Friday, October 02, 2009

Boxer-Kerry Cap-and Trade Bill Puts Corporate Interests Over National Interest

Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli has been closely monitoring the corporations who lobby for cap-and-trade.

Tom issued a statement Friday on the ways the new Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade bill (or perhaps I should say, bill framework, because it appears to be out of fashion these days for legislators to actually finish drafting their proposed bills before introducing them):

Senate Cap-and-Trade Bill Favors Corporate interests Over National Interest

The "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act" introduced by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) favors corporate interests over our national interest, says the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research. The bill calls for a 20% reduction in emissions, exceeding the 17% target in the House Waxman-Markey legislation passed in May.

Boxer-Kerry lacks many important details, including a disclosure of which industries will benefit from free emissions credits.

"In the rush to legislate, the Boxer-Kerry bill is silent on key elements, such as how the government will hand out free emissions allowances that are worth billions of dollars. With that amount of money left on the table it opens the door for a behind-the-scenes lobbying fest that will reward well connected companies while looting taxpayers," said Tom Borelli, PhD, director of the Free Enterprise Project.

Waxman-Markey awards most of the estimated $777.6 billion of free allowances to industry between 2012-2020. Utilities were the biggest winner in the "House bill lottery," receiving 35% of allowances.

President Obama originally wanted to auction all the emission credits with the revenue going to reduce the budget deficit.

In addition to the allowance windfall, a few select companies will benefit from specific provisions. Caterpillar would gain from sales of its newly-developed hybrid bulldozer, because the bill empowers the EPA to issue new emissions standards for "new heavy-duty vehicles and engines and for nonroad vehicles and engines."

The Caterpillar hybrid bulldozer is priced about $100,000 more than conventional bulldozers – an added cost that will be passed on to construction projects.

The Boxer gift to Caterpillar may be a reward for CEO Jim Owens. Under Owens, Caterpillar is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) – a coalition of corporate and environmental special interest groups lobbying for cap-and-trade. Owens is a member of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

"Owens is putting his personal short-term interest over our national interest. He has previously acknowledged that cap-and-trade can harm the competitiveness of our manufacturing industries, yet he remains a member of USCAP," added Borelli. "Owens' thirty pieces of silver is a hybrid bulldozer."

"It's clear the only winners with cap-and-trade will be the lobbyists, CEOs and their environmental allies. The bill represents a huge transfer of wealth in the amount of hundreds of billions of dollars to industry. While the Washington elite benefit, the rest of America will end up paying the cost through higher energy prices, slower economic growth and sending jobs overseas," said Borelli.

Visit the Free Enterprise Project online at http://www.freeenterpriser.com.

###

---

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Economics, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:35 PM

Friday, August 14, 2009

What's Happening Now

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions way down in '08.

If PhRMA doesn't want America to think it was bribed by the White House not to oppose government-run health care, it could oppose government-run health care.

Still deadly after all these years.

"Evil mongers"? But this is worse.

Father of cap-and-trade says there's a better way to regulate carbon (if you must). We agree.

Another one bites the dust.

ACLU movie: Big brother looking out for you.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Government Health Care, Health Care, History, Liberals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:31 AM

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

What's Happening Now

Tonsils redux: President Obama says greedy doctors are coming for your feet... but LA Times says prevention in these cases is expensive. Why don't the greedy doctors do prevention, Mr. Prez?

Funeral Director Full-Employment Bill: President Obama sees post office as model for health care system.

Obama: "Technically, I'm not for a single-payer system." Technically?

Murder a child; go free. Worse than appalling.

Wrong again, Mr. President.

Why are people upset about ObamaCare? Because certain politicians lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.

Government health care would cost more than the politicians claim.

CNN says talk radio hosts are too predictable.

Astroturf for hire. By the left.

No plants at Obama "town meeting." Uh huh.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Courts, Crime, Economics, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Media, Protests, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:06 PM

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Who Gets the Stuff?

Professor Greg Mankiw, former chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors and presently a professor at Harvard, has asked the following question: "If one citizen of a nation can lay claim to the wealth of his more productive neighbor, shouldn't poor nations have the right to lay claim to the resources of richer nations such as the United States?"

I say no in both cases. What do you think?

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Economics

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:05 AM

Monday, August 03, 2009

Soaking the Rich

Who is soaking the rich? In 2007, the top one percent of all taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of all federal income taxes. This came when a Republican had been in the White House for six years and the GOP had controlled the House for 12 and the Senate for four.

So much for stereotypes.

As to the statistics themselves, Scott Hodge of the Tax Foundation, which provided the tax analysis above, notes:

Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

These facts bring to mind something former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said months ago:

Insulating 95 percent of voters from the consequences of their electoral decisions is dangerous and misleading. Does anyone really believe that we can expand nondefense spending to a record share of gross domestic product, reform the health-care system that amounts to one-sixth of the economy, reinvent the energy portfolio that powers our lives, and drive next-generation broadband to every home while cutting taxes for 95 percent of Americans?

