Archive for the ‘corruption’ Category

What is going on ?

Sunday, December 30th, 2012

I have tried to ignore politics since the election. My candidate lost even though, from the enthusiasm at his rallies, I thought he was winning. I have trouble understanding why people would vote for Obama. Some of it is the 47% theory that Romney was so criticized for voicing. I agree that it had a big effect. Another factor was the drop in turnout among lower income white voters. They seemed to buy the argument that Romney was a rich man who didn’t care about them. Why they would believe that Obama, rich and intending to be much richer after his time in office, would care more is a mystery to me.

Now, we face a supposed crisis of the “fiscal cliff,” a manufactured crisis related to the negotiations over the debt limit and the ignored Simpson-Bowles Commission recommendations. I think the Republicans would have been well-advised to try to enact the commission recommendations into law but they have have consistently chosen the less wise alternative, in my opinion.

Dating back to the Clinton Administration, the GOP majority on Congress had the opportunity to assure the future of this country as a free market, prosperous nation. Instead, following Gingrich’s lead, they looked out for their own political futures. We now face the consequences and I see no more willingness to deal with it than before. Paul Ryan had a plan That might have avoided what is coming but the voters rejected it.


It preserves the existing Medicare program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today) – So Americans can receive the benefits they planned for throughout their working lives. For those currently under 55 – as they become Medicare-eligible – it creates a Medicare payment, initially averaging $11,000, to be used to purchase a Medicare certified plan. The payment is adjusted to reflect medical inflation, and pegged to income, with low-income individuals receiving greater support. The plan also provides risk adjustment, so those with greater medical needs receive a higher payment.
The proposal also fully funds Medical Savings Accounts [MSAs] for low-income beneficiaries, while continuing to allow all beneficiaries, regardless of income, to set up tax-free MSAs.
Based on consultation with the Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and using Congressional Budget Office [CBO] these reforms will make Medicare permanently solvent
Modernizes Medicaid and strengthens the health care safety net by reforming high-risk pools, giving States maximum flexibility to tailor Medicaid programs to the specific needs of their populations. Allows Medicaid recipients to take part in the same variety of options and high-quality care available to everyone through the tax credit option.

The plan would have addressed the Medicare issue that is coming in the near future.

The Social Security issue is a bit less urgent but was aggravated by the Congress use of Social Security trust funds in the 1990s. We hear about a “surplus” but that surplus was made up of Social Security trust funds that were not necessary at the time to pay benefits. Now, they are needed but have been spent.

I have no solution.

Thursday, September 20th, 2012

The juxtaposition of these two images is astonishing and another indication of the brilliance of Matt Drudge.

Bloody fingerprints show where Americans were killed in Benghazi. The fact that President Obama would use almost the same image for his trumped up phony flag image (with five stripes, like fingers) is beyond belief.

One of the SEALs was buried today in San Diego. He left a wife and a daughter he never saw.

Surely, he deserves better than this president.

Romney finally strikes back

Friday, August 10th, 2012

The past week has seen an amazing series of lies by the campaign of Barack Obama. First there was the steelworker ad, accusing Romney of complicity on his wife’s death even though the steel mill closed seven years before her final, short illness. Romney’s career at Bain Capital is the centerpiece of his campaign as he is not running as a professional politician but as a businessman who knows how to get the economy going again.

Obama is obviously ignorant of business, especially of the entrepreneur type. His ignorant riff of you didn’t build that ! is an example. Then we got the Harry Reid claim that he got a phone call from a former Bain investor who told him Romney hadn’t paid taxes for ten years. There was no evidence, or even the name of the accuser, provided. It is a felony for IRS employees to disclose tax records and a Bain investor would have no reason or method for determining Romney’s tax records.

Now we have the sad story of Joe Soptic who was featured in an Obama ad, then featured using the same video in a super PAC ad this summer. Campaign law requires that campaigns and PACs have no relationship so the recent ad is a felony.

The Obama staff has denied knowing anything about the new ad but there is a conference call including Stephanie Cutter, an Obama campaign staffer, who is clearly involved in the conference call. This is a felony.

The plot thickens. A new Romey ad briefly described the fisaco., including more an Axelrod’s involvement. They will be holding campaign meetings in federal prison soon.

Bourgeois Dignity

Saturday, August 4th, 2012

I was struck yesterday by a post on Ann Althouse’s blog, and by a Virginia Postrel piece that makes the same point, how wrong Obama was to say “You didn’t build that..”

The incident, so characteristic of this leftist ideologue president, is the stimulus for theorizing about how economies work, and perhaps why this one is so stuck with Obama in the White House.

