Clinton-Obama axis

This article from the New York Magazine pretty much lays out the venality of Democrat politicians.  Here we have the specter of Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, who don't trust or like each other, finding ways to use one another to each's benefit.  Truly, the deserve each other.  Clinton was a disgracefully amoral and low brow President.  He brought great disgrace to the WH and country with all his philandering and crass political machinations.  What saved his reputation was the Peace Dividend from the end of the Cold War, and the Newt Gingrich led Contract with America.  In the former case, the winding down of the Cold War eliminated the need for huge military budgets, and in the latter the huge mid-term win by Republicans prevented Clinton from enacting all the Progressive (Socialist) plans and programs democrats always want to put in place.  Obama, as we know, was successful in ramming through several of his socialist programs (Obamacare at the top of the list) before the Tea Party revolution put the brakes on his ambitions.  Now they appear to be teaming up to bring four more years of socialism to the country in order to serve their personal and political party's interest.  Hopefully Romney can bring an end to nightmare or four more or even more of the destructive politics these prototypical democrat politicians bring to our nation.  Enough isn surely enough.

The original fraud

Bill Clinton struts around the world making speeches and raking in millions for his efforts never saying or doing anything remotely helpful to anyone other than his own accountant. And yet he is the darling of all Democrats wowing them all at the recent party convention.  Personal acquaintances and friends who have met Clinton have been charmed by his personality and erudition.  In the country today he is probably the most popular ex-president alive and would probably be considered one of the all time great presidents by most historians.

In truth Clinton is a cad, a fraud, a phony, and probably one of the five worst presidents ever. What's more, he was elected on a fluke.  Democrats love to nominate smooth talking professional politicians who have perfected the art of winning the vote of the millions of gullible people looking for a savior.  In Clinton's case his background of serial mistreatment of women and questionable real estate machinations while Governor of Arkansas was covered up by his campaign staff and his wife, making him at least acceptable to middle America.  He got his party's nomination because the Democrat Party poobahs would nominate Saddam Hussein if they thought he could win a general election.  Clinton won the general because Ross Perot carved out 20%  of mostly Republican votes from H.W. Bush enabling Clinton to eke out a victory with less than a majority.  Mid term voters in his first term rejected his standard socialist policies -- Hillarycare, et al. -- causing him to pivot to the right by passing the welfare and balanced budget reforms of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" and the Republican House of Representatives. This opportunistic move in turn saved his presidency and assured him a second term.  In foreign affairs Clinton benefited from the Reagan-Bush ending of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union.  He did, however, managed to make a major contribution to the tragedy of 9/11 by failing to take out Bin Laden when he had a golden opportunity to out of concern for the "collateral damage" of some of the people in Osama's proximity.  A failure of will analogous to Neville Chamberlain failing to take out Hitler in 1939 for fear of hurting some of the "innocent" staff members in his proximity.

Perhaps Clinton's most devastating contribution to our present economic circumstances was his appointment and support for Andrew Cuomo as head of HUD.  It was Clinton's policy of making home ownership affordable for lower income Americans that led inevitably to the housing boom and bust and  implosion of the financial sector.  Thomas Sowell, an historian and an economists, opines on this major Clinton policy mistake here.  Books and books and books have been written about the cause of this implosion but in the end it comes down to the government policies that pressured banks to make home loans to families who could not afford the monthly payments.  This whole sordid mess we find ourselves in now was caused by the Democrat Party's attempt to control and direct the private sector's allocation of resources.  Bill Clinton's fingerprints are all over the tragedy of the 23 million unemployed in our country today and yet he is extolled by many as one of our greatest presidents.  Sowell's column should be required reading for all Americans.

ADDED:  This from Bretbart today.

It seems only fair, then, to remind the American public that not only does Obama skip most of his daily intelligence briefings, but also that the Clinton administration bears some of the blame for allowing 9/11 to happen. The 9/11 commission identified several Clinton failures, including four missed chances to kill Osama bin Laden, and a failure to adopt “a more aggressive counterterrorism posture” after Al Qaeda’s initial attacks.

The Clinton administration sent a signal to Al Qaeda that terrorism would succeed in pushing the United States out of the Middle East when, in response to the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the U.S. pulled back its diplomatic presence in the region. Clinton answered with an ineffectual cruise missile attack on Afghanistan and Sudan; Al Qaeda followed up with its deadly attack on the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000.

That is not the only failure of the Clinton administration that the media has chosen to forget. Clinton is campaigning against his own record of economic liberalization, telling delegates at the Democratic National Convention that Mitt Romney would “get rid of those pesky financial regulations” and recording an ad in which he attacks Republicans for wanting to “go back to deregulation. That’s what got us in trouble in the first place.”