I don't believe it. I believe we need to cut spending, and I also believe the top one percent -- which does not, alas, include me in their number -- are paying more than their fair share.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Economics, Government Spending, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:12 AM

Sunday, July 26, 2009

What's Happening Now

If the Congressional Budget Office keeps delivering news like this, will Pelosi and Reid try to shut it down?

Poor Bigfoot.

Is this a lie, or does President Obama just not know any better?

If we create more public health care, we will get more stories like this.

In the housing crisis, who does Thomas Sowell feel most sorry for?

Why do politicians with no business experience think they can run 15 percent of the economy? John Stossel doesn't know.

Just for fun: Nicholas Wade is a "denier."

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Conservatives, Economics, Government Health Care, Health Care, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:09 AM

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

NAACP Endorsement of Climate Legislation Puts It at Odds With Views of Black Americans

Project 21 says the NAACP's apparent search for purpose is leading it down the wrong road:

NAACP Endorsement of Climate Legislation Puts It at Odds With Views of Black Americans

For Release: July 22, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Struggling for purpose in light of the election of the first black president, the NAACP moves in the wrong direction, says a group of black conservatives, when it endorses a climate policy in tandem with the World Wildlife Federation that is opposed by a majority of black Americans.

"I'm all in favor of the nation's oldest civil rights group redefining its mission and agenda; however this indicates that the NAACP continues to struggle with current realities that face the nation's black communities by promoting policies they are opposed to," said Project 21’s Joe Hicks, who is also a PajamasTV commentator. "If this group simply wants to be defined as another left-wing organization touting the weak science on climate change, then it is destined to face ever-growing irrelevancy."

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli added: "It's outrageous for the NAACP to place liberal ideology over the welfare of the nation. By aligning with the environmental activist lobby, the NAACP is now an official member of 'Club Green' - the exclusive club of elites waging war against fossil fuels. Tragically, the cover charge for their membership - job losses, reduced standard of living and high energy costs - will be borne disproportionately by the very people the NAACP claims to represent."

The NAACP's zeal for regulation is opposed by most black Americans. A recent poll of 800 black Americans found 76 percent believe Congress should make economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority. 56 percent believe policymakers do not adequately consider the quality of life of black Americans when addressing climate policy. When asked how much they would pay for gas and electricity to reduce greenhouse emissions, 76 percent said they would be unwilling to pay more than $50 a year while 52 percent were unwilling to pay anything at all.

Hicks added: "The NAACP shows how out of touch it has become by advocating Obama Administration policies on so-called climate change that impact the very population that claim to represent - poor, black Americans. Adding an increased burden of higher coast for essential things like gasoline and electricity at a time of economic hardship demonstrates that they have no independent course of leadership, but instead is blindly following this administration's disastrous lead."

The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies for The National Center for Public Policy Research, which sponsors Project 21, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. It can be viewed at: http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html.

- 30 -

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Economics, Energy, Environment, Environmental Justice, Liberals, Project 21, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:01 AM

Friday, July 17, 2009

Quote of the Day: Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) on Waxman-Markey from The Foundry

Looks like cap-and-trade's potential to create yet another wealth-killing bubble is receiving at least some attention from Senate Democrats.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Economics, Liberals, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:11 AM

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Rolling Stone: Cap and Trade is a Carbon Tax Structured So Private Interests Collect the Revenues

Tom Borelli of our Free Enterprise Project has repeatedly warned Americans that passage of cap-and-trade will lead to the creation of a new economic bubble (see here, here or here).

Now Rolling Stone magazine is getting into the act, and it's not pulling any punches.

A sample paragraph to whet your appetite:

...cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman [Sachs], is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it's even collected. [Emphasis in the original]

"If it's going to be a tax, I would prefer that Washington set the tax and collect it," says Michael Masters, the hedge fund director who spoke out against oil futures speculation. "But we're saying that Wall Street can set the tax, and Wall Street can collect the tax. That's the last thing in the world I want. It's just asinine."

Read Rolling Stone's "The Great American Bubble Machine" by Matt Taibbi for the rest of the story.

We've said all along that if you actually believe human beings are causing dangerous global warming, and you honestly believe that this global warming must be fought by suppressing energy use, the only approach that has any hope of not being corrupt is increasing energy taxes. We do oppose increasing energy taxes, but would prefer that by far to cap-and-trade.

I did not expect to see this sentiment in Rolling Stone, but we welcome it to the club.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Corruption, Economics, Regulation, Scandals, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:17 PM

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Russia and America's Energy Future

In light of President Obama's trip to Russia, National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow Bonner Cohen and Dow Jones Newswire Journalist Alexander Kolyandr discussed Russia's energy resources and U.S. energy policy on the Fox Business Channel this morning.

Among other things, Bonner addressed the conundrum that Russia has extensive oil resources that are difficult to get to, while U.S. oil companies have the technology to get to it. Yet Russia's legal structure is, as Bonner put it, a "kleptocracy," which makes it difficult for any U.S. company to do business there.

Bonner also discussed the limitations of the Obama Administration's reliance on renewable fuels.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Defense, Economics, Energy, Foreign Policy

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:24 AM

Friday, June 26, 2009

Truth in Labelling

David Ridenour calls the Waxman-Markey bill the "Waxman-Markey Economic Climate Change" bill, because the only climate Waxman-Markey has a prayer of changing is our economic one.

