If you liked the Stimulus Package and the Omnibus Spending Bill - a $1.2 Trillion dollar giveaway from the Democrat Party to the Democrat Party, you've got to love the College Financing boondoggle that's unfolded over the past 15 years.
On that subject there's been some recent and interesting developments in Higher Education here in my home state of Texas (and no doubt duplicated nationwide) and those developments reinforce the fact that government-guaranteed college loans like the Texas Tomorrow Fund are nothing more than a scam indistinguishable from the Mortgage lending practices promoted by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. In both cases, government guaranteed loans promoted speculation, hyperinflation and eventually disaster.
For some background, the Texas Tomorrow Fund guaranteed parents a college education for their children with the "investment" of a fraction of the actual cost of that education, roughly $12,000 over ten years. The contributions were invested in stocks, bonds, money markets and other investment vehicles. The theory was that the fund would grow with the stock market, and that the cost of a college education in the future would not exceed the "present value" estimates of the Fund's managers.
Right out of the blocks, there were at least three things that stunk to High Heaven about this Plan. In order to be successful:
- Government employees would need to be able to predict inflation in the Education market.
- Government employees would need to produce an investment return that exceeded the inflation of Education costs.
- Government employees would need to be able to predict both the supply and demand for College Education, and how low-cost government-subsidized financing programs would affect both.
Since Government employees at all levels are not known for their ability to balance their own budgets, much less predict markets and long-term investment trends, the Fund's managers were also oblivious of the fact that the very Plan they implemented would distort the market for Higher Education, and blow all of their financial projections out of the water, with Taxpayers left holding the bag.
Here's where the comparison with no-obligation, no-down payment government-backed mortgages comes into play. Because both tuition and mortgages were backed by "the full faith and credit" of taxpayers, the price of both an Education and homes have skyrocketed since the mid-90's. In the case of EZ mortgage credit, that strategy created millions of over-valued homes and an unsustainable glut of inventory which precipitated the crash of the stock market. In the case of the Texas Tomorrow Fund, it caused Texas in-state tuition to almost triple in the past fifteen years against a relatively static supply, making the Texas Tomorrow Texas Fund insolvent well before the Stock Market crash of last year. Ironically, the mortgage-induced stock market crash only made things geometrically worse for TTF.
And in both cases, it is only responsible Taxpayers who got the short end of the stick: the ones who bought a house they could afford, or put aside money themselves for their children's tuition.
On the heels of these State-sponsored disasters, George W. Bush and his successor Barack Obama decided to double down on the fiscal irresponsibility by a) squeezing private lenders out of the college loan business, and b) then setting up sweetheart re-payment schedules on all existing and future loans that virtually assure that they will be paid off to the tune of mere pennies on the dollar. On one of OffHisMed's favorite topics, the new repayment programs being created will allow Government Employees to default on their loans after a mere 10 years, whereas anybody in the Private Sector will have to wait 15 years.
The results of these new initiatives on college loans is that most students in America will qualify for a heavily taxpayer-subsidized college education, with the prospect of a tiny repayment spread out over ten or fifteen years upon completion. Perversely, these initiatives will compete with participation in investment funds like TTF, further exacerbating their decline.
The net of all this will of course result in yet more hyper-inflation in college tuition, since a) the investment in a Fund or the repayment on loans represents a risk-free commitment of only a fraction of the actual cost of an education; b) universities will be relieved of any necessity to control costs by competing for business; and c) demand will far outstrip supply, allowing our universities to further lard themselves with Education specialists of all stripes, each working at least four hours per day, and loafing their way to a 75% pension after twenty year's of a part-time job, causing a back-end deficit that our politicians have not even begun - or care - to contemplate.
So there you have it: State taxpayers are currently on the hook for untold billions in guaranteed tuition because a bunch of social engineers decided they were Wall Street Whizzes; taxpayer subsidized loans to those disinclined to save can be defaulted on by their recipients; and both of these will be indexed or re-legislated in the future to match Inflation in the Education sector, costing taxpayers yet further untold billions in the decades to come.
And there's no end in sight.
