- One nice thing about Bill Clinton's presidency was that you could oppose his policies without being called a racist (mostly).

- People who think Bush went into Iraq to enrich Halliburton have no right to complain about the Birthers.

- When you go looking for "code words" for racism, aren't you just making stuff up ?

- When I talk about Obama's huge first year deficit ($1.8 trillion) on this blog, why do liberals always bring up Bush's deficits to excuse Obama's ? (Note to libs – By doing that, you aren't countering my argument. You are only making the argument that Obama is worse than Bush).

- Obama can offer health insurance to 30-45 million more people with health care reform, or he can reduce health care costs, but he can't do both at the same time.

- Obama's health care reform offers less choice, not more choice.

- Only Democrats think Rush Limbaugh is the head of the Republican party.

- Why is it that when liberals call conservatives racists nearly non-stop, nothing ever happens to those liberals, but when Glenn Beck calls Obama a racist one time, 20 advertisers are pressured into dropping their ads from Beck's show ?

- The only point being made by those people who are carrying guns outside events at which the President is speaking is that the gun carriers are oblivious morons.

- Is there any doubt at all that House Democrats are seeking the financial records of health insurance companies in order to demonize those companies ?

- Why is it okay for Congress to buy private jets with taxpayer dollars, but it's not okay for CEO's to fly private jets to Washington D.C. after being bailed out with taxpayer dollars ?

- Why would we want the federal government, an organization that is nearly $12 trillion in debt (and counting), to run our health care system, which represents 17% of our economy ?

- The "Obama is Hitler" signs must stop, because Obama is not like Hitler – he's much more like a combination of Saul Alinsky and P.T. Barnum. (Note to liberal media – that Obama-Hitler "I've Changed" sign you idiots at MSNBC, NBC, and CNN keep attributing to right wingers came from a Lyndon Larouche group, a communist group. Is even a tiny bit of journalistic integrity too much to ask ?)

- Speaking of Saul Alinsky, doesn't Obama's playbook seem awfully close to Alinsky's Rules For Radicals (pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it) ?

- MSNBC is such a biased organization that they actually edited out the fact that it was a black man who was carrying the AR-15 outside an Obama event, so MSNBC could peddle it's racist angle to the story.

- In the interesting political poll of the week, Gallup polling showed that conservatives outnumber liberals almost two to one when it comes to political ideology, yet Democrats have a sizeable lead over Republicans in party affiliation. (In other words, conservative doesn't always equate to Republican. I can identify with that).

- If you want to know why the health care public option was in, then it was out, then it was back in again….it's because up to 100 House Democrats said it better be back in again.

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.” – Thomas Jefferson

Allow me to construct a hypothetical set of circumstances. Let's say our country was in the midst of a severe recession, that unemployment was rising rapidly as millions of jobs were being lost, that average people were having an increasingly difficult time getting by, that our industries were having a difficult time competing, that the value of the dollar was dropping, that we were up to our ears in debt……

Okay, that isn't hypothetical at all. That's what is actually happening.

Now, in response to this not-so-hypothetical set of crisis circumstances, what would you think of our government if it passed legislation that would bring about massive tax increases, that would make it even more difficult for our industries to compete, that would cause more job losses, that would raise energy costs dramatically, that would increase the price of practically every product consumers purchase, that would put the average person much further in the hole, and that wouldn't even provide the desired benefit of said legislation ???? (link)

I'd call that government destructive to the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd want that government replaced for working against the interests of the American people. That's what I'm thinking today after the House of Representatives passed Cap-And-Trade legislation by a narrow vote of 219-212.

The Cap-and-Trade bill, also known as Waxman-Markey, also known as The American Clean Energy And Security Act, also known as the Let Them Eat Cake Act, is a 1,200 page monstrosity that nobody in the House had time to read, because the final version of the bill wasn't posted until the night before friday's vote, and a 300 page amendment was added at 3:00am on the day of the vote. I seem to remember President Obama saying something about having the most transparent administration EVAH !…….I guess Congress didn't get the memo on that, because they are operating like cat burglars in the dead of night.