And prospects for that, if it passes, are very good indeed.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Economics

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:03 PM

Monday, June 08, 2009

We Need the Energy; We Need the Jobs; We Need the Revenue

In an op-ed appearing in papers nationwide this week, David Ridenour says Congress and the Obama White House are "shunning [an] economic stimulus that would cost taxpayers zilch, yet could create up to 160,000 jobs and up to $1.7-trillion in new government revenue."

What's more, he says, "A significant part of this would flow to cash-strapped states, giving them funding needed to help unemployed workers and their families, fund schools, and avoid cuts in critical state services."

The stimulus: Drilling for oil.

Let's face it: We need the stuff.

Speaking of which, David's piece also examines the likelihood that solar and wind power can meet America's energy needs.

Read the article online on the Miami Herald website, the Cleveland Plain Dealer website, or the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer website, among others.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Economics, Energy, Media, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:34 AM

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Ban Ki-moon Rejects Waxman-Markey as Insufficient

The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade global warming bill would "reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion, kill 844,00 jobs and raise the energy bill paid by a typical family by about $1,500 annually" (based on a study by the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis).

Is UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon concerned about the impact this supposedly anti-global warming legislation* would have on working Americans?

No, he says working Americans aren't being hurt enough.

* The bill, if adopted and if it worked perfectly -- both very large assumptions -- would have negligible impact upon the climate, if any.

Hat tip: Dr. Benny Peiser.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Economics, Environment, United Nations

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:23 AM

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Congressmen and Businesses Supporting Economic Suicide Pact

In a press release today, the National Center for Public Policy Research makes the point that the Waxman-Markey "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" (HR 2454) is akin to an economic suicide pact:

Cap and Trade Bill Economic Suicide for Taxpayers and Businesses, says National Center for Public Policy Research

Contact: Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or jkent@nationalcenter.org

Get ready to be taxed even more, America!

Memorial Day is the target date set by Democrats Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) for passage of a cap-and-trade bill that promises economic hardship for all. The Waxman-Markey "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" (HR 2454) would raise taxes on American families by nearly $3,100 a year, lead to huge job losses, and dramatically raise the energy expenditures of American households.

Under a cap-and-trade policy, companies would be forced to raise energy prices. This would unleash a series of adverse economic consequences and hardships for Americans, as numerous studies dictate.

* The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis determined that Waxman-Markey would reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion, kill 844,00 jobs and raise the energy bill paid by a typical family by about $1,500 annually.

* A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps, similar to those previously rejected by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63% cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce GDP by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs.

* A study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology determined the restrictions could raise gasoline prices by 29%, electricity prices by 55% and natural gas prices by 15% by 2015.

* A 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office examining the costs of cutting carbon emissions just 15% noted that customers "would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would."

Given these dire consequences, some may be surprised that some of the nation's largest corporations are lobbying for this bill. Companies participating in the United States Climate Action Partnership, a lobbying group of over thirty corporations and environmental activist organizations, are trying to profit from a government-mandated "cap and trade" anti-global warming policy by selling so-called carbon credits from reductions in greenhouse gases.

During last week's ConocoPhillips shareholders meeting, Tom Borelli, Ph.D, director of the Free Enterprise Project at the National Center for Public Policy Research confronted ConocoPhillips Chairman James Mulva about ConocoPhillips' involvement in the USCAP. Mulva responded by saying he wanted to be at the table when energy policy decisions were being made. [An audio recording of the exchange is available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uZVcyBfi2M ].

"ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva has also not done his homework," said Borelli. ConocoPhillips has made a significant investment in Canadian oil sands, which release about three times the amount of carbon dioxide as traditional oil. Since cap-and-trade will increase the cost of carbon emissions, Mulva is lobbying to increase the cost of his investment. In addition, his USCAP partner the Natural Resources Defense Council is taking legal action to block the processing of the oil sands at a ConocoPhillips refinery."

"Pursuing legislation that will raise energy prices in the middle of a recession is economic suicide. It exposes the inability of these CEOs to connect the dots between economic growth and their future earnings," Borelli warns. He told Mulva that ConocoPhillips has done a poor job of promoting the "social good" the Company has done in terms of jobs, tax revenues and energy production.

Instead, "USCAP's support of President Obama's energy policy for what they deem as the 'social good,' illustrates the perils of corporatism - and is eerily similar of the warning in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, which described the unraveling of capitalism," says Deneen Borelli, a full-time Fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research-sponsored African-American leadership network Project 21.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a free-market communications and research foundation established in 1982 and located on Capitol Hill. It receives support from over 80,000 individual contributors. Under 2 percent of its revenue is received from corporations.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject, Outrage, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:00 AM

Saturday, May 02, 2009

Chrysler: Orwell's Animal Farm

Image via Wikipedia

Doesn't Barack Obama write any of his own material?

His statement on Chrysler Thursday could have been taken from the pages of George Orwell's Animal Farm.

