As you might have expected, when the Congress got its collective hands on over a half-trillion dollars of federal money, it didn’t take the members of that distinguished body very long to distribute a few million bucks to their political allies. As a case in point, consider the good fortunes of Boston’s OneUnited Bank.
The Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Guardian (UK) report that in December, 2008, OneUnited received a $12 million boost from the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP (Public Law 110–343—Oct. 3, 2008; 122 Stat. 3765), despite having been served with a “Cease and Desist Order” from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Massachusetts Division of Banks less than a month earlier.
In that Order, OneUnited Bank did not dispute findings that it had “engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices and violations of law” including “… the payment of excessive compensation, fees and benefits to its senior executive officers… operating without an effective loan documentation program… and engaging in speculative investment practices.”
According to stories appearing in the Boston Business Journal the FDIC ordered OneUnited to sell all bank-owned automobiles, including a 2008 Porsche SUV that is registered at the address of OneUnited CEO Kevin Cohee. OneUnited was also ordered to stop paying for a beachfront house in Santa Monica, CA that was purchased for more than $6 million in 2007 by a California-registered Limited Liability Company (LLC) that includes Cohee and his wife Teri Williams, OneUnited Bank’s president.
OneUnited would have been excluded from participation in TARP had it not been for the “foresight” of House Finance Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), who inserted a clause into the law that specifically included minority-owned banks with less than $1 billion of assets, that had been well-capitalized as of June 30, that served low- and moderate-income areas, and that had taken a capital loss in the federal seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. According to one observer, such a provision would have excluded every bank in the State of Massachusetts except OneUnited.
As of January 20, 2009, the price tag for the ongoing government financial “bailouts” of “troubled” banks, credit unions, commercial lenders, and automakers stood at 800 billion dollars.
With such devoted guardians of the public interests as Barney Frank at the helm, the Treasury will have a hard time printing enough money to pay off those whose interests seem to outweigh those of the unwashed masses.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Timothy Geithner: Tax Evader
Those of you that have read some of my other postings are well aware that my expressed opinions regarding the United States Government are often rather cynical. Today’s news has served to bolster, if not completely justify, that cynicism.
First came the revelation that Timothy Geithner, who was nominated to be the next Secretary of the Treasury, apparently isn’t much of a bookkeeper. It seems that Secretary wanna-be Geithner “forgot” pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for an immigrant housekeeper whose “Green Card” authorization to work in the U.S. expired while while she was in his employ.
On top of that, he also admitted that he had failed to pay $34,000 in self-employment taxes while he was employed by International Monetary Fund (IMF) from 2001 to 2003. He said that he paid the income taxes on his IMF income, but said that he had made a "common mistake" on his tax returns with regard to self-employment taxes.
Please allow my cynical side to call into question Mr. Nominee for Secretary of the Treasury’s explanations for the above-mentioned lapses.
I can buy his explanations about not knowing if his housekeeper’s paperwork had expired. If you busted everyone who made the same mistake, half of the East Coast’s aristocracy and a like number of the West Coast’s elite would be in the slammer. Among the ultra-politically-correct, it seems that “social consciousness” stops when they take out their checkbooks. It’s the “simple mistake” part that’s an insult to our intelligence.
Geithner wants you to believe that, even though he worked for the IMF and handed out billions of dollars at his own discretion, he didn’t know that he wasn’t paying self-employment taxes! If he was self-employed, he would have received a “1099” form from the IMF. Having myself been self-employed, I can assure you that it’s very difficult to complete Internal Revenue Service Form 1040 without listing your self-employment taxes!
In 2002-2003, Line 56 of Form 1040 required that you enter your “Self-employment tax” and “Attach Schedule SE.” How simple is that? More importantly, how the Hell do you fail to realize that an IRS Form 1099 means that you have self-employment income that must be taxed? Not even current Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson is that dumb!
In typical display of partisan hypocrisy Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, when asked if the Senate will confirm Geithner in light of his failure to comply with the same law that applies to everyone else in the country, said “Of course, the Senate will. There's a few little hiccups but that's basically what they are, I am not concerned at all…"
“Little hiccups” such as Geithner’s would get the typical American into some deep hot water with the IRS. I guess that “Change We Can Believe In” doesn’t apply to the friends of President-elect Obama and Senator Reid.
It seems to this writer that Geithner is either a liar or lacks the intellectual capacity to properly fill out an Income Tax Form. And this is the clown that the other clowns in the upcoming Obama Administration wants to place in charge of the U.S. treasury? Either way you look at it, the guy should not be confirmed as Secretary of Anything, particularly as the new Secretary of the Treasury!
There is also the ongoing ruckus over the possible appointment of
Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary Clinton’s soon to be vacated seat in the Senate.
Some have claimed that the lady isn’t qualified to hold a Senate seat. This is hard to justify since she meets the job description requirements of Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution. On top of that, how can she be qualified to address the Democratic National Convention on the merits of Barak Obama yet be unqualified to represent New York as its junior senator?
I say appoint her because 1) she meets the job requirements, 2) she’s prettier than any other potential appointee and, 3) she’s a better driver than her uncle.
Finally, let’s step back to take a look at the political landscape.