It's understandable that Democrats support such Boondoggles, since they are immune to an understanding of even basic market concepts, and inflated government spending of any type perpetuates their political advantage. Thus, the Stimulus Package and the Omnibus Spending Bill are of a piece with giveways in the Education sector.
It's worse when Republicans - supposedly the fiscally responsible party - support the subsidy of unsustainable Education spending just as enthusiastically. They should have protested both just as vigorously as they protested the Stimulus Package.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Protest Equals Racism
So, if criticizing President Obama is racist, according to his defenders, not liking the dude must really be racist. I love the double standard, particularly considering the number of times Barack Obama has thrown George W. Bush under the bus in the past two years whilst dodging any accusations of Racism. That aside, let me be the first on my block to admit I don't like Obama, and that I don't like him specifically because he is - as Congressman Joe Wilson described him - a liar. Now, my only objection to old Joe was his timing. His analysis was spot on.
The knee-jerk rebuttal of Obama's apologists is three-fold: 1) that his accusers are misrepresenting his policies; 2) that all politicians lie, and thus, that Obama is held to a double-standard; and 3) they complain that he's been in office a mere eight months and thus, his critics have not "given him a chance".
Taking each argument in turn, Obama's problem is that 1) he is repeatedly "caught on tape" contradicting his own claims as regards his policies; 2) his lies are not garden-variety lies; they are world class lies, unexposed to scrutiny by a complicit Media and unexamined by a large but diminishing percentage of an Electorate still grooving on the Obama election Vibe; and 3) it is the very point that he has peddled so many whoppers in so short a period of time that has given not just Republicans but Moderates the heebie-jeebies.
As to OffHisMed's particular animus, I can sum it up in a few words by observing that I dislike Barack Obama no more - and in most instances less - than most of those who are fixtures in the Democrat Party; people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry and Al Gore. They are all white, of course, and their history as liars goes much farther back than his; the problem is that, as President, he is in a position to do ever so much more damage.
To cite particular examples of Obama's lies, consider his latest: Per Obama, conservative opponents are ruining the prospects for a "civil debate" on the Health Care issue with their angry protests. And yet, this is the President who tried to ram through Health Care reform before the August recess without an opportunity to even understand it's contents, much less debate them. It's interesting that his reverence for "civil" debate only developed once his uncivil attempt to subvert democracy was shoved back in his face.
For another example, his singular legislative achievement has been to ram through a $1.2 Trillion dollar "stimulus" bill, again without any time allotted to inform the public and debate its merits, but represented by Obama as a responsible use of taxpayer funds, and vital if we were to avoid disaster. Only later did we appreciate that it was a $1.2 Trillion dollar gift to Democrat politicians and special interest groups, and that the money did nothing to slow the Recession, despite Obama's claims that it would hold Unemployment under 8.5%.
For yet another example, there is his enthusiastic embracement, and then jittery rejection of ACORN, an outfit apparently devoted to Election Fraud and counseling Pimps on the best means to acquire government backed mortgages so as to set up houses of prostitution stocked with underage girls. Obama dropped their name repeatedly during the campaign, his ties to ACORN are long and deep, and his Stimulus bill proposed to give ACORN $8 Billion (160 times more than the $50 million they've gotten since 1994), and to make them the lead organization on the new Census. By his words and deeds, it certainly sounds like he and ACORN were thick as thieves. Now, he acts like he never knew 'em.
Shades of Obama denying Reverend Jeremiah Wright and William Ayres. Radical lefties must feel like Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, with Barack playing the role of Peter, the only difference being that Obama's denied them a lot more than three times, and there's no reliable evidence that any cock crowed, which would have been handy, was Obama inclined to keep score.
Of course, that's assuming that Obama's strategy is not simply to lie low until the controversy has passed and ACORN enacts some superficial reforms, followed in three month's time by Obama reinstating them as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, as well as the orgy of funding in his Stimulus Package.
We could do this all day. The bottom line is that no other politician much less president in modern times has generated so many colossal whoppers in such a short period of time, and so far, with impunity.