Barack Obama apparently believes all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Obama blamed Chrysler's chapter 11 bankruptcy on some of the company's creditors who he says are unwilling to make the same sacrifices as everyone else.

"Some demanded twice the return that other lenders were getting," Obama said in his statement.

Since the return on investment for all Chrysler's creditors is negative, perhaps he should have taken them up on their very generous offer to get twice as much of it. Note to Obama: If you don't understand the basic concept of return, perhaps you shouldn't be in charge of "investing" our tax dollars.

Obama -- who bears a striking resemblance to Animal Farm's Napoleon -- wasn't asking Chrysler's financial sector creditors to make sacrifices like everyone else. He was demanding that they assume a disproportionate share of the sacrifice.

Obama's plan called for these creditors to forgive 67% of the debt owed them (or about $4.6 billion) in exchange for a 10% stake in Chrysler. The United Auto Workers, on the other hand, would forgive about 48% of the money owed to their retirees health care trust (or $4.2 billion) in exchange for a 55% stake in the company.

Even among the financial institutions owed money, not all animals are equal on Obama's farm.

JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, which together hold about 70% of Chrysler's debt to such institutions, all backed Obama's plan. All four firms -- perhaps not surprisingly -- have received significant federal Troubled Asset Relief Program funds. The 20 lenders balking at the deal have not received TARP funds.

The parallels with Animal Farm don't end there.

In Animal Farm, Napoleon takes control over the farm after farmer Jones so completely mismanages the farm that it experiences severe financial difficulties and proves incapable of caring for the farm's animals adequately.

Once in power, Napoleon didn't tolerate opposition. When a rival advanced an alternative plan for the farm, Napoleon had him driven out spreading false rumors that his rival was secretly trying to sabotage the farm.

I think that pretty much sums up Obama's press conference yesterday.

---

Labels: Business, Economics, White House

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 8:29 AM

Monday, April 27, 2009

Outrage of the Day: The Leaders of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela

The (in some cases, self-proclaimed) heads of state and/or government of Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela claim: "...we are going to need two planets Earth by the year 2030."

They also claim "Capitalism is leading humanity and the planet to extinction."

I guess we're doomed, then, because only capitalism has the power to motivate people to create a second planet Earth by 2030.

I don't know a lot about a couple of these leaders, but the ones I do know about are evil. I guess it should be comforting to know that in some ways, they also are idiots.

Hat tip: Drudge.

---

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Economics, Foreign Policy, Outrage

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:22 AM

First Things First

Stephen Green, better known as VodkaPundit, reports that "Congressman Connie Mack would like to give Hugo Chavez a copy of Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom."

Heck, I'd like to give one to our own President.

---

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Economics

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:46 AM

Monday, April 13, 2009

More on Making Green Loans

The CEO of e3bank has written to respond to the post last week about e3bank.

Here's what he had to say:

Good Morning Amy,

I have read your blog and would like to respond to statements made about the recent New York Times article on e3bank.

Our goal at e3bank is to provide credit worthy people with financial tools that help them incorporate sustainability into their lives, homes and businesses. As a triple bottom line bank, all of our business decisions - including loan decisions - are viewed through three lenses: What are the impacts of our decisions on profitability? What are the impacts on the environment? What are the impacts on all of the people who are affected by them?

We have no intention of lowering credit standards. We're all suffering through the results of that kind of behavior. However, we recognize that companies and individuals who are focused on energy conservation and environmental responsibility tend to have a better risk profile. Understanding sustainability and taking action on it is an indicator that these customers are forward-thinking and conservative in the broadest sense of the word.

Frank J. Baldassarre, Jr.
President/CEO
e3bank
enterprise. environment. equity.
346 East King Street
Malvern, PA 19355
(484) 614-6883
www.e3bank.com

Fair enough.

---

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Economics

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:00 PM

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Washington Post & Far Left Team Examine Geithner

Writing on the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterpriser blog, Tom Borelli says the Washington Post learned a few interesting things when it and a left-wing group jointly examined the role Timothy Geithner played in magnifying the banking crisis.

Says Tom:

An investigative story published in the Washington Post charges that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner played a significant role in creating the economic crisis.

While in charge of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner facilitated the trading of credit derivatives - exotic financial instruments - that magnified the banking crisis and he failed to adequately regulate the banks under his control.

Specifically, Geithner was aware that the banks had not properly assessed the risks - including those posed by credit derivates - from an economic down-turn and did not take strong measures to address these issues.

"Records and interviews show that Geithner and his colleagues did not employ some of the harsher tools at their disposal to bring the banks into line. From 2006 through the start of the credit crisis in the summer of 2007, they brought no formal enforcement actions against any large institution for substandard risk-management practices."

Had Geithner exercised his regulatory power, it's possible we could have averted significant portions of the current economic crisis. Nevertheless, Obama promoted Geithner to head the Treasury Department. Clearly, Geithner's selection calls into question Obama's judgment.