We are being asked (more like “told”) to believe that 1) Jeremiah Wright only gave one racist sermon and politely waited until Barak Obama wasn’t in the congregation to hear it; 2) that Barak Obama, who rapidly rose through the ranks of what is probably the dirtiest political machine since Tammany Hall, is the only politician in Illinois to emerge with a spotless record and, 3) that Barak Obama isn’t a socialist, even though he admitted to “… seeking out Marxist professors…” in his college days and even though a number of his social acquaintances are avowed socialists.
Ceteris paribus (Latin for “all things being equal,” since essays that use Latin phraseology have a certain academic “ring” to them), I must admit that it’s truly a great time to be a cynic.
First came the revelation that Timothy Geithner, who was nominated to be the next Secretary of the Treasury, apparently isn’t much of a bookkeeper. It seems that Secretary wanna-be Geithner “forgot” pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for an immigrant housekeeper whose “Green Card” authorization to work in the U.S. expired while while she was in his employ.
On top of that, he also admitted that he had failed to pay $34,000 in self-employment taxes while he was employed by International Monetary Fund (IMF) from 2001 to 2003. He said that he paid the income taxes on his IMF income, but said that he had made a "common mistake" on his tax returns with regard to self-employment taxes.
Please allow my cynical side to call into question Mr. Nominee for Secretary of the Treasury’s explanations for the above-mentioned lapses.
I can buy his explanations about not knowing if his housekeeper’s paperwork had expired. If you busted everyone who made the same mistake, half of the East Coast’s aristocracy and a like number of the West Coast’s elite would be in the slammer. Among the ultra-politically-correct, it seems that “social consciousness” stops when they take out their checkbooks. It’s the “simple mistake” part that’s an insult to our intelligence.
Geithner wants you to believe that, even though he worked for the IMF and handed out billions of dollars at his own discretion, he didn’t know that he wasn’t paying self-employment taxes! If he was self-employed, he would have received a “1099” form from the IMF. Having myself been self-employed, I can assure you that it’s very difficult to complete Internal Revenue Service Form 1040 without listing your self-employment taxes!
In 2002-2003, Line 56 of Form 1040 required that you enter your “Self-employment tax” and “Attach Schedule SE.” How simple is that? More importantly, how the Hell do you fail to realize that an IRS Form 1099 means that you have self-employment income that must be taxed? Not even current Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson is that dumb!
In typical display of partisan hypocrisy Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, when asked if the Senate will confirm Geithner in light of his failure to comply with the same law that applies to everyone else in the country, said “Of course, the Senate will. There's a few little hiccups but that's basically what they are, I am not concerned at all…"
“Little hiccups” such as Geithner’s would get the typical American into some deep hot water with the IRS. I guess that “Change We Can Believe In” doesn’t apply to the friends of President-elect Obama and Senator Reid.
It seems to this writer that Geithner is either a liar or lacks the intellectual capacity to properly fill out an Income Tax Form. And this is the clown that the other clowns in the upcoming Obama Administration wants to place in charge of the U.S. treasury? Either way you look at it, the guy should not be confirmed as Secretary of Anything, particularly as the new Secretary of the Treasury!
There is also the ongoing ruckus over the possible appointment of
Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary Clinton’s soon to be vacated seat in the Senate.
Some have claimed that the lady isn’t qualified to hold a Senate seat. This is hard to justify since she meets the job description requirements of Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution. On top of that, how can she be qualified to address the Democratic National Convention on the merits of Barak Obama yet be unqualified to represent New York as its junior senator?
I say appoint her because 1) she meets the job requirements, 2) she’s prettier than any other potential appointee and, 3) she’s a better driver than her uncle.
Finally, let’s step back to take a look at the political landscape.
We are being asked (more like “told”) to believe that 1) Jeremiah Wright only gave one racist sermon and politely waited until Barak Obama wasn’t in the congregation to hear it; 2) that Barak Obama, who rapidly rose through the ranks of what is probably the dirtiest political machine since Tammany Hall, is the only politician in Illinois to emerge with a spotless record and, 3) that Barak Obama isn’t a socialist, even though he admitted to “… seeking out Marxist professors…” in his college days and even though a number of his social acquaintances are avowed socialists.
Ceteris paribus (Latin for “all things being equal,” since essays that use Latin phraseology have a certain academic “ring” to them), I must admit that it’s truly a great time to be a cynic.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The 1.2 Trillion Dollar Budget Deficit
“The US budget deficit will hit nearly $1,200 [billion] this fiscal year even without the cost of Barack Obama’s planned fiscal stimulus, Congress’s budget watchdog warned on Wednesday.” (Financial Times, UK, 7 January, 2009)
Things, of course, could radically change over the next two years. But, thank God, it will be a “Change We Can Believe In.” If you buy that line, let me know so I can send you a 50%- off gift certificate (good at any location), courtesy of your local Randle Patrick McMurphy Memorial Outpatient Lobotomy Clinic.
With that aside, let’s get back to the potential $2,000 billion deficit (Note: the figures are given in the traditional European form, where 1,000 billion = 1 trillion).
In 2007, the Real Gross Domestic Product (RGDP) for the United States was $13,811,200 billion. Assuming that the RGDP will grow to $15,000 billion in two years, and if we take the low-end estimate of the cost of President-elect Obama’s economic plan to be $775 billion, the federal budget deficit could conceivably grow to $1,975 billion. This would mean that the deficit would be equal to ~13% of the United States’ Real GDP. If that doesn’t impress you, consider the following numbers.
