Cordray Nomination Jeopardizes Constitutional Checks and Balances
[BigGovernment.com]
Posted Jan 7th 2012 at 1:41 pm
Forty-four of 46 Republican Senators vowed they would not approve “any consumer financial bureau director unless the agency was put under a five-member outside board, had its work checked periodically by bank examiners and had its budget approved by Congress rather than the Federal Reserve.”
So when Republicans refused to confirm the President’s nominee, Richard Cordray, to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, America’s number one duffer shouldn’t have been surprised.
Senate Republicans maintained that voting down the nomination of Cordray had everything to do with the Dodd-Frank financial reform agency lacking oversight, and nothing to do with the candidate Obama chose to head it up. In other words, Republicans wanted to take consumer protection a step further than the President was willing to go, vowing that they’d agree to confirm a director, but not before additional consumer safeguards and supervision are put in place.
As for Obama’s nominee Richard Cordray, besides being the former Attorney General of the state of Ohio and acting as chief enforcement officer at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for the last year, Cordray is a five-time undefeated Jeopardy champion. Which may be why, when chiding Republicans for blocking his appointment, the President kept mentioning game playing.
According to Barack Obama, champion Jeopardy player Cordray has the expertise to “protect American families from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders, payday lenders and debt collectors.”
After his pick was rejected, posing a few questions of his own, an irritated Barack Obama wanted to know if “Republicans in Congress think our financial crisis was caused by too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors?”
It’s Wrong to Steal…Even When the Government Does It Using Asset Forfeiture
BigGovernment.com
by Dan Mitchell
Posted Aug 23rd 2011 at 1:01 pm
As a grumpy libertarian, I routinely get agitated about taxes, spending, and regulation. As far as I’m concerned, much of government is a racket that uses coercion to reward interest groups with unearned wealth.
But there are degrees of evil. So if you asked me to pick the most reprehensible thing that government does, “asset forfeiture” might be in second place (hurting poor people to benefit rich people is at the top of my list).
Asset forfeiture occurs when government seizes property that is associated with a crime. That sounds reasonable – and it is reasonable if someone is convicted of, say, bank robbery and the government confiscates the stolen cash and any loot purchased with that money.
But it is not reasonable (or moral, or just, or appropriate) when government seizes assets without a conviction. And it is downright disgusting when the government steals (and I use that word deliberately) the assets of innocent parties.
I’ve already written about this issue (including an example from my county) and highlighted how asset forfeiture gives government bureaucracies a perverse incentive to steal.
Now we have a story from the Wall Street Journal that confirms our worst fears.
Stagflation Will Follow Fed’s Inflation
BigGovernment.com
Posted Feb 22nd 2011 at 5:33 pm
The Federal Reserve’s QE2 stimulus has stoked a fire storm of global of inflation. What began in the Middle East and North Africa as a rebellion against rising food and basic essentials for some of the poorest people on earth has now spread to supposed success stories, like China. Over the weekend, rioting broke out in Beijing, Shanghai and 11 other major cities to the chant of “We want food, we want work, we want housing, we want fairness”. As inflation moves on from food to rising fuel costs and then mounting raw material imports; the U.S. is about to be hammered by the combination of higher prices squeezing consumer discretionary spending and higher material costs hurting business profits. Americans need to be prepared this fall for the economy’s ugliest witch’s brew: STAGFLATION.
Chinese police deployed in large numbers this weekend to quash what is being called the “Jasmine Revolution”. China’s authoritarian Communist leadership is trying to short-circuit dissent before it spins into the type of popular uprisings seen in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria and Libya; where over 500 people have died. Although Chinese law enforcement tried to crack down on Internet communications, cell phone pictures and videos of protestor’s resentment and desperation is leaking out.
Americans should not be fooled that these protests are someone else’s problems. We may only spend about 10% of our income on food, but much of the rest of the world spends 1/2 their income on food. When people who have little or nothing see what little they have evaporating, there is no downside to violent confrontation with the establishment.
The Case for Social Security Personal Accounts
BigGovernment.com
Posted Jan 10th 2011 at 2:52 pm
by Dan Mitchell
There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely caused by demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record amounts of tax in exchange for comparatively meager benefits. This video explains how personal accounts can solve both problems, and also notes that nations as varied as Australia, Chile, Sweden, and Hong Kong have implemented this pro-growth reform.
Social Security reform received a good bit of attention in the past two decades. President Clinton openly flirted with the idea, and President Bush explicitly endorsed the concept. But it has faded from the public square in recent years. But this may be about to change. Personal accounts are part of Congressman Paul Ryan’s Roadmap proposal, and recent polls show continued strong support for letting younger workers shift some of their payroll taxes to individual accounts.
Top 10 Failures of Obamanomics
BigGovernment.com
Posted Sep 23rd 2010 at 7:46 am
by Vince Haley
President Obama unveiled his latest economic proposal in Cleveland recently in a desperate attempt to boost the Democrats’ fleeting hopes of maintaining control of Congress this November. But after two years of massive government spending and job-killing policies, the damage has already been done and it’s clear this fall’s election will be boiled down to a simple choice: job killers versus job creators.
With unemployment at 9.6%, the American people are clamoring for candidates with a solutions-oriented agenda for job creation as an alternative to the job-killing policies of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine.
Intel CEO Paul Otellini described it this way: “I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they’re flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working.”
Simply put, candidates who propose job-creating policies and show how their opponent’s policies are killing jobs will win decisively in 2010.