Whether or not the pattern of lies continues depends greatly on the inclination of the American people - in the face of all those lies - to yet further suspend disbelief, and their willingness to accept that if they criticize him, they must be Racists.
The trend does not favor Obama.
The knee-jerk rebuttal of Obama's apologists is three-fold: 1) that his accusers are misrepresenting his policies; 2) that all politicians lie, and thus, that Obama is held to a double-standard; and 3) they complain that he's been in office a mere eight months and thus, his critics have not "given him a chance".
Taking each argument in turn, Obama's problem is that 1) he is repeatedly "caught on tape" contradicting his own claims as regards his policies; 2) his lies are not garden-variety lies; they are world class lies, unexposed to scrutiny by a complicit Media and unexamined by a large but diminishing percentage of an Electorate still grooving on the Obama election Vibe; and 3) it is the very point that he has peddled so many whoppers in so short a period of time that has given not just Republicans but Moderates the heebie-jeebies.
As to OffHisMed's particular animus, I can sum it up in a few words by observing that I dislike Barack Obama no more - and in most instances less - than most of those who are fixtures in the Democrat Party; people like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry and Al Gore. They are all white, of course, and their history as liars goes much farther back than his; the problem is that, as President, he is in a position to do ever so much more damage.
To cite particular examples of Obama's lies, consider his latest: Per Obama, conservative opponents are ruining the prospects for a "civil debate" on the Health Care issue with their angry protests. And yet, this is the President who tried to ram through Health Care reform before the August recess without an opportunity to even understand it's contents, much less debate them. It's interesting that his reverence for "civil" debate only developed once his uncivil attempt to subvert democracy was shoved back in his face.
For another example, his singular legislative achievement has been to ram through a $1.2 Trillion dollar "stimulus" bill, again without any time allotted to inform the public and debate its merits, but represented by Obama as a responsible use of taxpayer funds, and vital if we were to avoid disaster. Only later did we appreciate that it was a $1.2 Trillion dollar gift to Democrat politicians and special interest groups, and that the money did nothing to slow the Recession, despite Obama's claims that it would hold Unemployment under 8.5%.
For yet another example, there is his enthusiastic embracement, and then jittery rejection of ACORN, an outfit apparently devoted to Election Fraud and counseling Pimps on the best means to acquire government backed mortgages so as to set up houses of prostitution stocked with underage girls. Obama dropped their name repeatedly during the campaign, his ties to ACORN are long and deep, and his Stimulus bill proposed to give ACORN $8 Billion (160 times more than the $50 million they've gotten since 1994), and to make them the lead organization on the new Census. By his words and deeds, it certainly sounds like he and ACORN were thick as thieves. Now, he acts like he never knew 'em.
Shades of Obama denying Reverend Jeremiah Wright and William Ayres. Radical lefties must feel like Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, with Barack playing the role of Peter, the only difference being that Obama's denied them a lot more than three times, and there's no reliable evidence that any cock crowed, which would have been handy, was Obama inclined to keep score.
Of course, that's assuming that Obama's strategy is not simply to lie low until the controversy has passed and ACORN enacts some superficial reforms, followed in three month's time by Obama reinstating them as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, as well as the orgy of funding in his Stimulus Package.
We could do this all day. The bottom line is that no other politician much less president in modern times has generated so many colossal whoppers in such a short period of time, and so far, with impunity.
Whether or not the pattern of lies continues depends greatly on the inclination of the American people - in the face of all those lies - to yet further suspend disbelief, and their willingness to accept that if they criticize him, they must be Racists.
The trend does not favor Obama.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Obama Puts Foot In Mouth, Then Speaks
Normally, it's Joe Biden's size ten tasseled loafers President Obama is having to munch on. This time, it was Barack's own exquisitely refined Italian jobs that he inserted so neatly into his own mouth.
Forcing myself to watch what was predictably going to be yet another exercise in Lefty Smashmouth politics, OffHisMeds nonetheless set the DVR to record "America's Got Talent", and settled down to watch President Obama's prime time address to Congress on Health Care. Since I'm a handicapping kind of guy, I predicted that Obama, despite the pre-speech noises about bipartisanship by his lapdogs in the Media, would go all Junkyard Dog on the Republican Party, blame them for all of his failures, and then whine about the lack of bipartisanship. I also predicted that, as has been the case in most of his public appearances, President Obama would run late, messing up my recording of "America's Got Talent".
