Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Obama WIns a Battle as a Teachers' Union Shows Flexibility
What has been described as a showdown or ideological battle between the Obama administration and his primary financier, the teachers unions, looks, according the Wall Street Journal (October 17-18, 2009 page A 1, "for the moment, a little less likely." One union, the 1,600 New Haven, CT, union voted 21 - 1, about a 1% turnout (the two major teachers unions have 3,600,000 members) for some contract changes bringing more flexibliity on work rules and teacher compensation. I would venture this is a meaninglessness at best misleading at worst headline, article and so-called "model". The unions members were paid a 3% raise for 4 years, nearly 13%, while inflation is running under 1/2 of 1%. While advertised as a breakthrough it simply to me looks like a bribe so Obama can log in a "win" and try to affirm his independence from the organizations that spent upwards of $300,000,000 to elect him. "Yes, I am tough, I stand up to unions." -- Obama could have meant, and clouded mens' mionds. But honest it is not.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Wage, Price and Business Controls are Here
Czar Feinberg sets compensation for a bunch of corporate executives. Wage controls. (And funny because it's supposed to rein in "dangerous risks" which are absolutely not defined by any stretch of any Rule of Law. They are capricious and arbitrary. Revenge for success?) Couple that with rules announced October 22, 2009 by Obama's Federal Reserve and Obama's Treasury Department that will limit and change pay packages at thousands of financial institutions and you get...Wage Controls.
The U. S. House of Representatives also on Thursday, October 22, 2009, voted to create a new federal agency to "police" -- control -- financial products offered to U. S. consumers, this courtesy of the Obama White House's initial draft. The new agency perhaps to be named ObamaControl Agency would have the power to investigate widely and punish brutally any company from one-man payday loan shops to the mighty (well once mighty, until the U. S. government brought it low) Bank of America and any other company it wants to get. Price and Business Controls. Excepting only the biggest campaign contributors and lobbyists such as auto-dealer-financiers.
The U. S. House of Representatives also on Thursday, October 22, 2009, voted to create a new federal agency to "police" -- control -- financial products offered to U. S. consumers, this courtesy of the Obama White House's initial draft. The new agency perhaps to be named ObamaControl Agency would have the power to investigate widely and punish brutally any company from one-man payday loan shops to the mighty (well once mighty, until the U. S. government brought it low) Bank of America and any other company it wants to get. Price and Business Controls. Excepting only the biggest campaign contributors and lobbyists such as auto-dealer-financiers.
Friday, October 23, 2009
American Idea by Walter E. WIlliams
A sadly accurate article below. I don't know if I can legally put Mr. Williams' article on this post, but here it is...a valuable column. The United States of America is the most humane, exceptional country ever invented, yet we are committing suicide. A self-inflicted Obama to the head. The left owns schools, the arts, the media...the propaganda arms. The only slip sliver of hope is a foreigner. Rupert Murdock of News Corp's Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. If that isn't irony I don't know what is. But people are listening, reading, viewing the truth. But listen, folks, with his numbers won't competition enter the conservative world? Maybe after all free enterprise will win out, because if you get people's minds, you can get their hearts. Or is it the other way around?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
American Idea
by Walter E. Williams
Americans are harder workers, more philanthropic, individualistic, self-reliant, anti-government than people in most other countries. We’ve turned what was an 18th-century Third World nation into the freest and most prosperous nation in mankind’s entire history. Throughout our history, United States has been a magnet for immigrants around the world. What accounts for what some have called American exceptionalism?
We Americans, as human beings, are no different from any other people, including Germans, Russians, Chinese, Africans and other people who have produced tyrannical regimes such as those of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Idi Amin. As such we are just as capable of committing acts of gross evil that have been a part of mankind throughout his history. We’ve not been a perfect nation but we’ve never approached the level of hideousness seen in other nations. That’s despite the fact that our population consists of people who have for centuries been trying to slaughter one another in their home countries, whether it’s between the French and Germans, English and Irish, Japanese and Chinese, or Palestinians and Jews, Igbos and the Hausa of Nigeria. Thrown into the American mosaic are religions that have been in conflict for centuries such as Catholic and Protestant, and Christian and Muslim. The question is: Why is the United States an exception and will it remain so?
At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today’s Americans. Some of the founders’ distrust is seen in our Constitution’s language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections. After all, one would not expect to find a Bill of Rights in Heaven; it would be an affront to God. Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution’s separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution.
The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior. Look at the current debate over government involvement in health, business bailouts and stimulus packages. The debate centers around questions as whether such involvement is a good idea or a bad idea and whether one program is more costly than another. Those questions are entirely irrelevant to what should be debated, namely: Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution?
That question is not part of the debate. The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution. They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not. What Congress does have is the brute force to enforce compliance with their unconstitutional acts. You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to tax and spend for the enumerated activities therein. Every American is duty bound to pay his share. Congress has neither constitution nor moral authority to take the earnings of one American for the benefit of another American. What do you think will happen to you if don’t comply, say with Congress' demand that part of your earnings be taken to bail out a failing business? You’ll see all the brute force that you want to see and if you resist too much, death is not off the table.
We are losing what’s made our country great. Instead of moving toward greater liberty, we’re moving toward greater government control of our lives.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
American Idea
by Walter E. Williams
Americans are harder workers, more philanthropic, individualistic, self-reliant, anti-government than people in most other countries. We’ve turned what was an 18th-century Third World nation into the freest and most prosperous nation in mankind’s entire history. Throughout our history, United States has been a magnet for immigrants around the world. What accounts for what some have called American exceptionalism?
We Americans, as human beings, are no different from any other people, including Germans, Russians, Chinese, Africans and other people who have produced tyrannical regimes such as those of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Idi Amin. As such we are just as capable of committing acts of gross evil that have been a part of mankind throughout his history. We’ve not been a perfect nation but we’ve never approached the level of hideousness seen in other nations. That’s despite the fact that our population consists of people who have for centuries been trying to slaughter one another in their home countries, whether it’s between the French and Germans, English and Irish, Japanese and Chinese, or Palestinians and Jews, Igbos and the Hausa of Nigeria. Thrown into the American mosaic are religions that have been in conflict for centuries such as Catholic and Protestant, and Christian and Muslim. The question is: Why is the United States an exception and will it remain so?
At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today’s Americans. Some of the founders’ distrust is seen in our Constitution’s language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections. After all, one would not expect to find a Bill of Rights in Heaven; it would be an affront to God. Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution’s separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution.
The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior. Look at the current debate over government involvement in health, business bailouts and stimulus packages. The debate centers around questions as whether such involvement is a good idea or a bad idea and whether one program is more costly than another. Those questions are entirely irrelevant to what should be debated, namely: Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution?
That question is not part of the debate. The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they’re Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution. They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not. What Congress does have is the brute force to enforce compliance with their unconstitutional acts. You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to tax and spend for the enumerated activities therein. Every American is duty bound to pay his share. Congress has neither constitution nor moral authority to take the earnings of one American for the benefit of another American. What do you think will happen to you if don’t comply, say with Congress' demand that part of your earnings be taken to bail out a failing business? You’ll see all the brute force that you want to see and if you resist too much, death is not off the table.
We are losing what’s made our country great. Instead of moving toward greater liberty, we’re moving toward greater government control of our lives.
United States Being Eclipsed in Capital Raising.
The United States of America has become the greatest country in history in part because of its freedom. In the late 18th century, citizens freely gathered under a buttonwood tree at the foot of Wall Street to talk and trade securities and money. In 1792, they formalized their association with the "Buttonwood Agreement", the origin of the New York Stock Exchange. That little beginning created the first capital market of the U. S. and the foundations under which capital markets around the world were created. Those citizens, and later institutions, with excess money traded it for ownership interests in organizations and companies which wanted it. These investors thought they could garner better returns through investing.
The New York Stock Exchange was the predominant securities exchange in the world for decades, trading more than any other. And American companies -- and the country itself -- were the primary benefactors of the NYSE and other, smaller institutions of capital. But finance has evolved and America is being eclipsed by competition. This year so far, the largest initial public offerings (IPOs) of securities to raise capital belong to foreign companies. Banco Santander Brasil as of the first of October is the largest (raising $8 billion) and China State Construction Engineering Corp. is second at nearly $7-1/2 billion.
And as of October 9 they are: Banco Santander Brasil, Brazil $8,067.6; China State Construction Engineering, China $7,342.7; Visanet Brazil; China Metallurgical Constr. China; Verisk Analytics Inc, U.S.; Everbright Securities Co, China; SINOPHARM, China; Glorious Property Holdings Ltd, Hong Kong; China Zhongwang Holdings Ltd; China; National Hydro Electric Power, India .
Only one of the largest IPO was on the NYSE, one jointly with NYSE andthe Sao Paolo Stock Exchange and one through NASDAQ. The rest were from other country's exchanges with the most on the Hong Kong Exchange. Two-thirds of the IPOs in the United States were from Chinese companies. For more information about China, please see my post, "China Eats United States for Lunch".
The New York Stock Exchange was the predominant securities exchange in the world for decades, trading more than any other. And American companies -- and the country itself -- were the primary benefactors of the NYSE and other, smaller institutions of capital. But finance has evolved and America is being eclipsed by competition. This year so far, the largest initial public offerings (IPOs) of securities to raise capital belong to foreign companies. Banco Santander Brasil as of the first of October is the largest (raising $8 billion) and China State Construction Engineering Corp. is second at nearly $7-1/2 billion.
And as of October 9 they are: Banco Santander Brasil, Brazil $8,067.6; China State Construction Engineering, China $7,342.7; Visanet Brazil; China Metallurgical Constr. China; Verisk Analytics Inc, U.S.; Everbright Securities Co, China; SINOPHARM, China; Glorious Property Holdings Ltd, Hong Kong; China Zhongwang Holdings Ltd; China; National Hydro Electric Power, India .
Only one of the largest IPO was on the NYSE, one jointly with NYSE andthe Sao Paolo Stock Exchange and one through NASDAQ. The rest were from other country's exchanges with the most on the Hong Kong Exchange. Two-thirds of the IPOs in the United States were from Chinese companies. For more information about China, please see my post, "China Eats United States for Lunch".
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Mr. Obama, may I have the comp I earned, Sir?
Today, October 22, 2009 is a tsunami, a hurricane, a cyclone of overwhelming governmental power over the private sector. It is the nail being pounded into the coffin of capitalism and freedom, not to mention free enterprise in the United States of America. President Barack Obama's Chairman of the Federal Reserve System thinks that he and President Obama know more about executive compensation than appointed and elected (by the owners) compensation committee members of the boards of directors of companies in the "private" sector in the United States of America. While 9/11/2001 killed thousands of people in the United States, 10/22/2009 will be the mark of the slow killing of free enterprise in the United States of America. President Barack Obama who has never held a job in the private sector, but living off the profits of it which had been taken in taxes by the U. S. federal government, now believes that he, or should I write He, should set compensation levels. Pure hatred and jealosy of someone who could not be successful in the private sector. Now for those of you readers who understand some history, the Q & A from the Fed sounds like the "guidelines" which forced commercial banks to make community redevelopment loans or they wouldn't be allowed to expand. Beginning with Barney Frank and other Democrats. This, along with marginally-legal campaign contributions primarily to Democrat Congressmen, directly led to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying up trillion of dollars of "sub-prime" mortgages which began with dictating community redevelopment. Which directly led to today's recession.
The Wall Street Journal today reported: "U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve unveiled a set of curbs and rules for executive compensation at U.S. banks that mark a watershed moment for government intervention in the private sector.
The Fed is proposing that it more aggressively regulate compensation practices at U.S. American banks under its control. The central bank "is working to ensure that compensation packages appropriately tie rewards to longer-term performance and do not create undue risk for the firm or the financial system," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said Thursday.
The policies would become part of the supervisory process, the Fed said, noting large, complex organizations would face special "horizontal" reviews that compare one bank's pay practices with those of its peers.
http://online.wsj.com/?mod=djemalertNEWS
Fed's Q&A on pay policies: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/10/22/fed-qa-on-compensation-guidance/ " which is:
The following are questions and answers provided by the Federal Reserve on its proposals for executive compensation:
1. What is a guidance? What does it do? How is it enforced?
Supervisory guidance is one of the Federal Reserve’s most important supervisory tools for focusing attention on risk issues and for articulating supervisory expectations to the banking organizations that it supervises. It is particularly useful in addressing risks in areas where there may be significant differences among banking organizations or a variety of approaches that may be used by banking organizations to achieve the desired goal. In such cases, a formal rule runs the risk of being potentially too broad or too narrow.
This guidance sets clear expectations for banking organizations concerning their incentive compensation arrangements and related risk-management, control, and governance processes. As explained in the guidance, Federal Reserve examiners will review whether the arrangements and processes of banking organizations are consistent with the guidance and safety and soundness. Deficiencies will be factored into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions or take other actions. In addition, the Federal Reserve in appropriate circumstances may take enforcement action against a banking organization. Such an action may require the organization to develop and promptly implement a plan to correct deficiencies in its incentive compensation arrangements or related processes.
2. What happens next?
The Board will accept comments on the guidance for 30 days. Nevertheless, the Board expects banking organizations to immediately review their incentive compensation arrangements to ensure that they do not encourage excessive risk-taking and to implement corrective programs where needed.
To help spur action, the Federal Reserve also will move forward with the two supervisory initiatives outlined in the guidance. For example, as part of a horizontal review, large, complex banking organizations (LCBOs) will provide the Federal Reserve with information and documentation that clearly describes their plans, including relevant timetables, for improving the risk-sensitivity of incentive compensation arrangements and related risk management, controls, and corporate governance practices. We will work closely with the LCBOs on these plans and will monitor their adherence to the plans and associated timetables.
3. Why is the Federal Reserve not suggesting a pay cap or outlawing particular practices?
As noted in the Principles for Sound Compensation Practices issued by the Financial Stability Board in April 2009, “one size does not fit all” firms or employees. Best practices for balancing risk and rewards in incentive compensation programs continue to develop and are likely to evolve significantly in the coming years.
For most banking organizations, the use of a single, formulaic approach to making employee incentive compensation arrangements appropriately risk-sensitive is likely to provide at least some employees with incentives to take excessive risks. For example, spreading payouts of incentive compensation awards over a three-year period may not be sufficient by itself to balance the compensation arrangements of employees who may expose the organization to substantial longer-term risks. Further experience may reveal specific compensation practices that may appropriately be required or prohibited. In the Federal Register notice proposing the guidance, the Federal Reserve has asked for comment on this point.
4. Why is the Fed doing this? What authority does the Fed have to oversee compensation?
Recent events have highlighted that inappropriate compensation practices can contribute to safety and soundness problems at banking organizations and to financial instability. Traditionally, banking organizations and supervisors relied on strong risk management, internal controls and corporate governance to help constrain risk-taking. However, the financial crisis has illustrated that the incentives created by poorly designed and implemented incentive compensation arrangements can be powerful enough to overcome risk controls.
While organizations, their shareholders and others are examining compensation practices, the Federal Reserve has an important role to play as well. Because of the presence of the federal safety net, shareholders of a banking organization may be willing to tolerate a degree of risk that is inconsistent with the organization’s safety and soundness. Thus, aligning the interests of employees and shareholders may not be sufficient to protect the safety and soundness of the organization or financial stability.
Supervisors also can play a critical role in addressing the “first mover” problem that may make it difficult for individual firms to act alone in addressing misaligned incentives for fear of losing valuable employees and business to other firms. Supervisors can help counteract these forces by promoting the coordinated movement of the industry toward better practices.
