It has begun

In this Wall Street Journal article by Deborah Solomon and Damian Paletta, they stated, "The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money" while at the same time "House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) is working on legislation that could strengthen the government's ability both to monitor compensation and to curb incentives that threaten a company's viability or pose a systemic risk to the economy."

"This is not going to be about capping compensation or micro-management," said an administration official. "It will be about understanding what is the best way to align compensation with sound risk management and long-term value creation." In February, President Obama "said executive pay helped lead to a 'reckless culture and a quarter-by-quarter mentality that in turn helped to wreak havoc in our financial system.'"

Free market principles in banking allow bankers, investors and borrowers to take risk in order to create wealth. The borrower needs money for a business idea, the investor gives the bank the money needed to make loans, and the bank charges interest to the borrower in order to make a profit and pay interest back to the investor. In order for this system to work, incentives need to exist for people to choose this career.

If Doctors were paid one billion a year, everyone would clamor to be a doctor, however the limited school facilities that provide the education one needs to become a doctor would create a system where many compete for the few seats available. Conversely, if doctors were capped at $50,000 a year, we could accurately predict the demise of our health care industry as doctors would leave it and individuals not suited to practice medicine would become doctors.

Now analogize this to our financial industry. The best and brightest seize advantage of the few best business schools we have in this country in order to get the best advantage to work for a financial firm or other business in order to make a ton of money. That's their reward. However, this Administration is taking away the incentive people will have to choose this career. This Administration has an absolute failure of understanding how the free market works.

This is also clear in their ad nauseum arguments that this financial crises was somehow created solely by Wall Street greed. In a previous paragraph, three people are needed; borrowers, investors and creditors (banks). The Administration is currently blaming the creditors for the financial disaster without looking at the other two legs in this three legged stool. This entire event was precipitated by one group of people, the borrowers. There would have been no collateral debt obligations (CDO's) to be had if there were no loans to back them up. The unscrupulous lending of money to sub-prime borrowers was made possible only because of socially engineered policies like the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 (Carter Administration) and Bill Clinton directing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to incur more sub-prime debt.

The solution to this financial debacle is not salary caps on bankers. The solution is to ensure that only financially sound individuals are able to take out home mortgage loans. That their incomes be verified. That they be required to put up 10% of the purchase price in order that they have a vested interest in not walking away from their home. When CDO's are collapsing because the sub-prime borrowers are defaulting, that tells you something, and that something has nothing to do with a banker's salary. The free market should be allowed to take its course and the banks that invested heavily in sub-prime mortgages, like Countrywide and IndyMac, should rightly collapse because of their unscrupulous lending practices. The banks should learn the lesson the government is not there to bail them out of their misdeeds; in order that there be an incentive to keep them from making bad loan decisions.

Lastly, it's a laughable statement when Administration officials are making pronouncements they will not be micro-managing banking institutions. Did they not fire the CEO of AIG? Did they not fire the CEO of GM? Did they not cut in half the advertising budget of Chrysler? Did they not force Chrysler into bankruptcy because the Administration did not want to negotiate five cents on the dollar for the hedge funds that were invested in Chrysler? This Administration is acting like that tin pot dictator in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. I shudder to think how this Administration is going to treat Ford Motor Co. when Ford turns out better products and is more profitable without having nefarious government regulations controlling them. I shudder to think what's going to happen to America's Economic prowess as these nefarious government salary compensation regulations come to fruition. Good Bye America, it was great while you lasted.

Time to leave Reagan behind???

The Washington Times has a great article why the Republican Party is doomed. Jeb Bush said, "So our ideas need to be forward looking and relevant. I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia and the good old days in the [Republican] messaging." He then added, "From the conservative side, it's time for us to listen first, to learn a little bit, to upgrade our message a little bit, to not be nostalgic about the past because, you know, things do ebb and flow." Mitt Romney added, "Let's not underestimate the people of America; let's make sure and listen to the people of America ... listen to what they're feeling and get their ideas."

