Newsweek has an interesting article on the state of religion in the United States. I read the survey results on which it is based last month. Interesting indeed.
4 April 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Obama = Bush
If that title doesn't get your attention, nothing will. Unfortunately, it is spot-on.
Read this Washington Post article at MSNBC.COM detailing how Obama's Treasury Department is breaking the law in regard to allocating bailout money to distressed financial institutions. In a nut shell, the game goes like this. Congress put restrictions on the money handed out, including things such as executive pay caps and the goverment having to take an ownership interest in firms receiving the funds. Now, the Obama Administration is basically setting up shell entities through which it is funneling money to banks, instead of it being paid directly to them. This, they say, allows them to put no strings on the money. Yep, the banks can have it free and clear... or at the very least, without all of those pesky oversight rules -- (e.g. laws) -- that Congress set up.
If this doesn't violate the law -- and it almost certainly does -- it definitely violates the spirit of the law. It is the type of thing that the Bush Administration would have done and gleefully thumbed their collective noses at the rest of us. I expected better of Obama. I was wrong.
Certainly, this discussion sidesteps the issue of what might be the better policy on this question. To me, however, that is next to irrelevant. The law is the law and we've had our leaders breaking it willy nilly for far too long. If you don't like the law, change it. The president, however, must not simply break it.
4 April 2009
Read this Washington Post article at MSNBC.COM detailing how Obama's Treasury Department is breaking the law in regard to allocating bailout money to distressed financial institutions. In a nut shell, the game goes like this. Congress put restrictions on the money handed out, including things such as executive pay caps and the goverment having to take an ownership interest in firms receiving the funds. Now, the Obama Administration is basically setting up shell entities through which it is funneling money to banks, instead of it being paid directly to them. This, they say, allows them to put no strings on the money. Yep, the banks can have it free and clear... or at the very least, without all of those pesky oversight rules -- (e.g. laws) -- that Congress set up.
If this doesn't violate the law -- and it almost certainly does -- it definitely violates the spirit of the law. It is the type of thing that the Bush Administration would have done and gleefully thumbed their collective noses at the rest of us. I expected better of Obama. I was wrong.
Certainly, this discussion sidesteps the issue of what might be the better policy on this question. To me, however, that is next to irrelevant. The law is the law and we've had our leaders breaking it willy nilly for far too long. If you don't like the law, change it. The president, however, must not simply break it.
4 April 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Geithner Background
A great article today in the Washington Post regarding Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's background with credit derivatives as head of the New York Fed. It would seem that he missed all signs of the crisis even as he made moves that made it worse in the long run.
3 April 2009
3 April 2009
Love, Corn Style!
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled today that a ban on gay marriage violates the state constitution's equal protection clause. The ruling will take three weeks to implement and the original plaintiff has said that it will not ask for a rehearing. This means that by the end of the month, marriage equality will have come to the heartland of America. Indeed, "heartland" takes on a whole new meaning with this just ruling.
You can read the actual ruling here.
3 April 2009
You can read the actual ruling here.
3 April 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Stevens & the DOJ
The DOJ has decided to drop all charges, even after a conviction, against Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. This isn't exactly surprising given the amount of bungling in the case, mixed with Stevens' age. However, official Washington -- including the media -- is greeting Stevens with open arms as if his misconduct, which was great and illegal, never happened. The fact that charges were dropped doesn't change that fact and the facts are well known and proven. It is a fine example of anything goes in DC as long as you either don't get caught or cannot be convicted in a court of law. It is disgusting.
A good article on this can be found at TPM.
Chris Matthews' take on Stevens. George Stephanopoulos' (short) take. Morons.
2 April 2009
A good article on this can be found at TPM.
Chris Matthews' take on Stevens. George Stephanopoulos' (short) take. Morons.
2 April 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Gov't Pension Protection Revisited
Last week, I detailed how the Bush Administration gutted the fund that is the safeguard for private pension protection. Now, information is coming to light that man responsible, Charles Millard, was warned specifically that the route he eventually took with the fund could and very likely would lead to dire results. What is interesting is that the warnings came from Members of Congress, who were later informed by Millard when he indeed made the catastrophic changes. What is unknown is why no outcry from Congress came at that time. Were the changes approved? Were they overlooked? I hope someone keeps digging into this.
Sadly, there are too many April Fool's to count pretty much every day of the year.
1 April 2009
Sadly, there are too many April Fool's to count pretty much every day of the year.
1 April 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)