Posts Tagged ‘democrats’
Posted by Richard on September 17, 2009
Jimmy Carter — America's worst president (so far), the man who helped Hugo Chavez steal an election, the vicious anti-Semite whose hateful and dishonest book about Israel has been endorsed by Osama bin Laden, the man who never met a left-wing dictator he didn't like — has declared that both Rep. Joe Wilson's heckle and the "overwhelming majority" of other criticisms of the President are rooted in racism.
And Carter is far from alone. That claim has been echoed by a growing number of Democratic politicians, Chris Matthews, ABC "News," NBC "News," Maureen Dowd, … the list is long.
So if the 55% of Americans (and 65% of doctors) who oppose government-controlled health care are overwhelmingly racist, how did a black man get elected President? If Republicans and conservatives are all racists, how is it possible that Obama got more Republican votes and conservative votes than John Kerry got? Did they only notice his skin color after the "stimulus" package, nationalization of the auto companies, massive spending increases, and attempt to take over health care?
The charge of racism has become the left's all-purpose weapon to stifle criticism and put their opponents on the defensive. But it's grown tiresome and annoying, and I think they've gone to that well once too often. According to a new Rasmussen poll, only 12% of voters agree that most opponents of government-controlled health care are racists. Even among Democrats, only 22% agree. Predictably, 88% of Republicans reject the idea, but significantly, so do 78% of those unaffiliated with either party.
I suspect the left's attempt to smear all opposition as racist will backfire. But in the meantime, it does serious harm to the public discourse in this country. They should be ashamed.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: carter, demagoguery, democrats, health care, intimidation, leftists, media bias, obama, racism | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on September 11, 2009
Rep. Dianne DeGette (D-CO1) initially declined to meet with the peasants in person, opting to hold only a "phone forum" on health care during the recess. But apparently, she's seen the light — or felt the heat. Or maybe she now sees such meetings as an opportunity to rally her mostly leftist constituents into action in support of government-controlled health care.
DeGette hosted a health care meeting last Thursday morning (convenient for government workers and the unemployed), and now she's scheduled another for this coming Saturday (via email):
When: Saturday, September 12 at 10:00 AM
Where: South High School's Auditorium (1700 E Louisiana Ave Denver)
What: Discussion with constituents of the First Congressional District about health insurance reform
There is no RSVP process. Entrance will be granted on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 9:15 AM.
As you know, Congress is currently debating legislation that aims to provide health care coverage for all Americans and reduce costs. I appreciate your communication on this issue and hope that you will continue to share your thoughts with me.
Please check my Web site (http://degette.house.gov) for other upcoming events.
If you're in the Denver area and free, I suspect attending the ACT! for America "Citizens in Action" Conference with Brigitte Gabriel would be a better use of your time. But if you're inclined to express yourself on health care, by all means go for it. But be prepared with a knowledgeable comment or a tough question or two. You might want to take a look at key parts of H.R. 3200 (PDF, 1018 pages), or at least take a look at John David Lewis's excerpts and analyses regarding nine important questions, including the issue of health care rationing.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: colorado, congress, democrats, denver, health care | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on September 2, 2009
Congresswoman Dianne DeGette is meeting with constituents this Thursday about health care. In person this time, unlike her earlier "phone forum." Of course, it's mid-morning on a weekday, so those of us who are gainfully employed are pretty much shut out unless we want to take time off from work. I'm going to pass, but if you're free (and one of her constituents — they'll probably check IDs), by all means attend. Here are the details:
When: Thursday, September 3 at 10:00 AM
Where: The Molly Blank Conference Center, National Jewish Health (1400 Jackson Street, Denver)
What: Discussion with constituents of the First Congressional District about health insurance reform
As you know, Congress is currently debating legislation that aims to provide health care coverage for all Americans and reduce costs. I appreciate your communication on this issue and hope that you will continue to share your thoughts with me.
Please check my Web site (http://degette.house.gov) for other upcoming events.
