About Me

Name: Kenneth Hanson
Location: Atlanta, GA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

Harvard Economist: Worst Bill Since 1930s

Harvard economist Robert Barro calls the so-called stimulus legislation "probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s."

"I mean it's wasting a tremendous amount of money," he said in an interview with the Atlantic. "I don't think it will expand the economy. . . . I think its garbage."

Robert J. Barro's Biography, from the Harvard University web site:

Robert J. Barro is Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics at Harvard University, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research.  He has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and a B.S. in physics from Caltech.  Barro is co-editor of Harvard’s Quarterly Journal of Economics and was recently President of the Western Economic Association and Vice President of the American Economic Association.  He is honorary dean of the China Economics & Management Academy, Central University of Beijing.  He was a viewpoint columnist for Business Week from 1998 to 2006 and a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal from 1991 to 1998.  He has written extensively on macroeconomics and economic growth.  Noteworthy research includes empirical determinants of economic growth, economic effects of public debt and budget deficits, and the formation of monetary policy.  Recent books include  Macroeconomics: A Modern Approach from Thompson/Southwestern, Economic Growth (2nd edition, written with Xavier Sala-i-Martin), Nothing Is Sacred:  Economic Ideas for the New Millennium, Determinants of Economic Growth, and Getting It Right:  Markets and Choices in a Free Society, all from MIT Press.  Current research focuses on two very different topics:  the interplay between religion and political economy and the impact of rare disasters on asset markets.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrat's Vengeance Trumps Solutions

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) snuck a last minute provision into the so-called stimulus bill that restricts bonuses and incentive-based compensation far more than wanted by the Obama Administration.  Not only that, the Dodd provision is retroactive.

Democrats hate pay for performance.  That is why they are such ardent supporters of unions, where rewards are given out for longevity instead of accomplishments, or by the dispensation of union bosses.  Liberals strive to be the moral arbitrators of who deserves what, and to decide who deserves what based on political consideration.  Liberals believe that two people who have the same job should be paid the same, even if one accomplishes twice as much.

Congress summoned the heads of the 8 largest banks for a public flogging this week.  But you know what?  None of the CEO's dragged before Barney Frank's show trial were responsible for their company's misfortunes.  Stan O'Neil, Chuck Prince, Robert Rubin, John Thain and their ilk were nowhere to be found. 

Is the right answer to flog the "new guys" who have recently come on-board and are working hard to fix the mess and get our major financial institution back on track?  For the Democrats, it is about vengeance, not solutions.

I am reminded of what happened at the end of WWI.  The allies were so bent on revenge that they imposed crushing financial reparations on Germany.  The allies undermined Germany's ability to rebuild and as a result the Weimar Republic gave way to Hitler's National Socialist Party.  Instead of working in good faith to rebuild Europe, the Treaty of Versailles sowed the seeds of WWII.  Vengeance trumped solutions.

Meanwhile, Chris Dodd has still not come clean on his sweetheart mortgage deal he got from Angelo Mozilo at Countrywide.  He recently promised to refinance his mortgages.  But guess what?  Even with rates coming down dramatically, he still won't be able to get a legitimate mortgage with terms as good as what he corruptly got from Countrywide.  I haven't noticed any pay restrictions on either Chris Dodd or Barney Frank.

Some of the banks that come under the most onerous pay restrictions didn't even need, or want, taxpayer money.  Jamie Dimon (who at least one idiot Congressman pronounced "demon") of JP Morgan Chase doesn't need the money.  Wells Fargo doesn't need the money.  They were made to take it by Paulson/Geithner so that there would not be a stigma for banks taking federal dollars.  But they too were in front of financial crisis instigator Barney Frank's committee.

Wall Street bonuses are down enormously this year.  For many of the positions in these financial firms, the bonus is 50% of compensation.  Missing out on half your compensation is a huge hit.  Traders or deal makers that don't perform don't get paid.  If you don't produce, you don't make a good part of your compensation plan. The top performers get the top dollars, and in most companies a relatively small number of people produce an outsized amount of the results.

Right now Wall Street needs every talented producer it can muster.  Financial companies need to generate profits.  They can't do that without top talent.

