Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    April 2024
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    282930  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘hypocrisy’

Look who’s feeding at the public trough

Posted by Richard on January 29, 2010

In Michael Moore's 2009 film, Capitalism: A Love Story, he railed against (among others) corporate greedheads lining up to get government handouts of the taxpayers' money. Talk about a great big pot calling the kettle black.

According to Watchdog.org, Michigan's Mackinac Center discovered that the movie was partly filmed in Michigan, qualifying it for a generous windfall courtesy of the state's taxpayers. And it's already been approved, despite what strikes me as a serious conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety (emphasis added): 

That windfall would come from Michigan’s refundable tax credit program for the film industry, a program that allows movie producers to apply for a tax refund of up to 42 percent of their spending in Michigan. This lavish provision means a studio can easily receive more from Michigan taxpayers than it pays in Michigan taxes.

This initially seemed to trouble Moore, and he openly questioned the program at a forum in July 2008.

“These are large multinational corporations — Viacom, GE, Rupert Murdoch — that own these studios. Why do they need our money, from Michigan, from our taxpayers, when we’re already broke here?” Moore asked.

Moore posed this question to the Michigan Film Office director who determines which movies will qualify for the program. Moore went on: “I mean, they play one state against another, and so they get all this free cash when they’re making billions already in profits. What’s the thinking behind that?”

But in November 2008, Gov. Granholm appointed Michael Moore to the Michigan Film Office Advisory Council. Which advises the Michigan Film Office. Which runs the tax refund program.

Moore filmed part of “Capitalism: A Love Story” in Michigan. And the Mackinac Center has confirmed with the film office that a “production person” associated with Moore “applied, was approved for an incentive and … will receive credits” once the state treasury department reviews and approves the audited filing.

The film office did not disclose how much the resulting payment from the state would be; however, the film office director insisted that the incentive approval posed no conflict of interest with Moore’s seat on the film office advisory council.

Oh, OK. I guess I was wrong. Nothing to see here, folks. No crony capitalism. No unseemly behavior. No hypocritical greedhead pigs feeding at the public trough. The director of the office that Moore advises, who determines which movies qualify, has assured us of that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The ACLU’s domestic surveillance program

Posted by Richard on August 28, 2009

No one has ever overestimated the hypocrisy and willingness to hide behind situational ethics of the American left. Michelle Malkin:

Savor the silence of America's self-serving champions of privacy. For once, the American Civil Liberties Union has nothing bad to say about the latest case of secret domestic surveillance — because it is the ACLU that committed the spying.

Last week, the Washington Post reported on a new Justice Department inquiry into photographs of undercover CIA officials and other intelligence personnel taken by ACLU-sponsored researchers assisting the defense team of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

According to the report, the pictures of covert American CIA officers — "in some cases surreptitiously taken outside their homes" — were shown to jihadi suspects tied to the 9/11 attacks in order to identify the interrogators.

Where is the concern for the safety of these American officers and their families? Where's the outrage from all the indignant supporters of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose name was leaked by Bush State Department official Richard Armitage to the late Robert Novak?

Lefties swung their nooses for years over the disclosure, citing federal laws prohibiting the sharing of classified information and proscribing anyone from unauthorized exposure of undercover intelligence agents.

Now, caught red-handed blowing the cover of CIA operatives, they shrug their shoulders and dismiss it as "normal" research on behalf of "our clients."

But don't you dare question their love of country. Spying to stop the next 9/11 is treason, you see. Spying to stop enhanced interrogation of Gitmo detainees is patriotic.

Well, sure. Just like dissent is the highest form of patriotism when there's a Republican president, but with a Democrat in office, dissent is the stirring up of hate and a manifestation of dangerous extremism.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 9 Comments »

Bureaucrats party on our dime

Posted by Richard on July 16, 2009

The financial situation of Social Security has dramatically worsened recently. A few years ago, it was expected to run a surplus until 2025. That was recently revised to 2017. Now, thanks to the recession, it looks like the fund will go into the red this year.