It's too bad Las Vegas doesn't cover these kinds of bets. I was right on all counts. I would have cleaned up.
Sure enough, he showed up about seven minutes late, and made no effort to hurry along any of the preliminaries so as to allow me (and the rest of America) to stay on our TV viewing schedules. Working the aisle, wandering left and right, addressing various Democrat Swells and finally meandering up to the podium, Obama let wave after wave of tepid applause wash over him, clearly savoring the moment. It was jarring, in a way. Repubs stopped clapping shortly after his entry, and Democrats weren't exactly hailing the arrival of Caesar, if you know what I mean. Still Obama worked it, well beyond a point that even our previous Narcissist-In-Chief Bill Clinton would have done.
Then he spoke.
Despite actually using the word bipartisan several times, Obama's speech was a dreary call to arms to Democrats. He gave Republicans nothing. He threw them under the bus. He blamed them for everything. He groveled to the Left, begging them to stay on board. He lied repeatedly out of his well-groomed albeit moderately tobacco-stained piehole. For a change of pace, I would at various times shut off the sound and just watch him, and noted with interest that he reserved every raised eyebrow and finger wag for the Right side of the aisle. He magnanimously threw a few rhetorical bones to reliable turncoats like John McCain, but in so doing, made McCain and himself both look like fools, no mean trick. McCain returned the favor by giving him the old aviator Thumbs Up, a rictus-like smile frozen upon his face, and looking for all the world like a man desperately in need of a place to hide, up to and including his old cell at the Hanoi Hilton.
This modern version of a Great Communicator was anything but. Not only did his soaring rhetoric completely fail him, but he came across as a Harry Reid-like Partisan Hack, accusatory and paranoid, giving a speech normally reserved for The Daily Kos Faithful. His delivery was nasally; his eyes shifted left and right. Most telling of all, his head would turn beseechingly to the Democrat side of the aisle at the points where applause was expected, as if he half-expected that it would not come.
At one point, after insisting that his Universal Health Care plan would not change anybody's coverage nor cost any more money, Obama made the mistake of saying "now, I realize there are some details to be worked out". This caused a roar of laughter from the Republican side with more than a few Democrats joining in. Obama looked stunned. It was as if he only then realized that he wasn't just talking to a bunch of politicians, 60% of whom are Democrats, and another 39% of whom felt compelled by tradition to show the President some respect (Joe Wilson being the notable albeit feisty exception); he was speaking to the Congressional representatives of the American Electorate, and that Electorate was right there, hovering over their shoulders, watching and judging with a Gimlet Eye.
Bewildered by his inability to goad the pols into greater displays of enthusiasm, much less avoid the scorn of the Republicans, Obama lost it, and right there, he lost America.
Perhaps sensing that that portion of his speech might cause him some problems, Obama later conjured Teddy Kennedy from beyond the grave. That fell flat too. Apparently, somebody forgot to tell President Obama that Kennedy was hardly beloved by the American People when alive, and arguably no more so now that he's dead. But then, they were two peas in a pod. Teddy was the master at demonizing Republicans, and did it productively for many decades. Obama was merely taking a page out the same book, oblivious of the fact that Kennedy - for all his faults - was a master at this kind of thing, and used the tactic sparingly. Obama has beat that drum in seven months as much as Kennedy did since the Reagan era, and it has lost its effect.
As he eulogized Kennedy, I couldn't help but wonder if perhaps Americans were reminded that, if indeed President Obama held Kennedy in such high esteem, why it was that Obama couldn't be bothered to interrupt his vacation so as to attend the Viewing or the Internment at Arlington? The hypocrisy was stunning. Having failed so completely to fabricate a Virtuous Teddy, Obama, in his self-indulgence, was left Channeling only the real deal. The Teddy we all knew. The Bad Teddy; the Gluttonous Teddy; the Hyper-partisan Teddy.
