Great moments in the history of Bailout Nation

.

Recall how creditors, pension plans and bondholders got shoved to the back of the line behind the auto unions in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcy cramdowns of 2009. One of those groups, Delphi Salaried Retirees Association was none to pleased that they got virtually pennies on the dollar in the proceedings and decided to sue the entity overseeing the bankruptcy divvie-up and, finally, 3 years later have received the documents they requested so that they could proceed with their suit.

It's a rare day in the nation's capital when news comes that somebody has received 62,000 documents concerning one of the federal government's most expensive and controversial programs of the past decade.

But that's what happened today as the Delphi Salaried Retirees Association (DSRA) announced that it received the "first tranche" of documents from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) concerning the government's conduct in the termination of the former auto parts company's pension plan.

The 62,000 documents were actually delivered last Thursday, but DSRA only announced their receipt today. The PBGC has promised the group delivery of a second similarly sized batch of documents by the end of this month, according to DSRA.

The documents were sought by DSRA after it sued PBGC following its 2009 termination of the pension plan, as part of the government's bailout of General Motors, Chrysler and other elements of the auto industry in Detroit. The termination reduced the pension payments of many DSRA retirees by as much as 70 percent, according to the group.

The document delivery comes nearly two years after a federal judge ruled that DSRA should be allowed to proceed with discovery in its litigation against PBGC. The group sued PBGC because it believed pensioners' rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) were violated.

It's called transparency, dontcha know?

"Having already reviewed more than 100,000 pages of discovery from non-governmental parties involved in the matter, the retirees are confident they can prove the PBGC illegally terminated the Delphi salaried retiree pension plan in 2009 under pressure from President Obama’s Auto Task Force, which reported to the U.S. Treasury Department," DSRA said in its statement today.

The Treasury Department's congressionally appointed Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) under which the auto bailout was funded has also said it believes members of the task force intervened with PBGC in the Delphi pension termination.

The IG, Neal Barofsky, did yeoman's work as the auto bailout watchdog. It will be interesting to see if he testifies on behalf of the plaintiff.

The DRSA document delivery is just one of several transparency issues that have arisen in the wake of the auto bailouts, which began under President Bush in 2008 and were expanded in 2009 by President Obama.

“Given the president’s statement on his first day in office that ‘transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency, why did we have to pry this information out of a government agency led by an Obama appointee?” said Dennis Black, DSRA's chairman in the group's statement.

“Our legal bills are several million dollars to get to this point. Citizens shouldn’t have to hire lawyers to fight against taxpayer-paid lawyers just to find out how and why onerous government policy decisions were made,” he said.

Welcome to our post-constitutional republic, Mr. Black.


As we followed the auto bailout, we will be following this post-bailout trial. We look forward to seeing what was really happening behind the scenes and how much traction this gets just 5 months in front of the election.

.

Video clip of the day

.


The Center for Freedom and Prosperity's Emily O'Neill provides a great counter to the Obama campaign's soul-less, joy-less and abjectly miserable "Life of Julia" feature.

Behold, "The Life of Emily":





The current entitlement model isn't sustainable, gang and every sober soul in this country knows it.

Emily touches on it briefly but in addition to the mathematical aspect of going broke, continued reliance on the government leads to a bankruptcy of human capital that is necessary for a functional and compassionate society that looks after its own and the less fortunate. Where lies the incentive to get outside yourself and offer a helping hand to a fellow human being if the refrain is merely always... that's the government's job?

It doesn't lead to a happy ending, that, we can assure you.


h/t: Hot Air

Karl Marx probably never rode a dirt bike

(The following is a re-post of an article that originally appeared on these pages back in January of 2011)

.

The intellectual arguments regarding collectivism/statism vs. free market democracy have raged for decades. One would think that empirical evidence should have settled the debate long ago but old dreams of creating a heaven here on earth die hard.

But academic and intellectual exercises aside, there is one thing, over the years, that has occurred to us and that is collectivism/statism just doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun.

Seriously, what sort of curb appeal does "command and control", "top-down" and "redistribution" really have? Does that sound like much fun? It's like kindergarten without the nap time.

The founding fathers, then, were on to something with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It was their gift to us: "Constitutional Republics for Dummies". It was their way of saying, "Don't sweat the small stuff...go ahead and do whatever you want and we'll set up these rules here to make sure no one messes with you". Now, that sounds like fun.

