I got my property valuation notice in the mail today. Thanks to the idiocy brought to us in part by the unintelligible, mush-mouthed, paste-eating, clown-act Bawney Fwank, I have now lost 50% of the equity in my home.
Honorable mentions go to Chris Dodd (currently under Congressional investigation for corruption), Maxine Waters, Gregory Meeks, Franklin Raines, and all the other weasels who defended and benefited from the corrupt accounting practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
But special mentions have to be reserved for the guy who, rumor has it, is the love child of Elmer Fudd and Porky Pig. Barney Frank has been the ranking Democrat of the House Banking Committee since 2003, and the Chairman since 2007. He has been personally involved in all this mess for the last six years, and not only did nothing to fix the problems, but actively defended the policies. He said, “These two entities [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]…are not facing any kind of financial crisis….” Such foresight should not go unrewarded.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gave $42,350 to Franks reelection campaigns, but that’s just the direct contributions. That doesn’t include the “personal” contributions from employees and board members of the two mortgage giants, nor does it include the contributions from lobbyist groups, individuals lobbying group employees and board members, PACs, individual PAC employees and board members, or Professional Associations to which Fannie and Freddie belonged, and their employees and board members. Visit the Independence Caucus website for an explanation of how the grafting works. It’s a pretty safe bet that Rep. Frank received hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in contributions directly or indirectly from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The liberal Brookings Institute yesterday released an analysis of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. The bill has been presented by the Democrats as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 83% by 2050. It accomplishes the goal via the now-infamous cap-and-trade system, which would negatively affect 85% of the economy. Click to view the presentation.
The study finds that the bill will
- reduce cumulative U.S. emissions by 38% to 49%, about 110 to 140 billion metric tons CO2
- reduce total personal consumption by 0.3% to 0.5%, or about $1 to $2 trillion in discounted present
value from 2010 to 2050
- reduce the level of U.S. GDP by around 2.5% relative to what it otherwise would have been in 2050
- reduce employment levels by 0.5% in the first decade, with large differences across sectors
- create an annual value of emission allowances peaking at around $300 billion by 2030, and a total value
of about $9 trillion from 2012 to 2050
According to the Brookings Institute, the Waxman-Markey bill amounts to a $9 trillion tax which would reduce personal consumption by $2 trillion by 2050, and negatively affect employment. But, in keeping with their ideology, the Institute sees that as a good thing; they recommend the bill be immediately passed.
Which tells you one of two things about Liberals (Progressives, if you prefer). They either 1) don’t know what they’re talking about, but have to appear intelligent to maintain a semblance of credibility, or 2) they do know what they’re talking about, they know that their ideas will bankrupt America and collapse our government, and they can’t wait until that happens.
The Brookings Institute’s analysis seems to reflect the latter. We can at least thank them for their honesty.
(HT to Green Hell Blog)
The Office of Management and Budget is predicting a higher-than-expected, $1.8 Trillion budget deficit for 2009 and a $1.3 Trillion deficit for 2010, according to a statement released by Peter Orszag, Director of the OMB.
The effect is the same as making $50,000 per year, but spending $100,000 a year. It is mathematically impossible to pay off. The Director of the OMB is pointing the finger at the previous administration, saying the deficit is “driven in large part by the economic crisis inherited by this administration.”
While the slow economy may or may not have been inherited by the current administration, the policy of overspending was not inherited by this administration. Spending more than we bring in will not solve the “economic crisis.”
The financial woes facing America have steadily increased since the Liberal Democrats came into power, as our influence in the world and our standard of living has decreased. Stop the madness.
Read the Fox News coverage here.
Pres. Obama has increased the amount to be cut from the federal budget to a whopping $17 Billion. I remember when $17 Billion would have made a pretty good dent in the budget. Of course, I was three years old at the time.
Obama has been touting the significance of his $17 Billion budget cut. Funny…it seems like just yesterday he was downplaying John McCain’s pledge to cut $18 Billion from the budget by eliminating earmarks as insignificant. In other words, not only has Obama not kept his promise to eliminate earmarks, he hasn’t even been able to match John McCain’s promise.
Even the Move-on Media take notice sometimes.
One thing to notice in the video, the reporter says
“President Bush attempted many of these very same cuts last year, but was blocked by Congress. Today on Capital Hill, Democrats greeted President Obama’s proposed cuts less than enthusiastically as well.”
Hmmm…Democrats controlled Congress last year…Democrats control Congress this year…Congress refuses to trim the budget…time to throw them all out.
Michelle Malkin has good things to say about Jason Chaffetz on her blog. She is referring specifically to Rep. Chaffetz’s Cap and Trade Disclosure Act, for which he is currently seeking co-sponsors.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz is seeking original cosponsors for the Cap-and-Trade Tax Disclosure Act which will require utility companies to disclose and separately itemize the impact of cap-and-trade taxes on each customer’s utility bill. Sound tax policy requires that taxes should be visible to taxpayers and not buried in the cost of items we purchase. With this legislation, every utility customer – residential and business — will be able to identify the cost of cap-and-trade emissions that the utility is passing on to the customer. As regulated entities, utilities pass taxes on to customers, unlike unregulated companies that can also pass taxes on to shareholders and employees. The cap-and-trade tax is potentially the largest tax increase ever imposed. According to the Administration’s own budget document, the cost will be at least $646 billion over an eight-year period. No matter where you stand on the issue of cap and trade, both sides can agree that full disclosure and transparency are good public policy.
