Content and intent of the stimulus bill -- soon to be passed by Congress, continues to baffle the average American. The term “average” is not meant to insult anyone or infer anything – but rather, the term describes all Americans – not better or worse than our fellow citizens, everyone created equal. To put a finer point on it, we’re all riding on the good ship USS USA together, for better or worse. But every ship has a control bridge, and for the moment, it is the leadership up on the bridge that worries us “average” taxpayers.
Down below decks, we are the engine room mechanics, meal cooks and stewards. We are coal shovels, painters and carpenters. We are the ones who wear the overalls and get dirty. Up on the top deck, wearing their starched whites, are our commanding officers who we hope know what they are doing. Amongst the crew, we wonder out loud of their abilities. Do we want them to be aggressive, passive or just plain competent?
A recognized hallmark of effective leadership is excellent communication skills. Aboard the USS USA, that means White House and other administration officials communicating clearly with each other and with the taxpayer – clearly explaining why the ship is on a particular course. And, God forbid the ship is damaged, telling us precisely what actions they plan on taking. Americans don’t contemplate giving up the ship and we never will – but we have always required adequate and informed leadership.
In these early days of the Obama administration, the telephone lines that run from the bridge to the crew spaces below deck are jammed with mixed messages. It is not enough to say “ladies and gentleman, we’re going to sink and it’s going to be horrible”. Americans respond, “Yeah, so what are we going to do about it?”
The overstatement and soaring hyperbole on the size of the hole in our bottom has so far been the troubling hallmark of White House messaging. The last thing the crew needs to hear as the ship founders is “we’re in a hell of a mess” followed two minutes later by “we’re still in a hell of a mess.”
As the water pours into the ship, or, as is the case currently, billions of dollars flowing out of the taxpayer’s coffers, not one person in the entire administration is able to explain clearly what the devil is being done with the billions of dollars we are being asked to kick in. The money is flowing out of the ship like so much engine oil. The crew hears broad generalities about infrastructure repair, job creation, highway repair and such but absolutely no specifics as to how these pieces fit into the big picture. Remember the AIG bailout money? Yes, that money was pumped out during the last administration, but the current gang on the bridge admiring their gold braid is repeating the same mistake. They are suffering from a case of “the slows”, as President Lincoln like to call it.
Lincoln canned General McClelland after the Battle of Antietam for his “slowness”. Lincoln wanted results, not equivocation. Possibly this president will show the same fortitude of the man he constantly quotes and instill some aggressiveness in his “best and brightest” that have promised great things to the crew.
Captain, we’re waiting.
Submitted by ASO member: Matthew E Crowe
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
Stimulus Clears Hurdle
From CNN....
The Obama administration's $827 billion economic stimulus plan survived a key vote in the Senate, putting a compromise version of the bill on track for passage Tuesday.
With the help of Republican Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter, the Democrats locked in the votes needed to end debate on the bill.
The final vote was 61 in favor, 36 opposed.
The bill is expected to survive a full vote in the Senate on Tuesday, setting up a battle with the House as the two chambers try to iron out differences between their versions of the bill.
Click here to read more.
The Obama administration's $827 billion economic stimulus plan survived a key vote in the Senate, putting a compromise version of the bill on track for passage Tuesday.
With the help of Republican Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter, the Democrats locked in the votes needed to end debate on the bill.
The final vote was 61 in favor, 36 opposed.
The bill is expected to survive a full vote in the Senate on Tuesday, setting up a battle with the House as the two chambers try to iron out differences between their versions of the bill.
Click here to read more.
ARE YOU MAD YET AMERICA???
$1.6 billion of your taxpayer bailout money has gone to failed bank executive's pockets this year. In mid-December 2008, well before "normal" bonus time on Wall Street, the Associated Press reported that "$1.6 billion of YOUR TAXPAYER BAILOUT MONEY went to bailed-out bank executives." This $1.6 billion was in salaries, bonuses and other benefits an Associated Press analysis reveals and hurried along to be paid out before Congress could actually wake up and act to limit the executive compensation in the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program). Remember, originally, TARP was designed to buy up the bad debts from the balance sheets of these banks, so according to some, "it wasn't foreseeable that this compensation abuse issue would arise." I wrote about it for another publication in detail in the early FALL of 2008 when the whole issue first arose and warned each of my Congressmen, Senators and their staffers that the first thing that would happen with out taxpayer bailout money is that the executives would pay themselves royally. Yet, still, no safeguards were put in place for your FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES to act in a good fiduciary role with regards to YOUR money. And, so NOW, in February 2009, we have a new president, Obama, who has shown the light after the fact on the situation and chastised these greedy executives on Wall Street.