Over-simplification? Perhaps, but it works for us and that's all that matters.

.

Word of the day

.

You know you're dealing with good times when you engage in a parlor discussion with your brothers regarding just what is the proper term to describe the state of today's national economic model. Crony capitalism, corporatism or...

Justicialism: (n) a fascistic theory of government in Argentina under the Peron administration involving government intervention and economic control to ensure social justice and public welfare; Peronism



Recall who it was that Nancy Pelosi said stood in opposition to ObamaCare:

“Here's the thing: the American Affordable Care Act stands there with Social Security, Medicare, health care for all Americans as a right, not a privilege," said Pelosi. “It was opposed vigorously by two forces: one, the health insurance industry, and secondly by anti-government ideologues who do not believe that there should be a government role in clean air, clean water, as well as health care in our country."

Just how much was the healthcare industry in opposition to ObamaCare? This much:

Newly released emails give an inside look at how the White House got the pharmaceutical industry to pay for millions of dollars in ads in 2009 promoting the president’s controversial health-care overhaul bill.

The emails also show that the money for the ad campaign from drug-industry companies, health-care lobbies and unions went through nonprofit groups that didn’t have to disclose their donors. One such organization, Healthy Economy Now, was created in the spring of 2009 in conjunction with White House officials and the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee according to the emails.

“As a 501(c)(4), Healthy Economy Now can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor organizations and association…. we are not required to publicly disclose donation amounts,” wrote Nick Baldick, a longtime Democratic strategist who worked with the nonprofit group. Mr. Baldick didn’t return a call requesting comment.

His letter was written after an April 15, 2009 meeting on health-care overhaul strategy and promotion, convened by then-White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, and held at the DSCC, according to emails. A lobbyist for the health insurance industry was also looped in for planning.

Mr. Messina is now Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign manager. He didn’t respond to a request for comment.

A clever phrase we became aware of during the legislative crafting of ObamaCare goes something like this:

If you aren't at the table, then you are on the menu.


The healthcare lobby knew that with the Oval Office and both houses of Congress in control of a single party, their options were limited but they were still going to bring force to bear to get their pound of flesh.

The emails show that drug makers hesitated to agree to pony up a lot of money for the ads without proof that their desires and concerns were reflected in the deal with the administration. One email from a Democratic consultant to PhRMA sent to other PhRMA folks on June 3, 2009, said that the start of the ads, and the “spend” on airtime “depends on how things develop.”

PhRMA spent $10.2 million on Healthy Economy Now’s ad campaign, according to the House committee’s statement Friday on the emails. When Healthy Economy Now went dormant during the summer of 2009, it was replaced by another non-profit, Americans for Stable Quality Care, to which PhRMA gave $59.4 million, according to the committee.

And with respect to the social justice part of the equation, as even the most ardent supporters of ObamaCare will admit if forced, ObamaCare wasn't/isn't really about lowering the cost of healthcare, rather making sure we all have equal access to the same crappy healthcare.




Justicialism: (n) a fascistic theory of government in America under the Obama administration involving government intervention and economic control to ensure social justice and public welfare; Peronism


That sounds about right.

.

Quickies: the recall edition

.

A round-up of news items, articles, columns and blog posts that caught our eye this past week.



If you read nothing else today or this week, please check this out:

Future tense, X: The fourth revolution: On the possibility of a forthcoming political revolution.

We are unfamiliar with the author, James Pierson, but in about 15-20 minutes, you get a sweeping historical narrative of the American political scene and a glimpse into what, perhaps, the future holds.





Have you heard? All that money in politics is a bad thing. For a campaign and its supporters that were downright giddy just 2-3 months ago over the prospects of raising $1 billion are now blaming all that money in politics for the drubbing the took in Wisconsin. Make no mistake, given the hype and what was at stake, Scott Walker's victory (being the first governor to beat a recall effort) was monumental.

B-Daddy has some thoughts here:

In Wisconsin, Walker's victory was by a significant amount, not a landslide, but the 7% margin left no doubt as to the significant strength of his position. I have seen headlines that I refuse to link calling the election close. I have also seen headlines that this is the "death of democracy." Normally, when we elect politicians, we complain that they don't keep their campaign promises. How ironic that Scott Walker was recalled for keeping his.

Imagine that. A pol actually carrying through upon which he campaigned.

