Once is happenstance, twice is a coincidence. The third time is enemy action

As the President is rolling around the Midwest in Greyhound One blaming the tea party, "bad luck" and everyone but himself and his crappy economic advisors for the deplorable state of the economy, we have been able to string together enough data points to come to one firm conclusion: Why should it be any surprise... why should it be so unexpected that the economy is in the tank and possibly sliding back into a recession when members of Team O think that it's a tremendous accomplishment that we have a record number of people on food stamps.

Here's Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack explaining to a host on MSNBC's Morning Joe how it is they really have no intentions of getting people off food stamps and how they are content to do quite the opposite.

0:26 food stamps "... are putting people to work."

0:45 "... the food stamp program... is also economic stimulus. Every dollar in SNAP benefits generates a $1.84 in the economy."

1:03 food stamps "... is the most direct stimulus you can get into the economy during tough times."

And at the end did he really just suggest that California, Texas and Florida were doing a poor job of stimulating their economies because they didn't have enough people in the food stamp program?

And you may have noticed that Vilsack nearly doubles-down on ridiculousness with that 1:1.84 multiplier effect as just last week White House spokesman Jay Carney claimed only a 1:1 mulitiplier effect. It should be readily apparent by now that with the current state of our economy and the wide disparity between those claimed numbers, these two were just pulling their respective multiplier effect numbers completely out of thin air.

Again, when President Obama has surrounded himself with such a quantity and quality of economic illiterates... people that are actually proud of how many people are on food stamps and, like Nancy Pelosi, giddy about how many people are receiving jobless benefits because they are the best economic stimulants, why should we be surprised that our economy is showing no sign of recovery?

Where there should be shame and some degree of contrition, there is only back-slapping. Pathetic.

Smack of the day (UPDATED)

Alternate headline: All you really needed to know about the President's budget speech yesterday.

I guess vice presidents are like toddlers. No matter how much trouble they cause when they’re awake, they always look so peaceful and adorable when they’re sleeping.

Even when he isn't gaffe-ing away, the Veep is every much a credit to this Administration.



(UPDATE #1): The Liberator Today has an insightful and comprehensive break-down of the President's deficit reduction plan, here.

What others are saying

Entrance question: Are the New York Times' columnists all confined to the same living quarters? Even if it does have the carbon footprint of Friedman's crib?

Mom sends them downtown everyday with their sack lunch and the identical note folded up on a 3"x5" card.

All of that could have been pulled together under the umbrella of job creation — short-term and long-term. In the immediate aftermath of Mr. Obama’s historic victory, and with the trauma of the economic collapse still upon us, it would have been very difficult for Republicans on Capitol Hill to stand in the way of a rebuild-America campaign aimed at putting millions of men and women back to work.

Maybe they were all on holiday together as well in February of '09, a mere month into the new Presidency, when all $800 billion of Porkulus passed but our recollection is that the Obama regime has very much indeed, with Keynesian brute force, focused on jobs every step of the way and with the entirely predictable results.

The meme for '10 (and '12?) has emerged: Porkulus, son of Porkulus, Cash for Clunkers, Cash for Caulkers and Home-owners' assistance programs to name but a few were entirely insufficient if unworthy of mention altogether, the Democrats and the President really need to get serious about the economy and job creation this time around.

Forget John Galt.... who is Ellie Light?

Like a clarion call, the identical language has been popping up in letters to the editor across the nation as a defense of the President:

Today, the president is being attacked as if he’d promised that our problems would wash off in the morning. He never did. It’s time for Americans to realize that governing is hard work, and that a president can’t just wave a magic wand and fix everything.

The Philadelphia Daily News, the San Francisco Examiner, Mansfield (Ohio) News Journal, South Carolina’s Sun News, the Washington Times, a blog at USA Today, Wisconsin’s Sheboygan Press and Stevens Point Journal, Good Times of (of course) Santa Cruz, CA., Daily Breeze in Long Beach, CA., and even The Bangkok Post… all these and more have featured the pennings of one “Ellie Light” who, in each instance, has claimed to be a local resident.

Of course, someone as ubiquitous as Ms. Light must be a networking demon and sure enough, she has her own Facebook profile.

Sweet! We’re so “friending” Ellie.

