House Dems -- Geithner to Set Your Salary!

In another jaw-dropping move, the Democrats in the U.S. House Of Representatives voted to require Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to set the salaries of ALL EMPLOYEES at ALL "financial institutions" receiving government bailout funds:

(1) PROHIBITION- No financial institution that has received or receives a capital investment under this title, or with respect to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Montage Corporation, or a Federal home loan bank, under the amendments made by section 1117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, may, while that capital investment remains outstanding, make a compensation payment to any executive or employee under any pre-existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement, if such compensation payment or compensation payment arrangement provides for compensation that is unreasonable or excessive, as defined in standards established by the Secretary (of the Treasury).

So one person will be able to determine if that raise you got last November because of your great performance as a Customer Service representative or member of accounts payable team is excessive? As a member of the janitorial staff, one person can determine if you have to pay back some of your salary because the company did perform up to HIS standards?

This is truly getting surreal.

While my examples might be pure partisan rhetorical bluster, this bill allows Geithner to do all these things. He will have the right -- the obligation -- to consider these very situations.

Is this why Obama launched the Getting Through Tough Economic Times web site? I know when I read these stories, I get depressed, anxious, and irritable.

It is enough to argue that the people directly responsible for the stability of the financial institution and its ability to repay or begin repaying the United States should have their salaries monitored; it is a far different issue when the government will be monitoring the salaries of employees who have nothing to do with the success or failure of the company.

Alice on the cafeteria staff, pay back that money we gave you. Timmy said you are earning too much.

Will the next step be government monitoring of salaries at companies who get federal tax breaks?

A week ago, Obama cautioned us that he will not govern out of anger. Too bad the representatives won't follow this lead and not legislate out of stupidity.

Rep. Alan Grayson, the Florida Democrat who wrote the bill, (said) its basic message is "you should not get rich off public money, and you should not get rich off of abject failure."

Oh, why not Rep. Greyson; you are...

Obama: Towards Socialism Swiftly

I, and many others, have posited that Barack Obama's ultimate goal is to turn the United States into a socialist country.

A friend, and reader of this blog, scoffed that Obama was not "pushing for state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." Therefore he is not a socialist.

Well, since that late February posting, we have seen Obama making major strides towards just that:

• The United States now owns nearly all of one of the largest insurance companies in the country, AIG.
• The US owns 40% of CitiCorp, one of the largest full service banks in the world.

Today, we hear of the next outrage from the Obama administration and another giant leap toward government ownership of a private company by practically ordering the firing of the CEO of General Motors, despite the fact that GM's board supported Rick Wagoner.

Time and time again, General Motors Corp.'s board of directors reaffirmed its support for Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, even as the company piled up billions of dollars in losses and begged for government loans to stay alive.

Here, we have the case of the president of the United States telling a private corporation to fire its CEO. I don't care who the president is or what the purpose of the firing might be, IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE PRESIDENT TO FIRE A PRIVATE CITIZEN AT A PRIVATE COMPANY. EVER!

If the CEO is doing something illegal, and it comes to the prez' attention, he would call for the Attorney General to investigate and prosecute, if needed. Even then, the president would not fire the CEO.

Further, Obama required that GM further consolidate its brands in exchange for 60 days of working capital.

So now we have the president of the United States telling a private corporation how it should operate? Now Obama is an expert in auto manufacture and sales?

After all, Obama knows best.

Obama turned to Chrysler and demanded the company merge with another company.

The president's auto task force said Chrysler needs to partner with the Italian car company Fiat, which has "committed to building new fuel-efficient cars and engines right here in the United States," Obama said in a speech at the White House.

"Fiat is prepared to transfer its cutting-edge technology to Chrysler," Obama said.

Fiat? Will Chrysler's collaborating with Fiat drive you to purchase that PT Cruiser anytime soon?

32 Review Centre Fiat Brava 1.4SX Reviews

Good Points: When it works its nice and easy to drive.
Bad Points: had constant problem witn starting and idling many repairs done at different garages but problem always comes back. I'll never never buy a Fiat Bravo again.

