This is counter-knowledge, to say the least.
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
OK. How?
"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
There's a familiar theme here:
In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity
Can you say "Minimum Wage"?
To sum:
Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.
"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."
That line of argumentation tends to support those who argue that the Smoot-Hawley tariff was detrimental to the national interest, because Smoot-Hawley supported FDR's package by creating a "closed market."
Hmmmmm.
It also supports my thesis that Government generally gets it wrong, sooner or later. I'm not joining the wacko-free-market types here--repealing the Fair Labor Standards Act (as well as most of OSHA) would be stupid and detrimental to the common good.
But the article is worth a think or two.
HT: Vox
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
"Bill the Bomber" on Education
Bill Ayers, in Venezuela (where else?) on education:
...at a November 2006 education forum in Caracas, Venezuela, with President Hugo Chávez at his side, Ayers proclaimed his support for “the profound educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chávez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.” Ayers concluded his speech by declaring that “Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education—a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation,” and then, as in days of old, raised his fist and chanted: “Viva Presidente Chávez! Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta la Victoria Siempre!”
(So far no one has mentioned that Bill the Bomber's wife is from Whitefish Bay, WI. Another interesting side-note: Ayers named his first son "Malik" after the newly Islamic Malcolm X and the second son "Zayd" after Zayd Shakur, a Black Panther killed in a shootout that claimed the life of a New Jersey State Trooper.)
At any rate, what the Hell is 'humane' education? I get the 'revolution' part--propaganda begets those things--but 'enlightenment and liberation'?
THIS jackass is teaching "education" at U of Illinois?
Contrast with the new Chesterton Academy of Minnesota, (HT McIlheran)
The headmaster of the school tells Kersten that organizers are setting out to give children two key things they probably won't get from your typical school: "the 3,000-year-old body of knowledge -- literature, philosophy, theology, history, art, music, drama -- that is their greatest heritage as human beings," and the idea that there is a such a thing as moral truth and that it extends beyond whatever "values" one might choose
Seems to me that "enlightenment" and "liberation" spring directly from the truth (and you may capitalize "truth", folks...)
HT: PowerLine
...at a November 2006 education forum in Caracas, Venezuela, with President Hugo Chávez at his side, Ayers proclaimed his support for “the profound educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chávez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.” Ayers concluded his speech by declaring that “Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education—a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation,” and then, as in days of old, raised his fist and chanted: “Viva Presidente Chávez! Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta la Victoria Siempre!”
(So far no one has mentioned that Bill the Bomber's wife is from Whitefish Bay, WI. Another interesting side-note: Ayers named his first son "Malik" after the newly Islamic Malcolm X and the second son "Zayd" after Zayd Shakur, a Black Panther killed in a shootout that claimed the life of a New Jersey State Trooper.)
At any rate, what the Hell is 'humane' education? I get the 'revolution' part--propaganda begets those things--but 'enlightenment and liberation'?
THIS jackass is teaching "education" at U of Illinois?
Contrast with the new Chesterton Academy of Minnesota, (HT McIlheran)
The headmaster of the school tells Kersten that organizers are setting out to give children two key things they probably won't get from your typical school: "the 3,000-year-old body of knowledge -- literature, philosophy, theology, history, art, music, drama -- that is their greatest heritage as human beings," and the idea that there is a such a thing as moral truth and that it extends beyond whatever "values" one might choose
Seems to me that "enlightenment" and "liberation" spring directly from the truth (and you may capitalize "truth", folks...)
HT: PowerLine
The Mouths of Babes
From an email circulating around...
'Love is what's in the room with you at Christmas if you stop opening presents and listen.'
Attributed to 7-year-old Bobby.
'Love is what's in the room with you at Christmas if you stop opening presents and listen.'
Attributed to 7-year-old Bobby.
Nancy Pelosi, Defined
Rummage around in the "famous quotations" box and you'll find something fitting.
JimJ, a contributor to Moonbattery, found a number which apply to various (D) folk, but the prize-winner is this one, applied to QueenNancy Pelosi:
"She looks like something that would eat its young."
Given Pelosi's position on abortion, that's not far from the mark.
(Original from Dorothy Parker, not about QueenNancy)
JimJ, a contributor to Moonbattery, found a number which apply to various (D) folk, but the prize-winner is this one, applied to QueenNancy Pelosi:
"She looks like something that would eat its young."
Given Pelosi's position on abortion, that's not far from the mark.
(Original from Dorothy Parker, not about QueenNancy)
SNL: Dead-On Skit re Fan/Fred
This is absolutely MUST-WATCH material.
NOW, sucka!!
The Sanders couple, Soros, ....and Nancy bites the green wazoo...
HT: Pat Wollard, (soon to be needing a Legal Defense Fund.)
NOW, sucka!!
The Sanders couple, Soros, ....and Nancy bites the green wazoo...
HT: Pat Wollard, (soon to be needing a Legal Defense Fund.)
Credit Crunch Worse? Fed Solution??
I'm not sure that I like this.
The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday announced the creation of the Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF), a facility that will complement the Federal Reserve's existing credit facilities to help provide liquidity to term funding markets. The CPFF will provide a liquidity backstop to U.S. issuers of commercial paper through a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that will purchase three-month unsecured and asset-backed commercial paper directly from eligible issuers
My hunch is that the deaths of Lehman, Goldman, and Bear are the proximate cause of the lockup of the CP market. That, and utilization of cash by various banks to pick up the pieces of those firms (which means there is less free cash sitting around.)
But that move also puts the Fed on the hook for some exposure.
So how deep IS the Mariana Trench of the credit lockup?
HT: Calculated Risk
The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday announced the creation of the Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF), a facility that will complement the Federal Reserve's existing credit facilities to help provide liquidity to term funding markets. The CPFF will provide a liquidity backstop to U.S. issuers of commercial paper through a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that will purchase three-month unsecured and asset-backed commercial paper directly from eligible issuers
My hunch is that the deaths of Lehman, Goldman, and Bear are the proximate cause of the lockup of the CP market. That, and utilization of cash by various banks to pick up the pieces of those firms (which means there is less free cash sitting around.)
But that move also puts the Fed on the hook for some exposure.
So how deep IS the Mariana Trench of the credit lockup?
HT: Calculated Risk
Not "Gun Safety" Lesson
Strange story of the week:
According to a criminal complaint, Josephine Wagner, 30, told Milwaukee police that she was walking north on N. Teutonia Ave. on Wednesday with a friend and had a gun tucked into a cloth holster in the front of her pants.
In the 2900 block, Wagner ducked behind some bushes to heed nature's call and shot herself while pulling down her pants, the complaint says.
The bullet shattered her right femur and exited the back of her thigh.
The newspaper calls this a "gun safety" lesson.
Wrong.
It's a "Pee Safely" lesson. Teutonia Avenue bushes are NOT safe for public pissing.
By the way, how does one pull the trigger on a weapon by pulling down one's pants? That's an item which should have been investigated by the intrepid reporting staff, just like why the DA is not charging Disorderly Conduct in addition to carrying a concealed weapon.
According to a criminal complaint, Josephine Wagner, 30, told Milwaukee police that she was walking north on N. Teutonia Ave. on Wednesday with a friend and had a gun tucked into a cloth holster in the front of her pants.
In the 2900 block, Wagner ducked behind some bushes to heed nature's call and shot herself while pulling down her pants, the complaint says.
The bullet shattered her right femur and exited the back of her thigh.
The newspaper calls this a "gun safety" lesson.
Wrong.
It's a "Pee Safely" lesson. Teutonia Avenue bushes are NOT safe for public pissing.
By the way, how does one pull the trigger on a weapon by pulling down one's pants? That's an item which should have been investigated by the intrepid reporting staff, just like why the DA is not charging Disorderly Conduct in addition to carrying a concealed weapon.
Greed? Or Just "Helping Americans"?
You be the judge.
Largely ignored in this crisis is the key role played by Herbert and Marion Sandler, founders of Golden West Financial (GDW), one of the largest savings and loans in the nation. Wachovia purchased GDW for $24 billion dollars in 2006. This was one of the worst merger and acquisition deals of all time for the buyer, and remarkably excellent timing on the part of the seller. In essence, Wachovia bought a financial time bomb ticking away, one that exploded this year, bringing down yet another former financial titan and further wrecking Wall Street
All just Helping People, of course:
Herbert and Marion Sandler, a New York lawyer and Wall Street analyst respectively, bought a small California thrift in 1963 and built it into GDW -- one of the largest thrifts in the nation. The company's business was built on adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs. These were mortgages offered at low "teaser" rates that ratcheted upward as interest rates increased. They were often sold aggressively to unsophisticated home buyers who did not comprehend the vast financial risks they were taking, or who assumed that housing prices would rise high enough to provide a profit to them when they sold their houses. They were targets for lenders peddling mortgages that should have been stamped with a skull and crossbones, for these were among the most seductive and dangerous types of mortgage.
This book of business is the core reason for Wachovia's current difficulties
Well. If you think they are greedy opportunists, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. The Sandlers only hauled in $2.4Bn of that sale price.
Just don't call them "Republican" greedy capitalists:
The Sandlers have started to invest their billions of dollars politically, in the manner of George Soros...527 groups include the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.Org, Human Rights Watch, Media Matters and a slew of other like-minded groups
...The top four donors to these 527 groups in the last Presidential election cycle (2004) were Soros, Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler . Collectively they gave 78 million dollars to left-leaning 527 groups. That was just in 2004. They have become much more ambitious over the last few years.
These 527's are generally more Lefty than even the Democrat Party. We're talking EXTREEEEEEEME Left, here.
Soros, Lewis, and the Sandlers form a core group of billionaire activists and Democrat partisans who have formed a group called The Democracy Alliance.
How Lefty are these guys?
Ask Hillary Clinton, who was not extreeeeeeeme enough for them.
The SNL skit which brought this to the attention of the world is (supposedly) here. That is, if it isn't pulled again...
Largely ignored in this crisis is the key role played by Herbert and Marion Sandler, founders of Golden West Financial (GDW), one of the largest savings and loans in the nation. Wachovia purchased GDW for $24 billion dollars in 2006. This was one of the worst merger and acquisition deals of all time for the buyer, and remarkably excellent timing on the part of the seller. In essence, Wachovia bought a financial time bomb ticking away, one that exploded this year, bringing down yet another former financial titan and further wrecking Wall Street
All just Helping People, of course:
Herbert and Marion Sandler, a New York lawyer and Wall Street analyst respectively, bought a small California thrift in 1963 and built it into GDW -- one of the largest thrifts in the nation. The company's business was built on adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs. These were mortgages offered at low "teaser" rates that ratcheted upward as interest rates increased. They were often sold aggressively to unsophisticated home buyers who did not comprehend the vast financial risks they were taking, or who assumed that housing prices would rise high enough to provide a profit to them when they sold their houses. They were targets for lenders peddling mortgages that should have been stamped with a skull and crossbones, for these were among the most seductive and dangerous types of mortgage.
This book of business is the core reason for Wachovia's current difficulties
Well. If you think they are greedy opportunists, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. The Sandlers only hauled in $2.4Bn of that sale price.
Just don't call them "Republican" greedy capitalists:
The Sandlers have started to invest their billions of dollars politically, in the manner of George Soros...527 groups include the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.Org, Human Rights Watch, Media Matters and a slew of other like-minded groups
...The top four donors to these 527 groups in the last Presidential election cycle (2004) were Soros, Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance, Steven Bing, and Herbert and Marion Sandler . Collectively they gave 78 million dollars to left-leaning 527 groups. That was just in 2004. They have become much more ambitious over the last few years.
These 527's are generally more Lefty than even the Democrat Party. We're talking EXTREEEEEEEME Left, here.
Soros, Lewis, and the Sandlers form a core group of billionaire activists and Democrat partisans who have formed a group called The Democracy Alliance.
How Lefty are these guys?
Ask Hillary Clinton, who was not extreeeeeeeme enough for them.
The SNL skit which brought this to the attention of the world is (supposedly) here. That is, if it isn't pulled again...
Think About Afghanistan
Ever wonder why the Democrats are baiting John McCain with Afghanistan? Recall Obamamamama telling McCain that 'there weren't enough troops in Afghanistan' to win?
Gen. Petraeus says: "Obviously, the trends in Afghanistan have been in the wrong direction. ... You cannot kill or capture your way out of an insurgency that is as significant as the one in Iraq, nor, I believe, as large as the one that has developed in Afghanistan."
"We can't kill our way to victory," adds Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs. We are "running out of time."
