The daily power grab is just breathtaking… As the gullible media and citizens whine about AIG and bonuses, the behind the scenes fallout of Obama’nomics is reaching unbelievable heights.
These include a proposed budget being short over a trillion A spending plan Obama appears unwilling to abandon.
Then there’s the first time that the UN and Euro nations have decided to officially recommend dumping the dollar as the world’s reserve currency…. a position they think is necessary with the spending and borrowed debt in the US future.
There’s the cap and trade bit, where Obama’s estimates of the costs to the gullible US voter is only a third of reality. The downpayment on healthcare reform is less than half of what it needs to be… and even that figure isn’t accurate.
Meanwhile Congress and Obama kick out laws like the Octomom kicks out babies…. each one a knee jerk reaction and an attempt to fix what they broke. For example the insidious 90% tax on bonuses for any recipient employed by a company that took over $5 bil in bail out monies. This, of course, includes the banks who didn’t want the cash, but were strong armed into it by the Obama admin economic thugs.
Not enough? There’s the Obama proposed “resolution authority” giving the Treasury Sec’y the power to seize other financial institutions if he/she thinks they are a threat to the US economy.
And to make sure he can shovel all this crap, and more, down the US taxpayer throats, he’s prepared to make vast use of the budget reconciliation process” that cuts out bipartisan input, and only requires 51 Senate votes to pass. This gives Obama a cushion of eight Democrat renegades, and still enjoy passage.
The O’faithful, determined to believe that Obama still governs “from the center”, don’t seem to be digesting all the events very quickly. So let’s pile on one more power grab… the latest and greatest chapter from the rapidly expanding Obama version of Mein Kopf comes from Steven Labaton at the New York Times today… Administration Seeks Increase in Oversight of Executive Pay.
Oh, but the O’faithful will say… if we are going to take over ownership… (but of course we’re told we aren’t “nationalizing” anything) … of institutions, we *should* control their pay. Afterall, any bank exec now has a cap of half mil if they took bailout cash.
But wait… this isn’t about bailed out companies. This is about any bank or financial institution. You might want to say that Obama supports not only minimal wages, but maximum wages. And the proposal can also be applied broadly to *all* publicly traded enterprises.
The outlines of the plan are expected to be unveiled this week in preparation for President Obama’s first foreign summit meeting in early April.
Officials said the proposal would seek a broad new role for the Federal Reserve to oversee large companies, including major hedge funds, whose problems could pose risks to the entire financial system.~~~
One proposal could impose greater requirements on company boards to tie executive compensation more closely to corporate performance and to take other steps to ensure that compensation was aligned with the financial interest of the company.
The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Think this can be stopped in Congress? Think again… in fact, think back to CRA regulations rewritten by Clinton Treasury Sec’y Robert Rubin – aka master of the Citigroup demise. All was accomplished behind closed doors, in the midnight hours of the last days of Democrat majority in Congress. It was done specifically thru “regulations” in order to eliminate any opportunity for the incoming Republican majority to kill it via legislation.
Obama will be seizing this authority by regulation changes, *not* legislation. Congress? Why does a fuehrer need Congress when he has a Treasury Secretary czar?
A central aspect of the plan, which has already been announced by the administration, would give the government greater authority to take over and resolve problems at large troubled companies not now regulated by Washington, like insurance companies and hedge funds.
That proposal would, for instance, make it easier for the government to cancel bonus contracts like those given to executives at the American International Group, which have stoked a political furor. Under the proposal, the Treasury secretary would have the authority to seize and wind down a struggling institution after consulting with the president and upon the recommendation of two-thirds of the Federal Reserve board.~~~
Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the Financial Services Committee, said he believed giving the government new authority to take over troubled companies could be adopted by the House relatively quickly, particularly after the furor over the A.I.G. bonuses.
“This would give the government the same powers that you would get as if the company were in bankruptcy,” Mr. Frank said in an interview shortly after meeting with Mr. Geithner on the plan.
We already have a bankruptcy system… not good enough? Hang no. That is dependent upon the company making it’s financial decisions. This creates a separate system that has the government deciding FOR the company to declare bankruptcy … then stepping in as the trustees with the resolution authority.
If this continues unchecked, we may not be able to recognize America in the span of but a few years.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
Interesting write up, we could be energy independent rather quickly if not for the slugs that are standing in the way.
My opinion is based upon things I have learned, and is backed up by a majority of geologists and oil businesses. I have not made an environmental argument, but a resource and economic/security argument. You bet there I have some emotional feelings about dealing with the Middle East for oil. If not for our money they would be in tents and riding camels.
