Our nation's debt is literally indenturing our children to our international debt holders, but most Americans don't care because they are more concerned about the latest saga involving Snooki on Jersey Shore rather than what really matters, our country’s future.
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

House Panel Backs Bill to Block Bonuses for Fannie, Freddie - Businessweek

I agree with Bachus that these guys have a lot of nerve getting a $35 million bonus after they lost $170 billion and need a bailout from Treasury each quarter to stay in business. My only wish is that Bachus was being lead out in cuffs from the hearing after he profited from the financial meltdown by trading on insider information provided by the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve.

Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- A House committee approved a suspension of bonus packages for executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage firms currently under the control of the U.S. government.
The House Financial Services Committee, responding to lawmaker anger over compensation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, approved a measure that would suspend the compensation packages for executive officers at the companies. The bill also would require employees of the two firms to be moved onto a pay scale that lines up with federal financial regulators including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

“Awarding lavish pay packages to the heads of these companies that have accepted $170 billion in taxpayer cash can’t be defended,” Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the panel’s chairman and sponsor of the bill, said today.

The panel approved the measure 52-4, sending it to the House floor.

The committee’s approval comes amid heightened criticism of the companies’ bonuses and pay. Edward J. DeMarco, chief regulator of the two firms, approved packages in 2009 that awarded a total of $17 million over two years to chief executive officers Michael J. Williams of Fannie Mae and Ed Haldeman of Freddie Mac.

Compensation for the companies’ top six executives totaled $35 million for 2009 and 2010, according to a report from the FHFA Office of Inspector General.

Pay to Decline
DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has argued that the compensation is necessary to attract and keep executives and employees with the skills to manage a portfolio of more than $5 trillion in mortgage assets. He told senators today that pay will decline over time.

“My plan for executive compensation is to continue to seek opportunities for gradual reductions, particularly when executives leave,” DeMarco said in written testimony today to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

“This approach is consistent with the administration’s notion of a gradual wind down” of Fannie and Freddie, which are now in government conservatorship, DeMarco said.

In response to questions from Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the committee, DeMarco said that FHFA had consulted with the Treasury Department on the compensation issues, and that neither Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner nor other officials disapproved.
 

House Panel Backs Bill to Block Bonuses for Fannie, Freddie - Businessweek

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

GOP Rep Explains Floor Rant: ‘This Is Why the People Have Thrown You Out’

He's right this is why the Democrats were thrown out but if the Republicans pull this same kind of bullshit when they are in charge then out with them as well.



Here's the “official” 4:30 version on the C-SPAN YouTube channel. Here’s why you should watch:


After Buyer is finally permitted to speak on this video, there is a short gap before Richardson is told to call a recess (4:00). Keep watching the bottom of the screen then for an entertaining gesture of exasperation by Buyer, who leaves his seat to walk by where he knows the main House camera is pointing.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

What Do Prince and H.R. 1586 Have in Common?

First they don't read the bills that they pass.....


 or even know what provisions the bill contains...

Now these clowns in Congress can't even take the time to name a bill. A bill by the way, which spends $26 billion of our tax dollars.

Is it any wonder that Congress has an 11% approval rating.

What Do Prince and H.R. 1586 Have in Common?

Thursday, July 1, 2010

The Experts have spoken and they agree the Financial Reform Bill is useless and more likely to be harmful

Congress has spoken and they have proven once again they are idiots. As I have said before the Financial Reform Bill will do serious harm to our economy but they don't seem to care in the least. There is still time to act I ask you to please contact your Senators and urge them to vote no on S.3217( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN03217:)




The Dodd-Frank Financial Fiasco



The bill all but guarantees bailouts as far as the eye can see, while failing to address real problems like Fan and Fred and our outdated bankruptcy code.
 
By JOHN B. TAYLOR


The sheer complexity of the 2,319-page Dodd-Frank financial reform bill is certainly a threat to future economic growth. But if you sift through the many sections and subsections, you find much more than complexity to worry about.