Unlike Obama, that Teddy was a hands-on kind of guy, abusing decade's worth of congressional aides, pages, waitresses, hangers-on, subordinates, co-eds, constituents, passers-by and complete strangers. With the passage of time, this is the Teddy people came to know, and will eventually conflate with other notorious Gluttons of our Age. Was it Teddy who encased Han Solo in Carbonite, or was that another guy who simply looked and acted like him? Even as I write this, nobody is certain. What is certain is that this is the Gestalt that Obama so unwisely decided to tap into, thus inviting comparisons between the Tedster and himself. That isn't entirely fair to Obama. Like Kennedy, Obama is a Global Abuser, desiring to abuse Americans communally and incrementally on the sound theory that - in proper application - nobody will notice. Teddy also got off on abusing people individually, a slave to his craven physical needs, trousers unzipped as he lurched from victim to victim.
It's not clear that such behavior is in any sense Obama's style, although our knowledge of his personal predilictions is limited. What is clear is that despite the ample record (how many congressmen have a rap sheet?) he nonetheless saw fit to portray Teddy as a paragon of virtue so as to pimp out his memory to the benefit of Health Care reform. Karma alone dictates that such an astonishing lie should be rewarded with a comeuppance, and trust me, Obama's is coming.
After Obama's speech there was a pathetic rebuttal from some Republican who was "not only a Surgeon, but a member of Congress as well". Too bad he was not also a customer of the Hair Club For Men, Bally's Fitness and Darque Tan. Apparently, the Republican Party decided that they would counter our handsome, fit and photogenic President with the most chronically unattractive person on the planet. And as he nattered on about trivialities, I could only think that his Day Job must not have worked out. Why the Hell else would one give up the highest paying job in America in order to be a United States Congressman? This guy must really have sucked as a Surgeon.
Afterwards, I watched the recording for America's Got Talent, and sure enough, it cut off just as Piers, Sharon and The Hoff were about to announce the names of the semifinalists. Thanks for Effing Nothing, Barack Obama. I was disappointed, but no worries. They'll replay last night's episode tonight at 7:00 p.m.
And right there it hit me, how short a leash nitwits like Obama and John McCain are on with the American People. As politicians, they sweat bullets every time they pre-empt prime time television, knowing full well that they can only go to that well a tiny handful of times before the American people tune them out. Barack has been to the well. Repeatedly. The One just had his last prime time stab at selling us on Socialized Medicine, and without seeing the poll numbers or listening to any Talking Heads, I know he has failed. I also know that he has burned political capital like an arsonist.
The good news is that this Hump has profoundly misinterpreted the mood of the country, will fail at Health Care reform, and will be a one term president. We'll be suffering a hard three years in the interim, however.
Forcing myself to watch what was predictably going to be yet another exercise in Lefty Smashmouth politics, OffHisMeds nonetheless set the DVR to record "America's Got Talent", and settled down to watch President Obama's prime time address to Congress on Health Care. Since I'm a handicapping kind of guy, I predicted that Obama, despite the pre-speech noises about bipartisanship by his lapdogs in the Media, would go all Junkyard Dog on the Republican Party, blame them for all of his failures, and then whine about the lack of bipartisanship. I also predicted that, as has been the case in most of his public appearances, President Obama would run late, messing up my recording of "America's Got Talent".
It's too bad Las Vegas doesn't cover these kinds of bets. I was right on all counts. I would have cleaned up.
Sure enough, he showed up about seven minutes late, and made no effort to hurry along any of the preliminaries so as to allow me (and the rest of America) to stay on our TV viewing schedules. Working the aisle, wandering left and right, addressing various Democrat Swells and finally meandering up to the podium, Obama let wave after wave of tepid applause wash over him, clearly savoring the moment. It was jarring, in a way. Repubs stopped clapping shortly after his entry, and Democrats weren't exactly hailing the arrival of Caesar, if you know what I mean. Still Obama worked it, well beyond a point that even our previous Narcissist-In-Chief Bill Clinton would have done.
Then he spoke.