H/T: Hot Air

We're in the best of hands

(click on image to enlarge)



H/T: Harrison

Voter Alert

If you haven't done so already, please get ye over to the right-hand margin to participate in BwD's latest poll. If you have, pass it along to a friend, if you think they would enjoy it.

A primer for the poll and candidate info can be found here.

Poll Question

New poll question which can be found in the upper right hand margin of the page.

We hesitated going with this poll but after it was revealed that the New York Fed, while being headed by the now Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, told the money-laundering service, AIG, to keep quiet about to which financial institutions AIG was funneling its TARP money, we figured, screw it - let’s roll.

Poll question: Who’s the biggest hack in the Obama administration?

We don’t want to influence the voting, but for the sake of discussion, we don’t think it’s either Rahmbo or Axelrod. You are certainly welcome to disagree. We give these two credit for never trying to sell themselves as something they are not. Emanuel is an unapologetic, bare-knuckles, Chicago-way pol. He is who he is and we have a grudging degree of respect for that. Same for Axelrod: In our eyes at least, he has never tried to fashion himself as anything other than the absolute sleaze merchant he is. Again, with the sliding scale to which you have to hold this gang, that is to be commended.

We certainly invite write-ins in the comment section because we realize this list is by no means a comprehensive one with respect to potential candidates. Here are your choices listed in alphabetical order:





David Axelrod - Senior advisor to the President





Rahm Emanuel - White House Chief of Staff





Timothy Geithner - Secretary of the Department of Treasury




Eric Holder - Attorney General





Valerie Jarrett - special advisor to the President

Quote of the day (UPDATED)

“Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes are geniuses: They found a niche market — half of America.”

- Charles Krauthammer




Over at frequent commenter Harrison’s blog Just Politics? he has side by side debate going with Joseph of Let’s Talk Politics regarding Fox News and which can be found here.

As the White House continues its absurd, counter-productive and disappointing war of words with Fox News, we’ve seen the phrase “truth/reality has a liberal bias” suddenly blast upon the scene hoisted aloft by defenders of Big Media who appear offended that a singular network among dozens and dozens of major news outlets could so deviously formulate a format that results in ratings that are kicking everyone else’s ass.

Wasn’t it the liberal-Left that leveled the charge of “moral certainty” at President Bush and counted it as perhaps his biggest sin? Isn’t viewing the world in an entirely black and white manner one of the major faults of conservatism and that it isn’t sufficiently nuanced?

How then is this term “truth has a liberal bias” really any different than the shortcomings liberals see in Bush and conservatives?

And back to the White House vs. Fox… wouldn’t you think that the rest of Big Media would be the slightest bit embarrassed by the implication that they are BFF with the Obama administration simply because they aren’t Fox News and the administration isn’t including anyone else in their ranks in which to whine about?

H/T: NRO's The Corner


(UPDATE #1):

What we're facing now is a drive for a real one party press, not through free expression but through open intimidation by the top officials of our government... I cannot help but wonder what the substantive difference is between the administration's position and that in practice in the Soviet Union.

Who said it? Rush? Hannity? Beck? Nope, nada and nyet (although, the present-tense to which the Soviet Union is referred kind of gives it away as a dated quote).

The above is a quote from Norman Isaacs who was the president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and it was in response to what they felt was President Nixon’s and vice-President Spiro “nattering nabobs of negativity” T. Agnew’s attempt to chill free speech in the press back in the early 70s.

Hack

Hey, do you remember when we were told that if we voted for McCain it would mean more politicizing of the Justice Department? Well, they were right.

The Holder Justice Department strikes again:

Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters' election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.

Kinston is under the jurisdiction of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and as such, any changes to their voting laws must be approved by the Justice Department. Nevertheless, how does one begin to justify the reasoning that blacks won’t be able to vote for their candidate of choice unless they know whether or not they are a Democrat?

And how can the Justice Department make a ruling that is so blatantly partisan?

What this reveals, plain and simple, is the soft bigotry of low expectations for the blacks of this town held by Holder’s Justice Department. You can bet your bottom dollar that is what you would hear, and rightly so, if the Bush administration had ruled in a similar fashion.

It's the freedom, stupid. (UPDATED)

Regarding Honduras:

U.S. policy is mystifying since the ousted president’s removal from office was a rare example in Latin America of an institutional defense of democracy as envisioned by the constitution and interpreted by the Supreme Court that ruled that the president be removed.