The main problem with the bill is that it is based on a misdiagnosis of the causes of the financial crisis, which is not surprising since the bill was rolled out before the congressionally mandated Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission finished its diagnosis.

The biggest misdiagnosis is the presumption that the government did not have enough power to avoid the crisis. But the Federal Reserve had the power to avoid the monetary excesses that accelerated the housing boom that went bust in 2007. The New York Fed had the power to stop Citigroup's questionable lending and trading decisions and, with hundreds of regulators on the premises of such large banks, should have had the information to do so. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) could have insisted on reasonable liquidity rules to prevent investment banks from relying so much on short-term borrowing through repurchase agreements to fund long-term investments. And the Treasury working with the Fed had the power to intervene with troubled financial firms, and in fact used this power in a highly discretionary way to create an on-again off-again bailout policy that spooked the markets and led to the panic in the fall of 2008.


But instead of trying to make implementation of existing government regulations more effective, the bill vastly increases the power of government in ways that are unrelated to the recent crisis and may even encourage future crises.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575338732174405398.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Consequences of Financial Regulatory Reform- Dire Warning of Things to Come

As is always the case in Washington those with money get what they want and those without money get screwed. It happens all the time, a crisis occurs in our country and Congress begins meddling with the system by passing more laws. The fact of the matter is that the banking crisis could have been avoided if Congress had not demanded that banks provide loans to low income people who couldn't afford the price of the house in the first place. The end result is that Fannie and Freddie are both now broke and continue to require cash infusions by the government each month just stay in business. Congress is now on the verge of passing the largest bank reform bill in history which they say that it will prevent a crisis from occurring next time. But it won't prevent anything. First the current bill was written by the large banks so it contains enough provisions so it doesn't hurt them in the least. Second more regulations always mean more costs to do business which while it can be absorbed by the large banks cannot be absorbed by their competitors, the small community banks. The big banks win and the small banks, the ones that lend to the small farmers and small businesses in this country, lose. Great job as always Congress you have now killed ability of small businesses to get access to the cash they need to create jobs and make this country prosperous.

From the WSJ Opinion Page
The End of Community Banking


Creditworthy borrowers will be denied loans as small banks devote more and more energy to regulatory compliance.

By SARAH WALLACE

The comprehensive financial reform agreed upon by the House and Senate on Friday, along with all the new regulations of the past year, could signal the end of community banking. The new reforms will give more power to the Federal Reserve to regulate how my bank and others like it do business.

What does all this mean for our customers? Less credit will be available, costs will increase, and we will be less able to make loans to regular people who were creditworthy in the past. This is the perfect storm for the small retail banking customer. We will start to see more small community bank failures and mergers because of voluminous regulation.

I have served as the president and now the chair of the board of directors of First Federal Savings and Loan Association in Newark, Ohio, since 1980. First Federal is a $200 million, federal mutual thrift. We were created to provide people a safe place to deposit their money, and loan that money back into the community in order to meet housing needs. Additionally, we utilize a significant portion of our profits to give (yes, I said give—not lend) to worthy community organizations and projects.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334611037072320.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Steny Hoyer: No budget this year

From Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38843.html)

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made official Tuesday morning what most insiders have known for months: Congress won’t do a budget this year.

Instead, Democrats are pushing an alternative route that falls well short of the more rigorous annual budget resolution — a short-term resolution that will call for discretionary spending lower than in President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget. But he said Congress wouldn’t take longer-term budget action before hearing from Obama’s fiscal commission in December. Republicans have lambasted Democrats for not passing a budget resolution, saying that’s the first time it’s happened since 1976.

In pushing for budget cuts in his speech before an event sponsored by the progressive think tank Third Way, Hoyer urged scrutiny of military and entitlement spending on Tuesday, while also defending Congress’ spending as necessary to revive the economy.
“We’re lying to ourselves and our children if we say we can maintain our current levels of entitlement spending, defense spending, and taxation without bankrupting our country,” he said.
But Republicans have already seized on the budgetary inaction. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) sent out a mocking statement that said: “We regret to inform you that the congressional budget for fiscal year 2011 has been canceled due to Washington Democrats’ out-of-control spending spree.”