Between the end of World War II and 2005, the largest budget deficit as a percentage of the RGDP was ~6% (1983) against an average of ~2% during the George W. Bush Administration (as of 2007). The percentage of the deficit to the RGDP during the Vietnam War (1964-1975) was only ~4%. For those too young to remember the economy in the post-Vietnam War era, I will briefly summarize: IT SUCKED! Between double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and single digit IQs in the Carter Administration, it was nothing short of a miracle that American economy didn’t simply collapse.
Can you imagine what a deficit three times as great has the potential to cause, even with Ben Bernanke in control at the Federal Reserve?
What is really scary is that the American public, along with the news media, seems to have its head in the sand, or inserted into a part of their anatomy usually associated with the last stage of digestion. In support of my contention, consider what the Fox News Channel considered to be Monday morning’s top news stories:
1) Ponzi-schemer Bernard Madoff can remain free on bail (how stupid can a judge be, even a New York judge?),
2) the Stock Market is in the toilet again (that’s news?) and,
3) convicted wife murderer Scott Peterson has a new girl friend (how stupid can that woman be?).
When tripe such as the above is served to a public that cares more about what this month’s pick will be from Oprah’s Book Club than an impending economic disaster, to paraphrase Adlai Stevenson, they get the economy that they deserve.
Things, of course, could radically change over the next two years. But, thank God, it will be a “Change We Can Believe In.” If you buy that line, let me know so I can send you a 50%- off gift certificate (good at any location), courtesy of your local Randle Patrick McMurphy Memorial Outpatient Lobotomy Clinic.
With that aside, let’s get back to the potential $2,000 billion deficit (Note: the figures are given in the traditional European form, where 1,000 billion = 1 trillion).
In 2007, the Real Gross Domestic Product (RGDP) for the United States was $13,811,200 billion. Assuming that the RGDP will grow to $15,000 billion in two years, and if we take the low-end estimate of the cost of President-elect Obama’s economic plan to be $775 billion, the federal budget deficit could conceivably grow to $1,975 billion. This would mean that the deficit would be equal to ~13% of the United States’ Real GDP. If that doesn’t impress you, consider the following numbers.
Between the end of World War II and 2005, the largest budget deficit as a percentage of the RGDP was ~6% (1983) against an average of ~2% during the George W. Bush Administration (as of 2007). The percentage of the deficit to the RGDP during the Vietnam War (1964-1975) was only ~4%. For those too young to remember the economy in the post-Vietnam War era, I will briefly summarize: IT SUCKED! Between double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and single digit IQs in the Carter Administration, it was nothing short of a miracle that American economy didn’t simply collapse.
Can you imagine what a deficit three times as great has the potential to cause, even with Ben Bernanke in control at the Federal Reserve?
What is really scary is that the American public, along with the news media, seems to have its head in the sand, or inserted into a part of their anatomy usually associated with the last stage of digestion. In support of my contention, consider what the Fox News Channel considered to be Monday morning’s top news stories:
1) Ponzi-schemer Bernard Madoff can remain free on bail (how stupid can a judge be, even a New York judge?),
2) the Stock Market is in the toilet again (that’s news?) and,
3) convicted wife murderer Scott Peterson has a new girl friend (how stupid can that woman be?).
When tripe such as the above is served to a public that cares more about what this month’s pick will be from Oprah’s Book Club than an impending economic disaster, to paraphrase Adlai Stevenson, they get the economy that they deserve.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
What Obama Economic Plan?
As I've complained before, there is one serious problem with the Obama Economic Recovery Plan: apparently, it doesn’t exist. But if the soon-to-be President actually does have such a plan, I can think of at least five simple reasons that it will probably not work as desired.
1. The members of his own party in the House of Representatives and the Senate don’t like parts of his overall program.
I have a hard time believing in a man who has promised to “lead America down the path of economic recovery” when it seems that he can’t get the unanimous support of Senators from the Democratic Party. I’m sure that you’ve seen news stories containing something like this (from the Associated Press):
“… major components of his [Obama’s] plan were not bold enough and urged more focus on creating jobs and rebuilding the nation’s energy infrastructure rather than cutting taxes.”
I guess that means that the promised “middle class tax cut” was just another hollow promise by President-elect Obama, a man who isn’t known for much of anything other than mouthing what someone else tells him to say (or hiring Hillary Clinton because he’s afraid of her husband).
Of course, all this is probably going to change soon. After all, it was only a week ago that Harry Reid was swearing that Roland Burris would never be seated among such titans of the morality as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and himself.
2. Historically, tax refunds and/or rebates have been spent repaying existing debt rather than on new spending.
Per capita, the average American is just over $8,000 in debt (excluding mortgages). Since a sizable portion of that 8 grand is high interest rate credit card debt, it would be absurd to spend any money that you get back from the Feds on personal purchases when you would come out ahead, over the next year or so, by getting rid of your expensive credit card debt. It’s like this: just because the government wastes its money, there’s nothing that says you have to do the same with your money!
