Liberals hail the Obama budget

Liberals got their man into the White House. He's spending money like never before, at the same time blaming that he "inherited" the economic troubles. Then he proposes a budget that'll dig a deeper hole for Americans.

But the liberals are ecstatic -- somebody like Robert Reich over at The American Prospect:

It's about time a presidential budget unequivocally redistributed income from the very rich to the middle class and poor. The incomes of the top one percent have soared for 30 years while median wages have slowed or declined in real terms. As economists Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saez have shown, the top-earning one percent of Americans took home eight percent of total income in the 1970s; as recently as 1980, they took home nine percent. After that, total income became more and more concentrated at the top. By 2007, the top one percent took home over 22 percent. Meanwhile, even as their incomes dramatically increased, the total federal tax rates paid by the top one percent dropped. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top one percent paid a total federal tax rate of 37 percent three decades ago; now it's paying 31 percent.

Fairness is at stake but so is the economy as a whole. This Mini Depression is partly the result of a widening gap between what Americans can afford to buy and what Americans, when fully employed, can produce. And that gap is in no small measure due to the widening gap in incomes, since the rich don't devote nearly as large a portion of their incomes to buying things as middle and lower-income people. The rich, after all, already have most of what they want.

Do you notice the brazen endorsement of socialism? During the presidential campaign, Obama lost some points when Joe The Plumber confronted his income redistribution tendencies. But now that the man is at the Oval Office, liberals aren't even embarrassed to write "income redistribution."

Also notice the syndrome of wealth envy. Anytime a person mentions fairness in an economic context, you know you're talking to a liberal. It's not fair, as Mr. Reich points out, that the rich already have most of what they desire. Never mind exploring how much blood and sweat the rich had to pour out, how much sacrifice they had to make, how much failure they had to endure, etc., before becoming wealthy.

A victory for free speech

The Senate does something right by banning the FCC from reimposing the Fairness Doctrine.

The most-taxed nations are the wealthiest?

Matthew Yglesias of ThinkProgress.com makes the point:

For the record, however, the most-taxed countries on Earth (i.e., the countries where revenue is the highest percent of GDP) are in order:

1. Denmark
2. Sweden
3. Belgium
4. France
5. Norway

In terms of per capita GDP these are, respectively, the 4th, 9th, 14th, 15th, and 3rd richest countries on earth while the United States is 17th. Of course in part that’s an exchange rate phenomenon and if you use PPP adjustments rather than market exchange rates, the U.S. looks better. On the other hand, if you peer into the future it seems to me that exchange rate comparisons are likely to make us look even worse in years to come. The high-tax five also do very well on things like the U.N. Human Development index.

These countries have much less population than the USA. Their governments and people embrace all sorts of social programs. One thing socialism will do is level out the net wealth of the population because the incentive to excel becomes lower. Why bust your butt when most of your money goes to the government to support those who sit on their butts? There's also no argument from me that the folks in those countries are "happier" -- I'd be happy too if the government takes care of me for years, from my birth to my death.

But guess what? These nations aren't the most competitive in the world. Look at the Fortune Global 500 (2008) list. Look at the most recognized commercial brands: Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Toyota, etc. Look at the list of billionaires. Not many from the above listed countries, eh?

High taxes may not adversely affect per capita GDP, but it certainly diminishes the individual's will to exceed expectations and profit personally. In turn that spells trouble for the nation's industries and long-term prospects.

Obama's crazy budget

President Obama and his team delivers us a budget today: $3.55 trillion for 2010, and he's wanting to spend $3.94 trillion this year. Yes, trillions.

Starting in 2011 productive Americans will see tax increases like never before. Here's a brief breakdown from ABC News' Jake Tapper.

The WSJ also kindly points out how seriously bad this is:

But let's not stop at a 42% top rate; as a thought experiment, let's go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

That boggles the mind. There is no way we can catch up to this massive deficit and debt. What worries me even more is that we'll be down a spiraling path of careless spending without the will to repay. It's like those people who are in credit card debt for tens of thousands of dollars. They get depressed and hopeless, and to a point indifferent to their financial well-being as they give up any effort to pay back.

Are you scared yet?

Even Democrats are growing wary of Obama

President Obama and his team now has to worry about dissent within his own party. Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen may join the handful of Republican governors to reject the federal stimulus for the state's unemployed. (It's interesting that so far these defiant governors are all from the South.)

