This is an open letter to our elected representatives in Washington, both in the Senate and in the House of Represenatives.
I am a 74 year old retiree and have observed you through the years and hope and believe that there are some honorable persons that have been elected to congress by the people of America. I also hope and believe that you are a strong supporter of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights as your sworn oath of office dictates.
The problem that I have, along with most of my friends and acquaintances,(both young and old) is that the Obama White House has an obvious but hidden agenda that is catapulting America into a Socialist, even Marxist state, and this is contrary to his sworn duty as President. This observation is not taken frivolously and is borne out by listening to Obama's own words presently and over the years and also by noting that many of his appointed czars have open Marxist goals. These are Goals that will quickly destroy this great Country, these are Goals that have placed our sacred Constitution under attack.
So many American men and women have sacrificed their time and lives and continue to do so today, to preserve our Constitutional freedoms, and now we are faced with a President that has opted to ignored these sacrifices and is actively pursuing a plan that ignores the Constitution and will destroy America and give our sovereignty away in the name of globalization.
Some one needs to challenge the President and redirect him to our Constitution which he seems to have forever found to be a deeply flawed document.
The point is that, I am surprised that you our elected representatives can sit by and continue to be mute, as you watch and listen and then allow this great country to be assailed without action or comment. Why?!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
WHY READ THE LEGISLATION?
Hello,
You really do not have to read the entire following article to recognize the idiocy in our legislative bodies.
Many of the arguers are saying the bill is too onerous and too complicated to read and understand and they mean that not only the public can't understand but the congress themselves do not understand.
I have scanned and tried to read one of the health care bills and the cap and trade bill and yes it is complicated and yes it is impossible to actually understand and that bring me to my point. Any legislation that gets passed by congress in this form is not legislation at all. Should any of this legislation pass (GOD FORBID) the rules and laws that eventually emerge will be a result of the whims and direction of whoever is in charge these are the details that will become law. In affect the legislation is saying "TRUST ME". I SAY NO!!!! EMPHATICALLY NO!!!!
Is it too much to require that legislation be clear and understandable?
You can not deny that congress has become a bunch of self serving lemmings, on both sides. Is there anyone in congress with a conscience and principles? Has anyone in congress studied the constitution and bill of rights?
Ralph
Play Video ABC News – The Bottom Line on Health Care
• Play Video Video:'Low-Balling' Health Care Cost? FOX News
AP – House Speaker Pelosi of Calif. takes part in her weekly news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, …
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer – Fri Oct 9, 7:29 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Read the bill! It was a rallying cry at angry health care town halls this summer and has evolved into something of a political movement. Many Americans are demanding that lawmakers actually read the comprehensive legislation they've written — or at least make it publicly available — before voting on it.
The push for transparency has become a running side debate in Congress, with lawmakers — often minority Republicans, but some Democrats too — pressing leaders to post measures online for 72 hours before a vote.
"I don't think the American people can be left in the dark," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said this week.
It might sound like a no-brainer. President Barack Obama has made transparency a watchword of his administration, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged upon taking office to "create the most open and honest government in history."
The Internet makes it all possible.
So what's the problem?
Well, have you ever tried reading a bill?
Take Medicaid. An average person might describe it as the federal-state health insurance program for the poor. But to the authors of the House Democrats' health care bill, "The term 'Medicaid' means a State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (whether or not the plan is operating under a waiver under section 1115 of such Act)."
The bill goes on to say, "The terms 'premium plan' and 'premium-plus plan' have the meanings given such terms in section 203(c)."
Like those examples, the legislation is peppered with cross references to other laws or statutes that are never explained, defying understanding by anyone without a law degree or years of legislative experience. Most lawmakers have never read the bills; that's what staff members are for.
"The minutiae of legal drafting is not necessarily related to understanding the concepts in the bill," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., who certainly has had his hand in writing laws in nearly 20 years in the House.
"You could literally get lost in the forest for the trees" trying to read it, he said.
The impenetrability of legislative language is not in itself an argument against posting bills online and letting voters try to figure them out. That happened over the summer with the House's 1,017-page health care bill, with mixed results. Some sections of the bill were taken out of context or misunderstood, often to feed critics' political agendas. At the same time, there was a full airing of concerns that the legislation raised.
Despite the hubbub, the House bill is not even close to the final product that Obama might ultimately sign into law. And that's another part of the problem.
Congress' lawmaking process is such that legislation goes through numerous permutations before being massaged into a final bill that could become law. Along the way, particularly in the Senate, legislating happens on the fly, with bills evolving in real time during committee meetings. Even after debate begins in the Senate, changes are the norm.
Posting every incremental development online could be impractical and hardly enlightening for most Americans, defenders of the current system suggest.
But transparency advocates see that argument as part of the problem. They point to instances in which controversial provisions were added quietly, at the 11th hour, unbeknownst to most. Consider this: A provision was tucked into this year's economic stimulus bill in last-minute, closed-door talks that allowed insurance giant American International Group to pay huge executive bonuses.
If lawmakers had put the brakes on the process and exposed it to sunlight, that development and others like it might have been avoided, advocates argue.
"People became outraged when they discovered that the norm was for legislators to vote on legislation they hadn't read," said Colin Hanna, head of a group, Let Freedom Ring, that is asking lawmakers to pledge to read health overhaul legislation before voting.
After all, the nation's health care system represents one-sixth of the economy.
Eight moderate Democrats wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., this week asking for any health care bill to be put online for 72 hours along with an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office before the Senate acts. They also want all amendments to be publicly available.
Reid has not fully agreed to the request, though spokesman Jim Manley said lawmakers would probably have 72 hours to review the legislation before it comes to the floor.
House leaders also have committed to giving lawmakers 72 hours to review the health bill, though they haven't agreed to demands from some in their caucus to apply that rule to every piece of legislation.
A few weeks ago, the openness issue occupied the Senate Finance Committee for a good portion of a day's work on its health overhaul bill.
