessors. It might be a good idea to use part of the $30 million left in his campaign coffer to help pay for this historic moment since a token show of fiscal restraint seems like too much to ask.

Ah well, party on faithful! Enjoy the moment, because I have a suspicious feeling that Inauguration Day may be the high point of the Obama administration.

A trillion is the new billion

“Never confuse motion with action.” --Ben Franklin

This simple wisdom is apparently beyond the understanding of our elected leaders as demonstrated by the following headline:

Obama Warns of Irreversible Decline Without Action

Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama warned that without immediate steps by the government to revive the economy, family incomes will drop, the unemployment rate could reach “double digits” and the U.S. risks losing a “generation of potential and promise.”

In excerpts of a speech he’s scheduled to give today at 11 a.m. New York time in the Washington suburb of Fairfax, Virginia, Obama says that while the cost of his economic recovery plan will add to a deficit already projected to exceed $1 trillion, he “won’t just throw money at our problems.”

“It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth,” Obama will say. “But at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe.”

Not to make light of what is now a very serious economic problem, but it often seems as though government's main function is to take something that should not have been a problem in the first place (had they been doing their job properly) and allowing it to snowball into a big crisis that only government can fix. This serves their real unspoken job rather well, which is the continual search for the justification of their own existence. At the risk of oversimplification, the main reason the Great Depression lasted as long as it did was that FDR firmly inserted government in the middle of all aspects of our economy. While his intentions were arguably well meaning, his policies were outright hostile to the private sector. So what did the private sector do? They kept their job creating, GDP expanding, entrepreneurial enabling capital on the sidelines for almost 10 years, which gave rise to the term, "idle rich." This had the effect of making government the only game in town, which further justified more government intervention.

What our economy needs is not more stimulation--overstimulation is what got us into this mess in the first place. Our economy needs to rest. Like a drunk coming down from a binge, you don't make him feel better by sticking another bottle of Jack Daniels in his hand and telling him to drink it, you let him sleep it off. Increasing unemployment (the reallocation of human capital) is a byproduct, but unemployment is in the future no matter what. Better for the private sector to put capital to work as soon as possible--creating real jobs--than letting government mis-allocate borrowed money to pay for "make work" jobs designed as a short term fix.

I feel we are in real deflationary danger. Private sector capital will continue to sit on the sidelines until our economy is well rested. But government will not let it rest, which will prolong the rough times ahead.

A better solution would be for government to temporarily cut all corporate and personal tax rates to say, 10%. It would reduce government revenues significantly of course, but borrowing money from the future to put in place a fiscal stimulus package that will surely be in excess of $1 trillion will have an even more drastic long term effect. Government can always borrow to keep critical programs and institutions running on a case by case basis.

I hold no illusions of anything like this happening, as the two things that are fundamentally anathema to big government are small businesses and the entrepreneurs that create them; for neither has any reason to pay tribute to an entity whose main purpose seems to be administering death by a thousand paper cuts. Small businesses employ far more Americans than big businesses do, but it is big business--through expensive lobbing efforts and campaign contributions--that have convinced our elected officials that they are "too big to fail" and are deserving of a taxpayer-funded bailout. Small businesses, having no such resources, are stuck scrounging for life lines of credit from banks who are simultaneously told to loan their TARP money and rebuild their capital base. If they do not secure a line of credit, they are forced to lay off workers, or close altogether, which perpetuates the economic downward spiral.

Alexis de Tocqueville had it right over 175 years ago:

The American Republic will endure until the Congress discovers they can bribe the people with their own money.

It seems the price of the bribe is somewhere north of $1,000,000,000,000

The Banana Republic of Illinois

If you’re looking for a great non-fiction read that reads like fiction, look no further. The complaint filed yesterday against the current Illinois governor, democrat Rod Blagojevich, almost reads like a John Gresham novel. They ought to just slap a cover on it and sell it on Amazon.

The reader will recall that this is the same fetid swamp from which our current President-elect emerged. No doubt he has insulated himself well from this particular scandal, but there's that age old wisdom, something about the apple not falling too far from the tree, that may be appropriate here. Unfortunately, the young aspiring representative Jessie Jackson Jr. may not be so lucky. His handlers stand accused of offering the Governor $500,000 for Obama's empty Senate seat.

Since it is 78 pages long, I've highlighted some of my favorite parts below.

Careful now, there's more F-bombs dropped here than Al Pacino dropped in Scarface.


