Freedom of BLEEP

The Obama Power Grab, Part IV

The Associated Press reports that “General Motors Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner will step down immediately at the request of the White House.”

Perhaps Wagoner should have stepped down long ago. But the problem is that this sets a terrible precedent. Since when does the President have such authority over a publicly traded company? Why don’t the other creditors and shareholders have a say?

While the executives at GM have consistently underperformed, it’s the labor union that really drove this company into the ground. Obama even cited the lack of union concessions as a primary fault with GM’s restructuring plan. It’s the union leaders that control this! Yet the CEO was made his scapegoat, and this is only one facet of Obama’s anti-business repertoire.

Just last week, Obama and other democrats were calling for executive salary capping - of all publicly traded companies. Do they not understand the implications of this policy? The best executives will leave the US for higher paying jobs, thus strengthening foreign companies. We’ll be stuck with mediocre leftovers. Read any book on corporate philosophy and it will tell you the same thing: a great company has a great CEO behind it.

This week Barney Frank is proposing government control over all employee salaries, not just top executives. It looks like the government may soon determine our wages.

Obama’s power grab doesn’t stop there. He also wants the government to be able to seize any financial institution. This isn’t limited to banks. This isn’t limited to institutions that have received government bailout money. Any financial institution will be subject to seizure, basically at the whim of Washington officials. This could represent the largest permanent expansion of government regulatory power in the history of the US.

Every day Obama becomes less like FDR and more like Hugo Chavez.

Obama’s Power Grab, Part III

Even the head of the European Union is criticizing Obama’s socialist spending spree, saying that the United States is on “the road to hell.” Other high-ranking officials in France, including the French President have commented that Obama’s plan to spend $2 trillion to escape the recession is absurd.

Obama’s budget will create almost $10 trillion in debt over the next decade so that he can expand the government. This is $10 trillion that tax payers will have to pay interest on just so Obama can create worthless government programs to expand his power. This is $10 trillion to provide “tax-relief” for people who don’t pay taxes. This is $10 trillion to pay mortgages for people who lied about their income and can’t afford their houses. This is $10 trillion that Obama and Pelosi are robbing from our children and grandchildren to create bailouts for reality television. This is $10 trillion of government that we don’t need and can’t afford.

Too bad Obama can’t see this on his telepromter.

Obama’s Power Grab, Part II

President Obama has altered the U.S. Government so that he will directly oversee the census in 2010. It’s important to consider why he would want this control, and why it violates the Constitution.

First, the census directly effects congressional redistricting. This can ultimately determine which political party a district favors. The first census after the American Revolution was taken in 1790 under Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson to keep the census out of partisan hands. This is also one of the primary reason why the Department of Commerce was created in 1903. Expect gerrymandering to be much more prominent when 2010 comes around.

Second, the census determines how government funding is allocated. Everything from spending on schools to roads is dictated by the census.

Even though we have a Department of Commerce specifically dedicated to “gathering economic and demographic data for business and government decision-making,” Obama wants to oversee the census himself for inarticulate reasons. Starting to see why Obama’s first two picks for Commerce Secretary turned down the job? And remember, liberals have also allocated an extra $1 billion dollars to the census this year through the the porkulous package. You can sure change a lot with that kind of cash.

R.I.P.

Obama’s Power Grab, Part I

Thanks to the liberals in office, our government will now be deciding where your donations to charity go. They will be taking money out of your taxes to give to charities of their choice. Charities like tattoo removal. Obviously they are selecting charities backed by their campaign donors, possibly making this one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation in American history. So much for Obama’s promise to clean up Washington…

You don’t think tattoo removal is a worthy cause? Adding insult to injury, the Obama tax plan will also reduce the deductions for voluntary charitable contributions (in addition to increasing the taxes of those making over $250,000 - otherwise known as the top 2% of Americans who already pay more than 40% of all federal income taxes!!). Many are rightfully angered by the proposition, arguing that not-for-profits can barely survive amidst the downturn in the economy. They rely on each and every dollar coming in from donors, and reducing the charitable donation tax deductions will most definitely decrease donations.

Liberals love to vilify the rich by painting them as selfish misers, only out for the tax benefit of donating. Of course those who are already predisposed to donate will continue, but when you take away the additional tax benefits, it is only reasonable to assume that people will reduce their contributions during tough times.

But charities be comforted! Peter Orszag, Obama’s director of the Office and Management Budget, assures that in the recovery act “there’s $100 million to support nonprofits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty.” That is, if you are one of the liberals’ pet charities. As NYT-labeled “fundraising expert” Robert Sharpe Jr. says “The administration’s proposal is doing just that, reordering charitable priorities by taking money wealthy people would have given to other charities and making it go into the health care system.”  Unfortunately, health care is only one of the many “charitable contributions” that the government is making with taxpayer dollars.

I’m curious where it says in the Constitution that the government is equipped to “reorder” American citizens’ priorities. This is just another way that the democrats are taking personal decisions out of the hands of Americans and making the decisions for them. Should the government really decide which charities are worthy and which aren’t?