If you go, maybe you could ask her why H.R. 3200 mandates fewer choices instead of more (only four "qualified" plans are allowed, and their coverage, deductibles, co-pays, etc., are strictly defined) and why Health Savings Account plans are not allowed. And please report back in the comments.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: colorado, congress, democrats, denver, health care | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on August 30, 2009
Since I still haven't posted a report on Friday's rally in support of government-controlled health care and I'm feeling lazy today, I'll refer you to El Marco's excellent report and photo essay.
Especially noteworthy: The line to enter the rally site moved slowly, as staff members with clipboards required attendees to put down their name and address to be allowed in. Those who asked were told it was a security thing. Later, Rep. Ed Perlmutter thanked everyone for signing and said the names would be sent to Washington to show support for Obamacare.
The Saturday Denver Post story lived down to their usual standard (I really miss the Rocky; their reporting certainly wasn't without its problems, but at least they didn't always err on the same side). For instance, reporter Mike McPhee said this:
About 50 to 60 protesters stood off the school grounds, across West 32nd Avenue, waving banners. Their chants were drowned out by the much larger, noisier crowd.
Fail. We weren't across West 32nd. We were on the same side of the street as the high school (the rally location). Our chants weren't drowned out because we weren't chanting.
Oh, people would shout things from time to time (usually in response to something shouted our way by the l'Obamatized attendees passing by us). And then there was the Paulian woman who kept shouting "arrest the banksters!" when she wasn't trying to tell people the "troof" about 9/11. (It disturbs me that for over a decade, I lent financial support to Ron Paul and thus helped in some way to make this insane movement possible.)
McPhee's story did provide a quote from Rep. Perlmutter that, if accurate, is quite revealing regarding his understanding of the Constitution and the difference between government and private businesses:
"My daughter has epilepsy, and she's being discriminated against because of her prior condition," he told the cheering crowd. "We're not going to let her get pushed aside.
"Under the 14th Amendment, we are guaranteed equal protection. People with prior conditions are not being protected."
I shake my head in sadness and disbelief.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: colorado, democrats, denver, health care, leftists, propaganda, rally | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on August 28, 2009
I've been meaning to post something about the vandalizing of state Democratic Party headquarters a couple of days ago. Around 3 AM, someone smashed a bunch of their windows with a hammer. The windows targeted were the ones with pro-Obamacare signs in them. There was immediate tsk-tsking about "right-wing extremists" and efforts to link this at least in spirit to the Tea Party movement, the "raucous" town hall attendees, and the Republican Party. Among those doing so was Democratic Party State Chair Pat Waak (emphasis added):
"We ought to be having a serious, conscientious debate about what's best for the country," Waak said. "Clearly there's been an effort on the other side to stir up hate. I think this is the consequence of it."
But this is the age of Google and online data. After one of the perps, Maurice Schwenkler, was arrested, it took about 15 minutes to discover that he is a radical leftist who last fall worked for the Colorado Citizens Coalition, an SEIU front organization that worked on behalf of Democratic candidates. Its major contributors included the AFL-CIO, NARAL, and two of the ultra-rich leftists who over the past few election cycles have bought the State of Colorado for the Democrats, Tim Gill and Pat Stryker.
Schwenkler was also arrested at the Republican National Convention. So much for the "right-wing extremists" meme. Tell DHS they can go back to researching the "right-wing threat" on those wacko leftist websites from which they've been getting their best information.
The People Press Collective has been all over this from the beginning and has everything you'll ever want to know. Start at the bottom of the post and work your way up through the baker's dozen updates.
As an earlier PPC post put it, this was "More Reichstag Fire than Kristallnacht."
If you're as smart as I thing you are (you're reading this, aren't you?), you won't be surprised to learn that the Democrats aren't offering any apologies.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: colorado, democrats, health care, leftists, politics, propaganda | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on August 20, 2009
Bob Bidinotto sees right through the Senate's "co-op alternative" to the much-reviled "public option":
Understand that the “co-op” would be funded by the government (i.e., the taxpayers). More importantly, to get admission into the co-op, insurers would have to abide by the new governmental regulations regarding coverage, treatments, premiums, etc.