Hoyer, meanwhile, defended Democratic economic policy, standing by the stimulus and other government spending in the short term.
“Let me make it very clear. In the short term we can not stimulate and depress at the same time,” he said. “That is counterintuitive and I think will not work. No matter what you do, you can’t cut yourself into a balanced budget.”

Hear Glenn Beck's take on Congress' abdication of its responsibility.

the Congressional Budget for the 2011Fiscal year has been CANCELLED. « WBCN-AM#more-2263

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Open Letter to Congress To Stop Healthcare Reform

Below is the letter I sent to my Senators and Congressman. I urge you to let your represenatives know how you feel about the $900 billion being spent on healthcare reform.

Dear Senator/Congressman,

I urge you to please support real heath care reform and not the nonsense that is currently being discussed in the House and the Senate.

1. Allow private individuals to deduct 100% of any costs related to medical expenses.
2. Allow Doctors/Hospitals to deduct the full cost of services (using the applicable Medicare formula) that are preformed free of charge for all indigent patients or those who are unable to afford insurance.
3. Stop States from dictating what procedures and tests must be covered by an insurance plan and then preventing people from purchasing insurance for other states.
4. Eliminate federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
5. Give doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
6. Make every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
7. Enact real Tort Reform for medical malpractice.

Currently the legislation contemplated in the House and Senate is estimated to cost $900 Billion dollars. During good times this type of legislation would be fiscally irresponsible but in a recession it is completely unacceptable. In order to keep the cost for these new programs under $900 Billion the CBO has done some very creative math, which we usually only see on Wall Street right before we have a market crash or a company files for bankruptcy. Most of these new programs do not start until July 1, 2013. Why make the American people wait so long if this is so urgent it needs to be done before the end of this year? Because when CBO estimates how much a piece of legislation is going to cost, it only looks at the next 10 years. By waiting four years to start the expensive parts they make it look less expensive, without it being any less expensive. This preliminary analysis looks at 2010-2019. It doesn't take much more than third grade math to see why starting programs in 2013 (also everyone in Congress will have been reelected before this legislation goes into effect) artificially manipulates the cost estimate. A close observer will also note that one of the most consistent changes in the new draft of the Baucus summary is shifting many start dates from January 1, 2013 to July 1, 2013--cutting 6 extra months of costs out of the CBO estimate. A quick calculation says that if this bill costs $829 billion from mid-2013 through 2019, that's actually about $1.3 trillion over 10 years ($829/78 months = ~$10.6 billion/month x 120 months).

Reading further, there are several other red flags present in the CBO analysis. Enactment of the Baucus approach will add approximately $900 billion to the federal budget. That money will have to come from somewhere. Half of it will come from massive cuts in Medicare Advantage, while the other half will be generated by new taxes on high-end insurance, higher income taxes, and new levies on drugs and innovative medical devices. There are a variety of provisions in the bill designed to generate revenue, including $426 billion in Medicare and Medicare Advantage benefit cuts, $4 billion in new fines imposed on those who do not purchase insurance (fining people who can’t afford insurance makes absolutely no sense and if the person can afford the fine then let them live with the costs for not choosing to get heath insurance), $201 billion in new levies on health insurance companies with high-end health insurance plans, $180 billion in new taxes on medical devices and drugs (including breast milk pumps), $83 billion in new income taxes on individuals, and $25 billion in new taxes on employers.