I hope that the American people, Red or Blue, Black or White or Brown, all have a problem with this. Let me explain. The fundamental issue at hand initially was that Wall Street was crying after the failure of Bear, Sterns and Lehman Brothers that URGENTLY they were going to be out of funds for operation and go belly up within seconds, hours, days...if they didn't get their share of TARP money ASAP. So, they threatened that ALL of Wall Street would be unemployed imminently and America would be in further financial crisis PLUS an unemployment level unprecedented in the last 20 years. OK, so Congress and the Senate let the then Treasury Secretary dole out funds to these Wall Street Guru Lobbyists who told us that giving them this bailout money would start lending in the USA again, preserve jobs across the board of industries in America because lending would again be free flowing, and that would be the end of the need for bailout money and the solution to the Holy Grail.
DID YOU BUY THAT LIE??? Our then Secretary of the Treasury, himself a former Goldman Sachs senior executive, INSISTED that this would be the answer. And so it was......the first bailout tranches have all been spent. So, do YOU have a clue where that money went? Below are some details provided by AP researchers from Federal Documents about how the first bailout was spent.
The rewards came even at banks where poor results last year foretold the economic crisis that sent them to Washington for a government rescue. Some trimmed their executive compensation due to lagging bank performance, but still forked over multimillion-dollar executive pay packages. The AP review of federal securities documents found that these benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, health club benefits, and, get this, FINANCIAL PLANNING!
"The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines. The AP compiled total compensation based on annual reports that the banks file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 116 banks have so far received $188 billion in taxpayer help. Among the findings:
The average paid to each of the banks' top executives was $2.6 million in salary, bonuses and benefits.
Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company's top five executives received a total of $242 million."
The AP also reported that this year, Goldman will forgo cash and stock bonuses for its seven top-paid executives. They will work for their base salaries of $600,000, the company said. Facing increasing concern by its own shareholders on executive payments, the company described its pay plan last spring as essential to retain and motivate executives "whose efforts and judgments are vital to our continued success, by setting their compensation at appropriate and competitive levels." Goldman spokesman Ed Canaday declined to comment beyond that written report. Goldman, a New York-based company on Dec. 16 reported its first quarterly loss since it went public in 1999. It received $10 billion in taxpayer money on Oct. 28.
Even where banks cut back on pay, some executives were left with seven- or eight-figure compensation that most people can only dream about. Richard D. Fairbank, the chairman of Capital One Financial Corp., took a $1 million hit in compensation after his company had a disappointing year, but still got $17 million in stock options. The McLean, Va.-based company received $3.56 billion in bailout money on Nov. 14.
John A. Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $83 million in earnings last year. Thain, a former chief operating officer for Goldman Sachs, took the reins of the company in December 2007, avoiding the blame for a year in which Merrill lost $7.8 billion. Since he began work late in the year, he earned $57,692 in salary, a $15 million signing bonus and an additional $68 million in stock options. Like Goldman, Merrill got $10 billion from taxpayers on Oct. 28. Oh, let me add that John Thain was recently thrown out on the "Street" by his new boss, Bank of America and because of Thain and other Merrill executives' compensation packages which were quickly dished out prior to the close of the B of A merger. Merrill sucked so much out of the company that they drove into the ground that Bank of America came back to the taxpayers and got another $20 billion dollars worth of rescue money from YOUR TAXPAYER PIGGYBANK to make up for Thain's boys payout day. We won't even talk about the close to $100,000 renovations Thain did recently to his Merrill executive office as that is old news by now. According to press sources, he now says he'll now pay back the renovation costs. Show us the check, we'd love to see it!
The AP review comes amid sharp questions about the banks' commitment to the goals of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), a law designed to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets. Last month, the Bush administration changed the program's goals, instructing the Treasury Department to pump tax dollars directly into banks in a bid to prevent wholesale economic collapse.
The program set restrictions on some executive compensation for participating banks, but did not limit salaries and bonuses unless they had the effect of encouraging excessive risk to the institution. Banks were barred from giving golden parachutes to departing executives and deducting some executive pay for tax purposes. The AP reports that, "Wells Fargo of San Francisco, which took $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money, gave its top executives up to $20,000 each to pay personal financial planners." AP also reports that, "at Bank of New York Mellon Corp., chief executive Robert P. Kelly's stipend for financial planning services came to $66,748, on top of his $975,000 salary and $7.5 million bonus. His car and driver cost $178,879. Kelly also received $846,000 in relocation expenses, including help selling his home in Pittsburgh and purchasing one in Manhattan, the company said." Further review of the federal documents showed the AP that, "Goldman Sachs' tab for leased cars and drivers ran as high as $233,000 per executive. The firm told its shareholders this year that financial counseling and chauffeurs are important in giving executives more time to focus on their jobs. And, JPMorgan Chase chairman James Dimon ran up a $211,182 private jet travel tab last year when his family lived in Chicago and he was commuting to New York. The company got $25 billion in bailout funds. Banks cite security to justify personal use of company aircraft for some executives."