Despite actually using the word bipartisan several times, Obama's speech was a dreary call to arms to Democrats. He gave Republicans nothing. He threw them under the bus. He blamed them for everything. He groveled to the Left, begging them to stay on board. He lied repeatedly out of his well-groomed albeit moderately tobacco-stained piehole. For a change of pace, I would at various times shut off the sound and just watch him, and noted with interest that he reserved every raised eyebrow and finger wag for the Right side of the aisle. He magnanimously threw a few rhetorical bones to reliable turncoats like John McCain, but in so doing, made McCain and himself both look like fools, no mean trick. McCain returned the favor by giving him the old aviator Thumbs Up, a rictus-like smile frozen upon his face, and looking for all the world like a man desperately in need of a place to hide, up to and including his old cell at the Hanoi Hilton.
This modern version of a Great Communicator was anything but. Not only did his soaring rhetoric completely fail him, but he came across as a Harry Reid-like Partisan Hack, accusatory and paranoid, giving a speech normally reserved for The Daily Kos Faithful. His delivery was nasally; his eyes shifted left and right. Most telling of all, his head would turn beseechingly to the Democrat side of the aisle at the points where applause was expected, as if he half-expected that it would not come.
At one point, after insisting that his Universal Health Care plan would not change anybody's coverage nor cost any more money, Obama made the mistake of saying "now, I realize there are some details to be worked out". This caused a roar of laughter from the Republican side with more than a few Democrats joining in. Obama looked stunned. It was as if he only then realized that he wasn't just talking to a bunch of politicians, 60% of whom are Democrats, and another 39% of whom felt compelled by tradition to show the President some respect (Joe Wilson being the notable albeit feisty exception); he was speaking to the Congressional representatives of the American Electorate, and that Electorate was right there, hovering over their shoulders, watching and judging with a Gimlet Eye.
Bewildered by his inability to goad the pols into greater displays of enthusiasm, much less avoid the scorn of the Republicans, Obama lost it, and right there, he lost America.
Perhaps sensing that that portion of his speech might cause him some problems, Obama later conjured Teddy Kennedy from beyond the grave. That fell flat too. Apparently, somebody forgot to tell President Obama that Kennedy was hardly beloved by the American People when alive, and arguably no more so now that he's dead. But then, they were two peas in a pod. Teddy was the master at demonizing Republicans, and did it productively for many decades. Obama was merely taking a page out the same book, oblivious of the fact that Kennedy - for all his faults - was a master at this kind of thing, and used the tactic sparingly. Obama has beat that drum in seven months as much as Kennedy did since the Reagan era, and it has lost its effect.
As he eulogized Kennedy, I couldn't help but wonder if perhaps Americans were reminded that, if indeed President Obama held Kennedy in such high esteem, why it was that Obama couldn't be bothered to interrupt his vacation so as to attend the Viewing or the Internment at Arlington? The hypocrisy was stunning. Having failed so completely to fabricate a Virtuous Teddy, Obama, in his self-indulgence, was left Channeling only the real deal. The Teddy we all knew. The Bad Teddy; the Gluttonous Teddy; the Hyper-partisan Teddy.
Unlike Obama, that Teddy was a hands-on kind of guy, abusing decade's worth of congressional aides, pages, waitresses, hangers-on, subordinates, co-eds, constituents, passers-by and complete strangers. With the passage of time, this is the Teddy people came to know, and will eventually conflate with other notorious Gluttons of our Age. Was it Teddy who encased Han Solo in Carbonite, or was that another guy who simply looked and acted like him? Even as I write this, nobody is certain. What is certain is that this is the Gestalt that Obama so unwisely decided to tap into, thus inviting comparisons between the Tedster and himself. That isn't entirely fair to Obama. Like Kennedy, Obama is a Global Abuser, desiring to abuse Americans communally and incrementally on the sound theory that - in proper application - nobody will notice. Teddy also got off on abusing people individually, a slave to his craven physical needs, trousers unzipped as he lurched from victim to victim.