There will also be significant reductions in Medicare reimbursements to hospitals, which will in turn generate more cost shifting from such facilities to the patients using them. Although Congress is likely to revisit this issue after passage of the Bill much as they are today trying to stop the 21% drop in Medicare payments to Doctors scheduled to occur in January, which were originally enacted to cut the cost of Medicare. Senate Democrats are proposing to upend that arrangement and instead freeze doctor payments at this year's level for the next decade. They seek to do so in a bill -- separate from the overhaul legislation -- that they said would shore up the government health program for the elderly. The cost to just freeze Medicare payments at current levels is -- $247 billion over 10 years. If inflation continues at 3% annual, as it generally does unless the recession turns into a depression, what type of Doctor is going to see Medicare patients in 2015 when all of his own living expenses; food, fuel, housing and his own medical insurance have risen but not his pay. Even Congress gets a pay raise (2.8% in 2009) even though unemployment is at a 25 year high and people are losing their homes daily to foreclosure but I digress.

The government programs that provide health care to the poor would expand to cover nearly one in five Americans under health insurance legislation pending in Congress, putting pressure on federal and state budgets. Medicaid, one of the fastest-growing government programs for two decades, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program would grow from about 50 million people today to more than 60 million in 2019, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office and Kaiser Family Foundation. That would be the biggest single expansion since Medicaid was created in 1965. The expansion is designed to cover the poorest adults among the nation's 46.3 million uninsured. It would change a program aimed mostly at children, people with disabilities and elderly nursing home residents into one that includes more low-income parents and, for the first time in 45 states, adults without children.

Medicaid grew in the 1990s as children ages 6 to 18 were added. Now adults would be covered up to 133% of the federal poverty line, or about $14,440 for individuals. The federal government paid $258 billion for Medicaid in 2009, about 57% of total costs, but would pay 90% of the expansion. States would pay about $33 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Most of the 14 million adults who would be added over the next decade lack insurance and get health care at emergency rooms and community health centers. The federal government pays some of that cost, but hospital payments would be reduced. Most of the costs to cover the uninsured are absorbed by the facilities or passed on by insurers to employers and employees in the form of higher premiums. Because new Medicaid beneficiaries would use more health care services than they do now, government costs would increase.

• Can states afford it? Medicaid already consumes about 22% of state budgets, and 13 million people are eligible but not enrolled.
• Can states handle the expansion? Fourteen states, half of them in the South, only accept parents at less than 50% of the poverty level, so the expansion would be vast. Aging computer systems used to set eligibility may not be up to the task.
• Will there be enough doctors? Many parts of the country already face an acute shortage of general practitioners, 35% of whom did not accept new Medicaid patients last year. House legislation would require states to raise Medicaid payment rates to doctors, but Senate legislation would not.

New Jersey has a projected budget gap of nearly $8 Billion for 2011. We can no longer afford these types of social programs. I urge you to please reconsider your positions on health care reform. If you truly believe that the bills pending in Congress are the solution then please increase taxes to cover the full costs of these measures. We can no longer afford to borrow money. We must learn that things cost money and that the Federal Reserve is not a piggy bank. My children’s’ futures are in your hands.

Regards,

Thursday, October 15, 2009

U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects

Every morning I wake up and I hope that I can read something uplifting. Instead I am greeted with more greed by our politicans.

U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects

Friday, October 2, 2009

Democratic Philosophy Against Transparency

Article by Warner Todd Huston on Stop The ACLU Blog

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/10/01/a-democratic-philosophy-against-transparency/

-By Warner Todd Huston

We can look at four of the amendments offered as additions to the healthcare bill that Democrats defeated and what we see gives us a glimpse into the Democratic Party’s true soul. And it is a dark look, indeed. At least it’s dark if you are one of those lowly citizens that thinks government transparency and accountability is a good idea.