I realize like “Global Warming” and “Intelligent Design” there are people that have opinions on both sides, and yes, I disagree with you, however there in much logic and fact in the belief I hold on the finite amount of oil. I also have indicated the sustainably of use of oil is more that its intrinsic amounts, but the economic and security aspects of the lack of reserves here at home. It Oil was so abundant and replenishing, why the heck are we importing so much of it? Oh, yeah, you will say because of Anwar, or off shore drilling we are in this deficit. Even with use of those resources we still would be without enough supply.
“Backed up by a majority”?? Really now, blast. I’d love to see how you came to the conclusion that the “majority” of expects say the earth does not continue to create oil reserves. Again you confuse current extraction ability with the amount of oil possible from reserve fields, and alternative oil sources.
And that *is* a resourse and economic/security argument. Were we allowed to do E&P elsewhere in the world, we could most certainly continue to have a plentiful supply of oil. That would allow technology to advance for alternative supplements without being up against the gun.
Yes, blast. Why *aren’t* we allowed to use the Canadian sources, the Gulf and Alaska sources, the shale oil we have availble. And while we’re at it, why can’t we use the US coal sources? There is such a thing as clean coal, ya know. Then of course, there’s gas fields.
Problem is nanny legislation and enviro lobbyists thwart every effort to advance conventional AND alternative sources. From wind to solar farms, the enviros are right up front, protecting turtles and refusing to allow the transmission grid to pass thru natural land and parks. Then there’s Britain and Brown, who’ve lost their alternative energy investors. because they are in such deplorable economic condition. Or perhaps it’s British regulations. Either way, they are happy to pull out of that country, despite Brown’s personal agenda… which closely mirror’s Obama’s, BTW.
You are deliberately limiting yourself in what you see as oil sources when you bandy about only Anwar or the Gulf. Unfortunately, it seems to be based in environmental emotion instead of logcial concern about our national security. Otherwise you’d be an “all of the above” and “not in the Middle East” kind of guy.
I am fine with them drilling in Anwar, off the coasts or wherever. Last time I checked, Canada was a foreign country so getting supplies from them, although less security damaging than the middle east etc, is still exporting dollars. That is why the sacred cow of “reserve currency” is in doubt as well.
sniff sniff… do I detect the scent of isolationism and protectionism in the air?
blast, blast. Why doth though skip over the US resources so lightly? i.e. coal, shale, Alaskan reserves and off shore? and if we are to export cash for supplemental, is it preferable to get that from a neighbor and ally.
And no… that’s not *why* the sacred cow of reserve currency is in doubt.
We are importing 60+% of our oil Mata, we are not going to make that up with a few more holes in the ground… we need a real solution and long term condition. Drill Drill Drill…. but eventually all of those resources will be depleted… and that eventuality will be sooner not later.
Yes, the reserve currency is connected to deficits (yep including Pres Obama’s budget) and TRADE deficits where we export HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of DOLLARS each year.
If you are accusing me of skipping over US resources lightly, I would say to look at how easy you allow our country to be so dependent on Foreign sources of oil… and you know much of that comes from unfriendly places.
And yeah, I am protectionist if that means putting Americans FIRST!
Whoa there, bubba. Them’s fightin’ words. It is not *me* that increased our oil dependency to over 60%. You can thank your bozo Congressmen and women for decades on that. In fact, you can still email your thanks to them since most those career politicians are still there, living off of our dime. It was Congress who refused additional E&P for decades. It was Congress who refused to build additional refineries for decades. It was Congress who thwarts alternative energies from being affordable. Put your blame where it belongs.. and that’s not me.. or this is my last communication with you personally on *any* subject.
A “few more holes”?? Depleted? You can’t get past Anwar and the Gulf into other possibilities. sigh… still stubbornly stuck on stupid, eh?
We, as the old saying goes, now we know *what* you are… now it’s just negotiating the price. And I guess, for you, the price is to raise the price of energy on the rest of us, potentially bankrupting businesses and citizens. For this is what you are doing by ignoring the other possibilities merely so you can feel good.
Done with you on this discussion, blast. You don’t demonstrate anything but a mantra of nonsensical talking points not based in reality or fact. Don’t have time for this.
Or, as O’Reilly likes to say… “I’ll give you the last word”. Just be sure you remove your boot from your mouth before inserting the other one.
My comment was not meant to personally indict you, as you don’t control policy or run oil companies. It was a poor choice of words. Sorry if you felt insulted.
Gracious apology accepted, blast