On quid pro quo:

a. Defendant ROD BLAGOJEVICH and at times defendant JOHN HARRIS, together with others, obtained and attempted to obtain financial benefits for RODBLAGOJEVICH, members of the Blagojevich family, and third parties including Friends of Blagojevich, in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state employment, state contracts, and access to state funds;

On pesky media bias, the Cubs and Wrigley Field:

b. Defendants ROD BLAGOJEVICH and JOHN HARRIS, together with others, offered to, and threatened to withhold from, the Tribune Company substantial state financial assistance in connection with Wrigley Field, which assistance ROD BLAGOJEVICH believed to be worth at least $100 million to the Tribune Company, for the private purpose of inducing the controlling shareholder of the Tribune Company to fire members of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, a newspaper owned by the Tribune Company, who were responsible for editorials critical of ROD BLAGOJEVICH

71. Based on a review of intercepted phone calls, it appears that the Tribune
Company, in connection with its efforts to sell the Cubs, has explored the possibility of obtaining financial assistance from the Illinois Finance Authority (“IFA”) relating to the financing or sale of Wrigley Field.19 During the course of this investigation, agents have intercepted a series of communications regarding the efforts of ROD BLAGOJEVICH and JOHN HARRIS to corruptly use the power and influence of the Office of the Governor to cause the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members as a condition of State of Illinois financial assistance in connection with Wrigley Field. The phone calls reflect that ROD BLAGOJEVICH directed JOHN HARRIS to inform Tribune Owner and an associate of Tribune Owner, Tribune Financial Advisor (Tribune Financial Advisor is believed to be an individual identified in media accounts as a top assistant and financial advisor to Tribune Owner, who played a significant role in Tribune Owner’s purchase of the Tribune), that State
of Illinois financial assistance for the Tribune Company’s sale of Wrigley Field would not be forthcoming unless members of the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board were fired. Set out below are summaries of certain of those conversations. This affidavit does not include all calls dealing with the corrupt efforts of ROD BLAGOJEVICH and JOHN HARRIS to misuse their influence over the expenditure of state funds to cause the firing of employees of the Chicago Tribune editorial board.

On standing by your man:

During the call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife can be heard in the background telling ROD BLAGOJEVICH to tell Deputy Governor A “to hold up that fucking Cubs shit. . . fuck them.”

On Global Warming, jet flights and personal loyalty:

4. According to Levine, in approximately late October 2003, after Levine was reappointed to the Planning Board, he shared a private plane ride from New York to Chicago with ROD BLAGOJEVICH and Kelly. Levine, ROD BLAGOJEVICH, and Kelly were the only passengers on the flight. According to Levine, at the beginning of the flight, Levine thanked ROD BLAGOJEVICH for reappointing him to the Planning Board. ROD BLAGOJEVICH responded that Levine should only talk with “Tony” [Rezko] or [Kelly] about the Planning Board, “but you stick with us and you will do very well for yourself.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said this in front of Kelly. According to Levine, Levine understood from ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s manner of speaking and words that ROD BLAGOJEVICH did not want Levine to talk to ROD BLAGOJEVICH directly about anything to do with the boards, but that Levine should talk to Rezko or Kelly. Levine also understood that ROD BLAGOJEVICH meant that Levine could make a lot of money working with ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s administration. According to Levine, ROD BLAGOJEVICH did not seem to expect a response from Levine, and Kelly then shifted the conversation to something else.

Most appropriate acronym ever:

36. Levine’s criminal activities included his abuse of his position on the Planning
Board to enrich both himself and Friends of Blagojevich. The Planning Board was a commission of the State of Illinois, established by statute, whose members were appointed by the Governor of the State of Illinois. At the relevant time period, the Planning Board consisted of nine individuals. State law required an entity seeking to build a hospital, medical office building, or other medical facility in Illinois to obtain a permit, known as a “Certificate of Need” (“CON”), from the Planning Board prior to beginning construction

On tolls and highways:

63. According to Individual A, after Individual B left the meeting on October 6, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Individual A that he was going to make an upcoming announcement concerning a $1.8 billion project involving the Tollway Authority. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Individual A that Lobbyist 1 was going to approach Highway Contractor 1 to ask for $500,000 for Friends of Blagojevich. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Individual A that, “I could have made a larger announcement but wanted to see how they perform by the end of the year. If they don’t perform, fuck ‘em.” According to Individual A, he/she believed that ROD BLAGOJEVICH was telling Individual A that ROD BLAGOJEVICH expected Highway Contractor 1 to raise $500,000 in contributions to Friends of Blagojevich and that ROD BLAGOJEVICH is willing to commit additional state money to the Tollway project but is waiting to see how much money Highway Contractor 1 raises for Friends of Blagojevich.

On using a children's hospital as leverage for a political donation:

65. According to Individual A, on October 8, 2008, during a discussion of
fundraising from various individuals and entities, the discussion turned to Children’s Memorial Hospital, and ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Individual A words to the effect of “I’m going to do $8 million for them. I want to get [Hospital Executive 1] for 50.” Individual A understood this to be a reference to a desire to obtain a $50,000 campaign contribution from Hospital Executive 1, the Chief Executive Officer of Children’s Memorial Hospital. Individual A said that he/she understood ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s reference to $8 million to relate to his recent commitment to obtain for Children’s Memorial Hospital $8 million in state funds through some type of pediatric care reimbursement. As described in further detail below, intercepted phone conversations between ROD BLAGOJEVICH and others indicate that ROD BLAGOJEVICH is contemplating rescinding his commitment of state funds to benefit Children’s Memorial Hospital because Hospital Executive 1 has not made a recent campaign contribution to ROD BLAGOJEVICH.