So what's the Social Security Administration doing to cope with this grim news? Well, they just treated hundreds of SSA executives and managers from all over the country to three days in Phoenix at the posh Arizona Biltmore Resort and Spa and a nearby casino. It was an "essential" conference for helping these bureaucrats learn how to relieve stress. 

Remember a few months ago when the Prez, Congress, and their PR mouthpieces (AKA the mainstream media) were chiding corporations for their "unseemly" conferences at lavish resorts and "junkets" to Las Vegas during these grim economic times? Apparently, the same standards that apply to private businesses and investors don't apply to government bureaucrats. 

They're not "public servants" anymore. They're the ruling class.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

If only he meant it

Posted by Richard on May 21, 2009

President Obama this morning:

The documents that we hold in this very hall — the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights — these are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.

… I've studied the Constitution as a student, I've taught it as a teacher, I've been bound by it as a lawyer and a legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never, ever, turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

This load of hokum was uttered by the man who has for all intents and purposes nationalized banks, auto companies, and the mortgage industry, the man who's working hard to effectively nationalize the energy industry and health care, the man who trashed the sanctity of contract and Rule of Law without a second thought, the man who's looking for a Supreme Court justice willing to put empathy for "the little people" and respect for foreign laws and international standards ahead of those (sometimes-sacred, sometimes-not) "words written into aging parchment," … 

I could go on and on and on …

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 5 Comments »

Hypocrisy of the month, with a union label

Posted by Richard on March 22, 2009

The SEIU is one of the most vocal and powerful labor organizations promoting "progressive pro-labor" causes and policies. They spent tens of millions to elect Obama and lots of pro-union congressional Democrats.

Now they're spending staggering sums promoting the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (or "card check"), supposedly to strengthen workers' voices against management (a more accurate name would be Employee Coerced Choice Act, since it denies workers a secret ballot and enables union goons to intimidate them into supporting the union).

So how does the SEIU treat its own employees? Apparently, not in a "progressive pro-labor" manner (emphasis added): 

The Service Employees International Union, considered the most influential union in the nation, has notified the union that represents about 220 of the SEIU's national field staff members and organizers that it is laying off 75 of the employees.

In return, the workers union, which goes by the somewhat postmodern name of the Union of Union Representatives, has filed charges of unfair labor practices against the SEIU with the National Labor Relations Board. The workers union's leaders say that the SEIU is engaging in the same kind of practices that some businesses use: laying off workers without proper notice, contracting out work to temporary-staffing firms, banning union activities and reclassifying workers to reduce union numbers.

"It's completely hypocritical," said Malcolm Harris, president of the workers union. …

Fewer than half of the workers at SEIU chapters are unionized, and Harris's union's contract with SEIU forbids it from trying to help organize SEIU employees in local chapters.

The SEIU's national office has been contracting out more and more work to a staffing agency, Harris said, including advocacy for card check. He said it looks as though SEIU is trying to phase his union out of existence.

SEIU spokeswoman Michelle Ringuette said the contracting is limited and denied that SEIU is trying to undermine the workers union. "That would be the cynical way of looking at it," she said.

You can't make this stuff up.

(HT: Don Luskin )

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Faux outrage, part 2

Posted by Richard on March 19, 2009

The evidence of what I referred to as hokum and hypocrisy regarding bailouts and bonuses is piling up, and Investor's Business Daily has again focused attention on some of the worst. For example, Rep. Barney Frank's grilling at a committee hearing of the new AIG CEO, Edward Liddy (emphasis added):

Liddy, brought in for a dollar a year after the market meltdown Frank had a hand in creating, wasn't the one who should have been in the dock. Frank should have been grilling his Senate colleague Chris Dodd, who now admits writing the language in the stimulus that made these bonuses exempt from any government restrictions.

Sitting next to Dodd should have been Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, late of the Federal Reserve in New York and the architect of the original AIG bailout. After saying he didn't know who wrote the stimulus language exempting AIG bonuses, he now says he did it at the request of Treasury and administration officials.