3. Even if tax rebates did stimulate consumer purchasing, the money would more than likely be spent on imported products.
The next time you’re at Wal-Mart, K-Mart, or any other retail outlet that hasn’t declared bankruptcy, take a look at the “Made In” tags. I can assure you that a significant percentage of those tags will say “China,” “South Korea,” “Hong Kong,” “India,” or some other former Third World country that’s gotten rich off its lower-priced exports to the United States. It doesn’t take a degree in economics to understand that at least 60% of your purchase price will wind up overseas, usually in some country that despises the United States but loves American dollars. Even a tag that says “Made In USA” is probably a lie.
Under the existing laws, as long as a completed product leaves a factory on US soil it is considered to have been made on the good old USA even if its components came from somewhere else. As an example, a $30 shirt that is sold as “Made In USA” probably was made from Indian or Egyptian cotton that was cut in Mexico before being shipped to a factory in Texas where it was sewn together into shirts (probably by Mexican laborers) with a “Made In USA” affixed as an afterthought.
4. Cuts in the personal Federal Income Tax don’t free up enough money to have any effect on the economy.
In principle, tax cuts “for the middle class” are a good idea. Well at least they’re good in theory. The only problem is that you would need to cut taxes on the “middle class” by about 50% to have any measurable stimulus effect on the national economy.
Let’s assume that payroll withholding taxes on the middle class are cut by 30% across the board. This would result in an increase of about $30 dollars in weekly take home pay. This ‘windfall” in earnings is probably not enough for most people to say “Wow! I’ve got an extra 30 bucks! I think I’ll run out and buy a $3,000 home entertainment system that will cost me $120 a month for the next 36 months!”
5. A good portion of the money committed to “public spending” projects is never spent in public.
If you doubt that I speak the truth with the above statement, please come up with an explanation as to why the FBI spends so much time (and a steadily dwindling amount of the taxpayers’ money) investigating kickbacks, “pay to play” schemes, or other some other form of state and/or local government corruption.
***
Like I’ve said before, the only thing more useless than a politician is someone who believes anything that a politician tells him.
1. The members of his own party in the House of Representatives and the Senate don’t like parts of his overall program.
I have a hard time believing in a man who has promised to “lead America down the path of economic recovery” when it seems that he can’t get the unanimous support of Senators from the Democratic Party. I’m sure that you’ve seen news stories containing something like this (from the Associated Press):
“… major components of his [Obama’s] plan were not bold enough and urged more focus on creating jobs and rebuilding the nation’s energy infrastructure rather than cutting taxes.”
I guess that means that the promised “middle class tax cut” was just another hollow promise by President-elect Obama, a man who isn’t known for much of anything other than mouthing what someone else tells him to say (or hiring Hillary Clinton because he’s afraid of her husband).
Of course, all this is probably going to change soon. After all, it was only a week ago that Harry Reid was swearing that Roland Burris would never be seated among such titans of the morality as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and himself.
2. Historically, tax refunds and/or rebates have been spent repaying existing debt rather than on new spending.
Per capita, the average American is just over $8,000 in debt (excluding mortgages). Since a sizable portion of that 8 grand is high interest rate credit card debt, it would be absurd to spend any money that you get back from the Feds on personal purchases when you would come out ahead, over the next year or so, by getting rid of your expensive credit card debt. It’s like this: just because the government wastes its money, there’s nothing that says you have to do the same with your money!
3. Even if tax rebates did stimulate consumer purchasing, the money would more than likely be spent on imported products.
The next time you’re at Wal-Mart, K-Mart, or any other retail outlet that hasn’t declared bankruptcy, take a look at the “Made In” tags. I can assure you that a significant percentage of those tags will say “China,” “South Korea,” “Hong Kong,” “India,” or some other former Third World country that’s gotten rich off its lower-priced exports to the United States. It doesn’t take a degree in economics to understand that at least 60% of your purchase price will wind up overseas, usually in some country that despises the United States but loves American dollars. Even a tag that says “Made In USA” is probably a lie.
Under the existing laws, as long as a completed product leaves a factory on US soil it is considered to have been made on the good old USA even if its components came from somewhere else. As an example, a $30 shirt that is sold as “Made In USA” probably was made from Indian or Egyptian cotton that was cut in Mexico before being shipped to a factory in Texas where it was sewn together into shirts (probably by Mexican laborers) with a “Made In USA” affixed as an afterthought.
4. Cuts in the personal Federal Income Tax don’t free up enough money to have any effect on the economy.
In principle, tax cuts “for the middle class” are a good idea. Well at least they’re good in theory. The only problem is that you would need to cut taxes on the “middle class” by about 50% to have any measurable stimulus effect on the national economy.
Let’s assume that payroll withholding taxes on the middle class are cut by 30% across the board. This would result in an increase of about $30 dollars in weekly take home pay. This ‘windfall” in earnings is probably not enough for most people to say “Wow! I’ve got an extra 30 bucks! I think I’ll run out and buy a $3,000 home entertainment system that will cost me $120 a month for the next 36 months!”
5. A good portion of the money committed to “public spending” projects is never spent in public.
If you doubt that I speak the truth with the above statement, please come up with an explanation as to why the FBI spends so much time (and a steadily dwindling amount of the taxpayers’ money) investigating kickbacks, “pay to play” schemes, or other some other form of state and/or local government corruption.