American Solutions has already put forth its Jobs Here, Jobs Now, Jobs First plan, so let’s examine the top 10 job-killing policies of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine.
1. $1 Trillion ObamaCare
Despite being law for less than a year, ObamaCare has already had a devastating impact on the economy. For example, Milwaukee-based Assurant Health is eliminating 130 jobs due to the new healthcare law, while one of Iowa’s largest companies, Deere & Company, said ObamaCare will cost them $150 million. AT&T, meanwhile, was hit with $1 billion in new costs related to the law. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. According to a study from the National Federation of Independent Business, within the first five years of ObamaCare over 1.6 million jobs will be lost because of the employer mandate alone.
2. $800 Billion Failed Stimulus
Despite having no basis in economics—and widely mocked as unserious—the Obama administration foolishly continues to claim the stimulus “saved or created” millions of jobs. However, for a far more accurate characterization look no further than the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which calculates that more than 2.5 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus became law. If you factor in jobs “lost and dislocated,” that number could be as high as 4 million.
3. Cap and Trade Energy Tax
According to the Heritage Foundation, Waxman-Markey, the House-passed version of cap and trade, could kill more than 1 million jobs per year, raise annual energy costs by $829 for the average family, and increase gasoline prices by $1.38 per gallon. The Senate version of cap and trade, Kerry-Lieberman, is equally destructive. A study by Chamberlain Economics found the Kerry-Lieberman bill would kill 522,000 jobs in 2015, and up to 5.1 million jobs by 2050. Families would also face an additional burden of $1,042 per year as a result of the bill.
4. 2011 Automatic Tax Increases
If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are not extended by January 1, 2011, then a $3.8 trillion tax increase will hit every American who pays income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center, expiration of these tax cuts will increase the average tax filer’s burden by $1,368 per year. Additionally, analysts at Deutsche Bank predicted that GDP could drop by as much as 1.5% if the tax cuts expire. Just last week, 31 House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer indicating their support for extending all of the tax cuts.
5. $13 Trillion National Debt
If you add up the massive expansion of government outlined in this list and elsewhere, the national debt has increased by $2.4 trillion under President Obama’s watch to a total of over $13 trillion. Even worse, the White House projects the national debt to double by 2020 to over $26 trillion. As CBS News’ Mark Knoller wrote, “If you could buy stock in the National Debt, do it. It’s headed for the moon.”
Selling Obama’s Spending Plans: Just Pay Separate Processing and Handling
BigGovernment.com
Posted Aug 9th 2010 at 9:27 am
Sound familiar? Most everyone has heard it time and time again. It’s the way many TV sales pitches end after seeming to give the viewing audience something for nothing. It’s a sucker’s pitch. It usually works like this: you are offered the gadget of the moment for the bargain price (typically) of $19.95, and you get an additional gadget for free. Then comes the addendum (very quickly and often in a whisper) “just pay separate processing and handling.” The fee is never disclosed, but it’s always there (typically $9.95 for each gadget, or another $19.90 for both which brings the total to $39.85 exclusive of shipping charges) proving there are no free lunches. This deceitful advertising used by television pitchman works so well that its equivalent has become the new Obama-Pelosi-Reid pitch to disguise the true cost of their programs.
And while this may not be a precise analogy for the way things are done in Washington, it’s close enough. “Just pay processing and handling” is our metaphor for the entire panoply of Washington speak that produces programs, the costs of which are often orders of magnitude more than originally represented. We are, almost daily it seems, pitched free lunches or “benefits” by our government. And while the seemingly irreversible debt we are currently piling on our children and grandchildren is truly unprecedented in American history, this administration did not invent the government “free lunch” shell game; they’ve simply refined and extended it with complete abandon. As Ronald Reagan so aptly warned, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
ShoreBank Fiasco Reveals Rift on the Left
BigGovernment.com
Posted Jul 9th 2010 at 11:01 am
The Hill revealed yesterday that Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and three other Chicago Democrats have written a letter to Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, asking him to release $70 million in federal TARP funds to bail out ShoreBank. ShoreBank’s political patrons have made Geithner their number one target, ever since the Treasury balked on supporting one of the most brazenly corrupt bailouts of the past several years.
Photo credit: Associated Press
Bill Brandt, chairman of the Illinois Finance Authority (IFA), launched the first attack last month: “It’s now clearer than ever to me that while [Geithner]’s happy to have these people clean his apartment and those of his cronies on Wall Street, he’s not comfortable with them getting mortgages for their homes.” Ironically, the IFA itself declined to bail out ShoreBank when Schakowsky’s overtures to the State of Illinois were exposed.
The corrupt Shorebank bailout has pitted one faction of the left against another. On the one side are those like Geithner, who are starting to wake up to the grim economic reality that bailouts and corruption have imposed on our nation. On the other side are those like Schakowsky, who are determined to borrow, spend, and tax our nation into penury in order to chase their radical ideals and reward their political cronies.
The dividing line between the two factions is not based on ideology, but circumstance: those with actual responsibilities are the ones getting cold feet. Even Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) was prepared to allow an investigation of ShoreBank and other bailouts into the financial regulation bill, until that amendment was killed in Senate negotiations at the last moment by those determined to cover up the role of the White House in the affair.
Schakowsky and other Chicago politicians who have lobbied for the ShoreBank bailout claim they are acting on behalf of a bank that serves needy communities. What they refuse to explain is why ShoreBank is the only community development bank they have campaigned and lobbied for, out of all the community development financial institutions in America that would be eligible for the $1 billion set aside within TARP for their benefit.
CWNews Posted Comments