ARE YOU MAD YET AMERICA? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RESULTS PROMISED TO YOU IN THE JOINT STATEMENT FROM BOTH PARTIES ANNOUNCING THE DISHING OUT OF YOUR FUNDS??? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RESULTS THAT SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, HENRY PAULSON, THE FINANCE GURU, PROMISED YOU WOULD RIGHT THE FINANCIAL WOES OF AMERICA??? ALLOW ME TO TELL YOU WHY IT FAILED. I'LL GIVE YOU THE SAME REASONS NOW THAT I GAVE MY REPRESENTATIVES IN THEIR LETTERS LAST FALL:
1. You have the financiers from Wall Street who bought up pooled bad assets without questioning them and traded and bought for their own accounts, derivative products that few of their employees even truly understand without ever analyzing the underlying assets, as the ones dictating to the Treasury what exactly it will take to get everything back on course? Do you allow a candy thief back into the candy store to be in charge of it and dictate its policies?
2. Americans should seriously question whether our Treasury Secretary, Paulson, and his assistant in charge of executing the program, both former Goldman employees can have "clean hands" and "unbiased intentions" while handing out ENORMOUS chunks of money to their former, and perhaps again future, colleagues as they quickly execute this free-for-all at the end of the Bush administration without many if any Congressional guidelines within which to operate.
3. Without guidelines for use of these bailout proceeds, it was obvious to me that the Wall Street "save me first" mentality would be predominant, and was. So, the shored up the capitalization of their firms and overcompensated their executives yet again. After all, wouldn't it have been reasonable to expect that EVERY employee left on Wall Street at a firm that received bailout funds would have the grace and pleasure of getting paid ONLY his/her regular salary in light of the fact that they came with hats in hand begging to the taxpayers for money?? Gee, there's a thought. After all, Wall Street Lobbyists came begging saying that if they didn't get the bailout funds, ALL these gurus would be unemployed. So, seems reasonable that having a job and having a salary and using the bailout funds for LENDING again would have been very clearly the MANDATE in this situation, right? How come, Joe Average is the only one who sees it this way??? Ethics are so warped in this entitlement atmosphere of Washington and New York City that without very clear guidelines, no money should have been given in this bailout.
4. What's the worst case scenario if these banking institutions failed? Your bailout money would have been used to pay the new $250,000 level of FDIC claims on individual banking deposits. In addition, money would have been left over to be lent to those needing working capital in QUALIFYING small and medium businesses that really need it to legitimately stay in business to turn a profit. Money would have been there to lend to QUALIFIED homebuyers, not to LIARS with LIAR LOANS NINA's).
THE REALITY IS THAT AMERICA NEEDS A NEW PARADIGM FOR ITS ECONOMY. BAILOUT NUMBER ONE WAS A PREDICTABLE FAILURE. BAILOUT NUMBER TWO IS SO FAR OFF THE MARK OF ANYTHING THAT CAN KEEP YOU OFF THE UMEMPLOYMENT LINE OR OFF WELFARE OR FROM BEING WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE THAT IT IS A FORESEEABLE, MORE EXPENSIVE FAILURE. WE CANNOT ASPIRE TO GO BACK TO THE IMAGINARY LEVEL OF DRUNKEN PROSPERITY THAT WAS PURCHASED WITH DEBT AND THEREFORE NEVER A REALITY! BUYING WORTHLESS ASSETS AND MAKING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM STILL SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. LET THE LOSING BANK BUSINESSES FAIL -if these Wall Street executives are so knowledgeable and so capitalistic, they would not be CAPITALIZING ALL THE PROFITS AND THEN SOCIALIZING ALL THEIR LOSSES UNTO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. SORRY BOYS, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Either you are a capitalist, in which case you should receive no bailouts and fail on your own merits according to Adam Smith's doctrine, or be socialized and let the Federal Government lend the money directly so at least it doesn't line the undeserving failed guru pockets while leaving Americans worse off. As a capitalist, I think they should fail. Capitalist doctrine is Darwinistic in its belief that successful economic paradigms will sustain themselves without government intervention. If they fail, I predict that many of the Wall Street gurus will form their own firms and market the next new capital markets product to the unaware just like they did when they left major firms to start hedge funds. While it is simply wrong to reward failure according to American work ethic, but it is criminal to do it with taxpayer money and all funds that were awarded personally to these failed employees, not just executives, should ALL be clawed back into the American people's Treasury.
Submitted by ASO member: Kimberly Wilcox
I hope that the American people, Red or Blue, Black or White or Brown, all have a problem with this. Let me explain. The fundamental issue at hand initially was that Wall Street was crying after the failure of Bear, Sterns and Lehman Brothers that URGENTLY they were going to be out of funds for operation and go belly up within seconds, hours, days...if they didn't get their share of TARP money ASAP. So, they threatened that ALL of Wall Street would be unemployed imminently and America would be in further financial crisis PLUS an unemployment level unprecedented in the last 20 years. OK, so Congress and the Senate let the then Treasury Secretary dole out funds to these Wall Street Guru Lobbyists who told us that giving them this bailout money would start lending in the USA again, preserve jobs across the board of industries in America because lending would again be free flowing, and that would be the end of the need for bailout money and the solution to the Holy Grail.