***
Like I’ve said before, the only thing more useless than a politician is someone who believes anything that a politician tells him.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Although it’s only two weeks until his inauguration, Barak Obama sounds like he’s still on the campaign trail. One needs to look no further than his reliance on slogans, a la Jesse Jackson, rather than the specifics of his promised Economic Recovery Plan to evade being forced to give a straight answer.
I’ve spent the last few days trying to locate some concrete statement by the President-elect relative to this plan of his that will supposedly transform the country into the fabled Land of Milk and Honey. Not surprisingly, I came up empty handed. Wait, let me rephrase that. I did find two references, neither of which was sufficient to qualify as a straight answer if posed to anyone other than Barak Obama.
The closest thing to a blueprint for this upcoming miracle that I was able to locate was a web document entitled “Barak Obama’s Economic Agenda,” which I found at www.BarrakObama.com. This document, like most other campaign-related propaganda issued by candidates for any political office, is long on words and short on statements that might be taken as representing commitment to course of action.
The other was his prediction, made on several different occasions during the campaign was that his “Economic Recovery Package” would cost some $250 billion. Since, in his most recent public statement, he has revised the costs of his programs to $850 billion it would appear that his previous estimate was either a gross miscalculation on the part of his advisers or a deliberate misstatement on his part.
Let’s turn to his proposed Presidential appointments in the hope that those will be a little more enlightening than his public statements.
Bill Richardson (Secretary of Commerce)
Although at first he was hailed as the greatest thing in commerce and economics since John Maynard Keynes, the reincarnation of Huey Long was fired by the Obama Administration before he could be confirmed by the Senate. The nation was thus spared the incompetence that the State of New Mexico had endured for the previous 6 years.
Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State)
Hillary gets this job due to 1) her extensive experience in following her husband around the world while he was in office to make sure he didn’t induct female staffers into the “Mile High Club” and 2) she wanted to make sure that Bill Richardson didn’t get the job. Of course, her nonexistent display of courage while braving a nonexistent hail of sniper fire in Kosovo was certainly another factor in favor of her appointment.
Eric H. Holder Jr. (Attorney General)
Holder distinguished himself during the Clinton Administration when, as Janet Reno’s Deputy Attorney General, he worked tirelessly in order to find a way for President Clinton to pardon fugitive felon (and major contributor to the Clinton Presidential Library) Marc Rich.
Tom Daschle (Secretary for Health and Human Services)
Daschle was in the House of Representatives from 1978 to 1986 before moving on to serve in the Senate, where he distinguished himself both as a true party ideologue and as a reliable “yes man” for Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001. The voters in South Dakota finally realized that Daschle had outlived his political usefulness when they sent him to the unemployment line in 2004. Daschle will undoubtedly be grateful to return to steady employment after being forced to eke out a living o the $10,000 + expenses lecture circuit.
Timothy Geithner (Treasury Secretary)
Geithner, currently the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, went to work at the International Affairs division of Treasury Department in 1988. He went on to serve as He was later a deputy assistant secretary for international monetary and financial policy from1995 to1996, senior deputy assistant secretary for international affairs (1996-1997), and assistant secretary for international affairs (1997–1998). In 1998 he was promoted to Under Secretary of the Treasury for International and served under Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, both loyal Clintonistas, until 2001.
Leon Panetta (Director, Central Intelligence Agency)
Although Leon Panetta has no experience in anything other than running his mouth and being Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff from 1993 to 1997, Panetta’s proposed appointment as head of the CIA was so outrageous that even Dianne Feinstein was against the idea. However, after consulting (political Newspeak for “being told what to think”) with the Obama Transition Team, she is now a born-again believer in his formerly-nonexistent qualifications.
In addition to a few straight answers, all I want to know is if this is all that we can expect from the much-ballyhooed “Change We Can Believe In.” Considering the employment histories of many of his appointees, it’s starting to sound more and more like Bill Clinton’s third term with each passing day.
I’ve spent the last few days trying to locate some concrete statement by the President-elect relative to this plan of his that will supposedly transform the country into the fabled Land of Milk and Honey. Not surprisingly, I came up empty handed. Wait, let me rephrase that. I did find two references, neither of which was sufficient to qualify as a straight answer if posed to anyone other than Barak Obama.
The closest thing to a blueprint for this upcoming miracle that I was able to locate was a web document entitled “Barak Obama’s Economic Agenda,” which I found at www.BarrakObama.com. This document, like most other campaign-related propaganda issued by candidates for any political office, is long on words and short on statements that might be taken as representing commitment to course of action.
The other was his prediction, made on several different occasions during the campaign was that his “Economic Recovery Package” would cost some $250 billion. Since, in his most recent public statement, he has revised the costs of his programs to $850 billion it would appear that his previous estimate was either a gross miscalculation on the part of his advisers or a deliberate misstatement on his part.
Let’s turn to his proposed Presidential appointments in the hope that those will be a little more enlightening than his public statements.
Bill Richardson (Secretary of Commerce)
Although at first he was hailed as the greatest thing in commerce and economics since John Maynard Keynes, the reincarnation of Huey Long was fired by the Obama Administration before he could be confirmed by the Senate. The nation was thus spared the incompetence that the State of New Mexico had endured for the previous 6 years.