Looks nice, spacious and comfortable but mechanics and clutch with gear box are very unreliable. Not reliable in terms of parts. Electric faults come up every week.

These are two cases where the federal government is using its powers to extort private companies to engage in business operations of which the government approves.

And this comes barely a week after Obama made moves to control salaries of private citizens in private companies:

From the outset of the Obama administration, officials and European leaders have disagreed over how much to limit pay. And Mr. Geithner has discouraged the administration from imposing across-the-board limits on compensation of all employees at troubled companies receiving federal assistance and more burdensome pay restrictions at healthy institutions that the administration is trying to encourage to take government money so they can increase lending.

Obama wanted to have the power to set salaries for ALL employees at companies he decides are "troubled."

If these aren't giant leaps towards European-style socialism, I don't know what is.

President Obama: Just Call Me Mr. Goodwrench

President Obama always seems to go at least one step to far.

• We need the economic stimulus package immediately or countless people will lose their jobs, he told us. But then went on vacation and sign the passed bill when he got back.
• We'll bailout AIG; the security of the nation depends upon it, he said. But, dammit, what's with their honoring legally binding contracts??
• We will send more troops into Afghanistan in order to step up efforts to defeat the terrorists, he steamed. But, only after we try to make nice with the "good" Taliban.

Now, he wants to play Mr. Goodwrench when it comes to bailing out Chrysler and General Motors.

In remarks today, President Obama outlined his plan to save GM and Chrysler through a number of measures that on the surface make sense. I found myself thinking that he finally got something right. Then:

If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired, just like always. Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it’s ever been, because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warranty.

Isn't that what the local muffler shop writes on the sign out front to draw your business? We honor all warranties?

So, if I buy a Chrysler (and god only know why I would) and Chrysler goes belly up, if I bring my car to Sam's repair shop on Elm Street, the government will pick up the tab? That won't lead to too much fraud.

Customer: I think I need some gas.

Sam: Yeah, I'll get to it after I replace your entire exhaust system, set you up with some new brakes, and that O2 sensor has got to go.

Customer: But, I just need gas...

Sam:...and a new fuel pump and fuel injection system too, from the looks.

Customer: But my car is brand new -- still under warranty.

Sam: Exactly!

I predict a marked increase in the warranty work done on GM and Chrysler cars, if this happens.

I understand the motive behind the move, but can't imagine the move swaying too many people. If you were considering a Chrysler (after getting your head examined), knowing that Obama will change your oil for you might get you down to the showroom; but if you were looking at that Honda, thinking that Raum Emmanuel will check the pressure in your tires won't move you an inch.

Obama: Making the Ultimate Sacrifice -- Buying New Fed Cars Early!

In prepared remarks today, President Obama outlined his plans to save Chrysler and General Motors.

Mixed in with some interesting and reasonable ideas is this gem:

Therefore, to support demand for auto sales during this period, I'm directing my team to take several steps. First, we will ensure that Recovery Act funds to purchase government cars go out as quickly as possible and work through the budget process to accelerate other federal fleet purchases as well.

In other words, Obama will make sure that federal government fleet cars are replaced more quickly that originally planned. So those government workers will get new cars, whether they are needed or not, as a way of spurring demand for cars; despite the fact that most of us can't get financing to get a car even if we need one.

If Washington artificially spikes demand by buying cars it doesn't need, won't that increase prices, reduce deals, and restrict financing even further?

And, who says Obama's not looking out for you...

The Problem with the Liberals Today

A friend posted a pair of articles to his FaceBook account today. As I read each article, I noticed that not only did the two articles talk about similar issues, they both define what is wrong with Liberals today.

The articles, from today's Boston Globe, and the New York Times on March 25, discuss urban renewal, advocating the dumping huge amounts of money into revitalizing cities, reversing decades of decline.

But, after spending thousands of words and rhetorically spending trillions of dollars, both authors fail to mention one thing -- does anybody want this?

Nicoloi Ouroussoff, in the NY Times article, assures us that the "experts" are all in favor of these grandiose plans and pretenses.

And it demands listening to people who have spent the last decade imagining and in many cases planning for more sustainable, livable and socially just cities.