Unlike other committees, the Finance panel has traditionally worked from plain English — called conceptual language — rather than legislative text. The reasoning, in part, is that its issues are so abstruse — involving IRS code and other complex items — that some senators argue it's the only practical way to proceed.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., sought to prove that point by reading at some length from the bill's legislative text. "By striking amounts for purposes and inserting amounts" and "IV, for 2013, the sum of AA, one-third of the quotient of AA," he said.
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., replied that Conrad had been talking about a home health care provision that he said had caused a lot of problems.
Conrad corrected him. It was a provision on Medicare managed care plans.
The committee rejected an amendment for the 72-hour requirement. The plain English version of the committee bill and a cost estimate have been online for days, but the legislative language won't be publicly available until after the committee votes on Tuesday.
How long would it actually take to read the bill? A group of voice actors got through the House legislation in about 24 hours; the plain-English version of Baucus' bill took a bit over half that time.
You really do not have to read the entire following article to recognize the idiocy in our legislative bodies.
Many of the arguers are saying the bill is too onerous and too complicated to read and understand and they mean that not only the public can't understand but the congress themselves do not understand.
I have scanned and tried to read one of the health care bills and the cap and trade bill and yes it is complicated and yes it is impossible to actually understand and that bring me to my point. Any legislation that gets passed by congress in this form is not legislation at all. Should any of this legislation pass (GOD FORBID) the rules and laws that eventually emerge will be a result of the whims and direction of whoever is in charge these are the details that will become law. In affect the legislation is saying "TRUST ME". I SAY NO!!!! EMPHATICALLY NO!!!!
Is it too much to require that legislation be clear and understandable?
You can not deny that congress has become a bunch of self serving lemmings, on both sides. Is there anyone in congress with a conscience and principles? Has anyone in congress studied the constitution and bill of rights?
Ralph
Play Video ABC News – The Bottom Line on Health Care
• Play Video Video:'Low-Balling' Health Care Cost? FOX News
AP – House Speaker Pelosi of Calif. takes part in her weekly news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, …
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer – Fri Oct 9, 7:29 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Read the bill! It was a rallying cry at angry health care town halls this summer and has evolved into something of a political movement. Many Americans are demanding that lawmakers actually read the comprehensive legislation they've written — or at least make it publicly available — before voting on it.
The push for transparency has become a running side debate in Congress, with lawmakers — often minority Republicans, but some Democrats too — pressing leaders to post measures online for 72 hours before a vote.
"I don't think the American people can be left in the dark," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said this week.
It might sound like a no-brainer. President Barack Obama has made transparency a watchword of his administration, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged upon taking office to "create the most open and honest government in history."
The Internet makes it all possible.
So what's the problem?
Well, have you ever tried reading a bill?
Take Medicaid. An average person might describe it as the federal-state health insurance program for the poor. But to the authors of the House Democrats' health care bill, "The term 'Medicaid' means a State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (whether or not the plan is operating under a waiver under section 1115 of such Act)."
The bill goes on to say, "The terms 'premium plan' and 'premium-plus plan' have the meanings given such terms in section 203(c)."
Like those examples, the legislation is peppered with cross references to other laws or statutes that are never explained, defying understanding by anyone without a law degree or years of legislative experience. Most lawmakers have never read the bills; that's what staff members are for.
"The minutiae of legal drafting is not necessarily related to understanding the concepts in the bill," said Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., who certainly has had his hand in writing laws in nearly 20 years in the House.
"You could literally get lost in the forest for the trees" trying to read it, he said.
The impenetrability of legislative language is not in itself an argument against posting bills online and letting voters try to figure them out. That happened over the summer with the House's 1,017-page health care bill, with mixed results. Some sections of the bill were taken out of context or misunderstood, often to feed critics' political agendas. At the same time, there was a full airing of concerns that the legislation raised.
Despite the hubbub, the House bill is not even close to the final product that Obama might ultimately sign into law. And that's another part of the problem.
Congress' lawmaking process is such that legislation goes through numerous permutations before being massaged into a final bill that could become law. Along the way, particularly in the Senate, legislating happens on the fly, with bills evolving in real time during committee meetings. Even after debate begins in the Senate, changes are the norm.
Posting every incremental development online could be impractical and hardly enlightening for most Americans, defenders of the current system suggest.
But transparency advocates see that argument as part of the problem. They point to instances in which controversial provisions were added quietly, at the 11th hour, unbeknownst to most. Consider this: A provision was tucked into this year's economic stimulus bill in last-minute, closed-door talks that allowed insurance giant American International Group to pay huge executive bonuses.
If lawmakers had put the brakes on the process and exposed it to sunlight, that development and others like it might have been avoided, advocates argue.
"People became outraged when they discovered that the norm was for legislators to vote on legislation they hadn't read," said Colin Hanna, head of a group, Let Freedom Ring, that is asking lawmakers to pledge to read health overhaul legislation before voting.
After all, the nation's health care system represents one-sixth of the economy.
Eight moderate Democrats wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., this week asking for any health care bill to be put online for 72 hours along with an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office before the Senate acts. They also want all amendments to be publicly available.
Reid has not fully agreed to the request, though spokesman Jim Manley said lawmakers would probably have 72 hours to review the legislation before it comes to the floor.
House leaders also have committed to giving lawmakers 72 hours to review the health bill, though they haven't agreed to demands from some in their caucus to apply that rule to every piece of legislation.
A few weeks ago, the openness issue occupied the Senate Finance Committee for a good portion of a day's work on its health overhaul bill.
Unlike other committees, the Finance panel has traditionally worked from plain English — called conceptual language — rather than legislative text. The reasoning, in part, is that its issues are so abstruse — involving IRS code and other complex items — that some senators argue it's the only practical way to proceed.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., sought to prove that point by reading at some length from the bill's legislative text. "By striking amounts for purposes and inserting amounts" and "IV, for 2013, the sum of AA, one-third of the quotient of AA," he said.