On selling Obama’s vacated Senate Seat for personal gain:

c. Defendants ROD BLAGOJEVICH and JOHN HARRIS, together with others, attempted to use ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s authority to appoint a United States Senator for the purpose of obtaining personal benefits for ROD BLAGOJEVICH, including, among other things, appointment as Secretary of Health & Human Services in the President-elect’s administration, and alternatively, a lucrative job which they schemed to induce a union to provide to ROD BLAGOJEVICH in exchange for appointing as senator an individual whom Minimization procedures were implemented during the interception of conversations at the Friends of Blagojevich offices and over phones. At times, these minimization procedures were stricter than required under law so as to avoid intercepting certain potentially privileged conversations. ROD BLAGOJEVICH and JOHN HARRIS believed to be favored by union officials and their associates.

c. ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that the consultants (Advisor B and another consultant are believed to be on the call at that time) are telling him that he has to “suck it up” for two years and do nothing and give this “motherfucker [the President-elect] his senator. Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH states that he will put “[Senate Candidate 4]” in the Senate “before I just give fucking [Senate Candidate 1] a fucking Senate seat and I don’t get anything.” (Senate Candidate 4 is a Deputy Governor of the State of Illinois).

On planning for the future:

d. One of ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s advisors said he likes the idea, it sounds like a good idea, but advised ROD BLAGOJEVICH to be leery of promises for something two years from now. ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife said they would take the job now. Thereafter, ROD BLAGOJEVICH and others on the phone call discussed various ways ROD BLAGOJEVICH can “monetize” the relationships he is making as Governor to make money after ROD BLAGOJEVICH is no longer Governor.

On non-profits:

104. On November 11, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with JOHN HARRIS
about the Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH suggested starting a 501(c)(4) organization (anon-profit organization that may engage in political activity and lobbying) and getting “his (believed to be the President-elect’s) friend Warren Buffett or some of those guys to help us on something like that.” HARRIS asked, “what, for you?” ROD BLAGOJEVICH replied, “yeah.” Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that if he appoints Senate Candidate 4 to the Senate seat and, thereafter, it appears that ROD BLAGOJEVICH might get impeached, he could “count on [Senate Candidate 4], if things got hot, to give [the Senate seat] up and let me parachute over there.” HARRIS said, “you can count on [Senate Candidate 4] to do that.” Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. Fuck them.”

Maybe the whole world was not listening, but the FBI most certainly was:

ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A that “you gotta be careful how you express that and assume everybody’s listening, the whole world is listening. You hear me?”

On being stuck in a dead end job and dreaming of reaching for the stars:

116. In addition, in the course of the conversations over the last month, ROD BLAGOJEVICH has spent significant time weighing the option of appointing himself to the open Senate seat, and has expressed a variety of reasons for doing so, including frustration at being “stuck” as governor, a belief that he will be able to obtain greater resources if he is indicted as a sitting Senator as opposed to a sitting governor, and a desire to remake his image in consideration of a possible run for President in 2016, avoid impeachment by the Illinois legislature, make corporate contacts that would be of value to him after leaving public office, facilitate his wife’s employment as a lobbyist, and assist in generating speaking fees should he decide to leave public office.

In my opinion, of the many outrages against all that our nation is supposed to stand for present in this complaint, the hubris displayed by Mr. Blagojevich and his associates is the most breathtaking. His behavior as outlined in this complaint reveals that he may be a borderline sociopath as well. It begs the question; do sociopaths become politicians, or do politicians become sociopaths? That's beyond the scope of this post, but I think the brass knuckle, "pay to play" world of Illinois politics would be a great place to conduct a study on the subject.

I have a feeling that when Thomas Jefferson said, “If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions” this is exactly the sort of thing he was afraid could happen.

Now What?

Now that The One is set to ascend to the throne, what will all of his disciples do with their free time? The following video gives us a clue:

Obama Supporters Devastated By Election Win!

IowaHawk has an excellent post-election essay here.


On a more serious note, this is just plain creepy...


As an American, I congratulate Obama on his win. I will respect the office of the President as long as the person holding the office deserves respect. Hopefully, he will govern from the center and jettison the hardcore leftist crowd that helped him win. Based on his thin record, I fear that he will not, and we as a nation may have to endure the spasms associated with a severe case of buyer's remorse as portions of his coalition slowly discover they've been left at the altar. Apart from that, there are many people who do not have the United States of America's best interests at heart holding Obama chits, and it won't be long before they start expecting their dividend payments.

Every President inherits a host of issues from the former administration. How Obama positions himself--either as a victim of "Bush's failed policies" or as the Leader of the Free World--will tell us a lot about his character. It is my hope that he chooses the latter, because our nation can ill-afford the former.