Mullen earlier said he's "not convinced we're winning it in Afghanistan."
The British commander, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, is even gloomier. The British people, he says, should not expect a "decisive military victory. ... We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghani army."
Carleton-Smith is euphoric alongside Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, ambassador in Kabul, who is quoted in a letter to the prime minister as saying NATO strategy in Afghanistan is "doomed to fail."
The question becomes "who cares?"
Well, drug-runners do, because Afghanistan provides heroin. The Pakis do, because AlQuaeda is a pain in the border for them.
Gee.
All right. All of you readers who think that the Hamad Karzhai regime is vital to US interests worldwide, stand up!!
I didn't think so.
Gen. Petraeus says: "Obviously, the trends in Afghanistan have been in the wrong direction. ... You cannot kill or capture your way out of an insurgency that is as significant as the one in Iraq, nor, I believe, as large as the one that has developed in Afghanistan."
"We can't kill our way to victory," adds Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs. We are "running out of time."
Mullen earlier said he's "not convinced we're winning it in Afghanistan."
The British commander, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, is even gloomier. The British people, he says, should not expect a "decisive military victory. ... We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghani army."
Carleton-Smith is euphoric alongside Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, ambassador in Kabul, who is quoted in a letter to the prime minister as saying NATO strategy in Afghanistan is "doomed to fail."
The question becomes "who cares?"
Well, drug-runners do, because Afghanistan provides heroin. The Pakis do, because AlQuaeda is a pain in the border for them.
Gee.
All right. All of you readers who think that the Hamad Karzhai regime is vital to US interests worldwide, stand up!!
I didn't think so.
Even MORE Vote Fraud from ACORN
This time, Indiana:
According to Lake County BOE Director Sally DeSoto, ACORN dropped off 2,000 voter registrations today - and 1,100 ”are no good.”
Well, that means 900 ARE good. Maybe.
According to Lake County BOE Director Sally DeSoto, ACORN dropped off 2,000 voter registrations today - and 1,100 ”are no good.”
Well, that means 900 ARE good. Maybe.
Monday, October 06, 2008
USCC Campaign for Human Development: More ACORN Money
There's a lengthy essay available here which details the Catholic Bishops' cozy relationship with ACORN--the Alinsky-ite home of Barack Obama.
The issue first arose back in the 1980's, when it was clear that ACORN was a political-action group with somewhat less-than-honorable goals and worse methods.
It's not going away. This year's grantees include ACORN in Arizona.
And in Milwaukee?
Voces de la Frontera, of course.
The issue first arose back in the 1980's, when it was clear that ACORN was a political-action group with somewhat less-than-honorable goals and worse methods.
It's not going away. This year's grantees include ACORN in Arizona.
And in Milwaukee?
Voces de la Frontera, of course.
Austria Goes More Conservative
Elections over the last weekend of September.
The winners on this historic day were, however, the FPÖ (Freedom Party) and BZÖ (Haider’s “new” party), which together make up the right-wing parties. Heinz-Christian Strache was able to increase the number of his voters from 11% to 18%, while Haider tripled his support to 11%. And while the center-left parties pretended to be stunned, political commentators and many others were not surprised: the parties’ success had been looming for the last couple of weeks. Polls were in complete agreement about the outcome. Together FPÖ and BZÖ gathered nearly 30% of the votes.
In general, these parties are anti-Brussels (EU), and anti-unlimited-immigration.
This election will not necessarily change the course of Austria, as some coalition must be established with a Left-ish party (some Socialist outfit.)
Naturally, the rightists are called "Nazis" without equivocation.
Interesting sign...
HT: Orwell's Picnic
The winners on this historic day were, however, the FPÖ (Freedom Party) and BZÖ (Haider’s “new” party), which together make up the right-wing parties. Heinz-Christian Strache was able to increase the number of his voters from 11% to 18%, while Haider tripled his support to 11%. And while the center-left parties pretended to be stunned, political commentators and many others were not surprised: the parties’ success had been looming for the last couple of weeks. Polls were in complete agreement about the outcome. Together FPÖ and BZÖ gathered nearly 30% of the votes.
In general, these parties are anti-Brussels (EU), and anti-unlimited-immigration.
This election will not necessarily change the course of Austria, as some coalition must be established with a Left-ish party (some Socialist outfit.)
Naturally, the rightists are called "Nazis" without equivocation.
Interesting sign...
HT: Orwell's Picnic
Peg Noonan Continues Her Cluelessness
Noonan:
I feel increased concern about her, I think, what she thinks of populism, as her populist approach. There are two ways—you know, her stuff about “I’m Main Street, you’re not, you’re the elite. I’m not the East Coast, I’m Joe Six-Pack.” She actually says, “I’m the Joe Six-Pack candidate.” This left me thinking, “Gosh, would Lincoln say, ‘I represent the backwoods types?’ Would FDR say, ‘Yeah, the New York aristocracy deserves another moment in the sun. Vote for me.’” It—there’s something weird about it. But there’s also something, for me, concerning populism as a tactic is justified often in politics. “I need this program, the people want it.” Populism as a strategy, “We’re the good guys, you’re the bad guys,” is not good, and, and if that’s the road they’re going, that’s not a good road to be on. It’s not helpful to the country.
Dear Peg,
When running against Ultimate Insiders, even back-bench turkeys such as Biden, one does not run as "one of them."
That's kinda what "against" means, Peg.
By the way, Peg, you might consider carefully the Intellectualoids Who Gave Us the Bailout--you know, the Best and Brightest who worked at Bear, Lehman, Goldman(-then-Treasury...) Many of them are crooks. Most of them are Ivy League.
You know them, Peg. They are the Sophisticated Folks.
How'd THAT work for you, Peg?
HT: Creative Minority
I feel increased concern about her, I think, what she thinks of populism, as her populist approach. There are two ways—you know, her stuff about “I’m Main Street, you’re not, you’re the elite. I’m not the East Coast, I’m Joe Six-Pack.” She actually says, “I’m the Joe Six-Pack candidate.” This left me thinking, “Gosh, would Lincoln say, ‘I represent the backwoods types?’ Would FDR say, ‘Yeah, the New York aristocracy deserves another moment in the sun. Vote for me.’” It—there’s something weird about it. But there’s also something, for me, concerning populism as a tactic is justified often in politics. “I need this program, the people want it.” Populism as a strategy, “We’re the good guys, you’re the bad guys,” is not good, and, and if that’s the road they’re going, that’s not a good road to be on. It’s not helpful to the country.
Dear Peg,
When running against Ultimate Insiders, even back-bench turkeys such as Biden, one does not run as "one of them."
That's kinda what "against" means, Peg.
By the way, Peg, you might consider carefully the Intellectualoids Who Gave Us the Bailout--you know, the Best and Brightest who worked at Bear, Lehman, Goldman(-then-Treasury...) Many of them are crooks. Most of them are Ivy League.
You know them, Peg. They are the Sophisticated Folks.
How'd THAT work for you, Peg?
HT: Creative Minority
Stuffing the Ballot Box at St. Alphonsus
Note from the 10/5/08 parish bulletin of St Alphonsus, Greendale:
Next weekend is the semi-annual "Mass Count". Every parish is required to take a tally of all those present for Mass and then send the info to the Archdiocese. I hope you make every effort to attend and invite family and friends to join you. Not only this weekend but every weekend!
There are plenty of homeless folks out there...
Next weekend is the semi-annual "Mass Count". Every parish is required to take a tally of all those present for Mass and then send the info to the Archdiocese. I hope you make every effort to attend and invite family and friends to join you. Not only this weekend but every weekend!
There are plenty of homeless folks out there...
It's the (Seat Belt) MONEY, Honey
Don't bet against this.
Wisconsin could reap a federal windfall of about $15 million - and maybe up to $20 million - if state law is changed by July 1 to let officers stop vehicles when they suspect drivers or passengers aren't wearing seat belts.
Wisconsin will go all-Nazi-all-the-time, for $20 million. It's Doyle's nature, and Risser's.
Natch, there's a "study":
The change would save up to 73 lives a year in Wisconsin, according to the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. In a 2006 report, the institute also estimated that the change would save about $220 million a year in accident-related costs
...all depends on the meaning of "up to", I guess. Just ONE is entirely possible.
And for the most inane comment, call MADD.
The change is also a priority of the Wisconsin chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
"Seat belts save lives, and it is your only defense against a drunk driver," said Kari Kinnard, director of the Wisconsin branch of MADD.
Must be so. It's in the newspaper.
HT: FoxPolitics
Wisconsin could reap a federal windfall of about $15 million - and maybe up to $20 million - if state law is changed by July 1 to let officers stop vehicles when they suspect drivers or passengers aren't wearing seat belts.
Wisconsin will go all-Nazi-all-the-time, for $20 million. It's Doyle's nature, and Risser's.
Natch, there's a "study":
The change would save up to 73 lives a year in Wisconsin, according to the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. In a 2006 report, the institute also estimated that the change would save about $220 million a year in accident-related costs
...all depends on the meaning of "up to", I guess. Just ONE is entirely possible.
And for the most inane comment, call MADD.
The change is also a priority of the Wisconsin chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
"Seat belts save lives, and it is your only defense against a drunk driver," said Kari Kinnard, director of the Wisconsin branch of MADD.
Must be so. It's in the newspaper.
HT: FoxPolitics
Obama's Excellent Anti-Second-Amendment Adventure
Anybody who actually studied his record knows that Obama would obliterate the Second Amendment in a heartbeat, despite his flat-out lying about the issue.
More on that from Pajamas.
During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.
The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.
The method was simple: purchase "Law Reviews." The first wholesale buyout was Chicago-Kent.
In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment
...The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.
Ooops! Too bad! Time to purchase Ohio State University!!
The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director.
The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.
Of course, Obama responded to that decision with a lie:
Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.
Sure.
HT: Confederate Yankee
More on that from Pajamas.
During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.
The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.
The method was simple: purchase "Law Reviews." The first wholesale buyout was Chicago-Kent.
In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment
...The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right.
Ooops! Too bad! Time to purchase Ohio State University!!
The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director.
The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.
Of course, Obama responded to that decision with a lie:
Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms.
Sure.
HT: Confederate Yankee
James Lockhart: Another Name for "STUPID"
Normal people don't understand big-time Washington 'thinkers' like Lockhart.
The housing agency's director, James Lockhart, suggested Tuesday that mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could loosen lending standards to help more homebuyers qualify for a loan and stabilize the market. The government took control of Fannie and Freddie earlier this month.
BLOOMBERG NEWS James Lockhart, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, says Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may loosen their lending standards after home prices nationwide posted a 5.3 percent drop in July compared with a year ago.
"I expect any changes to reflect both safe and sound business strategy and attentiveness to the [companies'] mission," Mr. Lockhart said Tuesday in testimony prepared for a Senate Banking Committee hearing. He also said that modifying loans for troubled borrowers should be a "high priority."
Lockhart is a BushieBoy, and spent a lot of time adding and subtracting in finance-related positions. The irony: he founded a firm called NetRisk, "a risk-management software and consulting firm serving major financial organizations."
Looser lending standards.....hmmmmm....a loan with NO payback requirements?
The housing agency's director, James Lockhart, suggested Tuesday that mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could loosen lending standards to help more homebuyers qualify for a loan and stabilize the market. The government took control of Fannie and Freddie earlier this month.
BLOOMBERG NEWS James Lockhart, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, says Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may loosen their lending standards after home prices nationwide posted a 5.3 percent drop in July compared with a year ago.
"I expect any changes to reflect both safe and sound business strategy and attentiveness to the [companies'] mission," Mr. Lockhart said Tuesday in testimony prepared for a Senate Banking Committee hearing. He also said that modifying loans for troubled borrowers should be a "high priority."
Lockhart is a BushieBoy, and spent a lot of time adding and subtracting in finance-related positions. The irony: he founded a firm called NetRisk, "a risk-management software and consulting firm serving major financial organizations."
Looser lending standards.....hmmmmm....a loan with NO payback requirements?
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Tina Fey Does It Again!
Look--Fey's really, really good at this.
Makes you hope for a McCain victory so she can do this for 12-16 years...
Makes you hope for a McCain victory so she can do this for 12-16 years...
How McCain Could Win
The post below (and the NYT article cited throughout) paints a picture familiar to Pentagon generals, bankers, industrialists, and anyone else who deals with Presidents, Congress, or their regulatory minions.