So, effectively, Clinton is blaming himself for our economic “trouble.” And so he ought to--because he also re-authorized the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that pushed banks to offer housing loans to people who could not afford them, leading directly to the subprime mortgage crisis that nearly imploded the global financial system in 2008, and which helped kick off the recession that Obama’s statist policies has failed to undo.

President Obama complains a great deal about the “mess” he inherited from Bush, but Clinton also bequeathed his successor an economic muddle, and you didn’t hear Bush complaining much. In fact, Clinton’s last year in office was marked by the bursting of the dot-com bubble--an event from which the high-tech industry has never fully recovered, but which has been airbrushed out of the media’s rosy recollections of the Clinton era.

The reason Clinton presided over a long period of job creation, economic growth and budget surpluses was because he embraced the same free-market, small-government policies that Romney is running on today--and stood up to the labor unions and the far-left of the Democratic Party, where a young Obama chose to plant his flag. Just weeks ago, he was opposing Obama’s taxes and praising Romney’s “sterling” business career.

Suddenly, with his wife’s 2016 ambitions in mind, Clinton has changed his tune. In 2000, when Hillary first ran for office, Clinton was persona non grata to Al Gore’s presidential campaign. The stain of the Lewinsky scandal, and the subsequent impeachment, were simply too much for voters to bear. Over a decade later, Clinton is hailed as a savior by his party and the media. But we are still living with his legacy--and not the better parts.

ADDED:  John Stossel does a mostly complete and accurate account of Clinton's actual record of accomplishments while he was president.  Not only did Clinton take credit for accomplishments for which his predecessors were responsible, but those "accomplishments" for which he was responsible turned out to be disastrous for the economy.

Visiting Washington D.C. after 20 years

The last time I visited Washington was shortly after Bill Clinton's inauguration in January 1993 as an attendee to the annual convention of representatives of the NFIB  (National Federation of Independent Business).  A partner and I had just started a new magazine for the NFIB, a powerful lobbying voice for small businesses of mostly 20 and fewer employees.  We called the magazine "Independent Business", later shortened to "IB" Magazine.     Larger small businesses and large corporation are represented by the US Chamber of Commerce which has far fewer members than the NFIB's 600,000, but more political clout generally speaking.  One of the meet and greet sessions on that visit was with the newly minted President Clinton, who did his usual sweet talking routine trying to convince this generally hostile group that, although a democrat,  he was not anti business.  A tough sell since this group is probably somewhat right of the NRA in its political proclivities.  Another more congenial visit was with Newt Gingrich, destined to become Speaker of the House and a great stumbling block to Clinton's left wing agenda of the first two years of his administration.

Bearing in mind this meeting was two years before Gingrich's ascendency to Speaker, he was very clear about his agenda to roll back the tide of big government at the federal level.  He went so far as to suggest there was no compromising with the democrats because almost all of them were socialists.  To the extent the federal budget was balanced for six years of the Clinton administration, that welfare programs were reformed and that Hillary care was resoundingly defeated, much of the credit goes to Gingrich and his "Contract with America", as the Republican reform program came to be called. Gingrich was a transformational figure during the Clinton years, forcing the Clinton presidency to move to the center and stopping the mad democrat led rush to socialism now resumed in spades under Obama.

More on Freddie and Fannie

The outrageous scam perpetrated by the GSEs has predictably become a blame game, finger pointing typical Washington big government indictment.  Unsurprisingly Nan Pelosi has her footprints all over the history rewrite that has been going on in an attempt to deflect responsibility from the political class to the Wall Street bankers.  This article in the WSJ catches this unscrupulous politician in the act:

The SEC's case should embarrass Congress's Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which spent 18 months looking at the evidence and issued a report in January 2011 that whitewashed Fan and Fred's role. Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the commission to prosecute the Beltway theory of the crisis that private bankers caused it all, and Chairman Phil Angelides delivered what she wanted.

Wall Street's runaway greed which resulted in balance sheet leverage of up to 50 to one surely deserves some of the blame for the debacle, however the major fault lies with the politicians (Carter Administration) who created the CRA back in the '70's. and those who hyped it later on (Clinton Administration with a little contribution by Bush Administration) and the nefarious managers at the GSEs who hid and multiplied the risks to the point the program was bound to fail.  Hopefully as this article suggests this case will go to trial which would give everyone the opportunity to focus on the real culprits.  At the very least his example of political intervention in the economy should become a central issue in the upcoming presidential campaign.  However since the Republicans' hands are at least soiled, chances are this important issue will not be raised.  Meanwhile the depression will continue until all the toxic paper clogging up the credit machine is finally written off.  The Austrian economics school economists predicted all of this but of course have never been listened to for fear their philosophy would end the drunken party.  Jim Whelpley also saw this coming but, unfortunately or fortunately, did not live to see the chaos it caused.