DID YOU BUY THAT LIE??? Our then Secretary of the Treasury, himself a former Goldman Sachs senior executive, INSISTED that this would be the answer. And so it was......the first bailout tranches have all been spent. So, do YOU have a clue where that money went? Below are some details provided by AP researchers from Federal Documents about how the first bailout was spent.
The rewards came even at banks where poor results last year foretold the economic crisis that sent them to Washington for a government rescue. Some trimmed their executive compensation due to lagging bank performance, but still forked over multimillion-dollar executive pay packages. The AP review of federal securities documents found that these benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, health club benefits, and, get this, FINANCIAL PLANNING!
"The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines. The AP compiled total compensation based on annual reports that the banks file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The 116 banks have so far received $188 billion in taxpayer help. Among the findings:
The average paid to each of the banks' top executives was $2.6 million in salary, bonuses and benefits.
Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $54 million in compensation last year. The company's top five executives received a total of $242 million."
The AP also reported that this year, Goldman will forgo cash and stock bonuses for its seven top-paid executives. They will work for their base salaries of $600,000, the company said. Facing increasing concern by its own shareholders on executive payments, the company described its pay plan last spring as essential to retain and motivate executives "whose efforts and judgments are vital to our continued success, by setting their compensation at appropriate and competitive levels." Goldman spokesman Ed Canaday declined to comment beyond that written report. Goldman, a New York-based company on Dec. 16 reported its first quarterly loss since it went public in 1999. It received $10 billion in taxpayer money on Oct. 28.
Even where banks cut back on pay, some executives were left with seven- or eight-figure compensation that most people can only dream about. Richard D. Fairbank, the chairman of Capital One Financial Corp., took a $1 million hit in compensation after his company had a disappointing year, but still got $17 million in stock options. The McLean, Va.-based company received $3.56 billion in bailout money on Nov. 14.
John A. Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $83 million in earnings last year. Thain, a former chief operating officer for Goldman Sachs, took the reins of the company in December 2007, avoiding the blame for a year in which Merrill lost $7.8 billion. Since he began work late in the year, he earned $57,692 in salary, a $15 million signing bonus and an additional $68 million in stock options. Like Goldman, Merrill got $10 billion from taxpayers on Oct. 28. Oh, let me add that John Thain was recently thrown out on the "Street" by his new boss, Bank of America and because of Thain and other Merrill executives' compensation packages which were quickly dished out prior to the close of the B of A merger. Merrill sucked so much out of the company that they drove into the ground that Bank of America came back to the taxpayers and got another $20 billion dollars worth of rescue money from YOUR TAXPAYER PIGGYBANK to make up for Thain's boys payout day. We won't even talk about the close to $100,000 renovations Thain did recently to his Merrill executive office as that is old news by now. According to press sources, he now says he'll now pay back the renovation costs. Show us the check, we'd love to see it!
The AP review comes amid sharp questions about the banks' commitment to the goals of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), a law designed to buy bad mortgages and other troubled assets. Last month, the Bush administration changed the program's goals, instructing the Treasury Department to pump tax dollars directly into banks in a bid to prevent wholesale economic collapse.
The program set restrictions on some executive compensation for participating banks, but did not limit salaries and bonuses unless they had the effect of encouraging excessive risk to the institution. Banks were barred from giving golden parachutes to departing executives and deducting some executive pay for tax purposes. The AP reports that, "Wells Fargo of San Francisco, which took $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money, gave its top executives up to $20,000 each to pay personal financial planners." AP also reports that, "at Bank of New York Mellon Corp., chief executive Robert P. Kelly's stipend for financial planning services came to $66,748, on top of his $975,000 salary and $7.5 million bonus. His car and driver cost $178,879. Kelly also received $846,000 in relocation expenses, including help selling his home in Pittsburgh and purchasing one in Manhattan, the company said." Further review of the federal documents showed the AP that, "Goldman Sachs' tab for leased cars and drivers ran as high as $233,000 per executive. The firm told its shareholders this year that financial counseling and chauffeurs are important in giving executives more time to focus on their jobs. And, JPMorgan Chase chairman James Dimon ran up a $211,182 private jet travel tab last year when his family lived in Chicago and he was commuting to New York. The company got $25 billion in bailout funds. Banks cite security to justify personal use of company aircraft for some executives."
ARE YOU MAD YET AMERICA? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RESULTS PROMISED TO YOU IN THE JOINT STATEMENT FROM BOTH PARTIES ANNOUNCING THE DISHING OUT OF YOUR FUNDS??? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RESULTS THAT SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, HENRY PAULSON, THE FINANCE GURU, PROMISED YOU WOULD RIGHT THE FINANCIAL WOES OF AMERICA??? ALLOW ME TO TELL YOU WHY IT FAILED. I'LL GIVE YOU THE SAME REASONS NOW THAT I GAVE MY REPRESENTATIVES IN THEIR LETTERS LAST FALL:
1. You have the financiers from Wall Street who bought up pooled bad assets without questioning them and traded and bought for their own accounts, derivative products that few of their employees even truly understand without ever analyzing the underlying assets, as the ones dictating to the Treasury what exactly it will take to get everything back on course? Do you allow a candy thief back into the candy store to be in charge of it and dictate its policies?