Here's a quick rundown of the bad guys and the good guys in the House. The bad guys voting FOR the destruction of America included 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The good guys voting AGAINST destruction included 44 Democrats and 168 Republicans. You can find a complete vote tally here. I'd like to single out Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for praise for standing against this bill. I've maligned Mr. Kucinich in the past, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong about him. He seems to be one of the few in the House who actually stands on his principles. That's noteworthy to me, even if I often disagree with him. The fact that 44 Democrats voted against this bill shows us that the Dems know Cap-And-Trade is a really bad idea, but lots of Democrats caved to pressure from the White House. El Presidente badly wants more control over all aspects of America, and this bill puts him in the express lane toward acquiring that control (but he believe in free markets ! lol).

"We've seen the example in Spain, it's a colossal mistake there, a political and an economic error. This could be the most colossal mistake ever made in the history of the United State Congress." – Congressman Steve King (R-IOWA).

I picked the above quote not only because a guy named King must be right, but because he mentioned Spain. What happened in Spain ?

Spain already implemented cap-and-trade, and has the most far-reaching renewable energy agenda in the European Union. The result ? Unemployment is at 18% in Spain (double the EU average), and there have been 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created. In addition, tons of subsidies are required for green energy initiatives to be competitive. The wind industry jobs created in Spain have come at a cost of $1.4 million PER JOB. (link)

Gee, who wouldn't want to emulate such "success" ???

But my favorite comment on the cap-and-trade legislation came from Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who when asked why he spent an hour reading portions of the bill aloud on the House floor, said, "Hey, people deserve to know what's in this pile of s–t." (link)

Even those who are in favor of restricting carbon emissions know that this cap-and-trade bill is, um, crap. Here's one such person, billionaire Warren Buffet of Berkshire Hathaway:

"I think if you get into the way it was written, it's a huge tax and there's no sense calling it anything else. I mean, it is a tax. And it's a fairly regressive tax. If we buy permits, essentially, at our utilities, that goes right into the bills of the utility customers, and an awful lot of people in Iowa, in Oregon, and Utah, and places where we are, very poor people are going to pay a lot more money for electricity. So I think that can be improved." (link)

Speaking of restricting carbon emissions, which is the stated purpose of cap-and-trade (all it's negative and destructive effects are just icing on the cake), exactly how much of an effect on global warming will this cap-and-trade bill have ? (for the sake of brevity, I'm assuming here that man-made carbon emissions are a significant cause of global warming, an assumption that is itself a source of controversy).

Washington Post writer Martin Feldstein lays it out in an article called Cap-And-Trade: All Cost, No Benefit.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

Waxman-Markey will have NO EFFECT on global warming, but it will have the "benefit" of further destroying our country.

In spite of all this, there are many American corporations ready to jump on the green bandwagon and profit from the carbon credit trading frenzy that El Presidente is trying to unleash on us. You're even familiar with some of these corporations – AIG, General Motors, Goldman Sachs, General Electric…you know, the GOOD corporations that we've all come to know and love so much during the recession. They are ready to jump on the manufactured energy bubble and rake in the big bucks. That these same companies are all recipients of government bailouts is just a big old coincidence, I'm sure. Too bad Enron isn't around any longer. Those guys knew how to run an energy bubble. I bet most of you didn't even know that General Electric got a bailout. Somehow, that hasn't been mentioned by the mainstream media very much. Not only did GE get a bailout, they got a $139 billion bailout, second in size to AIG's bailout. Yet somehow, the enormous GE bailout hasn't been mentioned or condemned by major television networks like……NBC, nor by NBC's retarded cable stepchildren over at MSNBC (aka, The Obama Channel). I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that General Electric OWNS NBC, or the fact that GE is deeply in bed with the Obama administration. I'm sure that can't be it. Everyone knows MSNBC is a group of highly dedicated professional journalists who would never compromise their integrity or ideals for…….LOL. Oh, man. I can't finish this sentence. Sometime I even crack myself up.

