A Scam by any other name…
By “traditionalbill”
As much as we are told we need more access to credit to get the old economy going, it is the misuse of credit that got the economy stopped to begin with. When someone in government tells you we can throw money to solve a problem, and it’s borrowed money they are throwing, red flags should go up. Especially if they caused the problem.
Why did the Insurance market collapse? Because borrowed money wasn’t replaced with real money. It’s really that simple. Ditto the real estate market, the banking industry, and Wall Street. Sadly however, it was orchestrated to be that way. It was the bundling of loans as a salable commodity, guaranteed by the US partnerships like Fannie, Freddie, and Ginnie that fed the greed machine and helped create the perfect scam.
Here briefly is how it works. In the name of compassion, the government promises to help folks into homes, etc., by “guaranteeing” repayment of loans, especially mortgage loans. This opens the door for massive initiating and reselling loans. The chosen lenders make loans, not to put people into homes, but to resell them to make a quick short turn profit.
Bribes and favors drive government policy. Common sense does not. Had it, common sense would have cautioned them that guaranteeing a loan for a shaky candidate doesn’t make it get paid back. Worse, the industry will, and did, become addicted to making bad loans to resell them. Worse, the demand for loans drove real estate values above their true value. Worse, the “industry” was driven by deficit money. Money that does not actually exist. Still, the bad loan business was good, hot politically and profitable for business.
As the overvalued loans came due to be paid, and could not be, market after market involved in the loan bundling business collapsed. The “poor” were not helped, unless driving up unemployment rates, foreclosure rates, and insurance rates are benefits. Who was helped? The same fat cats that got rich off the bad loans. They kept the ill gotten gain, and than got bailed out of potential responsibility with tarp funds and stimulus money. It was and is still, business as usual. They think we don’t know that.
What’s going on now? More of the same. All the talk about mortgage programs to help those caught in the foreclosure squeeze? The money actually goes to the lenders. Are consumer borrowing rates lower? Nope. Are mortgage points lower? Nope. Are closing costs lower? Nope. Are lenders reimbursed? Yep. Are campaign coffers brimming? Yep.
A scam by any other name is still a scam.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Deficit and Default - Cause and Effect
Some things are just plain wrong. Deficit spending is one of them. Avoiding deficits or eliminating debt are appropriate responses. Compromising to continue deficit spending, even one dollar of it, is not.
The politically left elitists, along with their ever loyal mainstream press, propose we avoid the consequences of default without addressing the root cause. They believe we must avoid default regardeless of how we do it. It's part of their "ends justifies the means" thinking process. Moreover, they hold that the public wants both parties in Washington to compromise to "get things done". By their reasoning deficits just happen. In truth deficits are not things that just happen. They're things we cause, and unless we address the cause we cannot avoid eventual default, even if we dodge the bullet this time with more debt.
The truth is the deficit now has a stranglehold on our economy. Greece plunged into unsustainable debt and has Europe holding it's breath waiting for a domino effect. Greece is a preview of things to come for us. We'll just make a much bigger splash.
It doesn't help that the average person has little grasp of the high costs of debt until they're personally destroyed by it. We don't instruct people in public schools how to acquire wealth or how to use money. Instead we pound them with a message that credit is convenient short cut to life's enjoyable things. But that's just marketing talk, addicting us to plastic the same way we addict people to everything from cigarettes to big screen TV's. At some point Americans come to grips with reality. Lives are ruined as bankruptcy and foreclosure dockets are full.
Debt undermines all healthy financial foundations. Unsustainable debt is the root cause of the recent financial chaos in the credit, finance, insurance and real estate industries. The answer government keeps coming up with is, in effect, a Ponzi scheme. They vote to allow more borrowing to pay the bills we can't pay from tax revenues. We raise the debt ceiling. This stalls the effect but increases the debt. It makes the problem bigger. It also hides the partnership of a corrupt government accepting coffers of campaign dollars in exchange for favorable legislation, pet project funding, and good old stimulus bailout money to favored sons.
Insanity has been described as repeating something over and over and expecting a different result. We've raised the debt ceiling over and over again since 1969, always with a premise that Congress will address the debt and balance the budget, but they never do. They are addicted spenders. They influence, bribe, and reward campaign support partners by tossing arround money they don't actually have, but have the power to obligate the country to pay out, financed by debt.