There is an excellent analysis by David Warren printed last years in Canada and which I have saved. It is a comparison of Obama with Gorbachev and brings considerable light on the subject of success of nations.

Yet they do have one major thing in common, and that is the belief that, regardless of what the ruler does, the polity he rules must necessarily continue. This is perhaps the most essential, if seldom acknowledged, insight of the post-modern “liberal” mind: that if you take the pillars away, the roof will continue to hover in the air.

Gorbachev seemed to assume, right up to the fall of the Berlin Wall and then beyond it, that his Communist Party would recover from any temporary setbacks, and that the long-term effects of his glasnost and perestroika could only be to make it bigger and stronger.

There is a corollary of this largely unspoken assumption: that no matter what you do to one part of a machine, the rest of the machine will continue to function normally.

This brief discussion fits well with the book that was recommended by the Postrel piece.


The Bad History Behind ‘You Didn’t Build That’
By Virginia Postrel Aug 2, 2012 4:05 PM PT

The controversy surrounding President Barack Obama’s admonishment that “if you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen” has defied the usual election-year pattern.

Normally a political faux pas lasts little more than a news cycle. People hear the story, decide what they think, and quickly move on to the next brouhaha, following what the journalist Mickey Kaus calls the Feiler Faster Thesis. A gaffe that might have ruined a candidate 20 years ago is now forgotten within days.

Three weeks later, Obama’s comment is still a big deal.

(more…)

Stupid is as stupid does

Sunday, July 15th, 2012

I can’t help thinking of Forrest Gump when I see this photo.

We have a stupid culture right now and it is infecting the presidential election. Can anyone explain this ad to me ?

That is an Obama ad ! Without being told, I couldn’t tell. Is this what is going to win the election for him ?

The Bain capital stuff is not hard to understand if you know anything about business or economics. The trouble is that many don’t. Including our president. For example, what is “outsourcing” ?

Is this it ?

Outsourcing is the process of contracting an existing business process which an organization previously performed internally to an independent organization, where the process is purchased as a service. Though this practice of purchasing a business function – instead of providing it internally – is a common feature of any modern economy, the term outsourcing became popular in America near the turn of the 21st century. An outsourcing deal may also involve transfer of the employees involved to the outsourcing business partner.[1]

So Delphi made batteries and electronics for GM. Delphi was an American company, destroyed by the GM bankruptcy.

Some enlightened government departments outsource functions to private companies. The Army used to make all their own rifles. That’s where the Springfield rifle came from. And the Garand rifle. In the 1970s, the Army bought the AR 15 rifle from Armalite. That was outsourcing but you wouldn’t know it from Obama.

There is talk about Romney’s tax returns but this is old news. Hopefully, the American people are smart enough not to fall for this primitive populism. I guess we’ll see this November.

Obama and amnesty

Saturday, June 16th, 2012

On Friday, as is often the case, Obama announced a new executive policy to impose a two year moratorium on deportation of young illegals if they can show they were brought here as children and have finished high school with no encounters with the law. They must be under 30 and were brought here before age 16. He promised that citizenship was not included and did not mention if family members were affected. Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security announced that this was the new policy but there has been no confirmation of an executive order.

I don’t have a real problem with this policy but it avoids Congress and legislation, a problem that even Obama acknowledged last year. It is a transparent ploy to appeal for Latino votes. Everyone knows that.

It also will close an opening for compromise.

Obama’s decision probably reduces the likelihood that the scenarios of greatest concern to me will come to pass, especially if Obama is re-elected. Irate Republicans are even less likely than before to cooperate with the administration on this issue now that it has acted so high-handedly and in such a patently political manner. As Marco Rubio, who is planning to sponsor some sort of DREAM Act, said today, by imposing a new policy by executive order, Obama has made it harder in the long run to reach consensus on “comprehensive policy,” i.e., one that gives illegal immigrants additional benefits and a path to citizenship.

The attraction of the action taken by Obama may have been that it would trump a possible Republican compromise on this topic. Now, suspicion has grown that amnesty and voting rights are the next step. The use of executive order for such a change in policy has been attacked as illegal.

So what we have here is a president who is refusing to carry out federal law simply because he disagrees with Congress’s policy choices. That is an exercise of executive power that even the most stalwart defenders of an energetic executive — not to mention the Framers — cannot support.

Even Obama said the same a few months ago in explaining his then inaction. “I wish I could wave my magic wand,” Mr. Obama said. “Until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again… At the end of the day, I can’t do this all by myself. We’re going to have to get Congress to act. I know Nancy Pelosi’s ready to act. It’s time to stop playing politics.”