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., replied that Conrad had been talking about a home health care provision that he said had caused a lot of problems.
Conrad corrected him. It was a provision on Medicare managed care plans.
The committee rejected an amendment for the 72-hour requirement. The plain English version of the committee bill and a cost estimate have been online for days, but the legislative language won't be publicly available until after the committee votes on Tuesday.
How long would it actually take to read the bill? A group of voice actors got through the House legislation in about 24 hours; the plain-English version of Baucus' bill took a bit over half that time.
Friday, October 9, 2009
ओबामा'स उन-नोबले नोबेल
Obama’s Un-noble NOBEL. Posted October 9, 2009
Well we awaken this morning to the announcement from Sweden that Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peaces Prize. The real question is WHY? What has he accomplished that would garner him this so called honor?
I believe the “why” to be based on his stream of international speeches deploring the past behavior of the United States and apologizing for such behavior to anyone that would listen.
With regard to his accomplishments we must recognize that he has nationalized the auto industry, the banking industry, and he is on a path to destroy the best health care industry in the world and another path, through the over reaching Cap and Trade legislation that will bring America down several notches more, and he is in the process of destroying the dollar. What more can he do to destroy the American dream and shred the constitution? First one has to remember that the Nobel committee also awarded Jimmy Carter with the Nobel Peace Prize and oh, was not Jimmy Carter the President that took the United States down a path of near destruction? Now the similarity should ring a bell! The Nobel committee seems to adore U.S. presidents that have agendas that are intent on diminishing the United States. This gesture, on behalf of the Nobel Committee will do little more than stoke Obama’s already bigger than life ego and narcissism and encourage him to move even farther to the left if that is even possible.
Well we awaken this morning to the announcement from Sweden that Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peaces Prize. The real question is WHY? What has he accomplished that would garner him this so called honor?
I believe the “why” to be based on his stream of international speeches deploring the past behavior of the United States and apologizing for such behavior to anyone that would listen.
With regard to his accomplishments we must recognize that he has nationalized the auto industry, the banking industry, and he is on a path to destroy the best health care industry in the world and another path, through the over reaching Cap and Trade legislation that will bring America down several notches more, and he is in the process of destroying the dollar. What more can he do to destroy the American dream and shred the constitution? First one has to remember that the Nobel committee also awarded Jimmy Carter with the Nobel Peace Prize and oh, was not Jimmy Carter the President that took the United States down a path of near destruction? Now the similarity should ring a bell! The Nobel committee seems to adore U.S. presidents that have agendas that are intent on diminishing the United States. This gesture, on behalf of the Nobel Committee will do little more than stoke Obama’s already bigger than life ego and narcissism and encourage him to move even farther to the left if that is even possible.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
जुस्त व्हो इस बरैक Obama
This is a long but instructive piece prepared Mr. Bob Oster. His credentials are mentioned in the article.
Long read, but a good one.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Just who is Barack Obama.....
Mr. Oster says about the economy and the Obama administration what many of us have been thinking but have had difficulty putting it into words:
SIX MONTH EVALUATION OF OBAMA
By: Robert Oster
(For those who don't know Bob: he was CFO of Oracle when it went public, also CFO of Syntax, and holds a Ph.D. in economics from Berkeley . Since 1987, he has been an angel investor and private VC. He is on the Board of Overseers at the Hoover Institution.)
In November 2008 I wrote out my evaluation of the Obama candidacy andwhat it might mean to America . I filed this away, but sent it to family members and a few close friends and associates just so I’d be accountable for my real time observations. It’s now been 6 months since Obama’s inauguration. (In the business world, this is typically when a first job review would occur; so, I made a note to myself to revisit his performance on the 6-month anniversary.)
Thus, I now commit to filing my mid-year evaluation of our new President. As well, I’ve put in the file (but not forwarded to anyone) a separate “background check” — the one the press should’ve done on the Obama candidacy prior to presenting him to the American public — in case this is ever of relevance as things unfold.
As concerned as I was by Obama’s candidacy when I wrote out my November pre-election reservations, truth be known, I didn’t much like McCain/Palin either. At the time, I still had hopes that Obama might “govern from the center.” Six months into it, however, I can say that he’s been considerably worse than my worst fears. Thus, I’m updating my evaluation — this time with the fervent hope that by the year-end I can be genuinely more optimistic.
I’ve concluded that not only was Barack Obama too inexperienced to be President, but he also appears to be incompetent as an executive, more-than-just-politician-level-dishonest and a bit of a narcissist (if not a fascist). He seems to have little understanding of American history, her dreams, or her tremendous potential for risk-taking, self-correction and innovation. He and Michelle have turned out to bequintessential Ivy League “Oppression Studies majors” with (carefully concealed) “attitudes.”
Obama seems, above all, to be a Community Organizer with shake down credentials and extraordinary speaking ability.
All of this should have been clear -- had we simply done serious background checks. (The following 4 items, at least, should have been clear to voters:
1. His surrogate father figure was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist.
2. Barack served as a committed trainer for Community Activist and Marxist Saul Alinsky.
3. He sat for nearly 2 decades at the feet of Jeremiah Wright, anangry, anti-American “Black Liberation Theologist”.
4. His first autobiography, "Dreams from My Father", was almost certainly ghost-written by William Ayers, a Vietnam-era domestic terrorist. [This last assertion has now been supported by careful analysis of syntax, spelling and common errors].
If these unusual threads (standing alone) are discounted to the point of not being disqualifiers, those evaluating Barack Obama might have considered that he’d never
i) helda job in the private sector,
ii) managed a payroll,
iii) led aturnaround or
iv) held any sort of executive position.
But, none of this mattered in the fall of 2008. After 6 months, I’m left wondering if power brokers on the Far Left of American politics aren’t pinchingthemselves at their success in creating a fictitious character the press ushered to market in a Bush-weary and "politically correct" America.
