Category Archives: Uncategorized

Obama: Tax The Banks

Posted on by
Of course. That makes sense. Tax the banks. From AP News:
WASHINGTON (AP) – Mindful of soaring deficits and an anti-Wall Street mood, President Barack Obama wants a new 10-year tax on the country’s largest banks to cover a projected $117 billion shortfall in the government’s financial crisis bailout fund.

The president planned to propose Thursday a levy of 15 basis points, or 0.15 percent, on the liabilities of large financial institutions to make sure every dollar spent from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to rescue Wall Street firms, auto companies and mortgage holders is either repaid or paid for. Congress would have to approve the tax.

Mr Obama, you are simply astounding in your ignorance and arrogance. After you threatened the banks if they didn’t take your federal dollars, now you’re going to tax American banks?

Mr Obama, are you aware that banks exist to make loans and hold assets? They don’t make money over foreclosures. And whom do you think will pay these taxes? Surely not the banks; it will only be, once again, the American Taxpayer. You spout Populist Pap.

Demorat House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank takes the Audacity Cake for insanity when he said:

“Look, the financial institutions collectively, particularly the larger ones, caused problems by their errors – their errors of judgment, their irresponsibility, in some cases their skating around dishonesty. I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the industry that, A, caused these problems more than any other and, B, benefited from the activity, should be contributing.”

However, Republican Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas nailed it: “To think that banks will loan more money if you tax them is beyond economic ignorance.”

It doesn’t take a rapier-like wit to figure this out.

BZ
 Share

1. The Council of Governors; 2. The Rand Report: 3. Universal Voter Registration

Posted on by

1. Council of Governors:

From UPI.com on the 11th:

“President Barack Obama Monday established a panel of state governors to collaborate with Washington on a variety of potential emergencies, the White House said.”

“Obama signed an executive order establishing a panel to be known as the Council of Governors, which will be made up of 10 state governors, to be selected by the president to serve two-year terms. Members will review matters involving the National Guard; homeland defense; civil support; and synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States, the White House said in a statement.

“The statement said the White House would seek input from governors and governors’ association (sic) in deciding which governors to appoint to the council, which will have no more than five governors from the same party.

“The secretaries of defense and homeland security will also sit on the council, as will presidential assistants for homeland security and counter-terrorism, intergovernmental affairs, the U.S. Northern Command commander, the commander of the East Coast Guard, and the chief of the National Guard Bureau.

“The panel was set up under a provision of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, the White House said.”

Here is a PDF file of the White House press release.

Of course, you’ve not heard or read much of this in the American press. I had to check the Canadian press before I found something that would question the “why?” of this Executive Order:

Quietly—even stealthily—in the opening days of the New Year, President Barack Obama has set up a “Council of Governors”.

Like the 30-plus czars running America with neither the people’s nor the congress’s blessings, the Council of Governors is already a done deal.

“Is this a first step towards Martial Law, or a tie to the InterPol, RAND National Police Force stuff we’ve been hearing about,” asked a Texas patriot who tipped off Canada Free Press (CFP) after finding news of the new Council of Governors on Twitter. “Is this a sort of Homeland Security Politburo?

Even the — gulp! — LA Times questions this move.

And so I ask you, put on your Thinking Caps and answer this question: why a Council of Governors”? Why another bureaucratic body? Why now?

Then read:

2. The Rand Report: U.S. Needs a “National Stability Force”:

From the Rand Report entitled “Reorganizing US Domestic Intelligence, Assessing The Options (PDF file available here):

Our analysis clearly indicates that the United States needs an SPF or some other way to accomplish the SPF mission. Stability operations have become an inescapable reality of U.S. foreign policy. Establishing security with soldiers and police is critical because it is difficult to achieve other objectives—such as rebuilding political and economic systems—without it.

The cost of not fixing this gap is significant. The United States will continue to experience major challenges in stability operations if it does not have this policing capacity. These challenges include creating the ability to establish basic law and order, as well as defeat or deter criminal organizations, terrorists, and insurgents. In some cases, allied countries may be able to fill this gap. Allies did this effectively in Bosnia and Kosovo, both of which were successful in establishing security. In other cases, the United States may not be able to count on allied support. The United States should not depend on allies to supply these capabilities, because doing so would limit U.S. freedom of action on the international stage. Consequently, the United States should seriously consider building a high-end police capacity.

Then please note this:

The ability of SPF personnel to act in a law–enforcement capacity while in the United States [my emphasis: BZ]. One important aspect of the return on investment from an SPF option is what SPF personnel do when not deployed. Given that an SPF will be deployed one out of every three years at most for active duty options and one out of six for reserve options, whether its members can perform law enforcement functions and so contribute to domestic tranquility and homeland defense when not deployed will have a major impact on whether an option is cost-effective. Two categories of options—military units and contractors—cannot do so under current statutes and regulations.

What would have to be repealed? Oh, that’s right, American Constitutional law:

In particular, for the MP option to be as cost-effective as possible, relief from the Posse Comitatus Act [which forbids the US Army from being used in law enforcement in the United States] (again, my emphasis: BZ) would be required to permit its members to perform domestic law enforcement functions.

Others blogging this:
– Yid With Lid
– Goomba News Network

3. Universal Voter Registration:

The Nation, back in May of last year, wrote:

Between 2 and 4 million Americans were unable to vote in the last election because of problems with their registration. And that’s just people who tried to vote; in 2006, there were more than 65 million who were eligible to vote, but weren’t even registered. That’s a third of potential voters.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Registration rates in other countries frequently run upwards of 90 percent (both Canada and France hit that mark, for example, while Venezuela stands at roughly 94 percent, and Russia about 97). Now reformers are seizing the moment to use existing law to expand registration, as well as considering new laws that could finally put the United States on an equal footing with many of the world’s other democracies.

So, what to do, asks Debbie at Right Truth?

The plan, as I understand it, is to use existing welfare rolls, state unemployment rolls, property tax rolls, driver licenses rolls, and who know what other lists. Next the Democrats will attempt to get amnesty for illegal aliens, get them covered under the government health care (if and when it passes), and they will be registered to vote.

In response, I say: interesting. Have the federal government overrule state law, mandate registration from the rolls of persons whose sole job is to demand more Free Cheese, just so the government can propagate and — wait for it — if the individual forced voter chooses, they can let the government vote for them by proxy!

It just doesn’t get any better than that, does it?

BZ

 Share