[After first denying it, Dodd] told a different story, acknowledging that he and his staff did in fact change the language in the stimulus bill to include a loophole for AIG executive bonuses. "As many know, the administration was, among others, not happy with the language. They wanted some modifications in it.

"They came to us, our staff, and asked for changes, and the changes at the time did not seem obnoxious or onerous," Dodd added.

Say what? Exempting AIG bonuses to be paid out with taxpayer dollars seemed harmless to the No. 1 recipient of AIG campaign cash? Some have called this a "reversal" of position. We call it a lie admitted to.

Now we learn that Fannie Mae, a bailout beneficiary and the ignition source of the mortgage meltdown, plans to pay its own retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four executives as part of a plan to keep hundreds of employees from leaving. Let them work for a buck too.

Just as was the case with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Congress and the administration had a chance to stop this. Instead they protected AIG with a bill written in the middle of the night, sliced and diced by a handful of Democrats in a closed conference room, that those voting on it had not read.

Frank et al. have forgotten how Franklin Raines, who headed Fannie from 1998 to 2004, the years of its worst excesses, pocketed nearly $100 million in pay and bonuses from Fannie. He later became an adviser to Obama, the No. 2 recipient of AIG campaign funds behind Dodd.

This is the administration and Congress that promised to be the most transparent ever. They're transparent all right. We can see right through them.

Amen.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Faux outrage

Posted by Richard on March 19, 2009

The posturing, demagoguery, and expressions of outrage about the AIG bonuses continue unabated. Where was all this concern over self-serving and wasteful expenditure of tax dollars when Congress passed and the President signed the $410 billion omnibus spending bill containing over 8000 earmarks?

The President claimed even back during the campaign that he opposed earmarks, but he signed the bill anyway, promising earmark reform in the future. The administration argued that this bill was "inherited" from the previous administration, so why bother to try to clean it up? 

Well, the AIG bailout and AIG bonus agreements are "leftovers" from last year, too. The bonuses amount to less than 0.1% of AIG's bailout money, far less than the earmarks in the omnibus bill. Why so much concern over the former and so little over the latter? 

It's all hokum for the rubes and sheer hypocrisy. Investor's Business Daily outlined the true story behind the AIG bonuses, namely that the Obama Adminstration approved them and Congress authorized them: 

"In the last six months AIG has received substantial sums from the U.S. Treasury," Obama said after allegedly hearing about it for the first time. "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"

Well, they justify it by saying they had the administration's permission. The New York Times reports that AIG executives said they never would have proceeded with the bonus payments before getting approval from the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

"We would never make any important business decisions without discussing them with our government managers and owners," one AIG executive is quoted as saying.

As Larry Kudlow notes in his column on the next page, "the Obama administration — including the president, Treasury man Tim Geithner and economic adviser Larry Summers — knew all about them many months ago. They were undoubtedly informed of this during the White House transition."

The fact is, these bonuses were made legal by the $787 billion stimulus bill that President Obama promoted and signed. A provision, now known as the "Dodd Amendment," was inserted into the bill by the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd, D-Conn. It exempts from any restrictions bonuses contractually obligated before Feb. 11 of this year.

Coincidentally, Sen. Dodd was AIG's largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,000, according to opensecrets.org. Also coincidentally, one of the largest offices of AIG Financial Products, the division that concocted the goofy financial instruments that doomed AIG, is situated in Connecticut.

The second-largest AIG recipient, at $101,232, was the "choked up with anger" President Obama. If AIG gives back the bonuses, will the president give back these and other campaign contributions from troubled institutions?

Don't hold your breath, folks. The Democrats' dirty little secret is that most of the overpaid big shots who ran various insurance, banking, mortgage, and financial institutions into the ground are liberal Democrats and among the party's most generous contributors.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A senate hypothetical

Posted by Richard on January 7, 2009

Imagine there is a vacant Senate seat in a midwestern state, and the governor appoints a black man to fill the seat. The governor is under an ethical cloud, but hasn't even been indicted. He remains in office, performing all the gubernatorial duties every day, and he appears to have made the appointment in accord with state law. Imagine that the appointee appears to have a long and successful civic and political career, with a much stronger resumé and more experience in elected office than the senator he's replacing.

