a goodie from GEORGIA A.
HOW BIG IS WAL-MART?
This should boggle your mind!!
And scare you as well!
HOW BIG IS WAL-MART?
1 . At Wal-Mart, Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day.
2 . This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.
5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer. And most can't speak English
6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the World.
7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.
8. During this same period, 31 Supermarket chains sought bankruptcy (including Winn-Dixie).
9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.
10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are SuperCenters; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.
11. This year, 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at a Wal-Mart store.
(Earth's population is approximately 6.5 billion.)
12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart
13 Let Wal Mart bail out Wall Street, and GM, and Ford, and Chrysler......
Friday, December 5, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Subject: Re: Navy Petty Officer Mike Monsoor
Subject:
Re: Navy Petty Officer Mike Monsoor
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008.
Navy Petty Officer Mike Monsoor
PO2 (EOD2) Mike Monsoor, a Navy EOD Technician, was awarded
the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously for jumping on a grenade in Iraq , giving his life to save his fellow SEALs.
During Mike Monsoor's funeral in San Diego , as his coffin was
being moved from the hearse to the grave site at Ft. Rosecrans National Cemetery , SEALs were lined up on both sides of the pallbearers route forming a column of twos, with the coffin moving up the center.
As Mike's coffin passed, each SEAL,
having removed his gold Trident from his uniform, slapped it
down embedding the Trident in the wooden coffin. The slaps
were audible from across the cemetery; by the time the coffin
arrived grave side, it looked as though it had a gold inlay from
all the Tridents pinned to it. This was a fitting send-off for a
warrior hero.
This should be front-page news instead of the crap we see
every day.
Since the media won't make this news, I choose to make it
news by forwarding it on. I am proud of our military and the
men and women who serve in it. They represent the highest
and finest values of this country.
This has never been reported that we know of by the media.
Surprise, surprise. You can help by sending this on to a few
of your friends. God bless the men and women of the United
States military.
Re: Navy Petty Officer Mike Monsoor
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008.
Navy Petty Officer Mike Monsoor
PO2 (EOD2) Mike Monsoor, a Navy EOD Technician, was awarded
the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously for jumping on a grenade in Iraq , giving his life to save his fellow SEALs.
During Mike Monsoor's funeral in San Diego , as his coffin was
being moved from the hearse to the grave site at Ft. Rosecrans National Cemetery , SEALs were lined up on both sides of the pallbearers route forming a column of twos, with the coffin moving up the center.
As Mike's coffin passed, each SEAL,
having removed his gold Trident from his uniform, slapped it
down embedding the Trident in the wooden coffin. The slaps
were audible from across the cemetery; by the time the coffin
arrived grave side, it looked as though it had a gold inlay from
all the Tridents pinned to it. This was a fitting send-off for a
warrior hero.
This should be front-page news instead of the crap we see
every day.
Since the media won't make this news, I choose to make it
news by forwarding it on. I am proud of our military and the
men and women who serve in it. They represent the highest
and finest values of this country.
This has never been reported that we know of by the media.
Surprise, surprise. You can help by sending this on to a few
of your friends. God bless the men and women of the United
States military.
A MODERN PARABLE....
A MODERN PARABLE....
A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (Ford) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.
On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.
The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing.
Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.
They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.
Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents, and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.
They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners, and free pens for the rower There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes, and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India.
Sadly, The End.
Here's something else to think about:
Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages.
TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter's results:
TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.
Ford folks are still scratching their heads.
IF THIS WEREN'T TRUE, IT MIGHT BE FUNNY.
A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (Ford) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.
On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.
The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing.
Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.
They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.
Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents, and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.
They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners, and free pens for the rower There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes, and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India.
Sadly, The End.
Here's something else to think about:
Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages.
TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter's results:
TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.
Ford folks are still scratching their heads.
IF THIS WEREN'T TRUE, IT MIGHT BE FUNNY.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Obama Disputed Hillary Clinton’s Credentials Before
WHICH SIDE OF THE FACE DO WE BELEIVE, THE SIDE THAT SAID SHE HAD NO FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE DURING ELECTION TO NOW SHE DOES??? WHICH IS IT PLEASE???
Obama Disputed Hillary Clinton’s Credentials Before He Applauded Them
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
By Matthew Cover
President-elect Obama names Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to be his secretary of state.(AP photo)(CNSNews.com) – President-elect Barack Obama designated Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to be his next secretary of state Monday, despite having spent much of the previous two years questioning her foreign-policy credentials.
During the campaign for the Democratic nomination, Obama mocked Clinton’s primary claim that she possessed the necessary foreign policy experience to be president.
“What exactly is this foreign policy expertise?” Obama said to reporters in March, while flying from a campaign event in Texas. “Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no.”
In spite of these doubts, Obama praised Clinton’s credentials Monday, saying she would be able to advance America’s interests due to her knowledge of world affairs and familiarity with world leaders.
“She is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence, who knows many of the world's leaders, who will command respect in every capital, and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world,” he said.
Obama said that his new foreign policy team, which will be led by Clinton, would change America’s foreign policy for the better.
“I am confident that this is the team that we need to make a new beginning for American national security,” he told reporters at the announcement.
However, Obama had expressed exactly the opposite view of Clinton during the primary campaign.
“It’s what’s wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected,” Obama said in a January radio ad. “Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything and change nothing.”
Obama also said Monday that he picked Clinton for her intelligence, toughness and work ethic, noting that his new team would need to pursue a new strategy around the globe.
“She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and toughness, and a remarkable work ethic,” the president-elect said of Clinton.
He added that his new team must “pursue a new strategy that skillfully uses, balances, and integrates all elements of American power: our military and diplomacy, our intelligence and law enforcement, our economy and the power of our moral example.”
But last year, Obama’s campaign specifically said that the candidate didn’t need the advice of someone like Clinton, “someone whose ideas were more in line with those of President George W. Bush” than with Obama’s.
“Barack Obama doesn’t need lectures in political courage from someone who followed George Bush to war in Iraq,” the campaign said in a December 2007 statement.
A few months later, Obama reinforced the sentiments of his campaign, saying that Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy wasn’t the change Americans wanted.
“Real change isn’t voting for George Bush’s war in Iraq and then telling the American people it was actually voting for more diplomacy,” he said in March.
In his introduction of Clinton on Monday, however, Obama also seemed to contradict the prior statements of two of his top incoming advisors; both of whom said that Clinton had never been involved in foreign policy issues before.
Greg Craig, incoming chief counsel, said of Clinton in a March conference call: “There’s no evidence that she participated or asserted herself in any of the crises that took place during the eight years of the Clinton presidency. White House records show that she was consistently absent when critical decisions were being made and that her trips abroad were largely ceremonial.”
Susan Rice, Obama’s choice to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, meanwhile, said that a First Lady doesn’t deal with international issues.
“There is no crisis to be dealt with or managed when you are First Lady,” Rice said in March. “You don't get that kind of experience by being married to a commander-in-chief.”
In the most hotly debated dust-up of the primary season – over Clinton’s famous “3 a.m.” ad asking which candidate would better handle a crisis call at three in the morning -- Obama himself said Clinton had already failed the foreign policy test.
“The question is, what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone,” Obama said. “In fact, we’ve had a red-phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. Sen. Clinton gave the wrong answer.”
On Monday, meanwhile, Obama called Clinton “a friend, a colleague, a source of counsel.”
Obama Disputed Hillary Clinton’s Credentials Before He Applauded Them
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
By Matthew Cover
President-elect Obama names Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to be his secretary of state.(AP photo)(CNSNews.com) – President-elect Barack Obama designated Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to be his next secretary of state Monday, despite having spent much of the previous two years questioning her foreign-policy credentials.
During the campaign for the Democratic nomination, Obama mocked Clinton’s primary claim that she possessed the necessary foreign policy experience to be president.
“What exactly is this foreign policy expertise?” Obama said to reporters in March, while flying from a campaign event in Texas. “Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no.”
In spite of these doubts, Obama praised Clinton’s credentials Monday, saying she would be able to advance America’s interests due to her knowledge of world affairs and familiarity with world leaders.
“She is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence, who knows many of the world's leaders, who will command respect in every capital, and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world,” he said.
Obama said that his new foreign policy team, which will be led by Clinton, would change America’s foreign policy for the better.
“I am confident that this is the team that we need to make a new beginning for American national security,” he told reporters at the announcement.
However, Obama had expressed exactly the opposite view of Clinton during the primary campaign.