So, here we have a "Listening Tour" hosted by John McCain, Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. These four believe the Republican Party, based on their comments, need to redefine its message and create a forward looking platform, as well as listen to the American people. Really? Is that really what the Republicans need to do? I disagree. We had a Republican Party that properly opposed the Clinton Agenda in the 1990's. Americans rewarded the minority leadership with majority status under Newt Gingrich's 'Contract with America.' The Republicans kept that majority until 2006. Further losing seats in 2008. Obama did not win by a landslide victory; he received slightly more votes than George Bush did in 2004.

What Republicans are are disenchanted. For six years, Republicans never passed a balanced budget. For six years, Republicans never made permanent the tax cuts that let us keep more of our paycheck. For six years, Republicans let Democrats, the minority, control the agenda in Washington. We allowed Liberals to create airport security protocols which culminated with 80-year old white grandmas being patted down. We watched Republicans in Washington create Prescription Drug Coverage for Seniors [I didn't know we were for a massive new spending program that gives Seniors even more of an incentive to vote for government programs]. We watched as the President failed to never come up with a solution to winning in Iraq. We listened to ad nauseum Liberal arguments about how every policy decision would result in failure or some imagined horror and the Bush Administration did nothing to counter those arguments. When Republicans start acting like Democrats, they lose. Ask George H.W. Bush what happened to him when he raised taxes.

It's not that the Republicans need a new message, the proper message is that Conservatism works. However, what Republicans do need is Republican leadership with fortitude and ideological conviction. The problem with the Republican Party is that it's fractured. You have pseudo-Republicans like John McCain who won the Party nomination, and the guy never once challenged Obama on ideological grounds. Being the "Maverick" he "is," he didn't have ideological ground to stand on. How do you challenge a Marxist when you don't have ideological convictions? Let the Republicans move left; let them switch Parties and betray their true convictions like Arlen Spector. Let the Republican Party continue to destroy itself because they lack political conviction and fortitude.

However, let We the People form a new Political Party. A Party whose foundation and ideological conviction is liberty. We don't have liberty when we're tied down with ever increasing taxes and a hand of government that grows heavier by the year. We don't have liberty when we don't have secure borders and our laws are not enforced; that's anarchy. We don't have liberty when Liberals are charging us with hate speech. First Amendment anyone? We don't have liberty when McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Laws prevent us from speaking our minds within 30 or 60 days from an Election. Again, First Amendment anyone? We don't have liberty when government gives criminals the upper hand and law abiding Citizens suffer because of draconian "Assault Weapon Bans" and magazine limitations and bullet restrictions. We don't have freedom of religion when Liberal atheists and secularists strip our public squares of religious displays during Holidays. We need as radical an ideological mindset to counter the radical ideological mindset of this President and his regime. Vote for actual change. Vote for Liberation.

Let this be a Lesson for ya'

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.91afc63abb93d5e6768f1eb67b4c5022.a91&show_article=1

"Govt hikes top income tax rate to 50%" in England that is. We already know that European Socialist regimes have high taxes, one needs it when half the population works to support the other half. But I digress. Originally, Chancellor Alistair Darling stated "In November [2008], I announced a new rate of income tax of 45 percent on incomes above 150,000 pounds -- the top one percent of taxpayers" however "In order to help pay for additional support for people now, I have decided that the new rate will be 50 percent and will come in from next April -- a year earlier."

This is hilarious. Not only did he originally propose raising the tax burden by 12.5%, he changed his mind and decided to raise the tax burden by 25% from 40% to 50%. The lesson one can learn is that when Politicians promise a tax increase, be prepared once you've accepted the original rationale, for justification for an even bigger raise. I know Obambi proposed raising our Federal Income Tax burden, but perhaps him and Alistair Darling, two Socialists, think alike? One might recall the greatest threat to Obambi's Candidacy for President was a guy named Joe the Plumber who questioned Obambi's Tax Policy. I think I see a correlation.

Losing our Moral Bearings over...

"harsh methods—waterboarding, face slapping, sleep deprivation and other techniques." My goodness, how immoral of us, simulating drowning, face slapping, sleep deprivation, all in the name of National Security and we're losing our moral bearings because of it. Why, we need to smile more, self-flagellate and tell others how we're sorry for having rescued them from tyranny like we did for Europe during WW1, WW2 and the Cold War. Obama said, "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." How much more ignorance and naivete can we tolerate? We need change we can believe in; we need a man for a President, not a pussy.