It doesn't, apparently, demand listening to real people. Nowhere in the nearly 3,500 word article is the phrase, the people are demanding these changes. The entire article is based on the notion that the American people are longing for the days when they were trapped in the "density" of the cities rather than enjoying the "sprawl" of the suburbs.

Over at the NYT's sister paper, the Boston Globe, Robert Campbell assures us the urban density is a wonderful thing that we all should aspire to. Somerville, MA, Campbell tell us, is one of the most densely populated cities in North America (that's good, not bad). Campbell breathlessly assures us that Somerville is a magnet for the Creative Class.

What Campbell fails to mention is the high percentage of folks who makeup this "good" urban denisty is the college students who attend on of the three great universities on (Somerville's) borders.

According to Somerville's own website, the population of residents aged 18 or above is 65,983; the percentage of people 25 or over drops quickly to 53,693. A drop of 12,000 residents. Nearly 70% of residents are renters.

While I am no sociologist, it seems to me that a large part of Somerville's population leaves when they graduate from one of these three great univeristies.

My point is not to disparage Somerville, MA, but to indicate that not everyone endeavors towards living in urban density.

But, it would seem, the authors of these articles have no concern for what people want. They only celebrate what they want.

Here, we see the problem with the Liberals in this country. They don't seems to care what the folks want. As long as they want it, then everybody else must, too.

Ouroussoff tells us that the reason the middle-class left the urban density for the suburban sprawl was based upon falsities:

...middle-class families would flee perceived urban threats — racial friction, potential Soviet bombs — for the supposed security of the suburbs.

In the Globe, Cambell complains, effort to revitalize the cities could create neighborhoods that would attract the wealthy and push out the poor. But, have no fear, government will ensure that the rich and poor live together, whether they like it or not.

One (problem facing urban renewal is) gentrification, the threat that the moneyed class will drive out the less fortunate, destroying diversity and opportunity. Only action by government can keep affordable housing in the city.

The fact that the rich don't want to live with the poor and the poor don't want to live with the rich is irrelevant.

Again, I am not sociolologist, but a quick review of American history show that people don't want to live in urban density. Quite the opposite. Since the very beginning, the American people have shown a propensity towards expanding outwards. Americans have sacrificed everything -- their vey lives included -- to move to new territory in an effort to get away from the closeness of urban life.

Roy Rogers, along with Bing Crosby, David Byrne, Ella Fitzgerald, and others, sang about the desire towards more space between people than the urge to live in a "the place where we meet strangers."

Oh, give me land, lots of land
Under starry skies above,
Don't fence me in.

Let me be by myself in the evening breeze-
Listen to the murmer of the cottonwood trees,
Send me off forever, but I ask you please,
Don't fence me in.

Think about this attitude as you consider the moves made by the President Obama administration. Have you ever heard Obama telling us how much the average person is clamoring for the latests multi-trillion dollar program? Nope.

If put to the test, how many Americans would want an $800 billion "stimulus" package; a trillion dollar bailout for homeowners facing foreclosure; a multi-billion bailout for automakers; a second "stimulus" package.

If you ask that question, you are far ahead of the Obama administration, who doesn't seem to care what the people want.

To quote Massachusets Governor -- and Obama protege -- Duval Patrick, those who are cynical of the liberal vision think they are smart, but they're just pretending to be.

Not only does the Obama administration not want to hear what you think, they don't care.

Obama: Now The AIG Bonuses Are OK?

After spending all of last week trashing AIG for having the nerve to honor contracts to their employees by paying what these people earned, suddenly, President Obama has had a change of heart:

Obama is virtually certain to use Tuesday's prime-time news conference to continue an effort that began over the weekend: cooling the anti-AIG ferocity, now that it threatens to undermine his efforts to bail out the nation's deeply troubled financial sector.

So, when the AIG bonuses politically worked for Obama, he was choked up with anger over it. But, now that he needs the help of AIG's peer companies, it's let's not get crazy here.

Executives of other troubled companies signaled they would not make deals with a federal government that revises agreements after they are signed.

Wasn't it Obama who chastised AIG just last week by demanding that the government "use (their) leverage to pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayer whole."

“Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at A.I.G. warranted any bonuses at all, much less $165 million in extra pay,” Mr. Obama said. “How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?”

Congress took up the torch, attempting the legally-dubious 90% tax on the bonuses.

Many lawmakers felt Obama had encouraged their step, because he called the bonuses reckless, outrageous and unjustified.

One wonders where Congress got that idea:

After the House vote last week, the administration said the action "rightly reflects the outrage that so many feel over the lavish bonuses" to AIG executives.

Countless protesters took to the streets last week, organizing outside the homes of AIG executives, with some issuing death threats. Obama, it seems, did little if anything to quell this fury.

But now, Obama chastises Congress by stating that he would not govern out of anger.

Not surprisingly, the editors at the Boston Globe quickly agreed with Obama this morning:

...while the people's anger at the bonuses may be genuine, lawmaker anger seems more contrived.

Gee. Interesting it took so long for them to come around to what many of us knew already.

This was the same newspaper that editorialized, JUST LAST WEEK:

The public was already furious, and AIG's conduct only fuels more resentment. So far, the Obama administration has been gentle with Wall Street. Wall Street has not returned the favor. Time to take a harder line.

Last week the Obama administration was ready to do just that. Today? Not so much:

(Obama urged) a more tempered response to public furor over bonuses paid to executives of the publicly rescued insurance giant American International Group.

In an essay published in newspapers around the world, Obama claims that "My message is clear..."

Obviously not on this issue....

HELP WANTED: Please Answer This Question

My hope is that someone out there, someone far smarter than I, will read this posting and can answer this question.

Pretty much anyone who can launch a browser and manage to punch up this site is smarter than I, so maybe I will get lucky.

This is a sincere and honest question, no politics, no bias, no bull.

How is is that a president of the United States, any president, can tell a private company how much it can pay its employees?

The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.

One proposal could impose greater requirements on the boards of companies to tie executive compensation more closely to corporate performance and to take other steps to assure that outsize bonuses are not paid before meeting financial goals.

Under what authority can he do that? What part of the Constitution allows this?

Without regard to whether this is the right thing to do or not, how is it that he can do this?

If I own a private investment firm, and want to set up a high risk/high return fund or program, and want to land the best-of-the-best and pay him in kind to make these investment for my private-sector clients, what authority does Obama have to say that I cannot do this?

I am honestly perplexed by this. I understand the notion that if a company is struggling, and the federal government gives or loans this company money, the feds can and probably should require a company to make some concessions regarding salary in exchange for tax dollars.

But here, Obama seems to be saying he wants to control compensation at companies that are not struggling, as a measure to prevent the company from struggling someday, despite there being no evidence that the company will ever struggle or that the compensation structure would lend to that struggle.

This truly is an honest question. If anyone has an answer, please educate me.

Let the Revolution Begin

One can only hope this is the first in many lawsuits to stop, or at least slow, the Obama administration's out-of-control over-reaching.

Washington Mutual's holding company is suing federal regulators for billions of dollars, saying the firesale of the bank's assets to JPMorgan Chase violated its rights.

With a legislature that will do nothing to question or even examine Obama's actions and a news media that will support anything he does, the only hope left is the judiciary.

According to one Seattle television station, the government forced WaMu into a shotgun marriage with new owners for pennies on the dollar. While this transaction took place before Obama took command, WaMu's lawsuit can only bolster other parties into taking legal action against the government take-over mentality that has gripped Washington and accelerated under Obama.

President Obama is getting more brazen with each passing day, seeking ways to circumvent Senate rules and execute more of his agenda through presidential fiat with no congressional input, something needs to be done to stop this governmental avalanche.

The constitution, laws, and contracts mean something in this country, despite Obama's apparent desire to ignore all three.

Somebody has got to do something. Could WaMu's filing be the Suit Heard Round the World?

NJ to Ban "Brazillian" Waxes? Now Come On!!

This is just ludicrous:

The state Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling is moving toward a ban on genital waxing after two women reported being injured in their quest for a smooth bikini line.

The government intrusion into people's personal life is absolutely out of control. This is plain nuts!

So two people get hurt, quite possibly from a technician making a mistake or poor aftercare, now no one can have this procedure done?

Genital waxing can be dangerous in that the hot wax can irritate or tear delicate skin in the bikini area, resulting in infections, ingrown hairs and rashes, according to skin care experts.

Oooh. This is far too dangerous for mother-government to allow anyone to risk an infection or rash!

In high school, I got an infection from having my ear pierced. That it! No more earrings!

This is just plain beyond stupid; nanny-state government at its worst. The federal government must act before one more person suffers an ingrown hair!

Despite such risks, millions of American women — and some men — choose to have the hair down there ripped away, and a majority of salons in New Jersey offer the procedure for between $50 to $60.

So, millions of people have this done and two people get hurt. SHUT IT DOWN!

You have to love that the State of New Jersey has no concern for the people who will lose revenue over this -- during a recession!

Whatever happened to Keep Your Laws Off Of My Body? Does this mean that in NJ a woman cannot have a bikini wax, but its perfectly OK to have an abo... Never mind. Not going there.

Just leave us the Hell alone!

Did Obama Take the Short Bus Home from Leno?

Last night on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, President Obama made the first appearance by a sitting president.

Despite a decent and reasonable sounding interview throughout much of the set, Obama shoved his foot deep in his mouth near the end.

Commenting on his bowling in the White House bowling alley, he criticized himself using and tired and insulting cliche:

It's "like the Special Olympics or something," the president said.

Charming. Classy. Funny.

I know the arguments in his defense; it was just a joke, one of those throw-away lines that everybody uses, etc. That's just the point.

Jokes like this may be just a slang phrase, a meaningless vernacular to some, but to many others (including your correspondent), it is real life. Using phrases like this show a certain level of insensitivity towards people with special needs.

He didn't mean to be insulting, but the fact that he doesn't find using these terms derogatory indicates that not offending developmentally delayed kids as sacrosanct as protecting other groups of people.

Using phrases like this should be as unacceptable as telling a Jewish joke or dropping the "N-word." That's the problem; for Obama, risking insult to special needs kids is not as important to him as it should be.

He's supposed to be the President of the United States. Can't we expect better than Special Olympics jokes?

Do as Feds Say, Not as They Do: Fannie and Freddie Give Bonuses -- Despite Losing Money

This is getting too easy.

Fannie Mae plans to pay retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four key executives as part of a plan to keep hundreds of employees from leaving the government-controlled company.

Fannie lost $59 billion last year and begged $15 billion from the federal government. And the losses are expected to continue:

Fannie Mae's losses are likely to continue, the company said. "We expect the market conditions that contributed to our net loss for each quarter of 2008 to continue and possibly worsen in 2009," the company said.

But, despite the catastrophic losses, Fannie plans to dole out "retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four key executives."

In response to this "federally run mortgage giant" paying bonuses to executives who helped drive the company deep into the red, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) demanded of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner: "It is time that we stop rewarding failure."

No. I am sorry. Cummings said that about AIG; he has been silent on the Fannie bonuses.

Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-MA angrily compared the Fannie bonuses to "the captain and the crew of the ship reserving the lifeboats."

Ooops. Lynch was criticizing AIG too. I am sure he will be out there protecting the tax payers from the Fannie bonuses any day now.

TV talking heads are chattering about these "retention" bonuses; why pay a retention bonus to anyone in this economy? Where else are these people going to work?

Ugh; that was AIG, too, huh?

Meanwhile, over at Freddie Mac, the other "federally run mortgage giant," bonuses are on the way too. Like sister Fannie, Freddie has lost tons of money -- $50 billion last year alone. And keeping in the family tradition, Freddie came to Washington with hands out, hands much larger than Fannie.

However, unlike Fannie, Freddie has yet to disclose the amount of the bonuses and to whom they are being paid.

Old friend Barney Frank (D-MA) was quick to demand the names of the executives receiving the money:

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the Financial Services Committee, demanded that the company submit to Congress a list "of people who received the bonuses..." If the names were not provided "without restriction," Frank warned, he would ask the committee to vote to subpoena them.