Here are the amendments that the Democrats defeated:


  • Bunning Open Records Amendment: would have required the full language and full price tag to be available on the Internet for three days before Congress votes. (Offered by Jim Bunning- R, KY)
  • Hatch Medicare Advantage (MA) Amendment: would have suspended MA provisions if the CBO finds that (contrary to the President’s promise) seniors are going to lose coverage or benefits. (Offered by Orrin Hatch- R, Utah)
  • Kyl Anti-Gag Order Amendment: would have allowed MA insurers to inform seniors of their likely loss of benefits. (Offered by John Kyl- R, AZ)
  • Ensign/Cornyn/Kyl Malpractice Lawsuit Amendments: would have provided relief from lawsuits. (Offered by John Ensign- R, Nevada/John Cornyn- R, Texas/John Kyl- R, AZ)


So the Democrats don’t want you to know how much this boondoggle will cost, the Democrats don’t want you to be able to read the bill before they pass it (likely in the dead of night as per usual), the Democrats don’t want you to be alerted if you are losing benefits, and the Democrats don’t want all of us to have relief from the sort of lawsuit abuse their favorite campaign donors in the realm of tort law are so prone to perpetrate.

This is an agenda that argues against the good of the public, or the “public weal” as the Founders used to say. This is a dark attitude, one that intends to hide what public officials are doing from the voters. Democrats just don’t want you to know what they are doing. It’s really just that simple.

So are you voting for members of a party that wants to hide what it does from you?

Thursday, September 24, 2009

GOP seeks 72-hour window to read bills

While the GOP is obviously grandstanding this type of legislation is needed immediately. I though that when Obama was running for office we promised this but it seems like most promises politicians make this one was just a lie. Yes, I said it the President of the United States lied. Any member of Congress that refuses to vote for this piece of legislation should never serve in Congress again. Contact your Congressmen and Senators and tell them that you demand they vote for this bill.

GOP seeks 72-hour window to read bills

EXCLUSIVE: Congress flies tattered, neglected flags

Congress should be ashamed!

EXCLUSIVE: Congress flies tattered, neglected flags

Friday, July 24, 2009

Monday, July 20, 2009

Taxpayers On The Hook for $23.7 Trillion in Bailouts

From Bloomberg "U.S. taxpayers may be on the hook for as much as $23.7 trillion to bolster the economy and bail out financial companies, said Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program." http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY0tX8UysIaM

Wake up America we are broke!!! Now is the time for action. Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, or Independent it's time to throw those bums in Washington out on their collective asses. With the exception of Ron Paul I don't think there is an honest person left in Washington that cares about America.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

46 Million Americans Are Without Healthcare! Right? Wrong Its Likely Less Than Half That Number

Obamacare is on the way whether Americans want it or not. With the supermajority in the Senate now any proposal by the President can be fast tracked for his signature. Currently when discussing universal heathcare in America the Obama administration has cited as fact that 46 million Americans are uninsured. However, this number is highly suspect if you believe the recent congressional testimony of an Arizona orthopedic surgeon. Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer for CNSNews.com, reported that on Tuesday, Dr. Novack questioned the accuracy of the 46 million figure and his testimony, if accurate, begs the question why are we even bothering with universal healthcare:

“If we start breaking down those numbers a bit--and again these will be round numbers--but about 9 to 10 million of those people are in the country illegally,” Novack said.Another 15 million are what he called “chronically uninsured,” because of pre-existing health problems or other mitigating factors. We have young people between 18 and 30, probably about another 10 million or so, they’d rather buy applications for their iPhone than buy health insurance,” Novack said.
He said some of the approximately 46 million Americans referred to by Obama and members of the subcommittee include others who may be eligible for existing government health care programs, such as S-Chip and Medicaid, but don’t sign up.” http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49986

Based upon Dr. Novak’s testimony it appears that no more than 26 million Americans are truly uninsured and of that total a great majority may be eligible for government heathcare under the current system. So why the great rush for more government when less than 9% of the country that needs heathcare insurance don't have it? This becomes especially ponderous when you look at the costs involved. As Jennifer Haberkorn of the Washington Times wrote a few weeks ago:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the bill will cost $1 trillion and still leave about 36 million people uninsured. To be fair the CBO noted in its report that its estimate was based on an incomplete bill and doesn't account for prevention and wellness measures that Democrats say will save money. http://tiny.cc/YA6ef So even if we believe the President’s figure regarding the unisured only 10 million more people will be covered at a cost of $1 Trillion. Its looking more and more like this guarentee of heathcare for all is nothing more than a powergrab by Washington. Its a fact that the cost for heathcare in America has risen at an alarming rate but the President’s solution does nothing to help lower those costs. We need a real solution but we aren’t likely to get it from this Administration or the Congress.