Vikram Pandit, Citigroup’s new CEO, who is working for a salary of $1 and is trying to salvage Citigroup from the disgraced Mr. Prince, is now eligible for a maximum bonus of $0.33, compliments of Senator Dodd.

I have no problem reining in the absurd compensation of the CEO's of these companies.  Most of them have plenty of money to "ride out" these tough times.  But punishing the rest of the people that are needed to get profits back on track is counterproductive.  It is liberal monetary morality that will just make the recovery slower.  Vengeance trumping solutions.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Politicizes the Census

This afternoon, Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) withdrew from consideration for Secretary of Commerce.  I would have been surprised if Senator Gregg had not withdrawn.  The most important job for him would have been to complete the 10 year U.S. census.  It has always been run out of the Commerce Department.  But as soon as Gregg was nominated the Obama administration stripped the census away from Commerce and moved it under political control of Rahm Emanuel and the White House.  

Senator Gregg is respected on both sides of the aisle in the Senate and is considered a highly capable public servant.  To imply that he was not capable to run the census in a fair and impartial manner is insulting.

The Democrats are still flogging the dead horse of the Bush administration's firing of 8 U.S. attorneys.  Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys for political reasons in one fell swoop - giving them all of 10 days to clear out of their offices.  Now Obama is going to politicize the census, which is one of the most consequential events that occurs in our country.  Based on the outcome of the census Congressional redistricting will take place and federal dollars will be allocated.  

The only plausible reason to have Rahm Emanuel in charge of the census is to run it "Chicago-machine style".  It is outrageous.  In his statement, Gregg specifically named the census as one of the reasons for withdrawing.  I continue to just shake my head at the naked hypocrisy of the Democrats.  Welcome to one-party rule.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

568 Chicago Students Beaten On Arne Duncan's Watch

When Arne Duncan was nominated to lead the Department of Education, he was described as a reformer that did not alienate teacher unions.  How someone can be a reformer without putting off the teacher unions makes no sense.  But no matter, something more troubling has turned up.

Dave Savini with CBS channel 2 news in Chicago is reporting that hundreds of students were hit, beaten or otherwise physically assaulted while Mr. Duncan was in charge.  In all, school system investigators have confirmed 568 of the cases since 2003. 

“The 2 Investigators found reports of students beaten with broomsticks, whipped with belts, yard sticks, struck with staplers, choked, stomped on and pushed down stairs. One substitute teacher even fractured a student's neck,” writes Mr. Savini.

Corporal punishment is illegal in Illinois schools.

Informed by Channel 2 of its investigation, Duncan said, "Any founded allegation where an adult is hitting a child, hitting a student - they're going to be gone." 

“But that's not what happened under Duncan's watch. Of the 568 verified cases, only 24 led to termination. Records show one teacher who quote "battered students for several years" was simply given a "warning" by the Board of Education.”

Since Arne has been Chicago School's CEO for 7 years prior to being nominated for Secretary of Education, these horrific abuses occurred on his watch.  It is inconceivable that 568 beatings, assaults and other physical abuses confirmed by school investigators were not been know by Mr. Duncan.

Channel 2’s investigation became public shortly before Mr. Duncan’s nomination to be Secretary of Education in the Obama administration – so all this was all known to the transition team’s vetting process.

Where did Obama get this vetting team - Countrywide’s sub-prime mortgage origination group?


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Politics of Fear Meets 'No Details' Geithner

Obama the campaigner employed soaring rhetoric that inspired millions.  So why can't President Obama seem to sell his stimulus plan?  Obama the campaigner could count on a few vague words like "Hope" and "Change".  The language of governing is more complicated.  So far, President Obama is not up to the task.  

Faced with defending a 900 page stimulus bill that seems to have an endless number of joke-inspiring porky special interest items, Barack Obama suddenly seems a whole lot less inspiring.

During the campaign Obama derided the language of fear.  But as President, each new day brings even harsher language meant to frighten Congress and the country into submission for his stimulus bill.  No wonder business won't invest, banks won't loan and consumers won't spend.  Why should they when Obama is on TV every day trashing the economy?

Sold as an infrastructure bill to stimulate jobs, no more than 7% of the bill has anything to do with infrastructure.  The bill is so partisan that out of 545 members of Congress, it has only attracted 3 Republicans in support.