The lesson is plain to see: politicians inevitably screw things up. LBJ personally interfered with battle planning in Vietnam, which led to a helluva mess there (albeit the Democrat Congress later simply raped South Vietnam.) Industry which sells to any Government inevitably has to deal with layers of politically-motivated rules and regs which often lead to bankruptcy (see Allis-Chalmers and the Jimmy Carter "gasification" project, e.g., or the auto industry's troubles with the "safety"/"fuel efficient" conflicting mandates). The Park East redevelopment is a great local example--with all the "social goods" developers are expected to implement, re-development is near impossible. At the State level, political interference in electrical-power generation promises nothing but higher and higher rates with little likelihood of "improving the Earth."
McCain has the opportunity to actually commit "straight talk" in the next few weeks. Were he to tie Obama to the mortgage crisis (not hard to do, given Obama's ACORN connections and his close ties to the Fannie/Freddie crowd) and point out that the United States is a financial shipwreck due to these and the impending Social Security/Medicare crises, and that McCain's Administration will seek to un-do the damage by severely limiting spending---not just 'earmarks,' but ALL spending, while keeping taxation at the bare minimum necessary to sustain essential functions--he could pull this out of the fire.
Attacking Obama on his nefarious friends may be helpful--but attaching Obama to the Big Spenders, Big Regulators, and Big Tax people, while underlining the disasters that happened due to Big Government's political influences will be much more effective.
We all know where Obama's coming from. And we all know where he's going.
McCain, of course, is vulnerable--he's as much a "Big Government" guy as you can find in the Republican Party. The smart thing for him to do is smile and say "mea maxima culpa" and promise to reform his ways.
Big Spending--$200 Bn to rescue Fan/Fred, and another $700 Bn to rescue Banks--is an issue. A big chunk of those dollars are being spent to remedy political interference in the marketplace.
I seriously doubt that John McCain has the cojones to go this route.
But he should.
The lesson is plain to see: politicians inevitably screw things up. LBJ personally interfered with battle planning in Vietnam, which led to a helluva mess there (albeit the Democrat Congress later simply raped South Vietnam.) Industry which sells to any Government inevitably has to deal with layers of politically-motivated rules and regs which often lead to bankruptcy (see Allis-Chalmers and the Jimmy Carter "gasification" project, e.g., or the auto industry's troubles with the "safety"/"fuel efficient" conflicting mandates). The Park East redevelopment is a great local example--with all the "social goods" developers are expected to implement, re-development is near impossible. At the State level, political interference in electrical-power generation promises nothing but higher and higher rates with little likelihood of "improving the Earth."
McCain has the opportunity to actually commit "straight talk" in the next few weeks. Were he to tie Obama to the mortgage crisis (not hard to do, given Obama's ACORN connections and his close ties to the Fannie/Freddie crowd) and point out that the United States is a financial shipwreck due to these and the impending Social Security/Medicare crises, and that McCain's Administration will seek to un-do the damage by severely limiting spending---not just 'earmarks,' but ALL spending, while keeping taxation at the bare minimum necessary to sustain essential functions--he could pull this out of the fire.
Attacking Obama on his nefarious friends may be helpful--but attaching Obama to the Big Spenders, Big Regulators, and Big Tax people, while underlining the disasters that happened due to Big Government's political influences will be much more effective.
We all know where Obama's coming from. And we all know where he's going.
McCain, of course, is vulnerable--he's as much a "Big Government" guy as you can find in the Republican Party. The smart thing for him to do is smile and say "mea maxima culpa" and promise to reform his ways.
Big Spending--$200 Bn to rescue Fan/Fred, and another $700 Bn to rescue Banks--is an issue. A big chunk of those dollars are being spent to remedy political interference in the marketplace.
I seriously doubt that John McCain has the cojones to go this route.
But he should.
Fannie: Suicide? Murder? or Both?
Good article in the NYTimes.
...Fannie, a government-sponsored company, had long helped Americans get cheaper home loans by serving as a powerful middleman, buying mortgages from lenders and banks and then holding or reselling them to Wall Street investors. This allowed banks to make even more loans — expanding the pool of homeowners and permitting Fannie to ring up handsome profits along the way.
Fannie never actually made loans. It was essentially a mortgage insurance company, buying mortgages, keeping some but reselling most to investors and, for a fee, promising to pay off a loan if the borrower defaulted. The only real danger was that the company might guarantee questionable mortgages and lose out when large numbers of borrowers walked away from their obligations.
But by the time Mr. Mudd became Fannie’s chief executive in 2004, his company was under siege. Competitors were snatching lucrative parts of its business. Congress was demanding that Mr. Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans.
Also note that Raines was the CEO until 2004, when the fraud problems emerged.
So Mr. Mudd made a fateful choice. Disregarding warnings from his managers that lenders were making too many loans that would never be repaid, he steered Fannie into more treacherous corners of the mortgage market, according to executives.
Note well how this happened: Fannie specified the terms and conditions of the loans AND the 'acceptable' levels of credit for buyers. Banks (and brokers) made the loans on Fannie's terms, OR on terms and conditions ginned up by Lehman, Bear, and Goldman.
Between 2005 and 2008, Fannie purchased or guaranteed at least $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers — more than three times as much as in all its earlier years combined, according to company filings and industry data.
“We didn’t really know what we were buying,” said Marc Gott, a former director in Fannie’s loan servicing department.
Well, now. What to do? What to do?
Essentially, they adopted the AlGore approach: modeling with computers. Remember that you can make a computer give you any result you want...
Fannie constructed a vast network of computer programs and mathematical formulas that analyzed its millions of daily transactions and ranked borrowers according to their risk.
Those computer programs seemingly turned Fannie into a divining rod, capable of separating pools of similar-seeming borrowers into safe and risky bets. The riskier the loan, the more Fannie charged to handle it. In theory, those high fees would offset any losses.
With that self-assurance, the company announced in 2000 that it would buy $2 trillion in loans from low-income, minority and risky borrowers by 2010.
Mozilo of Countrywide threatened to dump Fannie and go directly to Bear, Lehman, and Goldman--all of whom were buying nuclear-waste loans at a rapid clip (and selling them to school districts and other rubes for quite a profit.)
Congress was also heating Mudd's chair:
Capitol Hill bore down on Mr. Mudd as well. The same year he took the top position, regulators sharply increased Fannie’s affordable-housing goals. Democratic lawmakers demanded that the company buy more loans that had been made to low-income and minority homebuyers
“Everybody understood that we were now buying loans that we would have previously rejected, and that the models were telling us that we were charging way too little,” said a former senior Fannie executive. “But our mandate was to stay relevant and to serve low-income borrowers. So that’s what we did.”
Between 2005 and 2007, the company’s acquisitions of mortgages with down payments of less than 10 percent almost tripled.
Mudd allowed the chief-risk-officer slot to be vacant for TWO YEARS, and when he finally hired a guy, he was told that things were really, really, really bad.
Mr. Dallavecchia was among those whom Mr. Mudd forced out of the company during a reorganization in August.
The messenger was executed.
The rest of the article describes the inevitable downcycle.
...Fannie, a government-sponsored company, had long helped Americans get cheaper home loans by serving as a powerful middleman, buying mortgages from lenders and banks and then holding or reselling them to Wall Street investors. This allowed banks to make even more loans — expanding the pool of homeowners and permitting Fannie to ring up handsome profits along the way.
Fannie never actually made loans. It was essentially a mortgage insurance company, buying mortgages, keeping some but reselling most to investors and, for a fee, promising to pay off a loan if the borrower defaulted. The only real danger was that the company might guarantee questionable mortgages and lose out when large numbers of borrowers walked away from their obligations.
But by the time Mr. Mudd became Fannie’s chief executive in 2004, his company was under siege. Competitors were snatching lucrative parts of its business. Congress was demanding that Mr. Mudd help steer more loans to low-income borrowers. Lenders were threatening to sell directly to Wall Street unless Fannie bought a bigger chunk of their riskiest loans.
Also note that Raines was the CEO until 2004, when the fraud problems emerged.
So Mr. Mudd made a fateful choice. Disregarding warnings from his managers that lenders were making too many loans that would never be repaid, he steered Fannie into more treacherous corners of the mortgage market, according to executives.
Note well how this happened: Fannie specified the terms and conditions of the loans AND the 'acceptable' levels of credit for buyers. Banks (and brokers) made the loans on Fannie's terms, OR on terms and conditions ginned up by Lehman, Bear, and Goldman.
Between 2005 and 2008, Fannie purchased or guaranteed at least $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers — more than three times as much as in all its earlier years combined, according to company filings and industry data.
“We didn’t really know what we were buying,” said Marc Gott, a former director in Fannie’s loan servicing department.
Well, now. What to do? What to do?
Essentially, they adopted the AlGore approach: modeling with computers. Remember that you can make a computer give you any result you want...
Fannie constructed a vast network of computer programs and mathematical formulas that analyzed its millions of daily transactions and ranked borrowers according to their risk.
Those computer programs seemingly turned Fannie into a divining rod, capable of separating pools of similar-seeming borrowers into safe and risky bets. The riskier the loan, the more Fannie charged to handle it. In theory, those high fees would offset any losses.
With that self-assurance, the company announced in 2000 that it would buy $2 trillion in loans from low-income, minority and risky borrowers by 2010.
Mozilo of Countrywide threatened to dump Fannie and go directly to Bear, Lehman, and Goldman--all of whom were buying nuclear-waste loans at a rapid clip (and selling them to school districts and other rubes for quite a profit.)
Congress was also heating Mudd's chair:
Capitol Hill bore down on Mr. Mudd as well. The same year he took the top position, regulators sharply increased Fannie’s affordable-housing goals. Democratic lawmakers demanded that the company buy more loans that had been made to low-income and minority homebuyers
“Everybody understood that we were now buying loans that we would have previously rejected, and that the models were telling us that we were charging way too little,” said a former senior Fannie executive. “But our mandate was to stay relevant and to serve low-income borrowers. So that’s what we did.”
Between 2005 and 2007, the company’s acquisitions of mortgages with down payments of less than 10 percent almost tripled.
Mudd allowed the chief-risk-officer slot to be vacant for TWO YEARS, and when he finally hired a guy, he was told that things were really, really, really bad.
Mr. Dallavecchia was among those whom Mr. Mudd forced out of the company during a reorganization in August.
The messenger was executed.
The rest of the article describes the inevitable downcycle.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
West Point Man
Last in his class--first in a lot of hearts.
Guy is one of the most amazing people I have met in my military career. He had a kind and winsome personality. When we were plebes together at West Point, he told me he turned down a football scholarship to Penn State because he wanted to lead soldiers into battle some day. He got his chance, more than a few times. Guy was, without a doubt, the leader and soul of the West Point class of 1992. It is still hard for us to believe that he is gone.
In May of 1992, Guy R. “Bear” Barattieri achieved the singular distinction of graduating last in his class at West Point. Bear was aptly named, an imposingly large but extremely friendly cadet with a crooked smile whom everyone loved...
...in the first season he injured his back and neck and was forbidden by Army doctors to ever play football again. It was a severe blow to Bear, since the sport had always been a big part of his life. But, as his classmate Chris Jenks relates, “demonstrating the lack of intellect and common sense notable amongst Army Ruggers, decided that technically the doctors never said he couldn't play Rugby, he started playing rugby our yearling year, playing a devastating wing forward.”
Infantry, Green Berets, SF officer, later President of his Seattle Police Academy class, married, 1 child, still in SF with the WaStateNG.
On October 4, 2006, Bear was part of a three-vehicle convoy supplying security near Forward Operating Base Falcon. ...an IED ripped through their vehicle. The Kurds in the front were killed instantly, the driver’s body left burning and the passenger’s having disintegrated. The man next to Bear was severely wounded, and in and out of consciousness. Bear had lost both legs below the knee. ...Bear’s partner was declared DOA. Bear was taken immediately into surgery where he was stabilized, and moved into surgical ICU. There, a short time later, he died
Requiescat in pace, Bear.
HT: PowerLine
Guy is one of the most amazing people I have met in my military career. He had a kind and winsome personality. When we were plebes together at West Point, he told me he turned down a football scholarship to Penn State because he wanted to lead soldiers into battle some day. He got his chance, more than a few times. Guy was, without a doubt, the leader and soul of the West Point class of 1992. It is still hard for us to believe that he is gone.
In May of 1992, Guy R. “Bear” Barattieri achieved the singular distinction of graduating last in his class at West Point. Bear was aptly named, an imposingly large but extremely friendly cadet with a crooked smile whom everyone loved...
