Publicado: 04-22-2011 06:33 PM
Obama Issues Veto Threat As Government Shutdown Looms
Washington. -- President Obama promised on Thursday to veto a House Republican bill that would keep the government open for one extra week and cut $12 billion in spending, while also funding the military through the remainder of the fiscal year.
Obama had dismissed the gesture in private meetings and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called the measure a "fantasy" and a "non-starter," but Thursday's veto threat was the president's clearest signal that the House Republican stopgap is doomed.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) criticized Obama's veto threat, saying in a statement, "I urge the President revisit his decision and work with us."
A government shutdown is looking increasingly likely, Reid warned Thursday morning, charging that Republicans are holding up a deal over ideological issues.
He also mocked a would-be stopgap measure moving through the House as a "fantasy" and a "non-starter."
"The numbers are basically there," Reid (D-Nev.) said in a Senate floor statement. "But I am not nearly as optimistic -- and that's an understatement -- as I was 11 hours ago."
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday that negotiators are not as close to reaching a budget deal as he thought last night, when he attended a meeting at the White House.
The Hill's Jordan Fabian reports on Twitter that the following GOP representatives voted against the stopgap measure, which would keep the government running for an additional week:Justin Amash (Miss.) Michele Bachmann (Minn.) Ron Paul (Texas) Mick Mulvaney (S.C.)
Joe Barton (Texas)
Publicado: 04-22-2011 06:35 PM
San Francisco (CNN) – We all know that San Francisco's an overwhelmingly Democratic leaning city. And if you are a Democratic president running for re-election, the city's also a pretty good place to fund raise, and that's just what President Barack Obama's doing Wednesday night and Thursday morning.
The president headlines two fundraisers Wednesday night. The first is a dinner for approximately 200 people at a private residence and the second is being held at the Nob Hill Masonic Center. National Football League hall of famer Jerry Rice, a former wide receiver with the San Francisco 49ers, is scheduled to speak at the second event, which is expected to have approximately 2,500 people in attendance.
Thursday morning Obama headlines a breakfast at the St. Regis hotel, with around 200 people invited. A source with knowledge of the events says the gatherings will "include a broad range of the President's supporters with tickets starting at $25 and ranging to the legal maximum limit of $35,800."
All money raised is expected to go to the Obama Victory Fund, which is split between the president's re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
In the 2008 election cycle San Francisco was the source of $46.4 million in federal contributions, with 82 percent going to Democratic candidates, party committees and Democratic leaning organizations, according to FEC data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The president heads to San Francisco after holding a town hall earlier in the day at Facebook headquarters in Palo Alto, California. The president is highlighting his proposals to reduce the nation's deficit at a trio of town halls this week. The first was held Tuesday in northern Virginia, with the final town hall scheduled for Reno, Nevada Thursday.
The president also headlines two fundraisers in Los Angeles on Thursday. The first is a 60-person dinner at the Sony Pictures lot, with the second at a restaurant in Brentwood. In the 2008 cycle, Los Angeles County was the source of $150.4 million in political contributions.
The president announced on April 4 that he was setting up his re-election campaign. Last week he personally kicked off his fundraising drive by headlining three events in his hometown of Chicago. Next week Obama's first round of fundraising ends with a gathering in New York City. Obama shattered all records by raising nearly $750 million in his bid for the White House in 2008.
Besides being a smart place for Democratic candidates to raise money, the Golden state's also generally a safe spot for Democrats in presidential contests. Obama topped fellow Sen. John McCain by a 61 to 37 percent margin to win California's 55 electoral votes in the 2008 election. George H.W. Bush's 1988 victory in the state was the last time a Republican presidential candidate carried California.
Publicado: 04-23-2011 09:53 AM
$8 GALLON? Going Green by Starving America of Oil
By Tait Trussell On April 22, 2011 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
A gallon of regular gas in Caracus,Venezuella, costs 12 cents. In Saudi Arabia, gas is at 91 cents a gallon. So, why, when we have more fossil fuel deposits in America on shore and off shore than either of those countries, are we paying $4.00 a gallon or higher? Could it be unbounded politics?
As an op-ed piece in the Wall Street journal put it: “For decades—going back to Jimmy Carter—politicians have been peddling an America free of fossil fuels…” President Obama has raised the anti-petroleum ghost to a new level of fear linked to the misguided theory of global warming.