Don't assimilate, Legislate

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/04/english-only.html

"The state Senate acted today to prohibit businesses in California from discriminating against customers, including refusing them service, based on the language they use."

Another example of a loss of Liberty. Anyone who has traveled to a country that doesn't speak their language, makes do. I wonder how long before a business is sued under this new new law for a violation of a non-Civil Right? We need to change our mentality about laws. I cannot think of the last time Politicians increased our Liberties, rather I see constant usurpation.

Nuclear Disarmament part 2

In this New York Post article by Rich Lowry, he states, "The meme in the press was how the test launch made Obama's disarmament speech all the more "urgent." It really makes it all the more childish and dangerous. In setting the goal of "Global Zero", Obama hitched himself to a project as utopian as President George W. Bush's ambition to end tyranny in the world." He goes on to state, "In fact, they're essentially the same goal. The bipartisan congressional Strategic Posture Review concluded in an interim report that to achieve Global Zero would require a "fundamental transformation of the world political order." All significant geopolitical conflicts would have to end, and all untrustworthy governments disappear. The verification regime would have to be so all-encompassing as to constitute a kind of world government."

This is exactly what I was getting at in my entry from yesterday. Obama's entire plan is predicated on the notion you can force various regimes to comply, and that "immediate consequences" would facilitate the desired aim, nuclear disarmament. It's Obama's naivete that allows him to believe such a plan could be successful. Yes, the United States could disarm itself, however the consequence would be that any Nation with a nuclear weapon would be in a position to blackmail other countries, including the United States. It does beg the question however, when a "fundamental transformation of the world political order" is needed to achieve nuclear disarmament, if that perhaps is not Obama's goal. "The verification regime would have to be so all-encompassing as to constitute a kind of world government." Is this the white horse leading up to the red horse or what comes after all four horses of the Apocalypse? I haven't figured it out yet.

Nuclear Disarmament

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20903.html

Pres. Obama's naivete is at it again. He now wants a nuclear weapon free world. Who doesn't. However, he said in his speech in Prague the United States is going to implement "concrete steps" towards nuclear arms reduction. That's great and all if ALL other countries go along with reduction treaties and disarmament, however this dork stated "we'll seek an agreement by the end of this year that's legally binding." Binding by who? How do you enforce that? We could not even enforce U.N. Resolutions, six of them, when going after Iraq for possession of chemical and biological weapon programs and the their refusal to allow weapons inspectors to have unfettered access to weapon sites. Does this idiot honestly believe he could force Russia or China to acquiesce their sovereignty to a "legally binding" "agreement"?! This is naive.

He goes on to state that "the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in State nuclear weapons." My God, is that not what Iran is currently doing and what Pres. Bush failed to stop and what Pres. Obama is currently failing to stop? What happens if they build the bomb by the time this treaty is signed? This is reminiscent of the same failure of foresight that occurred in the not too distant past when Pres. Clinton gave North Korea materials that were later used to make a nuclear weapon. History is repeating itself and this megalomaniac thinks he has the power to make the same mistakes and expect a different result. Not only is this naive, he arrogantly believes he'll know what their intention is for the fissile material. Isn't Iran making the argument that enriched uranium is needed for their nuclear power plants? Isn't enriched uranium also a source for nuclear weapons when enriched to a higher grade? What naivete.

His second step is to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by preventing non-nuclear armed Nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, and current nuclear armed nations will "move towards disarmament." "We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections." Again, six UN resolutions did not force Iraq to grant unfettered access to weapon sites. How does he plan on inspecting China and Russia? More importantly, will he grant international inspectors unfettered access to American weapon production sites? It's simply naive. "We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules." Oh, countries like North Korea which recently tested an ICBM. What type of consequence will prevent the insane from insane decisions? Nothing has prevented Iran from further development of its nuclear weapons program. Obama never specifies any consequence, knowing that any consequence will be inconsequential to a country determined to not play by the rules. This is mere international campaign rhetoric. The Demagogue in Chief is at it again and his sheeple are loving it. This man is a jackass.