Recession Puts a Major Strain On Social Security Trust Fund - washingtonpost.com: "By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 31, 2009; Page A04
The U.S. recession is wreaking havoc on yet another front: the Social Security trust fund.
This Story
Recession Puts a Major Strain On Social Security Trust Fund
Trust Fund Projections
With unemployment rising, the payroll tax revenue that finances Social Security benefits for nearly 51 million retirees and other recipients is falling, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, the trust fund's annual surplus is forecast to all but vanish next year -- nearly a decade ahead of schedule -- and deprive the government of billions of dollars it had been counting on to help balance the nation's books.
While the new numbers will not affect payments to current Social Security recipients, experts say, the disappearing surplus could have considerable implications for the government's already grim financial situation"
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Employment Contracts Are Now Viewed as Rewritable - NYTimes.com
Employment Contracts Are Now Viewed as Rewritable - NYTimes.com: "The depth of the recession and the use of taxpayer dollars to bail out companies have made it politically acceptable for overseers to tinker with employment agreements.
So federal and local governments are looking for ways to pare payouts, endangering the promises made before the financial storm to people like Wall Street traders, automobile workers and garbage collectors."
So federal and local governments are looking for ways to pare payouts, endangering the promises made before the financial storm to people like Wall Street traders, automobile workers and garbage collectors."
Monday, March 30, 2009
The mind-boggling pointlessness of the G20 summit. - By Anne Applebaum - Slate Magazine
The mind-boggling pointlessness of the G20 summit. - By Anne Applebaum - Slate Magazine: "By Anne Applebaum
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009, at 7:59 PM ET
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown And now for a riddle: What is big, loud, unnecessary, and costs $75 million? No, not a retired elephant in a diamond-studded dress: The answer is, of course, a Group of 20 summit. These G20 meetings—younger, chubbier cousins of the equally pointless G7 and G8 summits—have been going on since 1999 in an under-the-radar kind of way but have lately taken on a new urgency. Indeed, the next one, which will be held in London on Thursday, is being widely billed as the summit that will save the international economic system, provoke a stock market rally, create lasting prosperity, and save the politicians present from the disgruntled voters protesting outside. And all this in a single day!"
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009, at 7:59 PM ET
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown And now for a riddle: What is big, loud, unnecessary, and costs $75 million? No, not a retired elephant in a diamond-studded dress: The answer is, of course, a Group of 20 summit. These G20 meetings—younger, chubbier cousins of the equally pointless G7 and G8 summits—have been going on since 1999 in an under-the-radar kind of way but have lately taken on a new urgency. Indeed, the next one, which will be held in London on Thursday, is being widely billed as the summit that will save the international economic system, provoke a stock market rally, create lasting prosperity, and save the politicians present from the disgruntled voters protesting outside. And all this in a single day!"
TheHill.com - Obama didn't ask Congress about ousting Wagoner
TheHill.com - Obama didn't ask Congress about ousting Wagoner: "President Obama didn’t want any advice from Congress on the decision to ask GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign, according to Carl Levin (D), Michigan’s senior senator.
“He didn’t ask us about it, he informed us,” Levin told reporters in a conference call Monday afternoon. “The president said he’d already decided.”
Levin said he and three other lawmakers were informed of the decision in a phone call Obama made from the Oval Office. Obama told the members of Congress that Wagoner needed to resign so that the administration could show the public it was making an effort at a fresh start with helping the auto industry, according to Levin.
Levin repeatedly described the decision as “sad,” and noted that Wagoner had given a lifetime of service to GM. He praised Wagner’s willingness to voluntarily “retire” from his post, and did not say whether he disagreed with Obama’s decision.
Obama formally announced Monday morning that he was rejecting restructuring plans submitted by GM and Chrysler because they would not make the two automakers viable. He also made it clear that Wagoner was asked to resign as a condition for GM getting more aid."
“He didn’t ask us about it, he informed us,” Levin told reporters in a conference call Monday afternoon. “The president said he’d already decided.”
Levin said he and three other lawmakers were informed of the decision in a phone call Obama made from the Oval Office. Obama told the members of Congress that Wagoner needed to resign so that the administration could show the public it was making an effort at a fresh start with helping the auto industry, according to Levin.
Levin repeatedly described the decision as “sad,” and noted that Wagoner had given a lifetime of service to GM. He praised Wagner’s willingness to voluntarily “retire” from his post, and did not say whether he disagreed with Obama’s decision.
Obama formally announced Monday morning that he was rejecting restructuring plans submitted by GM and Chrysler because they would not make the two automakers viable. He also made it clear that Wagoner was asked to resign as a condition for GM getting more aid."
Science education issue finally settled in Texas (OneNewsNow.com)
Science education issue finally settled in Texas (OneNewsNow.com): "The Texas State Board of Education has decided overwhelmingly to keep the teaching of scientific strengths and weaknesses, but under a different name.
In early 2009, a preliminary vote was held and the teaching of scientific strengths and weaknesses was removed from curriculum requirements. But Jonathan Saenz of the Free Market Foundation says that decision angered many Texans who then contacted their elected officials.
'Well, it was very clear that the State Board of Education members had been inundated with phone calls and attention and emails asking them to keep the science classroom open for critical discussion and debate on science theories,' he says. 'And that's what they did.'
By a vote of 13-to-2, the Board decided to replace strengths and weakness with the language 'examining all sides of science.'
'It amounts to the same thing,' Saenz explains. 'And that's that students and teachers are going to continue in Texas to have the freedom to discuss all sides of scientific theories.'
The issue will not come up for another vote for ten years."
In early 2009, a preliminary vote was held and the teaching of scientific strengths and weaknesses was removed from curriculum requirements. But Jonathan Saenz of the Free Market Foundation says that decision angered many Texans who then contacted their elected officials.
'Well, it was very clear that the State Board of Education members had been inundated with phone calls and attention and emails asking them to keep the science classroom open for critical discussion and debate on science theories,' he says. 'And that's what they did.'
By a vote of 13-to-2, the Board decided to replace strengths and weakness with the language 'examining all sides of science.'
'It amounts to the same thing,' Saenz explains. 'And that's that students and teachers are going to continue in Texas to have the freedom to discuss all sides of scientific theories.'
The issue will not come up for another vote for ten years."
Pro-lifers concerned about potential DOJ scrutiny (OneNewsNow.com)
Pro-lifers concerned about potential DOJ scrutiny (OneNewsNow.com): "Concerned Women for America has mailed a letter to U.S. senators raising questions about the Obama administration revisiting the past regarding groups and individuals who are pro-life.