...in the first season he injured his back and neck and was forbidden by Army doctors to ever play football again. It was a severe blow to Bear, since the sport had always been a big part of his life. But, as his classmate Chris Jenks relates, “demonstrating the lack of intellect and common sense notable amongst Army Ruggers, decided that technically the doctors never said he couldn't play Rugby, he started playing rugby our yearling year, playing a devastating wing forward.”
Infantry, Green Berets, SF officer, later President of his Seattle Police Academy class, married, 1 child, still in SF with the WaStateNG.
On October 4, 2006, Bear was part of a three-vehicle convoy supplying security near Forward Operating Base Falcon. ...an IED ripped through their vehicle. The Kurds in the front were killed instantly, the driver’s body left burning and the passenger’s having disintegrated. The man next to Bear was severely wounded, and in and out of consciousness. Bear had lost both legs below the knee. ...Bear’s partner was declared DOA. Bear was taken immediately into surgery where he was stabilized, and moved into surgical ICU. There, a short time later, he died
Requiescat in pace, Bear.
HT: PowerLine
One Cause of the Recession
Home Equity Withdrawals...
Note that the last large lump of home-equity extractions was 3Q07, and it has been cliff-diving ever since.
HT: Calculated Risk
Barney's "Partner" and Keynes
There's some noise circulating about one of Barney Frank's bed-mates--that while Barney was enjoying back-door-banditry with the fellow, the 'partner' was enjoying a high-paid position with Fannie Mae.
But the stories miss the point.
The reason that folks like Barney and his "partner" created problems for the taxpayer with 'innovative' home loans which don't get repaid is simple, and was brought up about John Maynard Keynes, another well-placed bugger.
Why should THEY worry about imposing a huge national debt on children?
But the stories miss the point.
The reason that folks like Barney and his "partner" created problems for the taxpayer with 'innovative' home loans which don't get repaid is simple, and was brought up about John Maynard Keynes, another well-placed bugger.
Why should THEY worry about imposing a huge national debt on children?
BOHICA! Electric Bills Up, Up, and Away!!!
Hey, what's several hundred million between friends?
Another Friday-afternoon news release from the Democrats.
It looks all but certain Wisconsin will get its toughest mercury rules yet, promising a cleaner environment -- and bigger electric bills.
The Legislature's rules committee has until Monday to call a hearing on the standards, but the panel's Democratic co-chairman has said he won't do it. Barring any last-second surprises, the standards should clear the Legislature at the end of the day and go into effect by the end of the year.
Yah. In this "democracy," there's no actual vote--just rule-making and "approve-by-default" in the legislature.
Republicans and their allies complain power companies will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to comply and shift that burden onto customers. But supporters, including Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, say the package will result in a cleaner, healthier environment.
It's understandable that DarthDoyle wants to clean his gaseous emissions from the atmosphere...
The DNR adopted rules four years ago requiring major utilities to cut mercury emissions by 75 percent by 2015. Doyle stepped that up during his 2006 re-election campaign, ordering the agency to raise the standard to 90 percent by 2018
...The department estimates utilities will have to spend $38 million to $91 million annually to comply, depending on whether they choose the cheaper multi-pollutant approach. That would amount to an additional $5 to $12 per year for the average household, according to the department
If you believe DNR's estimates, you also believe that Sasquatch exists, 9/11 was an inside job, and the Feds killed 5,000 prisoners during Katrina.
Also note: DNR never tells you what their Grand Plans will cost industry; nor do they mention what this might cost municipalities. (Hint: The City of Milwaukee is WE's single largest customer...)
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state's largest business group, complained the DNR's cost estimates were too low and utilities actually would have to spend much more to comply.
Charlie Higley, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, which advocates for utility customers, said the rules are "the right thing to do." They will be expensive, but Wisconsin residents could save on mercury-related health care costs, Higley said
Higley said that while providing ZERO examples of "mercury-related health costs...." There's a reason for that...
Here's the best line in the story:
Technology to get to 90 percent mercury reduction isn't ready yet, but the company hopes it will evolve by the time the deadlines roll around, Manthey said.
"We're fine with the rule," he said
Let me get this straight: the technology does not yet exist, but DNR can tell us what it will cost?
Remember that DarthDoyle's EnviroWacky Commission forced WEnergies to "shut up" about asinine plans to purify the entire Earth?
That's what Manthey's doing. Shutting up. Rolling over.
This blogger refers to our Governor as "DarthDoyle" for two reasons: 1) he's just fine with any kind of abortion, any time, no-holds-barred. 2) In line with that, he's aborting the State's economy.
Still wondering why Briggs & Stratton is abandoning Wisconsin? Why GM closed Janesville, instead of re-tooling? Why your property taxes go up every year?
Another Friday-afternoon news release from the Democrats.
It looks all but certain Wisconsin will get its toughest mercury rules yet, promising a cleaner environment -- and bigger electric bills.
The Legislature's rules committee has until Monday to call a hearing on the standards, but the panel's Democratic co-chairman has said he won't do it. Barring any last-second surprises, the standards should clear the Legislature at the end of the day and go into effect by the end of the year.
Yah. In this "democracy," there's no actual vote--just rule-making and "approve-by-default" in the legislature.
Republicans and their allies complain power companies will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to comply and shift that burden onto customers. But supporters, including Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, say the package will result in a cleaner, healthier environment.
It's understandable that DarthDoyle wants to clean his gaseous emissions from the atmosphere...
The DNR adopted rules four years ago requiring major utilities to cut mercury emissions by 75 percent by 2015. Doyle stepped that up during his 2006 re-election campaign, ordering the agency to raise the standard to 90 percent by 2018
...The department estimates utilities will have to spend $38 million to $91 million annually to comply, depending on whether they choose the cheaper multi-pollutant approach. That would amount to an additional $5 to $12 per year for the average household, according to the department
If you believe DNR's estimates, you also believe that Sasquatch exists, 9/11 was an inside job, and the Feds killed 5,000 prisoners during Katrina.
Also note: DNR never tells you what their Grand Plans will cost industry; nor do they mention what this might cost municipalities. (Hint: The City of Milwaukee is WE's single largest customer...)
Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state's largest business group, complained the DNR's cost estimates were too low and utilities actually would have to spend much more to comply.
Charlie Higley, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, which advocates for utility customers, said the rules are "the right thing to do." They will be expensive, but Wisconsin residents could save on mercury-related health care costs, Higley said
Higley said that while providing ZERO examples of "mercury-related health costs...." There's a reason for that...
Here's the best line in the story:
Technology to get to 90 percent mercury reduction isn't ready yet, but the company hopes it will evolve by the time the deadlines roll around, Manthey said.
"We're fine with the rule," he said
Let me get this straight: the technology does not yet exist, but DNR can tell us what it will cost?
Remember that DarthDoyle's EnviroWacky Commission forced WEnergies to "shut up" about asinine plans to purify the entire Earth?
That's what Manthey's doing. Shutting up. Rolling over.
This blogger refers to our Governor as "DarthDoyle" for two reasons: 1) he's just fine with any kind of abortion, any time, no-holds-barred. 2) In line with that, he's aborting the State's economy.
Still wondering why Briggs & Stratton is abandoning Wisconsin? Why GM closed Janesville, instead of re-tooling? Why your property taxes go up every year?
Friday, October 03, 2008
The "Health Insurance Tax" Lie
I suppose the theory is that there are plenty of people who don't think too carefully and just believe whatever the O-and-Savior tells them.
The current Big Lie is about the "Health Insurance Tax".
So a family plan runs about $12K/year in SE Wisconsin (except for MPS employees, where it's way over that...)
If you're paying Federal income tax, you'll likely pay 25% of $12K (at most) in taxes on that number.
....Scritch, scratch....
25% times $12K....that's $3,000.00. (Note: I did that in my head. I did NOT attend MPS.)
So McCain has an "up to $5K" tax credit.
Last I checked, 5 is larger than 3 (even if you graduated from MPS it's still true...)
The only people who will be close to the 'losing money' line here are MPS teachers.
Too bad.
The current Big Lie is about the "Health Insurance Tax".
So a family plan runs about $12K/year in SE Wisconsin (except for MPS employees, where it's way over that...)
If you're paying Federal income tax, you'll likely pay 25% of $12K (at most) in taxes on that number.
....Scritch, scratch....
25% times $12K....that's $3,000.00. (Note: I did that in my head. I did NOT attend MPS.)
So McCain has an "up to $5K" tax credit.
Last I checked, 5 is larger than 3 (even if you graduated from MPS it's still true...)
The only people who will be close to the 'losing money' line here are MPS teachers.
Too bad.
The B-Yotch Is Back
Yup. Kathleen Parker managed to type out a column with her pinky aloft. Chippendale keyboard, you know...
Well, darnit all, if that dadgum girl (wink, wink) didn't beat the tarnation out of Joe Biden. Maverick Sarah Palin fersure surpassed expectations and said everything under the sun, also. And Biden smiled and smiled. You see, that's the key to it all.
Evidently Ms. Parker never got around to taking my advice. Too busy chowing brie?
HT: ProEcclesia
Well, darnit all, if that dadgum girl (wink, wink) didn't beat the tarnation out of Joe Biden. Maverick Sarah Palin fersure surpassed expectations and said everything under the sun, also. And Biden smiled and smiled. You see, that's the key to it all.
Evidently Ms. Parker never got around to taking my advice. Too busy chowing brie?
HT: ProEcclesia
The First Amendment--Another Look
Fr. Neuhaus:
The deepest deformation is the subordinating of free exercise to no-establishment. Once we forget that no-establishment is a means and instrument in support of free exercise, it is a short step to talking about the supposed conflict or tension between the two provisions. And from there it is a short step to the claim, as it has been claimed in numerous court decisions, that the two parts of the religion clause are “pitted against one another” and must somehow be “balanced.”
And from there it is but another short step to the idea that the no-establishment provision protects “secular liberty” while the free exercise provision protects “religious liberty.” When the religion clause is construed according to this curious inversion, it is no surprise that religious liberty comes out the loser. Any impingement of religion upon public life is taken to violate the secular liberty of the non-religious. Thus has no-establishment become the master of the free exercise that it was designed to serve.
As a result,
In education, social services, and other dimensions of public life, it is claimed that, for the sake of the non-establishment of religion, Americans must surrender the free exercise of religion
Ain't THAT a curious way to look at 'free exercise'?
Finally,
Once more, Jefferson’s underlined sentence: “The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.” The state of current First Amendment jurisprudence is such that the opinions of men and women, when they are identified as religious, have been placed under the jurisdiction of the government. According to the inverted construal of the religion clause, wherever the writ of government runs the voice of religion must be silenced or stifled—and the writ of government runs almost everywhere. As we shall see, this gross distortion of the religion clause of the First Amendment is coming under sharp challenge today.
And that challenge is a good thing.
The deepest deformation is the subordinating of free exercise to no-establishment. Once we forget that no-establishment is a means and instrument in support of free exercise, it is a short step to talking about the supposed conflict or tension between the two provisions. And from there it is a short step to the claim, as it has been claimed in numerous court decisions, that the two parts of the religion clause are “pitted against one another” and must somehow be “balanced.”
And from there it is but another short step to the idea that the no-establishment provision protects “secular liberty” while the free exercise provision protects “religious liberty.” When the religion clause is construed according to this curious inversion, it is no surprise that religious liberty comes out the loser. Any impingement of religion upon public life is taken to violate the secular liberty of the non-religious. Thus has no-establishment become the master of the free exercise that it was designed to serve.
As a result,
In education, social services, and other dimensions of public life, it is claimed that, for the sake of the non-establishment of religion, Americans must surrender the free exercise of religion
Ain't THAT a curious way to look at 'free exercise'?
Finally,
Once more, Jefferson’s underlined sentence: “The opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction.” The state of current First Amendment jurisprudence is such that the opinions of men and women, when they are identified as religious, have been placed under the jurisdiction of the government. According to the inverted construal of the religion clause, wherever the writ of government runs the voice of religion must be silenced or stifled—and the writ of government runs almost everywhere. As we shall see, this gross distortion of the religion clause of the First Amendment is coming under sharp challenge today.
And that challenge is a good thing.
McCain's Prediction
You should know that there are more than one McCains on the national scene.
One's a pundit. The other picked a good VP nominee.
The pundit (a conservative) has given up on the candidate.
If you've got any InTrade futures on McCain (now trading at 34%), sell them immediately for whatever you can get, because they're not worth a nickel.
...I am trying to report an objective fact. When it becomes clearly obvious to me that a candidate has lost an election, and I see the possibility of being the first to report this fact -- a scoop! an exclusive! -- I'm not going to keep my mouth shut just because the guy has an "R" beside his name.