Well, playing politics is the order of the day and the Republicans should focus on the illegality of doing it by executive order and not on the policy, itself. With proper safeguards, the policy is a good idea although there may be backlash from semi-skilled unemployed who just got a million new competitors. Certainly the unemployment figures should now be adjusted for all the new legal job seekers.

The distraction of the Daily Caller reporter interrupting the president was an amusing sidelight. Had Obama demonstrated humor and a benign manner, it might have been a good moment for him. Instead, he showed anger and the incident will probably lead to more interruptions as it seems to be the only way to ask this president a question.

Derbyshire redux.

Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012

I recently expressed my opinion about the shameful treatment of John Derbyshire by National Review, his former employer, which dropped him as a writer because of a piece he wrote in another online magazine. One of his statements which seemed to be the most objectionable to NRO was “(9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

Two weeks ago, an incident in Virginia validated a couple of Derbyshire’s bits of advice to his kids (the premise of the piece).

There’s outrage in Norfolk, Va., today after a white couple was attacked by dozens of black teenagers, and the local newspaper did not report on the incident for two weeks, despite the victims being reporters for the paper.

Even today, the Virginian-Pilot did not cover the crime as news, but rather as an opinion piece by columnist Michelle Washington.

“Wave after wave of young men surged forward to take turns punching and kicking their victim,” Washington wrote, describing the onslaught that began when Dave Forster and Marjon Rostami stopped at a traffic light while driving home from a show on a Saturday night. A crowd of at least 100 black young people was on the sidewalk at the time.”

Tonight, Bill O’Reilly played tape made at the scene. There were several young black men who had not participated in the attack. What they said was “If you go into a neighborhood you don’t know (and are white), you had better be careful.”

Apparently the young man driving the car got out of the car after a rock was thrown at it. He said, “That was a big mistake.” He and the young woman in the car were attacked by about 20 to 40 men from the crowd on the sidewalk. One of the young black men interviewed on O’Reilly’s program mentioned the Trayvon Martin case.

How does this differ from what Derbyshire warned about ?

Another issue is the delay in reporting the attack by the local paper.

It happened four blocks from where they work, here at the Virginian-Pilot.”

The Virginia Pilot did not mention the attack on its own employees for two weeks. Why ?

Could this be related ?

That is the Pilot’s publisher and he was just confirmed as Obama’s new Deputy HUD Secretary.

The U.S. Senate on Thursday approved the appointment of Maurice Jones, publisher of The Virginian-Pilot, to be deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

No, it couldn’t be related.

Obama, Constitutional Scholar.

Wednesday, April 4th, 2012

In Barak Obama’s resume was a statement that he taught constitutional law as an “adjunct professor” at U of Chicago Law School. I have never considered this to be a major achievement since adjunct professors are not paid and the subject he taught was more related to his other interests. Constitutional law was not one of them.

At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer, a title otherwise carried only by a few federal judges. His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. Mr. Obama was so interested in the subject that he helped Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University, develop a leading casebook in the field.

His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law. Mr. Obama improvised his own textbook, including classic cases like Brown v. Board of Education, and essays by Frederick Douglass, W. E. B. Dubois, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, as well as conservative thinkers like Robert H. Bork.

Mr. Obama was especially eager for his charges to understand the horrors of the past, students say. He assigned a 1919 catalog of lynching victims, including some who were first raped or stripped of their ears and fingers, others who were pregnant or lynched with their children, and some whose charred bodies were sold off, bone fragment by bone fragment, to gawkers…

Should we be surprised at his knowledge, or lack of it, on the basics of constitutional law ? Even his attempt to correct his clueless comments about judicial review are incoherent

The original comment was, Apparently unaware of the most basic principles of constitutional law, going back to Marbury v. Madison in 1803, he said:

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

And I — I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint; that, uhhh, an uninelected, uhhh, group of — of people would somehow overturn, uhhh, a duly constituted and — and passed, uh, law. Uh, well, uh, uh, is a good example. Uhh, and I’m pretty confident that this, — this court will recognize that, uh, and not take that step.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals responded

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

Marbury vs Madison is one of the oldest and most basic cases that would be studied by a law student interested in Constitutional Law. The fact that our president does not know this ranks with his comments on speaking “Austrian” in Austria and his estimation of the number of US states.

Is he really this dim ? Did Harvard turn out this affirmative action dullard and inflict him on the country ?

The Race Card

Saturday, March 24th, 2012

There was a shooting in Florida this week that has now accumulated all the “usual suspects” for a racial extravaganza. The bare details are that a Florida neighborhood had had a high number of burglaries in the previous year. The neighbors had instituted a “neighborhood watch.” The watch member on duty saw a black tennager in a “hoodie” sweatshirt acting in a way that was suspicious in his opinion. He called 911. The 911 call was recorded but the record may not be clear. A new eyewitness has said that the shooting victim was attacking the shooter and was on top of him as the shooter called for help.

The usual suspects have all appeared, including Barack Obama, who seems to insert himself into every racial incident. Of course, Al Sharpton (MSNBC commentator) is heavily involved. Hopefully, the body count will not reach previous levels in Sharpton’s activities. Sharpton did manage to convince some suckers to pay his debts in the Tawana Brawley hoax I guess that means he can go back to New York for his MSNBC gig.

This may be the substitute for the failed contraception ploy the Democrats attempted. Maybe there really was a crime committed by an excited neighborhood watch member. If so, the magnitude would be voluntary manslaughter, hardly a reason for the attempted lynching now going on in Florida and Washington. It is ironic that the group, which suffered 100 years ago from lynching, now seems to promote it. I think the Republicans would do well to stay away from this case with the exception of the usual sympathy for the victim. It is getting ugly and the facts are far from established.

The cause of the financial crisis

Thursday, December 15th, 2011

Peter Wallison has a piece in the Atlantic that explains the basic policy error that led to the housing bubble and the subsequent financial crisis. Barney Frank has been trying to evade his share of responsibility for the problem. He has been telling people that a failure of bank regulation is the source of the problem. In fact, it is the opposite. Banks were obliged by regulators to offer mortgages to people who were not credit worthy. This was an attempt by politicians like Frank to respond to ACORN and similar activists who complained that poor people and minorities had a hard time buying houses.

His most successful effort was to impose what were called “affordable housing” requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy–in other words, prime mortgages–but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators.

The GSEs, like Fannie and Freddie, were required to buy these subprime loans. The bankers, and mortgage brokers like Countrywide, responded by shifting the business plan of lenders from buying and servicing mortgages to selling mortgages and then flipping the loans to a third party who bundled them into the notorious “mortgage backed securities” that sank the economy. I have bought several homes over my lifetime, the first in 1969. Each time, I was required to document my ability to repay the loan and make a 20% or greater down payment. In fact, I sold my first home in 1973 when I moved to Orange County for the same price I had paid for it, thus losing my equity to the selling agent’s commission. Appreciation of housing prices did not start until inflation took off in 1976 with Carter’s election. By 1978, my house in Orange County had tripled in value. Even so, when I bought another house in 1979, I had to document my income and pay 20% down.

These requirements had disappeared by 2003 and mortgage brokers were making good incomes by processing loans they would not service and which they cared little about long term solvency of the buyer. It wasn’t their problem.

By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies–all under congressional and HUD pressure–followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble–created by all this government-backed spending–collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government.

There is no doubt where the source of the problem lies. Now, we have to figure out how to get out of it. Cutting government spending and cutting regulation, which failed to do anything about the housing bubble, will help but that will take an election. If through mischance Obama is re-elected, we will have a ten year Depression. We are nearing the middle of one right now.

UPDATE Why I am not voting for Newt Gingrich.

This is a devastating report on Newt’s relationship with Freddie Mac. I was undecided and quite impressed with Newt’s debate performance until I read about his deals with Freddie Mac. He has denied lobbying but I find that very hard to believe. I reproduce the WSJ article because it may be behind a subscription wall.

Newt Gingrich’s opponents aren’t letting up in their criticism of his lucrative ties to the failed mortgage giant Freddie Mac after he resigned as House Speaker in the late 1990s. More damaging to his Presidential candidacy is that Mr. Gingrich doesn’t seem to understand why anyone is offended.

In his first response after news broke that he’d made $300,000 working for Freddie, Mr. Gingrich claimed he had “offered them advice on precisely what they didn’t do.” As a “historian,” he said during a November 9 debate, he had concluded last decade that “this is a bubble,” and that Freddie and its sister Fannie Mae should stop making loans to people who have no credit history. He added that now they should be broken up.

A week later Bloomberg reported that Mr. Gingrich had made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in two separate contracts with Freddie between 1999 and 2008. The former Speaker stuck to his line that “I was approached to offer strategic advice” and had warned the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to stop lending to bad credit risks.

Then on December 2 our colleagues at the Journal reported that as late as April 2007 Mr. Gingrich had defended Fannie and Freddie as examples of conservative governance. “While we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself,” Mr. Gingrich said in an interview at the time.

Mr. Gingrich added in that interview that there are times “when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development.” He cited electricity and telephone network expansion. “It’s not a point of view libertarians would embrace, but I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism,” he said, adding “I’m convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today.”

This doesn’t make it OK and he has some explaining to do. His attack on Romney this week, talking about his career at Bain Capital as if it were deplorable, was even worse.