The liberal-Left will continue to blame money and messaging for their losses instead of choosing any real introspection. This was an extremely ill-conceived fight of their own making. They chose, they fought, they got their asses kicked, they whined. Rinse and repeat.






Have you heard? Pt. II. All that money in politics is bad... but no one seems to have a problem with all that invasion of privacy in politics:

The depth and breadth of the Obama campaign’s 2012 digital operation — from data mining to online organizing — reaches so far beyond anything politics has ever seen, experts maintain, that it could impact the outcome of a close presidential election. It makes the president’s much-heralded 2008 social media juggernaut — which raised half billion dollars and revolutionized politics — look like cavemen with stone tablets.

Here's some thoughts and a wrap-up of local election results from Sir Charles of DooDoo Economics who was hanging out at Golden Hall in San Diego this past Tuesday:

In San Diego, during a conversation with a young establishment Republican, we commented, "we are tea partiers here to make sure the good guys win." The look of alarm on his face was disarmed by my friendly smile.

The election results were terrific with one major exception. First, the good news:

1.Carl DeMaio, a San Diego mayoral Republican candidate and fiscal reformer won, but will be in a clearly defined run off against establishment Democrat Bob Filner.
2.State Proposition 29. Increased cigarette taxes failed with 51% voting against.
3.San Diego Proposition A. Bars the city from requiring Project Labor Agreements on municipal construction contracts passed decisively (58%)
4.San Diego Proposition B. Reformation of San Diego City Employee Retirement Benefits passed overwhelmingly (66%).
5.El Cajon Proposition D. Proposed Charter City passed (57%). Grants the city of El Cajon increased flexibility in it's budget.

The bad: State Proposition 28. The deceptively worded expansion of term limits was passed.

DeMaio sponsored Prop. B and was solidly behind Prop. A. Given his backing of both measures and the margins by which they won (and the fact there were 2 other Republicans in the primary splitting the vote), we predict DeMaio to win going away (12-15 points) against Filner. Tuesday was indeed a good day here in America's Finest City.





And Leslie at Temple of Mut chimes in:

I was delighted to see that Carl DeMaio will be in contention for Mayor this November, opposing the odious Bob Filner. Fiscal sanity made a big return in the Golden State, as pension reform won not only in San Diego but it much bluer San Jose as well. It seems our politically connected union-leader-lead-opponents, as in Wisconsin, are going to use the courts to challenge the voter-passed reform measures. Current San Diego Mayor, Jerry Sanders, predicts that DeMaio will get the Walker-recall-treatment if he wins in November.

Given what happened in Wisconsin, we don't see that happening but were that the good Lord should find favor upon us to make that a reality. Bring it!





Shane Atwell on the nature of collective bargaining:

I thought I'd take this opportunity to remind you that the 'right' to collective bargaining is just like any other entitlement. It is an entitlement on the part of unions to be heard and negotiated with by employers. Collective bargaining' forces employers to negotiate with employees by virtue of their having banded together into a group.

In a rational world employees would have the right to associate, but not to force recognition. They'd have the right to charge dues, but not to compel dues. They'd be able to post notices, but only if they got the permission of whomevers property they wanted to post on. They'd have the right to hold elections (privately or with permission), but not to compel access to employee records.

Oddly enough, once union dues became voluntary instead of mandatory, public union rolls in Wisconsin fell off by 50%.


And were sure that Dr. King would be pleased to know that protecting the bargaining "rights" of middle class government workers was being framed as a civil rights issue.





So, you're tired of all these words? How about some pictures, then?



Via W.C. Varones:




Heh.






Via Sarah at Lipstick Underground:




As we are fond of saying... Governing a constitutional republic is, like, hard.




Tough week for the President, huh? First Wisconsin, then Bill Clinton is knee-capping him over Bain, then the White House leaks fiasco and finishing things off on Friday with his economy is "doing fine" comments.


From the L.A. Times:

Aware that the lagging economic recovery could dull President Obama's reelection chances, Democrats have taken solace in a potential trump card — a Republican challenger they have ceaselessly portrayed as out of touch, based as much on Mitt Romney's verbal miscues as on his personal wealth and business record.

But, as the president sought to recover the upper hand after recent campaign setbacks, a rare rhetorical slip-up of his own Friday threatened to undermine his effort. In a White House news conference focused on the threat the worsening Eurozone crisis poses to the U.S. economy, Obama said Congress needed to act on his jobs plan to boost hiring in state and local governments. "The private sector is doing just fine," he argued.