In his second (!) autobiography, "The Audacity of Hope", Obama recognizes the advantage of his tabula rasa “creation” when he writes, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” And, project we did!
Thus, the former Barry Soetoro of Honolulu , Jakarta , Mombasa , Occidental, Columbia , Harvard and the mean streets of Chicago moved at light speed from being the first-term senator nobody had ever heard of to President of the United States . In the process, despite numerous efforts, no one has yet seen his birth certificate, his college transcripts, his application to Occidental (likely as a “foreign student”?), or the passport he used to travel in 1981 to Pakistan with buddy Wahid Hamid (likely an Indonesian one?).
For some reason, the Obama campaign has, so far, spent $3/4 million keeping these records out of public view. So, it’s easy to wonder -- if they supported Obama’s putative CV -- why not make them available and put to rest all suspicions about provenance, training and politics? My growing hunch is that there’s virtually no paper trail because the Obama biography has been created largely out of whole cloth. There --I’ve said what increasing numbers of people must be thinking, but are afraid to voice.
But, whether or not Obama is more than a cleverly-marketed fiction, and whatever one thinks of his history, one thing is clear. He finally does have a record toevaluate. And, it’s not a confidence-inspiring one from my standpoint.
At best, Obama is an attractive symbol for America and a compelling communicator; but he’s
1, Not an executive. He’s shown an utter inability to focus, to set priorities and to consider 2nd and 3rd order or long-term consequences to his actions. Lack of focus on priorities is fatal as a CEO; (but, maybe less so for a political leader?)
2. Not a steward or fiduciary for America . Obama clearly does not see his primary job as one of overseeing the security and well-being of America during his tenure as its chief executive. He’s not only unwilling to stand up for America , but he also regularly seems to go out of his way to apologize for her history.
This makes it apparent that he believes his most important job is to change America into what he and Michelle think it should have been had we not suffered the Founders’ flawed vision.
At worst, Obama’s aims seem truly radical (if stealth); his methods pure Alinsky; and his success derivative of obfuscating the truth, creating crises, and rushing changes into law that no one can possibly absorb under artificial deadlines — all aimed at limiting private property rights, changing the Constitution and forever altering our free market system?
For those who consider Obama’s training and background irrelevant, they can now evaluate him as a Commander-in-Chief and CEO from what he’s done over his first 6 months. Among many other things, these evidences have come in the form of:
1. A $787B “stimulus” package (sold as preventing a “crisis frombecoming catastrophe”)
2. The failure to focus on addressing the banking crisis as “Job One”
3. The migration of TARP funds to non-banking concerns, viz., auto industry
4. Announcing tax increases in the middle of a recession
5. Failure to identify projects to fund job creation (Thus, 10% of stimulus yet spent)
6. Announcing that there would be “no pork” or “earmarks” in the “stimulus” package in order to get it passed without review when there were nearly 10,000 buried in the unread bill (including a $9Billion high-speed rail line to Las Vegas for Harry Reid)
7. Bailouts of the banking and auto industries
8. The appointment of a 31-year-old to manage the recreation of the auto companies
9. The exalting of union claims above those of bondholders (violating a 200+ year history of contract law/property rights)
10. The appointment of 34 unvetted “czars” -- creating more than in the House of Romanov between 1762 and 1917!
11. The failure to appoint a Cabinet of tax-paying, competent Americans (reason for the move to the Czar system of administration?)
12. The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court despite anapparent lack of qualifications and judicial temperament,
13. The dark-of-night passage of “Cap and Trade” legislation (300-page-long addendum inserted at 3 AM the morning of the vote in the House)
14. The high pressure tactics to rush through a budget-busting $1.6 Ttakeover of healthcare.
15. Phony “townhall” meetings with a fake cross-section of Americans selling Obamacare on ABC.
16. “Lying” about budget deficits — projecting 4% GDP growth by year-end.
17. “Lying” about job losses — projecting that if Congress would just ram through the “stimulus” that job losses could be halted at 8% (currently on their way to 10% and rising).
18. “Lying” about the costs of nationalized healthcare -- (just as when politicians projected Medicare’s cost in 1990 to be $3 billion, its actual cost turned out in 1990 to $98 billion — 30 times as much)
19. Pretending that new entitlement programs will provide lower costs, better care, no significant tax increases, more competition (as government joins the fray!?) and keeping current private options. Claiming “free” healthcare will make America more competitive is baffling. Everyone knows the above are lies; but no one seems ready to call them out.
20. Forcing the “stimulus” package on states to impinge on “States Rights”
21. Failing to support the freedom-loving citizens in Honduras and Iran (and instead, giving comfort to their dictators) to say nothing of his ineffectiveness with North Korea and anti-Israeli pronouncements.
22. Allocating $4B of “stimulus” funds to ACORN, the voter fraud thugs.
23. Seeking to push through Union Card Check, the so-called “FairnessDoctrine,” and threats to take away 2nd amendment rights (see EricHolder), etc.
24. Moving the heretofore non-partisan census into the Whitehouse under the direction of Rahm Emanuel.
Whatever one thinks of the results, the process of getting to them should bother all Americans. In the Obama (Mayor Daley?) style of governing, it’s not clear that Congress — who can’t possibly process thoughtfully the blizzard of legislation — really serves any useful purpose other than to provide Politburo-style cover. Not only does Congress no longer debate legislation, but Obama has effectively circumvented its oversight of the executive branch by his appointmentof czars.
In contrast to the direction Obama is taking us all, the Economist recently pointed out that 53% of all of the jobs created in the U.S. were created in one state last year: Texas (the most free market of all State economies and the “last best hope” [ha!] for secession?).