"We do intend to use our power to get the names," Frank wheezed in anger.

Ooops, I did it again! If you couldn't guess, Frank wasn't talking about Freddie Mac.

Well, members of Congress stumbled over each other to get the tax payers' money back from the Freddie executives:

"Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

"If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," echoed Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "So for those of you who are getting these bonuses, be forewarned -- you will not be getting to keep them."

Darn it. AIG.

It must be the late hour. I keep expecting the same voices who condemned AIG for handing out bonuses despite the company losing money to be railing against Fannie and Freddie for handing out bonuses despite the company losing money.

I just know that the Democratic power elite will not stand by as Freddie and Fannie spend tax payer bailout funds on big-buck bonuses for a few rich executives.

Right?

I best not hold my breath....

AIG Outrage: DON'T FALL FOR IT!!!!

A magician is successful if he can distract your attention from what he is really doing; it's called sleight of hand. He does something with his right hand so you don't see what he is doing with his left hand.

That is what this fabricated outrage over the AIG bonuses is: it is sleight of hand; it is a distraction that Obama and his fellow Liberals are trying to pull over your eyes so you don't see what he is really doing.

Some estimates have Obama's spending costing this country $9 trillion dollars. That's $9,000,000,000,000. The ultimate cost of the $800 billion "stimulus" package is estimated to be over $3 trillion. That's $3,250,000,000,000.

Obama is getting all choked up with anger over $165 million handed out through legally binding contracts to executives at AIG. Are you joking Barack?

According to AIG, they were advised that not only are they obligated to pay by March 15, but if they try to ignore the contracts, the penalty is paying double. AIG says the Connecticut Wage Act, as well as employment laws in France, Japan, the U.K. and Hong Kong, could give employees legal recourse to quit and sue.

The U.S. government has given AIG $170 billion in recent months. These bonus that have everyone in such a tizzy represent less than 1% of the money! Where is the outrage that the Feds spent $170 billion of OUR money to prop up this company?

Where is the outrage that we gave $25 billion to General Motors only to have them come back for more?

Where is the outrage at Obama spending $800 billion on this so-called "stimulus" package, only to have Nancy Pelosi call for ANOTHER "stimlus" package.

If you are angry with AIG over the way they are spending this tiny fraction of bailout funds (assuming the money for these contracts was not already put aside, and not coming from the bailout), then you are being duped. Taken for a fool. A sucker.

The O-bots tried to distract us for a couple of weeks with pumped-up anger at radio and television talk-show hosts. That failed.

Now, they are trying to get us all hot-and-bothered that a company would actually honor contracts to its employees.

We have members of Congress actually planning to use the U.S. tax code to target specific individuals. This is absolutely unprecedented and anti-constitutional, if not outright UN-constitutional.

Don't fall for the shell game. Don't fall for the smoke and mirrors.

Don't be hoodwinked by this administration and it's radical left-wing goons who want you to think that honoring a legally-binding contract is somehow evil and wrong.

Whether or not these AIG clowns "deserve" this money is not ours for debate. They are owed this money and any move by the Democrats to steal it back is what is evil and wrong.

"It is time that we stop rewarding failure," Rep. Elijah Cummings wrote in a letter Monday to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

I couldn't agree more. How about we start by getting rid of the program to bail out people who don't pay their mortgage.

FDIC to Bank: MAKE MORE BAD LOANS!!

Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder in ObamaLand, we now have the FDIC chastising a bank for running itself properly.

Listen to the record of accomplishment of East Bridgewater Savings Bank of Massaschusetts:

• Zero bad or delinquent loans.
• Zero foreclosures
• No money set aside in 2008 for anticipated loan losses
• 28 cents in loans for every dollar in deposit (the average loan-to-deposit ratio among similar size savings banks is more than 90 percent).

How does the FDIC recognize this bank's record of accomplishment?

By slapping them with a "needs to improve" rating under the Community Preservation Act. Of course.