But make sure you contact GE for all your carbon credit trading needs. They are primed and ready for all their cap-and-trade lobbying to start paying dividends.

As for you, America, I hope you like cake, because if you don't rise up and stop this Cap-And-Trade disaster in the Senate, cake is all you'll have left. And maybe some government cheese to go with it, if you're lucky.

In the last nine months, we have learned a great deal about how "free market" economics in America really works. With all the bailouts of financial institutions (TARP), automobile companies (TARP), and federal/state/local governments (Stimulus package), it has become clear that our economic model is – profits are privatized (paid to investors), and losses are socialized (borne by taxpayers).

Not that this model applies to everyone. It doesn't. It only applies to the wealthy and powerful, those in the "too big to fail" category. For the non-powerful, the rules are the same as always. If mom and pop's bakery goes under, mom and pop still take the entire loss. The taxpayer's don't prop them up. Mom and pop assume the entire risk for the success or failure of their business. Only the big boys like Citigroup, AIG, GM, Chrysler, and Government get to operate in risk-free mode (nice work if you can get it). In fact, mom and pop not only have to bear the burden for their own business, they have to bear the burden for the big boys as well, because mom and pop are the taxpayers ameliorating risk for the wealthy and powerful. If GM loses, it comes out of mom and pop's pocket (thus giving new meaning to the old saying, 'As GM goes, so goes America.' That has never been more literally true than it is today). When GM (Government Motors) loses, mom and pop taxpayer have to pony up $62 billion and counting. If GM should turn around and start making money again someday, don't hold your breath waiting for mom and pop taxpayer to get paid back. Mark my words, that will NEVER happen. Chrysler's loan from taxpayers has already been forgiven (link). As part of GM's bankruptcy, $15.4 billion in loans from the taxpayer have been forgiven (link). President Obama has referred to GM's loan forgiveness as a "gift." In return for the "gift," the government gets to own a car company. Kewl. I'd say the taxpayers get to own a car company, but we all know that isn't true. The taxpayers don't really own squat. Remember the rule – profits are privatized, losses are socialized. If GM ever returns to profitability, Mr. and Mrs. American Taxpayer will never see a dime of it. There won't be any dividend checks coming their way.

In America, just like in the mob, you are either connected or you're not. Mr. and Mrs. American Taxpayers are NOT connected, therefore they don't get a cut of the loot. In America, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer are the marks. They don't get a cut, they only get the shakedown. In the case of GM, it's realy simple to figure out who's connected and who's not. Just look at the terms of the bankruptcy, which were handed down by diktat from the Don Fed-leone. Here's the new ownership of GM following bankruptcy:

Don Fed-leone (the federal government) gets a 60% ownership stake in GM.

Shareholders get virtually wiped out.

Of particular interest is the difference in terms between the bondholders and the union, both of whom are unsecured GM creditors. The bondholders got 10% for $28 billion in GM holdings, and the union got 17.5% for $20 billion in GM holdings. In addition, the union gets preferred stock. The bondholders do not. Preferred stockholders get paid first and are guaranteed dividends. The union got a MUCH better bankruptcy deal than the bondholders did. Why ?

Because the unions are more connected, that's why. They helped get President Obama elected, remember ? As Obama himself said, "I owe those unions." Don Fed-leone repays favors when it can.

Go here for a half-decent summary of GM's bankruptcy.

Btw, taxpayers. You get to back GM's warranties too.

We might have to rewrite the terms of bankruptcy law after this, because no such terms have ever been granted in bankruptcy before. This Presidential administration continues to move into uncharted waters of governmental authoritarianism. Uncharted for America, at least. Other countries operate like this all the time. Countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and China.

But not to worry, the government assures us that it doesn't really want to own or run automobile companies. The government assures us this is only temporary.

Like when the government took over Amtrak.

38 years ago.

Which the government still runs.

And which loses money every single year.

One guess who pays for those losses.

Why, you do, Mr. and Mrs. American Taxpayer.