Precisely. Isn’t a functioning democracy and one that is not a third-world socialist strong-man state what we want for our central American neighbors… hell, for everybody? Yet, we do everything in our power to subvert the sovereign decisions of a nation that acted in a constitutional manner setting a horrible precedent for all the other nations of that region striving for the free state of democracy.

Apparently, there is a legal analysis at the State Department prepared by their top lawyer that the State Department is unwilling to make public. Why? As it could possibly be another source of embarrassment for the administration’s handling of this affair? Stay tuned.



(UPDATE #1):

Oh crap

UN experts concluded that there was no coup in Honduras.

The study of the crisis in Honduras coincided with that conducted by the Library of Congress *** The study of the political crisis in Honduras was endorsed with official information received by the UN experts in the country visit last week coincided with the foreign ministers of the OAS. Washington, USA. A study by the Department of Political Affairs of the United Nations Organization (UNO) on the causes of the crisis in Honduras, concluded that the removal of President Manuel Zelaya, "was constitutional under the laws of the country," confirmed officials of that agency.

Did we have this whole Honduras thing wrong? Honestly. One begins to question oneself when the U.N. comes to the same conclusion.

Or does this just point to how monumentally the administration has botched this thing when even the Star Wars cantina scene can figure it out?

Stay tuned.

The Chicago Way: Western Hemisphere edition

Nice country you got there, Honduras

Shame if anything happened to it.



Our handling of the Honduras situation becomes more deplorable every day.

The United States has warned Honduras' de facto government it could face cuts in economic aid if it fails to reach a deal with ousted President Manuel Zelaya on restoring democratic rule.

(ed.: italics, ours. Typical Reuters, implying that the current government is illegitimate)

The government that took power when Zelaya was toppled in a June 28 coup has flatly refused to allow his return to power, and negotiations mediated by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias collapsed on Sunday.

Washington hopes Arias can broker a deal that includes Zelaya's return and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke with the de facto government's leader Roberto Micheletti after talks fell apart, urging him to continue with negotiations.

"She made clear, if the de facto regime needed to be reminded, that we seek a restoration of democratic and constitutional order, a peaceful resolution," spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Monday.

"She reminded him about the consequences for Honduras if they fail to accept the principles that President Arias has laid out, which would (have) a significant impact in terms of aid and consequences, potentially longer-term consequences ... for the relationship between Honduras and the United States."

We’ve already cut $16.5 million in military aid and will soon be taking hacks at the $180 million in annual economic aid. So, we’re threatening a legitimate democracy that acted constitutionally to effectively depose its leader and have sided with the other socialist goons in the neighborhood while taking an active part in brokering the ill-fated negotiations and Reuters describes it as “…has largely taken a hands-off approach to the crisis,”

Pathetic

Quote of the Day

We are possibly witnessing some of the practical effects of the hell-bent rush to close Club Gitmo.

"This is a very sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. . . . So we put it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join in the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are behind bars or imprisoned."

That from Iraqi official Sami al-Askari on the proper framing of the hostage-for-terrorist negotiations held between the U.S., the Brits and the terrorist network, Asaib al-Haq.

Read the whole story at the link. It's not pretty.

Let's see how much traction this story gets.

"Uh, about that whole 'no strings attached' thing..."

And the hits, they just keep on coming...

The Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget.

Schwarzenegger's office was advised this week by federal health officials that the wage reduction, which will save California $74 million, violates provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Failure to revoke the scheduled wage cut before it takes effect July 1 could cost California $6.8 billion in stimulus money, according to state officials.

We were unaware that there were any such provisions for porkulus.

The wages at issue involve workers who care for some 440,000 low-income disabled and elderly Californians. The workers, who collectively contribute millions of dollars in dues each month to the influential Service Employees International Union and the United Domestic Workers, will see the state's contribution to their wages cut from a maximum of $12.10 per hour to a maximum of $10.10.

The SEIU said in a statement that it had asked the Obama administration for the ruling.

(italics, ours)

Oh, those provisions. It's all crystal clear now.

"Forget it, Jake - it's only a lousy auto company" (UPDATED)

(UPDATE #1): Judge to Chrysler bankruptcy holdouts: "Pound sand... and reveal yourselves!"