To satisfy his left-wing base of narrow-minded environmentalists, along with his own twisted ideals, Obama’s administration has blocked drilling for oil and gas, proposed new taxes on oil companies, and called for costly restraints on carbon emissions while persistently touting the ethereal promise of green energy.
Although the bloated Federal budget, deficit, and debt are drawing the focus of political Washington, our stifling energy policy is contributing to the economic conditions which, in turn, influence our spending and debt as well as our high unemployment.
Increased access to domestic oil and natural gas—rather than increased taxes on the U.S. oil and gas industry—is the best strategy for increasing government revenue, jobs and energy production, according to a new study by Wood MacKenzie, the global research and consulting firm.
What the political know-it-alls won’t tell the public is that America has more recoverable fossil fuel resources than any other country on earth. More than any Middle Eastern country, more than Russia, more than China, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported recently. It compared various countries in terms of estimated amounts of oil and gas discovered or existing in unexplored areas but considered recoverable using present technology.
The CRS estimate of oil and gas doesn’t even include coal, with U.S. reserves of 262 billion tons. That’s 28 percent of the world’s coal.
It doesn’t attempt to quantify the new frontier of methane hydrate (methane locked in ice). This gas source has “immense” energy potential, possibly exceeding the combined energy content of all known fossil fuels, according to the Congressional Research Service. It could eventually be available if the environmentalists of the Left will permit it.
Nor are shale oil deposits included in the CRS estimate. Shale oil and gas are being uncovered rapidly with the new technology of fracking—pumping water and chemicals at high pressure far below the surface to break up the shale and release gas.
The environmental extremists are already whining about fracking, claiming the drilling fluids applied to get the oil and gas from deep shale formations contain carcinogens hazardous to clean water.
These charges, according to a Wall Street Journal story April 18, are being supported by Senate Democrats who are always ready to spoil technological advances. Industry says there’s no evidence these fluids have found their way into water supplies. Nearly 800 million gallons of drilling fluids have been pumped deep into the earth in the past few years.
The White House defensively bragged that last year U.S. oil production reached its highest level since 2003. Obama apparently was unaware that it takes years for a leased area to begin producing. So, the credit for last year’s rise really goes to the Bush administration. Once again the administration had its facts wrong.
The Left seems tied to the stake of green energy, even though it holds little promise today or in the foreseeable future. Green energy, be it windmills or solar panels, exists only because the Obama administration is causing the cost of its competition to soar and because Obama has dumped billions of dollars into the pockets of his cronies to subsidize green projects.
But for the immediate future, U.S. oil and gas companies are a major force in our economy. “These companies produce most of the nation’s energy, put millions of people to work and deliver billions in taxes and royalties to our government.” as American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard pointed out.
The Wood MacKenzie study looked ahead. It said increased access could by 2025 create 530,000 jobs, deliver $150 billion more in tax, royalty and other revenue to the government, and boost domestic production by four million barrels of oil equivalent a day….Raising taxes on the industry with no increase in access could reduce domestic production by 700,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day (in 2020) and reduce revenue to the government by billions of dollars annually.
Although more access would eventually replace oil imports, it would not necessarily drive gasoline down to dime-store prices, an API senior manager explains. “We are in a global market for crude oil. Even if we were entirely self-sufficient in crude oil, the price of that crude would be determined by all the thousands of buyers and sellers in the world’s market, not just by us…All we know for sure is that the benefits—jobs, tax revenue, energy security—would be greater.”
Strident environmentalists have long predicted that we will soon be running out of oil. To the contrary, over the past 30 years, the world’s proven reserves have increased 130 percent.
Some Democrats also are calling for a “use it or lose it” policy regarding oil and gas leases. They claim companies are sitting on scores of leases that could be used to search for oil. Obama said in a speech that the industry “holds tens of millions of acres where its not producing a drop.” But the problem is not with leases. It’s with permits. Permits have been tied up with over-burdensome regulations. Again, Obama speaks with a forked tongue.
Adding a spit in the face to industry, the Administration saw fit to lend $2.84 billion to Columbia for an oil refinery, it was revealed April 19. According to reports, the money would go to Reficar, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ecopetrol, the Columbian national oil company. This is part of a $5 billion refinery upgrade project supplying petroleum, products for domestic and export purposes. Who knows what energy misdeeds lie ahead?