It's not clear that such behavior is in any sense Obama's style, although our knowledge of his personal predilictions is limited. What is clear is that despite the ample record (how many congressmen have a rap sheet?) he nonetheless saw fit to portray Teddy as a paragon of virtue so as to pimp out his memory to the benefit of Health Care reform. Karma alone dictates that such an astonishing lie should be rewarded with a comeuppance, and trust me, Obama's is coming.
After Obama's speech there was a pathetic rebuttal from some Republican who was "not only a Surgeon, but a member of Congress as well". Too bad he was not also a customer of the Hair Club For Men, Bally's Fitness and Darque Tan. Apparently, the Republican Party decided that they would counter our handsome, fit and photogenic President with the most chronically unattractive person on the planet. And as he nattered on about trivialities, I could only think that his Day Job must not have worked out. Why the Hell else would one give up the highest paying job in America in order to be a United States Congressman? This guy must really have sucked as a Surgeon.
Afterwards, I watched the recording for America's Got Talent, and sure enough, it cut off just as Piers, Sharon and The Hoff were about to announce the names of the semifinalists. Thanks for Effing Nothing, Barack Obama. I was disappointed, but no worries. They'll replay last night's episode tonight at 7:00 p.m.
And right there it hit me, how short a leash nitwits like Obama and John McCain are on with the American People. As politicians, they sweat bullets every time they pre-empt prime time television, knowing full well that they can only go to that well a tiny handful of times before the American people tune them out. Barack has been to the well. Repeatedly. The One just had his last prime time stab at selling us on Socialized Medicine, and without seeing the poll numbers or listening to any Talking Heads, I know he has failed. I also know that he has burned political capital like an arsonist.
The good news is that this Hump has profoundly misinterpreted the mood of the country, will fail at Health Care reform, and will be a one term president. We'll be suffering a hard three years in the interim, however.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Does The President Deserve To Speak To Schoolkids?
So, after getting their hands slapped for what appeared to be an attempt to politicize the classroom, Democrats have gone on the offensive, portraying those who protested President Obama's speech to our schoolchildren in exactly the same way that they did the Town Hall protestors over President Obama's socialized Health Care plan: as radical right wingers unhinged from reality. That would resonate if it was true, but it clearly is not.
Consider first the presumption of Obama's apologists about the speech itself. Why does any representative of the Federal government, much less the President, feel they have the right to lecture schoolchildren on anything? What part of "Independent School District" do they not understand? If you're a fan of centralized government (most Democrats), it fits right in with your worldview, but if you're a fan of limited government and wary of the further entrenchment of centralized government (most Republicans), it's downright offensive.
Democrats have made a big deal about the fact the George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan also addressed the nation's schoolchildren, but the comparison is false:
- Did Bush or Reagan have access to Channel One, ubiquitous cable/satellite TV, the Internet and similar technologies that would ensure that their speeches made into every classroom in America? They did not, so it's dishonest of the Democrats to equate the impact of Obama's speech with theirs.
- Did the Bush or Reagan White Houses dictate to and stage-manage the event with the Department of Education, and literally force it on so-called "Independent School Districts"? They did not.
- Who benefits from a presidential address to our schoolchildren? In the present case, it's clearly the Federal education bureaucracy that now controls our Education system, the Democrat Party that supports it, and our current President. As proponents of small federal government, no similar benefit could have accrued to Bush, Reagan, or the Republicans.
- The speech has been portrayed as innocuous, yet that is ridiculous in light of revelations that the Educrats intended to follow up the speech with a hard-core indoctrination of students with a "lesson plan" including questions like "how can you help the President achieve his goals?". What further evidence do we need of the political nature of this speech than the existence of this lesson plan? Regardless of the content, it's the kind of creepy indoctrination practiced by the likes of Hugo Chavez and sundry other tinpot dictators and the Cult of Personality parlor tricks they employ, right up to and including Chavez's "Hello Mr. President" television show.
- Why this speech at this time? And isn't it amazing that there had been no mention of it until the last couple of weeks? This is the umpteenth time the Obama Administration has gone off on a tangent, and these episodes have a suspicious tendency to coincide with attempts to distract attention from the failure of the Stimulus Package, their failure to right the economy, their awful predictions regarding the state of the economy, or their woefully misguided efforts to transform the Health Care system.