“It’s what’s wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected,” Obama said in a January radio ad. “Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything and change nothing.”
Obama also said Monday that he picked Clinton for her intelligence, toughness and work ethic, noting that his new team would need to pursue a new strategy around the globe.
“She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and toughness, and a remarkable work ethic,” the president-elect said of Clinton.
He added that his new team must “pursue a new strategy that skillfully uses, balances, and integrates all elements of American power: our military and diplomacy, our intelligence and law enforcement, our economy and the power of our moral example.”
But last year, Obama’s campaign specifically said that the candidate didn’t need the advice of someone like Clinton, “someone whose ideas were more in line with those of President George W. Bush” than with Obama’s.
“Barack Obama doesn’t need lectures in political courage from someone who followed George Bush to war in Iraq,” the campaign said in a December 2007 statement.
A few months later, Obama reinforced the sentiments of his campaign, saying that Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy wasn’t the change Americans wanted.
“Real change isn’t voting for George Bush’s war in Iraq and then telling the American people it was actually voting for more diplomacy,” he said in March.
In his introduction of Clinton on Monday, however, Obama also seemed to contradict the prior statements of two of his top incoming advisors; both of whom said that Clinton had never been involved in foreign policy issues before.
Greg Craig, incoming chief counsel, said of Clinton in a March conference call: “There’s no evidence that she participated or asserted herself in any of the crises that took place during the eight years of the Clinton presidency. White House records show that she was consistently absent when critical decisions were being made and that her trips abroad were largely ceremonial.”
Susan Rice, Obama’s choice to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, meanwhile, said that a First Lady doesn’t deal with international issues.
“There is no crisis to be dealt with or managed when you are First Lady,” Rice said in March. “You don't get that kind of experience by being married to a commander-in-chief.”
In the most hotly debated dust-up of the primary season – over Clinton’s famous “3 a.m.” ad asking which candidate would better handle a crisis call at three in the morning -- Obama himself said Clinton had already failed the foreign policy test.
“The question is, what kind of judgment will you exercise when you pick up that phone,” Obama said. “In fact, we’ve had a red-phone moment. It was the decision to invade Iraq. Sen. Clinton gave the wrong answer.”
On Monday, meanwhile, Obama called Clinton “a friend, a colleague, a source of counsel.”
Monday, December 1, 2008
Don't Blame Bush For Subprime Mess
Don't Blame Bush For Subprime Mess
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Housing Crisis: A new report from the Associated Press claims that the mortgage meltdown is due largely to President Bush's failure to act in 2005. Sounds plausible — until you actually look at the facts.
"Under pressure, U.S. eased lending rules," reads the AP special report's headline. But "U.S." is really a misnomer. The news service really means "Bush."
"The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed," the report asserts.
The report goes on to catalog what it says are Bush's crimes. Namely, that his administration bowed to "aggressive lobbying" by banks and delayed doing anything for a year. This, says the AP, is "emblematic of a philosophy that trusted market forces and discounted the need for government intervention in the economy."
All utterly wrong.
Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces — most recently, in yesterday's paper — detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.
Despite this clear record, we're now besieged by enterprising journalists blaming Republican "deregulation" or the president's failure to recognize the seriousness of the problem or act. But these claims fall apart, as a partial history of the last decade shows.
Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."
In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Did Democrats in Congress welcome it? Hardly.
"I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del.
Unfortunately, it was broke.
In November 2003, just two months after Frank's remarks, Bush's top economist, Gregory Mankiw, warned: "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole." He too proposed reforms, and they too went nowhere.
In the next two years, a parade of White House officials traipsed to Capitol Hill, calling repeatedly for GSE reform. They were ignored. Even after several multibillion-dollar accounting errors by Fannie and Freddie, Congress put off reforms.
In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.
Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."
Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Housing Crisis: A new report from the Associated Press claims that the mortgage meltdown is due largely to President Bush's failure to act in 2005. Sounds plausible — until you actually look at the facts.
"Under pressure, U.S. eased lending rules," reads the AP special report's headline. But "U.S." is really a misnomer. The news service really means "Bush."
"The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed," the report asserts.
The report goes on to catalog what it says are Bush's crimes. Namely, that his administration bowed to "aggressive lobbying" by banks and delayed doing anything for a year. This, says the AP, is "emblematic of a philosophy that trusted market forces and discounted the need for government intervention in the economy."
All utterly wrong.
Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces — most recently, in yesterday's paper — detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.
Despite this clear record, we're now besieged by enterprising journalists blaming Republican "deregulation" or the president's failure to recognize the seriousness of the problem or act. But these claims fall apart, as a partial history of the last decade shows.
Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."
In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Did Democrats in Congress welcome it? Hardly.
"I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del.
Unfortunately, it was broke.
In November 2003, just two months after Frank's remarks, Bush's top economist, Gregory Mankiw, warned: "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole." He too proposed reforms, and they too went nowhere.
In the next two years, a parade of White House officials traipsed to Capitol Hill, calling repeatedly for GSE reform. They were ignored. Even after several multibillion-dollar accounting errors by Fannie and Freddie, Congress put off reforms.
In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.
Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."
Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish.
Email To Friend |
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Missing The Story On 2.5 Million Jobs
Missing The Story On 2.5 Million Jobs
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, November 24, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Stimulus: Media are fawning over Obama's plan to create 2.5 million jobs in two years. But as usual on Democratic proposals, they aren't doing their homework. By historical standards, Obama's goal is quite modest.
The president-elect has directed his economic team "to come up with an Economic Recovery Plan that will mean 2.5 million more jobs by January of 2011." And right on cue, the media have described the plan in glowing terms.
The Washington Post called the goal "more expansive than anything proposed so far." Reuters described it as "bold" and "aggressive," and NPR called it "an ambitious economic stimulus package." "Obama pumps up his economic stimulus proposal" was the headline over the Los Angeles Times story.
Obama hasn't released any details about the plan, other than to say it will be "a two-year, nationwide effort to jump-start job creation in America," and that it will be "big enough to meet the challenges we face."
It will also involve creating a lot of government jobs "rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels; fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies."
So the only thing "bold" about the plan, as far as anyone knows, is the number of jobs he hopes to create. But while 2.5 million might look impressive, it's not. In fact, when measured against trends, Obama has set his job-creation sights fairly low.
Every presidential candidate in recent times has claimed that his policies will lead to the creation of millions of new jobs — often making promises far bolder than Obama's.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush promised 15 million new jobs. In 1992, Bill Clinton said his economic plan would create 8 million. In 2000, Al Gore promised 10 million new high-tech positions. That same campaign, George W. Bush said his tax cuts would add 5 million to payrolls. In 2004, John Kerry pledged 10 million.
Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton offered up a plan during the primaries that she said would create 3 million jobs just "through increased investments in the nation's infrastructure."
Such promises are easy for politicians to make because a growing economy creates enormous numbers of new jobs, no matter who sits in the White House.
Since Eisenhower's first term, the economy has created an average of 1.5 million new jobs each year. Since Reagan's first term, the average has been about 2.5 million a year. And Reagan, who inherited an economy as bad if not worse than the current one, saw 6.3 million new jobs created four years after he entered the White House.
If Obama just manages to hit the post-World War II average, there would be 3 million more jobs by 2011.
What's more, Obama's promise doesn't keep pace with projected growth in the labor force. The BLS projects that roughly 2.6 million new workers will enter the labor pool over the next two years.
If that's the case, Obama's plan would leave the unemployment rate slightly higher in 2011 than it is now. Moreover, Obama's stimulus plan could eventually total $700 billion, the Washington Post reports. So, as former Council of Economic Advisers chief Gregory Mankiw notes, each job Obama "creates" will cost $280,000.
Obama can hardly be faulted for continuing the tradition of presidents promising millions of new jobs. And he's free to describe his plan as bold and brave. But that doesn't excuse the media for parroting such claims without at least a modicum of fact-checking.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, November 24, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Stimulus: Media are fawning over Obama's plan to create 2.5 million jobs in two years. But as usual on Democratic proposals, they aren't doing their homework. By historical standards, Obama's goal is quite modest.
The president-elect has directed his economic team "to come up with an Economic Recovery Plan that will mean 2.5 million more jobs by January of 2011." And right on cue, the media have described the plan in glowing terms.
The Washington Post called the goal "more expansive than anything proposed so far." Reuters described it as "bold" and "aggressive," and NPR called it "an ambitious economic stimulus package." "Obama pumps up his economic stimulus proposal" was the headline over the Los Angeles Times story.