Interestingly, the Washington Post story was jointly written by Post reporter Robert O'Harrow, Jr., and Jeff Gerth, a former New York Times reporter now employed by the left-wing non-profit ProPublica. ProPublica was founded and is funded (to the tune of $10 million annually) and chaired by Herb Sandler, who, with his wife, Marion, is former CEO and owner of Golden West Financial and the World Savings S&L. The acquisition of these institutions, which specialized in adjustable-rate mortgages, by Wachovia in 2006 was cited as a key factor in the substantial losses suffered by that bank in 2008. While the Post acknowledged that its story was co-written with ProPublica, it did so referring to the organization as a "independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest." The Post made no mention of the rather obvious conflict-of-interest ProPublica has on this particular subject matter.

For more on the Sandlers, their left-wing agenda, the economic crisis and ProPublica, I recommend this Carter Wood post on ShopFloor.org and this Ed Lasky post on American Thinker.

---

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Economics, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:58 PM

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Dick Morris on "Ending American Sovereignty"

Dick Morris on the new financial regulatory framework.

He's not at all happy about it.

My brief thoughts on this are here.

---

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Economics, Foreign Policy, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:46 PM

Sunday, April 05, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Obama and the Bankers

President Obama meets with bank CEOs.

Where to begin?

Perhaps the outrageous pitchfork remark.

Or the pretense that Obama opposes generous executive compensation.

Or the request that banks not return TARP money.

Just one meeting, so many editorial targets.

I'll be brief.

Publicly, Obama says, "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks." Privately, Obama associates with ACORN, and helps ACORN raise money. ACORN is waving pitchforks.

Publicly, Obama criticizes executives receiving bonuses. Privately, he end-runs Congressional restrictions on such bonuses.

Publicly, Obama claims to support the free market. Privately, he asks banks not to return TARP funds anytime soon.

---

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Economics, Government Power, Government Spending, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:08 AM

Why Obama Doesn't Want TARP Funds Returned

This Wall Street Journal op-ed by Fox Business Channel host Stuart Varney should be read by one and all:

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.

Here's a true story...

Read it all here.

---

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Economics, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:42 AM

Thursday, April 02, 2009

Outrage of the Day: The Communique of the G-20

From the Communique of the G-20:

...In particular we agree: to establish a new Financial Stability Board (FSB) with a strengthened mandate, as a successor to the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), including all G20 countries, FSF members, Spain, and the European Commission; that the FSB should collaborate with the IMF to provide early warning of macroeconomic and financial risks and the actions needed to address them; to reshape our regulatory systems so that our authorities are able to identify and take account of macro-prudential risks; to extend regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments and markets. This will include, for the first time, systemically important hedge funds; to endorse and implement the FSF's tough new principles on pay and compensation and to support sustainable compensation schemes and the corporate social responsibility of all firms; to take action, once recovery is assured, to improve the quality, quantity, and international consistency of capital in the banking system. In future, regulation must prevent excessive leverage and require buffers of resources to be built up in good times; to take action against noncooperative jurisdictions, including tax havens. We stand ready to deploy sanctions to protect our public finances and financial systems...

From the Declaration of Independence:

...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

Any government we don't vote for has no right to regulate us.

---

E-mail any comments to info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Economics, Europe, Foreign Policy, History, Human Rights, United Nations, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:34 PM

Monday, March 30, 2009

Watch Tom Borelli on Fox's "Glenn Beck" Tonight

From David Almasi:

Tom Borelli, director of The National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, is scheduled to be a guest on today's "Glenn Beck" program on the Fox News Channel. He has been asked to appear to talk about proposed legislation to create a government-run "green bank" meant to help finance so-called green technologies.

Tom notes: "The last time the government got involved in banking we ended up with Fannie Mae and the housing bubble. Following that disaster, the last thing we need is to fund a green bubble."

"Glenn Beck" airs at 5:00 pm eastern on the Fox News Channel. Tom is tentatively scheduled to appear around 5:20 pm eastern. Check your local cable listings for channel.

To learn more about the "Glenn Beck" program, click here.

_____

Labels: Business, Economics, Government Power, Government Spending, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:33 PM

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Outrage of the Day: President Obama's Budget

The following comes entirely from Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation:

President Obama has released a budget that would:

* Increase spending by $1 trillion over the next decade;

* Include an additional $250 billion placeholder for another financial bailout;

* Likely lead to a 12 percent increase in discretion­ary spending;

* Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of GDP over pre-recession levels;

* Raise taxes on all Americans by $1.4 trillion over the next decade;

* Raise taxes for 3.2 million taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over the next decade;

* Call for a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) law despite offering a budget that would violate it by $3.4 trillion;

* Assume a rosy economic scenario that few economists anticipate;

* Leave permanent deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers; and

* Double the publicly-held national debt to over $15 trillion ($12.5 trillion after inflation).

Federal spending was $24,000 per household before the recession. President Obama would raise it to $32,000 per household by 2019 (after inflation).

President Obama harshly criticized President Bush's budgets. Yet his budget actually *accelerates* Bush's policies – more runaway spending, more bailouts, and even bigger deficits.

The President is not repudiating Bushism – he's doubling down on it.

"The Obama Budget: Spending, Taxes, and Doubling the National Debt" can be found at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2249.cfm (click the .pdf icon for the printable version).