Today, Treasury Secretary Geithner rolled out the Obama administration's much anticipated plan for helping the financial system.  The stock market had rallied last week as the administration leaked out various proposals like modifying mark to market rules and the creation of a bad bank to absorb toxic assets.

As Geithner spoke the stock market plunged.  It went down even further when he testified before Congress in the afternoon.  What happened?  

Unfortunately, there were no specifics, only a vague restatement of goals.  It was clear that the details have not been worked out.  They just don't know.  No statements about mark to market.  No clarity about a bad bank.  About the only thing Geithner seemed clear about was that there will be a new "stress test" for banks, the announcement of which caused some bank stocks to plunge almost 30% in one day.

The market hungers for clarity.  Geithner should have never made the speech if the plan wasn't fully developed.  Is this really the man who was so indispensable to saving the financial system that the administration and the Senate were willing to overlook the fact he was a tax cheat? 

It was another embarrassing blunder by the new administration.  President Obama may recover, but I'm not sure Secretary Geithner will.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Strives to Re-Create Japan's Lost Decade

In today's New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, the Cato Institute published a full page ad listing of hundreds of economists from our nation's leading universities who disagree with President Obama's stimulus bill.

There are very few economists that support liberal policies.  The study of economics just can't support it.  For every Krugman there are many, many Milton Friedman's.  Facts are friendly.  

For all the impressive economic talent that Obama has assembled, Furman, Romer, Summers, etc., if you go back to their pre-Obama writings they contradict most of the policies that the Obama administration and the Democrats are now advocating.

Economics is a bit like math.  So as far as I know, Einstein may have voted Democrat in every election, voted for FDR 4 times.  Nevertheless, "e" still equals "mc2".  

Think of it like this.  Al Gore and his global warming alarmist crowd likes to claim that a "majority of scientists" agree that anthropromorphic global warming will be the end of life as we know it.  I'm not sure that majority claim was ever true, but it is certainly not true now.  Even less so with scientists that actually study climate-related science for a living.  

So now, Obama and his surrogates are running around like economic Svengalis, saying that all economists agree that only Obama's bloated, porky simulus bill can avert "catastrophe".  That is catagorically untrue.  Obama's great uninformed American majority may buy it, but an overwhelming majority of economists do not.  

In his press conference tonight, Obama made a pitch that he was acting aggressively to prevent a repeat of Japan's "lost decade".  But strangely, he is pursuing the same ineffective policies that failed in Japan.  

Actually, it is even worse.  At least Japan got a bunch of bridges and roads out of the deal, even if they were to nowhere.  The Obama/Pelosi bill isn't even about infrastructure.  It is mostly spending on liberal social programs, or writing checks to people that can't create jobs.

One of the oft repeated Obama talking points in support of this porkapolluza over the last two weeks is, "We cannot let perfect be the enemy of good."  Good?  I'd just settle for plausible.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Demise of Obama the 'Great Communicator'

Obama crossed a line when he declared that without immediately passing this bloated, pork-filled "stimulus" there will be a "catastrophe" and "a recession without end". 

So much for, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself".  What happened to the uplifting and confidence inspiring Barack Obama of the campaign?

There are plenty of ways to convey a sense of urgency and the depth of the challenges our economy faces without using that type of highly inflamatory language.  Quite frankly, it is not presidential.  A big part of recessions are psychological, and populist hyperbole about economic armageddon from the POTUS is not helpful.  The American people are only too aware that the difficult economic times without the President shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater.

The truth is Obama screwed up by allowing Nancy Pelosi a free hand in writing the bill.  Now he is stuck defending something the majority of Americans understand is a lot of liberal special interest spending with just a dollop of stimulus - like the cherry on top of an over-indulgent ice cream sundae. 

Adding insult to injury, Robert Gibbs seems not to be up to the task of White House Press Secretrary, and has been quite unhelpful in managing the White House press corp.  

Having Rahm Emamuel as Chief of Staff was supposed to mean a much greater level of sophistication navigating the legislative gauntlet.  What were they thinking?  Combined with the repeated vetting failures it is a rough start for the new administration.  

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iraq War or Stimulus Bill - Which Is More Irresponsible?