Then there's Sen. Byrd (D-WV) voicing his opinion about Obama's appointment of White House czars:

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

The scholarly Senator is absolutely right! Obama's actions are indeed cause for concern, a potential breach of the Constitution.

Likely NIC pick connected to bin Laden family business

What's it with President Obama's candidates for his cabinet and inner circle? Charles Freeman, the likely appointee to the National Intelligence Council, had ties to the bin Laden family business even after the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, Freeman's Projects International gave more than $1,000 to the Obama presidential campaign. Pay to play?

Sen. Charles Schumer wants to force federal money into states

Hat tip to RedState for uncovering this.

Sen. Schumer (D-NY) needs to re-read the Constitution and learn about Washington's boundaries. Feel free to contact his office to give him an education about it.

Commerce secretary pick #3 has skeletons in his closet

President Obama is said to be positioning former Washington Gov. Gary Locke as Commerce Secretary, his third choice after the withdrawal of Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH).

But there's trouble brewing with Gary Locke, stemming from his brother-in-law in 2002:

LET'S SAY YOU'RE Gov. Gary Locke's brother-in-law. You bunk at the governor's mansion. You commute to your nearby job as an executive of a private technology firm.

During your two years with the firm, the governor signs a bill giving your company a tax break, personally intervenes in a dispute involving your company, shows up for a party there, and signs a federal loan application for your company, whose founders—your bosses—pay at least two visits to the mansion.

At the same time, your company rakes in millions in state aid, lands a fat state technology contract, and is allowed to use government credit authority to float new loans (an authority illegally granted, as a state auditor's report will reveal this week).

Are you getting gubernatorial favors that average citizens don't get?

Come on, President Obama. You can do better than this?!

House Democrats on new spending spree

Here we go again... Hot on the heels of the $787 billion stimulus package, House Democrats are now proposing a $410 billion spending bill to "keep the government running."

More like to keep the government running up in debt.

I have an idea. How about let's just stop the government from running for a few months to see how things go? We may actually be better off that way.

Human rights matter less in global economic crisis

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn't mention a word about human rights when she visited China, which is somewhat unusual traditionally. Instead she claimed that by pressing Beijing on human rights issues, she might tick the Communists off and risk them to abandon U.S. treasuries. That would be terrible in the current economic meltdown, wouldn't it?

Unfortunately, the lack of vocal support for human rights on her first visit to China since taking office has a deafening effect, especially to those jailed and harassed because of their dissent. America, land of the free, is more concerned about Wall Street than championing human rights around the world.

The Socialist States of America

That's what America is turning into. The federal government is dangling a $150 billion gigantic carrot in front of the governors to lure them into becoming the big spending, big government monsters Washington has already turned into.

Thankfully, there are a few Republican governors with enough sense to tell Washington to "talk to the hand":

These Governors -- Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Butch Otter of Idaho, Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina -- all have the same objection: The tens of billions of dollars of aid for health care, welfare and education will disappear in two years and leave states with no way to finance the expanded programs. Mr. Perry sent a letter to President Obama last week warning that Texas may refuse certain stimulus funds. "If this money expands entitlements, we will not accept it. This is exactly how addicts get hooked on drugs," he says.

These governors deserve applause for thinking long term. The "free money" from the federal government may seem like sweet relief in the short run, but it's really a trap to make states more dependent on Washington. Just like an addictive drug, as Gov. Perry puts it succinctly.

Kowtowing to China

Seriously, are we this desperate?

Our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just short of begging Beijing to keep on buying up U.S. debt in order to finance President Obama's massive, high fat, high cholesterol pork plan.

Soon China will not only produce your TVs, computers, shoes, shirts, utensils, etc., but also American roads, bridges, school buildings, and broadband access!

Obama auto team has no interest in saving Detroit

The Detroit News exposes:

Among the eight members named Friday to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and the 10 senior policy aides who will assist them in their work, two own American models. Add the Treasury Department's special adviser to the task force and the total jumps to three.

The Detroit News reviewed public records to discover what many of the task force and staff members drove, but information was not available on all of the officials, and records for some states were not complete.

At least two task force members don't own a car, and there are still two open slots on the 10-member panel that will be filled by the secretaries of labor and commerce, who have not yet been appointed.

Congress humiliated bank CEOs and asked them to sell their corporate jets. Now let's see if public scrutiny will have these task force members replace their foreign cars with Detroit ones.

Obama the socialist

Is there still any doubt? Actions speak louder than words, and the 30 days that Obama's sat in the White House he's shown us his far left philosophy in government and taken America a step closer to socialism than ever before.

His mortgage bailout plan is just another entitlement program to redistribute income of the responsible home owners to the irresponsible ones who moved into a house they cannot afford. Per Larry Kudlow, and I agree completely:

Team Obama is rewarding bad behavior. It is enlarging moral hazard. It is expanding its welfarist approach to economic policy. And with a huge expansion of government-owned zombie lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Team Obama is taking a giant step toward nationalizing the mortgage market.

The creation of Fannie and Freddie was bad enough, and with this proposed mortgage bailout, the government will indeed reward bad behavior. Life is a series of decisions and their consequences. Make good decisions to be rewarded. Choose poorly and suffer the negative consequences. Where in the Constitution does it say for the federal government to bail us out in cases of irresponsible personal decisions? That's all it is. Poor decision making.

Okay, some folks will blame their employers: My company laid me off and now I have no income to pay for mortgage. First of all, why didn't you save money for the "rainy days," an emergency fund? Secondly, you can't possibly expect to live the same lifestyle without regular income, so start Plan B -- move out! Find a cheaper place or become a renter. Don't wait for the government to help you.

Or blame the health care: I got really ill and had to pay for medical expenses, falling behind on mortgage payments. Health care is a high priority. Each paycheck should have some set aside for health care, whether from the employer or other means. If you cannot pay for health care and a house, then you should live in another place or find another job which has better benefits. Again, where's that rainy day fund? Don't wait for the government to take care of you!

To a socialist, the current economic meltdown is the perfect storm to expand government control of citizens' lives. Strike fear in the hearts of certain individuals -- those without the will or perseverance to dig themselves out of a hole -- to achieve control of their lives through more bloated entitlement programs. Let the responsible neighbor tap into his or her emergency fund (or kids' college tuition fund or retirement fund) to indirectly pay for my mistakes in the form of them paying higher taxes.

There are those like Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic who doesn't see it this way, but rather:

The most discouraging surprise of Barack Obama's early days in office, days of emergency, was the new administration's shirking of clarity, its reluctance to attach the grandeur of its initiatives to the grandeur of liberalism. Instead the president's distaste for division, and his Chicago practicality, set the tone. How came it to be that in the aftermath of the greatest liberal victory in our lifetime John Boehner held the stage? Of course the views of the Republicans must be respected, not least when a few of their votes may be needed to do the work of rescue and reform; but political respect must not be confused with intellectual respect. The response of the right to the crisis in America was to flee to its catechism. The Republicans propose to bail out the economy with doctrine. Unemployment is 7.6 percent and rising, and they say: let them eat Friedman. When billions and billions of dollars are needed for the Pentagon (fine with me) and for Wall Street, it is damn the zeroes, full speed ahead--but when the prospect of relief for ordinary Americans in trouble rears its fair and compassionate head, the deficit desperately matters again. The Republicans are not only heartless, they are also hypocritical, since the cause of all this misery was the market abandon that they promoted so messianically. These are the people who would have privatized, that is, destroyed, Social Security: how can their protests not be met vehemently? This vehemence is not "partisanship," it is analysis. It is not "populism," it is liberalism.

Liberals love to bring up "relief for ordinary Americans," as if responsible, financially sound, hard working Americans aren't "ordinary." It's a sad trend that if you are not in credit card debt, pay your mortgage on time, and have no car payment, then you are not ordinary in today's economic categorization. Never mind labeling Republicans as heartless and hypocritical as well, and blaming all the economic problems on conservatives' insistence and embrace of capitalism. Just ask: Which socialist countries thrive to become leaders of the world economy?

Conservatives have long questioned Obama's "change" when he was campaigning: change for the better or for worse? Unfortunately, ever since he entered the White House, most people are predicting the latter: change for worse.

Rick Santelli is my hero

Rick Santelli of CNBC is upset about the President Obama mortgage rescue plan, and rightly so. He and the traders at CBOE working around him are certainly the faces of good ol' American capitalism!

Rahm Emanuel's dirty closet

Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's W.H. Chief of Staff, has some explaining to do.

He failed to disclose the gift of living rent-free for years in the home of Rep. Rosa De Lauro (D-CT).

Even more troubling is the fact that he'd served on the board of Freddie Mac when it lied about its earnings, a contributing factor of today's economic meltdown.

It's a good thing that his position doesn't require a Senate confirmation hearing. Otherwise, we'd have seen another nominee withdrawal. One cannot help but wonder: What type of people is President Obama surrounding himself with?

Burris in ethics probe

And you thought the Blagojevich show is over?

As Burris was vying for the Senate seat, he tried to raise money for then-Gov. Blagojevich. Sen. Burris is now under investigation by the state and Republicans are calling for actions to dig deeper into the situation.

When is Chicago style politics going to be cleaned up???

New blog on blogroll: Keen To Convene

Dear Readers, I want to invite you to visit Keen To Convene, a conservative blog by two fine young bloggers, Lisa and Aaron. Why am I highlighting their particular blog? First, I am very impressed by the content. They write well, their posts are good essays about their ideology and experiences. Second, they deserve some attention because they represent a rare voice: Generation X Asian conservatives in southern California. It's re-assuring to know that in deep blue California there are young people who stand firm in their conservative principles.

Please take time to visit Lisa and Aaron's blog regularly or subscribe to it. You will not be disappointed!

House passes stimulus without GOP support again

The House passes the final stimulus bill, and again without the support of Republicans as well as seven Democrats. Now the bill moves to the Senate, and that's where things could get more interesting as Democrats hold a majority but still need a few Republicans' support in order to pass the bill.

Spending $900B without knowing the details

The 1,071-page stimulus bill is up for a final vote in Congress, yet it's unlikely that any Congressman and Senator would have the chance to read the whole document before taking action. In fact, these politicians even agreed to delay the publication of the bill on the Internet to be searched by everyone.

Obama's lame way to handle press

Do you know the president has a list of preselected journalists for questions during his press conferences? How lame is that?

The Commander-In-Chief of the world's best military is afraid of screwing up in front of the free press?

Gregg withdraws as commerce secretary nominee

In a surprising development and a blow to the Obama administration, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) has decided not to be part of the President's cabinet due to policy disagreements. I applaud Sen. Gregg's action based on his principles -- in times like this we need more politicians like him!

Of course, the Leftosphere now labels him "right-wing."

Jim Tedisco poised to enter House

New York Assemblyman Jim Tedisco (R) is leading in the polls against opponent Scott Murphy (D) to fill the House seat vacated by Kirsten Gillibrand. Although this doesn't affect much of the House politics, it's still a small victory for Republicans. The election is set for March 31.

For more information and to contribute to his campaign, click here.

Obama's first press conference

The Leftosphere is reignited with pre-presidential passion after President Obama's first press conference where he addressed most of today's economic crisis. Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive says Obama "delivers ideological knockout to GOP":

At his press conference Monday, he shredded Republican arguments against the stimulus package and made the best case by a President in decades for affirmative government intervention in the economy.

“With the private sector so weakened by the recession,” he said, “the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs.”

Listen to Obama's remarks very carefully. Notice how he portrays the federal government as our savior? Yes, the private sector has weakened, but please don't falsely paint a rosy picture about the federal government's resources -- these resources come from private sectors! Without the private sector and individuals, the federal government is nothing.

Can the government really break the "vicious cycle"? It's doubtful that billions dollars more government spending will help. All that does is further sink America into debt that even our children's grandchildren won't see it paid off.

To me this press conference showed an agitated Obama attempting to rekindle his pre-White House celebrity status, doing what he does best: rhetoric talk.

The stimulus could ruin your health care

Betsy McCaughey of Bloomberg is raising a flag about health provisions in President Obama's stimulus bill:

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

So not only does Big Brother want access to all your medical treatment data, but it also wants control over how the doctors perform procedures and diagnosis. The scary thing is that although Tom Daschle no longer gets to be the HHS Secretary, his soul lives in this bloated bill.

Worse yet:

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Again, the ghost of Daschle appears, and he wants the government to be the brains of the health care provider instead of the doctor's. What is government health care like? Just look back to the debacle of Walter Reed Army Medical Center 2007 scandal. (Thankfully, things have improved there after the bad publicity.)

Somebody wake me up, please!

Judith Warner at the NYT needs professional help. And journalistic guidance.

Sen. Arlen Specter, Obama Kool-Aid drinker

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is one of the few Republicans who voted for the stimulus bill. He takes his case to the American people with an article in the Washington Post. He starts off resonating President Obama's sense of urgency:

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

This is simply false. I think it's the Obama administration, the Federal government, that cannot afford not to take action to stimulate the government. The bill won't stimulate the economy much, but it sure will expand the government. The Republican Senators who voted along with the Democrats to support this bill are drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.