Taxes on the way

Without revision we're headed for big increases in taxes at all levels except the nearly 50% who pay no taxes now!

Reversion to the Clinton tax hikes: Time to rethink what our government has become

Share8

POSTED AT 8:03 PM ON NOVEMBER 14, 2011 BY J.E. DYER 
[ CRONYISM ]    PRINTER-FRIENDLY

As we read more and more about the US federal government handing out money – borrowed-against-our-future money – to the private enterprises of Obama’s campaign donors, it is heart-warming to remember that the tax code is scheduled to revert on 1 January 2013* to what it was under Bill Clinton.

This means that unless the Super Committee comes to an agreement to avert it, you are almost guaranteed to have a larger federal income tax bill after next year.

Money-manager-types explain, each time we reach this precipice, that going back to the Clinton tax code means virtually everyone who pays now will pay more.  It also means some who don’t currently pay net federal income tax will have a balance owed in 2013 after exemptions.

It’s not just rate increases for the “rich.”  The 10% bracket goes away, with the lowest rate reverting to 15%; the child tax exemption goes from $1000 per child back to $500; the “marriage penalty” comes back in terms of personal exemptions – and those are just the changes that will be felt by the most people.  Taxes on dividend income will go up as well, and all exemptions will be phased out as income rises (which will hit the small-business proprietors and professionals whose activities with their own money make an outsize contribution to economic growth and prosperity – not to mention dealing a blow to charities).

Bob Jennings at Fox Business ran some numbers for a young couple with two kids and combined income of $100,000.  (H/t: Lonely Conservative.)  Their tax bill would go up by nearly $3600 between 2012 and 2013, or about $300 a month.  And that’s just federal income tax:  they’re also paying property taxes (they have a mortgage), probably state income tax as well, and sales taxes and special excise taxes (e.g., federal gas tax) – plus they’re sending 13% of each of their earned incomes to Social Security and Medicare.

The young couple will certainly feel the loss of $300 a month.  Estimates of tax bill increases suggest that they will be felt down to incomes in the upper $20,000s range, by typical single filers.  (With exemptions, multi-person households have lower tax bills at the same or higher incomes.)  Those most likely to be single filers with incomes in this range are either seniors on fixed incomes, or young people just starting out.  For either demographic, an increased tax bite of even $20-30 a month makes a difference.  That amount can easily equal the total monthly fees assessed on, say, utility bills and banking.  Few people in this income bracket can say they wouldn’t miss the amount.

For a household earning $150,000 a year, the tax bill increase will run to $6,000, $8,000 or more, depending on the household.  People with incomes in this range know that the loss of $500-700 a month will make a significant difference.  Assuming they’ve already cut way back on consumption, they’ll have to start cutting back on savings and investment.  That will do the opposite of create jobs and encourage economic growth.  (It will also minimize the additional revenues from increasing the tax rate on dividends.)

The higher you go in the income brackets, the more likely filers will be to simply take less individual income.  Why expose it to the tax man?  The discretion wealthier taxpayers have over their assets disappears, disproportionately with each increase in current income.  It’s not worth it on the margin to accept the greater tax exposure.

These filers will park a greater portion of their assets in low-tax-exposure instruments rather than taking as much current income or capital gains as they do today, and taking economically-productive risks with it.  This removes some amount of ready capital from circulation, leaving it latent:  too expensive to take out and use.  If there were not relatively tax-advantaged options for using it abroad, this might make less of a difference.  But there are.  For America, increasing tax rates on our capital sump will drive jobs and economic growth elsewhere (especially with the costs of regulation on a dramatic upswing in the US).

We can hope the tax increase won’t happen.  The threat was averted for 2011, after all.  But it ought to be especially galling for taxpayers, in the wake of the Solyndra revelations – and the now seemingly endless parade of crony beneficiaries of the Obama administration – to contemplate the very real pain it will inflict on their recession-shocked households if the Clinton tax code comes back.

Americans are not undertaxed.  Government at every level is, rather, overspent – and the people’s lives and commercial activities are stupendously overregulated, which discourages economic activity – as well as income mobility – by raising the cost of literally everything.

Before we collect one additional penny in taxes from anyone, we need to cut spending and regulation.  Start with the federal grants to Obama’s political cronies; the current prohibitions on drilling for oil and gas; and 100% of the discretionary activities of the Environmental Protection Agency, including the new air quality standards set to go into effect on 1 January.  Whether you want to add a new regulation or modify an old one, you should have to fight in Congress for every single change, using your own money, not the people’s – and lose your battles if  you can’t get the votes.