I believe in the maxim about "...events, my dear...events." But that window is closing.
He makes a good case for his position, by the way.
UPDATE: Limbaugh compares this to the Carter/Ford '76...
One's a pundit. The other picked a good VP nominee.
The pundit (a conservative) has given up on the candidate.
If you've got any InTrade futures on McCain (now trading at 34%), sell them immediately for whatever you can get, because they're not worth a nickel.
...I am trying to report an objective fact. When it becomes clearly obvious to me that a candidate has lost an election, and I see the possibility of being the first to report this fact -- a scoop! an exclusive! -- I'm not going to keep my mouth shut just because the guy has an "R" beside his name.
I believe in the maxim about "...events, my dear...events." But that window is closing.
He makes a good case for his position, by the way.
UPDATE: Limbaugh compares this to the Carter/Ford '76...
WI. Dem Women Honor Largest Abortion Provider
Surprise.
The state Democratic Party has announced a trio of headliners for its annual Eleanor Roosevelt Tribute, a dinner that honors women leaders within the party.
The three: Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Wonder what Fr. Hartmann thinks about that?
Can a Catholic pay to attend an event honoring the President of the world's largest abortion-mill?
The state Democratic Party has announced a trio of headliners for its annual Eleanor Roosevelt Tribute, a dinner that honors women leaders within the party.
The three: Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Wonder what Fr. Hartmann thinks about that?
Can a Catholic pay to attend an event honoring the President of the world's largest abortion-mill?
Calling Wisconsin Legislators! (Or VanHollen)
Hey! Wake up out there in Madistan!
Headless has an excellent essay which establishes that the Wisconsin Legislature's "residency" requirement for voting is simply a sham.
...For college students the residency test is pretty simple. Their home is the place where they live when they are not in school during the summer. If they stay in their apartment near campus in Madison, that is their home. But if they pack up and return to Mommy’s house when classes end in May, their residence is in Naperville, not Madison.
...Although the UW is abundantly clear and rational as to who is resident and who is a non-resident, the legislature provides an irrational and arbitrary loophole in the voting laws.
And then he drops the bomb:
6.10 Elector residence. (12) Student status shall not be a consideration in determining residence for the purpose of establishing voter eligibility.
Which leads to this unconscionable situation:
This Statutory wording provides the University of Wisconsin with direction to facilitate voter fraud. It is already established that university residence halls cannot be the residence of the students that live in them for nine months of the year. By registering and voting by declaring their dorm room as their “residence,” these student have committed vote fraud. The university officials are parties to these fraudulent acts by certifying that these transient locations are the bona fide residence of the students.
When transient student population in Wisconsin is 34K, and Gore won by 5K, Kerry by 11K, there's every reason to CLARIFY THE LAW!!
Get to it.
Headless has an excellent essay which establishes that the Wisconsin Legislature's "residency" requirement for voting is simply a sham.
...For college students the residency test is pretty simple. Their home is the place where they live when they are not in school during the summer. If they stay in their apartment near campus in Madison, that is their home. But if they pack up and return to Mommy’s house when classes end in May, their residence is in Naperville, not Madison.
...Although the UW is abundantly clear and rational as to who is resident and who is a non-resident, the legislature provides an irrational and arbitrary loophole in the voting laws.
And then he drops the bomb:
6.10 Elector residence. (12) Student status shall not be a consideration in determining residence for the purpose of establishing voter eligibility.
Which leads to this unconscionable situation:
This Statutory wording provides the University of Wisconsin with direction to facilitate voter fraud. It is already established that university residence halls cannot be the residence of the students that live in them for nine months of the year. By registering and voting by declaring their dorm room as their “residence,” these student have committed vote fraud. The university officials are parties to these fraudulent acts by certifying that these transient locations are the bona fide residence of the students.
When transient student population in Wisconsin is 34K, and Gore won by 5K, Kerry by 11K, there's every reason to CLARIFY THE LAW!!
Get to it.
The REAL Debate
Missed the Big Show last night--showed up in time to watch Hannity/Colmes in their after-debate shout-and-screamfest. (I hate that show...)
So Dick Morris is brought in to comment on the debate, and he opines that Palin hit it out of the park with the bases loaded, was spectacular, was a game-changer, and so forth.
Comrade Colmes immediately went to the Dem talking points, simply deciding NOT to address the question of "success" in the debate.
Morris was more than a little angry, and told Colmes to 'save his Democrat talking points for some other audience,' that he, Morris, was asked to render an opinion on the debate, and that if Colmes wanted to fill the air with blarney, he should STFU (not exactly what he said, but you get the point...) You could see it on Morris' face. He was mightily PO'd.
Colmes was stunned. So was Hannity. (So was I.) There was a moment of blessed silence...
Best TV I saw last night. Certainly better than watching that Philly grand-slam in the 3rd...
UPDATE: You can see the fur fly here.
So Dick Morris is brought in to comment on the debate, and he opines that Palin hit it out of the park with the bases loaded, was spectacular, was a game-changer, and so forth.
Comrade Colmes immediately went to the Dem talking points, simply deciding NOT to address the question of "success" in the debate.
Morris was more than a little angry, and told Colmes to 'save his Democrat talking points for some other audience,' that he, Morris, was asked to render an opinion on the debate, and that if Colmes wanted to fill the air with blarney, he should STFU (not exactly what he said, but you get the point...) You could see it on Morris' face. He was mightily PO'd.
Colmes was stunned. So was Hannity. (So was I.) There was a moment of blessed silence...
Best TV I saw last night. Certainly better than watching that Philly grand-slam in the 3rd...
UPDATE: You can see the fur fly here.
Indescribably Stupid: Harry Reid
Rumors circulated a few months ago that Harry Reid (D-Gambling) was in early stages of Alzheimers.
Perhaps he had a frontal lobotomy; that would explain this:
"We don't have a lot of leeway on time. One of the individuals in the caucus today talked about a major insurance company. A major insurance company -- one with a name that everyone knows that's on the verge of going bankrupt. That's what this is all about," Reid said prior to the Senate's approval of the $700 billion bailout bill.
After UpChuck Shumer's asinine remark about WaMu which caused a 'run' on that bank, you'd think that highly-visible Gummint officials would have learned to keep their mouths shut--or at least be a helluvalot more circumspect.
Not Harry. Nope.
Perhaps he had a frontal lobotomy; that would explain this:
"We don't have a lot of leeway on time. One of the individuals in the caucus today talked about a major insurance company. A major insurance company -- one with a name that everyone knows that's on the verge of going bankrupt. That's what this is all about," Reid said prior to the Senate's approval of the $700 billion bailout bill.
After UpChuck Shumer's asinine remark about WaMu which caused a 'run' on that bank, you'd think that highly-visible Gummint officials would have learned to keep their mouths shut--or at least be a helluvalot more circumspect.
Not Harry. Nope.
"Look Ma! A Camera!! With Top Secret Info!!"
Are Governments incompetent?
A bidder, who bought the camera for £17 on the [EBay] auction website, discovered photos of terror suspects, their names and fingerprints and even images of rocket launchers and missiles.
...Among the images which are reported to have been found on the camera is a document, marked “top secret”, which gives details of the encrypted computer system used by MI6’s agents in the field
Yes, they are incompetent.
That's the saving grace about the possibility of an ObamaFascist regime.
HT: The Warrior
A bidder, who bought the camera for £17 on the [EBay] auction website, discovered photos of terror suspects, their names and fingerprints and even images of rocket launchers and missiles.
...Among the images which are reported to have been found on the camera is a document, marked “top secret”, which gives details of the encrypted computer system used by MI6’s agents in the field
Yes, they are incompetent.
That's the saving grace about the possibility of an ObamaFascist regime.
HT: The Warrior
The "Bailout" and Greed
Another respectable bloglodyte doesn't like Palin's reference to "greed" on the mortgage/bailout issue.
Anyone who denies "greed" is either dishonest or really, really, really under-informed.
Let's go from the top.
Mortgage-backed securities (MBS) were invented by Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros., and Goldman Sachs (among others). They were bundles of mortgages, largely sub-prime or "Alt-A", but also including straight-up normal "prime" mortgages.
The originations of most of the sub-prime instruments were mortgage BROKERS (not Banks); and those mortgage brokers made a LOTTA MONEY in commissions for those instruments.
Bear/Lehman/Goldman also made a LOTTA MONEY by packaging, slicing/dicing, and re-selling the mortgages as "MBSs".
The reason there was a lot of money? Simple. Higher risk=higher reward. Bear (et al) were able to market those MBSs to lotsa places which wanted higher returns than were available from US Treasuries, State-issued bonds, etc. (See, e.g., the Whitefish Bay School Board.) Ironically, that includes banks who may never have actually originated such loans in the first place.
It was greed, all around.
What about the banks? They issued SOME of the loans--but by no means the majority:
• 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision; another 30% were made by banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. (Ever hear of Countrywide? GMAC?)
No question that HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were complicit. But don't be Pollyanna.
Anyone who denies "greed" is either dishonest or really, really, really under-informed.
Let's go from the top.
Mortgage-backed securities (MBS) were invented by Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros., and Goldman Sachs (among others). They were bundles of mortgages, largely sub-prime or "Alt-A", but also including straight-up normal "prime" mortgages.
The originations of most of the sub-prime instruments were mortgage BROKERS (not Banks); and those mortgage brokers made a LOTTA MONEY in commissions for those instruments.
Bear/Lehman/Goldman also made a LOTTA MONEY by packaging, slicing/dicing, and re-selling the mortgages as "MBSs".
The reason there was a lot of money? Simple. Higher risk=higher reward. Bear (et al) were able to market those MBSs to lotsa places which wanted higher returns than were available from US Treasuries, State-issued bonds, etc. (See, e.g., the Whitefish Bay School Board.) Ironically, that includes banks who may never have actually originated such loans in the first place.
It was greed, all around.
What about the banks? They issued SOME of the loans--but by no means the majority:
• 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision; another 30% were made by banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. (Ever hear of Countrywide? GMAC?)
No question that HUD, Fannie, and Freddie were complicit. But don't be Pollyanna.
City Election Board: "Law? We Don't Need Your Steenkin.."
Yup. It's Democrat-machine-run Milwaukee.
This week, the Associated Press reported that ACORN had hired as voter registration workers in Milwaukee at least seven felons convicted of crimes including cocaine possession and robbery
The staff of the state Government Accountability Board issued an opinion April 3 that convicted felons are not allowed to serve as registration workers.
The City of Milwaukee elections office was unaware of the opinion and interpreted state law in the area to apply only to those felons still on probation or parole
"Not aware?"
Yah, I guess if you don't bother to READ State legal opinions germane to YOUR function, you wouldn't "be aware" of it.
Maybe the City's election commission should cancel their subscriptions to Sports Illustrated and Vote Fraud Made Simple and try reading materials from places like--oh, I dunno--the GAB.
This week, the Associated Press reported that ACORN had hired as voter registration workers in Milwaukee at least seven felons convicted of crimes including cocaine possession and robbery
The staff of the state Government Accountability Board issued an opinion April 3 that convicted felons are not allowed to serve as registration workers.
The City of Milwaukee elections office was unaware of the opinion and interpreted state law in the area to apply only to those felons still on probation or parole
"Not aware?"
Yah, I guess if you don't bother to READ State legal opinions germane to YOUR function, you wouldn't "be aware" of it.
Maybe the City's election commission should cancel their subscriptions to Sports Illustrated and Vote Fraud Made Simple and try reading materials from places like--oh, I dunno--the GAB.
"...Stunning View of the Sewer Plant..."
Sometimes you gotta wonder...
An [DOT paid for] analysis...received in July builds a strong economic case for the roadway overhaul, including the prospect for construction valued at $5.7 billion on land around the current Hoan footprint and the creation of roughly 8,090 jobs through commercial development
Uh-huh. Here, Sen. Plale and I agree.
State Sen. Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee) was skeptical of the development estimates presented in the HNTB draft.
“I don’t see it,” he said. “I’m having a hard time seeing a $500,000 condo next to a Milorganite factory.
“All of that land is next to Jones Island and abuts a port and a sewerage treatment plant and those oil tanks. I don’t know who is going to plop a Nordstrom in the middle of that.”
But there's more. The JS article mentions the Park East Freeway demolition.
Developers said replacing the Hoan Bridge with a street-level bridge and boulevard is reminiscent of the Park East Freeway’s demolition.