Meanwhile, in California , -- as a perfect preview to “Obama’s America ” -- job losses are already well into double digits, the state faces a $25B budget deficit and is closing down services and considering bankruptcy. I cannot predict what will happen to Obama’s popularity, as people wake up to the size and intractability of the deficits he’s promoting, the unavailability of credit for small businesses, or the increased tax rates on energy and payrolls provoking a continuing loss of jobs as small businesses shed employees due to skyrocketing costs, but, is bad economic news bad for Obama?
Sadly, the answer, if one studies the Alinsky formula for bloodless revolution, is “Heck no!” Indeed, high unemployment is necessary for the Obama Redistribution Plan. According to Alinsky, only with high unemployment will people look to the government for help (and then become dependent), allowing government to gain control over the factors of productions. If one considers that the Alinsky manual might be Obama’s “playbook,” one can’t help but want to evaluate how closely it’s being followed.
Thus, in evaluating Obama’s performance, it’s probably worth noting (for the 6-month record) the key elements of the Alinsky formula.
Written in 1971 by Chicago Organizer, Saul Alinsky, under the title of Rules for Radicals, this manual for effective change became Young Barack Obama’s “bible.” David Alinsky, son the author said of our new President: “Barack Obama patterned himself after the Saul Alinsky model in everything he ha sdone since arriving in South Chicago .”
Alinsky clearly stated its purpose: “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative,non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.
This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.” Note how closely Obama is following the rules for internal revolution, based on Alinsky’s specific instructions:
1. Pursue an “Ideology of Change” (Alinsky’s phrase for the mos teffective way to market revolution)
2. Target the banks that serve the steel, auto, and other industries.
3. Start class warfare -- Fuel the anger of what Alinsky calls the “Have-Nots,” and the “Have-some-but-want-mores” against the “Haves.”
4. Use crises to create fear.
5. Use pollution as a foil to grab power.
6. Set up “jobs programs” to make workers dependent on government.
7. Show supreme self-confidence.
8. Make communication skills your key weapon.
9. Use simple catch phrases and vague slogans (‘Of the Common Welfare, [Nazi takeover of Germany], ‘Bread and Peace,’ [Bolshevik Revolution]) In this context, it’s not hard to imagine that Change & The Audacity of Hope will one day be seen as the battle cry for the Obama revolution.
10. Use deception -- “…in war the end justifies almost any means.”
11. Remain calm, appealing, likeable while inciting fear, conflict, defeat.
As these steps are being pursued, the press continues to refer to "the Republican recession," so Obama’s popularity remains high. Any who saw tapes of President Bush warning Congress (on two separate occasions) that the market was headed for disaster unless it instituted the very reforms Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh-poohed, may be surprised to see the level of “cover” the press is providing this revolution.
As bleak as things look for free markets, I have hope. Why? Just as Bernie Madoff learned that ponzi schemes eventually come to light —Barack Obama may soon learn that you “can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” It’s unclear to me how much and how long America will have to pay for its experiment with Obamunism — his fantasy “greenjobs,” his new taxes, his junk science, his czars, his meddling in the auto and banking industries, his sure-to-be-disastrous Obamacare and the encouragement he’s giving to union bosses, dictators and tyrants the globe over, to say nothing of his "Peace-through-Weakness” foreign policy.
But, at some point, reality will take over, as it always does. I just hope America will have its Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan ready to step into the breach when the time comes. So far, the nervousness of Blue Dog Democrats and their ability to resist some of the wackier directives has been the only thing that has kept Obama from an outright failing grade, in my view.
Perhaps, just as the Gingrich Congress rescued Bill Clinton, it may be these so-called Blue Dogs that rescue Obama. If not, it may be important for the survival of the union forgovernment to be forever split between the parties.
I say again, I hope America wakes up before it is too late!!
Long read, but a good one.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Just who is Barack Obama.....
Mr. Oster says about the economy and the Obama administration what many of us have been thinking but have had difficulty putting it into words:
SIX MONTH EVALUATION OF OBAMA
By: Robert Oster
(For those who don't know Bob: he was CFO of Oracle when it went public, also CFO of Syntax, and holds a Ph.D. in economics from Berkeley . Since 1987, he has been an angel investor and private VC. He is on the Board of Overseers at the Hoover Institution.)
In November 2008 I wrote out my evaluation of the Obama candidacy andwhat it might mean to America . I filed this away, but sent it to family members and a few close friends and associates just so I’d be accountable for my real time observations. It’s now been 6 months since Obama’s inauguration. (In the business world, this is typically when a first job review would occur; so, I made a note to myself to revisit his performance on the 6-month anniversary.)
Thus, I now commit to filing my mid-year evaluation of our new President. As well, I’ve put in the file (but not forwarded to anyone) a separate “background check” — the one the press should’ve done on the Obama candidacy prior to presenting him to the American public — in case this is ever of relevance as things unfold.
As concerned as I was by Obama’s candidacy when I wrote out my November pre-election reservations, truth be known, I didn’t much like McCain/Palin either. At the time, I still had hopes that Obama might “govern from the center.” Six months into it, however, I can say that he’s been considerably worse than my worst fears. Thus, I’m updating my evaluation — this time with the fervent hope that by the year-end I can be genuinely more optimistic.
I’ve concluded that not only was Barack Obama too inexperienced to be President, but he also appears to be incompetent as an executive, more-than-just-politician-level-dishonest and a bit of a narcissist (if not a fascist). He seems to have little understanding of American history, her dreams, or her tremendous potential for risk-taking, self-correction and innovation. He and Michelle have turned out to bequintessential Ivy League “Oppression Studies majors” with (carefully concealed) “attitudes.”
Obama seems, above all, to be a Community Organizer with shake down credentials and extraordinary speaking ability.
All of this should have been clear -- had we simply done serious background checks. (The following 4 items, at least, should have been clear to voters:
1. His surrogate father figure was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist.
2. Barack served as a committed trainer for Community Activist and Marxist Saul Alinsky.
3. He sat for nearly 2 decades at the feet of Jeremiah Wright, anangry, anti-American “Black Liberation Theologist”.
4. His first autobiography, "Dreams from My Father", was almost certainly ghost-written by William Ayers, a Vietnam-era domestic terrorist. [This last assertion has now been supported by careful analysis of syntax, spelling and common errors].