The concern is over the prospect of another campaign like the one during the Clinton administration called the 'Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy' -- or VAAPCON. Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America -- whose group was among those targeted -- explains tactics during that campaign included wiretaps, mail monitoring, and infiltrators.
'It was a campaign of investigating and, frankly, intimidating pro-life and religious leaders,' says Wright. 'The Department of Justice [under Attorney General Janet Reno] investigated groups like [us], the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Christian Coalition, National Right to Life, and even the [late] Catholic cardinal of New York, John O'Connor.'"
The concern is over the prospect of another campaign like the one during the Clinton administration called the 'Violence Against Abortion Providers Conspiracy' -- or VAAPCON. Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America -- whose group was among those targeted -- explains tactics during that campaign included wiretaps, mail monitoring, and infiltrators.
'It was a campaign of investigating and, frankly, intimidating pro-life and religious leaders,' says Wright. 'The Department of Justice [under Attorney General Janet Reno] investigated groups like [us], the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Christian Coalition, National Right to Life, and even the [late] Catholic cardinal of New York, John O'Connor.'"
Hillary in 'inter-generational partnership' with eugenicist Sanger (OneNewsNow.com)
Hillary in 'inter-generational partnership' with eugenicist Sanger (OneNewsNow.com): "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has accepted an award from Planned Parenthood named after the pro-abortion group's founder, who once referred to blacks as 'human weeds.'
Secretary of State Clinton was presented on Friday evening with the Margaret Sanger Award at a Planned Parenthood event in Houston (see earlier story). The award, says Planned Parenthood, is presented annually to recognize 'leadership, excellence, and outstanding contributions to the reproductive health and rights movement.'"
Secretary of State Clinton was presented on Friday evening with the Margaret Sanger Award at a Planned Parenthood event in Houston (see earlier story). The award, says Planned Parenthood, is presented annually to recognize 'leadership, excellence, and outstanding contributions to the reproductive health and rights movement.'"
GM CEO Wagoner forced out as part of gov't plan (OneNewsNow.com)
GM CEO Wagoner forced out as part of gov't plan (OneNewsNow.com): "DETROIT- Time and time again, General Motors Corp.'s board of directors reaffirmed its support for Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, even as the company piled up billions of dollars in losses and begged for government loans to stay alive.
But Wagoner is now a high-profile casualty of government intervention, forced out as part of the Obama administration's sweeping last-ditch effort to save the century-old auto giant."
But Wagoner is now a high-profile casualty of government intervention, forced out as part of the Obama administration's sweeping last-ditch effort to save the century-old auto giant."
White House questions viability of GM, Chrysler (OneNewsNow.com)
White House questions viability of GM, Chrysler (OneNewsNow.com)
WASHINGTON- Neither General Motors nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive more federal bailout money, the Obama administration said as it set the stage for a crisis in Detroit that would dramatically reshape the nation's auto industry.
The White House pushed out GM's chairman and directed Chrysler to move quickly to forge a partnership with Fiat if it expects to receive additional government assistance.President Barack Obama and his top advisers have determined that neither company is viable and that taxpayers will not spend untold billions more to keep the pair of automakers open forever.
WASHINGTON- Neither General Motors nor Chrysler submitted acceptable plans to receive more federal bailout money, the Obama administration said as it set the stage for a crisis in Detroit that would dramatically reshape the nation's auto industry.
The White House pushed out GM's chairman and directed Chrysler to move quickly to forge a partnership with Fiat if it expects to receive additional government assistance.President Barack Obama and his top advisers have determined that neither company is viable and that taxpayers will not spend untold billions more to keep the pair of automakers open forever.
Hillary, Pelosi in la-la-land on immigration (OneNewsNow.com)
Hillary, Pelosi in la-la-land on immigration (OneNewsNow.com): "Last week Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) described the law-enforcement activities of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as 'un-American.' Which triggers the question -- since when is enforcing federal law by a federal agency 'un-American'?
Addressing a crowd that included both illegal and legal immigrants at St. Anthony's Catholic Church in San Francisco, Pelosi commended those in attendance for being willing 'to take responsibility for our country's future [because] that makes you very, very patriotic.' (See related story)"
Addressing a crowd that included both illegal and legal immigrants at St. Anthony's Catholic Church in San Francisco, Pelosi commended those in attendance for being willing 'to take responsibility for our country's future [because] that makes you very, very patriotic.' (See related story)"
Friday, March 27, 2009
Washington Times - EDITORIAL: The U.N. tackles religion
Washington Times - EDITORIAL: The U.N. tackles religion: "Will the United Nations soon be issuing fatwas? Today the U.N. Human Rights Council is expected to vote on a resolution introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to combat defamation of religion, in particular Islam. This resolution is part of an effort begun in 1999 to establish an international framework that would in practice legitimize religious oppression. It is an assault on the rights of the individual and freedom of conscience.
The language of the resolution seems benign enough, condemning stereotyping, inflammatory statements and so forth. But very troubling is the elasticity of the term 'defamation.' It is used to silence social critics and other liberal voices in countries where the law is captive of the official religion. 'Anti-blasphemy' statutes in Shariah-based legal systems squelch debate over the rights of women, the right to free speech and expression, privacy, criminal justice and a variety of other off-limits issues. This U.N. resolution would give further international sanction to every authoritarian regime that hides its oppression behind the veil of faith."
The OIC also plans to introduce binding resolutions that will require states to punish religious defamers. In practice this could target almost anyone with an opinion. Recent experience has shown that, particularly in the Muslim world, almost any comment can be tarred as defamatory and incite fatal violence. Publication of caricatures of Mohammed in the Danish Jyllands-Poste in 2005 sparked riots. Salman Rushdie was threatened with death for discussing irregularities in the history of the Koran in his novel . There were even protests in 1963 when U.S. Ambassador to India John Kenneth Galbraith named his family cat "Ahmed," one of the forms of the name "Mohammed."
It is fully appropriate for the public, the media, and even in some cases public officials to speak out if they feel speech or actions defame faith. But the OIC wants to establish an international framework for punitive government action against even legitimate criticism of religion. This is a dangerous evolution of international law wholly at odds with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrined the individual's "right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" including "freedom to change his religion or belief" and to publicly "manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." However according to the OIC's 1990 Cairo Declaration, any such rights are ultimately "subject to the Islamic Shariah."