Recall what I, and many others, told you six months ago about the CPA:

In 1977, Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act. One of the basic principles of the CRA is that "regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities." (Sec. 802.a.1)

So, instead of serving the needs of the bank's customers, employees, owners, and investors, the bank must serve the needs of the community. A private company, owned by private citizens, guarding the money of other private citizens is compelled by law to help meet the credit needs of its assessment area.

That is, the bank must change its standards to match the creditworthiness of people who happen to live near the bank.

(And here I have been trying to keep my credit clean so that I could meet the credit guidelines of the banks I want to work with. Silly me.)

It is anti-America, anti-constitutional, and anti-capitalism for the federal government to affect the lending policies of a private institution that is committing no crime.

Nonsensical feel-good Liberal notions like the Community Reinvestment Act is the primary reason why this country is in its current mess. Rewarding banks for suicidal lending practices and chastising banks for doing what is in the best interest of the banks and its constituents is sheer lunacy.

Welcome to the United States of Obama.

Soldiers to Pay for War Injuries -- The Latest Obama Outrage

Obama wants injured soldiers to pay for their own health care for injuries sustain while at war.

What more do you need than that to understand that President Obama is truly out of his mind.

In two short months, we have suffered myriad puzzling proposals and plans from Obama. But, this is beyond the pale, beyond reason, beyond understanding.

According to an article from the PR Newswire, Obama plans "force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries."

Forcing injured soldiers to take care of medical expenses themselves will lead to their having to pay deductibles and co-pays, expend their insurance limits, face rate increases, and avoid getting treatment. And who would cover the costs should a soldier not have insurance, such as the kid who goes straight from high school into the military? Would Obama send him the bill directly?

Likely this was just a consideration tossed around in a brain-storming session that will never get enacted. Even the far-left leaning Sen. Patty Murray described the idea as "dead on arrival."

However, just considering such a plan would be an insult and a betrayal to the men and women who put their lives on the line for this country. The idea should have been shot down immediately as unthinkable.

Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion and the "heads of ten colleague organizations" sent a letter to Obama which included the following piece of absolute logic and truth:

There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. ...placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."

Compare this proposal with the words of the veteran-supporting candidate. From Obama's own website:

Obama and Biden will improve the quality of health care for veterans... (and) ... improve mental health treatment for troops and veterans suffering from combat-related psychological injuries.

He might improve soliders' healthcare; but he's not paying for it!

Immigrants Welcome to Apply for Stimulus Jobs -- Just Not Legal Ones

The massive spending packages generated by the Obama administration hold the promise of countless new jobs.

For better or worse, some of those jobs will go to illegal immigrants. According to two studies, up to 15% of the jobs will likely go to illegals.

Thankfully for them, our intrepid and brave Democratic Senators are working hard to ensure that illegals have full access to these tax-payer funded jobs.

"A lot of good people are out of work, looking for jobs," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) said. "We've got to make sure those jobs go to people who are here legally."

However, even with unemployment reaching past 8% nationally, and even higher among the "unskilled" workers who would get stimulus jobs, the Dems put passing this "imperfect" bill ahead of helping to guarantee the jobs go to U.S. workers.

Democratic leaders opposed his amendment because it would have slowed passage of the overall spending bill by requiring a second vote in the House.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he... opposes attempts to force employers to use it.

e-Verify is the federal government's own program to help employers ensure that potential employees are legally allowed to work for them. The program would have required federal contractors and sub-contractors to use e-Verify starting in May; the Democrats, always looking out for the American worker, is content to let the program shut down before then.

Federal contractors may NOT use E-Verify to verify current employees until the rule becomes effective and they are awarded a contract that includes the FAR E-Verify Clause.

Jobs for illegal immigrants is good, apparently.

However, jobs for legal immigrants, not good.

If this article from the International Herald Tribune (the Global Edition of the New York Times) is correct, banks who receive bail-out funds must "withdraw job offers to foreign citizens." Presumably, the article is referencing legal immigrants, as major banks are less likely to offer jobs to illegals (remember, the federal government contractors can hire illegals, other private companies cannot).

OK, so the Dems aren't explicitly saying that federal contractors should hire illegals, they just aren't going to help the contractors determine who is allowed to work in the U.S.