If these unusual threads (standing alone) are discounted to the point of not being disqualifiers, those evaluating Barack Obama might have considered that he’d never
i) helda job in the private sector,
ii) managed a payroll,
iii) led aturnaround or
iv) held any sort of executive position.
But, none of this mattered in the fall of 2008. After 6 months, I’m left wondering if power brokers on the Far Left of American politics aren’t pinchingthemselves at their success in creating a fictitious character the press ushered to market in a Bush-weary and "politically correct" America.
In his second (!) autobiography, "The Audacity of Hope", Obama recognizes the advantage of his tabula rasa “creation” when he writes, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” And, project we did!
Thus, the former Barry Soetoro of Honolulu , Jakarta , Mombasa , Occidental, Columbia , Harvard and the mean streets of Chicago moved at light speed from being the first-term senator nobody had ever heard of to President of the United States . In the process, despite numerous efforts, no one has yet seen his birth certificate, his college transcripts, his application to Occidental (likely as a “foreign student”?), or the passport he used to travel in 1981 to Pakistan with buddy Wahid Hamid (likely an Indonesian one?).
For some reason, the Obama campaign has, so far, spent $3/4 million keeping these records out of public view. So, it’s easy to wonder -- if they supported Obama’s putative CV -- why not make them available and put to rest all suspicions about provenance, training and politics? My growing hunch is that there’s virtually no paper trail because the Obama biography has been created largely out of whole cloth. There --I’ve said what increasing numbers of people must be thinking, but are afraid to voice.
But, whether or not Obama is more than a cleverly-marketed fiction, and whatever one thinks of his history, one thing is clear. He finally does have a record toevaluate. And, it’s not a confidence-inspiring one from my standpoint.
At best, Obama is an attractive symbol for America and a compelling communicator; but he’s
1, Not an executive. He’s shown an utter inability to focus, to set priorities and to consider 2nd and 3rd order or long-term consequences to his actions. Lack of focus on priorities is fatal as a CEO; (but, maybe less so for a political leader?)
2. Not a steward or fiduciary for America . Obama clearly does not see his primary job as one of overseeing the security and well-being of America during his tenure as its chief executive. He’s not only unwilling to stand up for America , but he also regularly seems to go out of his way to apologize for her history.
This makes it apparent that he believes his most important job is to change America into what he and Michelle think it should have been had we not suffered the Founders’ flawed vision.
At worst, Obama’s aims seem truly radical (if stealth); his methods pure Alinsky; and his success derivative of obfuscating the truth, creating crises, and rushing changes into law that no one can possibly absorb under artificial deadlines — all aimed at limiting private property rights, changing the Constitution and forever altering our free market system?
For those who consider Obama’s training and background irrelevant, they can now evaluate him as a Commander-in-Chief and CEO from what he’s done over his first 6 months. Among many other things, these evidences have come in the form of:
1. A $787B “stimulus” package (sold as preventing a “crisis frombecoming catastrophe”)
2. The failure to focus on addressing the banking crisis as “Job One”
3. The migration of TARP funds to non-banking concerns, viz., auto industry
4. Announcing tax increases in the middle of a recession
5. Failure to identify projects to fund job creation (Thus, 10% of stimulus yet spent)
6. Announcing that there would be “no pork” or “earmarks” in the “stimulus” package in order to get it passed without review when there were nearly 10,000 buried in the unread bill (including a $9Billion high-speed rail line to Las Vegas for Harry Reid)
7. Bailouts of the banking and auto industries
8. The appointment of a 31-year-old to manage the recreation of the auto companies
9. The exalting of union claims above those of bondholders (violating a 200+ year history of contract law/property rights)
10. The appointment of 34 unvetted “czars” -- creating more than in the House of Romanov between 1762 and 1917!
11. The failure to appoint a Cabinet of tax-paying, competent Americans (reason for the move to the Czar system of administration?)
12. The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court despite anapparent lack of qualifications and judicial temperament,
13. The dark-of-night passage of “Cap and Trade” legislation (300-page-long addendum inserted at 3 AM the morning of the vote in the House)
14. The high pressure tactics to rush through a budget-busting $1.6 Ttakeover of healthcare.
15. Phony “townhall” meetings with a fake cross-section of Americans selling Obamacare on ABC.
16. “Lying” about budget deficits — projecting 4% GDP growth by year-end.
17. “Lying” about job losses — projecting that if Congress would just ram through the “stimulus” that job losses could be halted at 8% (currently on their way to 10% and rising).
18. “Lying” about the costs of nationalized healthcare -- (just as when politicians projected Medicare’s cost in 1990 to be $3 billion, its actual cost turned out in 1990 to $98 billion — 30 times as much)
19. Pretending that new entitlement programs will provide lower costs, better care, no significant tax increases, more competition (as government joins the fray!?) and keeping current private options. Claiming “free” healthcare will make America more competitive is baffling. Everyone knows the above are lies; but no one seems ready to call them out.
20. Forcing the “stimulus” package on states to impinge on “States Rights”
21. Failing to support the freedom-loving citizens in Honduras and Iran (and instead, giving comfort to their dictators) to say nothing of his ineffectiveness with North Korea and anti-Israeli pronouncements.
22. Allocating $4B of “stimulus” funds to ACORN, the voter fraud thugs.
23. Seeking to push through Union Card Check, the so-called “FairnessDoctrine,” and threats to take away 2nd amendment rights (see EricHolder), etc.
24. Moving the heretofore non-partisan census into the Whitehouse under the direction of Rahm Emanuel.
Whatever one thinks of the results, the process of getting to them should bother all Americans. In the Obama (Mayor Daley?) style of governing, it’s not clear that Congress — who can’t possibly process thoughtfully the blizzard of legislation — really serves any useful purpose other than to provide Politburo-style cover. Not only does Congress no longer debate legislation, but Obama has effectively circumvented its oversight of the executive branch by his appointmentof czars.