Monday, June 29, 2009

White House Holds a Luau While Americans Lose Their Jobs

The White House held its annual picnic this year for the press and Congress. It looks like everyone had a great time even though they weren't able to have a traditional pig roast because of environmental concerns. They even were able to raise some money for charity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_7b0GqKglE


Its no wonder that Americans disapprove of the job Congress has been doing. http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm While many hard working Americans are struggling to keep their homes, find new jobs or to simply put food on the table the elites in Washington are enjoying themselves at our expense. It must be nice to have a virtually limitless checking account (the American taxpayer) to fund these types of activities. Look even in the best of times these types of events are ridiculous. This is not an event to meet other heads of state, which are necessary although one could argue extravagant, but rather a party for our elected representatives. Most of these people are millionaires, including the President, it would have been nice if they opened their own wallets and paid for it since we are in the biggest recession since the Great Depression. But who am I kidding with budgets of between $2-4 million for each member in Congress plus a salary of $170k and the best medical care and pension plan money can buy these guys have it really tough. I mean when you compare the perks Congress has to what our soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan get, an average annual salary of between $12-30k including combat pay plus three meals, a cot and the daily fear that today could be your last day on earth, its equal right!?



Wednesday, June 24, 2009

So Who is Exempt from the Proposed Universal Heathcare Taxes?

Well well it looks like two very powerful lobbies will be exempt from the new taxes being proposed to cover the costs of universal heathcare. Last Friday, in the Wall Street Journal Betsy McCaughey noted that under the current Kennedy healthcare bill both Federal Employees and Politicians won't be paying any more taxes for their very generous insurance plans as they are exempt from the proposed tax. Further as Betsy notes in her opinion piece "last September Sen. Barack Obama promised that under his health-care proposal "you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves." On Monday, President Obama repeated that promise in a speech to the American Medical Association. "http://tiny.cc/U29Gf
The problem is that we are not going to get the same level of care as our public servants nor are they going to have to accept the new "public plan" or contribute towards it. Its great to be king.

But wait its not just Congress and Federal Employees that get exemptions under the new plan. All of our union employees at Chrysler and GM (yes our employees we do own their companies) are likely to be exempt from the new taxes proposed to cover the costs of insuring all Americans. Check out this article by Jed Babbin at Human Events.com http://tiny.cc/6bgqZ So while some of us will see our benefits decreased or dropped if this legislation is passed the rest of us will see higher taxes unless we fall in one of these categories. I think I need to start a union just so I can avoid taxes. Anyone with me.

Do Americans really want universal healthcare? NY Times says Yes. But their own poll shows that Americans only want it if its FREE!!

Much has been said lately in the media about Americans overwhelming supporting Universal Healthcare. Most likely they are citing to a recent CBS/NY Times Poll http://tiny.cc/tMhuc. Ignoring the fact that the poll skews towards liberals (more Obama supporters were polled than McCain supporters) when you read the actual results you may be pleasantly surprised to find that Americans are satisfied with their current level of healthcare. However, the Times headline that "Americans Overwhelming Support" universal healthcare is a little disingenuous. Yes, 72% support a government supported plan like medicare, which is free.( I know we pay taxes but lets pretend its really free.) Sounds like Obama is winning the debate right but wait a second if you ask people to pay only $500 a year or ruffly $42 a month which is significantly less than the average monthly cost of $600 ($7200 a year) most Americans currently pay for healthcare only 25% are willing to pay. (questions 59 and 60). For some other interesting tidbits check out questions 50,51,64,65,80,81.