Hillary Clinton (Secretary of State)
Hillary gets this job due to 1) her extensive experience in following her husband around the world while he was in office to make sure he didn’t induct female staffers into the “Mile High Club” and 2) she wanted to make sure that Bill Richardson didn’t get the job. Of course, her nonexistent display of courage while braving a nonexistent hail of sniper fire in Kosovo was certainly another factor in favor of her appointment.
Eric H. Holder Jr. (Attorney General)
Holder distinguished himself during the Clinton Administration when, as Janet Reno’s Deputy Attorney General, he worked tirelessly in order to find a way for President Clinton to pardon fugitive felon (and major contributor to the Clinton Presidential Library) Marc Rich.
Tom Daschle (Secretary for Health and Human Services)
Daschle was in the House of Representatives from 1978 to 1986 before moving on to serve in the Senate, where he distinguished himself both as a true party ideologue and as a reliable “yes man” for Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001. The voters in South Dakota finally realized that Daschle had outlived his political usefulness when they sent him to the unemployment line in 2004. Daschle will undoubtedly be grateful to return to steady employment after being forced to eke out a living o the $10,000 + expenses lecture circuit.
Timothy Geithner (Treasury Secretary)
Geithner, currently the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, went to work at the International Affairs division of Treasury Department in 1988. He went on to serve as He was later a deputy assistant secretary for international monetary and financial policy from1995 to1996, senior deputy assistant secretary for international affairs (1996-1997), and assistant secretary for international affairs (1997–1998). In 1998 he was promoted to Under Secretary of the Treasury for International and served under Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, both loyal Clintonistas, until 2001.
Leon Panetta (Director, Central Intelligence Agency)
Although Leon Panetta has no experience in anything other than running his mouth and being Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff from 1993 to 1997, Panetta’s proposed appointment as head of the CIA was so outrageous that even Dianne Feinstein was against the idea. However, after consulting (political Newspeak for “being told what to think”) with the Obama Transition Team, she is now a born-again believer in his formerly-nonexistent qualifications.
In addition to a few straight answers, all I want to know is if this is all that we can expect from the much-ballyhooed “Change We Can Believe In.” Considering the employment histories of many of his appointees, it’s starting to sound more and more like Bill Clinton’s third term with each passing day.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
More On Bill Richardson Being Fired Before He Got The Job
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson still seems to have problems with truthfulness, even after having the rug pulled out from under him by the Obama Administration’s transition team over the weekend.
Monday, in a Santa Fe, New Mexico news conference, Richardson said that he was “stunned’ and “disappointed” to have to announce that his nomination as the new Secretary of Commerce was being “voluntarily” withdrawn. Richardson’s statements in that news conference have prompted this writer to ask a simple question:
How did Governor Richardson find himself “stunned” and/or “disappointed” if he was making a supposedly “voluntary” decision to withdraw his name from confirmation by the Senate?
Is it possible that Governor Richardson’s statement contained a few “Freudian Slips?”
Out here the conventional wisdom out has it that Richardson was booted by Obama’s people, supposedly after the small matter of a federal grand jury’s probe into political contributions that mysteriously evolved into contracts with the state, suddenly became an issue a month after Richardson’s selection for the Commerce job. But, in all fairness to Governor Richardson, he “should have seen it coming.”
Bill Richardson, former United Nations Ambassador in the Clinton Administration and then the Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration’s second term, ran in the early Democratic Presidential Primaries against Hillary Clinton. When Richardson, after a dismal performance, withdrew from those primaries his endorsement was actively sought by the Clinton campaign. The former President himself, Bill Clinton, even flew into Santa Fe to ostensibly watch last year’s Super Bowl with Governor Richardson (and to call in a few political I.O.Us). Richardson told his former boss and patron, Bill Clinton, to go to Hell.
Richardson, after due consideration, had seen which way the political wind was blowing and soon threw his support for then-Senator Obama. It was subsequently widely reported that there were two people that were very unhappy with Governor Richardson’s decision, both of whom happened to be named Clinton. Then, after Obama’s November victory, it was payback time.
It was no secret that Richardson desperately wanted to be Obama’s Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton preempted that idea when she claimed that job on the time-honored principle of political patronage as her reward, and to punish Richardson for supporting a candidate the both she and her husband hated. After being screwed over by the “Change We Can Believe In” crowd, Richardson was given the consolation prize of Secretary of Commerce.
The Governor seems to have forgotten the Prime Directive of Politics as Practiced by the Democratic Party: Do not piss off the Clintons.
Then came the”surprising revelation” that the governor’s name kept turning up in a grand jury’s investigation of possible corruption at high levels of state government, even though the Albuquerque Journal has been carrying the story for months. And, in seeming proof that Governor Richardson is not immune to the effects of the Peter Principle, the Washington Post is reporting that Richardson did not reveal that he was under investigation to the FBI while undergoing the routine background required of all potential presidential appointees.
And, in what may be the final blow to Richardson’s well-documented ego, KRQE television announced that its Viewer Poll on the question “Can Bill Richardson still govern New Mexico effectively?” revealed that 65% of those responding answered “No.”
Hey, Governor Richardson, can you spell “Rod Blagojevich?”