A US bankruptcy judge has rejected an attempt by dissident Chrysler creditors to derail the sale of the ailing carmaker’s viable assets to a group of new shareholders, including Italy’s Fiat.

Banks holding the bulk of $6.9bn in secured debt have accepted about 28 cents on the dollar in cash. But a group of about 20 investors, including Oppenheimer Funds and Stairway Capital, refused on the grounds that they were being strong-armed into concessions by the Obama administration.

They argue that the current deal strips them of their rights and runs counter to normal bankruptcy proceedings because it does not honor their senior claim on Chrysler’s assets.

Judge Gonzalez also ruled on Tuesday that the non-Tarp lenders must disclose their identities. They had earlier resisted on the grounds that some had received death threats.

Nice to know that due process and just compensation have been thrown out the window in the name of political expediency.

Congressional and Treasury meddling, death threats, public dress-downs by the Administration... is it any wonder that private money is sitting out the recovery effort? Would you put your money into a system where no one really knows the rules?

(here endeth the update)






Feared to be going the way of AIG execs, the bond holders who have objected to the “cram down” Chrysler bankruptcy deal because they are getting a raw deal as compared to the unions, dwindled from 20 to 9. The resulting debt owned by the holdouts has thus dwindled from $1 billion to $295 million of the $6.9 billion in secured debt.

This, after the President chastised them for having the temerity to question the legality of the deal (and sue) as per the 5th amendment (due process and just compensation), death threats and a report that the Administration was going to sick the White House press corps on these unpatriotic dissidents.

This kind of reminds us of the farmers up in the Owens Valley being swindled out of their land by representatives of the Metropolitan Water District in order to bring water to Los Angeles back in the early part of the last century. Well, it reminds us of that except for the unconstitutionality, public belittlement and potential character assassination parts…. other than that, yeah, pretty similar.

P.S. Apologies for the oblique referencing. The Owens Valley land grab provided the historic backdrop for the classic Chinatown and Jake Gittes, played by Jack Nicholson, was the hard-boiled detective trying to make sense out of the non-sensical.

Starting to see a pattern develop

Just getting caught up on some semi-old news.

Our comment from our post as to why the President would feel compelled to release the CIA interrogation memos:

Because of the timing of the announcement, I can't help but think that this is somewhat of a response to Dick Cheney's challenge to release the rest of the memo. As in, "I'll show you, you dirty rat".

Presenting that logic was kept from the main body of the post because we wanted to believe that the President would keep politics separate from national security. It looks as though we have again mis-underestimated this Administration’s motivations towards those ends.

This from WaPo and the “intense” debate as to whether or not to release the memos:

A source familiar with White House views said Obama's advisers are further convinced that letting the public know exactly what the past administration sanctioned will undermine what they see as former vice president Richard B. Cheney's effort to "box Obama in" by claiming that the executive order heightened the risk of a terrorist attack.

From an unlicensed plumber to a talk-radio host to a legislatively insignificant former Veep, this Administration’s penchant for expending energy... and items critical to national security... on peripheral political “foes” is curious as well as troubling.

A bad idea that just keeps getting worse.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Banks also cannot give the money back because it would be "sending the wrong signal." The signal that there is some health in the financial sector and that banks on an individual basis are ready to move forward and get on with business. Of course, that's not going to happen until this Admnistration and Congress extracts its pound of flesh and remakes the industry in its image. And isn't that a comforting thought?

Read more here.

Unforeseen (?) consequences

Another day, another… you know the rest.

We’re afraid we may have been overcome by "crappy idea fatigue", but persevere we must.

The Obama administration is considering asking Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, according to an administration document.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Giving the Treasury secretary authority over a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators, according to the document.

(italics, ours)

For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that was done with respect to the Patriot Act regarding governmental incursion into private matters, how is all this remotely any better? At least the Patriot Act had an expiration date. Now we are faced with the prospects of a ‘roid-raged Congress leveling confiscatory taxes at target groups they don’t like all in an attempt to cover for their monumental incompetence and this plan that would give a two-time tax cheat and someone on the President’s cabinet the power to decide what firms and institutions they will effectively take over.

What is the criteria for “qualifying” for a takeover? What is it exactly that Geithner and...Larry Summers(?)... Rahm Emanuel(?) will do once they take over these entities? And how will this arrangement not be subject to political chicanery?