You're the mark.

Baffle 'em with you-know-what.

If Washington D.C. has a credo, that must surely be it. The media isn't far behind.

But before I get into that, I'd like to take a moment to thank President Obama for saving us all from last week's swine flu pandemic (worldwide epidemic). Just think, if Bush was still the President, we'd probably all be dead now. Plus, Obama saved the country for the bargain basement price of $1.5 billion, which hasn't even been spent yet. Oh man, that Obama is GOOD.

The media was speculating today that the recession has bottomed out, because we only LOST 539,000 jobs in April. This rosy optimism came because the experts had predicted job losses of over 600,000. The media left out that the government hired 66,000 people to do the census, and the government hired many others as well (which accounts for almost the entire difference between the projections and the actual job numbers). Those government jobs are all on the taxpayer dime, of course, and add nothing to economic growth. The private sector is still hemorrhaging jobs as fast as ever, but I guess the media is looking for something positive to hand their hat on, because Obama is the president now, and that means CHANGE has come. Call me crazy, but I'll say the recession is over when we start CREATING jobs instead of losing them. The media's optimism comes in spite of the fact that GDP shrunk by 6.1% in the first quarter, and that we're $11 trillion in debt, and that we'll be running a $1.8 trillion deficit this year, and that we have massive deficits projected as far as the eye can see, and that Obama is projected to double the national debt in four years and triple it in eight years, and that unemployment is 8.9%, the highest in 25 years, and that we had a Treasury bond auction with demand so weak that we had to pay higher interest rates just to continue selling our long-term debt (which will raise Obama's deficit and debt projections even higher), and that our industrial base is vanishing, and that what's left of it is collapsing, and that we have massive unfunded entitlement liabilities looming on the horizon (growing at the rate of $2 trillion yearly), and that most of our state governments are broke, and that many banks failed the stress tests (they need $75 billion more bailout dollars, with more surely to come), and that credit still isn't flowing after $700 billion spent on TARP, and that companies all across the country are cutting back the hours of the workers they are retaining, and that if you add the folks who have fallen off the unemployment rolls to the unemployed numbers, unemployment comes out close to 15%, and that the federal government is spending dollars it doesn't have at an all-time record pace, and that the government is printing trillions of dollars out of thin air, and that the government has committed a total of $12 trillion thus far in fighting the recession, and that on top of that, Obama wants to raise energy prices through the roof and create lots more entitlements…………

I guess other than that, happy days are here again.

Oh yeah, and we're still fighting two wars, Obama has no idea what to do with the Gitmo prisoners, we're funneling money to Hamas, we're pondering whether to charge Bushco with war crimes, Pelosi's STILL lying about her knowledge of waterboarding even after the leaked CIA information proves she lied her butt off, Obama is looking for a Supreme Court Justice who is "empathetic" to certain groups as opposed to one who follows the law, the price index is rising in while we're in the depths of recession, Iran is almost certain to have nuclear weapons soon, the Pakistan government is in jeopardy (and Pakistan has nukes, which just maybe could be a problem if the Taliban gets their hands on)…

But other than that, everything's coming up roses.

Plus, Obama cut $17 billion from the budget. Golf clap for Obama. What the media left out of that story was that Obama isn't reducing the deficit by that $17 billion, oh no, he's going to use that money for OTHER government programs, so the net savings to taxpayers is ZERO. This is what passes for fiscal responsibility in the new Obama CHANGE era.

But it's all good. Thar's a new sheriff in town, and he reads that thar teleprompter REAL good.

Never mind that in order to avert fiscal armaggedon, Obama is going to have to come up with a tax increase of proportions never before contemplated in this country's history. By my reckoning, it will have to be at least $2 trillion per year to cover the deficits, interest on the debt, and the unfunded entitlements. It's either that or make drastic government spending cuts, and you know our new sheriff ain't 'bout to do that. Only them thar rightwing extremist fellas talk that kind o' crazy talk.

Welcome to the age of universal government.