It truly is amazing that given Obama's unprecedented approval ratings that he has had so much trouble with this bill.  So much for any hope of bi-partisanship from the Obama administration.  As support for his bill has gone down, President Obama's language has grown more and more shrill and partisan in the most incendiary sort of way.

Bush was savaged by the left for spending a trillion dollars on what many consider a war of choice.  Now Obama wants to spend a trillion dollars on liberal social programs using the language of "catastrophe" and under the false pretense of "stimulus".

But the result in Iraq is a free and democratic Muslim country that is allied to the U.S. in the most consequential region of the world.  

What will be the legacy of the Obama spending bill?  Just the largest single increase in the federal government's baseline budget, and spending on a lot of liberal special interests that are not consequential to dealing with the economic downturn we are in.

The left bashed the Bush administration for growing the country's deficit.  But deficit spending during the Bush administration was roughly in line with historical averages as a percent of GDP (the only measure that means anything).  The Obama/Pelsoi/Reid spending bill will dramatically raise deficit spending far beyond any amount in history as a percentage of GDP.  A new CBO analysis is now even saying that the bill will actually shrink GDP in the out years.

So which administration is more irresponsible?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Next Troubled Cabinet Nominee

The next confirmation problem for President Obama will likely be Congresswoman Hilda Solis (D-CA), nominated for Secretary of Labor.

While Ms. Solis was a member of Congress from California she was also a senior member of American Rights at Work, a pro-labor union lobbying group.  And she was not just a causual member or honorary director.  In a disclosure letter filed by Solis on January 29th, she was the Treasurer.  That means that she had a fiduciary responsibilty for the funds being budgeted and spent to lobby Congress.

Members of Congress are strictly prohibited from being lobbyists.  

In 2007, Solis co-sponsored the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" which would eliminate the secret ballot for union organizing.  So she was co-sponsering a bill in the House at the same time she was an officer of a labor union group lobbying Congress to pass that bill.

Ms. Solis says she did not personally lobby, but if she did not violate Congress' rules she was standing right on the ethical line.  To say that Ms. Solis' ethics are dubious does not seem like too strong a statement.

Ms. Solis joins a long line of senior administration members that have strong lobbyist ties, dispite President Obama's executive order to the contrary.

The other reason GOP senators are troubled by Ms. Solis is that in her initial confirmation hearing she refused to answer any substantive questions regarding her views on labor policy.  

"If she won't answer the questions, how can you support the nomination?", stated Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). 

Solis repeatedly told senators that she could not speak for the incoming Obama administration on the card check bill and would not state an opinion about maintaining right-to-work laws that prohibit workers from paying union dues as a condition of employment. 

"These aren't positions that you're allowed not to have an opinion," Wyoming Sen. Michael Enzi, the ranking Republican on the committee, told Politico. "These are extremely critical things that she was asked about. Each of the people that asked questions from the Republican side asked about different areas of labor law and wondered what she was going to do. And we still don't know." 

It is not like Ms. Solis is nominated to be a justice of the Supreme Court and is being asked how she will rule on a controversial issue.  The senators are asking reasonable questions that should have public answers.

In sum, it appears Solis is another cabinet nominee with very troubling ethical issues and lobbyist ties who is so arrogant she believes she should be confirmed as Secretary of Labor without having to offer a single position regarding the critical issues that will be before her department.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Curious Lack of Stimulus Leadership

Barack Obama has shown a curious lack of leadership regarding the economic stimulus bill.  Perhaps assuming that he could trust his fellow Democrats, the White House allowed Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats to craft a bill that was a 40 year wish list of social and special interest spending but not a whole lot of simulus.

Earlier this week, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stated that the President was pleased with the general structure of the House bill.  But as the American people learn more about what is in this bloated pork-fest, opinion is turning increasingly negative.  In a new Gallup poll released today, only 38% of Americans believe the bill should be passed as is.  54% believe the bill should only be passed with "major changes" or rejected outright.

When pressed on why President Obama was not taking a stronger role in what the bill should contain, Press Secretary Gibbs said at yesterday's press briefing that "Legislation should best be left to the legislators."  

That is a shocking abdication given the seriousness of the economic downturn our country faces.  If the White House thinks that they can rely entirely on Nancy Pelsoi and Harry Reid to get to the right answer, then they are in for a real disappointment.