Greed is not good. Gordon Gekko is a Hollywood concoction. Deficit spending is just plain wrong, and fifteen trillion dollars worth is extremely wrong. Dangerously wrong. Perhaps even criminally wrong. When the time comes for the U.S. government to really default, as it ultimately must, there is no bankruptcy procedure to fix things. Remember the U.S.S.R.? When a nation collapses, it changes governments. That's how it works.
The truth is, the only outcome of increasing deficits and debt is national financial collapse. Calling for Republicans to "compromise" without addressing the cause and balancing the budget is both cowardly and foolish. That the Senate just refused to consider the Cut, Cap and Balance bill passed by the House or allow debate about it is a very clear is indication that the Senate has no intention of stopping the train wreck.
Millions of us recognize the danger and we want it stopped now. If London Bridge must fall, let's deal with it, and not place the burden on the backs of a future generation. But the truth is, London Bridge doesn't have to fall. We can actually address the root cause, deficit spending, and fix the problem.
Those unwilling to do so are the narrow of mind, in spite of all their name calling.
The politically left elitists, along with their ever loyal mainstream press, propose we avoid the consequences of default without addressing the root cause. They believe we must avoid default regardeless of how we do it. It's part of their "ends justifies the means" thinking process. Moreover, they hold that the public wants both parties in Washington to compromise to "get things done". By their reasoning deficits just happen. In truth deficits are not things that just happen. They're things we cause, and unless we address the cause we cannot avoid eventual default, even if we dodge the bullet this time with more debt.
The truth is the deficit now has a stranglehold on our economy. Greece plunged into unsustainable debt and has Europe holding it's breath waiting for a domino effect. Greece is a preview of things to come for us. We'll just make a much bigger splash.
It doesn't help that the average person has little grasp of the high costs of debt until they're personally destroyed by it. We don't instruct people in public schools how to acquire wealth or how to use money. Instead we pound them with a message that credit is convenient short cut to life's enjoyable things. But that's just marketing talk, addicting us to plastic the same way we addict people to everything from cigarettes to big screen TV's. At some point Americans come to grips with reality. Lives are ruined as bankruptcy and foreclosure dockets are full.
Debt undermines all healthy financial foundations. Unsustainable debt is the root cause of the recent financial chaos in the credit, finance, insurance and real estate industries. The answer government keeps coming up with is, in effect, a Ponzi scheme. They vote to allow more borrowing to pay the bills we can't pay from tax revenues. We raise the debt ceiling. This stalls the effect but increases the debt. It makes the problem bigger. It also hides the partnership of a corrupt government accepting coffers of campaign dollars in exchange for favorable legislation, pet project funding, and good old stimulus bailout money to favored sons.
Insanity has been described as repeating something over and over and expecting a different result. We've raised the debt ceiling over and over again since 1969, always with a premise that Congress will address the debt and balance the budget, but they never do. They are addicted spenders. They influence, bribe, and reward campaign support partners by tossing arround money they don't actually have, but have the power to obligate the country to pay out, financed by debt.
Greed is not good. Gordon Gekko is a Hollywood concoction. Deficit spending is just plain wrong, and fifteen trillion dollars worth is extremely wrong. Dangerously wrong. Perhaps even criminally wrong. When the time comes for the U.S. government to really default, as it ultimately must, there is no bankruptcy procedure to fix things. Remember the U.S.S.R.? When a nation collapses, it changes governments. That's how it works.
The truth is, the only outcome of increasing deficits and debt is national financial collapse. Calling for Republicans to "compromise" without addressing the cause and balancing the budget is both cowardly and foolish. That the Senate just refused to consider the Cut, Cap and Balance bill passed by the House or allow debate about it is a very clear is indication that the Senate has no intention of stopping the train wreck.
Millions of us recognize the danger and we want it stopped now. If London Bridge must fall, let's deal with it, and not place the burden on the backs of a future generation. But the truth is, London Bridge doesn't have to fall. We can actually address the root cause, deficit spending, and fix the problem.
Those unwilling to do so are the narrow of mind, in spite of all their name calling.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Casey Anthony - Just A Bad Verdict
The OJ Simpson trial taught shocked Americans that clever legalese can prejudice a jury that wants to be prejudiced. The Casey Anthony show added gloating to the sting of injustice. Both are simply examples of bad verdicts.
For the Geraldo's and misguided Hannity's touting the verdict as a victory for the constitution, it's nothing of the sort. Constitutional protections were honored as they should be. No one wants them diminished or ignored. But that fact however has nothing to do with the verdict. It was a bad one, rendered in spite of the evidence rather than because of it.