I've gone on several rants on this blog previously about what a Ponzi scheme Social Security is. I now realize I've been thinking too small. It isn't just SS that is a Ponzi scheme. It's our entire federal government, and that Ponzi scheme is unraveling. The new funds required from the taxpayers can no longer keep up with the demand for funds the federal government requires. Like all Ponzi schemes, even one on as grand a scale as our government, it is destined to collapse.

But remember, put your hand over your mouth when you cough, and wash your hands frequently. Then everything should be fine.

An increasing number of banks and Wall Street firms that took bailout funds from the government under the TARP program want to give the money bank. One problem – the government won't let them. I'm not kidding.

"It should be called 'TRAP,' not TARP," said Brian Garrett, chief executive of Bank of the Bay in San Francisco, who is trying to return bailout funding. "Giving it back is harder than getting it."

Question – If the companies want to give the money back, did they really need the money in the first place ???

These companies say the burdens government is imposing on them harm their capacity for growth, and also sends their top financial talent to firms that aren't suffering under the government's TARP restrictions. In other words, the non-TARP receivers can still operate under the rules of the free market. TARP babies cannot.

In related news, House Financial Services Committee head Barney Frank (D-MA) has approved the introduction of the Pay For Performance Act Of 2009, that will allow the government to control the pay of ALL employees of companies that receive government assistance. As you may remember, back in february, the liar extraordinaire Frank, one of the prime enablers of the financial crisis, was longing to restrict the compensation of all financial companies, not just TARP receipients.

Fedzilla marches on, at warp speed.

If you want to see a classic example of how our government acts outside the law, watch this video with Glenn Beck ripping Connecticut's Attorney General a new one over the AIG bonuses. The good stuff starts about 1:30 into the video. Watch the AG squirm and stutter for 11 minutes as Beck continually asks him what law allows Connecticut's AG to take back the AIG bonuses (the eventual answer – there isn't one).

After watching Beck destroy this government clown, I only hope Beck, who lives in Connecticut, has his own financial house in locked-down airtight order. Then again, it doesn't really matter. If the government wants you, the government will get you.

Let me be clear: "The United States government has no interest or intention of running GM." – President Barack Obama

And then Obama forced GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign, told Chrysler it has to merge with Fiat or go into bankruptcy, and told GM it better restructure or it will go into bankruptcy too. link

The government IS running GM, and Chrysler too. Here is what the government wants it's auto companies to do:

"I am absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet one goal: The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars." – President Obama

By "clean cars," Obama means cars like GM's Chevrolet Volt, an electric car with a small internal combustion engine that will be used only to recharge the Volt's battery. There's one tiny problem with the Volt – the compact four seater will cost an estimated $40,000, pricing itself out of the market. There is one way for the Volt to be competitive, however. If gas prices skyrocket far beyond the current level of $2.00 per gallon, the Volt becomes a more attractive option. If gas prices stay low, well, India is producing the Nano, a car that will sell for $2,900. Which car do you think will sell more if gas is two bucks ? If Obama truly wants to revolutionize the auto industry, he has to force gas prices through the roof. Wait for that to happen. It won't be long.

Obama says neither GM nor Chrysler currently have viable business plans. He's probably right about that. Obama has given GM 60 days to come up with a new business plan that requires concessions from all involved. He's given Chrylser 30 days to work out it's merger with Fiat. The White House has sent government teams in to assist in formulating the new plans (but the government isn't running the auto companies. Right).

Also, guess who's paying for GM and Chrysler's warranties during this indefinite restructuring period ? YOU are, Mr. and Mrs. American Taxpayer:

A fund will be set up equal to 125 percent of the total cost to pay for warranty service. The automakers will contribute 15 percent while the government will provide 110 percent, with the money coming from the economic stabilization funds. A separate company will hold the funds and pay the claims even if one of the auto manufacturers goes into bankruptcy or goes out of business.