At today's press briefing, Robert Gibbs trumpeted that 3 more governors had signed a letter supporting the stimulus bill.  Well of course the governors are going to support it.  The bill contains $200B in transfer payments to the states to bail them out of their reckless spending.  But that is also $200B that will not simulate a darn thing.

President Obama's intent seems to be to get a bill passed, any bill, so that he can sign it and check that off his list.

At least in the Senate, unlike in Nancy Pelosi's House, it does appear that the GOP will be allowed to offer amendments and have them actually considered.  Hopefully some of the non-stimulative spending can be stripped out and the focus sharpened on creating jobs and getting the economy moving.

Surely the White House can and should provide more direct leadership, other than imploring Congress to just get it done quickly.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Illegal Alien Aunt Still On the Lam

One of the more bizzare stories to come up during the recent elections was the fact that Obama's aunt, whose story was told in Barack Obama's memoir, "Dreams of My Father", was living in the country illegally, in taxpayer subsidized housing, no less.

Bush graciously suspended immigration actions just before the election to not make Obama's aunt a sideshow.  Now it turns out that she is still on the lam and has resurfaced in Cleveland.  

She has renewed her previously denied request for asylum.  Is she under some kind of threat if she returns to Kenya?  I imagine not, which is probably why her request was denied 5 years ago.

Will Obama recuse himself from this issue?  Will Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano continue to not enforce the law and let her run free?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Daschle Represents Everything Obama Campaigned Against

With even the liberally loyal New York Times now calling for Tom Daschle to withdraw his nomination, the momentum may be shifting against Mr. Daschle.  The more I dig into Mr. Daschle's background, the more unpleasent the whole sordid tale becomes.  Glenn Greenwald, writing on Salon.com, lays out the case against Mr. Daschle in damning detail.


Tom Daschle is the poster child for the smarmy, intertwined world of political power and personal gain that permeates Washington, D.C.  I certainly would like someone to explain to me how he was paid more than $5M in fees by lobbying firms but did not believe he needed to register as a lobbyist.  

To be sure, Barack Obama owed Tom Daschle something fierce.  Mr. Daschle was an early and influential supporter of candidate Obama when his success was in no way sure.

The timeline of Mr. Daschle's tax problems is a powerful indication that he is being less than forthcoming about what he knew and when he knew it.  He started looking into the tax implications of the car service shortly after Obama won the Democratic nomination, making it likely that an Obama win would result in a position in the administration.  Then he withheld all the tax shenannigans from the Obama transition team until after he is nominated for Secretary of Health and Human Services.  In a court of law, it would be a very strong circumstantial case.

Not only does Mr. Daschle represents everything about Washington the President Obama campainged against, his deceit has now put the Obama administration in a embarassing position of defending another lobbyist and tax cheat.  Like Geithner, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says that Tom Daschle is "too big to fail".  But I say cut him loose, and try to redeem some higher ground.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Does It Take To Be Disqualified From the Obama Administration?

With the ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency, we now effectively have one party rule.  Let's see how that's going.  

The head of the House Ways & Means committee that creates tax laws, Charlie Rangel, didn't pay income tax on his rental property, has two rent contolled apartments in NYC, one of which is used illegally for an office, and a whole list of other ethics problems.  An ethics review is being conducted under the "strict oversight" of Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who will ensure that nothing substantive is done to the loyal Democrat Mr. Rangel.

The man who is now responsible for the IRS, and enforcing the tax laws created by Mr. Rangel, is Timothy Geithner.  Mr. Geithner was caught as a tax cheat, but the Democrats pushed his confirmation through anyway because apparently he is the smartest man on the planet.

President Obama, knowing he has solid partisan majorities in both the House and the Senate, has no problem thumbing his nose at the American people, ignoring his promises of ethical government and waves Mr. Daschle on through even though he has been hiding consulting income from the IRS for years and making charitable contributions that were apparently only charitable to Mr. Daschle's tax bill.

Harry Reid calls the whole Daschle fiasco a "hiccup" and promises to rapidly confirm him no matter what.  I'm pretty sure one of Obama's nominees could have boiled kittens and the Democrats wouldn't blink an eye.

In today's White House press briefing, White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked if there was a dollar figure of unpaid taxes that would disqualify someone from serving in the administration.  Mr. Gibbs deftly avoided answering by saying he was not going to "get into hypotheticals".