Our enemies continue terrorism even as Obama ends War on Terror

Even if the Obama administration doesn't agree with Bush's War on Terror, we know what the terrorists think: starting fires in Australia and beheading a Polish geologist.

Do you feel safe?

Lean, mean, talented Obama?

President Obama demands passage of the stimulus package. Now he's on the offensive, pointing fingers at Republicans for the "same old distractions." The leftosphere (the left-leaning blogosphere) is falling in love with Obama all over again because of his partisanship:

I will note that compared with the solid but lacking passion speech that the President gave earlier in the day at the Department of Energy, this speech truly demonstrated the enormous talents of the President. This was the Obama that spoke from the heart, not the cool, calm, collected one we often see and hear. This speech had cadence, it had fire in the belly, it had soul. He spoke to me as an American and as a Democrat. This is the real deal. This is how politics is played. To win by getting things accomplished.

Oh, please: the "enormous talents" of the President?! Since January 20, I haven't really seen much talent from the President except his ability to deliver speeches (but we'd already known that since the campaign).

Does he have a talent for party leadership? Not from what we've seen with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, marching to the beat of her own tune in the House, completely ignoring Obama's message of bipartisanship.

Does he have a talent for reaching across the aisle? Certainly, but the failure of his negotiation skills was exposed when the House Republican members stood united to oppose the stimulus package.

Does he have a talent for picking good cabinet nominees? Look at what happened to Bill Richardson, Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, Hilda Solis, and possibly more candidates.

The honeymoon is definitely over.

The action Democrats need, Obama's fear-mongering

That ought to be the title of President Obama's article in the Washington Post. The President laments:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

First of all, nobody is saying that tax cuts is the only solution to this crisis. The opposing Republicans just want more tax cuts -- let it be a significant part of the stimulus. The Democrats just want to spend, spend, spend.

Obama tries to re-ignite the flame of change during his campaign, but you know what? Season's over. Now he's in the White House so he better own up to the mistakes and criticisms. Obama is not delivering a message of change. Here he is delivering a message of fear.

Reid says he has enough votes

These past few days we have seen more hot air come out of the Democratic Senate leadership than me after eating five cans of beans.

Okay, so you've got enough votes, Sen. Reid. So go pass your precious spending bill. Just remember, there will be a reckoning in the 2010 election.

Obama cabinet nominees would've been better off with FairTax

How come nobody is talking about how ridiculously complicated and ineffective the U.S. tax code is in light of the tax troubles from Tom Daschle and Tim Geithner? Oh wait, Ken Hoagland is.

If we had gotten rid of the IRS and implemented the FairTax, then Senators wouldn't bother with vetting nominees on unpaid taxes and these hearings would've been more pleasant. Okay, less of a circus.

Another cabinet nominee in trouble

I'm actually starting to feel a little bad for President Obama. Now his Secretary of Labor nominee Hilda Solis is under scrutiny for possible illegal lobbying actions.

Is Obama's inexperience starting to show its ugly head?

Obama downgraded from Messiah to Hero

Officially, too, from whitehouse.gov.

Strike two: Daschle out

Strike one: Bill Richardson withdrew from Commerce Secratary candidacy.

Strike two: Tom Daschle today withdraws from Health and Human Services Secretary over a $100,000 tax "mistake."

So far President Obama's cabinet nominees and their approval have seen many bumps in the process...

Wealth-envy galore

Wall Street certainly bears the blame for a significant portion of today's economic meltdown, but seriously, they aren't the real problem. Regardless, this has brought about the wrath of anti-capitalists, socialists, and wealth-envy sufferers. Here we have Eugene Robinson clamoring over Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D-MO) rant about overblown executive compensation:

McCaskill introduced a bill to limit compensation at any company receiving bailout money to $400,000 -- the salary of the president of the United States. It's hard to improve on her words: "We should have done it in the first place. But I don't think any of us thought these guys were this stupid. I don't think any of us believed that they would take billions of dollars in bonuses while their institutions were literally days from being wiped out. But they did. And we've learned our lesson."
...
Things have changed. No longer does it seem reasonable -- if it ever did -- that the average CEO makes 344 times as much as the average worker, as estimated last August by the Institute for Policy Studies and the nonprofit group United for a Fair Economy. No longer does it seem acceptable that John Thain, the since-ousted Merrill Lynch chief who ordered those accelerated bonuses that so irked McCaskill, would spend $1.2 million of his fast-sinking firm's money to redecorate his office -- and then, with Merrill's losses being revealed as even greater than feared, request a bonus of up to $10 million for himself.