For openers, " beyond a reasonable doubt" has been hijacked by defense Guru's to become " no doubt at all". The truth is, unless you're an eye witness, some doubt is always present. Some doubt is reasonable. Caylee Anthony could have been kidnapped by slave traders. Or abducted by aliens. Or stung to death by killer bees. Or drowned in the pool. While remote and unsubstantiated possibilities exist, that hardly warrants acceptance of them over facts that are a matter of record. Casey is a confirmed self serving, remorseless, liar. She wrote bad checks with no regard what-so-ever for the victims. She lied to police, to her parents, to her boyfriend, and to her partying friends to intentionally cover the truth about Caylee. To brush this aside to consider one of the remote possibilities, as some jurors have admitted to doing, is much more "unreasonable" over considering the preponderance of facts pointing to the obvious.
Casey's demeanor as a mother during the first 30 days is horrifying. Not reporting the baby missing is incredibly morally corrupt and reckless behavior. If it doesn't prove to some people that she caused the baby's death, it certainly does prove she acted selfishly for her sake and dangerously for her baby's sake. But when you combine all the known facts and apply them to a baby found duck taped, in a trash bag, in a marsh, it becomes unreasonable to consider Casey was not the cause of Caylee's death. It's overwhelmingly clear to almost everyone except the jurors. They seem to have bought into an unreasonable requirement to "doubt" the evidence in front of them. It doesn't matter if we forensically know how Caylee died. We know conclusively she is dead. There is only one criminally corrupt, remorseless, selfish, and reckless person the evidence points to.
Casey did not get a not guilty verdict because her constitutional rights were assured. She got it because innuendo's were permitted in place of evidence, and because jurors were brainwashed into believing that any doubt at all means they shouldn't find someone guilty. I believe most of the time, when the spot lights are not so bright, we get it right. This time we didn't.
For the Geraldo's and misguided Hannity's touting the verdict as a victory for the constitution, it's nothing of the sort. Constitutional protections were honored as they should be. No one wants them diminished or ignored. But that fact however has nothing to do with the verdict. It was a bad one, rendered in spite of the evidence rather than because of it.
For openers, " beyond a reasonable doubt" has been hijacked by defense Guru's to become " no doubt at all". The truth is, unless you're an eye witness, some doubt is always present. Some doubt is reasonable. Caylee Anthony could have been kidnapped by slave traders. Or abducted by aliens. Or stung to death by killer bees. Or drowned in the pool. While remote and unsubstantiated possibilities exist, that hardly warrants acceptance of them over facts that are a matter of record. Casey is a confirmed self serving, remorseless, liar. She wrote bad checks with no regard what-so-ever for the victims. She lied to police, to her parents, to her boyfriend, and to her partying friends to intentionally cover the truth about Caylee. To brush this aside to consider one of the remote possibilities, as some jurors have admitted to doing, is much more "unreasonable" over considering the preponderance of facts pointing to the obvious.
Casey's demeanor as a mother during the first 30 days is horrifying. Not reporting the baby missing is incredibly morally corrupt and reckless behavior. If it doesn't prove to some people that she caused the baby's death, it certainly does prove she acted selfishly for her sake and dangerously for her baby's sake. But when you combine all the known facts and apply them to a baby found duck taped, in a trash bag, in a marsh, it becomes unreasonable to consider Casey was not the cause of Caylee's death. It's overwhelmingly clear to almost everyone except the jurors. They seem to have bought into an unreasonable requirement to "doubt" the evidence in front of them. It doesn't matter if we forensically know how Caylee died. We know conclusively she is dead. There is only one criminally corrupt, remorseless, selfish, and reckless person the evidence points to.
Casey did not get a not guilty verdict because her constitutional rights were assured. She got it because innuendo's were permitted in place of evidence, and because jurors were brainwashed into believing that any doubt at all means they shouldn't find someone guilty. I believe most of the time, when the spot lights are not so bright, we get it right. This time we didn't.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
The Rhetoric of the "Clueless".
Another Obama quote graced the front page of the local business section. "America must invest in high-tech manufacturing". Uh huh. Sounds profound.
The problem with this kind of rhetorical blithering is in spite of it being an essentially meaningless statement, it suggests anyone in disagreement is not in favor of a great America. But among those like myself, and a few million other Tea Party advocates, the problem is that this kind of rhetoric is actually used to make America less great. To be specific, the problem is a socialist wanna be group of legislators seizing on popular sound bites to interfere with basic freedoms, one of which is the free market system.
" America must invest in high tech manufacturing". My first response is, why? As I suspected (and in fact feared) Obama called for "a joint effort by industry, universities, and the federal government to help reposition the United States as a leader in cutting edge manufacturing". What does the last decade of political reality 101 tell us this really means? A bunch of political insiders a/k/a political donors, are going to get federally distributed dollars (500 million in this case)to feather the nests of a selected few. When the smoke clears the debt will be bigger and basic freedoms smaller. Unions will receive priority, so long as they remain democratic party supporters. When the alignment actually produces little and changes nothing, the inside spin magnates will exemplify how many jobs were "created", omitting the details about deficit increases and tax burdens.
We are soooo tired of this. A ray of light on the political spectrum shows the voting public is also tiring of the double speak leading us into the financial solidarity of a modern day Grecian utopia.
Why not a return to the free market philosophy that made this nation great. That means less government "creation" and more genuine individual American ingenuity. Drop the phrases about how we must "compete in the global marketplace" when that really means that Washington insiders will get favored contracts to open export and import operations, and factories in other nations. Americans need to build in and for America and let the world come to us, instead of the other way around.
The truth is every time these 500 million dollar programs are launched, it does more to endanger the factory worker in small town America, than to enhance him. Obligating future taxation to generations of Americans is an ugly result of "job creation".
The problem with this kind of rhetorical blithering is in spite of it being an essentially meaningless statement, it suggests anyone in disagreement is not in favor of a great America. But among those like myself, and a few million other Tea Party advocates, the problem is that this kind of rhetoric is actually used to make America less great. To be specific, the problem is a socialist wanna be group of legislators seizing on popular sound bites to interfere with basic freedoms, one of which is the free market system.
" America must invest in high tech manufacturing". My first response is, why? As I suspected (and in fact feared) Obama called for "a joint effort by industry, universities, and the federal government to help reposition the United States as a leader in cutting edge manufacturing". What does the last decade of political reality 101 tell us this really means? A bunch of political insiders a/k/a political donors, are going to get federally distributed dollars (500 million in this case)to feather the nests of a selected few. When the smoke clears the debt will be bigger and basic freedoms smaller. Unions will receive priority, so long as they remain democratic party supporters. When the alignment actually produces little and changes nothing, the inside spin magnates will exemplify how many jobs were "created", omitting the details about deficit increases and tax burdens.
We are soooo tired of this. A ray of light on the political spectrum shows the voting public is also tiring of the double speak leading us into the financial solidarity of a modern day Grecian utopia.
Why not a return to the free market philosophy that made this nation great. That means less government "creation" and more genuine individual American ingenuity. Drop the phrases about how we must "compete in the global marketplace" when that really means that Washington insiders will get favored contracts to open export and import operations, and factories in other nations. Americans need to build in and for America and let the world come to us, instead of the other way around.
The truth is every time these 500 million dollar programs are launched, it does more to endanger the factory worker in small town America, than to enhance him. Obligating future taxation to generations of Americans is an ugly result of "job creation".
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Tesla-mania Sweeps Wall Street
Were it not so tragically representative of what’s wrong with our financial market, the demand for Tesla Motors IPO offering would be laughable. Indeed the beautiful people are all agog with what they believe is the hottest stock prospect since Starbucks found a market for three dollar coffee flavored whipped cream.
What’s all the fuss about? Tesla Motors, the latest darling of Hollywood, political leftists, and amateur Wall Street enthusiasts. Anybody who’s anybody wants to be in this game. Tesla is the electric roadster car made in Great Britain designed to sell for a mere $109,000.00. Names like George Clooney and Brad Pitt top a list of 998 people with orders in for them. It is the stuff that anti oil, life is good when living off the government, environmentalists dream of. For them it is answered prayer to gas guzzlers. For mainstream America however, it is an unrealistic and unworkable alternative.
Similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which never seems to make money but enjoys government subsidies, Tesla, a British company, is politically popular. Enough to have garnered 465 million dollars from the US government in loan guarantees. Also similar to Freddie and Fannie the government insists that the names of campaign donors that coincidentally matches the names of the Tesla principals wasn’t a factor in their decision. This of course is the same denial about the 529 million in government loan guarantees issued to Fisker Automotive, a Finnish car which coincidentally boasts Al Gore’s group as investors. The rest of us are scratching our heads trying to figure out how high priced electric prototypes outside America benefits America.