_____________

Labels: Economics, Government Spending, Taxes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:24 AM

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Letter to General Motors

If you haven't seen this letter to General Motors that has been circulating around the Internet for the last few months, it is worth a read.

Doesn't make the UAW or the the auto industry look very good, though.

Hat tip: R.J. Smith.

___________________

Labels: Business, Economics

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:00 PM

Monday, March 09, 2009

Congress Blowing Its Next Bubble

Senior Fellow Tom Borelli has an op-ed in the D.C. Examiner: "Congress, corporate lobbyists creating Green Bubble."

It begins:

With President Barack Obama and his allies in Congress pushing for a cap-and-trade regulatory program to reduce greenhouse gases, the future of American energy is at a crossroads — and the creation of an economic “Green Bubble” is in the works.

It’s not surprising that liberal politicians embrace the cap-and-trade cause, but to many it is shocking and surprising to see corporate CEOs joining the crusade. The 21st century business model of these CEOs seems to be: “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.”

But their capitulation is likely to lead to history repeating itself, and not in a good way.

If there’s one lesson we all can take from the housing bubble, it’s this: The pursuit of liberal policy goals is not a sustainable business strategy.

The housing crisis developed after businesses yielded to social activism and the seduction of politically-driven and unsustainable economic incentives. It started with the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977, which encouraged banks to lend in poor neighborhoods. The Clinton administration later lowered credit standards, and set subprime lending quotas for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the leftist advocacy group, also pressured banks to make loans, and Congress skewed laws to encourage lenders to give mortgages to buyers with poor prospects for ever repaying them.

With the game rigged to make unsound lending practices profitable over the short-term, Wall Street was happy to play in this government-constructed casino. For a time, it was a win-win situation.

Profits were made, ACORN was pacified and lawmakers deemed lenders “responsible” for providing loans to low-income households with nary an eye cast to the soundness of it all. But when the over-inflated housing market collapsed, all the fun came to a crashing halt.

Yet, like hard-core gambling addicts, some CEOs haven’t learned their lesson. Instead of returning to selling good products at market prices, they want to go back to the craps table. They’re lobbying Congress to create yet another “bubble” in which government regulatory policy creates artificial value, this time in a ubiquitous gas, carbon dioxide.

Call this forthcoming disaster the “Green Bubble,” for it’s based on the notion that fortunes can be made buying and selling something for which there is no real-world market, greenhouse gas emissions credits...

Read the rest here.

___________________

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Economics, Environment, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:14 PM

Friday, February 20, 2009

Egg on Faces of Al Gore and Ban Ki-Moon

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Environment, Health Care, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:47 PM

Friday, February 13, 2009

The Left is Afraid of America - the Rush to Vote on the Stimulus is the Proof

Rep. Jerrry Lewis (R-CA) just spoke on the House floor to say that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had just scored the so-called stimulus bill, releasing its report a few minutes past noon (a little more than an hour ago).

Lewis reports that the CBO says less than half the spending in this bill will occur over the next two years, and 11 percent of it will occur this year.

Given these numbers, how can it possibly be imperative to our economic recovery (to avoid a "permanent recession," in President Obama's infamous phrase, as if such a thing is even possible) for the Congress to vote on all of this spending immediately? Unless something nefarious is going on, at the very least, even those who believe this bill is needed for stimulus purposes should be willing to defer debate and passage of three-quarters or more of the spending in this legislation so legislators can read and refine it.

But they aren't. Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the others who lead the left in our nation's capitol are unwilling to wait -- even to wait 48 hours as the House of Representatives unanimously urged -- because they are afraid. Afraid of permanent recession? No, they are afraid the American people will find out what's in this bill.

____________________

Labels: Congress, Economics, Government Spending, Liberals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:26 PM

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Facebook Bans Anti-Stimulus Petition; Implies It May Be Porn

Edwin Mora of CNSNews.com is reporting this morning that the social networking site Facebook has removed a conservative group's anti-stimulus petition from its website:

Facebook, one of the Internet’s top social networking sites, has kicked out a conservative group’s Web site --“NoStimulus.com” -- from its paid advertising space.

NoStimulus.com, which is promoting a petition to stop President Obama’s economic stimulus bill, is sponsored by the nonprofit conservative group Americans for Prosperity.

Phil Kerpen, national policy director for Americans for Prosperity, said the paid ad had been running for days on Facebook with no problem.

“They had already screened it and approved it,” says Kerpen.

The petition featured in NoStimulus.com allows for those who oppose the stimulus bill to voice their objections, which are then sent to their respective lawmakers...

Amazingly, according to CNSNews.com, Facebook told Americans for Prosperity that one of the reasons it withdrew the ad was because it allegedly violated Facebook's Rule 8, which says "that ads may not 'contain, facilitate or promote 'adult' content or content that is 'offensive, profane, vulgar, obscene or inappropriate' or 'defamatory, libelous, slanderous and/or unlawful.'"

Since, this week anyway, Americans are still allowed to express an opinion on legislation, one must assume Facebook thinks opposing the stimulus is pornographic or potentially libelous. (I'm going with pornographic, since it is metaphysically impossible to libel Congress.)