Monday, in a Santa Fe, New Mexico news conference, Richardson said that he was “stunned’ and “disappointed” to have to announce that his nomination as the new Secretary of Commerce was being “voluntarily” withdrawn. Richardson’s statements in that news conference have prompted this writer to ask a simple question:
How did Governor Richardson find himself “stunned” and/or “disappointed” if he was making a supposedly “voluntary” decision to withdraw his name from confirmation by the Senate?
Is it possible that Governor Richardson’s statement contained a few “Freudian Slips?”
Out here the conventional wisdom out has it that Richardson was booted by Obama’s people, supposedly after the small matter of a federal grand jury’s probe into political contributions that mysteriously evolved into contracts with the state, suddenly became an issue a month after Richardson’s selection for the Commerce job. But, in all fairness to Governor Richardson, he “should have seen it coming.”
Bill Richardson, former United Nations Ambassador in the Clinton Administration and then the Secretary of Energy during the Clinton Administration’s second term, ran in the early Democratic Presidential Primaries against Hillary Clinton. When Richardson, after a dismal performance, withdrew from those primaries his endorsement was actively sought by the Clinton campaign. The former President himself, Bill Clinton, even flew into Santa Fe to ostensibly watch last year’s Super Bowl with Governor Richardson (and to call in a few political I.O.Us). Richardson told his former boss and patron, Bill Clinton, to go to Hell.
Richardson, after due consideration, had seen which way the political wind was blowing and soon threw his support for then-Senator Obama. It was subsequently widely reported that there were two people that were very unhappy with Governor Richardson’s decision, both of whom happened to be named Clinton. Then, after Obama’s November victory, it was payback time.
It was no secret that Richardson desperately wanted to be Obama’s Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton preempted that idea when she claimed that job on the time-honored principle of political patronage as her reward, and to punish Richardson for supporting a candidate the both she and her husband hated. After being screwed over by the “Change We Can Believe In” crowd, Richardson was given the consolation prize of Secretary of Commerce.
The Governor seems to have forgotten the Prime Directive of Politics as Practiced by the Democratic Party: Do not piss off the Clintons.
Then came the”surprising revelation” that the governor’s name kept turning up in a grand jury’s investigation of possible corruption at high levels of state government, even though the Albuquerque Journal has been carrying the story for months. And, in seeming proof that Governor Richardson is not immune to the effects of the Peter Principle, the Washington Post is reporting that Richardson did not reveal that he was under investigation to the FBI while undergoing the routine background required of all potential presidential appointees.
And, in what may be the final blow to Richardson’s well-documented ego, KRQE television announced that its Viewer Poll on the question “Can Bill Richardson still govern New Mexico effectively?” revealed that 65% of those responding answered “No.”
Hey, Governor Richardson, can you spell “Rod Blagojevich?”
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Bill Richardson is Out as Commerce Secretary Nominee
For a Sunday in January, the day proved to be quite interesting.
First of all, and dearest to my Everett Dirksen-Republican heart, came the blessing from Heaven that arrived when it was announced that the governor of my adopted state, Bill Richardson, had withdrawn his name from nomination as the Secretary of Commerce in the upcoming Obama Administration.
It seems that there was a small matter involving an ongoing federal investigation into whether certain contracts with the State of New Mexico were awarded to CDR Financial Products after that company made 5-figure “donations” to political action committees established by Governor Richardson.
It is probably just a coincidence that CDR was awarded contracts worth just under $1.5 million although it had not previously done business with the state.
Ina statement released to the media, Richardson said "Let me say unequivocally that I and my administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact… But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process."
Given the veracity of some of Governor Richardson’s previous statements, I am not convinced. Amused, perhaps, but certainly not convinced.
As I have admitted in the past, I am not a fan of Bill Richardson. In my opinion, and as the public record has demonstrated, the man is nothing short of a habitual liar who has only two interests in life: Bill Richardson, and how Bill Richardson will benefit from any given situation. To me, he has always come across as eerily similar to the sleazy, opportunistic character of Willie Stark in one of the greatest movies of all time, “All the King’s Men” (the 1949 film and not that travesty released in 2006).
President-elect Barak Obama announced that he was accepting Richardson's request to withdraw the nomination with "deep regret."
“It is a measure of his willingness to put the nation first that he has removed himself as a candidate for the Cabinet in order to avoid any delay in filling this important economic post… I look forward to his future service to our country and in my administration.”
I think it is quite likely that the President-elects “deep regret” is being assuaged by the fact that Richardson’s nomination will not become the second political albatross, of the endangered Rob Blagojevich species, to be hung from his neck prior to his inauguration. In fact, compared to the ongoing controversy involving Blagojevich’s appointment of Obama’s successor, the Richardson story will be “old news” in just under 48 hours.
Defying the Illinois State Legislature, the Illinois Attorney General, the United States Senate, and practically everyone else except God Himself, Blagojevich appointed a career political hack named Roland Burris, whose major qualification appears to be his “ethnic background,” to fill President-elect Obama’s seat in the Senate. This prompted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to vow that the Senate would refuse to seat Burris, although there have been signs that Reid might be softening his opposition pending the outcome of the latest public opinion polls.