Obama hasn't released any details about the plan, other than to say it will be "a two-year, nationwide effort to jump-start job creation in America," and that it will be "big enough to meet the challenges we face."
It will also involve creating a lot of government jobs "rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels; fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies."
So the only thing "bold" about the plan, as far as anyone knows, is the number of jobs he hopes to create. But while 2.5 million might look impressive, it's not. In fact, when measured against trends, Obama has set his job-creation sights fairly low.
Every presidential candidate in recent times has claimed that his policies will lead to the creation of millions of new jobs — often making promises far bolder than Obama's.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush promised 15 million new jobs. In 1992, Bill Clinton said his economic plan would create 8 million. In 2000, Al Gore promised 10 million new high-tech positions. That same campaign, George W. Bush said his tax cuts would add 5 million to payrolls. In 2004, John Kerry pledged 10 million.
Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton offered up a plan during the primaries that she said would create 3 million jobs just "through increased investments in the nation's infrastructure."
Such promises are easy for politicians to make because a growing economy creates enormous numbers of new jobs, no matter who sits in the White House.
Since Eisenhower's first term, the economy has created an average of 1.5 million new jobs each year. Since Reagan's first term, the average has been about 2.5 million a year. And Reagan, who inherited an economy as bad if not worse than the current one, saw 6.3 million new jobs created four years after he entered the White House.
If Obama just manages to hit the post-World War II average, there would be 3 million more jobs by 2011.
What's more, Obama's promise doesn't keep pace with projected growth in the labor force. The BLS projects that roughly 2.6 million new workers will enter the labor pool over the next two years.
If that's the case, Obama's plan would leave the unemployment rate slightly higher in 2011 than it is now. Moreover, Obama's stimulus plan could eventually total $700 billion, the Washington Post reports. So, as former Council of Economic Advisers chief Gregory Mankiw notes, each job Obama "creates" will cost $280,000.
Obama can hardly be faulted for continuing the tradition of presidents promising millions of new jobs. And he's free to describe his plan as bold and brave. But that doesn't excuse the media for parroting such claims without at least a modicum of fact-checking.
Email To Friend |
THE LAW IS THE LAW
MANY THANKS ALICE WE WELCOME ALL INPUT DAA
THE LAW IS THE LAW
So 'if' the US government determines that it is against the !
law for the words 'under God' to be on our money, then,
so be it.
And 'if' that same government decides that the
'Ten Commandments'
are not to be used in or on a
government installation, then,
so be it.
I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to be a
law abiding US citizen.
I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to think that
smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.
I would like to think that those people have the
American public's best interests at heart.
BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don't believe the Government and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.
I 'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the ' US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as
well as Sundays.' After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the 'Christmas Break.' After all it's just another day.
I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be'politically correct.'
In fact....
I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God...) because, after all, our government says that it sho uld be just another day....
What do you all think????
If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the 'minority opinions' and begin, once again, to represent the 'majority' of ALL of the American people.
SO BE IT...........
Please Dear Lord,
Give us the help needed to keep you in our country!
'Amen' and 'Amen'
Touche!
These are definitely things I never thought about but
from now on, I will be sure to question those in
government who support these changes.
At the top, it says 'I hope this makes its way around
the USA several times over!!!!!'
Let's see that it does
THE LAW IS THE LAW
So 'if' the US government determines that it is against the !
law for the words 'under God' to be on our money, then,
so be it.
And 'if' that same government decides that the
'Ten Commandments'
are not to be used in or on a
government installation, then,
so be it.
I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to be a
law abiding US citizen.
I say, 'so be it,' because I would like to think that
smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.
I would like to think that those people have the
American public's best interests at heart.
BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE?
Since we can't pray to God, can't Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don't believe the Government and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations which honor the God that our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.
I 'd like my mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter. After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the ' US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as
well as Sundays.' After all, it's just another day.
I'd like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the 'Christmas Break.' After all it's just another day.
I'm thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter. It shouldn't cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week to a government that is trying to be'politically correct.'
In fact....
I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God...) because, after all, our government says that it sho uld be just another day....
What do you all think????
If this idea gets to enough people, maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the 'minority opinions' and begin, once again, to represent the 'majority' of ALL of the American people.
SO BE IT...........
Please Dear Lord,
Give us the help needed to keep you in our country!
'Amen' and 'Amen'
Touche!
These are definitely things I never thought about but
from now on, I will be sure to question those in
government who support these changes.
At the top, it says 'I hope this makes its way around
the USA several times over!!!!!'
Let's see that it does
Job One: Wean The Economy Off Of Politics
THIS DOES AWAY WITH DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH (YOU REMEMBER THE COMMUNISTS LIKE OBAMA)
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 4:30 PM PT
In the old days — from the Venetian Republic to, oh, the Bear Stearns rescue — if you wanted to get rich, you did it the Warren Buffett way: You learned to read balance sheets. Today you learn to read political tea leaves.
You don't anticipate Intel's third-quarter earnings; instead, you guess what side of the bed Henry Paulson will wake up on tomorrow.
Today's extreme stock market volatility is not just a symptom of fear — fear cannot account for days of wild market swings upward — but a reaction to meta-economic events: political decisions that have vast economic effects.
As economist Irwin Stelzer argues, we have gone from a market economy to a political economy. Consider seven days in November.
On Tuesday, Nov. 18, Paulson broadly implies that he's only using half the $700 billion bailout money. Having already spent most of his $350 billion, he's going to leave the rest to his successor. The message received on Wall Street — I'm done, I'm gone.
Facing the prospect of two months of political limbo, the market craters. Led by the banks (whose balance sheets did not change between Tuesday and Wednesday), the market sees the largest two-day drop in the S&P since 1933, not a very good year.
The next day (Friday) at 3 p.m., word leaks of Timothy Geithner's impending nomination as Treasury secretary. The mere suggestion of continuity — and continued authoritative intervention during the interregnum by the guy who'd been working hand in glove with Paulson all along — sends the Dow up 500 points in one hour.
Monday sees another 400-point increase, the biggest two-day (percentage) rise since 1987. Why?
Three political events: Paulson's weekend Citigroup bailout; the official rollout of Obama's economic team, Geithner and Larry Summers; and Paulson quietly walking back from his earlier de facto resignation by indicating that he would be ready to use the remaining $350 billion (with Team Obama input) over the next two months.
Lobby For Life
That undid the market swoon — and dramatically demonstrated how politically driven the economy has become.
We may one day go back to a market economy. Meanwhile, we need to face the two most important implications of our newly politicized economy: the vastly increased importance of lobbying and the massive market inefficiencies that political directives will introduce.
Lobbying used to be about advantages at the margin — a regulatory break here, a subsidy there. Now lobbying is about life and death. Your lending institution or industry gets a bailout — or it dies.
You used to go to New York for capital. Now Wall Street, broke, is coming to Washington. With unimaginably large sums of money being given out by Washington, the Obama administration, through no fault of its own, will be subject to the most intense, most frenzied lobbying in American history.
That will introduce one kind of economic distortion. The other kind will come from the political directives issued by newly empowered politicians.
First, bank presidents are gravely warned by one senator after another about "hoarding" their bailout money. But hoarding is another word for recapitalizing to shore up your balance sheet to ensure solvency.
Schumer-Mobiles
Is that not the fiduciary responsibility of bank directors? And isn't pushing money out the window with too little capital precisely the lending laxity that produced this crisis in the first place? Never mind. The banks will knuckle under to the commissars of Capitol Hill. They control the purse. Prudence will yield to politics.
Even more egregious will be the directives to a nationalized Detroit. Sen. Charles Schumer, the noted automotive engineer, declared "unacceptable" last week "a business model based on gas." Instead, "We need a business model based on cars of the future, and we already know what that future is: the plug-in hybrid electric car."
The Chevy Volt, for example? It has huge remaining technological hurdles, gets 40 miles on a charge and will sell for about $40,000, necessitating a $7,500 outright government subsidy. Who but the rich and politically correct will choose that over a $12,000 gas-powered Hyundai?
The new Detroit churning out Schumer-mobiles will make the steel mills of the Soviet Union look the model of efficiency.
The ruling Democrats have a choice: Rescue this economy to return it to market control. Or use this crisis to seize the commanding heights of the economy for the greater social good. Note: The latter has already been tried. The results are filed under "History, ash heap of."
© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 4:30 PM PT
In the old days — from the Venetian Republic to, oh, the Bear Stearns rescue — if you wanted to get rich, you did it the Warren Buffett way: You learned to read balance sheets. Today you learn to read political tea leaves.
You don't anticipate Intel's third-quarter earnings; instead, you guess what side of the bed Henry Paulson will wake up on tomorrow.
Today's extreme stock market volatility is not just a symptom of fear — fear cannot account for days of wild market swings upward — but a reaction to meta-economic events: political decisions that have vast economic effects.
As economist Irwin Stelzer argues, we have gone from a market economy to a political economy. Consider seven days in November.
On Tuesday, Nov. 18, Paulson broadly implies that he's only using half the $700 billion bailout money. Having already spent most of his $350 billion, he's going to leave the rest to his successor. The message received on Wall Street — I'm done, I'm gone.
Facing the prospect of two months of political limbo, the market craters. Led by the banks (whose balance sheets did not change between Tuesday and Wednesday), the market sees the largest two-day drop in the S&P since 1933, not a very good year.
The next day (Friday) at 3 p.m., word leaks of Timothy Geithner's impending nomination as Treasury secretary. The mere suggestion of continuity — and continued authoritative intervention during the interregnum by the guy who'd been working hand in glove with Paulson all along — sends the Dow up 500 points in one hour.
Monday sees another 400-point increase, the biggest two-day (percentage) rise since 1987. Why?
Three political events: Paulson's weekend Citigroup bailout; the official rollout of Obama's economic team, Geithner and Larry Summers; and Paulson quietly walking back from his earlier de facto resignation by indicating that he would be ready to use the remaining $350 billion (with Team Obama input) over the next two months.
Lobby For Life
That undid the market swoon — and dramatically demonstrated how politically driven the economy has become.
We may one day go back to a market economy. Meanwhile, we need to face the two most important implications of our newly politicized economy: the vastly increased importance of lobbying and the massive market inefficiencies that political directives will introduce.
Lobbying used to be about advantages at the margin — a regulatory break here, a subsidy there. Now lobbying is about life and death. Your lending institution or industry gets a bailout — or it dies.
You used to go to New York for capital. Now Wall Street, broke, is coming to Washington. With unimaginably large sums of money being given out by Washington, the Obama administration, through no fault of its own, will be subject to the most intense, most frenzied lobbying in American history.
That will introduce one kind of economic distortion. The other kind will come from the political directives issued by newly empowered politicians.
First, bank presidents are gravely warned by one senator after another about "hoarding" their bailout money. But hoarding is another word for recapitalizing to shore up your balance sheet to ensure solvency.
Schumer-Mobiles
Is that not the fiduciary responsibility of bank directors? And isn't pushing money out the window with too little capital precisely the lending laxity that produced this crisis in the first place? Never mind. The banks will knuckle under to the commissars of Capitol Hill. They control the purse. Prudence will yield to politics.
Even more egregious will be the directives to a nationalized Detroit. Sen. Charles Schumer, the noted automotive engineer, declared "unacceptable" last week "a business model based on gas." Instead, "We need a business model based on cars of the future, and we already know what that future is: the plug-in hybrid electric car."
The Chevy Volt, for example? It has huge remaining technological hurdles, gets 40 miles on a charge and will sell for about $40,000, necessitating a $7,500 outright government subsidy. Who but the rich and politically correct will choose that over a $12,000 gas-powered Hyundai?
The new Detroit churning out Schumer-mobiles will make the steel mills of the Soviet Union look the model of efficiency.
The ruling Democrats have a choice: Rescue this economy to return it to market control. Or use this crisis to seize the commanding heights of the economy for the greater social good. Note: The latter has already been tried. The results are filed under "History, ash heap of."
© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
Stop Covering Up And Kill The CRA
THIS PIECE OF WORK BY THE GOOD FOLKS IN DC IS ONLY A MEANS OF KEEPING CONTROL OF THE W O R K I N G PERSON, BROWN BLACK WHITE POLKA-DOTTED. CHILD TEEN ADULT SENIOR,
WE MUST BE EVER VIGILANT OF OUR BOOBS IN DC.
Stop Covering Up And Kill The CRA
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Regulation: The Community Reinvestment Act is to blame for the financial crisis, but it so powerfully serves Democrats' interests that they'll do anything to protect it — including revising history.
The CRA coerces banks into making loans based on political correctness, and little else, to people who can't afford them. Enforced like never before by the Clinton administration, the regulation destroyed credit standards across the mortgage industry, created the subprime market, and caused the housing bubble that has now burst and left us with the worst housing and banking crises since the Great Depression.
The CRA should be abolished, along with the government-sponsored enterprises that fueled the secondary market for subprimes — under pressure from Clinton, who ordered HUD to set quotas for "affirmative action" lending at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
But powerful Democrats in Washington want to protect the act — along with Fannie and Freddie — and spin the subprime scandal as the result of too little regulation, not too much.
"Repealing or weakening the CRA would be a mistake," warns Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who argues that the CRA should be strengthened.
Dodd, the top recipient of Fannie donations and himself a beneficiary of a sweetheart mortgage brokered by a subprime lender, recently invited one of Clinton's top enforcers of the CRA to testify.
"The notion that CRA has caused this problem is a pernicious thought," said former Comptroller of the Currency Gene Ludwig. "These are not truthful statements. The CRA has helped to create a better and sounder world for finance, not the opposite."
Dead wrong. But the mainstream media believe it, and have attacked those, including this paper, who dare to tell the truth about the crisis. Already the debacle has erased $13 trillion in wealth, while putting taxpayers on the hook for up to $8 trillion in bailouts.
"The latest salvo from conservatives began via a Sept. 15 editorial in Investor's Business Daily, titled 'The Real Culprits In This Meltdown,' " grumbled a column distributed by Scripps Howard News Service. "Its editorial blamed President Clinton for today's mess."
As we said, Clinton beefed up the CRA and used it to force banks to subsidize poor communities with close to $1 trillion in high-risk loans and other commitments that flouted underwriting rules.
Yet, somehow, these media-driven myths keep getting in the way of actual facts, such as:
Fact: The 1977 law was only lightly enforced until Clinton added teeth to it in 1994 and launched an anti-redlining campaign against banks, led by Ludwig, Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros (and later Andrew Cuomo) and Attorney General Janet Reno that lasted into this decade.
Minority homeownership rates, which had been flat, began a steep rise in 1995, and home prices soon followed, stoked by easier lending. Numerous bank officials complain that they still feel pressured by CRA regulators to make inner-city loans they know are at great risk of defaulting.
Myth: The CRA could not have led to financial Armageddon, because the overwhelming share of subprime mortgages came from lenders that were not banks and not regulated by the CRA.
Fact: Nearly 4 in 10 subprime loans between 2004 and 2007 were made by CRA-covered banks such as Washington Mutual and IndyMac. And that doesn't include loans made by subprime lenders owned by banks, which were in effect covered by the CRA.
Last year, when the bubble burst, bank subprime loans totaled $142 billion, dwarfing those made by lenders.
What's more, the biggest subprime lender, Countrywide, while not subject to the law, still came under federal pressure to make risky loans in minority communities.
Clinton created a separate department at HUD to police "fair lending" at Fannie and Freddie and also at lenders like Countrywide, which became Fannie's biggest client. In 1994, Countrywide became the nation's first mortgage lender to sign with HUD a "Declaration of Fair Lending Principles and Practices."
As a result, Countrywide made more loans to minorities than any other lender — and not surprisingly, was one of the first lenders swamped by loan defaults.
Other lenders felt the heat from Reno's Justice Department, which prosecuted them for failing to operate enough branches in black neighborhoods. Reno put the entire banking industry on notice about the CRA and her enforcement program.
Myth: The CRA did not force anyone to do subprime loans or take excessive risks.
Fact: Subprime loans were the vehicle banks used to satisfy CRA compliance, and Clinton and his regulators encouraged their use. Before Clinton took office, subprimes were virtually unheard of. By the time he left, they made up more than 9% of the market for mortgage originations. Today they're 20%.
"It's instructive to go back to the early stages of the subprime market, which has essentially emerged out of the CRA," ex-Fed chief Alan Greenspan said in recent testimony on the roots of the crisis.
Clinton pushed banks to grant mortgages to minorities with poor credit by using "flexible" underwriting standards — or risk being branded racist. Rules were weakened to the point where welfare and unemployment checks were accepted as qualifying income.
Myth: Greedy investment bankers, who securitized and sold subprime mortgages, drove us to the credit crisis, not government.