While admittedly lacking a degree in automotive engineering or economics, I none the less hold the view, counter to our government and the political left, that a car designed to sell for over 100 thousand dollars is probably not going to be the breakthrough to resolving oil dependency. What it is going to do, in my opinion, is make a few insiders a car trunk full of money…, and then go broke.
With all the insider elements in play, the initial public offering is getting incredible interest in the financial district. Apparently everybody thinks those early in are going to make a pile of money buying Tesla stock and they may be correct. Stock is strictly a demand driven product. When a lot of people want the stock, even if the company has no prospect of making a profit, share prices rise. Similarly in a financially healthy company that is making a profit, such as BP, when a lot of people don’t want the stock, the share price goes down. Still, in the long term however, when a company has no chance of making money or surviving, the stock collapses. That stated, I for one would not be buying Tesla with a long term view.
One big problem with Tesla is that it is mired in debt on the front end. All they’ve done with the massive start up loans is manage to lose money. Hundreds of millions. Moreover the car can’t become popular because it is priced beyond reach for the average American. Even among those who can afford one, does anyone seriously think they are going to be trading in their Roadster ever year for a new one?
The founder and CEO Elon Musk is admittedly broke, in the process of a messy divorce, and desperate for cash. Tesla has already lost 246 million dollars in the first three years. None of this suggests optimism.
Recent history suggests the politically connected insiders will pocket millions and walk away rich when the company fails. Those with arms linked to Washington power will move on to new government deals and contracts. That’s how the game is played. It’s important to remember that at a casino, the dealer always works for the house while the players go broke.
My prediction for this latest hundred grand fad is that like all fads, it will run it’s course and fade away, along with the money of many small investors. Before you get too caught up in Tesla-mania, my advice is to think, “DeLorean.
What’s all the fuss about? Tesla Motors, the latest darling of Hollywood, political leftists, and amateur Wall Street enthusiasts. Anybody who’s anybody wants to be in this game. Tesla is the electric roadster car made in Great Britain designed to sell for a mere $109,000.00. Names like George Clooney and Brad Pitt top a list of 998 people with orders in for them. It is the stuff that anti oil, life is good when living off the government, environmentalists dream of. For them it is answered prayer to gas guzzlers. For mainstream America however, it is an unrealistic and unworkable alternative.
Similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which never seems to make money but enjoys government subsidies, Tesla, a British company, is politically popular. Enough to have garnered 465 million dollars from the US government in loan guarantees. Also similar to Freddie and Fannie the government insists that the names of campaign donors that coincidentally matches the names of the Tesla principals wasn’t a factor in their decision. This of course is the same denial about the 529 million in government loan guarantees issued to Fisker Automotive, a Finnish car which coincidentally boasts Al Gore’s group as investors. The rest of us are scratching our heads trying to figure out how high priced electric prototypes outside America benefits America.
While admittedly lacking a degree in automotive engineering or economics, I none the less hold the view, counter to our government and the political left, that a car designed to sell for over 100 thousand dollars is probably not going to be the breakthrough to resolving oil dependency. What it is going to do, in my opinion, is make a few insiders a car trunk full of money…, and then go broke.
With all the insider elements in play, the initial public offering is getting incredible interest in the financial district. Apparently everybody thinks those early in are going to make a pile of money buying Tesla stock and they may be correct. Stock is strictly a demand driven product. When a lot of people want the stock, even if the company has no prospect of making a profit, share prices rise. Similarly in a financially healthy company that is making a profit, such as BP, when a lot of people don’t want the stock, the share price goes down. Still, in the long term however, when a company has no chance of making money or surviving, the stock collapses. That stated, I for one would not be buying Tesla with a long term view.
One big problem with Tesla is that it is mired in debt on the front end. All they’ve done with the massive start up loans is manage to lose money. Hundreds of millions. Moreover the car can’t become popular because it is priced beyond reach for the average American. Even among those who can afford one, does anyone seriously think they are going to be trading in their Roadster ever year for a new one?
The founder and CEO Elon Musk is admittedly broke, in the process of a messy divorce, and desperate for cash. Tesla has already lost 246 million dollars in the first three years. None of this suggests optimism.