In contrast to the direction Obama is taking us all, the Economist recently pointed out that 53% of all of the jobs created in the U.S. were created in one state last year: Texas (the most free market of all State economies and the “last best hope” [ha!] for secession?).
Meanwhile, in California , -- as a perfect preview to “Obama’s America ” -- job losses are already well into double digits, the state faces a $25B budget deficit and is closing down services and considering bankruptcy. I cannot predict what will happen to Obama’s popularity, as people wake up to the size and intractability of the deficits he’s promoting, the unavailability of credit for small businesses, or the increased tax rates on energy and payrolls provoking a continuing loss of jobs as small businesses shed employees due to skyrocketing costs, but, is bad economic news bad for Obama?
Sadly, the answer, if one studies the Alinsky formula for bloodless revolution, is “Heck no!” Indeed, high unemployment is necessary for the Obama Redistribution Plan. According to Alinsky, only with high unemployment will people look to the government for help (and then become dependent), allowing government to gain control over the factors of productions. If one considers that the Alinsky manual might be Obama’s “playbook,” one can’t help but want to evaluate how closely it’s being followed.
Thus, in evaluating Obama’s performance, it’s probably worth noting (for the 6-month record) the key elements of the Alinsky formula.
Written in 1971 by Chicago Organizer, Saul Alinsky, under the title of Rules for Radicals, this manual for effective change became Young Barack Obama’s “bible.” David Alinsky, son the author said of our new President: “Barack Obama patterned himself after the Saul Alinsky model in everything he ha sdone since arriving in South Chicago .”
Alinsky clearly stated its purpose: “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative,non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.
This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.” Note how closely Obama is following the rules for internal revolution, based on Alinsky’s specific instructions:
1. Pursue an “Ideology of Change” (Alinsky’s phrase for the mos teffective way to market revolution)
2. Target the banks that serve the steel, auto, and other industries.
3. Start class warfare -- Fuel the anger of what Alinsky calls the “Have-Nots,” and the “Have-some-but-want-mores” against the “Haves.”
4. Use crises to create fear.
5. Use pollution as a foil to grab power.
6. Set up “jobs programs” to make workers dependent on government.
7. Show supreme self-confidence.
8. Make communication skills your key weapon.
9. Use simple catch phrases and vague slogans (‘Of the Common Welfare, [Nazi takeover of Germany], ‘Bread and Peace,’ [Bolshevik Revolution]) In this context, it’s not hard to imagine that Change & The Audacity of Hope will one day be seen as the battle cry for the Obama revolution.
10. Use deception -- “…in war the end justifies almost any means.”
11. Remain calm, appealing, likeable while inciting fear, conflict, defeat.
As these steps are being pursued, the press continues to refer to "the Republican recession," so Obama’s popularity remains high. Any who saw tapes of President Bush warning Congress (on two separate occasions) that the market was headed for disaster unless it instituted the very reforms Barney Frank and Chris Dodd pooh-poohed, may be surprised to see the level of “cover” the press is providing this revolution.
As bleak as things look for free markets, I have hope. Why? Just as Bernie Madoff learned that ponzi schemes eventually come to light —Barack Obama may soon learn that you “can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” It’s unclear to me how much and how long America will have to pay for its experiment with Obamunism — his fantasy “greenjobs,” his new taxes, his junk science, his czars, his meddling in the auto and banking industries, his sure-to-be-disastrous Obamacare and the encouragement he’s giving to union bosses, dictators and tyrants the globe over, to say nothing of his "Peace-through-Weakness” foreign policy.
But, at some point, reality will take over, as it always does. I just hope America will have its Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan ready to step into the breach when the time comes. So far, the nervousness of Blue Dog Democrats and their ability to resist some of the wackier directives has been the only thing that has kept Obama from an outright failing grade, in my view.
Perhaps, just as the Gingrich Congress rescued Bill Clinton, it may be these so-called Blue Dogs that rescue Obama. If not, it may be important for the survival of the union forgovernment to be forever split between the parties.
I say again, I hope America wakes up before it is too late!!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
फेडेरल डेब्ट बोम्ब
Richard Rahn: The Growing Debt Bomb
Facing a One- to Three-Year Countdown
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:24 AM
Article Font Size
Assume you had put much of your savings into U.S. government bonds and then you learned the following. In just the last eight months, the Congressional Budget Office estimates of the amount of additional federal debt to be held by the public grew by an astounding $4 trillion for the 2010-19 period; and that the amount of federal debt held by the public grew from $5.9 trillion to $7.5 trillion in just the last 12 months.
In addition, you learned that the federal government (i.e., taxpayers) now owns (primarily through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) or insures (through the Federal Housing Administration and other government programs) about 80 percent of the $14.6 trillion of home mortgages outstanding in the United States . Last week, Congress passed a bill requiring all student loans be made by the federal government rather than banks, which means the taxpayers will be 100 percent liable for any student loan defaults.
You also learned that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is considering tapping its Treasury credit line for up to $500 billion. It needs to do this because of the high number of bank failures and because each bank account is insured by the government (i.e., taxpayers) up to $250,000. The president and many in Congress are calling for a roughly $1 trillion health care bill - paid for by additional debt and/or more taxes, which will further slow economic growth, eventually leading to even more debt.
Finally, you also became aware of the following facts: Federal government expenditures are growing far faster than the economy, and thus the government is becoming a larger and larger share of gross domestic product. Obviously, this cannot continue forever because eventually the government would totally drive out the private sector.
The entitlement programs (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) all continue to grow faster than the economy, and they will take more than 100 percent of all federal tax revenue this year, requiring that virtually all of the other government spending programs, including defense and interest payments on the debt, be funded by more borrowing.