The Federal Reserve has clear authority to act in this area. Section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act authorizes the Federal Reserve to take action against a banking organization if the organization is engaged, or is about to engage in, any unsafe or unsound practice. The Federal Reserve and the other Federal banking agencies regularly issue supervisory guidance based on the authority in section 8 of the FDI Act. Guidance is used to identify practices that the agencies believe would ordinarily constitute an unsafe or unsound practice and identify risk-management systems, controls, or other practices that the agencies believe would ordinarily assist banking organizations in ensuring that they operate in a safe and sound manner.
5. Who will be subject to this compensation guidance?
The guidance will apply to all banking organizations supervised by the Federal Reserve. This includes U.S. bank holding companies, state member banks, Edge and agreement corporations, and the U.S. operations of foreign banks with a branch, agency, or commercial lending company subsidiary in the United States.
Because incentive compensation arrangements for executive and non-executive personnel who have the ability to expose a banking organization to material amounts of risk may, if not properly structured, pose a threat to the organization’s safety and soundness, the guidance applies to incentive compensation arrangements for:
Senior executives and others who are responsible for oversight of the organization’s firm-wide activities or material business lines;
Individual employees, including non-executive employees, whose activities may expose the firm to material amounts of risk (for example, traders with large position limits relative to the firm’s overall risk tolerance); and
Groups of employees who are subject to the same or similar incentive compensation arrangements and who, in the aggregate, may expose the firm to material amounts of risk, even if no individual employee is likely to expose the firm to material risk (for example, loan officers who, as a group, originate loans that account for a material amount of the organization’s credit risk).
6. How is this guidance related to recent work by international bodies like the Group of Twenty or the Financial Stability Board?
The guidance is consistent with the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) Principles for Sound Compensation Practices issued in April 2009 and with the FSB’s recent Implementation Standards. Both documents mention a number of possible methods of improving compensation arrangements for individual employees. The Federal Reserve will focus on whether compensation arrangements provide employees incentives to take excessive risks that could threaten the safety and soundness of the banking organization. The Federal Reserve will continue to work with representatives of other nations to achieve a level playing field with respect to compensation incentives.
***
Post from October 20, 2009: The Obama pay (don't call me) Czar -- or, rather the Special Master for Executive Compensation of the United States Treasury Department Kenneth Feinberg, said "No!" to retiring Chief Executive Officer of the Bank of America Corp. Kenneth D. Lewis would have earned approximately $2,500,000 in salary for 2009, of which $1,000,000 has already been paid, plus an earned bonus. Arbitrarily, Mr. Feinberg "suggested" Mr. Lewis forego it all and pay back the $1,000,000 already paid. With the mighty United States government at his throat, Mr. Lewis said, "OK" or words to that effect, adding that he didn't think it in his or his bank's best interests to engage in a battle with his "paymaster". Mr. Lewis will take with him his retirement of nearly $70 million (plus a bunch of stock earned and purchased over his 40-year career with the bank) that Mr. Feinberg thinks is quite enough. There is conflict already between the U. S. government and Mr. Lewis. Early on a supporter of the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TWERP), Mr. Lewis saved the government billions of dollars by buying up quickly-sinking Countrywide Financial, largest supplier of sub-prime loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Later, Mr. Lewis came to an agreement to save Merrill Lynch but upon finding its fincancial statements troubling, started stepping back when the Treasury Department bullied him into completing the purchase, again saving the government billions of dollars. Among other threats, the government apparently threatened Mr. Lewis with firing from the Bank of America after a stellar 40-year career if he didn't go through with it. Later the government secretly sanctioned the bank and stripped Mr. Lewis' board. Once feted as one of the best bankers in America, Mr. Lewis was brought down and personally humiliated by President Obama and one of his Czars, for doing exactly what they demanded. If everyone in this country isn't frightened by the arbitrariness and punitive hosility of the Obama administration toward business, and their overt and negative abuse of power, severely frightened, then they are mindless Democrats. Oh, did I say this move and humiliation was cheered by Obama's pet financier, the Service Employees International Union? Have no doubt the president is taking down companies at the bidding of his union bosses. Have no doubt.
The Wall Street Journal today reported: "U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve unveiled a set of curbs and rules for executive compensation at U.S. banks that mark a watershed moment for government intervention in the private sector.
The Fed is proposing that it more aggressively regulate compensation practices at U.S. American banks under its control. The central bank "is working to ensure that compensation packages appropriately tie rewards to longer-term performance and do not create undue risk for the firm or the financial system," Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said Thursday.
The policies would become part of the supervisory process, the Fed said, noting large, complex organizations would face special "horizontal" reviews that compare one bank's pay practices with those of its peers.
http://online.wsj.com/?mod=djemalertNEWS
Fed's Q&A on pay policies: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/10/22/fed-qa-on-compensation-guidance/ " which is:
The following are questions and answers provided by the Federal Reserve on its proposals for executive compensation:
1. What is a guidance? What does it do? How is it enforced?
Supervisory guidance is one of the Federal Reserve’s most important supervisory tools for focusing attention on risk issues and for articulating supervisory expectations to the banking organizations that it supervises. It is particularly useful in addressing risks in areas where there may be significant differences among banking organizations or a variety of approaches that may be used by banking organizations to achieve the desired goal. In such cases, a formal rule runs the risk of being potentially too broad or too narrow.
This guidance sets clear expectations for banking organizations concerning their incentive compensation arrangements and related risk-management, control, and governance processes. As explained in the guidance, Federal Reserve examiners will review whether the arrangements and processes of banking organizations are consistent with the guidance and safety and soundness. Deficiencies will be factored into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions or take other actions. In addition, the Federal Reserve in appropriate circumstances may take enforcement action against a banking organization. Such an action may require the organization to develop and promptly implement a plan to correct deficiencies in its incentive compensation arrangements or related processes.
2. What happens next?
The Board will accept comments on the guidance for 30 days. Nevertheless, the Board expects banking organizations to immediately review their incentive compensation arrangements to ensure that they do not encourage excessive risk-taking and to implement corrective programs where needed.
To help spur action, the Federal Reserve also will move forward with the two supervisory initiatives outlined in the guidance. For example, as part of a horizontal review, large, complex banking organizations (LCBOs) will provide the Federal Reserve with information and documentation that clearly describes their plans, including relevant timetables, for improving the risk-sensitivity of incentive compensation arrangements and related risk management, controls, and corporate governance practices. We will work closely with the LCBOs on these plans and will monitor their adherence to the plans and associated timetables.
3. Why is the Federal Reserve not suggesting a pay cap or outlawing particular practices?
As noted in the Principles for Sound Compensation Practices issued by the Financial Stability Board in April 2009, “one size does not fit all” firms or employees. Best practices for balancing risk and rewards in incentive compensation programs continue to develop and are likely to evolve significantly in the coming years.
For most banking organizations, the use of a single, formulaic approach to making employee incentive compensation arrangements appropriately risk-sensitive is likely to provide at least some employees with incentives to take excessive risks. For example, spreading payouts of incentive compensation awards over a three-year period may not be sufficient by itself to balance the compensation arrangements of employees who may expose the organization to substantial longer-term risks. Further experience may reveal specific compensation practices that may appropriately be required or prohibited. In the Federal Register notice proposing the guidance, the Federal Reserve has asked for comment on this point.
4. Why is the Fed doing this? What authority does the Fed have to oversee compensation?
Recent events have highlighted that inappropriate compensation practices can contribute to safety and soundness problems at banking organizations and to financial instability. Traditionally, banking organizations and supervisors relied on strong risk management, internal controls and corporate governance to help constrain risk-taking. However, the financial crisis has illustrated that the incentives created by poorly designed and implemented incentive compensation arrangements can be powerful enough to overcome risk controls.
While organizations, their shareholders and others are examining compensation practices, the Federal Reserve has an important role to play as well. Because of the presence of the federal safety net, shareholders of a banking organization may be willing to tolerate a degree of risk that is inconsistent with the organization’s safety and soundness. Thus, aligning the interests of employees and shareholders may not be sufficient to protect the safety and soundness of the organization or financial stability.
Supervisors also can play a critical role in addressing the “first mover” problem that may make it difficult for individual firms to act alone in addressing misaligned incentives for fear of losing valuable employees and business to other firms. Supervisors can help counteract these forces by promoting the coordinated movement of the industry toward better practices.
The Federal Reserve has clear authority to act in this area. Section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act authorizes the Federal Reserve to take action against a banking organization if the organization is engaged, or is about to engage in, any unsafe or unsound practice. The Federal Reserve and the other Federal banking agencies regularly issue supervisory guidance based on the authority in section 8 of the FDI Act. Guidance is used to identify practices that the agencies believe would ordinarily constitute an unsafe or unsound practice and identify risk-management systems, controls, or other practices that the agencies believe would ordinarily assist banking organizations in ensuring that they operate in a safe and sound manner.
5. Who will be subject to this compensation guidance?
The guidance will apply to all banking organizations supervised by the Federal Reserve. This includes U.S. bank holding companies, state member banks, Edge and agreement corporations, and the U.S. operations of foreign banks with a branch, agency, or commercial lending company subsidiary in the United States.
Because incentive compensation arrangements for executive and non-executive personnel who have the ability to expose a banking organization to material amounts of risk may, if not properly structured, pose a threat to the organization’s safety and soundness, the guidance applies to incentive compensation arrangements for:
Senior executives and others who are responsible for oversight of the organization’s firm-wide activities or material business lines;
Individual employees, including non-executive employees, whose activities may expose the firm to material amounts of risk (for example, traders with large position limits relative to the firm’s overall risk tolerance); and
Groups of employees who are subject to the same or similar incentive compensation arrangements and who, in the aggregate, may expose the firm to material amounts of risk, even if no individual employee is likely to expose the firm to material risk (for example, loan officers who, as a group, originate loans that account for a material amount of the organization’s credit risk).
6. How is this guidance related to recent work by international bodies like the Group of Twenty or the Financial Stability Board?
The guidance is consistent with the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) Principles for Sound Compensation Practices issued in April 2009 and with the FSB’s recent Implementation Standards. Both documents mention a number of possible methods of improving compensation arrangements for individual employees. The Federal Reserve will focus on whether compensation arrangements provide employees incentives to take excessive risks that could threaten the safety and soundness of the banking organization. The Federal Reserve will continue to work with representatives of other nations to achieve a level playing field with respect to compensation incentives.
***
Post from October 20, 2009: The Obama pay (don't call me) Czar -- or, rather the Special Master for Executive Compensation of the United States Treasury Department Kenneth Feinberg, said "No!" to retiring Chief Executive Officer of the Bank of America Corp. Kenneth D. Lewis would have earned approximately $2,500,000 in salary for 2009, of which $1,000,000 has already been paid, plus an earned bonus. Arbitrarily, Mr. Feinberg "suggested" Mr. Lewis forego it all and pay back the $1,000,000 already paid. With the mighty United States government at his throat, Mr. Lewis said, "OK" or words to that effect, adding that he didn't think it in his or his bank's best interests to engage in a battle with his "paymaster". Mr. Lewis will take with him his retirement of nearly $70 million (plus a bunch of stock earned and purchased over his 40-year career with the bank) that Mr. Feinberg thinks is quite enough. There is conflict already between the U. S. government and Mr. Lewis. Early on a supporter of the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TWERP), Mr. Lewis saved the government billions of dollars by buying up quickly-sinking Countrywide Financial, largest supplier of sub-prime loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Later, Mr. Lewis came to an agreement to save Merrill Lynch but upon finding its fincancial statements troubling, started stepping back when the Treasury Department bullied him into completing the purchase, again saving the government billions of dollars. Among other threats, the government apparently threatened Mr. Lewis with firing from the Bank of America after a stellar 40-year career if he didn't go through with it. Later the government secretly sanctioned the bank and stripped Mr. Lewis' board. Once feted as one of the best bankers in America, Mr. Lewis was brought down and personally humiliated by President Obama and one of his Czars, for doing exactly what they demanded. If everyone in this country isn't frightened by the arbitrariness and punitive hosility of the Obama administration toward business, and their overt and negative abuse of power, severely frightened, then they are mindless Democrats. Oh, did I say this move and humiliation was cheered by Obama's pet financier, the Service Employees International Union? Have no doubt the president is taking down companies at the bidding of his union bosses. Have no doubt.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Venture Capital Shrinking. Bad Omen for America
Venture capital is the fuel that has charged the growth and wealth of America, since it was "invented" by wealthy capitalists such as the Melons and the Rockefeller families. It was the glue that stuck together ambitious entrepreneurs; sources of risk capital whose owners were willing to lose in exchange for vast profit possibilities, a free marketplace of buyers both consumers and businesses; and innovation and invention. The wonderful changes to the world are countless. After "Japan Inc." was supposed to take over the world of commerce during the Democrat rein of Jimmy Carter and a U. S. of high taxes, oppressive rules and regulations, and killing inflation, President Reagan stopped Japan Inc. in its tracks by slashing taxes, loosening regulations and stepping out of the way, letting lucky and tenacious Americans seek the American Dream. And find it many did. To the huge betterment of the world. That world is going, going... Entrepreneurs and their workers can't get rich. So why start innovative companies? Competition is no longer in the free marketplace, it's in Washington, D.C. where success comes in your political ideology, who you know and who you pay. Sarbanes Oxeley's ridiculous attempt to legislate morality was Death Step 1. Election of anti-business Democrats to control the purse strings and legislation was Death Step 2. Election of a president who has never worked for a living, but lived off the fat of government is Death Step 3 and the last one. This time it's not Japan Inc. (In the '80's it wasn't either, it was our own attempted suicide, which Republicans averted.) but China, Inc. India, Inc. Etc, Inc. Well no, again it's our own Democrat-led suicide. R.I.P. AMERICA
News from the Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2009, page C 3, "Echoes on 16th Floor: Venture Capital Exits" discusses the demise of many regional venture capital funds, from Dallas to Seattle (where only two new funds raised $16,000,000 this year against $507,000,000 to five funds in 2006. Even New York only had a half a billion raised versus almost $2 billion in '06. Nationally, $8 billion was raised the first nine months of 2009, $1 billion by one person, Vinod Khosla (who's concentrating on the Democrats' "green industries" to get government funds in after his) compared to $30.5 billion in 2006.
While still active, investing almost $30 billion in 2008, venture capital firms have had lower exit payoffs, the fuel that drives the industry. Exit cash equalled $25 billion. Most partnerships last ten years, so this amount is troubling, but doesn't sound a death-knell as a jump in income taxes did for the industry in the 1970's. Then, also, Japan, Inc. was widely-publicized as shutting off the United States innovation. At the end of 2008 there were nearly 7,500 venture capital principals in 882 firms off from 8,900 in 1,019 firms a year previously. The virtual dearth of initial public offerings of venture capital-backed firms bodes ill for the future. U. S. Venture capital-backed companies are the most innovative and wealth-producing entities in the world over the fifty years since the "invention" of venture capital. American competitiveness, wealth- and job-creation may well greatly suffer in the future as a result.
Update: venture capital fell to a 13-year low during the second quarter of 2009. Only 25 funds raised $1,700,000,000, down from last year's $4,600,000,000.
News from the Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2009, page C 3, "Echoes on 16th Floor: Venture Capital Exits" discusses the demise of many regional venture capital funds, from Dallas to Seattle (where only two new funds raised $16,000,000 this year against $507,000,000 to five funds in 2006. Even New York only had a half a billion raised versus almost $2 billion in '06. Nationally, $8 billion was raised the first nine months of 2009, $1 billion by one person, Vinod Khosla (who's concentrating on the Democrats' "green industries" to get government funds in after his) compared to $30.5 billion in 2006.
