Obama's Quincy, IL speech on Wednesday had the following quote:
Now, what we’re doing -- I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.I want to make it clear that whatever I earn this year will likely fall within Obama's fabled 95% of taxpayers receiving a tax cut/credit. This will spin Obama's head; he won't understand why I would fight for the fat cats, etc. He wants you to believe that Wall Street has been acting like a "casino" and his prescription of "financial reform". He'll talk about "systemic risk". But will this "financial reform" work? Of course not. He wants you to think that Big Government is the salvation of all. But where was Big Government when Bernie Madoff operated his Ponzi scheme? You would think if anyone understood Ponzi schemes, it would be progressive Democrats--look at states and counties across the United States whom have established pension systems that guarantee retirement income at taxpayer expense for decades exceeding the average household income in the US, look at the key entitlements (social security and Medicare) with over $40T in unfunded liabilities. What private companies could possibly survive with those kinds of liabilities? You have a situation where, after federal revenues fall off by 40%, federal spending increases by trillions... How many public companies can afford to run this kind of scam? Talk about "too big to fail": what happens when Standard and Poor's cuts US Treasury debt ratings? What strategy do we have to confront to avoid the same type of budget crises in Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece?
Obama's economic philosophy, the politics of envy, is internally inconsistent. Take, for instance, the position where a rich CEO is at a 35% tax bracket. In the meanwhile, nearly half of American voters pay no income tax. Now presumably "spreading the wealth around" shifts income from the rich CEO to employees currently paying no income taxes. So, effectively, the lucky employees are still paying no tax, but in shifting from the rich employee, we're losing 35% on the dollar in federal revenue. Hence, from a progressive perspective, it should be maximizing the scope and depth of highest-earning individuals, because that will presumably result in the greatest income funding progressive proposals.
Look at the two richest Americans--Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. They did not reap rich rewards by playing in an unregulated casino. And they have joined together to create one of the largest philanthropies in American history, funded (eventually) with tens of billions of dollars.
It's not up to Obama to decide what income is "fair enough". But stop this insane scapegoating of the banking industry. The banking industry is one of the most highly regulated sectors in the economy. There's the state of New York, there's the SEC, there's the Federal Reserve, there are accountants, there are credit raters, etc. When we are dealing with hundreds of billions lost by the GSE's and AIG, how is that Wall Street's fault?
The fundamental problem is not the "greed" of Wall Street. Only a few companies failed in the industry. Why did some fail than others? Adding to the regulatory burden doesn't necessarily mean better control. It simply means more expensive control.
The "Racism" of Arizona Immigration Reform
I am astonished by overrated, uninformed pop singers, mediocre West Coast mayors and others organizing boycotts against Arizona businesses--or even businesses with 'Arizona' in the name but made elsewhere--all in response to what is assumed to be institutionalized racial profiling?
I have opposed the Arizona Immigration reform law for various reasons, but let's be very clear: We have non-Americans entering this country without any security checks. We are not simply talking about somebody's nanny or gardener, or migrant farm worker. We also see criminals entering the country risking the lives and property of American citizens.
We are talking about an Obama Administration which seems to think the only thing it needs to do, in response to significant violence within a few miles of the border, including Ciudad Juarez (where I once ate lunch with fellow UTEP professors), spilling over into the US, is give Mexico a little spending money.
We are also talking about the professionalism of Arizona law enforcement, which by any account has not systematically engaged in ethnic profiling,
What we need to do is attack so-called "sanctuary cities" which serve to protect unauthorized visitors (including criminals) against immigration enforcement. What we need is a new, improved, expanded version of the "Bracero program". What we need to do is (versus the Obama Administration) to complete border protection infrastructure, add to the Border Patrol.
What we don't need is an ineffectual, irresponsible administration which wants to use a state government trying to deal with criminal activity against its citizens as a whipping boy to get out the Latino vote this fall.
Political Cartoon
Gary Varvel points out the spread of inefficient regulation is far more pernicious than the spreading oil spill from an offshore BP rig failure in the Gulf of Mexico.
Quote of the Day
No pleasure philosophy, no sensuality, no place nor power, no material success can for a moment give such inner satisfaction as the sense of living for good purposes, for maintenance of integrity, for the preservation of self-approval.
Minot Simons
Musical Interlude: "Stand" Songs
Peter Frampton, "I Can't Stand It No More"
Stevie Nicks, "Stand Back" (live)
The Pretenders, "I'll Stand By You"
Burton Cummings, "Stand Tall"