To read more, click on the link below..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/27/the-un-tackles-religion/
The language of the resolution seems benign enough, condemning stereotyping, inflammatory statements and so forth. But very troubling is the elasticity of the term 'defamation.' It is used to silence social critics and other liberal voices in countries where the law is captive of the official religion. 'Anti-blasphemy' statutes in Shariah-based legal systems squelch debate over the rights of women, the right to free speech and expression, privacy, criminal justice and a variety of other off-limits issues. This U.N. resolution would give further international sanction to every authoritarian regime that hides its oppression behind the veil of faith."
The OIC also plans to introduce binding resolutions that will require states to punish religious defamers. In practice this could target almost anyone with an opinion. Recent experience has shown that, particularly in the Muslim world, almost any comment can be tarred as defamatory and incite fatal violence. Publication of caricatures of Mohammed in the Danish Jyllands-Poste in 2005 sparked riots. Salman Rushdie was threatened with death for discussing irregularities in the history of the Koran in his novel . There were even protests in 1963 when U.S. Ambassador to India John Kenneth Galbraith named his family cat "Ahmed," one of the forms of the name "Mohammed."
It is fully appropriate for the public, the media, and even in some cases public officials to speak out if they feel speech or actions defame faith. But the OIC wants to establish an international framework for punitive government action against even legitimate criticism of religion. This is a dangerous evolution of international law wholly at odds with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrined the individual's "right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" including "freedom to change his religion or belief" and to publicly "manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." However according to the OIC's 1990 Cairo Declaration, any such rights are ultimately "subject to the Islamic Shariah."
To read more, click on the link below..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/27/the-un-tackles-religion/
Quiet Amnesty -- Part II - HUMAN EVENTS
Quiet Amnesty -- Part II - HUMAN EVENTS:
"by Ernest Istook
03/27/2009
The Obama Administration not only is curtailing federal enforcement of immigration laws but may also clamp down against state and local enforcement efforts.
If the federal government turns a blind eye and stifles others from acting, then illegal aliens can take and keep the jobs that many Americans now would like to have. It’s done bureaucratically, so we move quietly toward amnesty, without the public outcry that comes with open debate.
Local and state governments have inherent constitutional power to help enforce federal laws, as well as the ability to participate in coordinated efforts with federal agencies. Yet the newly-revamped Department of Justice (DoJ) is accused of trying to chill that enforcement by intimidating local law enforcement. Exhibit A is Justice’s official investigation of Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, for supposed civil rights violations in enforcing immigration laws."
The notice sent to Arpaio cites alleged discriminatory police practices, unconstitutional searches and seizures, national origin discrimination and failure to provide services to non-English speakers. The sheriff has been outspoken about his efforts to have his deputies root out people who are illegally in the country.The DoJ investigation of Arpaio is chock-full of partisan overtones on both sides. An Arizona Republic column has already labeled the probe a witch hunt, noting that Arpaio’s deputies were trained to follow strict civil rights guidelines in enforcing immigration laws. As for their practice of locating illegals via legitimate traffic stops, it’s noted that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was apprehended on that very basis.It’s undeniable that politics were involved in DoJ’s decision. Democrats, led by House Judiciary Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D, MI), publicly called for the investigation in a February letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. They wrote, “Arpaio has evinced a blatant disregard for the rights of Hispanic residents of the Phoenix area,” and complained about efforts “to search out undocumented immigrants.” They protested that persons arrested for immigration violations were moved about “in shackles” and housed in a “tent city” -- both common treatment for all persons doing time in Maricopa County. The Democrat letter concluded it was part of racial profiling.
Click on the link below to see the full story...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31238
"by Ernest Istook
03/27/2009
The Obama Administration not only is curtailing federal enforcement of immigration laws but may also clamp down against state and local enforcement efforts.
If the federal government turns a blind eye and stifles others from acting, then illegal aliens can take and keep the jobs that many Americans now would like to have. It’s done bureaucratically, so we move quietly toward amnesty, without the public outcry that comes with open debate.
Local and state governments have inherent constitutional power to help enforce federal laws, as well as the ability to participate in coordinated efforts with federal agencies. Yet the newly-revamped Department of Justice (DoJ) is accused of trying to chill that enforcement by intimidating local law enforcement. Exhibit A is Justice’s official investigation of Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, for supposed civil rights violations in enforcing immigration laws."
The notice sent to Arpaio cites alleged discriminatory police practices, unconstitutional searches and seizures, national origin discrimination and failure to provide services to non-English speakers. The sheriff has been outspoken about his efforts to have his deputies root out people who are illegally in the country.The DoJ investigation of Arpaio is chock-full of partisan overtones on both sides. An Arizona Republic column has already labeled the probe a witch hunt, noting that Arpaio’s deputies were trained to follow strict civil rights guidelines in enforcing immigration laws. As for their practice of locating illegals via legitimate traffic stops, it’s noted that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was apprehended on that very basis.It’s undeniable that politics were involved in DoJ’s decision. Democrats, led by House Judiciary Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D, MI), publicly called for the investigation in a February letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. They wrote, “Arpaio has evinced a blatant disregard for the rights of Hispanic residents of the Phoenix area,” and complained about efforts “to search out undocumented immigrants.” They protested that persons arrested for immigration violations were moved about “in shackles” and housed in a “tent city” -- both common treatment for all persons doing time in Maricopa County. The Democrat letter concluded it was part of racial profiling.
Click on the link below to see the full story...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31238
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Will Only Radicals Get A Look-in at the G-20 Summit?
Posted March 24th, 2009 at 12.20pm in American Leadership.
It’s almost tempting to pity the world leaders who will arrive in London in a week for the G-20 summit. First, they have agreed to face questions from bloggers selected by G20 Voice, a creation of a relentlessly left-wing collection of NGOs, including Oxfam, Save the Children, and Blue State Digital.
Predictably, both the UK’s Foreign Office and its Department for International Development are also sponsoring this assembly of anti-sovereignty activists and free enterprise-haters. Also predictable is the fact that the summit will face no questions from bloggers who believe that G20 Voice’s goal of ending all inequality promotes the growth of the overbearing and tyrannical state. Since it is that state that has impoverished the countries about which G20 Voice pretends to be concerned, their enthusiasm for it is strikingly naive.
And if that’s not enough, the security measures for the summit will be intense. British authorities report that demonstrators are intent on shutting down the City, the financial center of London. The London Chamber of Commerce has advised workers to “consider wearing more casual clothing” to avoid being attacked by protesters who hate both suits and anyone who wears them. Anarchists groups are exhorting members to “burn a banker,” and a group called G20 Meltdown promises to converge on the Bank of England
led by multicolored figures representing four horsemen of the economic apocalypse — war, climate chaos, financial crimes and “land enclosures and borders.”