Publicado: 04-24-2011 08:40 PM
"Gangster Government" Exposes the First Thug's Abuse of Power
Washington journalist David Freddoso, who's making a name for himself as a paladin on the American right, is hot on the trail of the Obama gang again, with both guns blazing.
The fearless author of The New York Times’ campaign bestseller, The Case Against Barack Obama, who warned us of the Chicago-***********///////********//////****** outlaw government we’d get if we elected him President, is back, this time with a detailed account of how Obama and his gang have abused their powers and now threaten our freedoms.
His new action-packed book, accurately and appropriately titled Gangster Government: Barack Obama and the New Washington Thugocracy (Regnery Publishing) is crammed with criminal indictments against Obama’s hired guns and their dirty deeds. It’s must reading for anyone who is, or will be, working in this two-year election cycle to oust him and his Most Wanted desperados from Washington.
Of course, if you are talking about thugs, there are plenty of them in the ranks of organized labor, many of whom have been wandering the halls of the West Wing over the past two years as if they owned the place. Come to think of it, after all of the IOUs Obama gave them for their work in the 2008 election, they do own the place, and they’ve taken full advantage of their behind-the-scenes influence at the very highest levels of government.
Perhaps no other union official has had more access to the White House than Andy Stern, the politically powerful president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), who paid nearly 60 visits in Obama’s first two years in office. Whatever Andy wanted, Andy got.
What did Stern do to earn his $260,000 a year salary? Why, he lobbied, of course, the kind of activity Obama regularly attacked in his campaign for the presidency under the previous administration. But when Stern lobbied, he did it inside the Oval Office.
Obama and his aides were eager to keep the unions happy, and Freddoso points out that Obama’s $800 billion economic stimulus legislation “was specifically designed to protect state government workers who might otherwise have been laid off—even if their jobs were jobs that states needed to cut.”
When California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger attempted to cut $2 an hour from the state’s subsidy for unionized health care workers to save money, Stern lobbied the White House to block it. The White House dutifully threatened to cut off $6.8 billion in stimulus funds if the Schwarzenegger administration did not back down.
Stepping up the pressure, the White House held a conference call with California officials, putting the SEIU’s general counsel and two union officials in California on the line. When a story leaked out about Obama’s blackmail tactics, the White House backed off. “It was one of those cases where gangster government was just too unsubtle to be effective,” Feddoso writes.
It was also an all-too-typical example of the strong-arm tactics the Obama gang regularly used to get its way.
Next to labor, no other lobbying group exerted more influence on the Obama government than the trial lawyers. At a $2 million fund-raiser bankrolled by the nation’s richest liability trial attorneys, Sen. Joseph Biden said there were “two groups that stand between us and the barbarians at the gate. It’s you and organized labor.”
But the tens of millions of dollars trial lawyers paid to the Obama campaign yielded huge dividends for one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country. The White House made sure that proposed curbs on medical liability lawsuits never made it into the ObamaCare bill that the President signed into law.
One of strongest themes that runs throughout Freddoso’s book is the Obama gang’s cynical view that the Constitution and the laws that govern our country are only for the little people, not for those at the pinnacles of power who revel in ruling over us.
Historically, the government’s departments and major agencies are run by the Cabinet secretaries and agency chiefs nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They are required to testify before Congress and cooperate with any investigations and other oversight inquiries.
But under Obama’s rules, these departments and agencies are now run by a cadre of little-known White House czars, far removed from the Senate’s confirmation process and congressional oversight. The White House wants everything in the government run from the West Wing, far from the prying inquiries of the legislative branch.
While even some Democrats have groused about this seemingly illegal power shift, the White House has gotten away with it.
But it is in the health care law, “read by so few but supported by so many in Congress,” that “President Obama has stretched the constitutional limits of federal power beyond their breaking point,” Freddoso writes. Particularly, he says, in forcing uninsured Americans to purchase and/or businesses to provide federally approved health care plans they do not want and cannot afford, or otherwise pay a penalty or even face jail.
But Freddoso remains confident that, in the end, all of this will be overturned in the next election by the voters whose opposition to the Obama presidency runs far deeper than a mediocre economy and high unemployment. He points to exit polls in last year’s elections, when voters by three-to-one said: “Government is doing too many things better left to business and individuals.”