It sounds to me like GM and Chrysler are probably going into bankruptcy. Why else would the government need to back their warranties ? If this is the case, we could have saved the taxpayers over $20 billion in auto bailouts by putting the companies into bankruptcy last fall. Oh, well. What's $20 billion these days ? Chicken feed. We talk in trillions now. Our government is very adept at running businesses.

Finally, word is that when GM's outgoing CEO Wagoner was forced to resign, his retirement plan kicked in to the tune of $20 million. Sweet. Wagoner gets $20 million after his company lost $80 billion over the last four years. I don't know if I'm supposed to be outraged about this or not. I'm outraged about so much these days that outrage seems like the normal state. Maybe I'll call Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) so he can tell me how I should feel. Frank has already threatened AIG workers, so he seems like the guy to ask. My pitchfork is sharpened and ready for action. I'll try to get Rick Wagoner's home address so we can form a mob to foment violence against his family, like that ACORN group did to the AIG people. It's the new American way.

Congress gets very upset when TARP bailout money goes to corporate employee bonuses, corporate jet rides, and corporate golf tournaments.

What Congress doesn't get so very upset about is when TARP bailout money goes to Congress, in the form of campaign contributions.

In recent filings with the Federal Election Commission, the political action committee for Bank of America (which got $15 billion in bailout money) sent out $24,500 in the first two months of 2009, including $1,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and another $15,000 to members of the House and Senate banking panels. Citigroup ($25 billion) dished out $29,620, including $2,500 to House GOPWhip Eric Cantor, who also got $10,000 from UBS which, while not a TARP recipient, got $5 billion in bailout funds as an AIG "counterparty." "This certainly appears to be a case of TARP funds being recycled into campaign contributions," says Brett Kappell, a D.C. lawyer who tracks donations. (A spokesman for Cantor did not respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Hoyer said it's his "policy to accept legal contributions.")

In addition, TARP fund recipients paid $114 million in political contributions and lobbying efforts in 2008.

Some of the top recipients of contributions from companies receiving TARP money are the same members of Congress who chair committees charged with regulating the financial sector and overseeing the effectiveness of this unprecedented government program. They include Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (he received $854,200 from the companies in the 2008 election cycle, including money to his presidential campaign) and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, chair of the Senate Finance Committee (he received $279,000). In total, members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Senate Finance Committee and House Financial Services Committee received $5.2 million from TARP recipients in the 2007-2008 election cycle. President Obama collected at least $4.3 million from employees at these companies for his presidential campaign.

The companies making the biggest political donations just so happened to be the same companies that received the largest TARP bailouts. What a coincidence.

The companies giving the most to fund lawmakers' campaigns and spending the most on lobbying efforts were also those that received the most TARP money to help them stay afloat. This includes General Motors, which spent $15 million between campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures and got $10.4 billion (more than all other companies), Bank of America (and the investment company it bought last year, Merrill Lynch), which spent $14.5 million to play politics and received $45 billion from the bailout bill; and American International Group (AIG), which spent $10.6 million and was paid out $40 billion. Citigroup was also one of the largest spenders to see a big result: between lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions, the company spent $12.5 million and got $50 billion.

For a complete list of TARP recipients that spent money on campaign contributions and lobbying, see the above link.

While I'm sure all our congressional members have the very highest ethical standards (LOL. Sometimes I crack myself up), this information makes it look like taxpayer dollars were for sale to the highest bidder.

Just like always.

Maybe the campaign contributions made these companies too big to fail.

FYI – Bank of America, receiver of $45 billion in TARP funds, MADE A PROFIT in 2008. So did Goldman Sachs. So did Morgan Stanley. Hmmm. Citigroup lost a lot of money in 2008, but over the last five years, has made a five year net profit of about $39 billion. All these companies made a bundle if you look back beyond the fourth quarter of 2008. They all made HUGE profits for years prior.

Get the picture ? These companies are not only to big to fail, they're too big to suffer even a one quarter loss before the government takes money from us peons to prop up the earnings statements of the big boys.

THEY are too big for the government to let fail. WE are too small for the government to give a damn about.