The final target nicely illustrates the opposition to both sovereignty and free enterprise that drives many of the planned protests: to say that the world would be better off without ‘land enclosures’ is to say that it would be better off if everyone lived as a medieval peasant and held their land in common. That would indeed be an equal world: equal in poverty, destitution, and misery.
So, on the one hand, the UK is sponsoring this campaign for economic illiteracy. On the other, it is preparing to defend the world’s leaders against the forces it is busily pandering to. That is the definition of a self-defeating strategy of appeasement. If the UK wants to make a contribution to sanity in the midst of this crisis, it might start by ending the subsidies to groups that hate both the British state and the free enterprise system that has created the wealth the state is fecklessly giving away to its enemies.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/will-only-radicals-get-a-look-in-at-the-g-20-summit/
It’s almost tempting to pity the world leaders who will arrive in London in a week for the G-20 summit. First, they have agreed to face questions from bloggers selected by G20 Voice, a creation of a relentlessly left-wing collection of NGOs, including Oxfam, Save the Children, and Blue State Digital.
Predictably, both the UK’s Foreign Office and its Department for International Development are also sponsoring this assembly of anti-sovereignty activists and free enterprise-haters. Also predictable is the fact that the summit will face no questions from bloggers who believe that G20 Voice’s goal of ending all inequality promotes the growth of the overbearing and tyrannical state. Since it is that state that has impoverished the countries about which G20 Voice pretends to be concerned, their enthusiasm for it is strikingly naive.
And if that’s not enough, the security measures for the summit will be intense. British authorities report that demonstrators are intent on shutting down the City, the financial center of London. The London Chamber of Commerce has advised workers to “consider wearing more casual clothing” to avoid being attacked by protesters who hate both suits and anyone who wears them. Anarchists groups are exhorting members to “burn a banker,” and a group called G20 Meltdown promises to converge on the Bank of England
led by multicolored figures representing four horsemen of the economic apocalypse — war, climate chaos, financial crimes and “land enclosures and borders.”
The final target nicely illustrates the opposition to both sovereignty and free enterprise that drives many of the planned protests: to say that the world would be better off without ‘land enclosures’ is to say that it would be better off if everyone lived as a medieval peasant and held their land in common. That would indeed be an equal world: equal in poverty, destitution, and misery.
So, on the one hand, the UK is sponsoring this campaign for economic illiteracy. On the other, it is preparing to defend the world’s leaders against the forces it is busily pandering to. That is the definition of a self-defeating strategy of appeasement. If the UK wants to make a contribution to sanity in the midst of this crisis, it might start by ending the subsidies to groups that hate both the British state and the free enterprise system that has created the wealth the state is fecklessly giving away to its enemies.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/will-only-radicals-get-a-look-in-at-the-g-20-summit/
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
U.S. Seeks Expanded Power to Seize Firms
By Binyamin Appelbaum and David ChoWashington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830_pf.html
The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.
The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.
Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.
The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers.
The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.
The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.
Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit.
The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan.
Geithner plans to lay out the administration's broader strategy for overhauling financial regulation at another hearing on Thursday.
The authority to seize non-bank financial firms has emerged as a priority for the administration after the failure of investment house Lehman Brothers, which was not a traditional bank, and the troubled rescue of AIG.
"We're very late in doing this, but we've got to move quickly to try and do this because, again, it's a necessary thing for any government to have a broader range of tools for dealing with these kinds of things, so you can protect the economy from the kind of risks posed by institutions that get to the point where they're systemic," Geithner said last night at a forum held by the Wall Street Journal.
The powers would parallel the government's existing authority over banks, which are exercised by banking regulatory agencies in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Geithner has cited that structure as the model for the government's plans.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830_pf.html
The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.
The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.
Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.
The administration plans to send legislation to Capitol Hill this week. Sources cautioned that the details, including the Treasury's role, are still in flux.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is set to argue for the new powers at a hearing today on Capitol Hill about the furor over bonuses paid to executives at American International Group, which the government has propped up with about $180 billion in federal aid. Administration officials have said that the proposed authority would have allowed them to seize AIG last fall and wind down its operations at less cost to taxpayers.
The administration's proposal contains two pieces. First, it would empower a government agency to take on the new role of systemic risk regulator with broad oversight of any and all financial firms whose failure could disrupt the broader economy. The Federal Reserve is widely considered to be the leading candidate for this assignment. But some critics warn that this could conflict with the Fed's other responsibilities, particularly its control over monetary policy.
The government also would assume the authority to seize such firms if they totter toward failure.
Besides seizing a company outright, the document states, the Treasury Secretary could use a range of tools to prevent its collapse, such as guaranteeing losses, buying assets or taking a partial ownership stake. Such authority also would allow the government to break contracts, such as the agreements to pay $165 million in bonuses to employees of AIG's most troubled unit.
The Treasury secretary could act only after consulting with the president and getting a recommendation from two-thirds of the Federal Reserve Board, according to the plan.
Geithner plans to lay out the administration's broader strategy for overhauling financial regulation at another hearing on Thursday.
The authority to seize non-bank financial firms has emerged as a priority for the administration after the failure of investment house Lehman Brothers, which was not a traditional bank, and the troubled rescue of AIG.
"We're very late in doing this, but we've got to move quickly to try and do this because, again, it's a necessary thing for any government to have a broader range of tools for dealing with these kinds of things, so you can protect the economy from the kind of risks posed by institutions that get to the point where they're systemic," Geithner said last night at a forum held by the Wall Street Journal.
The powers would parallel the government's existing authority over banks, which are exercised by banking regulatory agencies in conjunction with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Geithner has cited that structure as the model for the government's plans.
China Urges New Money Reserve to Replace Dollar
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/world/asia/24china.html?ref=todayspaper
By DAVID BARBOZA
Published: March 23, 2009
SHANGHAI — In another indication that China is growing increasingly concerned about holding huge dollar reserves, the head of its central bank has called for the eventual creation of a new international currency reserve to replace the dollar.
In a paper released Monday, Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People’s Bank of China, said a new currency reserve system controlled by the International Monetary Fund could prove more stable and economically viable.
A new system is necessary, he said, because the global economic crisis has revealed the “inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system.”
While few analysts believe that the dollar will be replaced as the world’s dominant foreign exchange reserve anytime soon, the proposal suggests that China is preparing to assume a more influential role in the world. Russia recently made a similar proposal.
China’s bold idea, released more than a week before world leaders are to gather in London for an economic summit meeting, also indicates that Beijing is worried that its huge dollar-denominated foreign reserves could lose significant value in coming years.
China has the world’s largest foreign exchange reserves, valued at nearly $2 trillion, with more than half of those holdings estimated to be made up of United States Treasuries and other dollar-denominated bonds.
On March 13, China’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao, said he was concerned about the safety of those assets, particularly because huge economic stimulus plans could lead to soaring deficits in the United States, which could sink the dollar’s value.
Should China lose its appetite for Treasuries, the United States’ borrowing costs could rise, making it more costly for Washington to carry out economic stimulus packages and for Americans to pay off their mortgages.
Nicholas Lardy, an economist and China specialist at the Peterson Institute in Washington, said that through its proposal, China was indicating that the dollar’s long dominance was unfair, allowing the United States to run huge deficits by borrowing from abroad, and that the risks to holders of Treasuries were growing.
“Chinese are quite concerned that the large U.S. government deficits will eventually lead to inflation, which will erode the purchasing power of the dollar-denominated financial assets which they hold,” Mr. Lardy said. “It is a legitimate concern.”
The timing of the Chinese announcement, analysts said, could also be aimed at giving Beijing more leverage to negotiate with the United States and other nations in London on trade and on proposals about how to stabilize the global economy.
But China is cautious when it discusses buying or selling Treasuries, for fear of sending a signal that could significantly affect currency markets. So in a separate announcement on Monday, China said it would continue to buy Treasuries, something the United States has encouraged.
In Mr. Zhou’s essay, published in English and Chinese on the central bank’s Web site, he said the international community should consider expanding the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights.
Such a proposal has been suggested before by developing countries. But the United States has always been wary that this could be inflationary and affect the central role of the dollar.
Special Drawing Rights are based on the value of the dollar, euro, pound and yen, but have been little used except as an accounting entry by international organizations.
Mr. Zhou said the goal of reforming the international monetary system was to “create an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run.”
Keith Bradsher contributed reporting from Beijing.
By DAVID BARBOZA
Published: March 23, 2009
SHANGHAI — In another indication that China is growing increasingly concerned about holding huge dollar reserves, the head of its central bank has called for the eventual creation of a new international currency reserve to replace the dollar.
In a paper released Monday, Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People’s Bank of China, said a new currency reserve system controlled by the International Monetary Fund could prove more stable and economically viable.
A new system is necessary, he said, because the global economic crisis has revealed the “inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system.”
While few analysts believe that the dollar will be replaced as the world’s dominant foreign exchange reserve anytime soon, the proposal suggests that China is preparing to assume a more influential role in the world. Russia recently made a similar proposal.
China’s bold idea, released more than a week before world leaders are to gather in London for an economic summit meeting, also indicates that Beijing is worried that its huge dollar-denominated foreign reserves could lose significant value in coming years.
China has the world’s largest foreign exchange reserves, valued at nearly $2 trillion, with more than half of those holdings estimated to be made up of United States Treasuries and other dollar-denominated bonds.
On March 13, China’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao, said he was concerned about the safety of those assets, particularly because huge economic stimulus plans could lead to soaring deficits in the United States, which could sink the dollar’s value.
Should China lose its appetite for Treasuries, the United States’ borrowing costs could rise, making it more costly for Washington to carry out economic stimulus packages and for Americans to pay off their mortgages.
Nicholas Lardy, an economist and China specialist at the Peterson Institute in Washington, said that through its proposal, China was indicating that the dollar’s long dominance was unfair, allowing the United States to run huge deficits by borrowing from abroad, and that the risks to holders of Treasuries were growing.
“Chinese are quite concerned that the large U.S. government deficits will eventually lead to inflation, which will erode the purchasing power of the dollar-denominated financial assets which they hold,” Mr. Lardy said. “It is a legitimate concern.”
The timing of the Chinese announcement, analysts said, could also be aimed at giving Beijing more leverage to negotiate with the United States and other nations in London on trade and on proposals about how to stabilize the global economy.
But China is cautious when it discusses buying or selling Treasuries, for fear of sending a signal that could significantly affect currency markets. So in a separate announcement on Monday, China said it would continue to buy Treasuries, something the United States has encouraged.
In Mr. Zhou’s essay, published in English and Chinese on the central bank’s Web site, he said the international community should consider expanding the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights.
Such a proposal has been suggested before by developing countries. But the United States has always been wary that this could be inflationary and affect the central role of the dollar.
Special Drawing Rights are based on the value of the dollar, euro, pound and yen, but have been little used except as an accounting entry by international organizations.
Mr. Zhou said the goal of reforming the international monetary system was to “create an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run.”
Keith Bradsher contributed reporting from Beijing.
African American Men and Boys/Women and Girls Conference
29th African American Men & Boys/Women & Girls Conference
Theme: "Strategy for Conflict Management"
"All Students Are Welcome to Attend"
Date: Saturday March. 28th, 2009
Time: 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM
Location: Dobie MS School - Gym (Boys) Cafeteria (Girls)
Address: 1200 East Rundberg, Austin, Texas 78753
Dynamic Keynote Speakers
Men and Boys Speakers Women and Girls Speakers
Mr. Gary Cobb Dr. Deanna Mercer
Andre' W. Mathews Judge Yvonne Williams
Website:
http://www.aambharvestfoundation.com/index1.htm
Conference Sponsors:
Austin ISD, Student and Family Support Services & Project Mentor Department of Education Grant, University of Texas, Glimmer of Hope Foundation, Applied Materials, and Texas Education Agency.
Theme: "Strategy for Conflict Management"
"All Students Are Welcome to Attend"
Date: Saturday March. 28th, 2009
Time: 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM
Location: Dobie MS School - Gym (Boys) Cafeteria (Girls)
Address: 1200 East Rundberg, Austin, Texas 78753
Dynamic Keynote Speakers
Men and Boys Speakers Women and Girls Speakers
Mr. Gary Cobb Dr. Deanna Mercer
Andre' W. Mathews Judge Yvonne Williams
Website:
http://www.aambharvestfoundation.com/index1.htm
Conference Sponsors:
Austin ISD, Student and Family Support Services & Project Mentor Department of Education Grant, University of Texas, Glimmer of Hope Foundation, Applied Materials, and Texas Education Agency.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Obama met Gorbachev last week
I wonder what they are planning? Hhmm!
The White House disclosed Monday that President Barack Obama met former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev last week, as the United States and Russia intensify efforts to "reset" strained relations.
Gorbachev was at a White House meeting with Vice President Joe Biden on Friday when Obama informally dropped by, his spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
The announcement comes just over a week before the US president meets Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in London.
"The president tends to roam around the larger house and sometimes walks into meetings that weren't previously on his schedule," Gibbs said, when asked why the meeting had not been made public before.
US presidents often stage informal "drop by" meetings with senior officials or informal representatives of foreign nations, who do not by protocol qualify for an official Oval Office welcome.
The Biden-Gorbachev meeting was the latest in a series of encounters between the two sides ahead of Obama's meeting with Medvedev in London on the fringes of a G20 economic summit.
Medvedev said while meeting former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger in Moscow last week that he had high hopes for his meeting with Obama, and hoped the two sides would make good on a US vow to improve relations.
Gibbs said that Biden and Gorbachev talked about how the United States could work to reduce their nuclear arsenals, combat nuclear proliferation and cooperate on energy issues.
In February, Biden made the first major move in US-Russia relations of the Obama presidency, saying at a security conference in Munich that it was time to push the "reset button" after the tense exchanges of the previous Bush administration.
Click on the link below to see the full story....
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5beb7fa32a18b4053f085717a48d3efb.3b1&show_article=1&catnum=3
The White House disclosed Monday that President Barack Obama met former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev last week, as the United States and Russia intensify efforts to "reset" strained relations.
Gorbachev was at a White House meeting with Vice President Joe Biden on Friday when Obama informally dropped by, his spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
The announcement comes just over a week before the US president meets Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in London.
"The president tends to roam around the larger house and sometimes walks into meetings that weren't previously on his schedule," Gibbs said, when asked why the meeting had not been made public before.
US presidents often stage informal "drop by" meetings with senior officials or informal representatives of foreign nations, who do not by protocol qualify for an official Oval Office welcome.
The Biden-Gorbachev meeting was the latest in a series of encounters between the two sides ahead of Obama's meeting with Medvedev in London on the fringes of a G20 economic summit.
Medvedev said while meeting former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger in Moscow last week that he had high hopes for his meeting with Obama, and hoped the two sides would make good on a US vow to improve relations.
Gibbs said that Biden and Gorbachev talked about how the United States could work to reduce their nuclear arsenals, combat nuclear proliferation and cooperate on energy issues.
In February, Biden made the first major move in US-Russia relations of the Obama presidency, saying at a security conference in Munich that it was time to push the "reset button" after the tense exchanges of the previous Bush administration.
Click on the link below to see the full story....
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5beb7fa32a18b4053f085717a48d3efb.3b1&show_article=1&catnum=3
Dodd's Wife a Former Director of Bermuda-Based IPC Holdings, an AIG Controlled Company
Now we know why Chris Dodd was so interested in giving to AIG what AIG wanted. He only got weak kneed because he got caught!
By Kevin Rennie
No wonder Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) went wobbly last week when asked about his February amendment ratifying hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to executives at insurance giant AIG. Dodd has been one of the company's favorite recipients of campaign contributions. But it turns out that Senator Dodd's wife has also benefited from past connections to AIG as well.
From 2001-2004, Jackie Clegg Dodd served as an "outside" director of IPC Holdings, Ltd., a Bermuda-based company controlled by AIG. IPC, which provides property casualty catastrophe insurance coverage, was formed in 1993 and currently has a market cap of $1.4 billion and trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol IPCR. In 2001, in addition to a public offering of 15 million shares of stock that raised $380 million, IPC raised more than $109 million through a simultaneous private placement sale of 5.6 million shares of stock to AIG - giving AIG a 20% stake in IPC. (AIG sold its 13.397 million shares in IPC in August, 2006.)
Clegg was compensated for her duties to the company, which was managed by a subsidiary of AIG. In 2003, according to a proxy statement, Clegg received $12,000 per year and an additional $1,000 for each Directors' and committee meeting she attended. Clegg served on the Audit and Investment committees during her final year on the board.
IPC paid millions each year to other AIG-related companies for administrative and other services. Clegg was a diligent director. In 2003, the proxy statement report, she attended more than 75% of board and committee meetings. This while she served as the managing partner of Clegg International Consultants, LLC, which she created in 2001, the year she joined the board of IPC. (See Dodd's public financial disclosure reports with the Senate from 2001-2004 here.)
Dodd is likely more familiar with the complicated workings of AIG than he was letting on last week. This week may provide him with another opportunity to refresh his recollections.
Kevin Rennie, a former Republican state senator, is a columnist for the Hartford Courant. He can be reached at kfrennie@yahoo.com.
Click on the link below to read more...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/dodds_wife_a_former_director_o.html
By Kevin Rennie
No wonder Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) went wobbly last week when asked about his February amendment ratifying hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to executives at insurance giant AIG. Dodd has been one of the company's favorite recipients of campaign contributions. But it turns out that Senator Dodd's wife has also benefited from past connections to AIG as well.
From 2001-2004, Jackie Clegg Dodd served as an "outside" director of IPC Holdings, Ltd., a Bermuda-based company controlled by AIG. IPC, which provides property casualty catastrophe insurance coverage, was formed in 1993 and currently has a market cap of $1.4 billion and trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol IPCR. In 2001, in addition to a public offering of 15 million shares of stock that raised $380 million, IPC raised more than $109 million through a simultaneous private placement sale of 5.6 million shares of stock to AIG - giving AIG a 20% stake in IPC. (AIG sold its 13.397 million shares in IPC in August, 2006.)
Clegg was compensated for her duties to the company, which was managed by a subsidiary of AIG. In 2003, according to a proxy statement, Clegg received $12,000 per year and an additional $1,000 for each Directors' and committee meeting she attended. Clegg served on the Audit and Investment committees during her final year on the board.
IPC paid millions each year to other AIG-related companies for administrative and other services. Clegg was a diligent director. In 2003, the proxy statement report, she attended more than 75% of board and committee meetings. This while she served as the managing partner of Clegg International Consultants, LLC, which she created in 2001, the year she joined the board of IPC. (See Dodd's public financial disclosure reports with the Senate from 2001-2004 here.)
Dodd is likely more familiar with the complicated workings of AIG than he was letting on last week. This week may provide him with another opportunity to refresh his recollections.
