I consider myself a fiscally responsible conservative democrat. I know that may sound strange but let me explain myself. I feel it is governments responsibility to provide a few basic things to help ensure a better life for all Americans. Infrastructure, military, regulation, education, and other things. I believe in progressive taxes and I believe those with more disposable income ought to pay more in taxes. That's just how I was raised and what I think is right. I know a lot of people disagree with me on that and that is fine. I believe it is the responsibility of government to help provide opportunity and help to those that need it. Food stamps for a single mom, or pell grants for poor college students, and so on. Ultimately what I would hope those kind of opportunities would lead to would be self-reliance and able to contribute back to the country. Take for example myself. I make under $10,000 a year, I can't afford health insurance, I can't afford to pay for school, I can barely make the payments I do have to make. But because of pell grants, medicaid, and other government help, I am able to focus right now and do well in school. I see it is the government making an investment in me, knowing that by my being educated and eventually becoming a physician I will pay back all the government ever gave to me and more, to go on and help the next person.
What I don't approve or agree with is wreckless spending, greed, and what I see as theft from the taxpayer. These past couple days have shown the bad side of what happens when you give $170 billion to a failing insurance company. If you give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna want a glass of milk. AIG has handed out $160 million in bonuses after posting a multi-billion dollar loss. How in the world does that make sense? I don't think this means we should have never bailed them out in the first place, that could've gotten extremely ugly had all these huge financial institutions started to fail. But what it does warrant is further regulation if one of these companies is taking taxpayer dollars.
And finally my last point. I have said before I am totally willing to point out hypocrisy and inconsistencies in my own party. A week after signing a $400 billion + spending bill loaded with earmarks and calling for an end to wasteful spending, now President Obama is claiming that "the buck stops here with me with AIG." Why didn't the buck stop there when millions, or should I say billions more taxpayer dollars were going to earmarks last week? It doesn't mean I hate or disapprove of our president, I just wish that some things were a little more consistent.
And finally I have to give a shout-out to President Bush. President Obama constantly attacked him all last year and pretty much the entire time he was president for decisions he made. Now the tables have turned and former President Bush, when asked about Obama's decisions so far, said "he deserves my silence." President Bush is a bigger man than I thought he was and he deserves some credit for taking the high road when I'm sure he's probably horrified at some of the decisions President Obama has made. So kudos to big W.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think when the dust settles from the AIG debacle, Geithner will be looking for a new job. He'll be the fall boy. From what I understand, the White House pressured Senator Dodd to insert a midnight amendment into the stimulus package that essentially prevented the government from blocking these AIG bonuses. So yeah, I'm mad about the bonuses too, but I'm definitely not buying into the fake outrage coming from the White House and Congress when they have only themselves to thank for this mess. They knew about these bonuses all along, and so did Geithner at Treasury (he was the main architect of the original AIG bailout) - but they're getting all upset about them now along with the public to save face and cover their rears. It's interesting to see their reaction when they can't blame Bush for their blunders. Maybe next time Congress will actually READ the language the next time it tries to pass such a sloppy "stimulus" package. Ridiculous...
But compared to the mind-boggling amount of spending that has happened on Obama's watch, 165 million is just pocket change. Crazy, I know! I wish Americans would show AIG-type outrage about the bigger picture of generational theft resulting from the endless spending and bailouts. To their credit, some already are. "Tea parties" are being thrown across the country to protest (thank you Rick Santelli). Obama hammered Bush for the swelling national deficit on the campaign trail - and then doubled it less than 2 months into his presidency. Now that's hypocrisy, in my opinion, and he's only scratched the surface. You're kidding yourself if you think he's done!
But this AIG mess begs the question: Should the government have bailed out AIG - and all the other bailout recipients, for that matter - in the first place? I'd say NO. Here's why: Ch. 11 bankruptcies didn't doom the airline companies. They actually helped them responsibly restructure and re-work their bad contracts. Now they've come back leaner and meaner and are back on track to profitability. Why couldn't this work with the auto companies? Banks? AIG? Were the airliners not "big enough to fail?" If you make me choose between either a.) the gamble of letting these companies go into Ch. 11 bankruptcy, or b.) the SURETY of saddling me, my children, and their children with a mountain of debt and a SURE increase in taxes - I'd choose the former in a heartbeat. The government's role is NOT to guarantee that every American has a job in the private sector by saving these failed companies.
I can't resist. I saw clips of the AIG CEO being raked over the coals by congressmen. The congressmen understood that the CEO was brought in, with government approval, after the bonuses were already set in contractual concrete. He is earning $1 per year. As Devin has tracked it, the government knew about the bonuses, a long time ago, and let them pass undisturbed. Geithner, as then head of the NY Fed, was right in the middle of the bailout deal, and knew about the bonuses. Unpaid taxes plus bonus complicity equals a new treasury secretary.
Pres. Obama's administration just doesn't have a clue about the law of unintended consequences.
Without thinking, Pres. Obama has jumped on the outrage bandwagon. He seems as ready as anyone to string up the bonus recipients. The last time we had a reaction like this resulted in Sarbanes-Oxley after Enron. The intended consequence of the high-pitched screaming is that no executive would dream of taking more money that a Monday-morning congressional quarterback might deem excessive if your bank or company is a recipient of federal tax dollars.
The bonuses were programmed in a year ago to keep the executives from jumping out of a sinking ship, making matters worse. It took the promise of a retention bonus a year out to persuade the salvage crew to stay on board.