So the moral here?
Federal tax dollars to illegal immigrants = GOOD
Federal tax dollars to legal immigrants = BAD

You make sense of it; I can't.

Obama: The Most Clueless President Ever?

Does anybody in the Obama administration have a clue what he or she is doing? Here are just a few examples of the ineptitude shown by the current residents of the White House:

I Said No More Earmarks, Starting .... Now! OK .... Now! I Really Mean It This Time!

On the campaign trail, Obama promised that he would not tolerate earmarks and pork projects. Well, he is finally putting his foot down. No more pork!

"[Such bills] will not happen when the president has the full legislative and appropriations process in place," Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told CNN's "State of the Union with John King."

Of course, this comes only after passing a trillion dollars worth of pork, including some 10,000 earmark items.

Obama will keep his promise to not allow pork and earmarks -- starting, uh, tomorrow!

A Yankee Swap in King Obama's Court

As for foreign policy, Team Obama has shown its cluelessness in two "presents" given to foreign dignitaries.

When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to Washington to visit Obama, Brown delivered a set of very thoughtful and meaningful gifts for Obama, including a wooden pen-holder made of wood from the anti-slave ship Gannet.

In exchange, Obama gave Brown some DVDs -- a gift that the London Daily Mirror called "as exciting as a pair of socks." Obama must have dispatched some intern to the Wal-Mart for a few flicks as a gift to a man blind in one eye and going blind in the other, who might not be able to play the DVDs as European players use a different format. Classy move from one who is supposed to be the hippest president ever.

But, in Obama's defence, Brown is a hard guy to buy for, giving away the cool bomber jacket given by George W. Bush.

Maybe that's why Obama returned to England a loaner bust of Churchill given to us after 9/11.
If you don't like Churchill (and Obama seems to have reason), put the bust in Clinton's little tryst space or force Joe Biden to hold it for awhile over at the Naval Observatory.

At least Obama's team didn't need to figure out what Brown might like for supper. No white tie for this guy:

Has the financial crisis become so bad that the White House could not afford a casserole?

But, Obama dispatched someone to the White House gift shop for toy models of the president's helicopter for Brown's kids.

For Instant Peace in the World, Press HERE!

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a puzzling gift to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavro a big red "Reset" button, so the U.S. and Russia can "reset our relationship." Clinton and Lavro then pushed the button together.

You've got to be kidding me! Next, Clinton will stop by Staples on the way to a Palestinian/Israeli negotiation to pick up a couple of "That Was Easy" buttons. Yikes.

Besides, I thought we didn't want the Russians pressing the red button.

But, I Am Soooooo Tired!

But, all these gaffes and rookie mistakes can be excused because Obama and his skeletal team are tired.

Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been "overwhelmed" by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.

Poor baby. And to think, people used to make fun of President Reagan's reported napping. Sounds like he had the right idea.

Who Knew That Being President was a Full-Time Job?

Being president is not like being a Senator; the president actually has responsibilities!

Oh, but he has so much to do!

Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president's surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk.

How could Obama possibly have known that the President of the United States might have a thing or two on his plate to deal with. And to think, some of us thought Obama didn't have enough experience to be president.

At least he won't fall asleep regarding the War on Terror.

A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama's inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to "even fake an interest in foreign policy".

It's just a good thing that nothing important is going on elsewhere in the world, eh?

After all, the Taliban in Afghanistan just need a good talking to. They're basically decent people, too.

Help Wanted. Only Tax Cheats Need Apply

But, it's not Obama's fault. He just hasn't had the chance to hire enough people yet, it seems.

Of the 15 key Treasury Department positions that require Senate confirmation, only one has been filled. Stuart Levey, a leftover from the previous administration, who as under secretary of the treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence...

A surprising number of Obama appointees still haven't had a Senate hearing, and most of those aren't even schedule yet.

Besides, Obama and his administration are busy attacking major media figures like Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer. How dare you question the president!

But, I guess that's what happens when you hire the PC Guy to be your press secretary.

Does anybody have a Reset button for the November elections?