2. Americans should seriously question whether our Treasury Secretary, Paulson, and his assistant in charge of executing the program, both former Goldman employees can have "clean hands" and "unbiased intentions" while handing out ENORMOUS chunks of money to their former, and perhaps again future, colleagues as they quickly execute this free-for-all at the end of the Bush administration without many if any Congressional guidelines within which to operate.
3. Without guidelines for use of these bailout proceeds, it was obvious to me that the Wall Street "save me first" mentality would be predominant, and was. So, the shored up the capitalization of their firms and overcompensated their executives yet again. After all, wouldn't it have been reasonable to expect that EVERY employee left on Wall Street at a firm that received bailout funds would have the grace and pleasure of getting paid ONLY his/her regular salary in light of the fact that they came with hats in hand begging to the taxpayers for money?? Gee, there's a thought. After all, Wall Street Lobbyists came begging saying that if they didn't get the bailout funds, ALL these gurus would be unemployed. So, seems reasonable that having a job and having a salary and using the bailout funds for LENDING again would have been very clearly the MANDATE in this situation, right? How come, Joe Average is the only one who sees it this way??? Ethics are so warped in this entitlement atmosphere of Washington and New York City that without very clear guidelines, no money should have been given in this bailout.
4. What's the worst case scenario if these banking institutions failed? Your bailout money would have been used to pay the new $250,000 level of FDIC claims on individual banking deposits. In addition, money would have been left over to be lent to those needing working capital in QUALIFYING small and medium businesses that really need it to legitimately stay in business to turn a profit. Money would have been there to lend to QUALIFIED homebuyers, not to LIARS with LIAR LOANS NINA's).
THE REALITY IS THAT AMERICA NEEDS A NEW PARADIGM FOR ITS ECONOMY. BAILOUT NUMBER ONE WAS A PREDICTABLE FAILURE. BAILOUT NUMBER TWO IS SO FAR OFF THE MARK OF ANYTHING THAT CAN KEEP YOU OFF THE UMEMPLOYMENT LINE OR OFF WELFARE OR FROM BEING WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE THAT IT IS A FORESEEABLE, MORE EXPENSIVE FAILURE. WE CANNOT ASPIRE TO GO BACK TO THE IMAGINARY LEVEL OF DRUNKEN PROSPERITY THAT WAS PURCHASED WITH DEBT AND THEREFORE NEVER A REALITY! BUYING WORTHLESS ASSETS AND MAKING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM STILL SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. LET THE LOSING BANK BUSINESSES FAIL -if these Wall Street executives are so knowledgeable and so capitalistic, they would not be CAPITALIZING ALL THE PROFITS AND THEN SOCIALIZING ALL THEIR LOSSES UNTO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. SORRY BOYS, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Either you are a capitalist, in which case you should receive no bailouts and fail on your own merits according to Adam Smith's doctrine, or be socialized and let the Federal Government lend the money directly so at least it doesn't line the undeserving failed guru pockets while leaving Americans worse off. As a capitalist, I think they should fail. Capitalist doctrine is Darwinistic in its belief that successful economic paradigms will sustain themselves without government intervention. If they fail, I predict that many of the Wall Street gurus will form their own firms and market the next new capital markets product to the unaware just like they did when they left major firms to start hedge funds. While it is simply wrong to reward failure according to American work ethic, but it is criminal to do it with taxpayer money and all funds that were awarded personally to these failed employees, not just executives, should ALL be clawed back into the American people's Treasury.
Submitted by ASO member: Kimberly Wilcox
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Leader Boehner: Featured Blogger
“Stimulus” Should Unleash America’s Potential – Not Government’s Appetite for Pork
On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported more troubling news that the American economy is falling deeper into recession. In January, nearly 600,000 Americans lost their jobs, bringing the unemployment rate to 7.6% and the total number of jobs lost since the recession began to 3.6 million. These are troubling numbers. American families are hurting, businesses are closing, and more jobs are in jeopardy. The American people are looking to Washington for leadership to get the economy moving again – and so far, Congress has let them down.
When President Obama called on Congress to produce bipartisan legislation focused on immediate job creation and fast-acting tax relief, the Democratic controlled Congress responded by passing a trillion-dollar spending bill focused on slow and wasteful spending that won’t create jobs. In the end, the only thing bipartisan about the bill the House passed was the opposition to it. All 177 Republicans and 11 of our Democratic colleagues voted against the “stimulus” package.
Republicans and Democrats have asked questions about the “stimulus” package that the Democratic leadership has been unable to answer:
How is $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts or $650 million for digital-TV coupons going to move Americans out of the unemployment line?
How will spending $20 million for the removal of fish passage barriers, or $85 million for polar icebreakers, or millions of dollars for global warming research put struggling workers back to work?
Some estimate that nearly three-fourths (70 percent) of the spending in the House-passed bill is “non-stimulative” and won’t create jobs. The Congressional Budget Office says that most of the money in the $1 trillion bill won’t be spent until after 2010, when many economists believe the economy will already be on the road to recovery.
And of course there’s a more fundamental question: how are we going to PAY for all this new spending?
The metric that the President’s Director of the National Economic Council, Larry Summers, has used to describe what a successful economic recovery package would look like is one House Republicans agree with: it should be “timely, targeted, and temporary.” Congressional Democrats have failed on all three counts. In baseball, that would be a strikeout.
Between the “stimulus” spending package and other spending ambitions held by the Democratic Party, “it seems likely that the deficit for this year will approach $1.7 trillion,” American Enterprise Institute scholar Kevin Hassett notes. “If your family income in 2006 was between $75,000 and $100,000, the extra taxes that you will have to pay at some point in the future [as a result of the additional borrowing by Congress] add up to about $14,000,” Mr. Hassett says.
The hundreds of billions of dollars Washington is borrowing to finance this pork-barrel monstrosity will come from our children and grandchildren. This is not “stimulus” – it’s generational theft.
On the opening day of the 111th Congress, I pledged that the House Republicans wouldn’t just be the party of “opposition,” but the party of “better solutions.” The President asked for Republican input on his proposed “stimulus” initiative. In response, I asked Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the House Republican Whip, to convene a “solutions group” on the economic recovery effort to craft some recommendations that could be considered by the President.
The Cantor-led solutions group came up with a “smarter, simpler” plan. Our plan would create twice the jobs at half the cost as the Democrats’ “stimulus.” It has five components: 1) Immediate Tax Relief for Working Families, 2) Help for America’s Small Businesses, 3) No Tax Increases to Pay for Spending, 4) Assistance for the Unemployed, and 5) Stabilizing Home Values.
Our solution is quite different from the plan written by Congressional Democrats. It recognizes that the engine that drives the American economy is the American people – not government spending. Freeing up Americans to invest, save, and spend more of their own money is at the core of our proposal.
As I said on the opening day of the current Congress, America’s potential is unlimited; government’s potential is not. We must not confuse the two. We can’t simply spend our way back to prosperity. Our responsibility as elected leaders in a flagging economy is to craft policies that allow our country’s potential to be unleashed. America runs on freedom. It’s the fuel of our economy and the fuel of our democracy. The more we spend and borrow, the less freedom we and our children and grandchildren will have left.
Our nation is in recession. Families are struggling. We owe the American people a responsible, bipartisan bill that will protect and create American jobs. To date, Congress has failed to get the job done.
On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported more troubling news that the American economy is falling deeper into recession. In January, nearly 600,000 Americans lost their jobs, bringing the unemployment rate to 7.6% and the total number of jobs lost since the recession began to 3.6 million. These are troubling numbers. American families are hurting, businesses are closing, and more jobs are in jeopardy. The American people are looking to Washington for leadership to get the economy moving again – and so far, Congress has let them down.
When President Obama called on Congress to produce bipartisan legislation focused on immediate job creation and fast-acting tax relief, the Democratic controlled Congress responded by passing a trillion-dollar spending bill focused on slow and wasteful spending that won’t create jobs. In the end, the only thing bipartisan about the bill the House passed was the opposition to it. All 177 Republicans and 11 of our Democratic colleagues voted against the “stimulus” package.
Republicans and Democrats have asked questions about the “stimulus” package that the Democratic leadership has been unable to answer:
How is $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts or $650 million for digital-TV coupons going to move Americans out of the unemployment line?
How will spending $20 million for the removal of fish passage barriers, or $85 million for polar icebreakers, or millions of dollars for global warming research put struggling workers back to work?
Some estimate that nearly three-fourths (70 percent) of the spending in the House-passed bill is “non-stimulative” and won’t create jobs. The Congressional Budget Office says that most of the money in the $1 trillion bill won’t be spent until after 2010, when many economists believe the economy will already be on the road to recovery.
And of course there’s a more fundamental question: how are we going to PAY for all this new spending?
The metric that the President’s Director of the National Economic Council, Larry Summers, has used to describe what a successful economic recovery package would look like is one House Republicans agree with: it should be “timely, targeted, and temporary.” Congressional Democrats have failed on all three counts. In baseball, that would be a strikeout.
Between the “stimulus” spending package and other spending ambitions held by the Democratic Party, “it seems likely that the deficit for this year will approach $1.7 trillion,” American Enterprise Institute scholar Kevin Hassett notes. “If your family income in 2006 was between $75,000 and $100,000, the extra taxes that you will have to pay at some point in the future [as a result of the additional borrowing by Congress] add up to about $14,000,” Mr. Hassett says.
The hundreds of billions of dollars Washington is borrowing to finance this pork-barrel monstrosity will come from our children and grandchildren. This is not “stimulus” – it’s generational theft.
On the opening day of the 111th Congress, I pledged that the House Republicans wouldn’t just be the party of “opposition,” but the party of “better solutions.” The President asked for Republican input on his proposed “stimulus” initiative. In response, I asked Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), the House Republican Whip, to convene a “solutions group” on the economic recovery effort to craft some recommendations that could be considered by the President.
The Cantor-led solutions group came up with a “smarter, simpler” plan. Our plan would create twice the jobs at half the cost as the Democrats’ “stimulus.” It has five components: 1) Immediate Tax Relief for Working Families, 2) Help for America’s Small Businesses, 3) No Tax Increases to Pay for Spending, 4) Assistance for the Unemployed, and 5) Stabilizing Home Values.
Our solution is quite different from the plan written by Congressional Democrats. It recognizes that the engine that drives the American economy is the American people – not government spending. Freeing up Americans to invest, save, and spend more of their own money is at the core of our proposal.
As I said on the opening day of the current Congress, America’s potential is unlimited; government’s potential is not. We must not confuse the two. We can’t simply spend our way back to prosperity. Our responsibility as elected leaders in a flagging economy is to craft policies that allow our country’s potential to be unleashed. America runs on freedom. It’s the fuel of our economy and the fuel of our democracy. The more we spend and borrow, the less freedom we and our children and grandchildren will have left.
Our nation is in recession. Families are struggling. We owe the American people a responsible, bipartisan bill that will protect and create American jobs. To date, Congress has failed to get the job done.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Your Weekend Links
- Did you expect Change so soon?
- The Stimulus Hurts, it really, really hurts.
- Weren’t we supposed to be past “The politics of Fear?”
- From “fear” to “fair” another misguided Senator wants to limit free speech.
- Even Republicans are getting into the mood, more Nationalization. If we’ve learned anything, let’s keep politicians away from the housing industry.
- The danger ahead, a bill way overstepping its bounds.
- When in office- Step 1: Pay Taxes- Step 2: Don’t take extravagant retreats
- Cartoon: This Administration faces its toughest challenge yet, tax season.
- Joke: Jay Leno, of the Tonight Show, spoke on Obama's visit to a DC school to read to students: "It was a fairy tale about a Cabinet nominee who once paid all his taxes"
- The Stimulus Hurts, it really, really hurts.
- Weren’t we supposed to be past “The politics of Fear?”
- From “fear” to “fair” another misguided Senator wants to limit free speech.
- Even Republicans are getting into the mood, more Nationalization. If we’ve learned anything, let’s keep politicians away from the housing industry.
- The danger ahead, a bill way overstepping its bounds.
- When in office- Step 1: Pay Taxes- Step 2: Don’t take extravagant retreats
- Cartoon: This Administration faces its toughest challenge yet, tax season.
- Joke: Jay Leno, of the Tonight Show, spoke on Obama's visit to a DC school to read to students: "It was a fairy tale about a Cabinet nominee who once paid all his taxes"
Friday, February 6, 2009
Your Nightly Dose...
From CNN...
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. senators debated a massive economic-recovery package Friday evening after sources said a working coalition of Democrats and some Republicans had reached a compromise on the plan.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he hoped for a vote on the stimulus packaged, which is championed by President Barack Obama as a tonic for a badly wounded economy, either later Friday or Saturday. Sources on Capitol Hill later said they did not expect a vote until the weekend.
The movement came after days of closed-door meetings between moderate Democrats and Republicans, who felt the price on the House's $800 billion-plus version of the package was too much.
Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat from Nebraska and one of the chief negotiators of the plan, said senators had trimmed the plan to $780 billion in tax cuts and spending on infrastructure, housing and other programs that would create or save jobs.
"We trimmed the fat, fried the bacon and milked the sacred cows," Nelson said as debate began.
Click to read the full article.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. senators debated a massive economic-recovery package Friday evening after sources said a working coalition of Democrats and some Republicans had reached a compromise on the plan.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he hoped for a vote on the stimulus packaged, which is championed by President Barack Obama as a tonic for a badly wounded economy, either later Friday or Saturday. Sources on Capitol Hill later said they did not expect a vote until the weekend.
The movement came after days of closed-door meetings between moderate Democrats and Republicans, who felt the price on the House's $800 billion-plus version of the package was too much.
Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat from Nebraska and one of the chief negotiators of the plan, said senators had trimmed the plan to $780 billion in tax cuts and spending on infrastructure, housing and other programs that would create or save jobs.
"We trimmed the fat, fried the bacon and milked the sacred cows," Nelson said as debate began.
Click to read the full article.
Senator Stabenow Interviewed by Bill Press
Sen. Stabenow wants hearings on radio 'accountability'; talks fairness doctrine
This morning, radio host Bill Press brought up the recent closing of liberal station Obama 1260 when speaking with Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, and talked about whether there needs to be a balance to right-wing talk on the radio dial.
BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?
SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.
BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?SENATOR
DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.
Although Obama has been publicly opposed to reinstating the fairness doctrine, conservative radio has talked nonstop about the fear of it returning (or perhaps something like it with another name) while there's a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress.
UPDATE: A commenter points out that Stabenow is married to Tom Athans, a liberal talk radio executive.
This morning, radio host Bill Press brought up the recent closing of liberal station Obama 1260 when speaking with Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, and talked about whether there needs to be a balance to right-wing talk on the radio dial.
BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?
SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.
BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?SENATOR
DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.
Although Obama has been publicly opposed to reinstating the fairness doctrine, conservative radio has talked nonstop about the fear of it returning (or perhaps something like it with another name) while there's a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress.
UPDATE: A commenter points out that Stabenow is married to Tom Athans, a liberal talk radio executive.
Apparently it’s not hip to be square
When I read this article, I was shocked by the behavior of these college students. Perhaps the most disturbing part is that the conservative students say this is a pattern – they feel that liberal students are trying to intimidate them, to suppress their freedom of speech. I hope the students who defaced the crosses think about how their own actions can, in fact, threaten open and honest discourse. I hope that they think about how they would feel if their own political or religious statements were so severely mocked, vandalized.
Sadly, while I read this piece I also found myself thinking, “Why would those kids – the conservatives/Republicans – even advertise that they are conservatives in the first place? Don’t they know how they’ll get hazed for it?”
You see, I, myself, did not tell people that I was a conservative when I was in college (in the early 1990s). I knew that I might be mocked for it, so I kept my political views to myself. I later referred to the moment that I told friends about my party affiliation (in the spring of my senior year, when I was less concerned about my reputation!) as my conservative-coming-out-of-the-closet.
What does this all mean? Are young people increasingly intolerant of views from the right? If that’s true, we’re in big trouble. How can we have healthy debate if only one perspective is represented? A variety of ideas is what makes America great.
Submitted by ASO member: Jean Card
Sadly, while I read this piece I also found myself thinking, “Why would those kids – the conservatives/Republicans – even advertise that they are conservatives in the first place? Don’t they know how they’ll get hazed for it?”
You see, I, myself, did not tell people that I was a conservative when I was in college (in the early 1990s). I knew that I might be mocked for it, so I kept my political views to myself. I later referred to the moment that I told friends about my party affiliation (in the spring of my senior year, when I was less concerned about my reputation!) as my conservative-coming-out-of-the-closet.
What does this all mean? Are young people increasingly intolerant of views from the right? If that’s true, we’re in big trouble. How can we have healthy debate if only one perspective is represented? A variety of ideas is what makes America great.
Submitted by ASO member: Jean Card
Stimulus bill isn’t so stimulating for our youth
The Stimulus bill now making it’s way thru the Congress isn’t so stimulating, especially if you are a young person in America. Believe it or not, according to numbers provided by the US Census, the debt each American will owe the US Government to pay for items in the pending “spendulous”bill is $15,783. Then if you add the trillion dollar debt already owed by the Federal Government and the $700 billion spent for the bank bailout, the total owed by every American will be $29,028. So young folks, before you buy your first car, take out your first student loan or buy your first home, you will have to figure a way to pay back Washington DC for money they spent supposedly on your behalf.
This is a serious debt to be dumping on the future of America, those being the young. Yet, unfortunately the news gets worse when it comes to Uncle Sam going on a spending spree. I am referring to the funds spent by our government for the bank bailout, better known as TARP.(Troubled Asset Relief Program) We learned today from the chairperson of the TARP oversight board that when our government spent the first half of the TARP funds, it overpaid the banks for their assets by $78 billion. This means that we as taxpayers bought something at the price of $254 billion and learned it was really only worth $176 billion. With all of this money being spent on behalf of the American people, by Members of Congress who have already bought their first car, borrowed the money needed for college and more than likely have bought their first home, I would hope the younger folks in our great nation would rise up and take notice as to what they are being asked to shoulder. By the way, does anyone know what comes after a TRILLION?
Submitted by ASO member: Elizabeth Letchworth
This is a serious debt to be dumping on the future of America, those being the young. Yet, unfortunately the news gets worse when it comes to Uncle Sam going on a spending spree. I am referring to the funds spent by our government for the bank bailout, better known as TARP.(Troubled Asset Relief Program) We learned today from the chairperson of the TARP oversight board that when our government spent the first half of the TARP funds, it overpaid the banks for their assets by $78 billion. This means that we as taxpayers bought something at the price of $254 billion and learned it was really only worth $176 billion. With all of this money being spent on behalf of the American people, by Members of Congress who have already bought their first car, borrowed the money needed for college and more than likely have bought their first home, I would hope the younger folks in our great nation would rise up and take notice as to what they are being asked to shoulder. By the way, does anyone know what comes after a TRILLION?
Submitted by ASO member: Elizabeth Letchworth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