You are also aware that the government cannot tax its way out of the deficit situation, because increasing income tax rates on the upper income people will both slow the economy and cause them to find legal or illegal ways to avoid the tax increase, and the politicians have pledged to not increase taxes on those making less than $250,000, which includes all but a very few Americans.
Even if the politicians break their pledges not to increase taxes, they still cannot solve the deficit problem as long as they refuse to cut back on the growth in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — because any new tax revenue will be quickly absorbed by the growth in spending. The best that any tax increase could do is delay the explosion of the debt bomb by, perhaps, a couple of years while further weakening the economy and job growth.
Now suppose you are not an individual bondholder but the Chinese government official responsible for the Chinese economy, and you know your government holds about $1 trillion in U.S. government securities. You have watched Congress and the administration become less and less fiscally responsible - more spending, more taxes, and more debt.
Then suddenly the administration puts punitive tariffs on your tire manufacturers while at the same time refuses to approve the trade treaties with Colombia , Panama and South Korea that have been negotiated.
You understand that these foolish and destructive actions by U.S. government officials indicate it does not understand the importance of free trade in fostering economic growth, and seem to be intent on replicating the mistakes of the 1930s.
The Chinese are not stupid, and they have been vocal in saying they are concerned that U.S. policies will lead to a further fall in the dollar and higher rates of inflation, both of which undermine the value of their investment in U.S. government securities.
The Chinese are now trying to diversify their holdings - and their recent activity in buying large quantities of tradable commodities is probably, in part, a hedge against a falling U.S. dollar. Thus, at the same time, the U.S. government needs to sell trillions of dollars of new bonds. It is by its own actions driving away foreign purchasers of bonds, which can only result in higher interest rates in the United States , which will further slow economic growth.
What is particularly frightening is that neither political party has offered a serious plan to defuse the debt bomb. The Democrats are just piling up more debt as if there were no limit, and the Republicans, to date, are only proposing measures to reduce the increase, rather than reverse it. When the debt bomb explodes - within the next one to three years - expect to see record high real interest rates and/or inflation, coupled with a collapse of many "entitlements." It will be like the neutron bomb, the buildings will be left standing, but the people will not.
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.
Copyright © 2009 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
Facing a One- to Three-Year Countdown
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:24 AM
Article Font Size
Assume you had put much of your savings into U.S. government bonds and then you learned the following. In just the last eight months, the Congressional Budget Office estimates of the amount of additional federal debt to be held by the public grew by an astounding $4 trillion for the 2010-19 period; and that the amount of federal debt held by the public grew from $5.9 trillion to $7.5 trillion in just the last 12 months.
In addition, you learned that the federal government (i.e., taxpayers) now owns (primarily through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) or insures (through the Federal Housing Administration and other government programs) about 80 percent of the $14.6 trillion of home mortgages outstanding in the United States . Last week, Congress passed a bill requiring all student loans be made by the federal government rather than banks, which means the taxpayers will be 100 percent liable for any student loan defaults.
You also learned that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is considering tapping its Treasury credit line for up to $500 billion. It needs to do this because of the high number of bank failures and because each bank account is insured by the government (i.e., taxpayers) up to $250,000. The president and many in Congress are calling for a roughly $1 trillion health care bill - paid for by additional debt and/or more taxes, which will further slow economic growth, eventually leading to even more debt.
Finally, you also became aware of the following facts: Federal government expenditures are growing far faster than the economy, and thus the government is becoming a larger and larger share of gross domestic product. Obviously, this cannot continue forever because eventually the government would totally drive out the private sector.
The entitlement programs (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) all continue to grow faster than the economy, and they will take more than 100 percent of all federal tax revenue this year, requiring that virtually all of the other government spending programs, including defense and interest payments on the debt, be funded by more borrowing.
You are also aware that the government cannot tax its way out of the deficit situation, because increasing income tax rates on the upper income people will both slow the economy and cause them to find legal or illegal ways to avoid the tax increase, and the politicians have pledged to not increase taxes on those making less than $250,000, which includes all but a very few Americans.
Even if the politicians break their pledges not to increase taxes, they still cannot solve the deficit problem as long as they refuse to cut back on the growth in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — because any new tax revenue will be quickly absorbed by the growth in spending. The best that any tax increase could do is delay the explosion of the debt bomb by, perhaps, a couple of years while further weakening the economy and job growth.
Now suppose you are not an individual bondholder but the Chinese government official responsible for the Chinese economy, and you know your government holds about $1 trillion in U.S. government securities. You have watched Congress and the administration become less and less fiscally responsible - more spending, more taxes, and more debt.
Then suddenly the administration puts punitive tariffs on your tire manufacturers while at the same time refuses to approve the trade treaties with Colombia , Panama and South Korea that have been negotiated.
You understand that these foolish and destructive actions by U.S. government officials indicate it does not understand the importance of free trade in fostering economic growth, and seem to be intent on replicating the mistakes of the 1930s.
The Chinese are not stupid, and they have been vocal in saying they are concerned that U.S. policies will lead to a further fall in the dollar and higher rates of inflation, both of which undermine the value of their investment in U.S. government securities.
The Chinese are now trying to diversify their holdings - and their recent activity in buying large quantities of tradable commodities is probably, in part, a hedge against a falling U.S. dollar. Thus, at the same time, the U.S. government needs to sell trillions of dollars of new bonds. It is by its own actions driving away foreign purchasers of bonds, which can only result in higher interest rates in the United States , which will further slow economic growth.
What is particularly frightening is that neither political party has offered a serious plan to defuse the debt bomb. The Democrats are just piling up more debt as if there were no limit, and the Republicans, to date, are only proposing measures to reduce the increase, rather than reverse it. When the debt bomb explodes - within the next one to three years - expect to see record high real interest rates and/or inflation, coupled with a collapse of many "entitlements." It will be like the neutron bomb, the buildings will be left standing, but the people will not.
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.
Copyright © 2009 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