The Times fails to mention the 15 or so jobs-related bills passed by the House that Harry Reid and the Senate refuse to even take up. Please remember this the next time you hear the "obstruction" or "do-nothing" charge leveled at Republicans.



And dig this:

His larger point — that layoffs by state and local governments continued to be a weak spot as the private sector added jobs — is backed up by the data. The most recent jobs report found that while the economy overall added 69,000 jobs, the private sector alone added 82,000.

The $800 billion stimulus bill (see: Porkulus) that was enacted in February of 2009 was, in large part, pay-back to the public sector unions at the state and local levels. A massive papering-over of state budget deficits and the states did nothing to correct the structural inadequacies that led to the deficits in the first place, hence the layoffs. Game. Set. Match. Own the economy, Barry.




OK, gang. That's it for today. We'll catch up with you tomorrow.


.

There's a fundamental problem, here.

Yesterday, we posted an article regarding Nancy Pelosi and with respect to all that money in politics. In the comment section, KT wrote the following:

I wonder what she does for fun. Is everything in her life politics?



Now, why would he say such a mean-spirited insightful thing? Because Nancy Pelosi says stuff like the following:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said at her Thursday press briefing that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—AKA Obamacre—is not a privilege but “a right.”

At the same time, Pelosi also said Social Security and Medicare are rights.

“Here's the thing: the American Affordable Care Act stands there with Social Security, Medicare, health care for all Americans as a right, not a privilege," said Pelosi. “It was opposed vigorously by two forces: one, the health insurance industry, and secondly by anti-government ideologues who do not believe that there should be a government role in clean air, clean water, as well as health care in our country.

“We don't want our proposal to have any more government than it needs,” said Pelosi.

That last statement is proof-positive she's been hitting the choom.

When you say purchasing a good or service, such as buying medication or getting a hip replacement, is a right and that government-run entitlement programs are rights, it does become all about the government.




Check out the subject character of that failed Obama campaign "Julia":




Does she look like she'd be any fun to hang around with?

A soulless and joyless (and faceless, apparently) existence that is utterly dependent upon the government. Julia is a ward of the state. An absolute drone that is sapped of initiative, foresight and rational self-interest by a by a cradle-to-grave nanny state that has conferred upon her all manner of "rights". Yaaaayy.

A reasonable safety net is one thing but a life completely void of any risk and self-responsibility does not sound like a whole lot of fun to us.

To answer KT's question, though... no. We have no idea what Speaker Pelosi does for fun. All we know is that being this nation's busy-body figure-head and chief Constitutional distorter must be a 24/7 job.

Radio KBwD is on the air

.



We've played these guys before and as the weather starts warming up... any day now... they pair very well with greasy ribs grilled over mesquite lumps on the grill in the backyard along with corn on the cob, biscuits and baked beans.



Ladies and Gentlemen, from Chapel Hill, North Carolina, it's Southern Culture on the Skids performing "Link's Lung", a tribute genre pioneer Link Wray.

.





.

Fast and Furious update

.

The miserable hack that runs the Justice Department again trudged up to Capitol Hill yesterday and again stonewalled Congress looking into the wildly successful federal-operated gun-running scheme.

We're going to scale back coverage of this because at this point we're rehashing the same material and until Congressman Issa (R-CA) serves a contempt charge on Holder, there's really no use in boring everyone with the same information. As a taste of just what a farce these hearing have become, the miserable hack would like you to know that emails describing "Fast and Furious" weren't really referring to "Fast and Furious".

Attorney General Eric Holder claimed during congressional testimony today that internal Justice Department emails that use the phrase “Fast and Furious” do not refer to the controversial gun-walking operation Fast and Furious.

Under questioning from Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who read excerpts of the emails at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department oversight, Holder claimed that the phrase “Fast and Furious” did not refer to Fast and Furious but instead referred to another gun-walking operation known as “Wide Receiver.”

However, the emails refer to both programs -- "Fast and Furious" and the "Tucson case," from where Wide Receiver was launched -- and reveal Justice Department officials discussing how to handle media scrutiny when both operations become public.

Got it.

How it is that there has not been either a special prosecutor assigned or a contempt charge slapped on Holder's ass is completely beyond us.

Again, we'll get back to you all when something substantive has happened.

.

Let's talk some more about all that money in politics, shall we?

.