The replacement of that elevated freeway with a street-level bridge made available 16 acres for development along downtown’s northern edge. Those efforts have lagged, however, with projects running into delays as the nation’s economy has slowed and credit markets have tightened.
Really? That land became available at the very beginning of the economic up-cycle (roughly 2003). The 'credit market tightened' and the 'economy slowed' in the last 6-12 months or so.
Commercial development FOLLOWS population. Unless the City of Milwaukee begins attracting a serious middle-upper income crowd to Downtown, you can fuggedabout $5.7Bn "developments."
An [DOT paid for] analysis...received in July builds a strong economic case for the roadway overhaul, including the prospect for construction valued at $5.7 billion on land around the current Hoan footprint and the creation of roughly 8,090 jobs through commercial development
Uh-huh. Here, Sen. Plale and I agree.
State Sen. Jeff Plale (D-South Milwaukee) was skeptical of the development estimates presented in the HNTB draft.
“I don’t see it,” he said. “I’m having a hard time seeing a $500,000 condo next to a Milorganite factory.
“All of that land is next to Jones Island and abuts a port and a sewerage treatment plant and those oil tanks. I don’t know who is going to plop a Nordstrom in the middle of that.”
But there's more. The JS article mentions the Park East Freeway demolition.
Developers said replacing the Hoan Bridge with a street-level bridge and boulevard is reminiscent of the Park East Freeway’s demolition.
The replacement of that elevated freeway with a street-level bridge made available 16 acres for development along downtown’s northern edge. Those efforts have lagged, however, with projects running into delays as the nation’s economy has slowed and credit markets have tightened.
Really? That land became available at the very beginning of the economic up-cycle (roughly 2003). The 'credit market tightened' and the 'economy slowed' in the last 6-12 months or so.
Commercial development FOLLOWS population. Unless the City of Milwaukee begins attracting a serious middle-upper income crowd to Downtown, you can fuggedabout $5.7Bn "developments."
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Copper's Down. Not Good
That's the 90-day picture.
Copper is often called the "old guys' economic indicator"--because old guys understand that copper is in EVERYTHING that's manufactured. When copper's down, the economy is heading south.
All this does is confirm yesterday's PMI reading of 43.
HT: MetalPrices.com
Catholic Vote for Obama? Nope.
While the Archdiocesan newsletter/insert printed a Q&A on the question, response from Fr. Hartmann as follows:
I would offer two insights. First, sadly the abortion mentality is so pervasive in American culture; a devout, pro-life Catholic may not have a bona fide pro-life choice in elections. Second, moral theology teaches us that there is a difference between direct consequences (i.e. a Catholic cannot vote for someone with the intent of expanding or perpetuating abortion) and indirect consequences (this would be choosing the politician who, when no truly pro-life option is available, is the best on the gamut of issues encompassed by Catholic social teaching).
...that response is very carefully constructed to avoid....ahhhh.....conflict within the Archdiocese. It is true that McCain is not "100%" pro-life (ESCR is a problem.)
A better picture is given here.
Obama has promised to sign "first thing," the FOCA, which will have effects:
...Since the Webster and Casey opinions, the Supreme Court has upheld State limitations on abortion, such as requiring parental involvement, informed consent and prohibiting government funding of most abortion. The Court also recently outlawed most so called “partial birth abortions”. FOCA would undo all of this, essentially nullifying any limitations on abortion on demand through all nine months.
I maintain that it is simply preposterous to ignore Obama's promise on FOCA. One can do so, of course--if one contemplates that McCain actually will act to support ESCR--a position on which McCain has been notably ambiguous recently.
Obama is NOT ambiguous about FOCA, and a Democrat Congress will deliver it to him for signature.
As the cited blog notes, quoting Cdl. Rigali:
No one who sponsors or supports legislation like FOCA can credibly claim to be part of a good-faith discussion on how to reduce abortions
Fr. Hartmann also fails to mention Obama's full-bore support of killing children who survive abortions--which should give pause to even the most bloodthirsty supporters of Obama in the Milwaukee area.
At some point in time, it will be evident to Fr. Hartmann (as it is to many other thinking people) that "Catholic social teaching" begins with "the common good." And wholesale support of abortion, no-holds-barred, is distinctly opposed to "the common good."
As to the "social goods" promised by Obama and seemingly so important to Fr. Hartmann--it seems that the good Father believes that Obama might end poverty, disease, and war, not to mention institute Universal Health Care--a dubitable proposition in the first place.
Really, Father? I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might like to purchase...
Here are the New York Bishops on that:
It is the rare candidate who will agree with the Church on every issue. But as the U.S. Bishops’ recent document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship makes clear, not every issue is of equal moral gravity. The inalienable right to life of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all
HT: Jay Anderson, Terry Berres
I would offer two insights. First, sadly the abortion mentality is so pervasive in American culture; a devout, pro-life Catholic may not have a bona fide pro-life choice in elections. Second, moral theology teaches us that there is a difference between direct consequences (i.e. a Catholic cannot vote for someone with the intent of expanding or perpetuating abortion) and indirect consequences (this would be choosing the politician who, when no truly pro-life option is available, is the best on the gamut of issues encompassed by Catholic social teaching).
...that response is very carefully constructed to avoid....ahhhh.....conflict within the Archdiocese. It is true that McCain is not "100%" pro-life (ESCR is a problem.)
A better picture is given here.
Obama has promised to sign "first thing," the FOCA, which will have effects:
...Since the Webster and Casey opinions, the Supreme Court has upheld State limitations on abortion, such as requiring parental involvement, informed consent and prohibiting government funding of most abortion. The Court also recently outlawed most so called “partial birth abortions”. FOCA would undo all of this, essentially nullifying any limitations on abortion on demand through all nine months.
I maintain that it is simply preposterous to ignore Obama's promise on FOCA. One can do so, of course--if one contemplates that McCain actually will act to support ESCR--a position on which McCain has been notably ambiguous recently.
Obama is NOT ambiguous about FOCA, and a Democrat Congress will deliver it to him for signature.
As the cited blog notes, quoting Cdl. Rigali:
No one who sponsors or supports legislation like FOCA can credibly claim to be part of a good-faith discussion on how to reduce abortions
Fr. Hartmann also fails to mention Obama's full-bore support of killing children who survive abortions--which should give pause to even the most bloodthirsty supporters of Obama in the Milwaukee area.
At some point in time, it will be evident to Fr. Hartmann (as it is to many other thinking people) that "Catholic social teaching" begins with "the common good." And wholesale support of abortion, no-holds-barred, is distinctly opposed to "the common good."
As to the "social goods" promised by Obama and seemingly so important to Fr. Hartmann--it seems that the good Father believes that Obama might end poverty, disease, and war, not to mention institute Universal Health Care--a dubitable proposition in the first place.
Really, Father? I have a bridge in Brooklyn which you might like to purchase...
Here are the New York Bishops on that:
It is the rare candidate who will agree with the Church on every issue. But as the U.S. Bishops’ recent document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship makes clear, not every issue is of equal moral gravity. The inalienable right to life of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all
Perhaps that statement would disturb David Newby, Tom Barrett, and other heavy-hitter Milwaukee area poohbahs--some of whom are Catholic. But that's kinda too bad, eh?
HT: Jay Anderson, Terry Berres
AT&T: Trouble With Its Commercial Paper
You want to screw the bastards who dreamed up CDOs, MBSs, and swaps? Fine.
But cutting off liquidity to do it?
AT&T Inc. (T, Fortune 500) Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson said Tuesday that his company was unable to sell any commercial paper last week for terms longer than overnight. Commercial paper, which helps lubricate the flow of business operations, is a short-term IOU available to corporations that banks usually know are good for the money.
It's not that short-term borrowing is unreasonably expensive, Stephenson said. A shortage of buyers for the debt means such borrowing is not as readily available as it had been even three weeks ago, he said.
"It's loosened up a bit, but it's day-to-day right now. I mean literally it's day-to-day in terms of what our access to the capital markets looks like," Stephenson said. AT&T spokesman Larry Solomon said later that as of Tuesday, the company has ready access to the commercial paper market at reasonable rates and various terms.
But as a result of the recent volatility, managers at the Dallas-based phone company are more cautious.
Nice to know that AT&T can once again sell its paper for more than 1 day at a time.
AT&T, for crying out loud...
HT: RedStates
But cutting off liquidity to do it?
AT&T Inc. (T, Fortune 500) Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson said Tuesday that his company was unable to sell any commercial paper last week for terms longer than overnight. Commercial paper, which helps lubricate the flow of business operations, is a short-term IOU available to corporations that banks usually know are good for the money.
It's not that short-term borrowing is unreasonably expensive, Stephenson said. A shortage of buyers for the debt means such borrowing is not as readily available as it had been even three weeks ago, he said.
"It's loosened up a bit, but it's day-to-day right now. I mean literally it's day-to-day in terms of what our access to the capital markets looks like," Stephenson said. AT&T spokesman Larry Solomon said later that as of Tuesday, the company has ready access to the commercial paper market at reasonable rates and various terms.
But as a result of the recent volatility, managers at the Dallas-based phone company are more cautious.
Nice to know that AT&T can once again sell its paper for more than 1 day at a time.
AT&T, for crying out loud...
HT: RedStates
BATFE Takes It on the Chin--Deservedly
Arcane, but important.
In a major victory for those of us arguing that the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) is insufficient for criminal proceedings, Dr. Fritz Scheuren, “the” statistician in the United States (possibly the world), today informed the United States District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, (The Honorable Tim Leonard) that the NFRTR is insufficient for criminal proceedings. While no decision has been rendered in the case of US v. Larry Douglas Friesen (CR-08-41-L), this is a MAJOR defeat for the BATFE, who, over the years, has argued that although the NFRTR is flawed, it still can be used in criminal proceedings. To understand just how flawed the NFRTR is, see my article on the NFRTR violating Due Process
In brief: the National Firearms Act (NFA) was created in the 1930's, and was a tax law (thus evading potential 2A problems.) Part of the legislation was the creation of the NFRTR (the Registry of all these taxed firearms.) At the time this was enacted, there were concerns that owners of covered weapons might 'lose the paperwork,' whether through negligence or disaster (e.g., fire, flood, etc.) and that NFRTR copies should be available.
The problems with NFRTR documentation held by BATFE are manifold. In 1979, the Attorney General's office issued an audit report including the following language:
The amnesty period spawned a massive volume of registrations, transfers and correspondence which the clerical staff was ill-equipped to handle. As a result, some weapons were registered, some were mistakenly registered by part number rather than serial number, and some documents were misfiled. The staff responsible for the system was aware of these
problems.”
SCOTUS was not aware of the above report, and in Freed, they declared that the NFA (and NFRTR) did not violate the 5th Amendment, nor due process rights. Problems with NFRTR continued through the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's--the numbers simply would not add up on the Registry; either BATFE was running its own (illegal) amnesties and adding weapons, OR it was 'discovering' lost/misfiled paperwork and adding to the NFRTR.
In several different cases over the years, BATFE would bring criminal actions against dealers or individuals for possession of non-registered (NFRTR) weapons, only to be confronted with the original documents (fortunately) still in the possession of the dealer or individual.
Internal to BATFE, this became a serious "face" issue:
Our response to inquires on the existence or nonexistence of proper registration of an NFA firearm is the basis for seizure, arrests, prosecution, fines, and imprisonments. Our testimony or certification of the nonexistence of such record is evidence subject to close examination in
court. We continuously discover discrepancies and inaccuracies in the registration file which, if discovered during trial, would destroy the future credibility of such evidence. One resultant possibility is that a defendant who maintains he had properly registered his firearm but had lost his approved form could, subsequent to his arrest based on non-registration, locate his lost document. If the court should discover that our negligence caused an unwarranted arrest and trial, the resultant loss of public trust would be irreparable. Just as serious is the possibility that an innocent man might be convicted if he could not find his registrant form and we certified that he had not registered the firearm when, in fact, we had failed to locate his registration in the Record [NFRTR].
(It is interesting that the possibility of convicting and jailing an innocent man is SECONDARY to BATFE's "loss of credibility" in this memo, no?)
In 1995, a very enthusiastic BATFE (NFA Branch Chief) appeared in a training video, ordering the trainees to testify in courts that "NFRTR is 100% accurate"--which would, of course, be perjury. The very same man also stated that the NFRTR error rate was 'about 49-50%' before he became NFA Chief--but that in only 1 year, he had reduced the error rate to only 8%.
That is a remarkable achievement indeed, if you believe what he said.
Of course, you cannot. BATFE's registry is chock-full of errors--and the Oklahoma case cited above may well be the beginning of the end of the "jackboot-thug" era of BATFE enforcements.