Recent history suggests the politically connected insiders will pocket millions and walk away rich when the company fails. Those with arms linked to Washington power will move on to new government deals and contracts. That’s how the game is played. It’s important to remember that at a casino, the dealer always works for the house while the players go broke.
My prediction for this latest hundred grand fad is that like all fads, it will run it’s course and fade away, along with the money of many small investors. Before you get too caught up in Tesla-mania, my advice is to think, “DeLorean.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Disclose Act Needs Disclosure
Anytime Chuck Schumer proposes anything, suspicious minds are justified. The Disclosure Act, a Schumer and Chris Van Hollen brainchild, is another attempt to tip the scales of influence rather than correct them.
Like all legislation these days, the Disclose Act is a bill clouded with legalese and shrouded with mystery. Then again, legislation rarely is intended to be understood by mainstream America. That the Health care bill was 2100 pages of gobble dee gook was not entirely accidental. Ditto with the Disclosure Act. What Americans really need is disclosure about the Disclosure Act. Unfortunately you won’t get it from the proponents.
As is hardly a secret, Democrats are losing voters like a lacerated artery and they want to staunch the bleeding as the mid term elections near. Rather than change to honest and constitutionally mandated principles, they believe that right now would be time to limit business donors who are more prone to support Republicans. They’ve crafted a bill to inhibit Republican leaning election supporters under the guise of a Wall Street clean up.
In truth this legislation may not stand up to a constitutional challenge but that’s not the main concern of the drafters. The idea is to get it through in time for this election as a lot of incumbent Democrats are in trouble. They say the legislation is needed to control greedy businesses whose dubious methods hurt the economy. There is some truth to this. The sector they’re targeting however are those worried the Democrat congress is over taxing, over reaching, and over regulating. In other words, those that may support a Republican return to power. They’ve exempted many of the champions of wasteful spending who engage in government programs and financially support Democrats. Fannie and Freddie for example, spiraling out of control with wasteful spending and questionable ethics are exempt.
Beyond exempting Fannie and Freddie the bill would also exempt unions and those organizations enjoying collective bargaining agreements with the government. These are the special interests that pour billions into Democratic coffers. Why they are receiving an exemption to the regulation is obvious. Why they should however is inexplicable. The true purpose of the legislation is not to clean up anything, but to tilt the scales for this election.
My opposition to the Disclose Act is not so much the “free speech” argument that most Republicans echo. I believe the bill would be valid if it went further. In other words, if they stop exempting their favorite interest groups, on both sides of the aisle, I support campaign finance reform. It’s when you start making exceptions so that you can bypass the actual purpose of the legislation that I part company.
I support free speech, but not when that right is exclusively used as money dedicated to buying congressional and presidential influence. With a lobbying industry expected to spend over 3.7 billion dollars for this midterm and 5.5 billion when the oval office is in play, it’s obvious that objectivity is being purchased. Almost every reform bill crafted for the past 20 years has some special interest strings attached to it, either in terms of preferential treatment, or in government contracts being handed out. That’s why this nation is over 14 trillion in debt and Congress pretends that it’s wise, prudent, and necessary spending.
For the same reason you cannot yell “ fire” in a crowded theater, you ought not be able to purchase a party or a candidate by stuffing their pockets with money and freebies. The truth is, we’re beyond mere influence. Pay to play has stymied objective and constitutional government practically out of existence. Nor should a congressman’s job be primarily consumed almost twelve months a year with quota’s of campaign money to raise for their party leaders. That’s exactly how government now works. Everybody knows it even though politicians don’t admit it.
The Disclose Act is in fact a bad bill because it’s meant to corrupt the system further rather than correct it. It’s the same problem with virtually every reform bill that Congress generates.
Do I oppose the Disclose Act because it goes too far? No. I oppose it because it doesn’t go far enough.
Like all legislation these days, the Disclose Act is a bill clouded with legalese and shrouded with mystery. Then again, legislation rarely is intended to be understood by mainstream America. That the Health care bill was 2100 pages of gobble dee gook was not entirely accidental. Ditto with the Disclosure Act. What Americans really need is disclosure about the Disclosure Act. Unfortunately you won’t get it from the proponents.
As is hardly a secret, Democrats are losing voters like a lacerated artery and they want to staunch the bleeding as the mid term elections near. Rather than change to honest and constitutionally mandated principles, they believe that right now would be time to limit business donors who are more prone to support Republicans. They’ve crafted a bill to inhibit Republican leaning election supporters under the guise of a Wall Street clean up.