The basis of government has gone badly awry in America.  The bottom line is that the taxpayers should not have to accept pain so that we can fork over more to keep funding it on its current basis. Michael Bloomberg is wrong about that.  Government is what has gone wrong, and it’s government that needs to change.

* Aw, heck.  I meant the tax code reverts to Clinton’s in 2013, as several alert readers have pointed out.  No excuse; brain flatulence.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

The master hypocrite

Supposedly all politicians lie, some more than others.  Still it's unimaginable one could find a politician who has lied more ON THE RECORD, than Obama.  He was going to change the way business was done in Washington by eliminating the influence of lobbyists and influence peddlers of all stripes, etc, etc.  This article by Peter Schweitzer of the Hoover Institute,  author of an excellent book on the housing fiasco, "Architects of Ruin", among others, weighs in with a devastating account of the payola schemes devised by the Obama administration to reward their friends in the so-called renewable energy businesses --  like Solyndra, one of many examples.  Nice to see all this stimulus cash go to such worthy causes promoted by bundlers for the Obama campaigns, past and present.  Business the Chicago way once more.  As big a liar as Clinton was, he's small potatoes compared to  the incumbent liberal fraud.

An early (and accurate) summary of the financial meltdown causes

In February of 2009, Peter Wallison carefully presented the real reasons for the financial meltdown in this article in American Spectator Magazine.  Much has been written since about the cause and reason this meltdown occurred, however Wallison's piece has stood the test of time as a definitive explication of the whole sorry event.  Cutting to the chase, the politicization of the housing market and its financing institutions (Fannie/Freddie, etc) clearly was the overriding cause.  As for whom to blame start with all the "progressives" (Barney Frank, et al), in the Congress, Carter and Clinton in the WH, and above all others Andrew Cuomo Secretary of HUD in the Clinton administration, as the prime movers.  Naturally the socialist groups (SEIU, Rainbow Coalition, etc) played major roles, particularly SEIU, Obama's favored grass roots organizing and lobbying pals.  This sorry collection of losers managed to infect the system with their collectivist philosophy, intimidating the normally more conservative bankers into playing along with them to some extent.  The Bush administration tried on numerous occasions to reign in Freddie and Fannie but were stiffed repeatedly by the likes of Frank and friends.  While assessing blame for the disaster,  Greenspan (for his loose monetary policy) and the rating agencies for their failure to properly assess and publicize the risk involved in all the paper (dirivitives and the like) that were issued and passed on by Wall Street, deserve their share.  And while we're at it let's note the complicity of the Wall Street banks who were coining it by producing and selling shabby mortgage backed securities and the rest all over the world. Lotsa guilty parties including all those people who bought in over their heads and the real estate industry that pushed those folks to buy when they surely must have known better.  It was the classic greed driven tulip bubble event of the 21st century.  We never learn.

Gerrymandering --the bane of democracy

There is little doubt that the single biggest problem contributing to the dysfunctional US Congress is the practice of gerrymandering.  This particular anti democratic political shenanigan is practiced by members of both US political parties and is designed to accomplish exactly what it in fact does which is to assure incumbent members of Congress their respective seats.  The practice is the primary reason we have representatives like Maxine Waters and Sheila Lee, two of the more racists members of the Congressional Black Caucus CBC), itself a racist group within Congress committed to furthering the interests of blacks before the interests of the country.  Sheila Lee, BTW, is a graduate of Yale College.  Nice. Makes a grad proud. A recent analysis pointed out that in any normal House vote, typically 80% of the races are considered safe for the incumbent.  Such is the effect of gerrymandering.  Gerrymandering does more to divide the country along racial lines that any of the other unconstitutional and divisive programs like Affirmative Action and the now infamous Community Redevelopment Act.  The latter program in its various permutations over the years was largely responsible for the sub prime mortgage fiasco which led to the near collapse of the entire financial system in the US. There have been several books on this subject, notably ones by Thomas Sowell and Peter Schweitzer that clearly catalogue and explain how this political event, led by the Black Caucus and other liberal politicians, (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barak Obama, Cuomo and others) mostly in the Carter and Clinton administrations, brought all this about.  If enough people read these books and others and came to understand how it al happened we might just be able to make a few course corrections, eliminate all the racist, divisive government programs including gerrymandering, and return to a functioning democracy true to the principles of the founding fathers and the constitution.  Not in my lifetime.  Here is a proposal to reform the current gerrymandering system.