What are the messages to executives in companies and financial institutions that the feds would like to rescue? ONE: Bail out before the bailout! TWO: If you stay on board, don't accept any federal bailout money or you and your family will be the subject of death threats ("they and their children should be strangled with piano wire") at worst, or will be taxed at 90% at best.
The messages have been received loud and clear by those institutions that already received federal help. They turned on a dime, and are rushing to pay the money back, even though the result will be the drying up of lending capital that the federal help was supposed to ease in the first place.
Pres. Obama's reaction, complicit with Congressional mock outrage, is ensuring that the credit markets will tighten right back up, and make it so that any company willing to take federal assistance in the future will not only be in distress, but will be drained of whatever personnel might have been able to steer the corporate ship back to safe waters with that help.
Regarding W: He is following a tradition of ex-presidents that include both his father and Pres. Clinton.
I heard Pres. GHW Bush's acceptance speech in Houston in '92. He warned that the issue was character, and the country would regret electing Gov. Clinton because of deficiencies in the character department. After each bimbo eruption that occurred over the next eight years, former Pres. Bush avoided any criticism of his successor, and passed lots of opportunities to say "I told you so." Pres. Clinton followed suit when his terms were up, and he avoided taking cheap shots at his successor. Famously, former presidents Clinton and Bush (HW) teamed up to promote common causes in several areas. So, it is good to see that tradition continue.
So I was watching TV last night and it turned out Obama was on Jay Leno. Needless to say I have many thoughts about the interview.
One interesting thing was that Leno actually made the comparison of the AIG execs to robbing a bank. Apparently they offered to give back half of the bonus money, and Leno was like "so you rob a bank and then you only offer to give HALF of it back?" Aside from the fact that the government made the decision completely on their own to give them all this money (so it's more like the bank goes out of its way to find would-be robbers to give money to and then PRETEND like it got robbed later...seems like a waste of time to me) I found this comparison very interesting for another reason: THAT'S WHAT GEITHNER DID! He cheated on his taxes, which is basically like stealing money from the government, right? And then, when he gets caught...HE ONLY PAYS BACK HALF OF IT.
Sometimes I seriously wonder if I'm just that careful and observant or if most people even listen to themselves when they talk? How do you not see that connection, I mean come on!
And Obama too (as usual), I almost couldn't believe it. It's like each sentence exists totally independent of every other sentence because even on a casual interview he's a walking contradiction if you compare one sentence to the next. Here was my personal favorite from tonight: "I believe in having us wealthy people pay just A LITTLE more in taxes than everyone else." Oh my gosh, talk about an understatement! You call 3 TRILLION DOLLARS "JUST A LITTLE BIT"?!?!?!
But I think we all know it isn't because he's dumb. Aside from being at the mercy of a (sometimes unforgiving) teleprompter, Obama simply has to resort to rhetorical trickery of every sort just to pass of his radical left-wing agenda to a center-right country. I've said it before: THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT--political manuevering. The Dems have been waiting for this moment for 8 years and they're going to get all the mileage they can out of it. Not a single one of them gives a (you-know-what) about the economy, or helping people, or any of that. They obviously have to pretend like they do, but at the end of the day they only care about one thing: MAINTAINING POWER.
Unfortunately for us there is one giant requirement for democrats to stay in power: the people have to be RELIANT ON GOVERNMENT...in every conceivable way. If people feel like they can make their own wealth and succeed independently, then they have absolutely no need for Democrats in Congress. To whatever extent the American people remains fiscally and socially independent, the Democrats are screwed.
That, my friends, is the central fact to keep in mind when talking about every single policy of this administration. It all fits: everything they do is designed to keep us reliant on them for more handouts...just like that story about the seagulls (the first one). If they can keep us eating out of their hands long enough, we'll be too weak to ever break free. That's Obama's end game, I don't care what he says. Just think about it. I dare anybody to think of one Obama policy that encourages independence in any conceivable way.
Sorry for the rant, guys. It's gonna be a long 4 or 8 years...for me at least
Why was Obama so quick to jump on the outrage bandwagon? Simple - it improves, or at least maintains his public image. To not be outraged, Obama sends a 'more of the same' message that contradicts his 'change' mantra. Our celebrity-in-chief and his aides obviously care more about his image than the unintended shock waves to the financial markets. Why else would he be parading around in Hollywood on the Tonight Show, continuing the never-ending campaign in CA, lashing out at reporters who ask him tough questions, and filling out his NCAA brackets on Sportscenter? It's about image.
But I'm more worried about the dangerous precedent congress is setting with this 90% tax. Can congress, on such a whim to cover their butts, CONSTITUTIONALLY take away such a small group's contracted income just because the public is upset? Article I Section 9 prohibits congress from passing bills of attainder. These are legislative acts that single out an individual or a small group and impose punishments on them without the benefit of a fair trial. Art. 1 Sect. 9 also prohibits congress from passing laws that apply retroactively (ex post facto). Congress will dress it up any way they want, but clearly that's what is going on here with this 90% tax.
As Daniel Webster said, "An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy." The Founders were well-aware of this power, and protected against accordingly.
So if the Congress can do this to AIG execs so easily, who is up next for a 90% tax? Do we really want to start down this road? This congressional move opens up a real can of worms. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the execs are deserving of the bonuses, but I'm nervous about the unintended consequences resulting from the severe legislative and administrative negligence.
Speaking about the 90% tax on the AIG execs, Rep. McCotter said the following: "Now that the public is aware of the AIG bonuses, we have seen another rush to misjudgment, where we turn the tax code into a penal code, where we shred the Constitution to use it as a political fig leaf, and set a heinous precedent in the future for other people who may be disliked or disfavored given the political mood of the moment."
Post a Comment