In truth this legislation may not stand up to a constitutional challenge but that’s not the main concern of the drafters. The idea is to get it through in time for this election as a lot of incumbent Democrats are in trouble. They say the legislation is needed to control greedy businesses whose dubious methods hurt the economy. There is some truth to this. The sector they’re targeting however are those worried the Democrat congress is over taxing, over reaching, and over regulating. In other words, those that may support a Republican return to power. They’ve exempted many of the champions of wasteful spending who engage in government programs and financially support Democrats. Fannie and Freddie for example, spiraling out of control with wasteful spending and questionable ethics are exempt.
Beyond exempting Fannie and Freddie the bill would also exempt unions and those organizations enjoying collective bargaining agreements with the government. These are the special interests that pour billions into Democratic coffers. Why they are receiving an exemption to the regulation is obvious. Why they should however is inexplicable. The true purpose of the legislation is not to clean up anything, but to tilt the scales for this election.
My opposition to the Disclose Act is not so much the “free speech” argument that most Republicans echo. I believe the bill would be valid if it went further. In other words, if they stop exempting their favorite interest groups, on both sides of the aisle, I support campaign finance reform. It’s when you start making exceptions so that you can bypass the actual purpose of the legislation that I part company.
I support free speech, but not when that right is exclusively used as money dedicated to buying congressional and presidential influence. With a lobbying industry expected to spend over 3.7 billion dollars for this midterm and 5.5 billion when the oval office is in play, it’s obvious that objectivity is being purchased. Almost every reform bill crafted for the past 20 years has some special interest strings attached to it, either in terms of preferential treatment, or in government contracts being handed out. That’s why this nation is over 14 trillion in debt and Congress pretends that it’s wise, prudent, and necessary spending.
For the same reason you cannot yell “ fire” in a crowded theater, you ought not be able to purchase a party or a candidate by stuffing their pockets with money and freebies. The truth is, we’re beyond mere influence. Pay to play has stymied objective and constitutional government practically out of existence. Nor should a congressman’s job be primarily consumed almost twelve months a year with quota’s of campaign money to raise for their party leaders. That’s exactly how government now works. Everybody knows it even though politicians don’t admit it.
The Disclose Act is in fact a bad bill because it’s meant to corrupt the system further rather than correct it. It’s the same problem with virtually every reform bill that Congress generates.
Do I oppose the Disclose Act because it goes too far? No. I oppose it because it doesn’t go far enough.
Monday, June 21, 2010
For Congress Morality Is The Color Of Money
As parents know, children justify all sorts of juvenile behavior. Ditto with lawmakers when public or private funds are dangled in front of them. The difference is, as parents we get to say “no” on the spot.
A June 21st USA Today story - “Legislators Trek On Private Dime” - revealed that nonprofits and special interests have spent 73 percent more the first quarter of 2010 when compared to 2009. According to the story 24 trips to places like Spain, wives often included, were paid for with $435,000 in private funds. One would think there is a bustling economy and nothing to work on in Washington these days.
Rather than see a potential conflict, many of our elected legislators perceive morality as the color of money. When they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, Congress blusters a little, sometimes even admonishing a representative as a token gesture. Then before the gavel dust settles, they move on to another cookie jar.
Sometimes the cookie jar is labeled private funds. Sometimes it’s public. The stimulus package jar has been hot lately. Sometimes the jar is labeled campaign donations or “speaking fees” or perhaps prearranged book sales. Everybody knows their weakness. It’s money and freebies. Like most addicts they won’t admit they have a problem.
In 2006 the public reacted negatively and Congress passed token travel reform with the usual loopholes. It did slow things from the “conference” trip cookie jar; from $5 million in private money for 2100 lawmaker trips in 2006, to $3.5 million for 1075 trips in 2008. Things even stayed cool for a while with folks like Charlie Rangel drawing admonishments for taking Caribbean trips in 2007 and 2008. But like a dripping spigot increasing velocity, privately paid trip funding is picking back up.
If you ask anyone taking or receiving the influence package, it’s always for the purest of reasons. Representative Michael Burgess, for example, took a $7981 trip this year to Spain. He also took 7 trips in 2009. He told USA Today, “ None of the trips were done for pleasure. The other option is take trips at taxpayer expense and that would obviously raise concerns for people as well.” That’s congressional logic.
