Freedom of BLEEP

Remember when President Obama promised the stimulus package would have an immediate effect? Well, the Associated Press reports that the counties hurting the most from job losses are actually getting the least immediate aid from the allocated funding. It’s hard to understand how hundreds of earmarks were considered more important than actually stimulating the economy.

Meanwhile, the budgeted deficit continues to grow. Now the White House is projecting a $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009 - four times the 2008 deficit.

The Obama Administration’s analysis also assumes our economy will be growing at a rate of 3.5 percent by the end of the year. The more realistic report by the Congressional Budget Office predicts that the gross domestic product will actually decline 3 percent this year, and increase only 2.9 percent next year.

Nevermind that, the Obama Administration is too busy explaining how nothing is ever their fault. But we already know that isn’t true.

The White House has also been busy publicizing that they have created 20,000 new jobs in the Pentagon. What they didn’t tell you is that they actually destroyed 11,000 private sector jobs in the process. Reuters reports:

“The remaining 11,000 new hires would come from the conversion to federal civilian slots of jobs that had been outsourced to contractors.”

Another problem is that many of the jobs created by the government are only temporary. 60,000 jobs were created for the 2010 census. In about a year these people will be jobless again, and economic data suggests unemployment will still be a huge problem at that time. But hey, that’s alright. After these workers are done skewing the census data, they’ll probably just go back to ACORN and cast votes for their new imaginary citizens.

Now the Obama administration is allegedly issuing threats to anyone that stands in their way. Hedge fund managers are challenging the administration’s bankruptcy plan for Chrysler and negotiations have been somewhat hostile. A leading bankruptcy attorney said his client “was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight.”

Is this any surprise? Obama did the same thing during his campaign. Remember the “truth squads” of policemen and prosecutors?

And despite the White House denial that such threats were made, they have already begun attempts to soil the reputation of the hedge fund managers. The Obama administration and other Democrats have been calling them vultures and greedy speculators. Obama even blamed them for Chrysler’s bankruptcy!

Those of us that live on earth know that those hedge fund managers lent Chrysler money when no else would. They took a risk and the money grubbing union workers got to keep their jobs for a while longer. As it turns out, you can’t have $3,000 of legacy union prices on every car and expect to be profitable. Poor management and unreasonable unions are responsible for the job loss. But Obama says the investors are to blame.

So what’s the big deal about Obama’s Chrysler bankruptcy plan? In the proceedings, the Obama administration has decided that the union will be paid off prior to those who held secured investments in the company. This means the UAW gets more than what their shares are worth and the investors get less. This preferential treatment has resulted in the UAW getting 55% of the company, while secured lenders received only 29 cents on the dollar for debt they hold.

But if SECURED lenders are not paid first - as standard legal practice usually ensures, then who in their right mind would ever invest in American companies again? And just think where these companies would be today without investors…

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?

Less than one week after passing the $787 billion stimulus bill, the Democrats have already unveiled another $410 billion spending bill to increase revenue for government programs.

Didn’t President Obama call for more fiscal responsibility during his speech at the Economic Summit on Monday? Apparently someone forgot to pass the memo - possibly the head of Obama’s National Economic Council who actually fell asleep during the conference!

According to the Associated Press, the new spending bill includes thousands of earmarks, pet projects, and other forms of pork barrel spending.

Recovery: A Laughing Matter?

When combined with funding from the “economic stimulus,” there has been an astronomical increase in spending on government programs. Where is the extra money going to come from?

During his campaign, Obama said he would run the most transparent government we’ve ever had. But the new stimulus bill is up for vote today, and the Republican congressmen still haven’t even seen it - let alone the general public!

The day after inauguration, our President said, “Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency. Our commitment to openness means more than simply informing the American people about how decisions are made.”

Well at least we know how decisions are made… Congressmen will have only a few hours to read hundreds of pages of legislation before 9 AM!

What happened to the democrats’ promise that the new stimulus bill would be posted on the internet at least 48 hours prior to the vote? They flat out lied. Why are they are so afraid of letting the American people know what’s in this bill?

Furthermore, our President has been telling lies left and right to get this bill passed. According to Obama, the CEO of Caterpillar “said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off.”

But Jim Owens actually said the exact opposite! “I think realistically no. The reality is we’re going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again.”

What else is Obama lying about?

Earlier this week, we discussed how president-elect Obama has played a central role in bringing the U.S. economy to its knees. Now let’s consider how his actions since the election have worsened the situation.

1.) For the incoming administration, economic advisers will be among the most consequential appointments. Yet even the New York Times disagrees with Mr. Obama’s decision, stating that two of his key advisers “have played central roles in policies that helped provoke today’s financial crisis. [...] unless they recognize their past mistakes, there is little hope that they can provide the sound judgment and leadership that the country needs to dig out of this desperate mess.”

2.) Obama has promised to raise capital gains taxes. Investing is risky - especially in today’s volatile market - and individuals will have less incentive to invest money if they are taxed more on their investments. This isn’t rocket science. Still, the president-elect has refused to say whether he will wait for the economy to improve before imposing his tax hike.

3.) Obama has promised to raise taxes on large corporations. Of course, the net result will be lower profit margins for the Fortune 500 and falling stock indexes. Again, Obama refuses to indicate whether he will delay the tax hike until conditions improve, which has created a great deal of unease among investors.

4.) Obama has promised more regulation for big business. Investors don’t get excited when they hear companies will have more hoops to jump through and additional regulatory penalties which can prevent businesses from expanding. 

5.) Obama endorses the Check Card bill, which will make it easier for unions to bully large and small businesses. This bill will eliminate the secret ballot, thus enabling union leaders to intimidate and coerce workers. Anyone who has taken American History is aware how overly-powerful unions can have an adverse effect on American business. Just look at what unions have done to the auto industry.

6.) Obama has promised to raise taxes on small businesses - the largest job producing segment of our economy. Sure, 95% of small businesses will fall below the tax threshold, but it’s the top 5% where a majority of new jobs are being created. Why would investors want to jump into the market when successful and growing companies are going to be punished?

On September 17, 2007 at NASDAQ, Mr. Obama said that “Subprime lending started off as a good idea.” He went on to claim the condition of the real-estate market could be pinned solely on the corruption of financial institutions.

But wait a second. Since when was subprime lending a good idea?

The very definition of subprime lending states that there is a heightened risk of default, meaning these borrowers have a history of loan delinquency or default, a recorded bankruptcy, or limited debt experience. Does it sound like “a good idea” to give these people mortgages?

So why did Obama say that subprime lending was a good idea? Because he himself pressured financial institutions to make these bad loans. While working with ACORN in 1994, Obama sued Citibank because they were NOT making risky loans to unqualified individuals.

That’s right. Obama and ACORN worked together forcing financial institutions to make extremely high-risk loans. During his presidential campaign he denied all ties to ACORN, but this clearly contradicts a published statement by Chicago ACORN Leader, Toni Foulkes:

“We have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate [...]. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends.”

Obama provided legal training to ACORN workers so they could intimidate banks into granting risky loans to people with low income and bad credit. Check out this video to learn more about ACORN tactics.

So how did this all come about? How can the government force banks to make bad loans? This excerpt from a CNS News Analysis sums up the answer to that question:

According to Sheldon Richman, editor of The Freeman and an economist with the Foundation for Economic Education, government policy is to blame.

Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the [Community Reinvestment Act] to combat ‘red-lining,’ a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”

The Clinton-Reno threat of ‘vigorous enforcement’ pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.”

Stay tuned for more Obamanomics…