While still active, investing almost $30 billion in 2008, venture capital firms have had lower exit payoffs, the fuel that drives the industry. Exit cash equalled $25 billion. Most partnerships last ten years, so this amount is troubling, but doesn't sound a death-knell as a jump in income taxes did for the industry in the 1970's. Then, also, Japan, Inc. was widely-publicized as shutting off the United States innovation. At the end of 2008 there were nearly 7,500 venture capital principals in 882 firms off from 8,900 in 1,019 firms a year previously. The virtual dearth of initial public offerings of venture capital-backed firms bodes ill for the future. U. S. Venture capital-backed companies are the most innovative and wealth-producing entities in the world over the fifty years since the "invention" of venture capital. American competitiveness, wealth- and job-creation may well greatly suffer in the future as a result.
Update: venture capital fell to a 13-year low during the second quarter of 2009. Only 25 funds raised $1,700,000,000, down from last year's $4,600,000,000.
U. S. Government Supports More Risky Business, Ignores Private Sector Solutions and History
Deja Vu All Over Again. Or, here we go again. Headline in Wall Street Journal, Front Page September 28, 2009: "$35 Billion Slated For Local Housing". Barney Fife (oops, Frank, chair...ummm...man of the House Financial Services committee) and his henchmen at ACORN, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac put this nation and the entire financial organization of the world at risk. He starting small by threatening banks to put up money so poor folks who couldn't afford to could "buy" houses. What exactly is the definition of "sub-prime"? He expanded that concept until Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were guaranteeing a trillion or two dollars worth of these sub-prime and marginal mortages. That expansion failed misearbly AND BARNEY BLAMED EVERONE BUT THE CAUSE: BARNEY FRANK and the U. S. is in a crippling recession with 17,000,000 unemployed by some accounts and in hock another $10,000,000,000,000 give or take. Now that failed, President Obama is "close" to commiting another taxpayer $35,000,000,000 to help those stupid "beleaguered state and local housing agencies" by giving them more dough to blow. These local government-operated housing finance agencies, such as ACORN's, need funding for these sub-sub-prime loans. So here comes Obama to ACORN's rescue. Well, I don't know if ACORN is now involved since its child-prostitution scandal, but it was. Oh, that man, Barney Fife (oops. Frank) was the author (or his henchmen were) of identical legislation earlier in the year.
This is the story of dangerous ignorance by the U. S. central bank, the Federal Reserve. The good news is the stock market is up 40% from March lows (as of June 3, 2009). The bad news is that the reason is a flood, no, tsunami, of dangerous market distorting and inflationary liquidy. Interest rates have crept up with the $900 billion expansion of the Fed's balance sheet, by its buying treasury and mortgage-backed (Fan and Fred) securities. Is it another balloon to burst? Stay tuned.
And now get this. U. S. Government financial regulators had concerns about the lack of banking and financial expertise of the Board of Directors of the Bank of America Corp. And so selected to be chairman is Walter Massey. Mr. Massey has no banking experience. None. He spent much of his career in academia. He was president of...the historically black men's college in Atlanta, Georgia, Morehouse College where he and current CEO Kenneth Lewis met while raising money for that institution. Let's see, he's black. Is he simply a politically-correct black body (who was on the boards of McDonald's Corp. and Motorola Inc. but I am sure "affirmative action" and "diversity" had nothing to do with this) thrown to molllify President Obama?
The government is supporting risky lending of General Electric Corp, parent of Obama-supporting NBC and CSNBC and MSNBC. Also wholly-owned sub, GE Capital is raising tens of billions of dollars guaranteed by the Obama government guarantee. $48,000,000,000 in longer-term debt and $20,00,000,000 in short-term commerical paper. Its guaranteed interest costs are far less than that of non-guaranteed debt, giving GE a leg up over many competitors.
And municipal debt? A part of Obama's so-called "stimulus" program pays 35% of state and local issued taxable debt's interest. "Build America Bonds" alters municipal debt from "subsidies to the wealthy" via interest free of federal income taxes for investors to obligations of, yes, U. S. taxpayers, the majority of which are the same wealthy people who used to buy tax-free municipal obligations. A double whammy on those targeted by Obama to equalize their wealth with the non-rich. It is said that this change may lead to "staggering costs" to the U. S. upwards of $25,000,000,000 over the next 30 years. But that's now pocket change to Obama.
The following is a tale of two stories. The first, a possible brilliant solution, from the private sector but one that doesn't garner votes for politicians and will take a long time to slog through. It makes sense and will be ignored by government: "INNOVATIVE BANK OFFERS A WAY OUT OF DEBT CYCLE", headline, front page Seattle Times, Sunday, May 24, 2009. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2009256799_expressbank24.html)
The other, "TAX CREDIT CAN BE BRIDGE TO NEW HOME", (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/realestate/2009254583_harney24a.html) Same Seattle Times paper, page E 1, Real Estate Section discusses people who don't have enough money to make a down payment on the purchase of a house being able to immediately monetize an $8,000 federal tax credit for first-time home purchasers. President Obama's Housing and Urban Development Departmetn's Secretary, Shaun Donovan, touted the Federal Housing Administration's change from prior practice. Yes, let's continue making it easy for people who can't afford houses into them. Democratic Congress Majority, President Obama, don't you get it? Are potential votes so important? This is exactly what caused the financial bust that has engulfed our economy! I'd guess that people who don't pay any federal income tax -- nearly 50% of the population will still be able receive this welfare check and put it up to buy a house they can't afford. FHA finances closing costs and other fees. Skin in the game? NOT! And now FHA insures one-third of all new mortgages, up from 2% in 2006.
And we elect these idiots?
Further proof is the article: "California is its own worst enemy" (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009256795_calanalysis24.html) which discusses where the United States of America is headed fast under the Democratic oligarchy. Required reading for those who won't read it and if they did they'd ignore it: Democrat politicians.
Can Congress be bought? A group of financial firms engaged a multimillion dollar lobbying effort to pursuade Congress to change an accounting issue which was at the heart of the financial "meltdown". "Mark to (no) Market", which forced the low valuation of mortgage-backed and similar securities when no explicit values were obtainable. The financial firms were forced to make huge write-offs which, they argued, were not reliable and, if given time to work out the sale of securities over time, would have been vastly higher. These write-offs arguably caused the crisis. Rep. Paul Kanjorski (DEMOCRAT from Pennsylvania) who heads the House Financial Services subcommittee got $18,500 and strongly pushed the revision by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Other Democrats were also "not bought', Reps. Perlmutter, Lucas, Ackerman and a Republican, but who cares about the minority? (Bachus of Alabama). Oh, yes the highly honest and reputable Rep. Barney Frank who heads the House Financial Services Committee, got his, too. Essentially, they threatened broadened oversight on FASB, causing three members to "threaten" resignation. Of course that was a hollow threat. And the institutions got the help their money bought.
This is the story of dangerous ignorance by the U. S. central bank, the Federal Reserve. The good news is the stock market is up 40% from March lows (as of June 3, 2009). The bad news is that the reason is a flood, no, tsunami, of dangerous market distorting and inflationary liquidy. Interest rates have crept up with the $900 billion expansion of the Fed's balance sheet, by its buying treasury and mortgage-backed (Fan and Fred) securities. Is it another balloon to burst? Stay tuned.
And now get this. U. S. Government financial regulators had concerns about the lack of banking and financial expertise of the Board of Directors of the Bank of America Corp. And so selected to be chairman is Walter Massey. Mr. Massey has no banking experience. None. He spent much of his career in academia. He was president of...the historically black men's college in Atlanta, Georgia, Morehouse College where he and current CEO Kenneth Lewis met while raising money for that institution. Let's see, he's black. Is he simply a politically-correct black body (who was on the boards of McDonald's Corp. and Motorola Inc. but I am sure "affirmative action" and "diversity" had nothing to do with this) thrown to molllify President Obama?
The government is supporting risky lending of General Electric Corp, parent of Obama-supporting NBC and CSNBC and MSNBC. Also wholly-owned sub, GE Capital is raising tens of billions of dollars guaranteed by the Obama government guarantee. $48,000,000,000 in longer-term debt and $20,00,000,000 in short-term commerical paper. Its guaranteed interest costs are far less than that of non-guaranteed debt, giving GE a leg up over many competitors.
And municipal debt? A part of Obama's so-called "stimulus" program pays 35% of state and local issued taxable debt's interest. "Build America Bonds" alters municipal debt from "subsidies to the wealthy" via interest free of federal income taxes for investors to obligations of, yes, U. S. taxpayers, the majority of which are the same wealthy people who used to buy tax-free municipal obligations. A double whammy on those targeted by Obama to equalize their wealth with the non-rich. It is said that this change may lead to "staggering costs" to the U. S. upwards of $25,000,000,000 over the next 30 years. But that's now pocket change to Obama.
The following is a tale of two stories. The first, a possible brilliant solution, from the private sector but one that doesn't garner votes for politicians and will take a long time to slog through. It makes sense and will be ignored by government: "INNOVATIVE BANK OFFERS A WAY OUT OF DEBT CYCLE", headline, front page Seattle Times, Sunday, May 24, 2009. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2009256799_expressbank24.html)
The other, "TAX CREDIT CAN BE BRIDGE TO NEW HOME", (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/realestate/2009254583_harney24a.html) Same Seattle Times paper, page E 1, Real Estate Section discusses people who don't have enough money to make a down payment on the purchase of a house being able to immediately monetize an $8,000 federal tax credit for first-time home purchasers. President Obama's Housing and Urban Development Departmetn's Secretary, Shaun Donovan, touted the Federal Housing Administration's change from prior practice. Yes, let's continue making it easy for people who can't afford houses into them. Democratic Congress Majority, President Obama, don't you get it? Are potential votes so important? This is exactly what caused the financial bust that has engulfed our economy! I'd guess that people who don't pay any federal income tax -- nearly 50% of the population will still be able receive this welfare check and put it up to buy a house they can't afford. FHA finances closing costs and other fees. Skin in the game? NOT! And now FHA insures one-third of all new mortgages, up from 2% in 2006.
And we elect these idiots?
Further proof is the article: "California is its own worst enemy" (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2009256795_calanalysis24.html) which discusses where the United States of America is headed fast under the Democratic oligarchy. Required reading for those who won't read it and if they did they'd ignore it: Democrat politicians.
Can Congress be bought? A group of financial firms engaged a multimillion dollar lobbying effort to pursuade Congress to change an accounting issue which was at the heart of the financial "meltdown". "Mark to (no) Market", which forced the low valuation of mortgage-backed and similar securities when no explicit values were obtainable. The financial firms were forced to make huge write-offs which, they argued, were not reliable and, if given time to work out the sale of securities over time, would have been vastly higher. These write-offs arguably caused the crisis. Rep. Paul Kanjorski (DEMOCRAT from Pennsylvania) who heads the House Financial Services subcommittee got $18,500 and strongly pushed the revision by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). Other Democrats were also "not bought', Reps. Perlmutter, Lucas, Ackerman and a Republican, but who cares about the minority? (Bachus of Alabama). Oh, yes the highly honest and reputable Rep. Barney Frank who heads the House Financial Services Committee, got his, too. Essentially, they threatened broadened oversight on FASB, causing three members to "threaten" resignation. Of course that was a hollow threat. And the institutions got the help their money bought.
China Eats the United States for Lunch
And thank you, President Barack Obama for letting the fox (not news!) into the hen house. Obama's General Motors has sold its Hummer SUV brand and dealer network to Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Co., the first time a Chinese vehicle company has been able to offer a product made in the U. S. GM will make the vehicles until 2012, when the Chinese buyer will take over. The price? A nominal $150,000,000, but its sales are off 64% this year, so a turnaround will be needed. A new HQ will be centered in Detroit or nearby. If nothing else the long-term thinking Chinese will learn how to do it. It probably would have been smarter to forego both the $150,000,000 and the upcoming competition.
With vast wealth and natural resources at its 60th birthday, China is stepping up and out of the shadows. It is establishing stock markets for emerging companies, invests in private and public equity, and U. S. government securities, of which it is the largest owner. And now it is establishing an internal marketplace to trade commodities, opposing the U. S. presently by far the most important. Believing it can keep its costs down and gain some control, initially for the $130,000,000,000 of its imported oil. Sometime in 2010, the Shanghai Futures Exchange may compete with the New York Mercantile Exchange, the dominant international price setter for light, sweet crude today.
And while President Barack Obama is borrowing $3,000,000,000 likely from the Chinese government to buy and destroy 700,000 useable automobiles and light trucks (that poor people could use, in the "Cash for Clunkers" fiasco) China is investing that money into raw materials, natural resources and real estate. It's buying into Kazakhstan's second largest oil producer for $1,00,000,000 for 11% of KazMunaiGasExploratioin Production.
September 29: Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing -- the stock exchange -- is getting more and more initial public offerings (IPOs) at the expense of the U. S. UC Rusal, Russian aluminum giant is looking for a $30,000,000,000 valuation. U. S.-based Wynn Resorts and Las Vegas Sands and others are looking. American rules and regulations among other things turn companies off. And on October 1, Wynn Macau Ltd. raised $1,600,000,000 selling stock at the high-end of expectations with strong demand. Sorry, New York Stock Exchange.
The Unites States' markets for initial public offerings is open (a shadow of what it once was, but open). Taking advantage of it is...China. One-third of the U. S. initial public offerings -- 1/3! -- have been Chinese/Asian companies.
Well now even French President Nicolas Sarkozy is jumping off the dollar bandwagon saying it can't remain the world's only reserve currency. Obama's exploding debt is fingered as the threat to the American dollar.
Interesting, U. S.-based Duke Energy Corp., has signed a deal with China Huaneng Group to develop the clean coal technology that is anathema to the Obama Administration's special interest envoronmental backers. The "integrated gasification combined cycle systems" produce about 20% less carbon than conventional pulverized coal plants. Let China do it, not the arm-tied U. S.
July 13: China State Construction Engineering Corp. is on track to raise nearly $6 billion in what would be the largest sale of stock in the world so far during 2009 eclipsing Brazil's Visa-Net's $4.3 billion last month. But in actuality on July 23 it raised $7,340,000,000.
July 8, China admitted that it wants Opel for the technology it can gain from the General Motors affiliate. Question will be, will Obama let GM sell Opel to a Chinese company? GM wants it, but Opel would be a major Chinese-government-supported competitor in U.S.-government-supported GM's only growing market, China, which has become the largest market for autos in the world. Will Obama allow China to reap GM's technology and perhaps ultimately win in China to GM's losing, costing the U.S. huge monetary losses and Obama's United Auto Workers union large job losses? Important business questions for a man who knows nothing about business!
Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Co., plans to make a bid for GM's Opel and Vauxhall unit in competition to Russia's Magna International (backed by Sberbank Rossia and OAO Gaz Group). And interestingly enough GM said (July 2, 2009) its first-half 2009 sales to China rose 38%, over 800,000 cars. In January China cut the purchase tax on small cars by half (to 5%) as the Obama Administration is considering increasing its tariff on Chinese-made tires 55%.
Obama's GM is faced with choosing between China and Russia to buy its majority interest in Opel and its UK sister, Vauxhall. China wants GM's engine technology. If it wins, it'll compete in China with virtually-identical products.
China is pushing "reform" of the international currency system to make it more diversified and less reliant on the (un-named) dollar. Although apparently ignored by President Obama and his co-owners the labor union bosses, if China succeeds, and it is by far not the only nation wanting such a change, the U. S. dollar could be at risk as well as dangerous to the ability of the U. S. government to borrow the trillions needed for the Democrats' re-architecting the entire U. S. economy. And perhaps at the margin, a chance for a quasi-bankruptcy of the U. S. Government.