Freddoso believes the voters have “turned on Obama because they saw something they didn’t like: the big, heavy, pushy hand of big government, reaching out from every shadow. They saw one overreach after another—the stimulus package, the health care bill, the bailout of the automakers, the favoritism toward special interests. And they said No to gangster government.”
We’ll know soon enough whether Freddoso’s prediction proves true, but I suspect he’s right. The political rebellion we saw at work in last year’s elections shows no signs of receding. It’s just getting bigger and angrier.
|Mr. Lambro is a nationally syndicated columnist and former chief political correspondent for the Washington Times.|
Publicado: 05-09-2011 11:24 PM
By John Yoo
May 09, 2011 Our nation’s leaders made the difficult decision to use coercive interrogation methods to learn as quickly as possible what hardened al-Qaeda operatives knew in the immediate months after 9/11. Knowledgeable officials expected that al-Qaeda would try again — soon — and in a more devastating fashion. Several plots were foiled and last week we finally killed al-Qaeda’s leader. This was not the result of luck — it is due to the hard work of members of the military and our intelligence agencies.
Their reward has been an open-ended investigation and the disturbing reopening of cases closed by career prosecutors. Others have written about the financial ruin in store for agents and analysts whose focus will shift from the enemy to their legal bills. What has been less well understood is what the investigation will do to the CIA as an institution at a time when it serves as the nation’s eyes and ears and, sometimes, the sword and shield, during war against a shadowy, covert enemy. If you are being prosecuted for pushing the envelope at the orders of your political leadership, you will not just think twice next time — you might instead refuse or leave the agency.
The Carter presidency serves as a warning. Attacking “Watergate, Vietnam, and the CIA,” Carter came to office determined to clean house. He campaigned by attacking the CIA: “Our government should justify the character and moral principles of the American people, and our foreign policy should not short-circuit that for temporary advantage,” he said. He promised to never “do anything as president that would be a contravention of the moral and ethical standards that I would exemplify in my own life as an individual.”
He and his CIA director, Adm. Stansfield Turner, saw little need for information gathered by spies and informants. Turner promptly took a buzz saw to the division in charge of covert operations, eliminating 820 positions out of 4,730.
The message was clear, and as a result CIA agents became risk-averse. After all, if you might be fired or prosecuted for doing something, the safest thing to do is nothing. America’s ability to gather human intelligence and conduct covert operations swiftly fell apart. The CIA failed to predict the fall of the shah. Iranian students — one of them now the president of Iran — took U.S. Embassy officials hostage. A covert operation to rescue them failed miserably, killing eight Americans.
The effects of this decimation of our intelligence capabilities continue. The intelligence agencies failed to stop the 9/11 attacks and do not appear to have penetrated al-Qaeda’s leadership. As the Silberman-Robb Commission reported in 2005, the intelligence community’s estimates on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were almost totally mistaken. The Bush administration began the investments to turn around the long-run capabilities of the CIA, but Obama’s investigations threaten to return the mindset of our agents to the 1970s, even as our nation needs them most. Not only do the prosecutions threaten to undermine our ability to gather the intelligence to carry out operations like bin Laden’s killing, they may cause us to miss intelligence threats yet unknown.
— John Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and author of Crisis and Command: A History of Executive Power from George Washington to George W. Bush.
Publicado: 06-17-2011 11:48 PM
Fannie, ACORN, Obama, and the Financial Crisis
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE ^ | June 17, 2011 | Stanley Kurtz
June 17, 2011 PM
ACORN 2 OBAMA
From: Jerry Breen
Date: October 22, 2008
Jonah rightly calls today’s David Brooks column a must-read. Brooks discusses Reckless Endangerment, the new book by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner exposing Fannie Mae’s role in the runup to the financial crisis. Brooks also rightly credits Michele Bachmann for her important role in publicizing a topic many other national politicians have been silent on.
I’ve only had a chance to give Reckless Endangerment a quick look, but my impression is that it tells the right story, if a bit too much from Fannie Mae’s point of view. In Morgenson and Rosner’s telling, Fannie Mae effectively buys off ACORN and other low-income housing groups. There’s some truth to that,
but it underestimates the extent to which ACORN and allied groups forced Fannie Mae into the subprime business in the first place, and sometimes pushed themselves onto Fannie Mae against resistance.