Kevin Rennie, a former Republican state senator, is a columnist for the Hartford Courant. He can be reached at kfrennie@yahoo.com.
Click on the link below to read more...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/dodds_wife_a_former_director_o.html
Contraception Pill Strictures Are Eased by a Judge
Does this mean that the court is encouraging statutuary rape?
By NATASHA SINGER
Published: March 23, 2009
A federal judge ordered the Food and Drug Administration on Monday to make the Plan B morning-after birth control pill available without prescription to women as young as 17.
The judge ruled that the agency had improperly bowed to political pressure from the Bush administration in 2006 when it set 18 as the age limit.
The agency has 30 days to comply with the order, in which the judge also urged the agency to consider removing all restrictions on over-the-counter sales of Plan B. The drug consists of two pills that prevent conception if taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse.
Some women’s health advocates hailed the decision.
“It is a complete vindication of the argument that reproductive rights advocates have been making for years, that in the Bush administration it was politics, not science, driving decisions around women’s health,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the attorneys for the plaintiff in the suit against the F.D.A.
But some conservative groups voiced concern that the ruling could promote sexual promiscuity. “Now some minor girls will be able to obtain this drug without any guidance from a doctor and without any parental supervision,” the Family Research Council said in a statement.
Plan B has been available by prescription in the United States since 1999.
But because the drug must be taken so soon after intercourse to be effective, in 2001 more than five dozen public health groups, with endorsements from World Health Organization and the American Medical Association, asked the F.D.A. to make Plan B available over the counter.
Not until 2006 did the F.D.A. rule, saying that the drug could be sold without a prescription only to women over 18. In order to enforce the age restriction, the agency also ordered that Plan B be stocked behind pharmacy counters, in contrast to other over-the-counter contraceptives like condoms.
On Monday, in a decision that criticized former F.D.A. officials, Judge Edward R. Korman of Federal District Court in New York threw out the F.D.A. ruling.
Judge Korman wrote that officials of the agency had repeatedly delayed action on the petition, moving only when members of Congress threatened to hold up confirmation hearings on acting F.D.A. commissioners. Several officials also violated the agency’s own policies, he wrote.
Citing depositions, Judge Korman wrote that agency officials had improperly communicated with White House officials about Plan B. And, he said, F.D.A. employees sought to influence decisions by appointing people with anti-abortion views to an independent panel of experts reviewing Plan B for the agency.
The agency also departed from its normal procedures, the judge wrote, by ignoring favorable conclusions about the drug by an advisory panel as well its own scientists and officials who found that the drug could be safely used by women at least as young as 17.
Such “political considerations, delays and implausible justifications” showed that the F.D.A. had acted without good faith or reasoned decision making, Judge Korman wrote.
Susan F. Wood, a former F.D.A. director of women’s health who resigned in 2005 to protest the handling of Plan B, said Monday that the judge’s decision to send the drug back for reconsideration signaled hope of the agency’s ability to act independently under a new administration.
There is a new chance to “restore the scientific integrity of the F.D.A.,” said Ms. Wood, now a professor of public health at George Washington University.
In response to a query from a reporter, an F.D.A. spokeswoman wrote Monday in an e-mail message that the agency was still reviewing the decision.
Click on the link below to read more.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/health/24pill.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
By NATASHA SINGER
Published: March 23, 2009
A federal judge ordered the Food and Drug Administration on Monday to make the Plan B morning-after birth control pill available without prescription to women as young as 17.
The judge ruled that the agency had improperly bowed to political pressure from the Bush administration in 2006 when it set 18 as the age limit.
The agency has 30 days to comply with the order, in which the judge also urged the agency to consider removing all restrictions on over-the-counter sales of Plan B. The drug consists of two pills that prevent conception if taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse.
Some women’s health advocates hailed the decision.
“It is a complete vindication of the argument that reproductive rights advocates have been making for years, that in the Bush administration it was politics, not science, driving decisions around women’s health,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the attorneys for the plaintiff in the suit against the F.D.A.
But some conservative groups voiced concern that the ruling could promote sexual promiscuity. “Now some minor girls will be able to obtain this drug without any guidance from a doctor and without any parental supervision,” the Family Research Council said in a statement.
Plan B has been available by prescription in the United States since 1999.
But because the drug must be taken so soon after intercourse to be effective, in 2001 more than five dozen public health groups, with endorsements from World Health Organization and the American Medical Association, asked the F.D.A. to make Plan B available over the counter.
Not until 2006 did the F.D.A. rule, saying that the drug could be sold without a prescription only to women over 18. In order to enforce the age restriction, the agency also ordered that Plan B be stocked behind pharmacy counters, in contrast to other over-the-counter contraceptives like condoms.
On Monday, in a decision that criticized former F.D.A. officials, Judge Edward R. Korman of Federal District Court in New York threw out the F.D.A. ruling.
Judge Korman wrote that officials of the agency had repeatedly delayed action on the petition, moving only when members of Congress threatened to hold up confirmation hearings on acting F.D.A. commissioners. Several officials also violated the agency’s own policies, he wrote.
Citing depositions, Judge Korman wrote that agency officials had improperly communicated with White House officials about Plan B. And, he said, F.D.A. employees sought to influence decisions by appointing people with anti-abortion views to an independent panel of experts reviewing Plan B for the agency.
The agency also departed from its normal procedures, the judge wrote, by ignoring favorable conclusions about the drug by an advisory panel as well its own scientists and officials who found that the drug could be safely used by women at least as young as 17.
Such “political considerations, delays and implausible justifications” showed that the F.D.A. had acted without good faith or reasoned decision making, Judge Korman wrote.
Susan F. Wood, a former F.D.A. director of women’s health who resigned in 2005 to protest the handling of Plan B, said Monday that the judge’s decision to send the drug back for reconsideration signaled hope of the agency’s ability to act independently under a new administration.
There is a new chance to “restore the scientific integrity of the F.D.A.,” said Ms. Wood, now a professor of public health at George Washington University.
In response to a query from a reporter, an F.D.A. spokeswoman wrote Monday in an e-mail message that the agency was still reviewing the decision.
Click on the link below to read more.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/health/24pill.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Cheap Political Theatre
Liberals have been using these tactics against the republicans for over 70 years now. They like to threaten and intimidate to get their way. They will stop at nothing.
By Thomas Sowell
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com Death threats to executives at AIG, because of the bonuses they received, are one more sign of the utter degeneration of politics in our time.