Let’s correct Rep. Burgess’s reasoning then for the record. The other option is to not take the trips at all! Not to let the cat out of the bag, but we now have the internet as a learning tool and one can stay put in Washington. If that is not sufficient, try “gotomeeting.com”. There really are other options but one has to think outside the lobbyists and special interest box. There are other ways than to travel and dine first class with one’s spouse and associates.
It’s really got to stop. Not some of it. All of it. Not just this spigot or that cookie jar, but all of it. Consider 13,746 lobbyists spent $3.49 billion in 2009, almost equally on both parties with Democrats having the edge. Before his conviction, the money Jack Abromoff filtered reached 81 Senators and 227 House representatives. And he’s a drop in the bucket. One of 13,746 registered lobbyists.
Congress will not cure itself. They will always find another cookie jar. The best solution for the taxpayer is to vote against any incumbent who votes for any spending bill, regardless. It doesn’t matter if it is to save the life of my mother. If someone is voting for deficit spending for any reason, I no longer trust that the justification is not bought and paid for by an outside influence. If that means changing out every member of Congress every two and four year election cycle, so be it.
For those who decry that the constant change means that nothing will get done politically, my reply is, that’s a lot better than the wrong thing getting done expediently. We need to keep changing the faces until they learn they cannot settle in as a lobbyist lap dog on out time.
For quite a while now we’ve had the best Congress money can buy. That has to change.
A June 21st USA Today story - “Legislators Trek On Private Dime” - revealed that nonprofits and special interests have spent 73 percent more the first quarter of 2010 when compared to 2009. According to the story 24 trips to places like Spain, wives often included, were paid for with $435,000 in private funds. One would think there is a bustling economy and nothing to work on in Washington these days.
Rather than see a potential conflict, many of our elected legislators perceive morality as the color of money. When they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, Congress blusters a little, sometimes even admonishing a representative as a token gesture. Then before the gavel dust settles, they move on to another cookie jar.
Sometimes the cookie jar is labeled private funds. Sometimes it’s public. The stimulus package jar has been hot lately. Sometimes the jar is labeled campaign donations or “speaking fees” or perhaps prearranged book sales. Everybody knows their weakness. It’s money and freebies. Like most addicts they won’t admit they have a problem.
In 2006 the public reacted negatively and Congress passed token travel reform with the usual loopholes. It did slow things from the “conference” trip cookie jar; from $5 million in private money for 2100 lawmaker trips in 2006, to $3.5 million for 1075 trips in 2008. Things even stayed cool for a while with folks like Charlie Rangel drawing admonishments for taking Caribbean trips in 2007 and 2008. But like a dripping spigot increasing velocity, privately paid trip funding is picking back up.
If you ask anyone taking or receiving the influence package, it’s always for the purest of reasons. Representative Michael Burgess, for example, took a $7981 trip this year to Spain. He also took 7 trips in 2009. He told USA Today, “ None of the trips were done for pleasure. The other option is take trips at taxpayer expense and that would obviously raise concerns for people as well.” That’s congressional logic.
Let’s correct Rep. Burgess’s reasoning then for the record. The other option is to not take the trips at all! Not to let the cat out of the bag, but we now have the internet as a learning tool and one can stay put in Washington. If that is not sufficient, try “gotomeeting.com”. There really are other options but one has to think outside the lobbyists and special interest box. There are other ways than to travel and dine first class with one’s spouse and associates.
It’s really got to stop. Not some of it. All of it. Not just this spigot or that cookie jar, but all of it. Consider 13,746 lobbyists spent $3.49 billion in 2009, almost equally on both parties with Democrats having the edge. Before his conviction, the money Jack Abromoff filtered reached 81 Senators and 227 House representatives. And he’s a drop in the bucket. One of 13,746 registered lobbyists.
Congress will not cure itself. They will always find another cookie jar. The best solution for the taxpayer is to vote against any incumbent who votes for any spending bill, regardless. It doesn’t matter if it is to save the life of my mother. If someone is voting for deficit spending for any reason, I no longer trust that the justification is not bought and paid for by an outside influence. If that means changing out every member of Congress every two and four year election cycle, so be it.
For those who decry that the constant change means that nothing will get done politically, my reply is, that’s a lot better than the wrong thing getting done expediently. We need to keep changing the faces until they learn they cannot settle in as a lobbyist lap dog on out time.
For quite a while now we’ve had the best Congress money can buy. That has to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