What galls us more than anything, though, is that we feel compelled to ask these very specific questions when just the concept, the mere notion of this plan should be dismissed out of hand, no questions asked.

And everybody was up in arms over the expansion of Executive power during the Bush years?

B-Daddy predicted, years ago, that the expansion of Executive power, though passing legal muster and even for legitimate purposes of defending the country against foreign and domestic terror threats would prove to have disastrouus long-range consequences. We didn't want to believe him but our John the Baptist-Messiah/Bush-Obama meme appears to be fleshing out.

The Random-ideas-that-stink-generator at the White House is running quite smoothly, thank you very much.

Another day, another crappy idea to come out of the White House.

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

The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report on some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Last month, as part of the stimulus package, Congress barred top executives at large banks getting rescue money from receiving bonuses exceeding one-third of their annual pay.

(Oh, really?)

(emphasis, ours)

Just so we're all on the same page, these "new rules" in whatever form, fit and function they will be applied, apply even to those private entities that are not receiving any bailout money. Someone inside the Federal government, be they from the Treasury Department or perhaps a Congressional committee will be passing judgement on executive pay and bonuses. Of course, doing this will not do one single thing towards actually solving the current crisis but it will allow the Administration to look like they are being "sensitive" to the public's apparent populist bloodlust.

Hey, while they are at it, why not print the names and addresses of those executives on the recovery.gov website. Congress would think that is a hell of an idea.

Yep. If there’s anyway to get the world of banking and finance back on its feet again while retaining any decent leadership at these institutions, it would be to regulate pay and bonuses and have the two-time tax cheat nosing around in everybody’s business .

We’ll hand it to the Obama Administration, though - just when you think they can’t come up any more crappy or crappier ideas, they hit the reset button on that generator and out pops another one.

Chris Dodd is #1! (UPDATED with video of Dodd, himself)

Senator Chris Dodd tops the list of AIG campaign contribution recipients for 2008. Amid the faux rage of Congress over the AIG bonuses, the obvious question is whether or not the folks below will return the money.

1. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., $103,100
2. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., $101,332
3. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., $59,499
4. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., $35,965
5. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., $24,750
6. Former Gov. Mitt Romney, (R) Pres $20,850
7. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., $19,975
8. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn, $19,750
9. Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., $18,500
10. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R) Pres $13,200
11. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., $12,000
12. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., $11,000


In other news today, people are scratching their heads and wondering how it is that AIG was allowed these bonuses in the first place.

But though some lawmakers did move to prevent bonuses in the stimulus bill last month, the final language actually makes an exception for pre-existing contracts, effectively exempting AIG.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who originally proposed the executive compensation provision, said he did not include the exemption clause, which said new rules "shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009."

In an interview with CNN, Dodd denied inserting that exemption at the 11th hour, and insisted he doesn't know how it got there.

"When I wrote the language there was no such language like that," Dodd told CNN Tuesday.

So….. there are only two ways to play this. At worst, Dodd is a bald-faced liar who did indeed write that language to protect a significant campaign benefactor. At best, he was asleep at the wheel on a section of porkulus for which he was responsible. Additionally, this speaks to just how hurried, rushed, haphazard and just what a “cram-down” the fashioning of porkulus was.

It’s either one or the other. And either way, if Dodd had a shred of decency about him, he would step down from chairmanship of the Senate Banking Committee. Of course, he doesn't, so he won't.

We remain incredulous that news item after news item quotes Dodd fulminating on the banking and housing crisis as some sort of paragon of wisdom and integrity without even a hint of irony.

UPDATE #1: Thanks to commenter, Pro, we’ve liberated a link to a site that has a nice wrap-up of everything AIG bonuses-related and where we discovered the video below of none other than Chris Dodd.

Bumper sticker version in case you don’t have the time nor the stamina to watch the whole thing: Everybody kind of knew about the bonuses a while back and everyone kind of knew they would get their pants sued-off by AIG if they did anything to prevent the bonuses so everyone just kind of allowed the bonus exemption language into the porkulus bill.

One could almost see Rahm Emmanuel, though, whispering to the President: “Boss, this is perfect. While the Treasury prints another $1 trillion it doesn’t have we can use this next “crisis” to express our outrage to the American people over these AIG fat cats.”

How’s that working for ya, Rahm?

Embed no worky - please click here for video.