Archive for April 5th, 2009

From the Left: More Lousy Obama Nominees

April 5, 2009

And there are still those that think the impostor in chief isn’t all about destroying America? Read on…

According to Harold Koh, Obama’s nominee for the State Department’s legal adviser and considered a possible future Obama Supreme Court pick, Shariah law (i.e., Islamic law) may properly be used to determine certain court cases. That’s just one of Koh’s off-the-wall positions. A former dean of Yale Law School, Koh is a proponent of what’s called a “transnational legal process,” which equates our constitutional process with laws instituted in other nations. That’s akin to accepting the currency of Zimbabwe (where a loaf of bread can cost billions) at a 1-to-1 ratio for our dollar — discounting the administration’s best efforts to match Zimbabwean hyperinflation. Koh believes that it’s “appropriate for the Supreme Court to construe our Constitution in the light of foreign and international law” in its decisions, regardless of the will of American voters. Think same-sex marriage, affirmative action and detainment of terrorists.

Koh has also claimed that together North Korea, Saddam-era Iraq and the United States compose an “axis of disobedience” because each “flagrantly” has disobeyed international law. But as far as disregarding the law himself, in 1994 he said, “I’d rather have [former Supreme Court Justice Harry] Blackmun, who uses the wrong reasoning in Roe [v. Wade] to get the right results, and let other people figure out the right reasoning.” In light of his obvious hostility to America and its Constitution, how can Koh take the oath to support and defend them?

In other nomination news, yet another Obama pick fessed up and paid back taxes this week — and it’s not an April Fool’s joke. Health and Human Services nominee Kathleen Sebelius, who replaced tax cheat Tom Daschle, amended three years’ worth of returns and paid nearly $8,000 to the IRS for “unintentional errors.” Asked for his thoughts, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said, “I think she should be confirmed.”

SOURCE

Department of Military Correctness: Murtha’s Award

April 5, 2009

In yet another mind-boggling illustration that much of the upper echelon of American leadership, even some military leadership, is totally detached from reality, the United States Navy has given Rep. “Fightin'” John Murtha (D-PA) its Distinguished Public Service Award, the highest public service recognition given to a non-employee by the Department of the Navy. This would be the same John Murtha who, in May 2006, slandered U.S. Marines by accusing them of war crimes, saying they were nothing but “cold-blooded killers” who “murdered innocent civilians.”

The Navy’s perverse citation says that Murtha “ensured” that the America’s sailors and Marines “were provided the resources necessary to effectively conduct the global war on terrorism.” Words fail us in trying to describe the juxtaposition of Murtha’s award with his actions in the real world.

Needless to say, there are plenty of folks who are displeased with the Navy’s actions. The director of the Vets For Freedom Educational Institute, Gabe Ledeen, who is also a Marine veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, has posted a “Don’t Honor John Murtha” petition online, rightly saying that Murtha is unworthy of such an award. The petition calls on Murtha to “apologize for slandering the Marines … and for undermining the efforts of those servicemen and women who fought in Iraq,” pointing out that Murtha “has routinely and deliberately undermined the United States military, slandered servicemen serving in combat, and caused irreparable damage to our international reputation.” If Murtha doesn’t apologize, the award should be rescinded. Perhaps those in the Navy responsible for this decision should also apologize for giving a lying, treasonous coward one of its highest awards.

SOURCE

Hope ‘n’ Change: The (Toxic) Elephant in the Room

April 5, 2009

What follows is an article that points out the utter failure by the current administration to understand fundamental principles of economics, and just about every other aspect of governing.

The nation’s Kommissar of Economic Cheerleading, a.k.a. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, unveiled his plan to save our ailing economy this week — the so-called Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP). The announcement was punctuated by a much-ballyhooed 500-point surge in the Dow, an indication that the market, at least, likes PPIP. But why wouldn’t it? Investors tend to appreciate “free” money.

At its core, PPIP provides investors with mega-leveraged government financing. Patterned roughly after the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) thrift bailout plan of the late ’80s, PPIP is composed of two parts: The first part addresses “legacy” loans; the second, “legacy” securities. “Legacy,” incidentally, is the new kinder-gentler buzzword for “toxic,” as in “toxic assets,” the former nom du jour for radioactive financial instruments like subprime mortgages and mortgage-derived securities.

PPIP offers private investors enormous amounts of cheap, taxpayer-backed financing for every dollar they put up of their own money. Under the program, government lends up to 85 percent of investor funding, with the Treasury “investing” one dollar of taxpayer money for each private capital dollar to cover the remaining 15 percent.

From an investor’s standpoint, of course, there’s no personal downside. Investors leverage government money at a 6-to-1 ratio and the lion’s share of any losses generated are absorbed by taxpayers. Thus, if a borrower defaults on his mortgage, the government would only be able to seize the real estate — private investors walk away relatively unhurt.

Independent of taxpayer liability, however, the program is not without risk. As indicated by Vincent Reinhart, American Enterprise Institute resident scholar and director of the Monetary Affairs Division of the Federal Reserve, PPIP assumes that “assets are troubled because their true values are obscured by irrational self-doubt and market illiquidity, and not by fundamental problems in the prospects of repayment. It also assumes that the solution to problems created by excessive leverage is for government to encourage more leverage.”

Apart from PPIP, our strategic issue, the elephant in the room, is one of accountability. Helped by a willing media, the central focus has been shifting from Congress and the Executive branches to business. Still, for all the finger pointing at banks and insurers, and for all post-hoc economic crater repairing, we hope those as yet unenlightened Americans who have been blinded by the Obama media will soon learn the origins of this mess: government.