Fact: Clinton's regulatory policies led to the creation of this new risk on Wall Street. His CRA amendments created the subprime market, and only after he pressured Fannie and Freddie to socialize the risk and guarantee the profit from the subprime loans did Wall Street get involved in a big way.
The exotic securitizations that have gotten so much of the blame were a symptom, not the cause, of the crisis.
The architects of the crisis want to divert attention from their own culpability by blaming the markets rather than their own regulations mandating that banks make high-risk loans based on race.
In fact, regulations had almost everything to do with this mess. And instead of strengthening them to atone for the alleged "sins of capitalism," we should be abolishing them.
Two bills in the House would be a good place to start. HR 7264, which has nine co-sponsors, would repeal the CRA. And HR 7094, with 17 co-sponsors, would dissolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
During the last severe slump, President Reagan deregulated the economy, saying: "Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem." He's as right today as he was then.
WE MUST BE EVER VIGILANT OF OUR BOOBS IN DC.
Stop Covering Up And Kill The CRA
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Regulation: The Community Reinvestment Act is to blame for the financial crisis, but it so powerfully serves Democrats' interests that they'll do anything to protect it — including revising history.
The CRA coerces banks into making loans based on political correctness, and little else, to people who can't afford them. Enforced like never before by the Clinton administration, the regulation destroyed credit standards across the mortgage industry, created the subprime market, and caused the housing bubble that has now burst and left us with the worst housing and banking crises since the Great Depression.
The CRA should be abolished, along with the government-sponsored enterprises that fueled the secondary market for subprimes — under pressure from Clinton, who ordered HUD to set quotas for "affirmative action" lending at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
But powerful Democrats in Washington want to protect the act — along with Fannie and Freddie — and spin the subprime scandal as the result of too little regulation, not too much.
"Repealing or weakening the CRA would be a mistake," warns Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who argues that the CRA should be strengthened.
Dodd, the top recipient of Fannie donations and himself a beneficiary of a sweetheart mortgage brokered by a subprime lender, recently invited one of Clinton's top enforcers of the CRA to testify.
"The notion that CRA has caused this problem is a pernicious thought," said former Comptroller of the Currency Gene Ludwig. "These are not truthful statements. The CRA has helped to create a better and sounder world for finance, not the opposite."
Dead wrong. But the mainstream media believe it, and have attacked those, including this paper, who dare to tell the truth about the crisis. Already the debacle has erased $13 trillion in wealth, while putting taxpayers on the hook for up to $8 trillion in bailouts.
"The latest salvo from conservatives began via a Sept. 15 editorial in Investor's Business Daily, titled 'The Real Culprits In This Meltdown,' " grumbled a column distributed by Scripps Howard News Service. "Its editorial blamed President Clinton for today's mess."
As we said, Clinton beefed up the CRA and used it to force banks to subsidize poor communities with close to $1 trillion in high-risk loans and other commitments that flouted underwriting rules.
Yet, somehow, these media-driven myths keep getting in the way of actual facts, such as:
Fact: The 1977 law was only lightly enforced until Clinton added teeth to it in 1994 and launched an anti-redlining campaign against banks, led by Ludwig, Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros (and later Andrew Cuomo) and Attorney General Janet Reno that lasted into this decade.
Minority homeownership rates, which had been flat, began a steep rise in 1995, and home prices soon followed, stoked by easier lending. Numerous bank officials complain that they still feel pressured by CRA regulators to make inner-city loans they know are at great risk of defaulting.
Myth: The CRA could not have led to financial Armageddon, because the overwhelming share of subprime mortgages came from lenders that were not banks and not regulated by the CRA.
Fact: Nearly 4 in 10 subprime loans between 2004 and 2007 were made by CRA-covered banks such as Washington Mutual and IndyMac. And that doesn't include loans made by subprime lenders owned by banks, which were in effect covered by the CRA.
Last year, when the bubble burst, bank subprime loans totaled $142 billion, dwarfing those made by lenders.
What's more, the biggest subprime lender, Countrywide, while not subject to the law, still came under federal pressure to make risky loans in minority communities.
Clinton created a separate department at HUD to police "fair lending" at Fannie and Freddie and also at lenders like Countrywide, which became Fannie's biggest client. In 1994, Countrywide became the nation's first mortgage lender to sign with HUD a "Declaration of Fair Lending Principles and Practices."
As a result, Countrywide made more loans to minorities than any other lender — and not surprisingly, was one of the first lenders swamped by loan defaults.
Other lenders felt the heat from Reno's Justice Department, which prosecuted them for failing to operate enough branches in black neighborhoods. Reno put the entire banking industry on notice about the CRA and her enforcement program.
Myth: The CRA did not force anyone to do subprime loans or take excessive risks.
Fact: Subprime loans were the vehicle banks used to satisfy CRA compliance, and Clinton and his regulators encouraged their use. Before Clinton took office, subprimes were virtually unheard of. By the time he left, they made up more than 9% of the market for mortgage originations. Today they're 20%.
"It's instructive to go back to the early stages of the subprime market, which has essentially emerged out of the CRA," ex-Fed chief Alan Greenspan said in recent testimony on the roots of the crisis.
Clinton pushed banks to grant mortgages to minorities with poor credit by using "flexible" underwriting standards — or risk being branded racist. Rules were weakened to the point where welfare and unemployment checks were accepted as qualifying income.
Myth: Greedy investment bankers, who securitized and sold subprime mortgages, drove us to the credit crisis, not government.
Fact: Clinton's regulatory policies led to the creation of this new risk on Wall Street. His CRA amendments created the subprime market, and only after he pressured Fannie and Freddie to socialize the risk and guarantee the profit from the subprime loans did Wall Street get involved in a big way.
The exotic securitizations that have gotten so much of the blame were a symptom, not the cause, of the crisis.
The architects of the crisis want to divert attention from their own culpability by blaming the markets rather than their own regulations mandating that banks make high-risk loans based on race.
In fact, regulations had almost everything to do with this mess. And instead of strengthening them to atone for the alleged "sins of capitalism," we should be abolishing them.
Two bills in the House would be a good place to start. HR 7264, which has nine co-sponsors, would repeal the CRA. And HR 7094, with 17 co-sponsors, would dissolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
During the last severe slump, President Reagan deregulated the economy, saying: "Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem." He's as right today as he was then.
Just Stay
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH BILL.
Just Stay
A nurse took the tired, anxious serviceman to the bedside.
'Your son is here,' she said to the old man.
She had to repeat the words several times before the patient's eyes opened.
Heavily sedated b ecause of the pain of his heart attack, he dimly saw the young uniformed Marine standing outside the oxygen tent. He reached out his hand. The Marine wrapped his toughened fingers around the old man's limp ones, squeezing a message of love and encouragement.
The nurse brought a chair so that the Marine could sit beside the bed. All through the night the young Marine sat there in the poorly lighted ward, holding the old man's hand and offering him words of love and strength. Occasionally, the nurse suggested that the Marine move away and rest awhile.
He refused. Whenever the nurse came into the ward, the Marine was oblivious of her and of the night noises of the hospital - the clanking of the oxygen tank, the laughter of the night staff members exchanging greetings, the cries and moans of the other patients.
Now and then she heard him say a few gentle words. The dying man said nothing, only held tightly to his son all through the night.
Along towards dawn, the old man died. The Marine released the now lifeless hand he had been holding and went to tell the nurse. While she did what she had to do, he waited.
Finally, she returned. She started to offer words of sympathy, but the Marine interrupted her.
'Who was that man?' he asked.
The nurse was startled, 'He was your father,' she answered.
'No, he wasn't,' the Marine replied. 'I never saw him before in my life.'
'Then why didn't you say something when I took you to him?'
'I knew right away there had been a mistake,
But I also knew he needed his son, and his
Son just wasn't here.
When I realized that he was too sick to tell
Whether or not I was his son,
Knowing how much he needed me, I stayed.'
The next time someone needs you ... Just be there. Stay.
**************
WE ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS GOING THROUGH A
TEMPORARY SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE.
(love this line)
WE ARE SPIRITUAL BEINGS GOING THROUGH A TEMPORARY HUMAN EXPERIENCE.
PLEASE PASS THIS ONE ON AND GOD WILL BLESS YOU!
THIS IS WHAT WE ARE PUT ON THIS EARTH TO DO ANYWAY. RIGHT ?
HAVE A GREAT DAY AND BLESS SOMEONE ELSE IN SOME LITTLE WAY TODAY!
GOD IS SO GOOD.