I tell that story in the ACORN chapter of Radical-in-Chief,
based on heretofore unseen documents from the ACORN archive at the Wisconsin Historical Society. I also show that Barack Obama was knee-deep in ACORN activities just as their banking campaign reached its height. In fact, much of
ACORN’s national housing campaign in the mid-nineties was coordinated from the Chicago office Obama was funneling money to at the time.
So if the combination of the publication of Reckless
Endangerment and Michele Bachmann’s campaign brings a new awareness of Fannie Mae’s role in precipitating the financial crisis, by rights it also ought to raise awareness of ACORN’s role, and Obama’s abetment of ACORN activism as well. Of course, for that very reason, the entire story is likely to be ignored.
Maybe only someone like Bachmann has the power to break it through.
Publicado: 07-03-2011 12:48 PM
I was trading in the S&P pit at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on the day the Berlin Wall fell. I had a sense that something truly
historical was taking place—it would have been impossible not to—but with the pressure of the session and a newborn baby whom I couldn’t wait to get home to, I didn’t stop to grasp the enormity of the events that were unfolding.
It wasn’t until I spoke with my father, an Armenian immigrant
who loved the United States more than anyone I’ve ever known, that the big picture came into focus.
“America won,” he said.
Sounds simple, but it was really quite profound. He wasn’t
talking about one army vanquishing another. He wasn’t talking about the arms race or the space race or any of the hot conflicts that erupted during the 50-year Cold War. He was talking about an idea.
This was a man whose parents survived the Turks but lost 40
members of their family. A man who experienced terrible loss and religious persecution first hand. A man who waited seven years to come to this country as a refugee and kissed the ground when he arrived.
My father was a man who truly cherished his inalienable rights and never took them for granted a day in his life.
He was talking about an idea because, to him, America itself
was an idea. On November 9, 1989, communism became a failed experiment. The American experiment would carry on. We had just won the ideological war.
Like in any war, to the victor goes the spoils. But since
this was a different kind of war, there was also a different kind of prize. Instead of cultural artifacts or new territories, the reward was more abstract: an entire world that would soon be open for business.
No longer would the entrepreneurial spirit that made this
country great be contained by our borders. America was free to export the twin miracles of democracy and capitalism to every corner of the world.
And export we did. In the 22 years since capitalism triumphed, just about every country on Earth has embraced a U.S.-sstyle freemarket economy—and with passionate enthusiasm at that. Corporations are reporting record earnings thanks to exploding consumer demand in emerging markets that were barely on the radar 30 years ago—places like Brazil, India and China (which is communist in name only). Social mobility, the great ancillary
effect of a free market, has not only created a middle-class consumer culture in those places, it’s actually created wealth.
Publicado: 07-03-2011 12:48 PM
Growing up, I always considered the golden age of capitalism to be that post-World War II period of expansion. But it wasn’t. The golden age of capitalism is in front of us.
As the global growth story continues at a break-neck clip, we
find ourselves in the relative infancy of what I believe will be a prolonged period of prosperity. Looking back in history, as the Jesuits at Loyola University taught me to do, the Pax Romana—a 200-year stretch of tranquility and plenty throughout the Roman Empire that followed the fall of Athens—immediately comes to mind. Today, the entire world—including our former enemies in China and Russia—has decided our way is the right way.
They’ve taken our invention and run with it. The conditions of opportunity that once only existed in the United States now exist all over the globe. And those conditions will only grow more
favorable going forward.
Why, then, is my fellow Chicagoan trying to rebuild those
walls of socialism?
By embracing policy that favors higher taxes, increased regulation and protectionism, the Obama administration has spent two years systematically dismantling everything this country has been building since the Founding Fathers unleashed their libertarian concept of enlightened self interest 250 years ago.
Earlier, I mentioned Pax Romana and how this period in front of us echoes that era.
Take a look at what one of the early architects of that earlier golden age, the political philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero, had to say about the way government should be run:
The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced, if the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
This was written in 55 B.C., but it’s as true today as it was
then. A diminishing usefulness of the private sector and the redistributing of wealth by a bloated central government is unacceptable and should be resolutely resisted by every American.
The golden age of capitalism, what I believe will be our finest hour, is in front of us. We know that an occasional liberal in the White House cannot destroy the American entrepreneurial spirit, but we still muststand together to defend it.
America, today, is in its rightful place as the leader of a
free-market world. We conquered our adversaries and created a new order. The entire world is open for business.