No longer does it make any sense to reward those who work in the financial industry so lavishly compared to the way we compensate those who, say, build tractors or write software or teach our children. Salaries should be reasonable and bonuses -- much more modest ones -- should be reserved for those who actually, you know, make money. If some of Wall Street's vaunted "talent" balks and flees, terrific. It was "talent" that got us here.

What are these people smoking? So there are several big financial institutions on the brink of failing because of poor management, and the management has changed after receiving bailout funds from the government, and now Sen. McCaskill wants to cap their yearly salary to $400,000? What sane executive would want the job?! Isn't it more important to offer competitive compensation to attract good executives to revive the companies? By introducing such a bill, it seems Sen. McCaskill, with the support of columnists like Robinson, want Wall Street to utterly fail. Maybe they prefer a government-run Wall Street.

Big shot executives like John Thain now have a big stain on their resume. That's part of how capitalism works. The market will decide how much somebody like Thain is worth. Don't bring the government into it.

Obama names GOP senator for Commerce Secretary

After being let down by New Mexico Gov. and former presidential candidate Bill Richardson, President Obama now wants Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to join his administration as Commerce Secretary. Gregg is a fairly low-profile Senator, but evidently is a well-trusted Republican politician.

By luring away a Republican in the Senate, of course, generates a lot of buzz whether President Obama and the Democrats are playing a political hand to achieve the elusive 60-seat filibuster-proof majority. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch is a Democrat, and typically the governor appoints a replacement from his own party. However, Gov. Lynch has pledged that another Republican would be named to fill Gregg's seat. Would Lynch mess with the balance of power in appointing a RINO (Republican In Name Only)?

Additionally, is Gregg's appointment as Secretary of Commerce a back-scratching to Senate Republicans regarding the passage of the massive stimulus bill?

Celebrating Blogroll Amnesty Day (BAD)!

Thanks to Jon Swift for bringing Blogroll Amnesty Day to my attention! Today we nanobloggers (yes, smaller than microbloggers) are going to pretend we generate thousands of page views per hour and attract millions of visitors in a day...

Check these out:

• The Asian Conservative - Shares the same cause as this blog except with far greater manpower and experience!
• Back to the Constitution Coalition - These guys have the right idea in mind. We need to pay more attention to the Constitution indeed.
• Engrish Brog - If this blog doesn't have you LOL there's something wrong with you.
  

Let history be a lesson about government's impact on Depression

History is the best teacher, even in Economics. Let's not repeat what we already know.

Republican opposition to stimulus is Democrats own fault

All right, the ordeal about House Republicans' united front against the stimulus bill is getting more interesting now as columnists like E. J. Dionne are lobbying President Obama to abandon his bipartisanship efforts to win opposition support:

That's why last week's unanimous House Republican opposition to the stimulus plan was so important. For the most part, the Republicans escaped attack for rank partisanship. Instead, what should have been hailed as an administration victory was cast in large parts of the media as a kind of defeat: Obama had placed a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship and he failed to achieve it.

Worse from Obama's point of view, Republicans have used the stimulus fight to drive a wedge between the president and his loyal troops in Congress. Some Republicans argued that while the White House was trying to reach out, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants were insisting on a "partisan" bill -- even though the measure was largely based on the administration's own proposals.

The truth is that House Republicans appreciated very much the attention given to them by the President. Although their negotiations with the White House failed to produce a stimulus package they could support, they had only good things to say about the President's efforts in reaching across the aisle.

The root of the problem isn't with President Obama. It's with the House Democratic leadership, especially Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She pushed the bill forward without opportunity for more bipartisan debate. The bill is worth $900 billion in taxpayer money! She went to the press to pound on the Republicans' unwillingness to support it. In other words, while the President was working hard as a politician, Pelosi was running wild as a maverick.

That's the problem when a party hasn't been in power for so long and all of a sudden finds itself running multiple branches of government. Everyone is going to have a power and ego trip. If the Democrats are after some Republican votes, then they must resolve some internal issues between Obama-Pelosi-Reid.