--
You can never be too small
for God to use --only too big!
Warren Wiersbe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just Stay
A nurse took the tired, anxious serviceman to the bedside.
'Your son is here,' she said to the old man.
She had to repeat the words several times before the patient's eyes opened.
Heavily sedated b ecause of the pain of his heart attack, he dimly saw the young uniformed Marine standing outside the oxygen tent. He reached out his hand. The Marine wrapped his toughened fingers around the old man's limp ones, squeezing a message of love and encouragement.
The nurse brought a chair so that the Marine could sit beside the bed. All through the night the young Marine sat there in the poorly lighted ward, holding the old man's hand and offering him words of love and strength. Occasionally, the nurse suggested that the Marine move away and rest awhile.
He refused. Whenever the nurse came into the ward, the Marine was oblivious of her and of the night noises of the hospital - the clanking of the oxygen tank, the laughter of the night staff members exchanging greetings, the cries and moans of the other patients.
Now and then she heard him say a few gentle words. The dying man said nothing, only held tightly to his son all through the night.
Along towards dawn, the old man died. The Marine released the now lifeless hand he had been holding and went to tell the nurse. While she did what she had to do, he waited.
Finally, she returned. She started to offer words of sympathy, but the Marine interrupted her.
'Who was that man?' he asked.
The nurse was startled, 'He was your father,' she answered.
'No, he wasn't,' the Marine replied. 'I never saw him before in my life.'
'Then why didn't you say something when I took you to him?'
'I knew right away there had been a mistake,
But I also knew he needed his son, and his
Son just wasn't here.
When I realized that he was too sick to tell
Whether or not I was his son,
Knowing how much he needed me, I stayed.'
The next time someone needs you ... Just be there. Stay.
**************
WE ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS GOING THROUGH A
TEMPORARY SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE.
(love this line)
WE ARE SPIRITUAL BEINGS GOING THROUGH A TEMPORARY HUMAN EXPERIENCE.
PLEASE PASS THIS ONE ON AND GOD WILL BLESS YOU!
THIS IS WHAT WE ARE PUT ON THIS EARTH TO DO ANYWAY. RIGHT ?
HAVE A GREAT DAY AND BLESS SOMEONE ELSE IN SOME LITTLE WAY TODAY!
GOD IS SO GOOD.
--
You can never be too small
for God to use --only too big!
Warren Wiersbe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama Appointments Reveal His Inexperience
Obama Appointments Reveal His Inexperience
Monday, November 24, 2008 10:04 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
It is still hard to believe but, if Hillary Clinton's "confidantes" are to be trusted, Barack Obama is about to appoint her secretary of state and she is about to accept. This appointment represents the betrayal capstone of Obama's promise to be the "change we can believe in."
Having upended the Democratic Party, largely over his different views on foreign policy and the war in Iraq, he now turns to the leader of the ancient regime he ousted, derided, mocked, and criticized to take over the top international-affairs position in his administration.
No longer, apparently, does he distrust Hillary's "judgment," as he did during the debates when he denounced her vote on the Iraq war resolution. Now, all is forgiven. After everything Obama says he stood for, the only change he apparently truly believes in is a fait accompli.
Apart from the breathtaking cynicism of the appointment lies the total lack of foreign-policy experience in the new partnership. Neither Clinton nor Obama has spent five minutes conducting any aspect of foreign policy in the past.
Neither has ever negotiated anything or dealt with diplomatic issues. It is the blonde leading the blind.
And then there is the question of whether we want a secretary of state who is compromised, in advance, by her husband's dealings with repressive regimes in Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Dubai, the U.A.E., Morocco, and governments about which we know nothing.
These foreign leaders have paid the Clinton family millions of dollars — directly and through the Clintons' library and/or foundation — funds they can and have used as personal income.
How do we know that she can conduct foreign policy independently even if it means biting those who have fed her and her husband? But the most galling aspect of the appointment is that it puts Obama in the midst of an administration that, while he appointed it, is not his own.
Rather, he has now created a government staffed by Clinton people, headed by Clinton appointees, and dominated by Hillary herself. He has willingly created the same untenable situation as that into which Lyndon Johnson stepped when JFK was assassinated in 1963.
Johnson inherited a Cabinet wholly staffed by Kennedy intimates with Bobby himself as attorney general.
LBJ had no choice and had to spend two years making the government his own. But Obama had all the options in the world and chose to fence himself in by appointing Hillary as secretary of state, Clinton Cabinet member Bill Richardson for Commerce, Clinton staffer Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, Clinton buddy (and top lobbyist) Tom Daschle to HHS, and Bill's deputy attorney general, Eric Holder, to Justice.
Presidents Clinton and Lincoln similarly appointed what Doris Kearns Goodwin has famously called a "team of rivals" to staff their Cabinets and administrations.
Lincoln named all of his opponents for the Republican presidential nomination to senior posts in his Cabinet and Clinton staffed his White House and much of his Cabinet with ambassadors to other wings of the Democratic Party.
George Stephanopoulos was his ambassador to House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, Harold Ickes his emissary to organized labor, Al Gore his delegate to the environmentalists, Leon Panetta his liaison with congressional committee chairmen, Ron Brown his man in the black community, and Henry Cisneros as his go-between with the Hispanic community.
In each case, the president acted to bolster his ties with the factions of his own party because he feared how he would fare with his party in total control of Congress. Neither the Republicans of 1861 nor the Democrats of 1992 saw the president from their own party as their natural leaders.
Lincoln's colleagues had chosen him only after a deadlock between the two front-runners had paralyzed the convention. Clinton got the nomination only after Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York, the party's favorite, had pulled out. Each man was elected with barely 40 percent of the vote. So each felt constrained to share power with their rivals.
While Obama was not the early favorite of his party, he does not need to defer so ostentatiously to those who fought him for the nomination. His general election mandate clearly entitled him to name who he pleased. But he has chosen to nominate men and women with no loyalty to him and no real stake in his future.
And standing above all his appointees like a president-in-exile, is Hillary Clinton.
If Obama needed any warning about how Hillary will play the game, he need only look at how she handled her appointment. She forced Obama to see her by publicly complaining that she had not heard from him.
When he raised the possibility of her appointment to state, she then leaked word that it was in the works. Even the announcement of her appointment was not made by Obama but leaked by Hillary's "confidants."
Hillary will be a loose cannon as secretary of state, vindicating her own agenda rather than that of the president and burnishing her own image at every turn. Not since Cordell Hull in the '30s have we had a secretary so interested in running for president.
Not since William Jennings Bryan in the 1910s have we had a defeated nominee named as secretary. Obama will not be able to control Hillary nor will he be able to control his own administration with Emanuel as chief of staff. He will find that his appointees will march to the beat of their own drummer — if he is lucky — and Hillary's if he is not.
Either Obama has chosen to put himself in this untenable situation because he is not wise in the ways of Washington or because he plans to be little more than a figurehead. Given his campaign, neither seems likely. But his promise of change has proven so bankrupt that maybe the rest of his candidacy is too.
Monday, November 24, 2008 10:04 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
It is still hard to believe but, if Hillary Clinton's "confidantes" are to be trusted, Barack Obama is about to appoint her secretary of state and she is about to accept. This appointment represents the betrayal capstone of Obama's promise to be the "change we can believe in."
Having upended the Democratic Party, largely over his different views on foreign policy and the war in Iraq, he now turns to the leader of the ancient regime he ousted, derided, mocked, and criticized to take over the top international-affairs position in his administration.
No longer, apparently, does he distrust Hillary's "judgment," as he did during the debates when he denounced her vote on the Iraq war resolution. Now, all is forgiven. After everything Obama says he stood for, the only change he apparently truly believes in is a fait accompli.
Apart from the breathtaking cynicism of the appointment lies the total lack of foreign-policy experience in the new partnership. Neither Clinton nor Obama has spent five minutes conducting any aspect of foreign policy in the past.
Neither has ever negotiated anything or dealt with diplomatic issues. It is the blonde leading the blind.
And then there is the question of whether we want a secretary of state who is compromised, in advance, by her husband's dealings with repressive regimes in Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Dubai, the U.A.E., Morocco, and governments about which we know nothing.
These foreign leaders have paid the Clinton family millions of dollars — directly and through the Clintons' library and/or foundation — funds they can and have used as personal income.
How do we know that she can conduct foreign policy independently even if it means biting those who have fed her and her husband? But the most galling aspect of the appointment is that it puts Obama in the midst of an administration that, while he appointed it, is not his own.