The time has come to finally enjoy those spoils of war.
Publicado: 07-17-2011 05:06 PM
Who Benefits From All The Obama Spending Sprees?
Townhall.com ^ | July 17, 2011 | Austin Hill
... THE BIG FACT CATS!!!!
How Obama turned fat cats into his best friends
“Did you hear about the new ‘Obama Happy Meal Deal?’” a friend posted on Facebook earlier this week.
“You order whatever you want and as much as you want, and the person in line behind you has to pay for it….LOL!”
Americans have always enjoyed poking fun at their Presidents, and cheap jokes that illicit more groans than laughs aren’t to be taken too seriously. But, as is often the case with humor, there was a slight bit of truth entailed in this little online anecdote.
The joke suggests that, even among people who don’t think much about politics and public policy, or who don’t often utter words like ‘socialism,” “Marxism,” or “economic redistribution,” there is nonetheless a growing recognition that our President likes to spend other people’s money. And in light of this, we would all do well to ask a couple of questions.
Let’s start with this: “Where did all the stimulus money go?” What began in February of 2009 as a plan that the President said would “save or create 3 to 4 million jobs,” and what his Administration claimed would prevent our unemployment rate from rising over 8%, had an original price tag of $787 billion.
Months later the price of the “stimulus plan” had ballooned up to about $813 billion, and neither the Administration nor members of Congress could offer many details about it. By the end of 2009, both the fiscally conservative Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who voted against it, and the big government liberal Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) who voted in favor of it, both admitted that there had not been proper oversight of how this enormous amount of taxpayer money had been spent (a fact that I documented in my latest book, “The Virtues Of Capitalism”). All this, as the unemployment rate continued to rise well above the 8% watermark.
So let’s ask this next: “Who benefits from the spending?” This is an especially painful question, because it’s easier to think in terms of who is not benefiting, and who is being harmed, by the spending.
Publicado: 07-17-2011 05:07 PM
Ethnic minority groups living in America’s inner city regions are most certainly not benefiting from the President’s wealth redistribution. As much as they may have superimposed their own expectations on to the President’s promises of “hope” and “change,” non-whites living in America’s urban centers are now experiencing some of the worst fallout of an economy that won’t expand.
Just last week an editorial by writer Walter Russell Mead, published in “The American Interest,” pointed out that Black America in particular is suffering under President Obama. Noting that some of the most staunchly Democrat states in the country – including Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota – have produced some of the highest double-digit unemployment rates among Black Americans, Mead described our current era as one of “deepening alienation, anger, and despair in America’s inner cities.”
Of course it is still not acceptable for elected Democrats to admit that the president’s “spending solutions” are harmful. Thus, Chicago Police Chief Gary McCarthy recently chose to blame the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for the rising crime and unrest in his city, claiming that the right to “keep and bear arms” is an “extension of government sponsored racism.”
Americans who have maintained good credit scores and payment histories are most certainly not benefiting from President Obama’s wealth redistribution policies. The President insists that his Administration is providing “help” to borrowers who have fallen on hard times, but in reality the Administration has bailed-out banking institutions, and not individual people. We now have a financial system that is incentivized by our government to “forgive” portions of debt and to modify repayment terms for consumers with bad credit, while banks ignore credit-worthy consumers who pay their bills on time.
On the other hand, banks and the people who run them seem to be benefiting pretty well from President Obama’s spending. So do certain executive level folks at certain companies in certain other sectors of our economy. In fact, a new research project conducted by Capgemini and Bank of America shows that the world’s population of High Net Worth Individuals (HNWI) with $1 million or more in “investable assets” rose 8.3% over the previous year, to a total of 10.9 million people. This is to say that while President Obama’s policies are not “creating jobs,” a lot of personal wealth is being created for select individuals.
As much as President Obama has served up plenty of harsh criticisms for “overpaid executives” and “greedy companies” over the last three years, businesses and corporate executives that have politically allied themselves with him have, in many cases, been “blessed” by his spending of our money. For example, ABC News reported earlier this spring that “billions” of “stimulus dollars” have been handed-over to unionized construction companies, yet “shovel ready” infrastructure projects still haven’t emerged. More interestingly, many of these same companies owe the federal government unpaid taxes – but, they’re unionized.
If you’re on good political terms with President Obama, you may get to order “as much as you want.” If you’re second in line, you may have to pay for it all.