... and we'll let Ms. Pelosi lead the way.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) celebrated the 25th anniversary of her election to Congress today at an event moderated by television personality Rachel Maddow, blasting the role of money in campaigns and outlining her plans to increase the number of women in politics.

Pelosi also offered surprisingly warm praise for former President George W. Bush as she recounted how Democrats defeated his proposal to change Social Security and she recounted an unusual anecdote about how the ghosts of past women leaders spoke to her at her first White House meeting as Speaker.

The event had a valedictory feel that might encourage speculation about Pelosi retiring some time in the near future.

In December, the late Andrew Breitbart’s website quoted Pelosi’s daughter, Alexandra, saying, “She would retire right now if the donors she has didn’t want her to stay so badly.” The former Speaker’s office strongly denied Pelosi was retiring.

In contrast to any indication of retiring, Pelosi asserted her power over the Democratic Caucus just hours before the event, urging Members to fill out fundraising cards that indicated if they were donating or instead were “not on the team.”

(italics, ours)

5 paragraphs; 1 reference to how evil money in politics is; 2 references to how important money is to politics; you do the math.

It's pretty easy to see the logic: when your candidate forgoes public financing as he did back in 2008 and was poised to raise $1 billion for his 2012 presidential campaign, it's seen as a measure of the enthusiasm for the man and his policies.

However, when your side gets its ass kicked as it did Tuesday in Wisconsin, all that money in politics is seen as a corrupting influence, indeed.

Gang, it's all pretty simple: There's money in politics and to hear some people say, far too much money, because of the influence it purchases. Not wanting to take this to a ridiculous extreme but to illustrate a point, if the federal government contented itself with guarding the coasts, delivering the mail and paving the roads, we all know there'd be virtually no money in politics - you could grease the postman on your own - you wouldn't need to grease your Congressman.

But that's not the way it is, isn't it? We have allowed government intrusion into all facets of our lives, fortunes and business to the point where politics has an out-sized importance and then where the direction and weight of that importance can be influenced by money.

Yes, government is to blame but who put that government into place? In ademocracy constitutional republic post-constitutional republic we still usually get what we desire from our elected leaders and thus government. If we desire for the government to exercise some restraint perhaps we should do so as well.

.

The most evil man in history learns of Scott Walker's victory

.

Obligatory.






Nice California reference, no?



Here's B-Daddy with some words of wisdom on last nights election results from Wisconsin:

The tax breaks for the rich part is gratuitous leftist clap trap that had nothing to do with the recall campaign against Walker, so I'll just ignore that. The core of the argument is that the workers who can use political power to get above market wages should do so, too bad if the taxpayers are on the losing end of the proposition. They should all be in unions as well.

Fortunately, this is a fantasy, as private sector union membership has been in steady decline for decades. Ultimately, state workers shouldn't get better benefits than their private sector counterparts. This is especially true of retirement and medical benefits as these costs have a way of ballooning while not directly being tied to the efficacy of the work performed. To suggest that its somehow right for state workers to lord it over the taxpayers because they have organized into unions is to pave the way for dictatorship. When government workers feel unaccountable because they can elect whom they choose, we are on the road to dictatorship. I am not exaggerating, this is a scary path. This is why Walker's impressive victory tonight is so important for the nation.

Some of our random thoughts:

- Walker appeared to have outperformed many of the polling projections we saw. Could he have possibly been the beneficiary of a reverse Bradley effect?

- The common whine we hear coming from the left is that Walker simply outspent his opponent and that all that money in politics was ruining democracy. This is a rather curious complaint coming from a set of people whose Presidential candidate back in 2008 became the first candidate in history to forego public financing so he could raise as much jack as he pleased. It becomes curiouser still when one considers this same man has held more fundraisers than all the other President's combined since Nixon. Much like bashing Bain while raising money from private equity firms, there's a circle there that has yet to be squared.

- And, yes, rumors of the tea party's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

Video clip of the day

.

This is pretty much a no-brainer, right? As the following clip from reason.tv describes, May was fertile territory when it came to nanny state antics but who took home the ring could only be America's Nanny-in-Chief, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for his efforts to disarm NYC's denizens their 22 oz. Big Gulps.

.




.




Brilliant. Instead of one 22-ouncer, how about two 16-ouncers with an extra trip to and from the soda fountain to work off those extra calories? Everybody wins.





#counterproductive #noneofyoureffingbusiness

.