Rather, he has now created a government staffed by Clinton people, headed by Clinton appointees, and dominated by Hillary herself. He has willingly created the same untenable situation as that into which Lyndon Johnson stepped when JFK was assassinated in 1963.
Johnson inherited a Cabinet wholly staffed by Kennedy intimates with Bobby himself as attorney general.
LBJ had no choice and had to spend two years making the government his own. But Obama had all the options in the world and chose to fence himself in by appointing Hillary as secretary of state, Clinton Cabinet member Bill Richardson for Commerce, Clinton staffer Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, Clinton buddy (and top lobbyist) Tom Daschle to HHS, and Bill's deputy attorney general, Eric Holder, to Justice.
Presidents Clinton and Lincoln similarly appointed what Doris Kearns Goodwin has famously called a "team of rivals" to staff their Cabinets and administrations.
Lincoln named all of his opponents for the Republican presidential nomination to senior posts in his Cabinet and Clinton staffed his White House and much of his Cabinet with ambassadors to other wings of the Democratic Party.
George Stephanopoulos was his ambassador to House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, Harold Ickes his emissary to organized labor, Al Gore his delegate to the environmentalists, Leon Panetta his liaison with congressional committee chairmen, Ron Brown his man in the black community, and Henry Cisneros as his go-between with the Hispanic community.
In each case, the president acted to bolster his ties with the factions of his own party because he feared how he would fare with his party in total control of Congress. Neither the Republicans of 1861 nor the Democrats of 1992 saw the president from their own party as their natural leaders.
Lincoln's colleagues had chosen him only after a deadlock between the two front-runners had paralyzed the convention. Clinton got the nomination only after Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York, the party's favorite, had pulled out. Each man was elected with barely 40 percent of the vote. So each felt constrained to share power with their rivals.
While Obama was not the early favorite of his party, he does not need to defer so ostentatiously to those who fought him for the nomination. His general election mandate clearly entitled him to name who he pleased. But he has chosen to nominate men and women with no loyalty to him and no real stake in his future.
And standing above all his appointees like a president-in-exile, is Hillary Clinton.
If Obama needed any warning about how Hillary will play the game, he need only look at how she handled her appointment. She forced Obama to see her by publicly complaining that she had not heard from him.
When he raised the possibility of her appointment to state, she then leaked word that it was in the works. Even the announcement of her appointment was not made by Obama but leaked by Hillary's "confidants."
Hillary will be a loose cannon as secretary of state, vindicating her own agenda rather than that of the president and burnishing her own image at every turn. Not since Cordell Hull in the '30s have we had a secretary so interested in running for president.
Not since William Jennings Bryan in the 1910s have we had a defeated nominee named as secretary. Obama will not be able to control Hillary nor will he be able to control his own administration with Emanuel as chief of staff. He will find that his appointees will march to the beat of their own drummer — if he is lucky — and Hillary's if he is not.
Either Obama has chosen to put himself in this untenable situation because he is not wise in the ways of Washington or because he plans to be little more than a figurehead. Given his campaign, neither seems likely. But his promise of change has proven so bankrupt that maybe the rest of his candidacy is too.
Russia's Challenge On The High Seas
Russia's Challenge On The High Seas
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Security: As Russian warships steam into Venezuelan waters, the show is dismissed by some as rust-bucket bravado. But for all its navy's flaws, Russia's maneuvers herald challenges to the U.S. — and not just in Venezuela.
Russian warships from its Northern Fleet reached the Venezuelan port of La Guaira in a first 15,000-mile global journey in decades. Led by the missile cruiser Peter the Great, and conducting live-fire exercises, it's the first Russian demonstration of force in waters adjacent to our own shores in 20 years.
The White House downplayed it, and the State Department said they don't view the maneuver as aggressive. Officials even laughingly wondered earlier if the Russian rustbuckets would be accompanied by tugboats. But State Department spokesman Sean McCormack noted Tuesday that the U.S. will be watching closely.
That's good, because there are signs Russia intends to become more than a rust-bucket navy on the water. It's not only beefing up its navy, it's got a very broad plan to challenge U.S. naval dominance and control critical sea lanes through alliances with Venezuela and others.
Fueled by the bounty from high oil prices, Russia's defense budget has increased fourfold in the last seven years. It's expected to go up 20% to $40 billion in 2008, according to GlobalSecurity.org, a private forecaster. It spends about 8% of its budget on the military, or about 2.7% of GDP, less than the 13% it spent in final Soviet days.
Although Russia has been hard hit by the financial crisis along with investment outflows in the aftermath of its Georgia invasion, it still can divert resources if not raise spending for the military.
What's more, there seems to be will to do this. Russian officials continuously state that they intend to raise their navy's global profile and restore lost glory. In May, Novosti reported that Russia will build up its naval presence across the world in 2008.
"There will be tours of duty this year, involving surface ships, submarines and aircraft," fleet commander Vice-Admiral Nikolai Maksimov said.
That's already happening in areas that coincide with critical chokepoints and sea lanes.
Russia's appearance in Venezuela's Caribbean is a leading example. About 64% of U.S. oil imports traverse four sea lanes there on the way to the Gulf Coast. More must cross the Panama Canal. Venezuela's proximity is where the U.S. is vulnerable.
Russia has global ambitions, of which Venezuela is just one part. It's bolstered its foothold at the strategically perched Tartus base in Syria, and is moving to secure a naval base in Yemen, a former Soviet beachhead, across from the pirate-infested Gulf of Aden, gateway to the Suez Canal, where 7% of global oil trade passes.
Two Russian warships sailed into Aden on the same day the Russian ships entered Venezuela, in what they said were routine naval maneuvers. But about a week ago, Russia said it would divert ships from its Baltic fleet to the Gulf of Aden to defend ships against Somali pirates. Working outside NATO and the CTF-150 group, Russia says it's in response to an invitation from Yemen. A base there, at the gate to the Suez Canal, lets Russia occupy another chokepoint.
Alliances like these are deepening. Russia has few real commercial interests south of the Suez. Venezuela may change that. Russia's oligarchs are interested in Venezuela's mineral and oil wealth, and have signed several joint ventures with the government.
Russia has also signed deals to sell some $4 billion in arms to Venezuela, and has extended it a billion-dollar credit line this year. Along with its cozier Russian ties to Cuba, Russia's burgeoning Venezuelan relationship lets it express its anger at the U.S. over America's growing trade and security ties to Georgia and Ukraine.
For both Yemen and Venezuela, Russia's alliance brings military might that helps strengthen their increasingly unpopular leaders. Yemen is seeing unrest over its leaders' extravagant spending, particularly $1 billion on arms from Russia, while its population remains the poorest in the Arab world.
Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez lost five governorships in last weekend's elections, signaling a turning tide for him too.
Russian military presence may help entrench both.
Falling oil revenues may well someday scupper Russia's ambitions, but haven't stopped it from making its presence felt now.
After visiting Venezuela, Russia's flotilla will move on to the Indian Ocean basin for maneuvers, reportedly near the U.S. naval support station on Diego Garcia island.
Rustbucket or not, Russia seems to want to prove something by beefing up its navy. It may mean Russia will continue to look for trouble until it actually finds it.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, November 25, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Security: As Russian warships steam into Venezuelan waters, the show is dismissed by some as rust-bucket bravado. But for all its navy's flaws, Russia's maneuvers herald challenges to the U.S. — and not just in Venezuela.
Russian warships from its Northern Fleet reached the Venezuelan port of La Guaira in a first 15,000-mile global journey in decades. Led by the missile cruiser Peter the Great, and conducting live-fire exercises, it's the first Russian demonstration of force in waters adjacent to our own shores in 20 years.
The White House downplayed it, and the State Department said they don't view the maneuver as aggressive. Officials even laughingly wondered earlier if the Russian rustbuckets would be accompanied by tugboats. But State Department spokesman Sean McCormack noted Tuesday that the U.S. will be watching closely.
That's good, because there are signs Russia intends to become more than a rust-bucket navy on the water. It's not only beefing up its navy, it's got a very broad plan to challenge U.S. naval dominance and control critical sea lanes through alliances with Venezuela and others.
Fueled by the bounty from high oil prices, Russia's defense budget has increased fourfold in the last seven years. It's expected to go up 20% to $40 billion in 2008, according to GlobalSecurity.org, a private forecaster. It spends about 8% of its budget on the military, or about 2.7% of GDP, less than the 13% it spent in final Soviet days.