During the first hour of her syndicated radio show today, Laura Ingraham is citing projects Facebook does allow. Among them: "F--- the Troops" (yes, the American troops) and projects supporting the release of terrorists from Gitmo.

Good going, Facebook. Guess you must have thought you had too many satisfied members.

Labels: Business, Economics, Government Spending, Liberals, Media, Radio

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:48 AM

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Project 21's Deneen Borelli Joins Discussion on Fox's "Strategy Room" Friday - Watch Live Online

By David Almasi:

Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli will discuss the so-called "stimulus" bill and other current events as part of the group discussion on the Fox News Channel's on-line "Strategy Room" program on Friday, February 13 between 9:00am and 10:00am eastern.

To access the live Internet broadcast, click here and then click the "STREAM THIS NOW" headline in the center or the page under the photo.

_____

Labels: Economics, Government Power, Government Spending, Media, Project 21, Race

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:38 PM

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Black Organization's Leader Slams So-Called Stimulus Earmarks

Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie is staunchly against the stimulus proposal:

Black Organization's Leader Slams So-Called Stimulus Earmarks

For Release: Immediate

Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Washington, D.C.: Responding to GAO estimates that the full cost of the so-called "stimulus" legislation under consideration now on Capitol Hill could reach $1.2 trillion over 10 years, Chairman Mychal Massie of the Project 21 black leadership network is condemning this collection of earmarks, saying it is less about economic growth and more about growing government at the expense of future generations.

"The pretense that passage of this bill will in some way stimulate the economy is an attempt to obfuscate and deceive on a scale not witnessed since Satan suggested Eve try an apple," said Massie. "There seems to be very little in this abominable bill to stimulate our economy. It looks like more of the same congressional pillage and payback that voters have rejected in the past. How is spending $75 million on stop-smoking programs going to jump-start our economy? How is giving Hollywood $246 million in tax breaks for buying film going to create jobs for laid-off autoworkers? How will spending $200 million to lease alternative energy vehicles keep open small businesses in my area, much less protect us all from terrorists? Senators have yet to explain these things as they rush to a vote."

According to the office of Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), egregious spending provisions include a combined $1 billion for construction and renovation of buildings for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Public Health Service and National Institutes of Health, $150 million for Smithsonian Institution museum facilities and $400 million more to the CDC for sexually-transmitted disease screening and prevention programs.

Taxpayer money also is earmarked for "youth" job programs for "youths" aged 21-24 and federal home "winterization" assistance for households 200 percent above the poverty level.

"It is refreshing that President Obama has chosen to speak out in favor of people being self-reliant, but the Senate's so-called stimulus bill flies in the face of his encouraging words," added Massie. "These earmarks - planned or not - will only make people more reliant on the government while putting us all further in debt. We must keep in mind that proponents of this legislation are many of the same people who have long aided and abetted the culture of financial corruption and malfeasance that put us in this crisis. Now, they propose to correct it by mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren."

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.  For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

-30-

____

Labels: Economics, Government Spending, Project 21, Race

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:05 PM

 

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Good for Them

Cato is fighting back, reports the Heritage Foundation's Gerrit Lansing in the Foundry blog.
____

Labels: Conservatives, Economics, Government Spending

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:54 AM

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Braking the Stimulus

An e-mail from Joe Roche, writing from Operation Iraqi Freedom:

Amy,

I'm reading John Steele Gordon's book on an economic history of the US. Great book, and fascinating reading. And it strikes me...

What is missing in countering all the massive "stimulus" spending and legislation is perspective. That is what the Obama campaign and the liberal press succeeded most in doing, the single most important impact of the past several months: the perspective of the American people on the economy has been completely distorted.

In doing this, "we" can be fooled into thinking this is the Great Depression and that it is "unprecedented" and all sorts of baloney like that, thus cornering the Republicans and empowering the Democrats.

Thus, it strikes me that restoring perspective is one tool that would be profoundly effective in putting on the brakes to all this "stimulus." There is no talk about what Reagan faced in 1980, or of how deep the recession was in the '80s. There is no prespective whatsoever of the economic shocks of the '70s. And there is complete historical amnesia about the depressions and economic collapses that happened about every 20 years in our nation's past.

It is very revealing and sobering to re-learn about the economic disasters that hit after Jefferson's presidency, in 1837, in 1857, in 1873, in 1896, the short depression of 1921, and about how all of these were sparked by gov't monopolies and bad monetary policies that all had their roots in liberal populist gov't "solutions." Also, pointing out that the four mega-packages of the New Deal did nothing to aleviate the Great Depression but instead prolonged it instead, is vital to re-teach. Go back to Charles Murray's book on the failure of the Great Society and the War On Poverty.

A short fact sheet accompanying a survey, well foot-noted, would be a great resource for all the nerds out there like me who will pick up on such a report to write about it in their college newspapers and argue on it.

Perspective! This is what is missing. Returning perspective to the American people, I think, is the achillees heal to all this liberal "stimulus" crap. Put it into perspective and then hit them w/ the question: will all this "stimulus" restore the economy? And, "what is really happening with all this stimulus?" Perspective perspective perspective. The GOP is completely inept at doing this. Conservative organizations should be jumping all over this.