In a major victory for those of us arguing that the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) is insufficient for criminal proceedings, Dr. Fritz Scheuren, “the” statistician in the United States (possibly the world), today informed the United States District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, (The Honorable Tim Leonard) that the NFRTR is insufficient for criminal proceedings. While no decision has been rendered in the case of US v. Larry Douglas Friesen (CR-08-41-L), this is a MAJOR defeat for the BATFE, who, over the years, has argued that although the NFRTR is flawed, it still can be used in criminal proceedings. To understand just how flawed the NFRTR is, see my article on the NFRTR violating Due Process
In brief: the National Firearms Act (NFA) was created in the 1930's, and was a tax law (thus evading potential 2A problems.) Part of the legislation was the creation of the NFRTR (the Registry of all these taxed firearms.) At the time this was enacted, there were concerns that owners of covered weapons might 'lose the paperwork,' whether through negligence or disaster (e.g., fire, flood, etc.) and that NFRTR copies should be available.
The problems with NFRTR documentation held by BATFE are manifold. In 1979, the Attorney General's office issued an audit report including the following language:
The amnesty period spawned a massive volume of registrations, transfers and correspondence which the clerical staff was ill-equipped to handle. As a result, some weapons were registered, some were mistakenly registered by part number rather than serial number, and some documents were misfiled. The staff responsible for the system was aware of these
problems.”
SCOTUS was not aware of the above report, and in Freed, they declared that the NFA (and NFRTR) did not violate the 5th Amendment, nor due process rights. Problems with NFRTR continued through the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's--the numbers simply would not add up on the Registry; either BATFE was running its own (illegal) amnesties and adding weapons, OR it was 'discovering' lost/misfiled paperwork and adding to the NFRTR.
In several different cases over the years, BATFE would bring criminal actions against dealers or individuals for possession of non-registered (NFRTR) weapons, only to be confronted with the original documents (fortunately) still in the possession of the dealer or individual.
Internal to BATFE, this became a serious "face" issue:
Our response to inquires on the existence or nonexistence of proper registration of an NFA firearm is the basis for seizure, arrests, prosecution, fines, and imprisonments. Our testimony or certification of the nonexistence of such record is evidence subject to close examination in
court. We continuously discover discrepancies and inaccuracies in the registration file which, if discovered during trial, would destroy the future credibility of such evidence. One resultant possibility is that a defendant who maintains he had properly registered his firearm but had lost his approved form could, subsequent to his arrest based on non-registration, locate his lost document. If the court should discover that our negligence caused an unwarranted arrest and trial, the resultant loss of public trust would be irreparable. Just as serious is the possibility that an innocent man might be convicted if he could not find his registrant form and we certified that he had not registered the firearm when, in fact, we had failed to locate his registration in the Record [NFRTR].
(It is interesting that the possibility of convicting and jailing an innocent man is SECONDARY to BATFE's "loss of credibility" in this memo, no?)
In 1995, a very enthusiastic BATFE (NFA Branch Chief) appeared in a training video, ordering the trainees to testify in courts that "NFRTR is 100% accurate"--which would, of course, be perjury. The very same man also stated that the NFRTR error rate was 'about 49-50%' before he became NFA Chief--but that in only 1 year, he had reduced the error rate to only 8%.
That is a remarkable achievement indeed, if you believe what he said.
Of course, you cannot. BATFE's registry is chock-full of errors--and the Oklahoma case cited above may well be the beginning of the end of the "jackboot-thug" era of BATFE enforcements.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Scalia: "Kennedy, You're An Idiot!"
Rehearing of the 'death-penalty-for-child-rapists' SCOTUS case is denied.
Scalia addresses the majority (in part):
I am voting against the petition for rehearing because the views of the American people on the death penalty for child rape were, to tell the truth, irrelevant to the majority’s decision in this case. The majority opinion, after an unpersuasive attempt to show that a consensus against
the penalty existed, in the end came down to this: “[T]he Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.” Of course the Constitution contemplates no such thing; the proposed Eighth Amendment would have been laughed to scorn if it had read “no criminal penalty shall be imposed which the Supreme Court deems unacceptable.” But that is what
the majority opinion said, and there is no reason to believe that absence of a national consensus would provoke second thoughts.
Kennedy has always smoked a little sumpin' hot before writing his opinions (Casey is an excellent example.) Happy to see that Scalia takes appropriate note.
Scalia addresses the majority (in part):
I am voting against the petition for rehearing because the views of the American people on the death penalty for child rape were, to tell the truth, irrelevant to the majority’s decision in this case. The majority opinion, after an unpersuasive attempt to show that a consensus against
the penalty existed, in the end came down to this: “[T]he Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.” Of course the Constitution contemplates no such thing; the proposed Eighth Amendment would have been laughed to scorn if it had read “no criminal penalty shall be imposed which the Supreme Court deems unacceptable.” But that is what
the majority opinion said, and there is no reason to believe that absence of a national consensus would provoke second thoughts.
Kennedy has always smoked a little sumpin' hot before writing his opinions (Casey is an excellent example.) Happy to see that Scalia takes appropriate note.
Yes, Indeed, Obama IS a 'Chicago Machine' Product
Roeser sets it straight.
By the time Barack Obama entered the Democratic party in Hyde Park there was absolutely no line of demarcation between the machine’s goals and the local committeeman’s aspirations. Hence it is fair and reasonable to say that the old Hyde Park of Len Despres had been fully absorbed…freely…into a county Democratic organization that saw no difficulty in assuming Obama’s Hyde Park radicalism as it saw no difficulty assuming Bernie Stone’s rather old-fashioned Democratic party values in West Rogers Park. In fact, Democrat (former Republican) Stone represents cheek-by-jowl with his fellow Democrat Joe Moore (another friend of mine) in the Rogers Park neighborhood. Stone, one year older than I, represents the hoary age-old tradition of the Democratic party (favorable toward patronage who can wink at memories of the old days) and Moore the younger, more progressive era. But both are Democrats.
So the idea that young Barack Obama burst onto the Hyde Park scene as one entirely apart from the regular Democratic party is a fiction. Obama has paid his tithe to the old Democratic party, going along with Todd Stroger rather than supporting Forrest Claypool and repeating in lip synch every jot and tittle of the Richard Daley machine. Thought you needed to know.
Fine point, but well made.
By the time Barack Obama entered the Democratic party in Hyde Park there was absolutely no line of demarcation between the machine’s goals and the local committeeman’s aspirations. Hence it is fair and reasonable to say that the old Hyde Park of Len Despres had been fully absorbed…freely…into a county Democratic organization that saw no difficulty in assuming Obama’s Hyde Park radicalism as it saw no difficulty assuming Bernie Stone’s rather old-fashioned Democratic party values in West Rogers Park. In fact, Democrat (former Republican) Stone represents cheek-by-jowl with his fellow Democrat Joe Moore (another friend of mine) in the Rogers Park neighborhood. Stone, one year older than I, represents the hoary age-old tradition of the Democratic party (favorable toward patronage who can wink at memories of the old days) and Moore the younger, more progressive era. But both are Democrats.
So the idea that young Barack Obama burst onto the Hyde Park scene as one entirely apart from the regular Democratic party is a fiction. Obama has paid his tithe to the old Democratic party, going along with Todd Stroger rather than supporting Forrest Claypool and repeating in lip synch every jot and tittle of the Richard Daley machine. Thought you needed to know.
Fine point, but well made.
Email Pranks
Apparently there's some malicious email about.
If you get an e-mail with "Nude Photos of Sarah Palin" in the subject line, do not open it. It might contain a virus.
If you get an e-mail with "Nude Photos of Hillary Clinton", do not open it. It might contain nude photos of Hillary Clinton
HT: Caveman
If you get an e-mail with "Nude Photos of Sarah Palin" in the subject line, do not open it. It might contain a virus.
If you get an e-mail with "Nude Photos of Hillary Clinton", do not open it. It might contain nude photos of Hillary Clinton
HT: Caveman
Lemmeeesee, Heah, Achmed, Did You Bring the Goats?
So they have this freighter with 33 T-22 Soviet tanks.
What else do you need for a party?
The U.S. defense official in Washington said the pirates have been moving from ship to shore and back again, bringing provisions including livestock
Substitutes for....women? Or necessary for the Muslim feast-day Eid al-Fitr?
What else do you need for a party?
The U.S. defense official in Washington said the pirates have been moving from ship to shore and back again, bringing provisions including livestock
Substitutes for....women? Or necessary for the Muslim feast-day Eid al-Fitr?
Obamamamama's Campaign Cash: Who's Giving?
The short answer to the question above is "We don't know."
Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP)
...The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.
Actually, we DO know some of the names.
Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375
Uh-huh.
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.
Surely a check of US incorporations will yield a company called "Loving."
And, of course, a large number of Obamamamamama's donations seem to be coming from the Middle East: Gaza and Libya are specifically mentioned.
Boy, that "Campaign Finance Reform" thing really worked well, eh?
Unlike the McCain campaign, which has made its complete donor database available online, the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP)
...The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.
It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.
Actually, we DO know some of the names.
Under campaign finance laws, an individual can donate $2,300 to a candidate for federal office in both the primary and general election, for a total of $4,600. If a donor has topped the limit in the primary, the campaign can “redesignate” the contribution to the general election on its books.
In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.
Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”
A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.
In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375
Uh-huh.
Similarly, a donor identified as “Pro, Doodad,” from “Nando, NY,” gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You,” just as Good Will had done.
Surely a check of US incorporations will yield a company called "Loving."
And, of course, a large number of Obamamamamama's donations seem to be coming from the Middle East: Gaza and Libya are specifically mentioned.
Boy, that "Campaign Finance Reform" thing really worked well, eh?
"Force It To Break Down"--the Dem Strategy?
The American Thinker has a think-piece worth reading.
One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.
I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.
Horowitz summarized it this way:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse
Nothing like a collapse to get folks likin' Big Gummint, hey...
And, of course, Obamamamamama's mentor and guru Alinsky had the same idea:
"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one
Think about all the times you've been "guilt-tripped"...
The article goes on to describe the first triumph--"welfare rights."
Next step: ACORN
In 1970, one of George Wiley's protégés, Wade Rathke -- like Bill Ayers, a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) -- was sent to found the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now. While NWRO had made a good start, it alone couldn't accomplish the Cloward-Piven goals. Rathke's group broadened the offensive to include a wide array of low income "rights." Shortly thereafter they changed "Arkansas" to "Association of" and ACORN went nationwide
Then comes illegal immigration...
And now another 'system failure' engineered by the Left:
And now we have the mortgage crisis, which has sent a shock wave through Wall Street and panicked world financial markets like no other since the stock market crash of 1929. But this is a problem created in Washington long ago. It originated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter's answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers. PhD economist and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm has called it: "a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks."
It wouldn't be a party without Obama, would it?
ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort.
It may take more than just Sarah Palin to reform this mess.
Buy more ammo.
HT: Van Helsing
One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.
I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.
Horowitz summarized it this way:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse
Nothing like a collapse to get folks likin' Big Gummint, hey...
And, of course, Obamamamamama's mentor and guru Alinsky had the same idea:
"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one
Think about all the times you've been "guilt-tripped"...
The article goes on to describe the first triumph--"welfare rights."
Next step: ACORN
In 1970, one of George Wiley's protégés, Wade Rathke -- like Bill Ayers, a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) -- was sent to found the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now. While NWRO had made a good start, it alone couldn't accomplish the Cloward-Piven goals. Rathke's group broadened the offensive to include a wide array of low income "rights." Shortly thereafter they changed "Arkansas" to "Association of" and ACORN went nationwide
Then comes illegal immigration...
And now another 'system failure' engineered by the Left:
And now we have the mortgage crisis, which has sent a shock wave through Wall Street and panicked world financial markets like no other since the stock market crash of 1929. But this is a problem created in Washington long ago. It originated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter's answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers. PhD economist and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm has called it: "a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks."
It wouldn't be a party without Obama, would it?
ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort.
It may take more than just Sarah Palin to reform this mess.
Buy more ammo.
HT: Van Helsing
The Bank Problem, The "Bailout", and You
Per the request of a friend, this short essay.
We'll begin with something Charlie highlighted from the WaPo.
Simply put, mark-to-market accounting requires companies to set the value for the assets they own at the price they could fetch on the open market right now. The prices must be "marked to market;" hence the phrase.