…
… This is no liberal “retreat” from governmental health care. The new “co-op” is explicitly intended to be “a competitor to private insurers.” While ObamaCare would inject this new government entity into the healthcare marketplace, it simultaneously would:
1. Impose onerous, costly new mandates on private insurers
2. Mandate participation by unwilling individuals and small businesses, under penalty of whopping fines
3. Outlaw any private insurers that refused to adopt the new government-imposed rules
4. Compel taxpayers to fund the arrangement
Eventually, inevitably, the only private insurers that could survive this arrangement would have to operate like branch offices of the Medicare program — simply administering government “mandated” coverage, services, treatments, medicines, etc.
Rather than “single payer” socialized medicine, then, this would be more like fascist medicine: a merely nominal “private” system, in which a handful of big health care insurers and providers took their marching orders from the federal government.
The problem isn't the co-op, or even the public option. It's the rest of the bill. I've actually read most of H.R. 3200 (PDF) — admittedly, I skimmed much of the 1018 pages. I haven't seen any of the 3 or 4 Senate versions (no one has; only portions have been printed and released), but I suspect the fundamental features are the similar in all of them.
The House bill strictly defines 3 levels of health insurance coverage and loosely defines a fourth, "premium plus" level, and these are the only policies that private insurers could legally offer. That's not just to get admission to the co-op, as Bidinotto believes, but to do business at all.
Every conceivable aspect of how health care is insured, provided, assessed, and reimbursed is mandated in excrutiating detail. All of that, and the 4 points Bidinotto listed above, would be there even if neither a "public option" nor a "co-op" were included. And Bidinotto's conclusion would still be the case.
With or without a public option, with or without a co-op, with or without whatever other fillips they come up with or sops to squishy Republicans they propose, the Democrats' plan to "reform" health care will be an abomination, a monstrosity, an unmitigated evil that a free people cannot tolerate and must stop.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bureaucracy, democrats, health care, medicine, nanny state, obama | 3 Comments »
Posted by Richard on August 14, 2009
With a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate and a 78-seat majority in the House, the Democratic leadership can theoretically pass anything it wants without a single Republican vote. So those of us who oppose government-controlled health care have been looking to the Blue Dog Democrats in the House, along with some other Democrats in vulnerable districts, to stop or slow the Obamacare juggernaut.
The Blue Dogs are supposedly fiscally responsible Democrats, many of whom were first elected in 2006 or 2008 by positioning themselves as center-right candidates. The health care issue would seem to be the perfect place for them to demonstrate their commitment to their campaign promises. But will they?
The Blue Dogs and other vulnerable Democrats are caught between a rock and a hard place. If they go against their party leadership, their lives will be made extremely miserable. But if they toe the party line on an increasingly unpopular measure that has ignited extreme passions, they're likely to be looking for work in a little over a year.
Pelosi faces no such difficult choice, according to Robert Romano. She just needs to command the loyalty of the troops she's prepared to sacrifice:
Nancy Pelosi does not care if the passage of ObamaCare costs her seats in the House come 2010. She has already done a head count. And she knows exactly how many Blue Dogs and other vulnerable Democrats in that chamber she can spare in 2010 to fully enact her and Barack Obama’s radical agenda to quickly implement a government takeover the health care system.
Call them the Blue Dog “Forlorn Hope Brigade.” The real Forlorn Hope Brigade was nicknamed after the French army pawns that would always be the first to charge into battle, with little to no hope of survival. They were in essence cannon fodder. But they were told to think of the glory. To know that their sacrifices were for a good cause.
And that’s the position Pelosi and Obama have put the Blue Dogs into. They are now the sacrificial lambs by which to enact an agenda that is almost alien to the American people. They gave the radicals in the Democrat Party the numbers they needed to achieve a majority in 2006.
And if 30 or so of them must now be sacrificed to achieve that end, then that’s just what Pelosi is going to do. They’re expendable.
So the question is: will the Democrats' Forlorn Hope Brigade obediently sacrifice themselves for a cause that by all rights they should oppose? The future of health care in America — maybe even the future of liberty — may depend on the answer.
And the answer may depend on you, and me, and all our friends and neighbors. The emails, cards, and letters we write, the phone calls we make, the petitions we sign, the rallies and meetings we attend, and the responses we give to pollsters all help shape the mood of the country and affect the decisions of those Blue Dogs.
Let's do everything we can to help them make the right decision.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: centrists, congress, democrats, health care, pelosi | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on August 13, 2009
Judging from Rasmussen's latest poll of likely voters, the Democrats are practically engaging in assisted suicide (assisted by the mainstream media) by pushing government-controlled health care:
For the first time in over two years of polling, voters trust Republicans slightly more than Democrats on the handling of the issue of health care. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that voters favor the GOP on the issue 44% to 41%.
Democrats held a four-point lead on the issue last month and a 10-point lead in June. For most of the past two years, more than 50% of voters said they trusted Democrats on health care. The latest results mark the lowest level of support measured for the party on the now-contentious issue.
Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low with just 42% of U.S. voters now in favor of it. That’s down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.
Overall, Republicans lead Democrats in terms of voter trust on eight out of 10 key issues for the second consecutive month, and the two are tied on one issue.
Republican candidates continue to hold a modest lead over Democrats for the seventh straight week in the Generic Congressional Ballot.
Only on the issue of government ethics do voters trust the Democrats more than the Republicans. But the lead is narrow, 34% – 31%, and the combined total of a mere 65% suggests that many, many people don't trust either party very much.
In Rasmussen's daily tracking poll , the Presidential Approval Index is at -8. The index is calculated by subtracting the percentage who strongly disapprove, 37%, from the percentage who strongly approve, 29%. Obama's total approval score (strongly plus somewhat) is now at 47%, the lowest level Rasmussen has yet recorded, while 52% disapprove. It should be especially worrisome to Democrats that 65% of unaffiliated voters now disapprove.
Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democrats and support for government-controlled health care have thrown a one-two punch at his re-election hopes. In the span of two months, Specter has gone from a double-digit lead over Republican Pat Toomey (of the Club for Growth) to a double-digit deficit (36% – 48%), and his lead in the Democratic primary race is starting to slip.
It warms the cockles of my heart that apparently there are still plenty of Americans who have no use for arrogant, condescending busybodies who think they know what's best for us and are thus entitled to run our lives.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: congress, democrats, gop, health care, politics, polls, public opinion, republicans | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on July 16, 2009
Remember that incredible chart back in 1993 showing how Hillary Clinton's health care plan would work? House Republicans have created a similarly striking graphic explaining the House Democrats' version of Obamacare:
Here's the full-sized chart (PDF).
Excuse me, I have to go lie down. Just looking at their health care plan makes me feel sick.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bureaucracy, congress, democrats, health care | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on July 10, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports Presidential Approval Index is at -7 today. The index is calculated from Rasmussen's daily Presidential Tracking Poll of likely voters by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove (37%) from the number who strongly approve (30%) of the President's performance. Overall, approval still has a slight edge (51% – 48%), but it's safe to say the honeymoon is over.
Rasmussen's recent Trust on Issues polling should give Democrats pause:
Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They've also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that voters trust the GOP more on economic issues 46% to 41%, showing little change from the six-point lead the party held last month. This is just the second time in over two years of polling the GOP has held the advantage on economic issues. The parties were close on the issue in May, with the Democrats holding a one-point lead.
Voters not affiliated with either party trust Republicans more to handle the economy by a 46% to 32% margin.
…
Most voters (52%) now trust Republicans more on the issue of taxes, also the highest level found in over two years. Only 36% trust Democrats more on taxes. …
…
Republicans also edge out Democrats on government ethics and corruption for the second straight month, 34% to 33%. In June, the GOP held a six-point advantage on the issue.
Also for the first time in over two years, Republicans lead Democrats on the issue of Social Security 42% to 37%. Democrats held a six-point lead on the issue last month, and the parties were tied in April.
Democrats have also seen their leads shrink on two of the party’s strong points, health care and education. The party holds a four-point lead on health care, down from 18 points in May. The Democrats’ advantage on the issue is the smallest found in over two years.
Maybe most Americans aren't ready to embrace the Democrats' headlong rush toward socialism and a massively more powerful, pervasive, and expensive government. One can only hope.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: democrats, obama, polls | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on May 16, 2009
This revelation comes as no surprise to me. And of course, it comes far too late to matter:
Rick Strandlof, executive director of the Colorado Veterans Alliance and the man most colleagues knew as Rick Duncan, was front and center during the 2008 political campaigns in Colorado.
He spoke at a Barack Obama veterans rally in front of the Capitol in July, co-hosted several events with then- congressional candidate Jared Polis and attacked Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer in a TV ad paid for by the national group Votevets.org.
And the mostly Democratic candidates he supported — looking for credibility on veterans issues and the war — lapped it up appreciatively.
Mostly Democratic? Care to name a Republican candidate whom Strandlof campaigned for or supported, Mr. Riley? I didn't think so.
Now, politicians are dealing with news that the man they believed to be a former Marine and war veteran wounded in Iraq by a roadside bomb, in fact, never served in the military — but did spend time in a mental hospital.
There've been so many fake anti-war vets over the years, I swear there must be a secret training center churning them out. It's probably funded by the Heinz Foundation.
CVA wasn't registered as a political organization until well after the campaigns were over, and then only at the state level despite being active in federal campaigns.
And although he claimed to represent 32,000 veterans — the biggest post- 9/11 vets group in Colorado — Strandlof always showed up at events with the same small number of supporters, and there were few concrete signs he represented more than a close circle he had gathered around him.
"Nobody really fully trusted any of those numbers. . . . He had a few dozen people who were helping him out. He claimed to have a huge mailing list that no one ever saw. The VFW, the American Legion, none of those traditional veterans groups had ever heard of him," said one prominent veterans activist who worked for Democratic candidates during the campaign and who spoke on condition of anonymity.
They didn't trust the numbers, huh? Well, the Dems sure bandied them about a lot during the campaign to show how much support they supposedly had among vets.
Political candidates and activists cynically manipulating public opinion with false information, and journalists accepting everything an anti-war Democrat says at face value, no matter how suspect or improbable — those come as no surprise to me either.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: colorado, democrats, elections, fraud, politics | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on May 15, 2009
Some people in Chicago are upset because the government is mailing $250 stimulus checks to dead people — not the recently deceased, mind you, but people who died in the 1960s and 70s.
It doesn't sound all that unusual to me. I mean, isn't this just another way for Democrats to reward their loyal voters? <rimshot />
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: democrats, humor, voting | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on April 29, 2009
GM = Government Motors.
I thought the Obama administration was going to recreate the bad old days of the Carter administration in the 70s. But now I'm beginning to suspect they have grander ambitions — maybe emulating the British Labour Party governments of the 50s, nationalizing major industries. They've certainly started down that road.
Like his pal, Hugo Chavez, President Obama doesn't mind screwing the existing owners and creditors of the firms he nationalizes. Especially if he can redistribute their wealth in the process.
Of course, without a government takeover, GM faces bankruptcy, so the stockholders would almost certainly get nothing in any case. But bondholders are supposed to be near the front of the line in a bankruptcy and are supposed to be treated equally, aren't they?
Not in the Obama Plan. The numbers differ a bit from one source to another, but broadly speaking, the Obama Plan apparently divides up GM as follows:
- The United Auto Workers union, in exchange for its $10 billion in GM bonds, gets almost 40% of the company.
- The U.S. government, in exchange for about $15 billion it loaned to GM, gets 50% of the company.
- The remaining bondholders, in exchange for the $24-27 billion they loaned to GM, get just 10% of the company.
Outrageous. So will there be a public outcry from the victims? I suspect not much. Most of the people getting screwed may never realize it. They don't own GM bonds directly, they own mutual funds (probably via their 401k) that hold GM debt. The value of those mutual funds will go down without the investors really being aware of the reason, unless they pore over the annual report.
And don't expect the media to do their usual heart-wrenching human interest stories profiling the poor pensioners, widows, and orphans who are being robbed of their savings. Most members of the media are completely infatuated with Obama, and their sympathies lie with the perpetrators of this crime, not the victims.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bailout, democrats, economy, obama, socialism | Leave a Comment »
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: bailout, demagoguery, democrats, economy, hypocrisy, obama, pork | Leave a Comment »
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: bailout, demagoguery, democrats, economy, hypocrisy, obama, pork | Leave a Comment »