Ok, I'll stop ranting.

SGT Joe Roche
BN TOC BTL NCO

More of Joe's e-mailed posts are indexed here.

Labels: Economics, Government Spending, History, Joe Roche

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:26 AM

Thursday, January 01, 2009

I Think They're Smoking Something

An argument is being made that decriminalizing marijuana would create millions of new jobs.
____

Labels: Economics

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:38 PM

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

A Way to Help End the Recession

Drilling.

Labels: Business, Economics, Energy, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:16 AM

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Will Economic Crisis Make Obama Think Twice About Global Warming Regulation?

Senior Fellow Tom Borelli's latest Townhall.com column examines President-elect Obama's attitude toward global warming regulation.

He asks, "Will the economic crisis make Obama think twice about cap-and-trade?, and answers: "There’s no sign yet that it will."

Read it all here.
____

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Liberals, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:16 PM

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Capping Greenhouse Gases: Here's Why Not

Husband David has an op-ed in today's Washington Times as well as other papers on what a cap on greenhouse gas emissions would due to our economy.

An excerpt:

When our economic bus is teetering at the edge of a cliff, it's a bad time to throw on some extra weight.

Yet government-mandated restrictions on carbon emissions would do precisely that, adding enormous additional weight to an economy already reeling. This additional weight shouldn't just be thrown from the bus -- it should be thrown under it.

Most econometric studies agree that restricting greenhouse-gas emissions would slow our already sluggish economy.

A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps similar to those rejected earlier this year by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63-percent cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs by 2014.

The Heritage Foundation estimated such restrictions would result in cumulative GDP losses of up to $4.8 trillion and employment losses of more than 500,000 a year by 2030.

Other studies suggest smaller economic costs: Duke University's Nicholas Institute estimates a GDP loss of $245 billion by 2030 while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates a GDP drop of $238 billion to $983 billion.

Sharp emissions restrictions would also push the costs of energy and other consumer products higher. According to a study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the restrictions could raise gasoline prices 29 percent, electricity prices 55 percent and natural-gas prices 15 percent by 2015.

The people most vulnerable to such price increases are the poor. A 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office examining the costs of cutting carbon emissions just 15 percent noted that customers "would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would." Indeed, the lowest quintile income group would pay nearly double what the highest quintile income group would, as a proportion of income, pay in increased energy costs.

And it appears that all this economic pain would be an utterly meaningless gesture. Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, who is now with the Cato Institute, says reducing U.S. emissions 63 percent would prevent a mere 0.013 degrees Celsius in warming. With emissions from China, India and other developing nations growing at breakneck speed, even this modest benefit would be completely erased.

Some argue that we should undergo this pain anyway to set an example for others to follow. The European Union tried that and now, apparently, they're throwing in their collective recycled-material towel... Read it all here.

____

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Economics, Energy, Environment, Government Power, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:38 PM

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

What Greenhouse Gas Restrictions Could Do to Our Economy

Writing in Investor's Business Daily today, David Ridenour says, "When our economic bus is teetering at the edge of a cliff, it's a bad time to throw on some extra weight."

He's talking about government-mandated restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions and what they could do to our economy.

Read the entire piece here.

____

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Energy, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:08 AM

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Prince Charles: Cutting Carbon a Priority; Economy Comes Second

I wonder if he flew to Toyko.
____

Labels: Climate, Economics, Energy, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:39 PM

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie on Federal Bailout Controversy

By David Almasi:

Mychal Massie, the chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network Project 21, has this to say about our nation's current financial mess and those willing to do anything but let free market mechanisms bring things back to normal:

Our nation's current financial turmoil should be no surprise to those charged with overseeing our financial system, yet those yelling the loudest about our not being prepared seem to have been the ones with their heads in the sand the longest.

Case in point: When the Bush Administration suggested a regulatory overhaul of the housing finance industry in 2003, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) said: "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Source: "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae," New York Times, September 11, 2003) The Fox News Channel is broadcasting a similar pronouncement by Frank made in 2005.

At the time, Frank was the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee. Today, he is the chairman. He is part of the crowd seeking the bailout that will probably cost taxpayers well over a trillion dollars to correct. It could and should have been prevented by something he refused at the time to acknowledge.

To add further insult to this epic fiscal injury, lawmakers and members of the Bush Administration are seeking ways to game the free market to correct the very problem that government negligence allowed to happen in the first place.

It is unwise for the government to presume American taxpayers do not have a breaking point. It is a misrepresentation of that which is being proposed to portray this - as they are - as a "recovery plan." It is a "bailout," and a wholesale bailout of industries ad nauseam at that.

It is simply unfair and unjust for taxpayers to essentially be the financial safety net for those responsible for foreseeable economic misdeeds on a gargantuan scale.

_____

Labels: Business, Congress, Economics, Government Spending, Liberals, Project 21, Race, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:01 PM

Saturday, April 05, 2008

Green is the New Red

If you read one global warming article this year, make it this one.
_____

Labels: Climate, Economics, Energy, Environment, Government Power

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:02 PM