But it does raise an interesting point.  What does it take to be disqualified to serve in the Obama administration? President Obama issued strict rules about lobbyists not serving in his administration.  But before the sun could set on that executive order, a waiver was issued for a Raytheon lobbyist nominated to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.  Mr. Daschle has made $5M over the last few years being a Washington fixer, consultant, and influence peddler, including substantial sums from the health care and pharmacutical industries he would regulate as Secretary of Health and Human Services.  Does this disqualify Mr. Daschle from serving?  No.  

So we know that being a lobbyist is OK, executive order or no.  We know that it is OK to be a tax cheat, so long as you are loyal to Obama.  The only exception so far seems to be Governor Richardson, who is under federal investigation for "pay to play" in New Mexico.  I actually wonder if even this would have been disqualifying if Rod Blagojevich had not given "pay to play" a bad name!

Daschle/Geithner/Raytheon lobbyist guy may cost Obama more than he realizes.  How many of these "compromises" will it take before enthusiasm for the man who promised to change the way Washington works gives way to cynicism?  A brief scan through the comments section of a Tom Daschle article on The Huffington Post is instructive.  The angry left is still angry, but the anger is pointed at Obama.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NYT's Toes White House Line on Daschle

As I write this, the NYT's headline regarding the Daschle scandal is "Use of Free Car Lands Tom Daschle in Tax Trouble".  This is the White House "spin" on the scandal, dutifully repeated by the NYT's.

But if you dig into the article, even the NYT's cannot hide the fact that the car and driver are just the tip of the icebergy.  Of course any thoughtful person can figure this out without reading the article.  Daschle had to pay $128,000 in back taxes, PLUS interest, to the IRS.  Now there is no way that a car and driver for a couple of years can accrue that type of tax liability.

The real story is that he had a very substantial consulting income that he hid from the IRS, and therefore did not pay taxes on.  Not only that, he was required to register as a lobbyist for some of his activities, which he also did not do. 

I wonder how President Obama's strict new ban on lobbyists working for his administration apply if a person was a lobbyist but just didn't bother to register as one.  Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter.  A waiver would be issued anyway, just like for the Raytheon lobbyist who has been nominated for Deputy Secretary of Defense.

The Obama transition team trumpeted the most thorough vetting process in the history of the country.  But that just makes it even worse.  Team Obama obviously knew about these issues but didn't care.  Like so much of Obama's new presidency, it is all about appearance over substance.

The fact that in spite of the vetting process one nominee that has withdrawn due to corruption charges, and two more have egregious tax evasion problems, shows a cynical and arrogant side of Barack Obama that is disheartening.

It is Chicago-style Democrat machine politics on a national level.  Only one week into the job, President Obama is already dangerously close to confirming to even his most adament supporters that he is a smarmy and conventional politician, and no agent of change.

Tags: obama   daschle  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Non-Partisan Nancy!

From the NYT's "The Caucus" political blog:

When Mrs. Pelosi was asked whether the vote — 244 to 188 without a single Republican’s approval — represented a failure on her part to advance President Obama’s desire for a broad bipartisan bill, she practically snapped:

“I didn’t come here to be partisan. I didn’t come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be nonpartisan, to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest."

*****

I guess from now on we'll call her "Non-Partisan Nancy". 

Obama can't afford to admit weakness, but he has to realize that letting Ms. Pelosi write the bill instead of having the White House staff draft it was a mistake of epic proportion.  Obama campaigned on eliminating special interest pork, but the House bill is a 40 year wish list of every possible Democrat special interest.  

It is so partisan, and so absent in it's stated purpose of economic stimulus, that leaves you shaking your head.

President Obama earned a large measure of deference in his impressive election victory.  But some of that deference was just wasted on a very poor effort.  The whole reason for bringing Rahm Emanuel on-board as White House Chief of Staff was because of his ability to work legislation through Congress - and be "the hammer" when necessary.

I hope that Obama seizes the initiative and takes back ownership of the stimulus bill.  President Obama won the election and won the right to take a more liberal approach to economic stimulus.  But this is only plausible if the bill emphasizes actual economic stimulus - liberal or otherwise.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive