Is it Email or Parasitic Public Sector Labor Unions that are killing the US Postal Service?

See: Postal Service Is Nearing Default as Losses Mount

The post office’s problems stem from one hard reality: it is being squeezed on both revenue and costs.

As any computer user knows, the Internet revolution has led to people and businesses sending far less conventional mail.

At the same time, decades of contractual promises made to unionized workers, including no-layoff clauses, are increasing the post office’s costs. Labor represents 80 percent of the agency’s expenses, compared with 53 percent at United Parcel Service and 32 percent at FedEx, its two biggest private competitors. Postal workers also receive more generous health benefits than most other federal employees.

The suggestion that the postal service is losing money to Email is difficult to accept, especially looking at the great heaping gobs of junk mail that are stuffed into my mailbox every day. There is so much crap (Snail-Mail Spam) that is sent to me in the mail that I have at times tossed out mail that was important to keep because it was lost in the great wads of ads and "dear occupant" mail. Is there really anyone out there that is getting "less" mail sent to them they have received in years past?

The US Postal Service is being bled to death by the parasitic Public Sector Unions that have put the service on the brink of bankruptcy. The parasitic Public Sector Unions are negotiating with elected politicians and or government bureaucrats that are beholding to elected politicians for a piece of the the public treasury. These elected politicians are also beholden to the parasitic Public Sector Unions for campaign contributions and for votes. It is base political corruption pure and simple.

The end result is inevitable. The public treasury runs out of money and the parasitic Public Sector Unions scream for more and more and . . . But there is no more money left for them to loot.

The US Postal Service can only be saved by reducing it's Labor cost to something in the range of what its main competitors, UPS and FedEx, have to work with. The only way that will happen is to eliminate the parasitic Public Sector Unions entirely. They must be done away with. They are incompatible with Democracy.

Obama’s Tax Obsession

See: Explaining Obama’s tax-hike obsession

But Obama’s tax obsession becomes understandable when you realize the long game he’s playing: Big Taxes to fund Big Government. Decade after decade. See, it’s an almost universal belief among left-of-center journalists, economists, policymakers and politicians that Americans must pay higher taxes in coming years to cover the medical expenses of its aging population – not to mention all sorts of brand new social spending and green “investment.” Dramatically higher taxes. On everybody. And if we have a debt crisis, maybe those tax increases come sooner rather than later.

And why not? Look at how high taxes and high spending have made Greece such an economic giant.

See Also: Why The Democratic Party Is Doomed

This week’s fight over raising the federal debt limit exposes a key weakness in the warfare-welfare state that has bestowed power onto the Democratic Party: Without an ever-growing share of the economy, it dies. Every vital element of the Democrats’ coalition — unions, government workers, government contractors, “entitlement” consumers — requires constant increases in payments, grants and consulting contracts. Without those payments, they don’t sign checks to re-elect Democrats.

Are we having fun yet?

Eat The Rich!

See: Get Ready for a 70% Marginal Tax Rate

But wait, things get worse. As Milton Friedman taught decades ago, the true burden on taxpayers today is government spending; government borrowing requires future interest payments out of future taxes. To cover the Congressional Budget Office projection of Mr. Obama's $841 billion deficit in 2016 requires a 31.7% increase in all income tax rates (and that's assuming the Social Security income cap is removed). This raises the top rate to 52.2% and brings the total combined marginal tax rate to 68.8%. Government, in short, would take over two-thirds of any incremental earnings.

How hard would you work if you were only able to keep 30 cents of every dollar that you earned?

Should Doctors Be Allowed To Refuse Obama-Care Patients?

That is a question that will become a hot topic in our political culture very shortly.

See: U.S. Plans Stealth Survey on Access to Doctors

The administration says the survey will address a “critical public policy problem”: the increasing shortage of primary care doctors, including specialists in internal medicine and family practice. It will also try to discover whether doctors are accepting patients with private insurance while turning away those in government health programs that pay lower reimbursement rates.

Can the government force Doctors to accept Obama-Care patients? (What would or could stop them?)

Should the government force Doctors to accept Obama-Care patients? (Only thugs and thieves would say "Yes.")

The only alternative that the government has in getting Obama-Care patients to be readily accepted by Doctors is to have a payment schedule that is competitive with private insurers. That "jus' ain't a gonnah happen." The costs would be astronomical, just like all of the Obama-Care critics have been saying from day one. Forcing Doctors to accept Obama-Care patients would allow the leftist political class to pretend that their medical care scheme will work, at “cheaper” costs. (But only for a short time.) Of course, finding any doctor after that point will be a whole different problem.

Then the question that will be debated in the political sphere is whether or not government can prevent Doctors from quiting or retiring.

UPDATE [June 28, 2011 - 22:49]

See: Surprise: HHS drops plan to snoop on doctors

See: Program to Use Mystery Shoppers to Probe Doctors Scrapped

See: Kirk asks Obama administration to reconsider 'stealth' doctor survey

The Congressman has some interesting questions for Kathleen Sebelius. Among them:

2) Please provide records of how the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) of Chicago, Illinois, won a federally competitive bid to carry out this work.

It is an interesting question.

Hat Tip to Hot Air for the Update links.

Obama And The Politics Of Failure

An interesting question from the other side of the pond.

See: The great Obama-Axelrod-etc. mystery

Here's one of the big questions, really, one to chew on over the weekend, one that's asked a lot around this town. How could a bunch of people who ran such a brilliant campaign be doing such a lousy job at the politics of governing?

The answer is actually very simple.

Obama and his team have successfully rammed through a number of measures through the congress that would, and will, fundamentally change the nature of our government and our relationship with it.

Obama's plummeting popularity is a consequence of his political success.

Confusing President Obama's popularity with his political success is a mistake. He has been very successful. Obama is very unpopular now because of his political successes.

The Health Care Scheme And The Making Of Political Pawns

During the political debate that accompanied the Democrat's health-care scheme's passage, you may have encountered one or two or more people for whom the issue was personal, because they were both poor and had pre-existing conditions that made private health-care insurance something that was beyond their reasonable financial means.

These people were (and still are) in a terrible bind.

For them, the health-care debate was important because they saw themselves as being direct and immediate beneficiaries of the socialized medicine scheme.

I would hope that if I was in their desperate situation, that I would be able to stand on principle and still be able to oppose having my health-care subsidized by the forced appropriation of other peoples earnings. That would be a difficult position to be in. None of us should think it easy to stand on principle when doing so means the strong likelihood of suffering a miserable life and an untimely death.

It is important to keep in mind that they have an extremely difficult time considering the implications of socialized health-care dispassionately. They are directly and immediately involved. They are looking for something that will give them hope for a life that will not be one long grind of depressing poverty and poor health.

I know people like this. I am sure that you do too.

I worry for them.

They have put so much of their hope for a better life into the sweet promises of socialized medicine that they are the ones that will be the most hurt by the inevitable politicization of health-care that is the real heart and driving force of the socialized medicine scheme.

Now for the rest of their lives, they will be whipsawed and terrorized by the unscrupulous Democrats that have now made them desperately dependent on the generosity and and good will of the political class. They will be made the pawns of evil Democrat politicians that will parade them about as victims to be pitied and a reason for which the rest of us should surrender ever more of our earnings and our rights to an ever growing government.

It has already begun.

Take the following news article.

See: Health law risks turning away sick

The Obama administration has not ruled out turning sick people away from an insurance program created by the new healthcare law to provide coverage for the uninsured.

Critics of the $5 billion high-risk pool program insist it will run out of money before Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the program sunsets and health plans can no longer discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.

Administration officials insist they can make changes to the program to ensure it lasts until 2014, and that it may not have to turn away sick people. Officials said the administration could also consider reducing benefits under the program, or redistributing funds between state pools. But they acknowledged turning some people away was also a possibility.

There it is. “. . . it will run out of money . . .“ - “. . . they acknowledged turning some people away was also a possibility . . .”

The chronically ill and those with per-existing conditions are now political pawns in a very dirty political game.

We have seen this kind of thing done before (in every election for the last 60+ years) by the Democrats with Medicare and Social Security.

The Democrats will now work to frighten the hell out of the people that they have made dependent on Obama-care by threatening them with misery and death if they vote for anyone but Democrats. This will now happen in every election from now till the end our nation's days.

The chronically ill and those with per-existing conditions think that Obama's socialized medicine scheme will save them. The reality is that they have been reduced to political pawns, to be forever paraded about by Democrats as pathetic and helpless miserable victims in order to help the political class rob the rest of us of our earnings and our rights. On top of that, they will be forever threatened by Democrats with ruin and death at every election should the Democrats ever lose at the ballot box.

Heaven help us all.

How is that "Hope and Change" working for you?

It seems it ain't working so well for Obama's "progressive" supporters.

See: Progressives Ask: Is It Obama, Or Is It Us?

Left-wing activists described the year leading up to Barack Obama's election as exhilarating, empowering and exciting.
Now, if you ask progressives gathered for the America's Future Now conference in Washington, D.C., about the first year and a half of his presidency, they say:

"Frustrating."

"Sobering."

"Brutal."

At least, those were the reactions of, respectively, union activist Nick Weiner, University of Minnesota political science professor Dara Strolovitch, and Steve Peha, who heads an education reform consultancy.

"I had hoped for something different," Peha explains. "I had hoped for the president who ran for office, and not so much the one who's in office."

Peha says he's a pragmatist -- he knows that campaigning and governing are different. But "what I wish is that President Obama had worked a little less for his ideal of bipartisanship and a little more for the people who elected him," he says.

This is the prevailing feeling at this week's America's Future Now conference. And no one is hiding it.

There are several things to remark upon here.

One, the Obama administration has easily been the most partisan administration that this country has suffered through since Johnson. His "take it or leave it" strategy for ramming through his health-care scheme is example enough of that. On that charge, the progressives are talking out their ass. They wouldn't know what "bipartisanship" was if it reached across the isle and slugged them.

Two, Obama is the most progressive President this country has had since Woodrow Wilson. Again, his health-care scheme is proof enough of that. We could also talk about his high tax policy and his regulatory policy per Cap and Trade. Then there is that whole financial crises fiasco created by the progressive geniuses Barney Frank and Chris Dodd that Obama managed to make much worse. He even seized control of GM for goodness sake. GM is now a government run enterprise strait out of the Mussolini play book. What do the progressives want! Any more progressive and and this administration would be considering controlling political speech by taxing internet news aggregators or bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine" to radio.

Three, Obama cannot realistically satisfy his hard left supporters. These are the people on the fringe of reality, more inclined to look at working through the constraints of the law and the constitution as backsliding and evidence of a spiritual weakness. These people were going to turn on him no matter what. That doesn't mean that we can't enjoy the schadenfreude while watching his own snakes turn on him.

Heh. . . Here is some "Hope and Change" good and hard you "progressive" dip-shits.

Public Employees Unions & Bankrupt Governments

We may soon see a wave of city and county governments file for bankruptcy in the near future. Bankruptcy gives the local municipal governments the means to deal with a significant source of their problems with their budgets.

See: Bankruptcy talk spreads among Calif. muni officials

Despite its stigma, bankruptcy has paid an important dividend for Vallejo: It has forced public employee unions to the negotiating table, providing city leaders an opportunity to rein in compensation, which city officials said accounts for more than three-quarters of Vallejo's general fund spending. City Councilwoman Stephanie Gomes said the effort has led to concessions from three of four city unions.

Like Vallejo, Los Angeles is suffering from weak revenue at the same time the cost of its pensions and other retirement benefits are rising. Former Mayor Richard Riordan said those factors put the government of the second largest U.S. city on track to declare bankruptcy between now and 2014.

Riordan sees bankruptcy as a necessary tactic for squeezing concessions from the city's public employee unions. It could also pave the way for 401(k) retirement accounts for new city workers instead of defined pension benefit plans with escalating costs, he said.

"The threat of bankruptcy is really the only way you're going to get them to make major changes," Riordan recently told Reuters.

The public employee's unions are the most powerful lobbies in existence. They own most (particularly the blue) local governments, lock, stock and barrel. They are an organized block of votes and campaign contributions that dominate local elections. They get their people out to vote. They control huge heaping gobs of money that get donated to (almost exclusively Democrat) campaigns. They are the deciding factor in blue districts. They own them.

The end result? The municipalities that have been generous with the compensation packages that they have given to their public employees unions are now broke. There is little or nothing left in the private sector to loot. Their economies are in the toilet, the rich are fleeing the state, and the low end private work force that remains earns next to nothing and pays next to nothing in taxes.

In such circumstances, filing bankruptcy can look like a good idea.

Too bad it won't work.

Dealing the unions a setback only leaves them in place to again manipulate elections so that they can again vote themselves ever larger portions of the public purse. So long as Public Employee Unions are able to influence local politicians, they will own those politicians. Nothing will really ever change.

~

See Also: Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich

We believe there are three unintended consequences from states raising tax rates on the rich. First, some rich residents sell their homes and leave the state; second, those who stay in the state report less taxable income on their tax returns; and third, some rich people choose not to locate in a high-tax state. Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates.

See Also: Best and Worst States for Business 2010

How is it that the nation’s most populous state at 37 million, one that is the world’s eighth-largest economy and the country’s richest and most diverse agricultural producer, a state that had the fastest growth rate in the 1950s and 1960s during the tenures of Democratic Governor Pat Brown and Republican Governors Earl Warren and Ronald Reagan, should become the Venezuela of North America?

Californians pay among the highest income and sales taxes in the nation, the former exceeding 10 percent in the top brackets. Unemployment statewide is over 12.2 percent, higher than the national average. State politics seems consumed with how to divide a shrinking pie rather than how to expand it. Against national trend, union density is climbing from 16.1 percent of workers in 1998 to 17.8 percent in 2002. Organized labor has more political influence in California than in most other states. In addition, unfunded pension and health care liabilities for state workers top $500 billion and the annual pension contribution has climbed from $320 million to $7.3 billion in less than a decade. When state employees reach critical mass, they tend to become a permanent lobby for continual growth in government.

Are we having fun yet?

Bitter Resentments And The Death Of The Euro.

All the happy talk in the world from bloviating socialist economist can not stem the tide that is turning against the Euro.

In Germany, the Euro is becoming the butt of bad jokes that are funny only because of the truth that they tell.

See: Berliners dream of return to deutschmark

Cabaret artists have been making jokes about wheelbarrows of notes, or telling the one about the German and the Greek who go out to eat, the German choosing the cheapest item on the menu, the Greek gorging on a range of dishes, before the waiter brings the German the bill at the end. The audience doubles over. But the reality is stomach-churning.

"We are building up an almighty bubble of debt which is going to burst in one great bang," says Hans-Werner Sinn, chief of Ifo, one of the country's leading economic thinktanks.

That means a bitter round of budget cuts, deeper than any seen since 1945. Every area of German life is expected to take a hit, from education to welfare benefits, swimming pools to autobahns. Far-fetched as talk of the return of the mark seems, the more it is talked about, the more it is likely to become popular, despite Merkel's insistence that if the euro fails, so will Europe.

Without Germany, the Euro is nothing. The Germans know it. All of Europe knows it. The resentment in Germany is real. Resentment like this will kill the Euro.

Europe – Retiring On Empty?

See: Crisis Imperils Liberal Benefits Long Expected by Europeans

In Rome, Aldo Cimaglia is 52 and teaches photography, and he is deeply pessimistic about his pension. “It’s going to go belly-up because no one will be around to fill the pension coffers,” he said. “It’s not just me; this country has no future.”

Changes have now become urgent. Europe’s population is aging quickly as birthrates decline. Unemployment has risen as traditional industries have shifted to Asia. And the region lacks competitiveness in world markets.

According to the European Commission, by 2050 the percentage of Europeans older than 65 will nearly double. In the 1950s there were seven workers for every retiree in advanced economies. By 2050, the ratio in the European Union will drop to 1.3 to 1.

1.3 workers to every 1 retiree. That is not workable. The poor workers paying into the system will have to be taxed at over half their gross just to keep the system going. They won't do it. They will quit. Quiting will easily look like the best option. “Better,” the workers will rationalize, “to go on the dole then have to be the sucker that pays for it.”

European politicians knew that this day was coming. They knew that their welfare state was based on Ponzi scheme economics. It was the reason that they opened their borders to immigrants from Muslim nations. They had hoped that these new immigrants would help them maintain a high worker to retiree ratio. They had also hoped that the new immigrants would feel invested in the success of Europe and in the welfare of those that they would be supporting in retirement. (Can we say - Epic Fail!)

What then for Europe?

Can they find a way out of this catastrophe?

It may be too late for them.

But what about for us?

Is our social welfare system really that much better off than the European's? Or are we seeing in Europe, a harbinger of our own doom?

The Next Big Bailouts - State Pension Plans

Hold on to your wallets.

See: Will State Pension Funds Need a $1 Trillion Bailout?

The federal government could face another economic disaster and massive bailouts within a decade if it doesn't force state pension funds to revamp their operations soon, an economist says.

Even if they meet "aggressive" 8 percent growth targets, several states will see the reserves in their pension funds dry up by the end of 2020, with many more running out of cash within another decade, says Joshua Rauh, an economist at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. Broke states are likely to go begging to the federal government, which would probably have to bail them out to the tune of more than $1 trillion, he argues in a new paper.

It is important to keep in mind how big of a deal this is. The beneficiaries of these state pension funds are very powerful politically. These are government employees. They own the government. It is their play-toy. (Government employees are the most powerful lobby in any government.)

You will be told to just shut up and pay.

More debt. More taxes. Are we having fun yet?

See also: State Pensions Face $1 Trillion Shortfall

What Happens When They Run Out Of Other Peoples Money To Spend?

Spending other peoples money can be a lot of fun . . . until the money runs out.

See: Illinois deep in debt, doesn’t pay bills

Paralyzed by the worst deficit in its history, the state has fallen months behind in paying what it owes to businesses and organizations, pushing some of them to the edge of bankruptcy.

Illinois isn't bothering with the formality of issuing IOUs, as California did last year. It simply doesn't pay.

Think about that.

That is not a small thing.

All of those vendors that are not being paid have employees that may soon be out of a job because their employers can not get paid.

How many other State and City governments are going to have this problem? How many people will lose their jobs, their careers and their life savings when their employer's government customers fail to pay their bills?

Greece - Economic Liberalization And Removing The State From The Market Place

See: The Bitter Pills in the Plan to Rescue Greece

Another reform high on the list is removing the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors like health care, transportation and energy and allowing private investment. Economists say that the liberalization of trucking routes — where a trucking license can cost up to $90,000 — and the health care industry would help bring down prices in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe.

Note how in this paragraph, "liberalization" refers to "removing the state from the marketplace."

Greece is in such bad shape, they are considering taking two steps back in order to take one step forward.

Not to worry though. One of the proposals is to have Greece increase its Value Added Tax (VAT) up to 25%. That is a high enough rake off of the private sector to insure that no real economic recovery will come of anything inadvertently positive that could be imposed.

There is no easy solution for Greece or for any other nation that is suffering from the all to predictable results of running out of other peoples money to spend. You can't spend what you don't have. Resorting to debt will only make the problem bigger. Resorting to raising taxes will only cripple that part of the economy that creates wealth. Freeing the economy from government regulation and taxation could work but it can not rescue welfare-state socialism from its all to predictable and inevitibly destructive results.

Bottem line, Socialism Sucks.

Roller Coaster Market Ride - Are We Having Fun Yet?

See: Bank Risk Soars to Record, Default Swaps Overtake Lehman Crisis

May 7 (Bloomberg) -- The cost of insuring against losses on European bank bonds soared to a record, surpassing levels triggered by the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., as the sovereign debt crisis deepened.

Like on an old wooden roller coaster, our economic cars have been pulled slowly to the top again after the first plunge, tickity tickity tickity all the way up.

Now, here we are at the the top of the second rise, at the long breathless moment where the cars just kind of sit there, slipping slowly forward as we get our first look at the deep drop before us. No more tickity tickity. The brakes are now off.

In moments, there will be little that we can do but throw our hands up in the air and scream in the downward plunge.

Are we having fun yet?

The Looming Commercial Mortgage Debt Crisis

With California, New York, and some of the other large states on the verge of default, a problem with commercial property debt may push them that much closer to the brink.

See: Commercial Mortgage Default Rate in U.S. More Than Doubles

The default rate for commercial property mortgages held by U.S. banks more than doubled in the fourth quarter and may reach a peak of 5.4 percent at the end of next year, according to Real Capital Analytics Inc.

We may have rough seas ahead of us.

The timing of the midterm elections will make all of this that much more interesting.

Democrats Will Destroy California

The Democrats are inherently incapable of stopping themselves from destroying California.

See: California is a greater risk than Greece, warns JP Morgan chief

Mr Dimon told investors at the Wall Street bank's annual meeting that "there could be contagion" if a state the size of California, the biggest of the United States, had problems making debt repayments. "Greece itself would not be an issue for this company, nor would any other country," said Mr Dimon. "We don't really foresee the European Union coming apart." The senior banker said that JP Morgan Chase and other US rivals are largely immune from the European debt crisis, as the risks have largely been hedged.

California however poses more of a risk, given the state's $20bn (£13.1bn) budget deficit, which Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is desperately trying to reduce.

I have serious doubts about California coming to grips with it's debt problem. The Democrats own that state's legislature lock, stock and barrel. Even if Arnold Schwarzenegger were inclined to be a fiscal conservative, there is damn little that he could do to stop the Democrats from running the state smack into the ground.

The Democrats will not become fiscal conservatives. It just won't happen. Their very reason for existence is to create an ever expanding welfare state. It's what they promise to get elected and it is what they believe is right and good.

Given the Democrat's visceral hatred and fear of the concept that lowering taxes increases tax revenue, and their willingness if not eagerness to raise tax rates for both revenue collection and for social engineering purposes, what can we foresee them proposing to get themselves out of the mess that they have spent themselves into?

Can we really imagine for a moment that Democrats will seriously even entertain the notion of tax cuts and social spending reductions?

Tax cuts and social spending reductions, real tax cuts and real reductions in social spending, just won't happen.

Unfortunately, California is such a large part of our nations economy that when they hit the wall, the rest of us will feel it.

Greedy Democrats Lusting For A Tax On Gold

Democrat greed knows no bounds. Hungry for revenue from any source that She and her fellow Democrats can think of, the Governor Of Washington State is lusting for a sales tax on gold and other precious metals.

See: Is Washington's tax exemption on bullion a gold mine?

Gov. Chris Gregoire repeatedly has singled out the bullion tax break since she ran for her first term in 2004 as an example of the sort of preferential treatment that ought to end.

The governor followed through this year, proposing to start taxing bullion sales as part of her budget proposal to the Legislature. State-employee unions, interested in staving off job cuts, have come out in support.

The State-employees unions are the most powerful lobbies in the state of Washington. They have the Democrats by the short hairs. What they want, they get.

Unfortunately, the real world will not cooperate as slavishly as the Democrats and their State-employee union puppet-masters would like.

The association estimates there are now at least 100 coin and bullion dealers in the state — small coin shops and larger dealers who also sell gold as an investment for retirement accounts. Their businesses would be in jeopardy if the state reinstitutes the sales tax, Robinson said.

As an added blow, national coin-dealer trade shows no longer would consider meeting in Washington.

Because the price of gold is set like a stock on a national market, dealers operate on only a 1 to 3 percent markup, said Karen Feldman, who owns Tacoma Mall Blvd Coin Stamp & Jewelry.

Gold is selling at more than $1,000 an ounce, so if Washington dealers had to tack on a sales tax of nearly 10 percent, it would add about $100 to the price of a 1-ounce gold Krugerrand, Feldman said. Customers simply would buy gold on the Internet or in Oregon and Idaho, which don't tax bullion sales.

A tax on precious metal trades in Washington State would just move the transactions somewhere else. It is a predictable result. The Democrats are just too possessed by greed to give a tinker's damn.

HT: Fenway Nation

See Comment in Do You Deserve To Have Your 401k And Your IRA Confiscated?

Barrack Obama, Reckless Lending, The State Of The Union and Punishing Banks.

