Chris Dodd: (Still) #1

Judicial Watch has compiled their 10 most corrupt politicians of 2009 and Chris Dodd, the prohibitive favorite coming off his title-winning campaign last year, claims his 2nd straight crown this year.

This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 "Ten Most Corrupt" list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him.

In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch's complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms.

However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.

So, to one of the bright lights in the most ethical Congress ever, we salute you, Senator Dodd!

Rounding out the Top 10:

Senator John Ensign (R-NV)
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner
Attorney General Eric Holder
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL)
President Barack Obama Oh, my
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA)
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)

It should be noted that this list is in alphabetical order and Chris Dodd really isn’t #1 but we couldn’t resist the convergence of a great photo op and him being listed first. To prevent any confusion in future years, perhaps we could advise the Senator to stay off this list altogether. As someone who’s taken an oath to uphold the law and represent the people, that’s probably not asking too much.

The obligatory "most ethical Congress in history" update.

From the AP:

House Democrats have declined to subpoena available records that might reveal whether other members of Congress got discounted VIP mortgages from subprime lender Countrywide Financial Corp. similar to the sweetheart deals given Democratic Sens. Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad.

Republicans were willing to press for this even though it might expose members of their own party as receiving sweetheart deals.

And this is a shame because…

Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation's largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.

Both senators have said that at the time the mortgages were being written they didn't know they were getting unique deals from Countrywide Financial Corp., the company that went on to lose billions of dollars on home loans to credit-strapped borrowers. Dodd still maintains he got no preferential treatment.

Knowing precisely what interest rate we were paying or fees we were on the hook for was not something we paid a whole lot of attention to either. Honestly, what's a point or two between "friends"?

Ship of Fools (UPDATED...please scroll to bottom of post)

If you want it bad and you want it fast, that’s usually how you are going to get it.

House Democrats on Tuesday unveiled sweeping health-care legislation that would hit all but the smallest businesses with a penalty equal to 8% of payroll if they fail to provide health insurance to workers.

The House bill, which also would impose new taxes on the wealthy estimated to bring in more than $544 billion over a decade, came as lawmakers in the Senate raced against a self-imposed deadline of this week to introduce a bill in time for action this summer.

Senators face a tougher battle because they are striving for a bipartisan bill. Key senators are weighing a combination of several more-modest fund-raising provisions, including some new fees on health-care industries.

Under the House measure, employers with payrolls exceeding $400,000 a year would have to provide health insurance or pay the 8% penalty. Employers with payrolls between $250,000 and $400,000 a year would pay a smaller penalty, and those less than $250,000 would be exempt. Certain small firms would get tax credits to help buy coverage.

There are a few things that jump out at us immediately in reading through the article.

The health-care legislation, we were promised, would have to pay for itself. That $544 bil though covers only half of the $1 trillion price tag given to health care reform by the CBO (and as anyone involved with government acquisition, as we are, knows, the eventual price tag NEVER comes in under the initial estimate).

Also, there is the Atlas Shrugged factor. At a time when the government should be doing (or not doing, as applicable) everything they can to foster a positive climate for small and medium-sized businesses, they are doing precisely the opposite with this bill.

Where is the incentive to expand one’s business when it may possibly mean paying a higher punitive tax? There isn’t. In fact, there is the very real possibility that companies will be shedding payroll to avoid the tax penalty. Yes, health care reform = more unemployment. So, you now have a situation where that $544 billion is not being recovered because of a shrinking tax base combined with the benefit of higher unemployment at small and medium-size businesses. Hey, but at least everybody's covered...

...until they're not.

Let’s say a company that does provide health insurance for its employees crunches the numbers and decides that paying the tax penalty is actually cheaper than what it costs to cover its employees and the employees’ families.

Higher unemployment, a recession-deepening hostile business climate and more uninsured workers, all at the summer session lightning speed that could only be accomplished by the most ethical Congress, evah!

(UPDATE #1):

A group of Democrats on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday called for health insurers to pay fees worth up to $100 billion over a decade to help pay for the overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system.

You read that correctly. The government is forcing private insurers to fund the "competition". But at only a $100 bil, they would still be about $400 bil short of the CBO's most-likely-underestimated $1 trillion mark. Stand by to stand by.
H/T: KT

The men in the white sheets respectfully request your assistance

Let’s get this straight: All last week was spent trashing and demonizing the financial sector and whipping the public into a pitchfork-wielding frenzy and now the Feds want some help.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Sunday that help from the private sector was critical to get toxic assets off banks' balance sheets and help resolve a credit crisis.

And then there’s this:

"Our judgment is that the best way to get through this is if we can work with the markets," Geithner said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. "We don't want the government to assume all the risk. We want the private sector to work with us."

Having effectively blurred the lines between the public and private sector, we have zero clue what that statement means.

More on Congress’s waterfall down economy:

The tax plan approved by the House as revenge against a handful of obscenely greedy AIG executives would slam tens of thousands in the financial industry, many of them New Yorkers, who have nothing to do with AIG or any other wrongdoing.

And that would be just start of the collateral damage.

The levies are so draconian that major banks that took bailout money are threatening to give it back - defeating the purpose of jump-starting the economy with an influx of cash.

Yep, we're in good hands.

UPDATE #1: Heartbreak...

Fifteen of 20 American International Group leading bonus recipients have agreed to give them back in full, said New York's top legal officer who is probing into $165 million in executive pay at the troubled company bailed out by the U.S. government.

Which means, of course, there are still 5 brave holdouts who have resisted the lynch mob. Godspeed, anonymous greedy corporate execs, Godspeed.

Charles Rangel politely suggests you reassess your concept of "public servant".

NSFWoH language warning:



S#&t-eating grin that suggests he hasn’t been asked a tough question in ages? Check. Same grin that turns profanely malevolent that suggests no one has had the guts to ask this question? Check. Utter contempt for the question and questioner that suggests the joke is on all of us? Check.

Exit question: Where’s the outrage?

Would it help if Big Media did its job and not some little wise ass (and we mean that in the most affectionate of terms) from YAF? Would it grease the skids perhaps if “Rangel” had two Rs instead of just one? Would it help if the Party in power make at least a token attempt at being "the most ethical Congress in history" instead of spitting in everybody's faces? One of the three. That's all were asking.

"Uh, sorry about that whole 'nationalize' thing"

Sen. Chris Dodd is apologizing today for his comments Friday suggesting that it might be necessary to nationalize some banks for a short time.

The Connecticut Democrat, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, told reporters in Washington that he was surprised by the market’s reaction.

If Chris “Onions” Dodd does not possess the common decency to at the least, step down from the chairmanship of the Senate Banking Committee, would it not be too much to ask then that one of the stalwarts of “the most ethical Congress in history” keep his freaking mouth shut?

Just asking.