Some critics have said that cap and trade can’t be called a tax. Cap and Trade is a way for the government to collect revenue on energy used, while having private companies do the collecting. The effect would be the same as a national sales tax. Even some Liberal Democrats have opposed cap and trade because it is a regressive tax that will hit lower-income, working Americans the hardest.
The American people deserve full-disclosure on bills coming out of their government. Rep. Chaffetz’s bill would shine a light on the effects of the Cap and Trade tax, and expose it’s bottom line effects to American taxpayers.
Contact your representative and ask him or her to co-sponsor the Cap and Trade Disclosure Act.
Tonight’s Presidential Press Conference has been followed by some pretty good fact checking of his claims by writers from the AP (color me surprised).
A few things stand out, though.
Obama still insists on pushing the blame for the recession back onto the Bush Administration. Never does he acknowledge that his policies have had a big hand in making this collapse possible. Like every other stereotypical liberal, he is never to be blamed; he is only a victim.
In all honesty, it isn’t just Obama’s problem, or just Bush’s problem, or even just Congress’ problem alone. They all contributed to it. The problem is big government. The idea that government can do all the things that people in government think it can do is demonstrably wrong. The hard part is getting these “useful idiots” to admit it. This is Obama’s administration now. He holds the reins, and no longer has the luxury of playing Bart Simpson, trying to get a laugh by repeating “I didn’t do it.”
Another hard-to-avoid fact is that the problem he supposedly inherited was initially created by the Democratic Congress. Bush signed the bills into law, probably because he felt the Democrats had enough votes to override any veto. Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why he wouldn’t veto them out of principle. Bush’s signature added to the problem.
There is also his assertion that he has helped to save 150,000 jobs. The fact that the US economy has lost 1.2 million jobs since he took office apparently isn’t an obstacle to taking credit for any positive economic news. One very astute observation by the AP is that Obama’s claim to save jobs requires “calculating a hypothetical: how many people would have lost their jobs without the stimulus.” I can imagine lots of things, but I can’t take credit for any of it unless it is actually measurable.
Obama says we are “laying a foundation of growth.” Growth seems to be a common theme for this administration. But the only measurable growth we’ve seen so far is the growth in the deficit, growth in the amount of taxes Americans will be required to pay to overcome the deficit, and growth in the level of distrust in the people toward the government. How can we be laying a foundation for growth, when we refuse to stop spending? Even if we were capable of finding a way to cover these enormous expenses, if we don’t stop spending we will never catch up. That isn’t growth.
Some things Obama said make me plain nervous. For example, he said “My hope is that working in a bipartisan fashion we are going to be able to get a health care reform bill on my desk before the end of the year that we’ll start seeing in the kinds of investments that will make everybody healthier.” What kind of “investments” make people healthier? My thoughts are that he is talking about future legislation that would compel people into certain “healthier” lifestyles, as decided by government. The reasoning behind such legislation would be, of course, that it keeps health care costs down; a form of health care rationing–you qualify for health benefits from the government only if you meet certain government-set specifications. If that turns out to be the case, Obama will have found a way to include all races into his vision for the perfection of Humanity. That’s an aspect of socialized medicine not many have considered, and the implications are chilling.
A pattern has emerged from the first 100 days of the Obama Administration, one of high-minded, lofty goals, accompanied by a profound lack of responsibility. We can always hope the next 100 days bring real change.
For those keeping score, Mr. Obama is setting records now for prevaricating while on duty. It’s getting hard to track.
Mr. Obama made several claims in his press conference this evening that deserve a second look.
Mr. Obama is confident that his economic plan will encourage growth over the next 10 years or so. When challenged with figures from the Congressional Budget Office, he answered that his figures require a higher growth rate than that allowed by the CBO’s calculations. Supposedly this will help us feel better.
The fact is that Mr. Obama is making projections based upon expected growth. They are nothing more than projections, and very optimistic projections at that. It is impossible to know how the economy will behave in the next few years, but Mr. Obama is certain his plans to increase taxes on the rich will increase economic growth. Please understand my skepticism.
Increasing taxes on the richest part of our population while cutting taxes on the less-wealthy segments has never produced economic growth, and there is no evidence that will change now. Increasing taxes always has the net effect of driving tax revenues down, while slowing economic growth. But facts like these are lost on the Left, which holds as an expression of faith their ability to ignore historical data and trends which challenge their claims.
Mr. Obama also fired back at critics in the GOP who have called his budget proposals “irresponsible,” by claiming that he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from the previous Republican administration. What Mr. Obama, and the Left, would like the public to forget is that for the past two years of the “Republican” administration, Congress and the Senate have been in the hands of the Democrats. Does that absolve the Republicans? Not by a long way, but it puts the lie to Mr. Obama’s claim.
So, it seems Mr. Obama is keeping to politics-as-usual despite his promises to bring change to Washington.