What does that have to do with the current crisis? The root problem now is that financial institutions have been caught holding value-less, or "toxic," assets on their books, such as the mortgage-backed securities based on sub-prime mortgages that have defaulted. [See below]
The government believes that those assets will be worth something soon -- that's why they want to buy them in the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan. But under mark-to-market rules currently required, they are worth almost nothing, threatening those who hold them with insolvency.
If the holders could place a value on the assets equal to the estimated value they should bring in the future, suddenly the balance sheets of these financial institutions would look a lot healthier.
Now to back up a bit.
Banks lend money based on a couple of factors: 1) their deposits, and 2) their capital. The smaller the deposit base, the less a Bank can lend. The smaller the Bank's capital, the less it can lend. (There's a lot of arcane stuff buried in the above, but that's the simplified take.)
Banks earn money in three ways: 1) interest on loans; 2) interest on other investments; and 3) fees. We're interested in #1 and #2 here.
When a bank makes a loan, the loan is booked as an "asset." So long as the borrower pays up on the terms of the agreement, everything's hunky-dory. But when a borrower misses a few payments, that loan becomes 'troubled.' Maybe the trouble is temporary--the borrower was sick, but will make up the difference when he's earning money again. Maybe the borrower is actually defaulting--that is, simply not going to pay off the loan at all. In either case, the bank examiners, (Federal Reserve, FDIC, and/or State) note the loan's non-performance and require the Bank to set aside a "reserve" to offset the potential loss. That "reserve" is a charge against earnings. The bank is forced to take the loan out of the "asset" category and, if there are enough of those 'bad loans,' the bank eventually is LOSING money, not making it. That loss is made up for by the bank's "capital" account (shareholder equity.)
Not good. When the bank's capital shrinks, the bank cannot make as many loans--so they have to "call" some loans which are good, forcing other borrowers to pay up--NOW.
Banks also have "other investments." These are (commonly) US Treasury bills, Fan/Fred preferred stocks, and maybe a few "mortgage-backed-securities" which promise higher interest or divident returns than standard commercial loans.
The mortgage-backed-securities have become a problem. That's because nobody actually knows what is in that bundle of debt. Nobody really knows how many of those mortgages will be paid, or not paid.
Enter the accountants and the SEC. Above we highlighted "RIGHT NOW" in the WaPo article. Under "mark-to-market" rules of the SEC and the accountants, the MBS's the banks hold may have to be written down to zero value--because nobody knows with certainty what they are actually worth if you sell them right now.
When those are marked down (to "market") the bank is forced to take a charge against its equity (or its earnings.) Either way, that reduces the bank's ability to lend money, whether right away, or in the future.
When banks are forced to stop lending, nasty stuff happens. Most businesses borrow money regularly for cash-flow purposes (kinda like using MasterCard; you'll get a paycheck in two weeks, but the car's radiator has to be replaced now.) They also borrow for new equipment--usually on a 3- or 5-year payment basis.
Now imagine that the business goes to the bank and asks for $100K to make payroll, knowing that their best customer will pay them $250K for the goods shipped--but not for 10 days.
If the bank has been hit with "market" rules and a few questionable loans, the bank may have to tell the businessman to take a hike. "No money for you. Sorry. So sad, too bad."
Ugh. What about payroll? What about paying vendors? What about that new machine we can use to reduce costs (or just to make our product)?
"So sorry. Too bad."
What Paulson proposed was to have the Gummint buy up all the MBS's. When that happens, the Banks no longer have "impaired" assets, meaning that their equity and deposits can once again support lending. Paulson figures that although the MBS (and CDO) packages have some bad loans, they are not ALL bad loans--and even if the bad loans fail to default, the Gummint still has the house/land to sell.
It's possible that yesterday's change in "mark-to-market" rules will stop some of the bleeding immediately and pull many banks back into 'the black.' It's possible that that change alone will be sufficient. We don't know, yet.
People who watch the Dow aren't watching the right stuff. What counts to the banks is what they have to pay for their funds. That means "LIBOR," which is the interest rate paid by banks for overnight (or longer) loans from OTHER banks.
When the bailout failed to pass, LIBOR overnight rates hit an all-time high.
Like paying a lot for your car-loan? You'll be in hog heaven--if you can GET a car-loan. And the same applies to businesses---their interest rate will go up, too (the bank ain't a charity.) When interest payments go up, something else has to go down....payroll?
As Ryan said: it's awful, but it's what we may have to do.
Nobody said the Constitution is a mutual-suicide pact.
We'll begin with something Charlie highlighted from the WaPo.
Simply put, mark-to-market accounting requires companies to set the value for the assets they own at the price they could fetch on the open market right now. The prices must be "marked to market;" hence the phrase.
What does that have to do with the current crisis? The root problem now is that financial institutions have been caught holding value-less, or "toxic," assets on their books, such as the mortgage-backed securities based on sub-prime mortgages that have defaulted. [See below]
The government believes that those assets will be worth something soon -- that's why they want to buy them in the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan. But under mark-to-market rules currently required, they are worth almost nothing, threatening those who hold them with insolvency.
If the holders could place a value on the assets equal to the estimated value they should bring in the future, suddenly the balance sheets of these financial institutions would look a lot healthier.
Now to back up a bit.
Banks lend money based on a couple of factors: 1) their deposits, and 2) their capital. The smaller the deposit base, the less a Bank can lend. The smaller the Bank's capital, the less it can lend. (There's a lot of arcane stuff buried in the above, but that's the simplified take.)
Banks earn money in three ways: 1) interest on loans; 2) interest on other investments; and 3) fees. We're interested in #1 and #2 here.
When a bank makes a loan, the loan is booked as an "asset." So long as the borrower pays up on the terms of the agreement, everything's hunky-dory. But when a borrower misses a few payments, that loan becomes 'troubled.' Maybe the trouble is temporary--the borrower was sick, but will make up the difference when he's earning money again. Maybe the borrower is actually defaulting--that is, simply not going to pay off the loan at all. In either case, the bank examiners, (Federal Reserve, FDIC, and/or State) note the loan's non-performance and require the Bank to set aside a "reserve" to offset the potential loss. That "reserve" is a charge against earnings. The bank is forced to take the loan out of the "asset" category and, if there are enough of those 'bad loans,' the bank eventually is LOSING money, not making it. That loss is made up for by the bank's "capital" account (shareholder equity.)
Not good. When the bank's capital shrinks, the bank cannot make as many loans--so they have to "call" some loans which are good, forcing other borrowers to pay up--NOW.
Banks also have "other investments." These are (commonly) US Treasury bills, Fan/Fred preferred stocks, and maybe a few "mortgage-backed-securities" which promise higher interest or divident returns than standard commercial loans.
The mortgage-backed-securities have become a problem. That's because nobody actually knows what is in that bundle of debt. Nobody really knows how many of those mortgages will be paid, or not paid.
Enter the accountants and the SEC. Above we highlighted "RIGHT NOW" in the WaPo article. Under "mark-to-market" rules of the SEC and the accountants, the MBS's the banks hold may have to be written down to zero value--because nobody knows with certainty what they are actually worth if you sell them right now.
When those are marked down (to "market") the bank is forced to take a charge against its equity (or its earnings.) Either way, that reduces the bank's ability to lend money, whether right away, or in the future.
When banks are forced to stop lending, nasty stuff happens. Most businesses borrow money regularly for cash-flow purposes (kinda like using MasterCard; you'll get a paycheck in two weeks, but the car's radiator has to be replaced now.) They also borrow for new equipment--usually on a 3- or 5-year payment basis.
Now imagine that the business goes to the bank and asks for $100K to make payroll, knowing that their best customer will pay them $250K for the goods shipped--but not for 10 days.
If the bank has been hit with "market" rules and a few questionable loans, the bank may have to tell the businessman to take a hike. "No money for you. Sorry. So sad, too bad."
Ugh. What about payroll? What about paying vendors? What about that new machine we can use to reduce costs (or just to make our product)?
"So sorry. Too bad."
What Paulson proposed was to have the Gummint buy up all the MBS's. When that happens, the Banks no longer have "impaired" assets, meaning that their equity and deposits can once again support lending. Paulson figures that although the MBS (and CDO) packages have some bad loans, they are not ALL bad loans--and even if the bad loans fail to default, the Gummint still has the house/land to sell.
It's possible that yesterday's change in "mark-to-market" rules will stop some of the bleeding immediately and pull many banks back into 'the black.' It's possible that that change alone will be sufficient. We don't know, yet.
People who watch the Dow aren't watching the right stuff. What counts to the banks is what they have to pay for their funds. That means "LIBOR," which is the interest rate paid by banks for overnight (or longer) loans from OTHER banks.
When the bailout failed to pass, LIBOR overnight rates hit an all-time high.
Like paying a lot for your car-loan? You'll be in hog heaven--if you can GET a car-loan. And the same applies to businesses---their interest rate will go up, too (the bank ain't a charity.) When interest payments go up, something else has to go down....payroll?
As Ryan said: it's awful, but it's what we may have to do.
Nobody said the Constitution is a mutual-suicide pact.
Fred Thompson on Palin: "Git 'er Done" Gal
Fred makes a very, very good case. He begins by quoting David Brooks.
He recently wrote that governance is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all it requires prudence. What is prudence? Among other things, it is the ability to absorb information and discern the essential current of events – the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and to understand which arguments have the most weight. How is prudence acquired? Through experience. Experience allows a leader to judge what is important and what is not. He added, “Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter.”
And adds the parts that Brooks.....ahhhh.....forgot:
...there are other important qualifications, such as will, courage, and determination. Frankly, an infusion of these qualities into our body politic is desperately needed – not just to raise hell with the establishment, but to speak the hard truth about unpleasant choices facing our country. To push for choices that will, in the long term, benefit our country, our children and our grandchildren. In other words, things which “prudent” leaders are all too often reluctant to do
And, reprising his role on Law and Order, issues an indictment:
For many years we have failed to address looming problems that will prove catastrophic to our nation. It’s not because we are bereft of leaders with great experience. And it is not because they do not understand the “essential current of events.” They know these things all too well. It is because they do not have the political courage to do anything about it.
Such as the GSEs, over-spending, and the Social Security/Medicare nuclear bomb.
To Fred, and to normal Americans,
Wall Street and Washington were full of people who were “qualified and experienced” in the field of finance. Sen. Barack Obama, for one, has a great deal of experience in the housing field. So do many of his closest advisers. I would have traded some of that experience for a few more leaders with less experience and more courage to buck the establishment and tell the truth about what was happening
In other words, to Hell with the neatly-trimmed fingernails and perfect coif of George Will and the B-Yotch Ms. Parker, not to mention the assortment of fairies, social climbers, and twits on the Left side of the Press (and Government). Oh, they're knowledgeable--perhaps--about the Swamp, and the symphony and ballet, and which wine goes with brie.
As to courage, and the real task of getting it done, not so much.
HT: AmSpecBlog
He recently wrote that governance is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all it requires prudence. What is prudence? Among other things, it is the ability to absorb information and discern the essential current of events – the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and to understand which arguments have the most weight. How is prudence acquired? Through experience. Experience allows a leader to judge what is important and what is not. He added, “Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter.”
And adds the parts that Brooks.....ahhhh.....forgot:
...there are other important qualifications, such as will, courage, and determination. Frankly, an infusion of these qualities into our body politic is desperately needed – not just to raise hell with the establishment, but to speak the hard truth about unpleasant choices facing our country. To push for choices that will, in the long term, benefit our country, our children and our grandchildren. In other words, things which “prudent” leaders are all too often reluctant to do
And, reprising his role on Law and Order, issues an indictment:
For many years we have failed to address looming problems that will prove catastrophic to our nation. It’s not because we are bereft of leaders with great experience. And it is not because they do not understand the “essential current of events.” They know these things all too well. It is because they do not have the political courage to do anything about it.
Such as the GSEs, over-spending, and the Social Security/Medicare nuclear bomb.
To Fred, and to normal Americans,
Wall Street and Washington were full of people who were “qualified and experienced” in the field of finance. Sen. Barack Obama, for one, has a great deal of experience in the housing field. So do many of his closest advisers. I would have traded some of that experience for a few more leaders with less experience and more courage to buck the establishment and tell the truth about what was happening
In other words, to Hell with the neatly-trimmed fingernails and perfect coif of George Will and the B-Yotch Ms. Parker, not to mention the assortment of fairies, social climbers, and twits on the Left side of the Press (and Government). Oh, they're knowledgeable--perhaps--about the Swamp, and the symphony and ballet, and which wine goes with brie.
As to courage, and the real task of getting it done, not so much.
HT: AmSpecBlog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