There are lots of people out there taking the President's State Of The Union Speech to pieces. It lends itself easily to that task. It really is a stinking pile.

The part that I would like to highlight is a few of President Obama's comments about Banks.

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis.

The Banks are to blame?

Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.

Barrak Obama's interests in banks goes way back. Punishing banks is not a new thing to him. I suspect that from a certain point of view, he really isn't particularly interested in “punishing” banks per say, but punishing them is not a new thing for him.

From Forbes.com: A Poisonous Cocktail by Peter Schweizer

Obama's battle against banks has a long history. In 1994, freshly out of Harvard Law School, he joined two other attorneys in filing a lawsuit against Citibank, the giant mortgage lender. In Selma S. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, the plaintiffs claimed that although they had ostensibly been denied home loans "because of delinquent credit obligations and adverse credit," the real culprit was institutional racism. The suit alleged that Citibank had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and, for good measure, the 13th Constitutional Amendment, which abolished slavery. The bank denied the charge, but after four years of legal wrangling and mounting legal bills, elected to settle. According to court documents, the three plaintiffs received a total of $60,000. Their lawyers received $950,000.

Barrack Obama has been a major player in our current banking problem for a long time.

He is offering the people of the United States solutions to a problem that can substantively be laid at his feet. It would be unfair to lay the blame exclusively on Barrack Obama. Lots of people were helping “punish” the banks. He was just one of many.

And now he offers to help fix the problem.

A problem that he helped create.

What a guy.

Taxation Used As A Weapon

It didn't take long for the “Tax everything that moves and doesn’t move”* party to set its sights on taxing bonuses at 50%.

The initial proposal here is to tax bonuses paid out to bank executives for expressly punitive purposes. This is copy-cat to something that the socialist kleptomaniacs in the UK imposed on their bankers in December of 2009. (See Make Them Work for Free Dammit!)

Reported in The Hill.

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) will introduce legislation that would impose a 50% tax on excessive bonuses at firms that received bailout funds.

The "Wall Street Bonus Tax Act" would apply only to bonuses over $50,000, and would use the tax revenue to support loans to small businesses.

Democrat Congresscritter Peter Welch's claim that the tax would be used “to support loans to small businesses” is pure bullshit. This is taxation being used as a weapon. It is just that simple.

~~~
*“The percentage of taxes on GDP (in Pakistan) is among the lowest in the world... We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan,” - Sec. Of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton(D) October 2009.

A Jobless Recovery And A Devious Midterm Election Strategy

The new Unemployment Numbers are telling a grim tale.

From Bob Willis and Courtney Schlisserman at Bloomberg.com:

The so-called underemployment rate -- which includes part- time workers who’d prefer a full-time position and people who want work but have given up looking -- rose to 17.3 percent in December from 17.2 percent.

The number of discouraged workers, those not looking for work because they believe none is available, climbed to 929,000 last month, the most since records began in 1994.

Normally, this kind of news would doom the Party in power to a Midterm Election rout. This next Midterm Election may well be an exception.

Watch for the Democrats to begin spending money like its going out of style as the Midterm Elections approach. The Stimulus moneys are still largely unspent. That will change as the election approaches. The Stimulus moneys were never meant to be spent to improve the economy, rather their purpose was to stimulate Democrat election chances in the midterms.

Karl Rove discusses this at the Wall Street Journal.

But Americans shouldn't be misled by the election year ploy: Mr. Obama rigged the game by giving himself plenty of room to look tough on spending. He did that by increasing discretionary domestic spending for the last half of fiscal year 2009 by 8% and then increasing it another 12% for fiscal year 2010.

So discretionary domestic spending now stands at $536 billion, up nearly 24% from President George W. Bush's last full year budget in fiscal 2008 of $433.6 billion. That's a huge spending surge, even for a profligate liberal like Mr. Obama. The $102 billion spending increase doesn't even count the $787 billion stimulus package, of which $534 billion remains unspent.

Mr. Obama can placate congressional Democrats by arguing that all that extra spending he has already crammed through can cover their spending desires at least through the 2010 congressional elections.

This will be an interesting election cycle.