Congressman Barney Frank has threatened to summon these executives before his committee and force them to reveal their home addresses— which would of course put their wives and children at the mercy of whatever kooks might want to literally take a shot at them.
Whatever the political or economic issues involved, this is not the way such issues should be resolved in America. We are not yet a banana republic, though that is the direction in which some of our politicians are taking us— especially those politicians who make a lot of noise about "compassion" and "social justice."
What makes this all the more painfully ironic is that it is precisely those members of Congress who have had the most to do with creating the risks that led to the current economic crisis who are making the most noise against others, and summoning people before their committee to be browbeaten and humiliated on nationwide television.
No one pushed harder than Congressman Barney Frank to force banks and other financial institutions to reduce their mortgage lending standards, in order to meet government-set goals for more home ownership। Those lower mortgage lending standards are at the heart of the increased riskiness of the mortgage market and of the collapse of Wall Street securities based on those risky mortgages।
Senator Christopher Dodd has played the same role in the Senate as Barney Frank played in the House of Representatives. Now both are summoning government employees and the officials of financial institutions before their committees to be lambasted in front of the media.
Dodd and Frank know that the best defense is a good offense. Both know how hard it would be to defend their own roles in the housing debacle, so they go on the offensive against others who are in no position to reply in kind, given the vindictive powers of Congress.
This political theater is in one sense cheap beyond words. In another sense, it is costly beyond words.
It is cheap because the politicians who are creating this distraction from their own role also voted for the very legislation that enabled contracted bonuses to be paid by companies like AIG that received government bailout money. If members of Congress can't be bothered to read the laws they pass, then they have no basis for whipping up lynch mob outrage against people who did read the law and acted within the law.
Just as everyone seemed to be a military expert a couple of years ago, when it was chic to say that the "surge" in Iraq would not work, so today everyone seems to be an expert on executive pay.
Whether the particular executives who received bonuses were the ones responsible for AIG's problems, or were among those who warned against those problems, is something that those of us on the outside don't know. That includes those in politics and the media who are making the loudest noise.
The politicians claim to be protecting the taxpayers' money. But having politicians trying to micro-manage any business is far more likely to make those businesses lose more money, including the taxpayers' money.
Securities based on risky mortgages are what toppled financial institutions but it was the government that made the mortgages risky in the first place, by making home-ownership statistics the holy grail, for which everything else was to be sacrificed, including commonsense standards for making home loans.
Politicians and bureaucrats micro-managing the mortgage sector of the economy is precisely how today's economic disaster began. Why anyone would think that their micro-managing the automobile industry, or executive pay across a wide sweep of other industries, is likely to make things better in the economy is a mystery.
The real point is to pander to envy and resentment against people who make a lot of money. Envy is always referred to by its political alias, "social justice." But to put the lives of the wives and children of executives at risk for the sake of Beltway grandstanding shows how low our political saviors have sunk.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment on JWR contributor Thomas Sowell's column by clicking here.
Click on the link below to read more.....
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032409.php3
By Thomas Sowell
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com Death threats to executives at AIG, because of the bonuses they received, are one more sign of the utter degeneration of politics in our time.
Congressman Barney Frank has threatened to summon these executives before his committee and force them to reveal their home addresses— which would of course put their wives and children at the mercy of whatever kooks might want to literally take a shot at them.
Whatever the political or economic issues involved, this is not the way such issues should be resolved in America. We are not yet a banana republic, though that is the direction in which some of our politicians are taking us— especially those politicians who make a lot of noise about "compassion" and "social justice."
What makes this all the more painfully ironic is that it is precisely those members of Congress who have had the most to do with creating the risks that led to the current economic crisis who are making the most noise against others, and summoning people before their committee to be browbeaten and humiliated on nationwide television.
No one pushed harder than Congressman Barney Frank to force banks and other financial institutions to reduce their mortgage lending standards, in order to meet government-set goals for more home ownership। Those lower mortgage lending standards are at the heart of the increased riskiness of the mortgage market and of the collapse of Wall Street securities based on those risky mortgages।
Senator Christopher Dodd has played the same role in the Senate as Barney Frank played in the House of Representatives. Now both are summoning government employees and the officials of financial institutions before their committees to be lambasted in front of the media.
Dodd and Frank know that the best defense is a good offense. Both know how hard it would be to defend their own roles in the housing debacle, so they go on the offensive against others who are in no position to reply in kind, given the vindictive powers of Congress.
This political theater is in one sense cheap beyond words. In another sense, it is costly beyond words.
It is cheap because the politicians who are creating this distraction from their own role also voted for the very legislation that enabled contracted bonuses to be paid by companies like AIG that received government bailout money. If members of Congress can't be bothered to read the laws they pass, then they have no basis for whipping up lynch mob outrage against people who did read the law and acted within the law.
Just as everyone seemed to be a military expert a couple of years ago, when it was chic to say that the "surge" in Iraq would not work, so today everyone seems to be an expert on executive pay.
Whether the particular executives who received bonuses were the ones responsible for AIG's problems, or were among those who warned against those problems, is something that those of us on the outside don't know. That includes those in politics and the media who are making the loudest noise.
The politicians claim to be protecting the taxpayers' money. But having politicians trying to micro-manage any business is far more likely to make those businesses lose more money, including the taxpayers' money.
Securities based on risky mortgages are what toppled financial institutions but it was the government that made the mortgages risky in the first place, by making home-ownership statistics the holy grail, for which everything else was to be sacrificed, including commonsense standards for making home loans.
Politicians and bureaucrats micro-managing the mortgage sector of the economy is precisely how today's economic disaster began. Why anyone would think that their micro-managing the automobile industry, or executive pay across a wide sweep of other industries, is likely to make things better in the economy is a mystery.
The real point is to pander to envy and resentment against people who make a lot of money. Envy is always referred to by its political alias, "social justice." But to put the lives of the wives and children of executives at risk for the sake of Beltway grandstanding shows how low our political saviors have sunk.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment on JWR contributor Thomas Sowell's column by clicking here.
Click on the link below to read more.....
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032409.php3
A JewishWorldReview.com article from EAV
EAV saw this article in JewishWorldReview.com and thought you would be interested
Cheap Political Theater
By: Thomas Sowell
March 24, 2009
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell032409.php3
These people will stop at nothing to get attention away from the mess that they have created. They are looking for scapegoats.
By the way, want to receive thoughtful commentary, comics and other features by
e-mail for FREE? Really. Just go to http://www.jewishworldreview.com/signup/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