As of this writing (January 6, 2009) the situation is shaping up like this:
According to Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, the Senate is the only judge of the qualifications of its own members. If they don't want to seat Burris, all they have to say is that he's not qualified. Since the Illinois State Attorney General will not certify Burris’ appointment, as required by law, the Senate is well within its right to refuse to seat him. This would also represent the easiest way around the dreaded “race card” issue. Should they be required to seat Burris, or should Harry Reid change his mind a few more times, the Senate still has the option to expel him with a 2/3 majority vote.
(As a historical note, the last time the Senate refused to recognize a member was in 1947 when the newly-elected Republican majority rejected Mississippi Democrat Theodore Bilbo, who had been previously accused (but never indicted or formally charged) of corruption, bribery, and violence directed against black voters, was denied his seat).
In Classical Greek theater, the situation facing the President-elect and the Senate would be an example of irony: no matter what course of action they take, they will suffer at least some loss.
Since both the President-elect and the Senate Majority leader have announced their disapproval of Burris, should they now change their positions they would appear hypocritical and any reasons given for that change would appear less than honest. But, if they maintain their position and refuse to recognize Burris, they (or at least Sen. Reid) would be open to the inevitable charges of racism on the grounds that Burris would become the only African-American in the Senate. And, regardless of the outcome, the President-elect will have to explain his refusal to come to Burris’ assistance.
For a Sunday in January, the day proved to be quite interesting. As they say in the television news business, "Stay tuned for future developments."
First of all, and dearest to my Everett Dirksen-Republican heart, came the blessing from Heaven that arrived when it was announced that the governor of my adopted state, Bill Richardson, had withdrawn his name from nomination as the Secretary of Commerce in the upcoming Obama Administration.
It seems that there was a small matter involving an ongoing federal investigation into whether certain contracts with the State of New Mexico were awarded to CDR Financial Products after that company made 5-figure “donations” to political action committees established by Governor Richardson.
It is probably just a coincidence that CDR was awarded contracts worth just under $1.5 million although it had not previously done business with the state.
Ina statement released to the media, Richardson said "Let me say unequivocally that I and my administration have acted properly in all matters and that this investigation will bear out that fact… But I have concluded that the ongoing investigation also would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process."
Given the veracity of some of Governor Richardson’s previous statements, I am not convinced. Amused, perhaps, but certainly not convinced.
As I have admitted in the past, I am not a fan of Bill Richardson. In my opinion, and as the public record has demonstrated, the man is nothing short of a habitual liar who has only two interests in life: Bill Richardson, and how Bill Richardson will benefit from any given situation. To me, he has always come across as eerily similar to the sleazy, opportunistic character of Willie Stark in one of the greatest movies of all time, “All the King’s Men” (the 1949 film and not that travesty released in 2006).
President-elect Barak Obama announced that he was accepting Richardson's request to withdraw the nomination with "deep regret."
“It is a measure of his willingness to put the nation first that he has removed himself as a candidate for the Cabinet in order to avoid any delay in filling this important economic post… I look forward to his future service to our country and in my administration.”
I think it is quite likely that the President-elects “deep regret” is being assuaged by the fact that Richardson’s nomination will not become the second political albatross, of the endangered Rob Blagojevich species, to be hung from his neck prior to his inauguration. In fact, compared to the ongoing controversy involving Blagojevich’s appointment of Obama’s successor, the Richardson story will be “old news” in just under 48 hours.
Defying the Illinois State Legislature, the Illinois Attorney General, the United States Senate, and practically everyone else except God Himself, Blagojevich appointed a career political hack named Roland Burris, whose major qualification appears to be his “ethnic background,” to fill President-elect Obama’s seat in the Senate. This prompted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to vow that the Senate would refuse to seat Burris, although there have been signs that Reid might be softening his opposition pending the outcome of the latest public opinion polls.
As of this writing (January 6, 2009) the situation is shaping up like this:
According to Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, the Senate is the only judge of the qualifications of its own members. If they don't want to seat Burris, all they have to say is that he's not qualified. Since the Illinois State Attorney General will not certify Burris’ appointment, as required by law, the Senate is well within its right to refuse to seat him. This would also represent the easiest way around the dreaded “race card” issue. Should they be required to seat Burris, or should Harry Reid change his mind a few more times, the Senate still has the option to expel him with a 2/3 majority vote.
(As a historical note, the last time the Senate refused to recognize a member was in 1947 when the newly-elected Republican majority rejected Mississippi Democrat Theodore Bilbo, who had been previously accused (but never indicted or formally charged) of corruption, bribery, and violence directed against black voters, was denied his seat).
In Classical Greek theater, the situation facing the President-elect and the Senate would be an example of irony: no matter what course of action they take, they will suffer at least some loss.
Since both the President-elect and the Senate Majority leader have announced their disapproval of Burris, should they now change their positions they would appear hypocritical and any reasons given for that change would appear less than honest. But, if they maintain their position and refuse to recognize Burris, they (or at least Sen. Reid) would be open to the inevitable charges of racism on the grounds that Burris would become the only African-American in the Senate. And, regardless of the outcome, the President-elect will have to explain his refusal to come to Burris’ assistance.
For a Sunday in January, the day proved to be quite interesting. As they say in the television news business, "Stay tuned for future developments."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)