SOURCE

The AIG Saga Continues

April 5, 2009

The Senate this week significantly slowed the progress of a punitive 90 percent tax on bonuses for executives of companies receiving federal bailout money. Reflecting the cooling position of the White House, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the upper chamber would first debate a bill for national service followed by the 2010 budget. Last week, Reid planned to bring the bill to the floor right after it passed the House 328-93. So, what changed Harry’s mind?

President Obama’s recent statement that “We cannot govern out of anger” played a part, though this was also a significant change from what he had said just a few days prior. Obama first said he would “pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses.” Therein lies the problem. This tax may actually be unconstitutional, and if the White House is not going to support it, then the Senate is likely to retreat.

The Constitution specifically outlaws bills of attainder, measures that impose punishments on a select group through legislation without trial. The tax currently being proposed is a direct result of the revelation that American International Group, the poster child of the recent federal bailout craze, was about to pay $165 million in bonuses to its top executives. Congress was outraged that AIG would have the nerve to make such a move, particularly after the federal government bought an 80 percent stake in the foundering company for the bargain price of $170 billion. Claiming that their punitive tax is not a bill of attainder is a bit disingenuous. However, the statements of politicians alone cannot be counted on to hold up in court. After all, politicians will say anything. Therefore, the burden of proof in the constitutionality of the tax lies in its impetus. Is it meant to punish greedy AIG execs, or is it meant to protect the massive, and unsolicited, support of the taxpayers?

On the other hand, the issue may just fizzle out. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo successfully persuaded at least 15 AIG bonus recipients to return up to $50 million in bonus money. He hopes to recover up to $80 million in total — the other $85 million was given to employees outside the U.S. and is therefore, as even he admits, out of his jurisdiction. Cuomo’s efforts may thus save the constitutional law professor in chief from getting into a protracted argument over constitutional issues. After all, the president needs to preserve his diminishing political capital for another day.

One area in which Obama is considering spending some political capital is his idea to regulate pay for all executives, regardless of prior federal involvement. If he wants “Atlas Shrugged” to further come to life, that’s one way to do it. Companies that cannot determine the salaries of their own management will take their business overseas, and executives who don’t get paid what they are worth could go the way of Rand’s protagonist, John Galt. Government has no business making decisions regarding pay in the private sector, any more than it does in making decisions on prices — an unconstitutional folly perpetrated before.

An interesting addendum: AIG is suing the IRS to recover $306 million in taxes, interest, penalties and court costs. AIG maintains that the IRS inaccurately determined the company improperly claimed $62 million in tax credits and that the agency also billed AIG for taxes it claims the company should have paid. Many see the lawsuit as the high point of gall, but the fact is, if the company did indeed overpay its taxes or was improperly charged by the IRS, it has a duty to rectify the situation for its shareholders, who are now predominantly American taxpayers.

SOURCE

States Rebellion Pending

April 5, 2009

This article from the Patriot Post (see sidebar) points out what many blogs have been posting about for months.

States Rebellion Pending

By Walter E. Williams

Our Colonial ancestors petitioned and pleaded with King George III to get his boot off their necks. He ignored their pleas, and in 1776, they rightfully declared unilateral independence and went to war. Today it’s the same story except Congress is the one usurping the rights of the people and the states, making King George’s actions look mild in comparison. Our constitutional ignorance — perhaps contempt, coupled with the fact that we’ve become a nation of wimps, sissies and supplicants — has made us easy prey for Washington’s tyrannical forces. But that might be changing a bit. There are rumblings of a long overdue re-emergence of Americans’ characteristic spirit of rebellion.

Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There’s speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

You might ask, “Isn’t the 10th Amendment that no-good states’ rights amendment that Dixie governors, such as George Wallace and Orval Faubus, used to thwart school desegregation and black civil rights?” That’s the kind of constitutional disrespect and ignorance that big-government proponents, whether they’re liberals or conservatives, want you to have. The reason is that they want Washington to have total control over our lives. The Founders tried to limit that power with the 10th Amendment, which reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

New Hampshire’s 10th Amendment resolution typifies others and, in part, reads: “That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General (federal) Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” Put simply, these 10th Amendment resolutions insist that the states and their people are the masters and that Congress and the White House are the servants. Put yet another way, Washington is a creature of the states, not the other way around.

Congress and the White House will laugh off these state resolutions. State legislatures must take measures that put some teeth into their 10th Amendment resolutions. Congress will simply threaten a state, for example, with a cutoff of highway construction funds if it doesn’t obey a congressional mandate, such as those that require seat belt laws or that lower the legal blood-alcohol level to .08 for drivers. States might take a lead explored by Colorado.

In 1994, the Colorado Legislature passed a 10th Amendment resolution and later introduced a bill titled “State Sovereignty Act.” Had the State Sovereignty Act passed both houses of the legislature, it would have required all people liable for any federal tax that’s a component of the highway users fund, such as a gasoline tax, to remit those taxes directly to the Colorado Department of Revenue. The money would have been deposited in an escrow account called the “Federal Tax Fund” and remitted monthly to the IRS, along with a list of payees and respective amounts paid. If Congress imposed sanctions on Colorado for failure to obey an unconstitutional mandate and penalized the state by withholding funds due, say $5 million for highway construction, the State Sovereignty Act would have prohibited the state treasurer from remitting any funds in the escrow account to the IRS. Instead, Colorado would have imposed a $5 million surcharge on the Federal Tax Fund account to continue the highway construction.

The eight state legislatures that have enacted 10th Amendment resolutions deserve our praise, but their next step is to give them teeth.