With vast wealth and natural resources at its 60th birthday, China is stepping up and out of the shadows. It is establishing stock markets for emerging companies, invests in private and public equity, and U. S. government securities, of which it is the largest owner. And now it is establishing an internal marketplace to trade commodities, opposing the U. S. presently by far the most important. Believing it can keep its costs down and gain some control, initially for the $130,000,000,000 of its imported oil. Sometime in 2010, the Shanghai Futures Exchange may compete with the New York Mercantile Exchange, the dominant international price setter for light, sweet crude today.
And while President Barack Obama is borrowing $3,000,000,000 likely from the Chinese government to buy and destroy 700,000 useable automobiles and light trucks (that poor people could use, in the "Cash for Clunkers" fiasco) China is investing that money into raw materials, natural resources and real estate. It's buying into Kazakhstan's second largest oil producer for $1,00,000,000 for 11% of KazMunaiGasExploratioin Production.
September 29: Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing -- the stock exchange -- is getting more and more initial public offerings (IPOs) at the expense of the U. S. UC Rusal, Russian aluminum giant is looking for a $30,000,000,000 valuation. U. S.-based Wynn Resorts and Las Vegas Sands and others are looking. American rules and regulations among other things turn companies off. And on October 1, Wynn Macau Ltd. raised $1,600,000,000 selling stock at the high-end of expectations with strong demand. Sorry, New York Stock Exchange.
The Unites States' markets for initial public offerings is open (a shadow of what it once was, but open). Taking advantage of it is...China. One-third of the U. S. initial public offerings -- 1/3! -- have been Chinese/Asian companies.
Well now even French President Nicolas Sarkozy is jumping off the dollar bandwagon saying it can't remain the world's only reserve currency. Obama's exploding debt is fingered as the threat to the American dollar.
Interesting, U. S.-based Duke Energy Corp., has signed a deal with China Huaneng Group to develop the clean coal technology that is anathema to the Obama Administration's special interest envoronmental backers. The "integrated gasification combined cycle systems" produce about 20% less carbon than conventional pulverized coal plants. Let China do it, not the arm-tied U. S.
China is the world's largest holder of foreign-exchange reserves with $2, 132,00,000,000 by June 30, 2009. The United States government is relying on China to loan it money to monetize its unprecedented deficits. To do so, China is demanding -- and getting -- from the U. S. inflation-protected securities. Huge deficits coupled with the continued easy money typically creates huge inflation as it did in the U. S. before Ronald Reagan's presidency. With inflation interest rates spike and bond prices fall. If interest rates increase on outstanding bonds, those bonds do not lose value. These are "Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities" ("TIPS"). This week Treasury will sell a record $75,000,000,000 of them. Interest payments at, say, 3% of $75,000,000,000 are $2,250,000,000 a year. Just after Reagan was inaugurated the policies of Democratic president Jimmy Carter caused interest rates to hit a high (10-year maturities) of 14.3% -- Fourteen and three-tenths per cent. The above-mentioned $75,000,000,000 of securities would force the U. S. government to fork over -- GET PREPARED TO PANIC --$10,750,00,000 a year to China, perhaps Russia, perhaps India. $10 and three-quarters billion each and every year. Think about this.
CHINA TO LAUNCH START-UPS MARKET
(The Latest Comments Are On Top)
China has adopted many free-enterprise components of its economy invented in the U. S. And China is growing, unlike most of the rest of the world. While the U. S. under Democrats in general and President Obama specifically is guiding the U. S. onto central economic command and control and nationalization of key industries, China is doing the opposite (as now is much of formerly-socialist Europe). Obama is a decade or two behind. The comments below discuss this from a variety of sources. _______________________________________________________________________________________
July 15, "I saw the end of Detroit." So Frank Zhao left as a Chrysler senior engineer and went to work for Geely Holding Group, one of China's best-selling automobile brands. Geely is in the bidding for Ford's Volvo brand. And has the U. S. in it sights for export in the next few years. Geely grew in sales in 2008 and so far in 2009.July 13: China State Construction Engineering Corp. is on track to raise nearly $6 billion in what would be the largest sale of stock in the world so far during 2009 eclipsing Brazil's Visa-Net's $4.3 billion last month. But in actuality on July 23 it raised $7,340,000,000.
July 8, China admitted that it wants Opel for the technology it can gain from the General Motors affiliate. Question will be, will Obama let GM sell Opel to a Chinese company? GM wants it, but Opel would be a major Chinese-government-supported competitor in U.S.-government-supported GM's only growing market, China, which has become the largest market for autos in the world. Will Obama allow China to reap GM's technology and perhaps ultimately win in China to GM's losing, costing the U.S. huge monetary losses and Obama's United Auto Workers union large job losses? Important business questions for a man who knows nothing about business!
Beijing Automotive Industry Holding Co., plans to make a bid for GM's Opel and Vauxhall unit in competition to Russia's Magna International (backed by Sberbank Rossia and OAO Gaz Group). And interestingly enough GM said (July 2, 2009) its first-half 2009 sales to China rose 38%, over 800,000 cars. In January China cut the purchase tax on small cars by half (to 5%) as the Obama Administration is considering increasing its tariff on Chinese-made tires 55%.
Obama's GM is faced with choosing between China and Russia to buy its majority interest in Opel and its UK sister, Vauxhall. China wants GM's engine technology. If it wins, it'll compete in China with virtually-identical products.
China is pushing "reform" of the international currency system to make it more diversified and less reliant on the (un-named) dollar. Although apparently ignored by President Obama and his co-owners the labor union bosses, if China succeeds, and it is by far not the only nation wanting such a change, the U. S. dollar could be at risk as well as dangerous to the ability of the U. S. government to borrow the trillions needed for the Democrats' re-architecting the entire U. S. economy. And perhaps at the margin, a chance for a quasi-bankruptcy of the U. S. Government.
June 25, 2009, the China-owned oil company, Sinopec Group, agreed to acquire Canadian Addax Petroleum adding to its widespread purchasing of natural resources around the world. (This for $7,000,000,000.) While Democrats in the U. S. tie the hands of oil exploration, China is grabbing what it can at today's distressed prices.
A article May 26, 2009, indicated that the stock market in China for new-share issues described below is set to resume.
"Chinasdaq"?
If an article ever underlines the wrongheadedness of our government over the past decade and especially right now, it is this one: "China Takes Caution With Start-Ups Market" (The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, March 5, 2009, page C2 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123616846094028661.html). While our country is doing everything it can to diminish our capital markets and fill them with useless, expensive regulations (not to mention negative rhetoric), for nine years China has been researching and preparing to launch a Nasdaq-style stock market for start-up companies. Make no mistake, America, it has been the easy flow of capital from individuals and institutions to businesses that has been the building block to American dominance in innovation, entrepreneurship, creation of wealth (for the world) and freedom. Although this article discusses a delay in its launch for higher-risk companies, have no doubt: it is coming. And while we are asking, "Has Obama Buried Reagan?" (in today's The Wall Street Journal Opinion, page A15 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621098187034487.html ) with "Reagan" being a proxy for the free-enterprise system and capitalism, China is taking great strides exactly creating what we are "burying". Clearly the leaders of China are smarter and more far-thinking than those we have elected recently. President Obama thinks the stock market is like an opinion poll and throws out embarassingly ignorant terms such as "profit and income ratios". It is ironic that an apparent Communist country is embracing the successful tenets of capitalism while an apparent capitalist country is embracing the failed tenet of Communism which is central planning. Perhaps it indicates the merit of quasi-dictatorships or oligarchies, or whatever China is, as opposed to democracy where the votes of the masses can be bought by policies that ultimately harm them. While I certainly know little about China, this article is profoundly disturbing to me, a former venture capitalist, who understands the overwhelming merits of capitalism, with all its human warts, in bringing an end to poverty and uplifting the lives of millions of people. Unfortunately, it seems apparent that embracing capitalism does not get Democrats elected and that is all they seem to want.
If an article ever underlines the wrongheadedness of our government over the past decade and especially right now, it is this one: "China Takes Caution With Start-Ups Market" (The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, March 5, 2009, page C2 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123616846094028661.html). While our country is doing everything it can to diminish our capital markets and fill them with useless, expensive regulations (not to mention negative rhetoric), for nine years China has been researching and preparing to launch a Nasdaq-style stock market for start-up companies. Make no mistake, America, it has been the easy flow of capital from individuals and institutions to businesses that has been the building block to American dominance in innovation, entrepreneurship, creation of wealth (for the world) and freedom. Although this article discusses a delay in its launch for higher-risk companies, have no doubt: it is coming. And while we are asking, "Has Obama Buried Reagan?" (in today's The Wall Street Journal Opinion, page A15 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621098187034487.html ) with "Reagan" being a proxy for the free-enterprise system and capitalism, China is taking great strides exactly creating what we are "burying". Clearly the leaders of China are smarter and more far-thinking than those we have elected recently. President Obama thinks the stock market is like an opinion poll and throws out embarassingly ignorant terms such as "profit and income ratios". It is ironic that an apparent Communist country is embracing the successful tenets of capitalism while an apparent capitalist country is embracing the failed tenet of Communism which is central planning. Perhaps it indicates the merit of quasi-dictatorships or oligarchies, or whatever China is, as opposed to democracy where the votes of the masses can be bought by policies that ultimately harm them. While I certainly know little about China, this article is profoundly disturbing to me, a former venture capitalist, who understands the overwhelming merits of capitalism, with all its human warts, in bringing an end to poverty and uplifting the lives of millions of people. Unfortunately, it seems apparent that embracing capitalism does not get Democrats elected and that is all they seem to want.
Oh, did I mention that China is expecting economic growth -- growth -- of about 8% this year - 2009. It is holding off on any financial stimulous after November's $585 billion, to see how that fares. Seems prudent, unlike the political "stimulous" -- essentially to elect and re-reelect Democrats n 2010 and forever beyond. Obama and the Democrats are deaf and blind to the threat of the China Government. Holder of something like $500 billion of U. S. Treasury securities -- some say as high as two-thirds of China's $1.9 trillion foreign-exchange reserves are U.S. Government debt (roughly $1.2 trillion) -- China recently (Friday the 13th of March, 2009?) expressed concern about the safety of U.S. government debt and called upon America to guarantee its safety (which of course it has be simply issuing it!). Let's see, there is publicly held around $6.6 trillion of U. S. debt and it's on a course to grow by up to $4 trillion from Obama's Elect Democrats in 2010 "stimulus" bill, not counting $5.3 trillion of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac liabilities. All this is cash from somewhere that must be loaned to the United States of America.
There is a follow-up article, "Venue for Start-Ups Begins to Jell in China" (WSJ April 1, 2009, page C2.) The creation of this potential future threat to NASDAQ, (China's Growth Enterprise Market -- GEM --) but more importantly, the threat to the United States' virtual monopoly on venture capital and early-stage entrepreneural companies doesn't seem to be understood, especially in the Obama administration which seems to view NASDAQ as a gambling parlor. The GEM could be launched as early as June 2009. America take note.
As I have written about Obama, he promised us CHANGE and is delivering us CHAINS held by the Chinese Government. Is it planned to destroy capitalism or only ignorance, or perhaps a lack of experience, on his part?
And the question of the day, "Where are the three of the five most valuable (by market capitalization March 2009) companies located?"
U. S. ? No
European Union? No
Japan? No
China? Well, of course. PetroChina (#2), China Mobile (#4, but #1 Mobile Telecom company) and Commercial Bank of China (#5 and the world's biggest bank)
The other two, Exxon Mobil (#1) and U. S. union-hated Wal-Mart (#3) are U. S. based. In 1999 four of the top companies were U. S. based. Go America!
An article of June 12 ("Chinese Car-Parts Makers Expand" WSJ, page B 2) describes China's auto-parts industry as thriving while, of course, that of the United States is as bankrupt as GM and Chrysler. China is emerging as the world's number one market for light vehicles which, of course, creates a vast manufacturing market for parts. And it is selling to the world, with quality that is increasing. This year China is expected to pass Japan as the world's largest vehicle manufacturing country. President Obama, as you are protecting your unions at the expense of American tax payers, you are letting China eat our lunch in cars and parts.
Superamerican
The Whirling Dervish to Failure
Where to start. The most inexperienced president in U. S. history is acting...inexperienced. He is under the delusional assumption that activity, whirl, equates to achievement. Since before he was inaugurated, this president has been whirling around touching every corner of these United States with the aim of "change", to transform the United States of America into his vision. Change for change's sake, or maybe change for power's sake. To the four corners of the world, he delivers emotional, charasmatic words. It is the typical activity of someone with little self-confidence. Truly I believe Barack Obama never thought he'd get so far so fast. And he's suffering from "rock star syndrome" by which youthful individuals rise in popularity rapidly, beyond their experience level and certainly beyond their emotional level. I believe Mr. Obama knows he didn't earn the presidency, Nobel Peach Price notwithstanding, or perhaps withstanding! Whirling Dervish of activity: buy a bank here, an insurance company there, a car company over there in Michigan, whirl, don't stop. He can't stop himself. Satisfy the extreme left wing which financed your election. Manage the information to the vast middle of America, the independents who actually cast the overwhelming votes to elect him. Set the Antitrusters on Google, IBM. Bail out the Autoworkers Union, the Steelworkers. Dismiss any thought of tort reform and push for forced unionization. Oh, save the world by a $787,000,000,000 "stimulus" that, in retrospect stimulated very little. (Except: The Transportation Department's inspector general is asking why nearly $30,000,000 of this dough is heading to Akiachak and Ouzinkie, Alaska, courtesy of the Federal Aviation Administration, which gets to blow $1,100,000,000. Let's see? Inexperience.)
Seek the chimera, the brass ring, the golden fleece (appropriate) of healthcare "reform" where others have failed. Whirl.
Your $3,500,000,000 budget must have taken a little time, whirl.
And $33,000,000,000 annual expansion in the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), whirl.
$330,400,000,000 to rescue big banks, whirl.
Timmy, be a doll and get the debt ceiling lifted to $12,100,000,000,000, but keep Fannie and Freddie, Medicare and Medicaid off the books, whirl.
A trillion for a healthcare monopoly, whirl.
Energy? capit, tradeit, and taxit, damnit. Whirl, a trillion or two more.
Speaking of the "Stimulus" $787,000,000,000 -- not much has really been spent so far -- that is the good news -- but most has been used to finance local and state budget deficits, road repavings (FDR built dams, which of course liberals want removed, Eisenhower build the interstates, Obama is building, oops filling, potholes) little is for actual, useful infrastructure, that'd take too long, whirl. Mostly the "stimulus" is, as I wrote earlier ("Elect Democrats in 2010 Act passed" 2/12/2009) to re-elect Democrats in 2010 and 2012.
So, president Obama, what was the goal here? To see how much money you could toss into the air? Well, looks as though you couldn't even do that well with under 10% of the "stimulus" money going out to stimulate the economy before it rights itself in 2010, but no doubt your propaganda machine will take credit for all of it, whirl.
It is to generate campaign contributions from corporations threatened by your central steering of the economy? Well, here you are doing great. But this is only stimulating the re-election of the Democrats. (In the first half of 2009 AT&T and Verizon, two corporations threatened with antitrust put up nearly $20,000,000 in lobbying money. My guess? Mostly to Democrats.)
Seek the chimera, the brass ring, the golden fleece (appropriate) of healthcare "reform" where others have failed. Whirl.
Your $3,500,000,000 budget must have taken a little time, whirl.
And $33,000,000,000 annual expansion in the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), whirl.
$330,400,000,000 to rescue big banks, whirl.
Timmy, be a doll and get the debt ceiling lifted to $12,100,000,000,000, but keep Fannie and Freddie, Medicare and Medicaid off the books, whirl.
A trillion for a healthcare monopoly, whirl.
Energy? capit, tradeit, and taxit, damnit. Whirl, a trillion or two more.
Speaking of the "Stimulus" $787,000,000,000 -- not much has really been spent so far -- that is the good news -- but most has been used to finance local and state budget deficits, road repavings (FDR built dams, which of course liberals want removed, Eisenhower build the interstates, Obama is building, oops filling, potholes) little is for actual, useful infrastructure, that'd take too long, whirl. Mostly the "stimulus" is, as I wrote earlier ("Elect Democrats in 2010 Act passed" 2/12/2009) to re-elect Democrats in 2010 and 2012.
So, president Obama, what was the goal here? To see how much money you could toss into the air? Well, looks as though you couldn't even do that well with under 10% of the "stimulus" money going out to stimulate the economy before it rights itself in 2010, but no doubt your propaganda machine will take credit for all of it, whirl.
It is to generate campaign contributions from corporations threatened by your central steering of the economy? Well, here you are doing great. But this is only stimulating the re-election of the Democrats. (In the first half of 2009 AT&T and Verizon, two corporations threatened with antitrust put up nearly $20,000,000 in lobbying money. My guess? Mostly to Democrats.)
Friday, October 9, 2009
OBAMA'S INTERNATIONAL SURRENDER
President Barack Obama of the United States of America is surrendering America's free enterprise system to the vagaries of international central control. At his initiative the so-called Group of Eight ("G-8" Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States; in addition, the European Union is represented within the G8, but cannot host or chair) "most-developed countries" will cater to those less-developed ones, becoming the Group of Twenty ("G-20" adding Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea and Turkey) to become the permanent council of international economic cooperation. The new entity is to reduce their dependency on the United States consumer and encourage it to reduce its debt; it wants China to increase its domestic markets; and Europe to encourage investment. Each country would assess other countries' achievements, a "peer review" of "sustainable growth". If recent history is any lesson, President Obama will be the first to give in and weaken the U. S.
Friday, October 2, 2009
STIMULUS SPENDING DOESN'T WORK
A Harvard University professor of economics has a working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research that shows no evidence of a Keynesian 'multiplier' effect. Keynes' assertions from nearly 75 years ago are the foundation of Democrats' massive spending of U. S. taxpayers' monies to try to control the normal ups and downs of an economic cycle. See the entire article in the Wall Street Journal, Thursday, October 1, 2009, page A 23. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.html]
As it has for years, Keynes' and the Democrats' contention that government spending helps recessions and depressions has been proven false. But never to worry about facts and truths, President Obama spends, spends and spends money he has to borrow from China. And, like the Cash for Clunkers, is gone with no tails of success.
It has also been proven without a non-political doubt that tax cuts incent growth.
But no matter, Democrats will do anything, anything to get reelected and gain and retain power, raw power over others.
Finally, politicians should simply admit the truth: that they are essentially powerless to control economic cycles and that citizens should be prepared for them to occur once in a while by having some savings and manageable debt levels.
A Harvard University professor of economics has a working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research that shows no evidence of a Keynesian 'multiplier' effect. Keynes' assertions from nearly 75 years ago are the foundation of Democrats' massive spending of U. S. taxpayers' monies to try to control the normal ups and downs of an economic cycle. See the entire article in the Wall Street Journal, Thursday, October 1, 2009, page A 23. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574440723298786310.html]
As it has for years, Keynes' and the Democrats' contention that government spending helps recessions and depressions has been proven false. But never to worry about facts and truths, President Obama spends, spends and spends money he has to borrow from China. And, like the Cash for Clunkers, is gone with no tails of success.
It has also been proven without a non-political doubt that tax cuts incent growth.
But no matter, Democrats will do anything, anything to get reelected and gain and retain power, raw power over others.
Finally, politicians should simply admit the truth: that they are essentially powerless to control economic cycles and that citizens should be prepared for them to occur once in a while by having some savings and manageable debt levels.
Energy? Capit, Tradeit and Taxit, Damnit.
And yes central control and command of an economy leads to...disaster. Most of the U. S. Government-"sponsored" (through mandates, directives and subsidies paid for by U. S. Taxpayers) Ethanol producers have gone broke. Now a new batch of "green" (for money) entrepreneurs are getting the shuttered plants on the cheap and turning them into biobutanol, a plant-based fuel that also can be blended into gasoline (with mandates, directives and subsidies paid for by U. S. taxpayers) and used to make plastic products like water bottles. And yes, the market is driven by bureaucrats and Congresspeople in Washington, District of Columbia.
ENERGY? This isn't about power for energy, it's about power over others by Democrats. Cap and Trade, the Waxman Markey (That's Henry Democrat from California and Ed Democrat from Massachusetts) climate change (nee Global Warming) bill: Capit, Tradeit and Taxit, Damnit. A new oil industry study indicates the proposed bill would reduce refining capacity in the U. S. by 17% necessitating buying another nearly 20% of oil from other countries by 2030.
Or get this. President Obams's far-left Secretary of the Interior, Kenny Salazar (apparently an Hispanic) apparently recently announced he'd cover one thousand square miles of virgin U. S. territory with those environmentally-sensitive and attractive solar collectors. Nevada, Arizona, California, New Mexico and Utah. Where are the "environmentalists?" Now let's go with bird-killing wind turbines. Fifty stories high. Can't you envision their beauty covering the hills and canyons of America? Whirling and killing? Well, to start Secretary Salazar wants 186,000 of them (according to this Wall Street Journal OpEd by Lamar Alexander, September 17, 2009, page A 21, "Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy") to cover a space the size of Rhode Island. And to get all that energy somewhere 19,000 miles of high-voltage wires will snake around, through and over the plains of America. Teddy Roosevelt would no doubt be proud, or puking. And, yes, as with everything Obama, it's all non-emitting and free. God Bless the President.
Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that the U. S. wind turbine farm industry kills 75,000 to 275,000 birds a year. ExxonMobil killed with its pollutants 85 birds which were protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. $600,000. PacifiCorp, Portland OR, paid $1.4 million for electrocuting 232 eagles. Over Altamont pass its wind farm gets a pass, killing 80 Golden Eagles a year and possibly another 10,000 mirgrating birds. If the U. S. can squeeze 20% of energy from wind in 20 years, it can be expected to kill 300,000 birds. [That's one bird per megawatt of power. Those killing megawatts are ten times then megawattage produced now.] if the Democrats want it, it's OK, regardless of laws.
But further in this article, wake up America! The amount of land required to produce one million megawatt-hours of energy, enough for 90,000 homes, from various sources:
Nuclear - one square mile
Geothermal - 3
Coal - 4
Solar - 6
Wind - 30
Ethanol and Biodiesel - 500
Oops, those pesky facts.
ENERGY? This isn't about power for energy, it's about power over others by Democrats. Cap and Trade, the Waxman Markey (That's Henry Democrat from California and Ed Democrat from Massachusetts) climate change (nee Global Warming) bill: Capit, Tradeit and Taxit, Damnit. A new oil industry study indicates the proposed bill would reduce refining capacity in the U. S. by 17% necessitating buying another nearly 20% of oil from other countries by 2030.
Or get this. President Obams's far-left Secretary of the Interior, Kenny Salazar (apparently an Hispanic) apparently recently announced he'd cover one thousand square miles of virgin U. S. territory with those environmentally-sensitive and attractive solar collectors. Nevada, Arizona, California, New Mexico and Utah. Where are the "environmentalists?" Now let's go with bird-killing wind turbines. Fifty stories high. Can't you envision their beauty covering the hills and canyons of America? Whirling and killing? Well, to start Secretary Salazar wants 186,000 of them (according to this Wall Street Journal OpEd by Lamar Alexander, September 17, 2009, page A 21, "Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy") to cover a space the size of Rhode Island. And to get all that energy somewhere 19,000 miles of high-voltage wires will snake around, through and over the plains of America. Teddy Roosevelt would no doubt be proud, or puking. And, yes, as with everything Obama, it's all non-emitting and free. God Bless the President.
Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that the U. S. wind turbine farm industry kills 75,000 to 275,000 birds a year. ExxonMobil killed with its pollutants 85 birds which were protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. $600,000. PacifiCorp, Portland OR, paid $1.4 million for electrocuting 232 eagles. Over Altamont pass its wind farm gets a pass, killing 80 Golden Eagles a year and possibly another 10,000 mirgrating birds. If the U. S. can squeeze 20% of energy from wind in 20 years, it can be expected to kill 300,000 birds. [That's one bird per megawatt of power. Those killing megawatts are ten times then megawattage produced now.] if the Democrats want it, it's OK, regardless of laws.
But further in this article, wake up America! The amount of land required to produce one million megawatt-hours of energy, enough for 90,000 homes, from various sources:
Nuclear - one square mile
Geothermal - 3
Coal - 4
Solar - 6
Wind - 30
Ethanol and Biodiesel - 500
Oops, those pesky facts.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Obama sold out frugal consumers for his union bosses financiers
At almost midnight, Friday, September 11, 2009, timed while the country was sleeping, President Obama signed a prohibitive 35% tariff on low-cost Chinese tires. The result will be jobs lost, and prices greatly increased on tires. This directly punishes the middle class and those lower on the economic ladder: frugal consumers. And it rewards the union bosses who financed his election. When push came to shove, the President of the United States of America supported those few union bosses who paid for his election with workers' union dues and turned his back on the many who are financially struggling in part as a result of his policies. It shows what kind of a man the president is....And China is threatening retaliation against U. S. chickens and auto parts. Mr. Obama is continuing to make America mediocre -- the country that championed free international trade that brought millions of human beings out of abject poverty.
A Web posting somewhere by Doug Palmer, Reuters:
Obama is hampering trade with policies like his embargo on Chinese tires
Trade policies pursued by President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress since the start of the year could lead to the loss of 585,800 U.S. jobs, a study said on Tuesday (September 15,2009). The study done for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce attributed almost two-thirds of the potential job losses, or 383,400, to Congress’ failure to approve free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea. Passing the two agreements and a third pact with Panama should be part of a national plan to double U.S. exports over the next five years, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue told reporters in a conference call. "A major surge in exports is our best path out of a recession, out of double-digit unemployment and the exploding deficits we’re now experiencing," Donohue said.
And: China on Tuesday invoked defense of its "public morals" in appealing a World Trade Organization ruling against restrictions on distribution of Hollywood movies and other Western media, according to a copy of the appeal reviewed by The Wall Street Journal (September 22, 2009). The move reflects escalating trade tensions between the two major trade partners ahead of the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh this week.
And on September 24, the United Steelworkers union in conjunction with three paper companies leveraging its success with its beholden President of the United States, filed another antidumping case against China and Indonesia, this time with shiny, coated paper. Obama is supporting the kind of trade wars that caused the Great Depression. Have at it Mr. President you sold out frugal tire consumers, now sell out the United States, for union bosses cash.
A Web posting somewhere by Doug Palmer, Reuters:
Obama is hampering trade with policies like his embargo on Chinese tires
Trade policies pursued by President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress since the start of the year could lead to the loss of 585,800 U.S. jobs, a study said on Tuesday (September 15,2009). The study done for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce attributed almost two-thirds of the potential job losses, or 383,400, to Congress’ failure to approve free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea. Passing the two agreements and a third pact with Panama should be part of a national plan to double U.S. exports over the next five years, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue told reporters in a conference call. "A major surge in exports is our best path out of a recession, out of double-digit unemployment and the exploding deficits we’re now experiencing," Donohue said.
And: China on Tuesday invoked defense of its "public morals" in appealing a World Trade Organization ruling against restrictions on distribution of Hollywood movies and other Western media, according to a copy of the appeal reviewed by The Wall Street Journal (September 22, 2009). The move reflects escalating trade tensions between the two major trade partners ahead of the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh this week.
And on September 24, the United Steelworkers union in conjunction with three paper companies leveraging its success with its beholden President of the United States, filed another antidumping case against China and Indonesia, this time with shiny, coated paper. Obama is supporting the kind of trade wars that caused the Great Depression. Have at it Mr. President you sold out frugal tire consumers, now sell out the United States, for union bosses cash.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Racism
Racism is an animosity toward other races, or a belief in racial superiority. Prejudice is an irrational, ill-informed dislike of somebody typically with the opinion formed earlier. Discrimination: unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race. In the United States, free speech is (or) was protected by the U. S. Constitution, and I assume thought, too. Therefore I'd argue that racism is protected under the Constitution. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I beleive some speech is illegal, as yelling "Fire" in a theater is. I do not know if the word "Nigger", spoken, has been incorporated in the "Fire" exemption from free speech or not. But thinking it shouldn't be. Of course, certain form of thinking is indeed illegal, with thoughts inferred from action. Beating up a white guy by a black guy might be a "hate" crime. Certainly a black guy beat up by a white guy would be. Both the beating and what the beater might be thinking, "hate". Prejudice is, by that same token as racism, not illegal. It's an animosity or a belief.
Perhaps ex-presidents Carter and Clinton were right, along with Bill Cosby, that racism is behind the disagreements with and challenges to the Obama crusade. But I am certain they don't know since they cannot know what is in the hearts of man.
I have argued for years that the reason African Americans haven't made it up the economic ladder, or integrated into society like the Irish, Jewish, Italian, and Chinese -- all victims of original discrimination, is that the Democratic Party has built bureaucracies, mostly Democrat voters, that rely on convincing African Americans that they are, in fact, victims of racism Ilegal) and discrimination (illegal). While African Americans vote almost universally for Democrats, what have the Democrats done for African Americans? Crime, Drugs, Gangs, Unwed Mothers/Fatherless Families, Substandard Education still exist rampantly even after three decades of Democrats taking their votes and spending taxpayer money. Until African Americans analyze and measure their votes against accomplishments by Democrats in exchange (and come up empty handed), nothing will change.
Our president is African American and he's so far siding with unions against the best for students. Yes, teachers union bosses pay for Democrat elections and the status quo.
Perhaps ex-presidents Carter and Clinton were right, along with Bill Cosby, that racism is behind the disagreements with and challenges to the Obama crusade. But I am certain they don't know since they cannot know what is in the hearts of man.
I have argued for years that the reason African Americans haven't made it up the economic ladder, or integrated into society like the Irish, Jewish, Italian, and Chinese -- all victims of original discrimination, is that the Democratic Party has built bureaucracies, mostly Democrat voters, that rely on convincing African Americans that they are, in fact, victims of racism Ilegal) and discrimination (illegal). While African Americans vote almost universally for Democrats, what have the Democrats done for African Americans? Crime, Drugs, Gangs, Unwed Mothers/Fatherless Families, Substandard Education still exist rampantly even after three decades of Democrats taking their votes and spending taxpayer money. Until African Americans analyze and measure their votes against accomplishments by Democrats in exchange (and come up empty handed), nothing will change.
Our president is African American and he's so far siding with unions against the best for students. Yes, teachers union bosses pay for Democrat elections and the status quo.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Our Leader Speaketh with Forked Tongue
From the Wall Street Journal, Monday, September 14, 2009: "Fact-Checking the President on Health Insurance", by Scott Harrington. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574409501904118682.html] The article describes a number of "facts" delivered by the president in one of his TV speeches that were, at best, exaggerations and, at worst, out and out lies. But even a bigger problem is that apparently the president will demonize anyone and any company if it will expand the possibility for him to takeover the healthcare system in this country. Go to and read the article, but if the president was interested in "reform" of healthcare, he'd dialogue with those who disagree. They might have some good ideas, but no, he is not at all interested in anyone else's good ideas, only those that extend his power. Our leader, I am afraid, speaketh with a forked tongue.