Oh, wait — that's not hypothetical, that's the news. 

Here's the hypothetical: Imagine that the Senate is still controlled by the GOP. Imagine that a bunch of white Republicans block the Senate chamber door and deny the black appointee a seat.

Can you picture it? Just imagine …

[No, I'm not rising to the defense of Roland Burris. He's rabidly anti-gun-rights and has worked for a national handgun ban (while owning one himself), and I'd rather not have him anywhere near a legislative body. I'm just struck by how once again different standards apply to Democrats. I believe this is example #694,371.]

On a somewhat related note, you might be interested in Dawn Trice's thoughtful column about "Magic Negroes" and "authentic" black men.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 7 Comments »

Contemptible form of sexism

Posted by Richard on October 30, 2008

I just saw Ben Stein interviewed by Craig Ferguson on the Late Late Show. He praised McCain effusively, but said his first impression of Sarah Palin, upon meeting her prior to some local talk show, was that she must be a hooker promoting a sex book.

Ben Stein is a conservative whose most recent claim to fame is a ridiculous documentary film promoting the anti-science, anti-reason "creation science" against the theory of evolution. 

His dissing of Palin echoes what other members of the "intelligentsia," right and left, have said. 

Apparently, the New York / Washington / Hollywood "intelligentsia" simply can't take seriously a woman who just happens to be cute or pretty

It seems to me that that's the worst kind of sexism. 

But apparently, NOW doesn't care.

Disgusting.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

Generous with other people’s money

Posted by Richard on September 16, 2008

Q: Why are wealthy liberal Democrats so eager to spend more of your money on the needy?

A: So they can remain in denial about how stingy they are with their own money.

Mark J. Perry's Carpe Diem — a site you should be reading regularly — has the most recent case in point:

The WSJ, Greg Mankiw and Tax Prof all reported on Joe Biden's tax returns (available here and summarized on Tax Prof). As Tax Prof (Paul Caron) points out: "Despite income ranging from $210,432 – $321,379 over the ten-year period from 1998 to 2007, the Bidens have given only $120 – $995 per year to charity, which amounts to 0.06% – 0.31% of their income (see chart below)."

Maybe Biden donates his used underwear to charity, like Bill Clinton.

Perry, the master of the graph that's worth a thousand words, offered this comparison of Sen. Joe Biden's ten-year average charitable contribution with that of others with six-figure adjusted gross incomes:

Joe Biden vs. Other Taxpayer Groups

I don't quite match the $100k-$200k group — of course, I only have a five-figure income. But Biden donates just a little more than a tenth of what I do. And less than 2% of what others with $200k+ incomes give.

I don't begrudge him his stinginess — it's his money, and he has every right to do with it as he pleases. But he has a lot of nerve calling people like me greedy for opposing higher taxes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Boxer tries to stop Coburn from delivering babies for free

Posted by Richard on August 19, 2008

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has long been a taxpayer hero and a thorn in the side of the porkmeisters and spendthrifts. Along with Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Richard Burr (R-NC), he received a 100% score on the Club for Growth's 2007 Senate RePORK Card, voting for 15 of 15 anti-pork amendments.

In fact, Coburn introduced many of these amendments. And he's a non-partisan enemy of earmarks, corrupt backscratching, and profligate spending — when Republicans controlled the Senate, he fought against his own party leadership just as hard. It was Coburn who tried to block Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK, Indicted) infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," prompting Stevens to threaten to resign if Coburn's amendment passed. Now that he's been indicted, maybe some of the Republicans who helped defeat the amendment wish they'd taken Stevens up on his offer.

So why is Sen. Barbara Boxer's Ethics Committee going after Coburn? Because the senator, an obstetrician who prefers to be called "Dr. Coburn," is supposedly guilty of an ethics violation for delivering the babies of poor and at-risk Oklahoma women — for free. 

Coburn used to charge just enough to cover his costs, something he'd been doing since serving in the House with its Ethics Committee's blessing. That wasn't good enough for the Senate Ethics Committee, which has taken time out from investigating sweetheart loans for senators to go after Coburn. Debra Saunders thinks she knows why:

The Senate Ethics Committee allows big-buck book deals for U.S. senators, but in a May memorandum, it told Coburn, "you are allowed to practice medicine if you provide such services for free." So he started working for nothing.


Even free wasn't good enough. After the Muskogee Regional Medical Center, where he practices, was taken over by a for-profit operation, the committee told Coburn to cease "providing any and all medical services" by June 22, pursuant to Senate Rule 37 on conflicts of interest. Coburn could practice medicine only as a solo practitioner, for a private entity that provides services for free, or for a government or tribal health facility.


What's really going on here? The senator — who prefers to be called Dr. Coburn — has been a thorn in the side of both big-spending Republicans and Democrats. He calls earmarks "the gateway drug" to Washington's spending addiction. …

The savvy observer has to conclude that because Coburn has challenged Senate pork, the Ethics Committee essentially is willing to stick it to poor pregnant women, who might benefit from a free delivery.


It's a tactical blunder. If the committee continues to push for a public reprimand, Coburn has the right to ask for a full Senate vote. While Boxer may not mind coming across as petty and vindictive, other senators might hesitate before publicly bullying a man for delivering babies for free.


As Coburn spokesman John Hart noted, there have been many stories about lawmakers, their friends and families profiting from earmarks, but "no one has ever chosen to have Dr. Coburn deliver her baby in order to sway his vote."

Regardless of what you think of his politics (and I love his fiscal conservatism, but am put off by his social conservatism), Sen. Coburn is clearly one of the cleanest members of Congress. For the Senate Ethics Committee to divert its attention from the many members larding up bills with earmarks, doing favors for campaign contributers, getting below-market loans, etc., etc., in order to go after Dr. Coburn for delivering babies for free — well, it's an outrage. 

If you're represented by a member of the Senate Ethics Committee, please let them know what you think of this clearly vindictive and outrageous harrassment of Sen. (Dr.) Coburn. The committee members are Sens. Boxer (D-CA), Pryor (D-AK), Salazar (D-CO), Cornyn (R-TX), Roberts (R-KS), and Isakson (R-GA).

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

ID required

Posted by Richard on August 15, 2008

The Obama campaign began notifying people this afternoon that they've been granted tickets to the August 28th Invesco Field coronation. But the lucky recipients still have to appear in person and prove their identity (emphasis added):

The first Coloradans to be notified were contacted Thursday afternoon. Everyone getting a ticket will be notified by Friday night, the Obama campaign said.

Tickets must be picked up in person on Saturday or Sunday at one of 13 Obama campaign offices across the state. Those picking up a ticket must show a photo ID then activate their ticket online, by phone or in person by Aug. 19.

That strikes me as pretty funny. These are the same liberal progressive community-organizer types who've fought tooth and nail for years against requiring voters to present IDs. They're the same people who denounce every attempt to fight vote fraud — the kind facilitated by all the fake registered voters created by ACORN, the far-left activist group for which Obama worked — as voter intimidation, discrimination, and the chilling of political expression. 

More audacity of arrogance. More leftist self-righteousness. The standards that they want to apply to everyone else don't apply to them. Because, after all, they're noble and good and have only the best of intentions. They can do whatever they want because they're doing it to make this a better world!

BTW, the campaign still insists that there was no extortion or pressure to volunteer, and that tickets were awarded in a completely fair manner:

The campaign is standing by its original statement. It said all requests for credentials are being honored in the order they were received.

A number of commenters here tell a different story. The people who signed up within minutes of the announcement and were wait-listed have a reasonable suspicion that they got screwed. But the poor saps who actually completed their volunteer work and still got wait-listed — well, they've really been played for fools.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »