http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1006/a_special_tool_for_fakebakers.html
Executive Summary:
Americans for Tax Reform is printing a card on their website that reminds people of Candidate Obama's campaign pledge to not raise taxes on anyone who earns less than $250,000/year. This card, they (jokingly) suggest, could be shown to anyone trying to collect any of the new taxes that are being imposed on those in that income bracket.
Opinion:
I have been thinking for a while that the party running Washington D.C. is not going to stop their out of control spending and power grabbing unless people engage in some (hopefully polite but meaningful) civil disobedience. This isn't quite the kind of civil disobedience that I had in mind, but it is a good start. Anyone out there have any ideas?
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Voter's remorse?
The first case of Obama Voter's Remorse that I saw occurred 10 days after the 2008 election. (This particular person was furious that Obama nominated Hillary Clinton for Sec. of State.) I'm starting to see some Voter's Remorse at the local level, too, especially in Seattle's 2008 choice for mayor. Anyone else witnessed an increase in this or felt it yourself?
Friday, June 25, 2010
New gigantic bill coming to your town
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500675_pf.html
Executive summary:
House and Senate leaders have reached agreements on a gigantic new bill that would completely change the financial system. No Republican voted for the bill in committee.
Some of the new powers granted by the bill:
"A new consumer protection bureau housed in the Federal Reserve would have independent funding, an independent leader and near-total autonomy to write and enforce rules. The government would have broad new powers to seize and wind down large, failing financial firms and to oversee the $600 trillion derivatives market. In addition, a council of regulators, headed by the Treasury secretary, would monitor the financial landscape for potential systemic risks."
Some legislators wanted to completely prohibit banks from engaging in most "risky" investments. Most of those amendments failed, but these abilities will be curtailed to some extent.
Opinion:
I will not call this the financial "reform" bill, as "reform" implies improvement. There is little to point to as improvement, since huge problems like the insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not dealt with. This is another bill (like the healthcare act last March) that is too large for anyone to read or fully understand before Congress will vote on it and make it the law of the land (perhaps as early as July 4th). It grants sweeping new powers to many unelected officials and bureaucrats. If this trend continues, why bother having a Congress to write new laws at all in the future when you can have unelected people do it?
It is appropriate that it is named the Dodd-Frank bill, after the two legislators that had the largest government role in creating the economic mess we are in. Will Dodd will get another personal mortgage deal somewhere in this legislation?
Update: this bill may be stalled by, of all things, the death of Senator Robert Byrd. Let's hope so.
Update 2: Uh-oh. It passed the House. The Senate has said it is "not ready" to vote on it---yet.
Executive summary:
House and Senate leaders have reached agreements on a gigantic new bill that would completely change the financial system. No Republican voted for the bill in committee.
Some of the new powers granted by the bill:
"A new consumer protection bureau housed in the Federal Reserve would have independent funding, an independent leader and near-total autonomy to write and enforce rules. The government would have broad new powers to seize and wind down large, failing financial firms and to oversee the $600 trillion derivatives market. In addition, a council of regulators, headed by the Treasury secretary, would monitor the financial landscape for potential systemic risks."
Some legislators wanted to completely prohibit banks from engaging in most "risky" investments. Most of those amendments failed, but these abilities will be curtailed to some extent.
Opinion:
I will not call this the financial "reform" bill, as "reform" implies improvement. There is little to point to as improvement, since huge problems like the insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not dealt with. This is another bill (like the healthcare act last March) that is too large for anyone to read or fully understand before Congress will vote on it and make it the law of the land (perhaps as early as July 4th). It grants sweeping new powers to many unelected officials and bureaucrats. If this trend continues, why bother having a Congress to write new laws at all in the future when you can have unelected people do it?
It is appropriate that it is named the Dodd-Frank bill, after the two legislators that had the largest government role in creating the economic mess we are in. Will Dodd will get another personal mortgage deal somewhere in this legislation?
Update: this bill may be stalled by, of all things, the death of Senator Robert Byrd. Let's hope so.
Update 2: Uh-oh. It passed the House. The Senate has said it is "not ready" to vote on it---yet.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
You and what army?
When I heard about Barack Obama's speech "directing" BP to set up a $20B account to pay people affected by the Gulf Oil spill, this is what I thought BP should say: you and what army?
I realize that BP probably agreed to the account terms before Obama gave the speech, and that they might just have made a quick calculation with their lawyers and accountants and decided that this was actually a good thing to attempt to limit their financial damages. (Although I note that this account is viewed only as a "good start" by some.) Stockholders may respond better to a number on the damages rather than letting their imaginations run wild.
However, we have something called due process in this country. No one can be parted from their money or property without it (unless you are a Geneva Convention violating terrorist, as all the people in Guantanamo are). It means that BP is entitled to a court trial and then they should pay up if found guilty. The fact that the White House thinks they can order BP to do this (they have no authority to do so) and that BP agreed scares the living daylights out of me.
This is only one of many things the White House and our other elected leaders have done without any authority to do so. What is next? How will it affect me? Where does it stop? Please, before we find out, let us toss these people out of office and put in some people who have a respect for the idea that we are a nation of laws and not men.
I realize that BP probably agreed to the account terms before Obama gave the speech, and that they might just have made a quick calculation with their lawyers and accountants and decided that this was actually a good thing to attempt to limit their financial damages. (Although I note that this account is viewed only as a "good start" by some.) Stockholders may respond better to a number on the damages rather than letting their imaginations run wild.
However, we have something called due process in this country. No one can be parted from their money or property without it (unless you are a Geneva Convention violating terrorist, as all the people in Guantanamo are). It means that BP is entitled to a court trial and then they should pay up if found guilty. The fact that the White House thinks they can order BP to do this (they have no authority to do so) and that BP agreed scares the living daylights out of me.
This is only one of many things the White House and our other elected leaders have done without any authority to do so. What is next? How will it affect me? Where does it stop? Please, before we find out, let us toss these people out of office and put in some people who have a respect for the idea that we are a nation of laws and not men.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