"OPINION SEPTEMBER 14, 2009, 9:51 A.M. ET Fact-Checking the President on Health Insurance
His tales of abuse don't stand scrutiny.
By SCOTT HARRINGTON
In his speech to Congress last week, President Barack Obama attempted to sell a reform agenda by demonizing the private health-insurance industry, which many people love to hate. He opened the attack by asserting: "More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day."
Clearly, this should never happen to anyone who is in good standing with his insurance company and has abided by the terms of the policy. But the president's examples of people "dropped" by their insurance companies involve the rescission of policies based on misrepresentation or concealment of information in applications for coverage. Private health insurance cannot function if people buy insurance only after they become seriously ill, or if they knowingly conceal health conditions that might affect their policy.
Traditional practice, governed by decades of common law, statute and regulation is for insurers to rely in underwriting and pricing on the truthfulness of the information provided by applicants about their health, without conducting a costly investigation of each applicant's health history. Instead, companies engage in a certain degree of ex post auditing—conducting more detailed and costly reviews of a subset of applications following policy issue—including when expensive treatment is sought soon after a policy is issued.
This practice offers substantial cost savings and lower premiums compared to trying to verify every application before issuing a policy, or simply paying all claims, regardless of the accuracy and completeness of the applicant's disclosure. Some states restrict insurer rescission rights to instances where the misrepresented or concealed information is directly related to the illness that produced the claim. Most states do not.
To highlight abusive practices, Mr. Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about." The president continued: "They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."
Although the president has used this example previously, his conclusion is contradicted by the transcript of a June 16 hearing on industry practices before the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigation of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The deceased's sister testified that the insurer reinstated her brother's coverage following intervention by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. She testified that her brother received a prescribed stem-cell transplant within the desired three- to four-week "window of opportunity" from "one of the most renowned doctors in the whole world on the specific routine," that the procedure "was extremely successful," and that "it extended his life nearly three and a half years."
The president's second example was a Texas woman "about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne." He said that "By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size."
The woman's testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist's chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.
These two cases are presumably among the most egregious identified by Congressional staffers' analysis of 116,000 pages of documents from three large health insurers, which identified a total of about 20,000 rescissions from millions of policies issued by the insurers over a five-year period. Company representatives testified that less than one half of one percent of policies were rescinded (less than 0.1% for one of the companies).
If existing laws and litigation governing rescission are inadequate, there clearly are a variety of ways that the states or federal government could target abuses without adopting the president's agenda for federal control of health insurance, or the creation of a government health insurer.
Later in his speech, the president used Alabama to buttress his call for a government insurer to enhance competition in health insurance. He asserted that 90% of the Alabama health-insurance market is controlled by one insurer, and that high market concentration "makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly—by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates."
In fact, the Birmingham News reported immediately following the speech that the state's largest health insurer, the nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, has about a 75% market share. A representative of the company indicated that its "profit" averaged only 0.6% of premiums the past decade, and that its administrative expense ratio is 7% of premiums, the fourth lowest among 39 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide.
Similarly, a Dec. 31, 2007, report by the Alabama Department of Insurance indicates that the insurer's ratio of medical-claim costs to premiums for the year was 92%, with an administrative expense ratio (including claims settlement expenses) of 7.5%. Its net income, including investment income, was equivalent to 2% of premiums in that year.
In addition to these consumer friendly numbers, a survey in Consumer Reports this month reported that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama ranked second nationally in customer satisfaction among 41 preferred provider organization health plans. The insurer's apparent efficiency may explain its dominance, as opposed to a lack of competition—especially since there are no obvious barriers to entry or expansion in Alabama faced by large national health insurers such as United Healthcare and Aetna.
Responsible reform requires careful analysis of the underlying causes of problems in health insurance and informed debate over the benefits and costs of targeted remedies. The president's continued demonization of private health insurance in pursuit of his broad agenda of government expansion is inconsistent with that objective.
Mr. Harrington is professor of health-care management and insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "
The biggest lie of which President Obama and the Democrats must convince American voters is that business/commerce/companies are against and at odds with the people. This is a bold-faced lie. The people ARE business. Business creates wealth and jobs. The people and business are one, together, mutually supportive. Only those seeking to gain and retain power, raw power over others would attempt to differentiate and divide the two, people and business.
Obama's healthcare speech was filled with outright lies, half-truths, distortions. I will not go into detail, because this has been covered heavily by the, let's say, conservative media and blogesphere. In the NY Times, NBC and their ilk, nothing; it was all honest and a true attempt to be bipartisan. Notice that Fox News viewers are climbing and the rest are tumbling.
To speak with forked tongue is to make false promises or to speak in a way which is not honest. Or put another way, "forked tongue" (from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia): A forked tongue is a tongue split into two distinct ends at the tip; this is a feature common to many species of reptiles. The image has given rise to the expression "to speak with a forked tongue", meaning to say one thing and mean another or, in more general terms, to act in a duplicitous manner.
These postings will in order of latest first, present examples of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, saying one thing and either meaning or doing another, "in a deceitful and duplicitous manner".
While this doesn't yet fall under the split infinitive, it will. Espouser of free trade, President Obama must choose free trade or support for his financiers, the unions, in this case the United Steelworkers. Union bosses want tariffs to cut the supply of affordable tires from China to the United States consumer. 55% added to low-cost tires' prices. Union bosses see this as saving union jobs; estimates are that it would cost Americans betwen $300,000,000 and $600,00,000 in higher prices, affecting lower-income people mostly. American companies don't even make those tires, so American companies need time to gear up to manufacture the tires it quit making. Also estimated is that for every union job "saved" would cost 12 - 25 jobs of people distributing, selling and installing tires not immediately available. Obama can sign a Section 421 complaint filed by United Steelworkers' bosses or not. Stay tuned to mid-September.
Can lying be any worse than lying to your spouse? President Obama promised his wife, Michelle, that if she would allow him to run for the presidency, ("allow him"?) he would, promise, promise to quit smoking. Mr. Obama lied to his wife. He still smokes.
And speaking of smoking. Obama promised he will never tax anyone making under $250,000 (or was it $200,000) a year. Since slightly more than half of today's smokers (53%) earn less than $36,000 per year and Obama just spiked the federal tax on cigarettes he lied to America. Period!
Change was Obama's mantra to get elected. Clean up Washington of lobbyists and money changers. Change from President Bush's "politicization". That was the get-elected fork in his tongue. The actual fork in his tongue, proven in practice is reward those who paid for his election. Lobbyists are climbing all over his administration and Congress as is usual. "Change" was a lie. And what did his campaign-funders buy? Well certainly GM and Chrysler, but also ambassadorships. No matter experience in foreign policy, the money they brought to his campaign bought them what they wanted. ("The Ugly Ambassador" replayed.) The following nominees brought in at least $500,000 and most personally contributed the maximim legally allowed by law to the Obama Campaign, many bundled the maximum $300,000 to pay for the inauguration/coronation: Charles Rivkin bought France; Nicole Avant bought The Bahamas; Howard Gutman bought Belgium; Don Beyer bought Switzerland; Mathhew Barzun bought Sweden; Willima Eacho III bought Austria; Bruce Oreck bought Finland; Donald Gips bought South Africa; John Roos bought Japan, and Louis Susman bought the United Kingdom. Now these money changers have not been confirmed, only nominated by President "Change" Obama.
Back in the "stimulus" bill production rush, President Obama promised to "save or create" 3 million jobs if the "stimulus" was passed, along with stopping unemployment at a maximum of 8%. In the dark of night without reading it, Congress passed it for Obama's signature. The "simulus" was born. And his promise came from forked tongue. Today's unemployment, 9.5% is heading for over 10%. And today's (this is July 2009) jobs have shed 2,600,000 since passage of the "stimulus". Was it as Vice Presdient Biden said, that the administration "misread" the economy, or did he simply pick a couple numbers out of his ass that would sell stupid Congresspeople, or did he simply lie to us Americans. No matter, he was wrong, cruelly wrong.
6/17/2009: The Obama administration is declining to release documents that would identify visitors to the White House, embracing a legal position the Bush administration also took, according to a watchdog group (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) that filed a federal lawsuit over access to the records.
The group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed its lawsuit after being denied access to Secret Service records. Obama's refusal to release the records and his "pledge of transparency" indicate he speaketh with a forked tongue. [Newsmax.com: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_white_house_secrecy/2009/06/17/225751.html?s=al&promo_code=81B4-1]
June 15 or so, 2009: In drawing a curtain over "transparency" President Obama is protecting a friend and supporter of his, Kevin Johnson, a Democrat and mayor of Sacramento, CA, who plays basketball with our president. Obama did not follow Congress' own rules in firing Inspector General official Gerald Walpin. Walpin investigated, reported and was fired personally by Obama: Johnson used to run a nonprofit academy St. Hope which improperly used AmeriCorps recruits to recruit students to his academy, for politicking, to run and perform personal duties for Johnson, such as washing his car and driving him around, and doing bookkeeping for St. Hope. Johnson apparently settled for a small amount to run for mayor. And another is the Teaching Fellows Program, run by the Research Foundation of the City University of New York. Walpin's audit[www.cncsig.gov/AuditReports.html] uncovered myriad violations including duplicate awards of $16 million and costs of over $750,000. Walpin's directives were stonewalled by AmeriCorps' parent organization, the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), which is now chaired by, as a payoff to, Democratic Alan Solomont for political fund raising. AmeriCorps now is $6 billion in a bill signed by Obama in April. Obama is a political animal, Mr. Walpin is unemployed for being a "government-employed whistle-blower" and blowing the whistle on Obama's cronies.
(In an irony, the First Lady Obama ran the AmeriCorps-funded nonprofit Public Allies in Chicago from 1993-1996 and served on its national board. It, too, was investigated by the Inspector General's office and violated basic rules including a lack of internal controls over education grants and living allowances given to people not being legal citizens or permanent residents.)
June Eleventh: President Obama announces that he thinks taxpayers are stupid. He proposes to give the Congressional oxymoron, "PayGo" or "Pay-as-you-go" legal bindingness. This means other expenses need to be cut or taxes raised to pay for Congressional spending...well, except for roughly everything Congress spends. PayGo was promised and broken by Nancy Pelosi in 2006, 2007 and most egregiously in 2008 and this year. And as for Obama's current "promise" - PayGo doesn't include his $787,000,000,000 "stimulus" (Aka Relect Democrats) bill; or fiscal 2009's $3,500,000,000,000 budget with its record non-wartime deficit (13% of GNP); not Medicare (growing at 9.2% a year and being broke within less than a decade); how about discretionary spending? (Discretionary spending...isn't that, like, discretionary?) This 40% of the budget -- $1,400,00,00,00 -- doesn't count; a $2,000,000,000 subsidy to "poor people" -- aka hopefully Democratic voters -- for heating is not counted; the annual "fix" on the Democratic-passed Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) $576,000,000,00...not counted; the final insult to American tax-payers is that ObamaCare's $1,200,00,00,000 to $1,500,00,000,00 price tag isn't includable until AFTER the 2012 election. Mr. Obama still has the left-leaning media slurping at his every word and his "personal" approval is still high, because of his silver forked tongue!
(6/9/09) President Obama pushed on Congress his "Stimulus" bill, that I call the "Reelect Democrats in 2010 and Forever Bill" that would get America out of this recession. (Congress passed, but did not read, the bill.) The other side of his tongue admitted that only 5% or so of the dough would blow out in 2009 -- thus not helping much of anything except Democrats. But wait! Polls say a majority of Americans disapprove of his handling of federal spending. And since unemployment is growing, people aren't happy. (The bill was only $787,00,000,000.) And he promised he'd "create or save" 600,000 jobs his second magic hundred days in office vs. 150,000 "created or saved" the first 100. No matter that those numbers are uncountable. With those polls, he'll start writing the checks himself.
"What we are not doing, what I have no interest in doing, is running GM", President Obama said while he was taking control of GM.
During his presidental campaign, Mr. Obama vehemently opposed a healthcare mandate on individuals; and he savaged Sen. McCain for discussing taxing healthcare benefits derived from employers. Now is now and President Obama extends his "just joking" scenario to now being open to 1) "I am open to shared responsibilities" - mandates, but, of course with a
hardship waiver" however he will define that. And also on the table is taxing healthcare benefits derived from employers, but maybe only those which are "Cadillac plans" [since taken off the table it was put on, because most union-negotiated plans are, if nothing, Cadillacs.] Or maybe just the plans of "rich people".
In Cairo June 4, 2009, President Obama stated his commitment to "governments that reflect the will of the people". And "freedom to live as you choose", ummm democracy. But he's slashing Bush's support for democracy promotion. $30 million - 60% - in one program, $11 million in another. Several slots in his administration for "senior directorship for democracy" and "Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy..." among others won't be filled. And his man Robert Gates (Defense Secretary) stated that "if we set for ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla [democratic countries] over there, we will lose." In other words, Obama continues his rhetoric instead of acts. Forked.
"OPINION SEPTEMBER 14, 2009, 9:51 A.M. ET Fact-Checking the President on Health Insurance
His tales of abuse don't stand scrutiny.
By SCOTT HARRINGTON
In his speech to Congress last week, President Barack Obama attempted to sell a reform agenda by demonizing the private health-insurance industry, which many people love to hate. He opened the attack by asserting: "More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day."
Clearly, this should never happen to anyone who is in good standing with his insurance company and has abided by the terms of the policy. But the president's examples of people "dropped" by their insurance companies involve the rescission of policies based on misrepresentation or concealment of information in applications for coverage. Private health insurance cannot function if people buy insurance only after they become seriously ill, or if they knowingly conceal health conditions that might affect their policy.
Traditional practice, governed by decades of common law, statute and regulation is for insurers to rely in underwriting and pricing on the truthfulness of the information provided by applicants about their health, without conducting a costly investigation of each applicant's health history. Instead, companies engage in a certain degree of ex post auditing—conducting more detailed and costly reviews of a subset of applications following policy issue—including when expensive treatment is sought soon after a policy is issued.
This practice offers substantial cost savings and lower premiums compared to trying to verify every application before issuing a policy, or simply paying all claims, regardless of the accuracy and completeness of the applicant's disclosure. Some states restrict insurer rescission rights to instances where the misrepresented or concealed information is directly related to the illness that produced the claim. Most states do not.
To highlight abusive practices, Mr. Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about." The president continued: "They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."
Although the president has used this example previously, his conclusion is contradicted by the transcript of a June 16 hearing on industry practices before the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigation of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The deceased's sister testified that the insurer reinstated her brother's coverage following intervention by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. She testified that her brother received a prescribed stem-cell transplant within the desired three- to four-week "window of opportunity" from "one of the most renowned doctors in the whole world on the specific routine," that the procedure "was extremely successful," and that "it extended his life nearly three and a half years."
The president's second example was a Texas woman "about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne." He said that "By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size."
The woman's testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist's chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.
These two cases are presumably among the most egregious identified by Congressional staffers' analysis of 116,000 pages of documents from three large health insurers, which identified a total of about 20,000 rescissions from millions of policies issued by the insurers over a five-year period. Company representatives testified that less than one half of one percent of policies were rescinded (less than 0.1% for one of the companies).
If existing laws and litigation governing rescission are inadequate, there clearly are a variety of ways that the states or federal government could target abuses without adopting the president's agenda for federal control of health insurance, or the creation of a government health insurer.
Later in his speech, the president used Alabama to buttress his call for a government insurer to enhance competition in health insurance. He asserted that 90% of the Alabama health-insurance market is controlled by one insurer, and that high market concentration "makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly—by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates."
In fact, the Birmingham News reported immediately following the speech that the state's largest health insurer, the nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, has about a 75% market share. A representative of the company indicated that its "profit" averaged only 0.6% of premiums the past decade, and that its administrative expense ratio is 7% of premiums, the fourth lowest among 39 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide.
Similarly, a Dec. 31, 2007, report by the Alabama Department of Insurance indicates that the insurer's ratio of medical-claim costs to premiums for the year was 92%, with an administrative expense ratio (including claims settlement expenses) of 7.5%. Its net income, including investment income, was equivalent to 2% of premiums in that year.
In addition to these consumer friendly numbers, a survey in Consumer Reports this month reported that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama ranked second nationally in customer satisfaction among 41 preferred provider organization health plans. The insurer's apparent efficiency may explain its dominance, as opposed to a lack of competition—especially since there are no obvious barriers to entry or expansion in Alabama faced by large national health insurers such as United Healthcare and Aetna.
Responsible reform requires careful analysis of the underlying causes of problems in health insurance and informed debate over the benefits and costs of targeted remedies. The president's continued demonization of private health insurance in pursuit of his broad agenda of government expansion is inconsistent with that objective.
Mr. Harrington is professor of health-care management and insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "
The biggest lie of which President Obama and the Democrats must convince American voters is that business/commerce/companies are against and at odds with the people. This is a bold-faced lie. The people ARE business. Business creates wealth and jobs. The people and business are one, together, mutually supportive. Only those seeking to gain and retain power, raw power over others would attempt to differentiate and divide the two, people and business.
Obama's healthcare speech was filled with outright lies, half-truths, distortions. I will not go into detail, because this has been covered heavily by the, let's say, conservative media and blogesphere. In the NY Times, NBC and their ilk, nothing; it was all honest and a true attempt to be bipartisan. Notice that Fox News viewers are climbing and the rest are tumbling.
To speak with forked tongue is to make false promises or to speak in a way which is not honest. Or put another way, "forked tongue" (from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia): A forked tongue is a tongue split into two distinct ends at the tip; this is a feature common to many species of reptiles. The image has given rise to the expression "to speak with a forked tongue", meaning to say one thing and mean another or, in more general terms, to act in a duplicitous manner.
These postings will in order of latest first, present examples of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, saying one thing and either meaning or doing another, "in a deceitful and duplicitous manner".
While this doesn't yet fall under the split infinitive, it will. Espouser of free trade, President Obama must choose free trade or support for his financiers, the unions, in this case the United Steelworkers. Union bosses want tariffs to cut the supply of affordable tires from China to the United States consumer. 55% added to low-cost tires' prices. Union bosses see this as saving union jobs; estimates are that it would cost Americans betwen $300,000,000 and $600,00,000 in higher prices, affecting lower-income people mostly. American companies don't even make those tires, so American companies need time to gear up to manufacture the tires it quit making. Also estimated is that for every union job "saved" would cost 12 - 25 jobs of people distributing, selling and installing tires not immediately available. Obama can sign a Section 421 complaint filed by United Steelworkers' bosses or not. Stay tuned to mid-September.
Can lying be any worse than lying to your spouse? President Obama promised his wife, Michelle, that if she would allow him to run for the presidency, ("allow him"?) he would, promise, promise to quit smoking. Mr. Obama lied to his wife. He still smokes.
And speaking of smoking. Obama promised he will never tax anyone making under $250,000 (or was it $200,000) a year. Since slightly more than half of today's smokers (53%) earn less than $36,000 per year and Obama just spiked the federal tax on cigarettes he lied to America. Period!
Change was Obama's mantra to get elected. Clean up Washington of lobbyists and money changers. Change from President Bush's "politicization". That was the get-elected fork in his tongue. The actual fork in his tongue, proven in practice is reward those who paid for his election. Lobbyists are climbing all over his administration and Congress as is usual. "Change" was a lie. And what did his campaign-funders buy? Well certainly GM and Chrysler, but also ambassadorships. No matter experience in foreign policy, the money they brought to his campaign bought them what they wanted. ("The Ugly Ambassador" replayed.) The following nominees brought in at least $500,000 and most personally contributed the maximim legally allowed by law to the Obama Campaign, many bundled the maximum $300,000 to pay for the inauguration/coronation: Charles Rivkin bought France; Nicole Avant bought The Bahamas; Howard Gutman bought Belgium; Don Beyer bought Switzerland; Mathhew Barzun bought Sweden; Willima Eacho III bought Austria; Bruce Oreck bought Finland; Donald Gips bought South Africa; John Roos bought Japan, and Louis Susman bought the United Kingdom. Now these money changers have not been confirmed, only nominated by President "Change" Obama.
Back in the "stimulus" bill production rush, President Obama promised to "save or create" 3 million jobs if the "stimulus" was passed, along with stopping unemployment at a maximum of 8%. In the dark of night without reading it, Congress passed it for Obama's signature. The "simulus" was born. And his promise came from forked tongue. Today's unemployment, 9.5% is heading for over 10%. And today's (this is July 2009) jobs have shed 2,600,000 since passage of the "stimulus". Was it as Vice Presdient Biden said, that the administration "misread" the economy, or did he simply pick a couple numbers out of his ass that would sell stupid Congresspeople, or did he simply lie to us Americans. No matter, he was wrong, cruelly wrong.
6/17/2009: The Obama administration is declining to release documents that would identify visitors to the White House, embracing a legal position the Bush administration also took, according to a watchdog group (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) that filed a federal lawsuit over access to the records.
The group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filed its lawsuit after being denied access to Secret Service records. Obama's refusal to release the records and his "pledge of transparency" indicate he speaketh with a forked tongue. [Newsmax.com: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_white_house_secrecy/2009/06/17/225751.html?s=al&promo_code=81B4-1]
June 15 or so, 2009: In drawing a curtain over "transparency" President Obama is protecting a friend and supporter of his, Kevin Johnson, a Democrat and mayor of Sacramento, CA, who plays basketball with our president. Obama did not follow Congress' own rules in firing Inspector General official Gerald Walpin. Walpin investigated, reported and was fired personally by Obama: Johnson used to run a nonprofit academy St. Hope which improperly used AmeriCorps recruits to recruit students to his academy, for politicking, to run and perform personal duties for Johnson, such as washing his car and driving him around, and doing bookkeeping for St. Hope. Johnson apparently settled for a small amount to run for mayor. And another is the Teaching Fellows Program, run by the Research Foundation of the City University of New York. Walpin's audit[www.cncsig.gov/AuditReports.html] uncovered myriad violations including duplicate awards of $16 million and costs of over $750,000. Walpin's directives were stonewalled by AmeriCorps' parent organization, the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), which is now chaired by, as a payoff to, Democratic Alan Solomont for political fund raising. AmeriCorps now is $6 billion in a bill signed by Obama in April. Obama is a political animal, Mr. Walpin is unemployed for being a "government-employed whistle-blower" and blowing the whistle on Obama's cronies.
(In an irony, the First Lady Obama ran the AmeriCorps-funded nonprofit Public Allies in Chicago from 1993-1996 and served on its national board. It, too, was investigated by the Inspector General's office and violated basic rules including a lack of internal controls over education grants and living allowances given to people not being legal citizens or permanent residents.)
June Eleventh: President Obama announces that he thinks taxpayers are stupid. He proposes to give the Congressional oxymoron, "PayGo" or "Pay-as-you-go" legal bindingness. This means other expenses need to be cut or taxes raised to pay for Congressional spending...well, except for roughly everything Congress spends. PayGo was promised and broken by Nancy Pelosi in 2006, 2007 and most egregiously in 2008 and this year. And as for Obama's current "promise" - PayGo doesn't include his $787,000,000,000 "stimulus" (Aka Relect Democrats) bill; or fiscal 2009's $3,500,000,000,000 budget with its record non-wartime deficit (13% of GNP); not Medicare (growing at 9.2% a year and being broke within less than a decade); how about discretionary spending? (Discretionary spending...isn't that, like, discretionary?) This 40% of the budget -- $1,400,00,00,00 -- doesn't count; a $2,000,000,000 subsidy to "poor people" -- aka hopefully Democratic voters -- for heating is not counted; the annual "fix" on the Democratic-passed Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) $576,000,000,00...not counted; the final insult to American tax-payers is that ObamaCare's $1,200,00,00,000 to $1,500,00,000,00 price tag isn't includable until AFTER the 2012 election. Mr. Obama still has the left-leaning media slurping at his every word and his "personal" approval is still high, because of his silver forked tongue!
(6/9/09) President Obama pushed on Congress his "Stimulus" bill, that I call the "Reelect Democrats in 2010 and Forever Bill" that would get America out of this recession. (Congress passed, but did not read, the bill.) The other side of his tongue admitted that only 5% or so of the dough would blow out in 2009 -- thus not helping much of anything except Democrats. But wait! Polls say a majority of Americans disapprove of his handling of federal spending. And since unemployment is growing, people aren't happy. (The bill was only $787,00,000,000.) And he promised he'd "create or save" 600,000 jobs his second magic hundred days in office vs. 150,000 "created or saved" the first 100. No matter that those numbers are uncountable. With those polls, he'll start writing the checks himself.
"What we are not doing, what I have no interest in doing, is running GM", President Obama said while he was taking control of GM.
During his presidental campaign, Mr. Obama vehemently opposed a healthcare mandate on individuals; and he savaged Sen. McCain for discussing taxing healthcare benefits derived from employers. Now is now and President Obama extends his "just joking" scenario to now being open to 1) "I am open to shared responsibilities" - mandates, but, of course with a
hardship waiver" however he will define that. And also on the table is taxing healthcare benefits derived from employers, but maybe only those which are "Cadillac plans" [since taken off the table it was put on, because most union-negotiated plans are, if nothing, Cadillacs.] Or maybe just the plans of "rich people".
In Cairo June 4, 2009, President Obama stated his commitment to "governments that reflect the will of the people". And "freedom to live as you choose", ummm democracy. But he's slashing Bush's support for democracy promotion. $30 million - 60% - in one program, $11 million in another. Several slots in his administration for "senior directorship for democracy" and "Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy..." among others won't be filled. And his man Robert Gates (Defense Secretary) stated that "if we set for ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla [democratic countries] over there, we will lose." In other words, Obama continues his rhetoric instead of acts. Forked.
BABs take from you and subsidize states
Fifty billion more U. S. taxpayer dollars thrown out to control states. Build America Bonds, ("BABs") from the Obama administration's toothless "stimulus" shuts U. S. municipalities from the tax-free bond markets, but hands them subsidies on their interest rates. And obligates the central government and gives it more and more power. Mandates will be coming, mark my words. But for now capital improvements ("earmarks?") subsidize state and local governments through a 35% federal tax subsidy, transferring their interest payments in part to taxpayers all over the country. $27 billion had been sold by the first of September, with Texas and California accounting for just under half the issuances. Democratic-controlled California desperately needs the help. More to come for the unexpected consequences of another wild idea from Franklin Delano Obama.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
A joke about our president
So what's the difference between infomercial king Billy Mays and the Billy Mays of politics, Barack Obama?
1) Billy Mays wasn't on TV as much.
2) Billy Mays sold useful products.
3) Billy Mays was exciting and interesting.
4) Billy Mays was successful.
5) Billy Mays worked for a living
6) Billy Mays wouldn't lie to me.
7) We can criticize Billy Mays without being called a racist or Nazi.
8) Billy Mays didn't sell out the Eastern Europeans to his buddies the Russians.
9) Billy Mays wasn't friends with domestic terrorists.
10) Billy Mays is dead.
1) Billy Mays wasn't on TV as much.
2) Billy Mays sold useful products.
3) Billy Mays was exciting and interesting.
4) Billy Mays was successful.
5) Billy Mays worked for a living
6) Billy Mays wouldn't lie to me.
7) We can criticize Billy Mays without being called a racist or Nazi.
8) Billy Mays didn't sell out the Eastern Europeans to his buddies the Russians.
9) Billy Mays wasn't friends with domestic terrorists.
10) Billy Mays is dead.
No Oversight on the Micromanaging Oversighters.
While Wikipedia may not be the ultimate of factual information, the following is from Wikepedia:
"The Comptroller General has the responsibility to audit the financial statements that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget present to the Congress and the President. For every fiscal year since 1996, when consolidated financial statements began, the Comptroller General has refused to endorse the accuracy of the consolidated figures for the federal budget, citing '(1) serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense, (2) the federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies, and (3) the federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.'"
If this were a private enterprise, Congressional Democrats would have the executives in jail. Yet, in spite of either their ignorance or hypocrisy, Congress continues to delve into and attempt to control every facet of private enterprise (not to mention humans). Some might think its activity is simply casting a net for campaign contributions to reelect them. Some might think they should improve their own knitting.
Congress is well-paid. Too well-paid, some might argue. Let's compare Congresspeople to members of boards of directors of private-enterprise companies. (A somewhat analogic comparison also would be to compare a president and his administration to business executives.)
The currently projected budget of the United States of America (although perhaps President Obama's budget has recently changed, but no matter to this exercise) reflects revenue of $2,700,000,000,000. If that number is divided by the number of Congresspeople, 535, the revenue per Member is $5,046,728,971. There are approximately 1,800,000 employees of the federal government (as of 2007 and excluding intelligence agencies such as CIA) which yields about 3,365 federal employees per each Member of Congress.
Now let's compare that "responsibility" (if you can use that word with Congress) to that of a member of a board of directors of the couple of the largest American corporations. Revenues of Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.(WMT) are $400 billion to $450 billion a year. With ten to fifteen members of its board of directors, that equates to around $26 to $45 billion in revenues for which each board member is responsible. This, compared to about $5 billion per member of Congress.
XOM with about 80,000 employees and WMT, with more employees than the U. S. Government, has about 2.1 million, so the number of employees per board member is 5,333 and 210,000 versus 3,365 per Congressional Member.
Members of Congress are currently paid $174,00 plus an extraordinary amount of "perks" such as fat retirement plans, gold-plated healthcare, free parking, and, for many, cars and drivers and free flights on corporate-sized and military jets. Directors of XOM and WMT get between $220,000 and about $325,000 in cash and stock, restricted in sale. The pay is arguably roughly the same.
Interestingly, the boards of XOM and WMT have only 4 – 5 committees and a staff of perhaps a few people, plus some ad-hoc consultants. The individual members have no staff. Board members are up for election each year.
Now compare that to Congress, with 45 committees:
House of Representatives
Personnel: Each Member is alloted $748,312 to hire up to 18 staff and four additional temporary, part-time, of shared staff. Staff can not be paid more than $151,974 per year.
Official office expenses: Each Member begins with a base allowance of $187,236 to spend on office expenses. Office expenses may include travel costs, office equipment, district office rental, stationary and office supplies, telecommunications, printing, postage, computer services, and other office-related expenses. The price for travel cost is judged by a formula (explained in this document). The minimum mileage amount for a Member is $6,200.
Senate
Administrative and clerical: This allowance is allocated based on the size of the Senator's state. The amount varies from $1,685,301 for a state with a population less than 5 million to $2,833,718 for a state with a population topping 28 million.
Legislative assistance: Each Senator is alloted $450,477 to hire three Legislative Assistants to be paid no more than $150,159.
As for staff, according to C-Span (http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly35.asp):
(Prior to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 staff rarely topped one or two advisers.)
Personal Staff--who work for individual Members of Congress--11,692
Committee Staff--who work for either the majority or minority on congressional committees--2,492
Leadership Staff--who work for the Speaker, Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Majority Whip or Minority Whip--274
Institutional Staff-- majority or minority party floor staff, and non-partisan staff: police, legislative clerks, building, janitorial--5034
Support Agency non-partisan Staff—Congressional Research Service [747], Congressional Budget Office [232], and General Accounting Office [3,500].
FYI, this indicates that partisan staff -- those who apparently work for a Member's reelection -- number 19,592 and the non-partisan staff equals only 4,479.
Or roughly 24,000 staff versus virtually none for the private-company boards of directors.
Members of the U. S. House of Representatives are elected every two years, Senators, four.
Congress Members do work from Tuesday to Thursdays with liberal time off (including at least a month in August), while boards of directors work less and have probably a maximum of twelve meetings a year.
Well that's about it. Fair and balanced, to coin (or copy) a phrase.
"The Comptroller General has the responsibility to audit the financial statements that the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget present to the Congress and the President. For every fiscal year since 1996, when consolidated financial statements began, the Comptroller General has refused to endorse the accuracy of the consolidated figures for the federal budget, citing '(1) serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense, (2) the federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies, and (3) the federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.'"
If this were a private enterprise, Congressional Democrats would have the executives in jail. Yet, in spite of either their ignorance or hypocrisy, Congress continues to delve into and attempt to control every facet of private enterprise (not to mention humans). Some might think its activity is simply casting a net for campaign contributions to reelect them. Some might think they should improve their own knitting.
Congress is well-paid. Too well-paid, some might argue. Let's compare Congresspeople to members of boards of directors of private-enterprise companies. (A somewhat analogic comparison also would be to compare a president and his administration to business executives.)
The currently projected budget of the United States of America (although perhaps President Obama's budget has recently changed, but no matter to this exercise) reflects revenue of $2,700,000,000,000. If that number is divided by the number of Congresspeople, 535, the revenue per Member is $5,046,728,971. There are approximately 1,800,000 employees of the federal government (as of 2007 and excluding intelligence agencies such as CIA) which yields about 3,365 federal employees per each Member of Congress.
Now let's compare that "responsibility" (if you can use that word with Congress) to that of a member of a board of directors of the couple of the largest American corporations. Revenues of Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.(WMT) are $400 billion to $450 billion a year. With ten to fifteen members of its board of directors, that equates to around $26 to $45 billion in revenues for which each board member is responsible. This, compared to about $5 billion per member of Congress.
XOM with about 80,000 employees and WMT, with more employees than the U. S. Government, has about 2.1 million, so the number of employees per board member is 5,333 and 210,000 versus 3,365 per Congressional Member.
Members of Congress are currently paid $174,00 plus an extraordinary amount of "perks" such as fat retirement plans, gold-plated healthcare, free parking, and, for many, cars and drivers and free flights on corporate-sized and military jets. Directors of XOM and WMT get between $220,000 and about $325,000 in cash and stock, restricted in sale. The pay is arguably roughly the same.
Interestingly, the boards of XOM and WMT have only 4 – 5 committees and a staff of perhaps a few people, plus some ad-hoc consultants. The individual members have no staff. Board members are up for election each year.
Now compare that to Congress, with 45 committees:
House of Representatives
Personnel: Each Member is alloted $748,312 to hire up to 18 staff and four additional temporary, part-time, of shared staff. Staff can not be paid more than $151,974 per year.
Official office expenses: Each Member begins with a base allowance of $187,236 to spend on office expenses. Office expenses may include travel costs, office equipment, district office rental, stationary and office supplies, telecommunications, printing, postage, computer services, and other office-related expenses. The price for travel cost is judged by a formula (explained in this document). The minimum mileage amount for a Member is $6,200.
Senate
Administrative and clerical: This allowance is allocated based on the size of the Senator's state. The amount varies from $1,685,301 for a state with a population less than 5 million to $2,833,718 for a state with a population topping 28 million.
Legislative assistance: Each Senator is alloted $450,477 to hire three Legislative Assistants to be paid no more than $150,159.
As for staff, according to C-Span (http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly35.asp):
(Prior to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 staff rarely topped one or two advisers.)
Personal Staff--who work for individual Members of Congress--11,692
Committee Staff--who work for either the majority or minority on congressional committees--2,492
Leadership Staff--who work for the Speaker, Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Majority Whip or Minority Whip--274
Institutional Staff-- majority or minority party floor staff, and non-partisan staff: police, legislative clerks, building, janitorial--5034
Support Agency non-partisan Staff—Congressional Research Service [747], Congressional Budget Office [232], and General Accounting Office [3,500].
FYI, this indicates that partisan staff -- those who apparently work for a Member's reelection -- number 19,592 and the non-partisan staff equals only 4,479.
Or roughly 24,000 staff versus virtually none for the private-company boards of directors.
Members of the U. S. House of Representatives are elected every two years, Senators, four.
Congress Members do work from Tuesday to Thursdays with liberal time off (including at least a month in August), while boards of directors work less and have probably a maximum of twelve meetings a year.
Well that's about it. Fair and balanced, to coin (or copy) a phrase.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
The Rich Get Richer...Oops
The Democratic Party's power-grabbing mantra, "the rich get richer" was dealt a severe blow not found in any of the left-leaning media. New figures show the "rich" getting poorer. Today's top 1% of taxpayers -- those making $400,000 a year -- are expected to end 2010 at 15% to 19% of all income, down severely from the 23.5% in 2007. American is getting more equal or "fair" as Democrats would describe it. End of Story.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
U. S. Green Jobs run by Communist
Well the below-mentioned key component in Obama's "green jobs" stuff, the communist Van Jones quit, mercilessly hounded by Fox News, but one "progressive" out means nothing to the Obama search for Utopian Power. It continues.
President Obama is committing billions and billions of taxpayers' money -- formerly yours and mine -- to a highly-risky, unproven, but politically-correct endeavor. Green Jobs. In charge? A person who has never held a job. He's a proven non-profit founder and fund raiser, anti-police activist and self-professed Communist: Van Jones.
This is proof positive that possibly President Obama doesn't have the best interests of America and the majority of its citizens in mind.
March 10, 2009, the Obama White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair Nancy Sutley announced that Van Jones was appointed Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at CEQ, described as "a key post".
In 1993, Jones started Bay Area PoliceWatch, the region's only bar-certified hotline and lawyer-referral service for victims and survivors of police abuse. PoliceWatch began as a project of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights. From 1996-1997, Jones and PoliceWatch led a successful campaign to get officer Marc Andaya fired from the San Francisco Police Department. In 1999 and 2000, Jones was a major leader in the campaign to defeat Proposition 21, a proposition proposed and passed in 2000 that increased a variety of criminal penalties for crimes committed by youth and incorporated many youth offenders into the adult criminal justice system.
In 2001, Jones and Ella Baker Center launched the Books Not Bars campaign which led a successful campaign to block the construction of a proposed "Super-Jail for Youth" in Oakland's Alameda County.
In 2007 the Green-Collar Jobs Campaign was Jones' first concerted effort to combine his lifelong commitment to racial and economic justice with his newer commitment to solving the environmental crisis. It soon took as its mission the establishment of the nation's first "Green Jobs Corps" in Oakland. On October 20, 2008, the City of Oakland formally launched the Oakland Green Jobs Corps, a public-private partnership that will "provide local Oakland residents with job training, support, and work experience so that they can independently pursue careers in the new energy economy."
Next, his "Green For All" formally opened its doors on January 1, 2008. In its first year, Green For All organized "The Dream Reborn," the first national green conference where the majority of attendees were people of color and launched a campaign for a Clean Energy Corps initiative which would create 600,000 'green-collar' jobs while retrofitting and upgrading more than 15 million American buildings.
A racially charged activist group called "Color of Change" founded by Van Jones, a special advisor to the Obama Administration, is trying to silence popular radio and Fox News personality Glenn Beck by calling for a boycott of Beck’s TV advertisers; putting tax-payer dollars to dubious use, the not-for-profit organization has hired well-heeled Hollywood publicist Ken Sunshine to further instigate the boycott. On July 28th, Beck made a comment on the Fox & Friends morning show about Obama’s reaction to the arrest of Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. During the discussion of "Professor-Gate," Beck connected the President’s past association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Obama’s comment that Cambridge police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, acted stupidly. Though Beck acknowledged most of the Obama administration is in fact white, he concluded that the President’s world experience made him a "racist." Now "Color of Change" has tried to bully at least five of Beck’s big advertisers -- SC Johnson, Progressive Insurance, Geico, Procter & Gamble and Nexus Lexis -- to pull their ads from Beck’s national cable program
Van Jones has been a strong voice for green jobs and we look forward to having him work with departments and agencies to advance the President’s agenda of creating 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources. Jones will also help to shape and advance the Administration’s energy and climate initiatives with a specific interest in improvements and opportunities for vulnerable communities
2008 New York Times best-seller, The Green Collar Economy.
Watch Jones’ panel at the first official meeting of the Middle Class Task Force in Philadephia chaired by Vice President Joe, and featuring major Democrat activists, fund raisers and John Podesta.
On October 7, 2008, HarperOne released Jones's first book, The Green Collar Economy. The book outlines Jones's "substantive and viable plan for solving the biggest issues facing the country--the failing economy and our devastated environment." The book has received favorable reviews from such environmental activists as Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Laurie David, Paul Hawken, Winona LaDuke and Ben Jealous. It is the first environmental book authored by an African-American to make the New York Times bestseller list.
Elizabeth Kolbert of the New Yorker profiled Jones in January:
"Your goal has to be to get the greenest solutions to the poorest people," Jones told me. "That’s the only goal that’s morally compelling enough to generate enough energy to pull this transition off. The challenge is making this an everybody movement, so your main icons are Joe Six-Pack—Joe the Plumber—becoming Joe the Solar Guy, or that kid on the street corner putting down his handgun, picking up a caulk gun."
Speaking to the East Bay Express, Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots.
"I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist."
Jones was still a law student at Yale Law School at the time. While volunteering as a legal monitor during a protest following the Rodney King riots, Jones was arrested along with other legal monitors and some protesters. He was released after 4 hours.
Yes, he'll be in charge of "creating" "green jobs" in capitalist, free-enterprise America.
And as sort of an aside, President Obama, hater of oil and gas, apparently only hates it here in the U. S. According to a Wall Street Journal editorial (August 18, 2009, page A 16, "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling"). Obama is lending upwards of $2,000,000,000 to Brazil's state-owned Petrobras to finance exploration offshore of Rio de Janeiro, through the U. S. Import-Export Bank.
President Obama is committing billions and billions of taxpayers' money -- formerly yours and mine -- to a highly-risky, unproven, but politically-correct endeavor. Green Jobs. In charge? A person who has never held a job. He's a proven non-profit founder and fund raiser, anti-police activist and self-professed Communist: Van Jones.
This is proof positive that possibly President Obama doesn't have the best interests of America and the majority of its citizens in mind.
March 10, 2009, the Obama White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair Nancy Sutley announced that Van Jones was appointed Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at CEQ, described as "a key post".
In 1993, Jones started Bay Area PoliceWatch, the region's only bar-certified hotline and lawyer-referral service for victims and survivors of police abuse. PoliceWatch began as a project of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights. From 1996-1997, Jones and PoliceWatch led a successful campaign to get officer Marc Andaya fired from the San Francisco Police Department. In 1999 and 2000, Jones was a major leader in the campaign to defeat Proposition 21, a proposition proposed and passed in 2000 that increased a variety of criminal penalties for crimes committed by youth and incorporated many youth offenders into the adult criminal justice system.
In 2001, Jones and Ella Baker Center launched the Books Not Bars campaign which led a successful campaign to block the construction of a proposed "Super-Jail for Youth" in Oakland's Alameda County.
In 2007 the Green-Collar Jobs Campaign was Jones' first concerted effort to combine his lifelong commitment to racial and economic justice with his newer commitment to solving the environmental crisis. It soon took as its mission the establishment of the nation's first "Green Jobs Corps" in Oakland. On October 20, 2008, the City of Oakland formally launched the Oakland Green Jobs Corps, a public-private partnership that will "provide local Oakland residents with job training, support, and work experience so that they can independently pursue careers in the new energy economy."
Next, his "Green For All" formally opened its doors on January 1, 2008. In its first year, Green For All organized "The Dream Reborn," the first national green conference where the majority of attendees were people of color and launched a campaign for a Clean Energy Corps initiative which would create 600,000 'green-collar' jobs while retrofitting and upgrading more than 15 million American buildings.
A racially charged activist group called "Color of Change" founded by Van Jones, a special advisor to the Obama Administration, is trying to silence popular radio and Fox News personality Glenn Beck by calling for a boycott of Beck’s TV advertisers; putting tax-payer dollars to dubious use, the not-for-profit organization has hired well-heeled Hollywood publicist Ken Sunshine to further instigate the boycott. On July 28th, Beck made a comment on the Fox & Friends morning show about Obama’s reaction to the arrest of Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. During the discussion of "Professor-Gate," Beck connected the President’s past association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Obama’s comment that Cambridge police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, acted stupidly. Though Beck acknowledged most of the Obama administration is in fact white, he concluded that the President’s world experience made him a "racist." Now "Color of Change" has tried to bully at least five of Beck’s big advertisers -- SC Johnson, Progressive Insurance, Geico, Procter & Gamble and Nexus Lexis -- to pull their ads from Beck’s national cable program
Van Jones has been a strong voice for green jobs and we look forward to having him work with departments and agencies to advance the President’s agenda of creating 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources. Jones will also help to shape and advance the Administration’s energy and climate initiatives with a specific interest in improvements and opportunities for vulnerable communities
2008 New York Times best-seller, The Green Collar Economy.
Watch Jones’ panel at the first official meeting of the Middle Class Task Force in Philadephia chaired by Vice President Joe, and featuring major Democrat activists, fund raisers and John Podesta.
On October 7, 2008, HarperOne released Jones's first book, The Green Collar Economy. The book outlines Jones's "substantive and viable plan for solving the biggest issues facing the country--the failing economy and our devastated environment." The book has received favorable reviews from such environmental activists as Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Laurie David, Paul Hawken, Winona LaDuke and Ben Jealous. It is the first environmental book authored by an African-American to make the New York Times bestseller list.
Elizabeth Kolbert of the New Yorker profiled Jones in January:
"Your goal has to be to get the greenest solutions to the poorest people," Jones told me. "That’s the only goal that’s morally compelling enough to generate enough energy to pull this transition off. The challenge is making this an everybody movement, so your main icons are Joe Six-Pack—Joe the Plumber—becoming Joe the Solar Guy, or that kid on the street corner putting down his handgun, picking up a caulk gun."
Speaking to the East Bay Express, Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots.
"I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th. By August, I was a communist."
Jones was still a law student at Yale Law School at the time. While volunteering as a legal monitor during a protest following the Rodney King riots, Jones was arrested along with other legal monitors and some protesters. He was released after 4 hours.
Yes, he'll be in charge of "creating" "green jobs" in capitalist, free-enterprise America.
And as sort of an aside, President Obama, hater of oil and gas, apparently only hates it here in the U. S. According to a Wall Street Journal editorial (August 18, 2009, page A 16, "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling"). Obama is lending upwards of $2,000,000,000 to Brazil's state-owned Petrobras to finance exploration offshore of Rio de Janeiro, through the U. S. Import-Export Bank.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