Although Russia has been hard hit by the financial crisis along with investment outflows in the aftermath of its Georgia invasion, it still can divert resources if not raise spending for the military.
What's more, there seems to be will to do this. Russian officials continuously state that they intend to raise their navy's global profile and restore lost glory. In May, Novosti reported that Russia will build up its naval presence across the world in 2008.
"There will be tours of duty this year, involving surface ships, submarines and aircraft," fleet commander Vice-Admiral Nikolai Maksimov said.
That's already happening in areas that coincide with critical chokepoints and sea lanes.
Russia's appearance in Venezuela's Caribbean is a leading example. About 64% of U.S. oil imports traverse four sea lanes there on the way to the Gulf Coast. More must cross the Panama Canal. Venezuela's proximity is where the U.S. is vulnerable.
Russia has global ambitions, of which Venezuela is just one part. It's bolstered its foothold at the strategically perched Tartus base in Syria, and is moving to secure a naval base in Yemen, a former Soviet beachhead, across from the pirate-infested Gulf of Aden, gateway to the Suez Canal, where 7% of global oil trade passes.
Two Russian warships sailed into Aden on the same day the Russian ships entered Venezuela, in what they said were routine naval maneuvers. But about a week ago, Russia said it would divert ships from its Baltic fleet to the Gulf of Aden to defend ships against Somali pirates. Working outside NATO and the CTF-150 group, Russia says it's in response to an invitation from Yemen. A base there, at the gate to the Suez Canal, lets Russia occupy another chokepoint.
Alliances like these are deepening. Russia has few real commercial interests south of the Suez. Venezuela may change that. Russia's oligarchs are interested in Venezuela's mineral and oil wealth, and have signed several joint ventures with the government.
Russia has also signed deals to sell some $4 billion in arms to Venezuela, and has extended it a billion-dollar credit line this year. Along with its cozier Russian ties to Cuba, Russia's burgeoning Venezuelan relationship lets it express its anger at the U.S. over America's growing trade and security ties to Georgia and Ukraine.
For both Yemen and Venezuela, Russia's alliance brings military might that helps strengthen their increasingly unpopular leaders. Yemen is seeing unrest over its leaders' extravagant spending, particularly $1 billion on arms from Russia, while its population remains the poorest in the Arab world.
Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez lost five governorships in last weekend's elections, signaling a turning tide for him too.
Russian military presence may help entrench both.
Falling oil revenues may well someday scupper Russia's ambitions, but haven't stopped it from making its presence felt now.
After visiting Venezuela, Russia's flotilla will move on to the Indian Ocean basin for maneuvers, reportedly near the U.S. naval support station on Diego Garcia island.
Rustbucket or not, Russia seems to want to prove something by beefing up its navy. It may mean Russia will continue to look for trouble until it actually finds it.
Obama Ominously Backburners Terrorism
Morris: Obama Ominously Backburners Terrorism
Wednesday, November 26, 2008 8:52 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Lost in the dramatic disaster unfolding on Wall Street and the brazen hypocrisy of the Hillary Clinton nomination is President-elect Obama's double signal that the war on terror is now over.
His appointment of Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as secretary of Homeland Security signals that the Department will once again focus on southern border immigration issues rather than on fighting terrorism.
He could have selected a Rudy Giuliani or a Louis Free or a Ray Kelly — anyone with real life experience in battling terrorists. Instead he chose a governor with no knowledge of the subject whose obvious credential is her proximity to the border.
The Department of Homeland Security is a polyglot agency which includes immigration enforcement (the old INS) among its many missions. It is also charged with fighting drugs (the old DEA), and battling terrorism.
By appointing someone who knows nothing about terrorism but everything about immigration, Obama has signaled the lack of priority he will give to domestic efforts to keep us safe.
Imagine if President George W. Bush had named the governor of Arizona as his Homeland Security director when the post was created in the aftermath of 9/11! The nation would have howled in protest. But now that nobody is focused on terrorism (except the terrorists who still want to strike at us), Obama has felt free to bury the task of battling terrorism in the bureaucracy dedicated to policing the Mexican border.
Just as troubling is Obama's appointment of Eric Holder as his attorney general. While criticism of the nomination has focused, justifiably, on Holder's sellout of the public interest by recommending the pardon of fugitive Marc Rich, it is his approval of commutations for the FALN — the Puerto Rican terrorists — that should raise red flags.
Before 9/11, when we were not hyper-sensitive to terrorism, Holder did Hillary Clinton's bidding in approving the pardon of those who bombed Fraunces Tavern in New York City, killing four people and injuring 50 others. Facing a run for Senate in New York State, with its sizable Puerto Rican population, Hillary was anxious to deliver a signal of her empathy with the desires of New York's Hispanics.
Bill, eager to please, sought Justice Department approval for the commutations. Even though the prisoners themselves had not asked for commutation (two refused to accept it), Holder approved the action and cleared the way for a pre-election gift to New York's Puerto Rican community.
If these two appointments presage Obama's approach to the war on terror, we are going to be in deep trouble, indeed. There is not a hawk in the bunch.
Add to the mix that this is the first president/secretary of state combo that has no combined experience in foreign policy since Woodrow Wilson appointed William Jennings Bryan in 1912, and we face real danger.
Past presidents with no foreign experience have had the wisdom to appoint secretaries of state with significant experience in international relations. Truman had Byrnes and Gen. Marshall. Johnson had Dean Rusk. Carter had Cyrus Vance. Reagan had Al Haig and George Schultz. Clinton had Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright.
Each reached out to supplement their lack of experience, but not Obama. The appointment of Hillary Clinton does nothing to remedy Obama's inexperience and the appointments of Holder and Napolitano indicate that terrorism in general is a low priority for the upcoming administration.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008 8:52 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Lost in the dramatic disaster unfolding on Wall Street and the brazen hypocrisy of the Hillary Clinton nomination is President-elect Obama's double signal that the war on terror is now over.
His appointment of Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as secretary of Homeland Security signals that the Department will once again focus on southern border immigration issues rather than on fighting terrorism.
He could have selected a Rudy Giuliani or a Louis Free or a Ray Kelly — anyone with real life experience in battling terrorists. Instead he chose a governor with no knowledge of the subject whose obvious credential is her proximity to the border.
The Department of Homeland Security is a polyglot agency which includes immigration enforcement (the old INS) among its many missions. It is also charged with fighting drugs (the old DEA), and battling terrorism.
By appointing someone who knows nothing about terrorism but everything about immigration, Obama has signaled the lack of priority he will give to domestic efforts to keep us safe.
Imagine if President George W. Bush had named the governor of Arizona as his Homeland Security director when the post was created in the aftermath of 9/11! The nation would have howled in protest. But now that nobody is focused on terrorism (except the terrorists who still want to strike at us), Obama has felt free to bury the task of battling terrorism in the bureaucracy dedicated to policing the Mexican border.
Just as troubling is Obama's appointment of Eric Holder as his attorney general. While criticism of the nomination has focused, justifiably, on Holder's sellout of the public interest by recommending the pardon of fugitive Marc Rich, it is his approval of commutations for the FALN — the Puerto Rican terrorists — that should raise red flags.
Before 9/11, when we were not hyper-sensitive to terrorism, Holder did Hillary Clinton's bidding in approving the pardon of those who bombed Fraunces Tavern in New York City, killing four people and injuring 50 others. Facing a run for Senate in New York State, with its sizable Puerto Rican population, Hillary was anxious to deliver a signal of her empathy with the desires of New York's Hispanics.
Bill, eager to please, sought Justice Department approval for the commutations. Even though the prisoners themselves had not asked for commutation (two refused to accept it), Holder approved the action and cleared the way for a pre-election gift to New York's Puerto Rican community.
If these two appointments presage Obama's approach to the war on terror, we are going to be in deep trouble, indeed. There is not a hawk in the bunch.
Add to the mix that this is the first president/secretary of state combo that has no combined experience in foreign policy since Woodrow Wilson appointed William Jennings Bryan in 1912, and we face real danger.
Past presidents with no foreign experience have had the wisdom to appoint secretaries of state with significant experience in international relations. Truman had Byrnes and Gen. Marshall. Johnson had Dean Rusk. Carter had Cyrus Vance. Reagan had Al Haig and George Schultz. Clinton had Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright.
Each reached out to supplement their lack of experience, but not Obama. The appointment of Hillary Clinton does nothing to remedy Obama's inexperience and the appointments of Holder and Napolitano indicate that terrorism in general is a low priority for the upcoming administration.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)