- Who is politicizing what? Democrats have repeatedly portrayed Republicans as the ones politicizing issues by their protests, whether it is about Health Care or The Speech, yet the Republican Party is a political basket case, incapable of affecting the outcome with their votes in any way. The only avenue available to them is through Protest, yet Congressional Republicans have been almost universally silent. Only Pundits and the stray Floridian is protesting the Speech. It's strange that Democrats would deny this tiny minority their due, much less use it to suggest a monolithic protest by the Republican Party.
- What moral right does President Obama, of all people, have to make such a speech? Consider the sheer disconnect between this President's words and his deeds, so different from those of his predecessors, including George W. Bush. For one example, he claimed openness in government was his number one priority, yet his first initiative was to ram $1.2 Trillion in extra spending through Congress without so much as an opportunity for Congress to read it. What informed citizen would not be offended by such an affront to Democracy? And should that not affect his credibility when he proposes to address our children?
- Finally, why should we take the Obama Administration at their word that the speech that was released to the public is the one he originally intended to give? The speech he gave was jarringly inconsistent with the Stalinist lesson plan that was to accompany it, yet still came across as a commercial for the Democrat Party. I'm not going out on much of a limb in speculating that the original speech was much more politicized, but we'll never know otherwise. With a compliant Media accepting the ex post facto claims of the Democrats about the intent and content of the speech, you could more productively flog a dead horse to produce the truth.
Which brings us to the handful of Republican stalwarts like Laura Bush and Newt Gingrich who have defended President Obama in this debate. What combination of Stockholm Syndrome (Bush) and Beltway Ennui (Gingrich) could cause them to support such a terrible precedent? I would ask these folks to address the questions above as readily as I would any Democrat. Their answers would be interesting to hear.
Consider first the presumption of Obama's apologists about the speech itself. Why does any representative of the Federal government, much less the President, feel they have the right to lecture schoolchildren on anything? What part of "Independent School District" do they not understand? If you're a fan of centralized government (most Democrats), it fits right in with your worldview, but if you're a fan of limited government and wary of the further entrenchment of centralized government (most Republicans), it's downright offensive.
Democrats have made a big deal about the fact the George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan also addressed the nation's schoolchildren, but the comparison is false:
- Did Bush or Reagan have access to Channel One, ubiquitous cable/satellite TV, the Internet and similar technologies that would ensure that their speeches made into every classroom in America? They did not, so it's dishonest of the Democrats to equate the impact of Obama's speech with theirs.
- Did the Bush or Reagan White Houses dictate to and stage-manage the event with the Department of Education, and literally force it on so-called "Independent School Districts"? They did not.
- Who benefits from a presidential address to our schoolchildren? In the present case, it's clearly the Federal education bureaucracy that now controls our Education system, the Democrat Party that supports it, and our current President. As proponents of small federal government, no similar benefit could have accrued to Bush, Reagan, or the Republicans.
- The speech has been portrayed as innocuous, yet that is ridiculous in light of revelations that the Educrats intended to follow up the speech with a hard-core indoctrination of students with a "lesson plan" including questions like "how can you help the President achieve his goals?". What further evidence do we need of the political nature of this speech than the existence of this lesson plan? Regardless of the content, it's the kind of creepy indoctrination practiced by the likes of Hugo Chavez and sundry other tinpot dictators and the Cult of Personality parlor tricks they employ, right up to and including Chavez's "Hello Mr. President" television show.
- Why this speech at this time? And isn't it amazing that there had been no mention of it until the last couple of weeks? This is the umpteenth time the Obama Administration has gone off on a tangent, and these episodes have a suspicious tendency to coincide with attempts to distract attention from the failure of the Stimulus Package, their failure to right the economy, their awful predictions regarding the state of the economy, or their woefully misguided efforts to transform the Health Care system.
- Who is politicizing what? Democrats have repeatedly portrayed Republicans as the ones politicizing issues by their protests, whether it is about Health Care or The Speech, yet the Republican Party is a political basket case, incapable of affecting the outcome with their votes in any way. The only avenue available to them is through Protest, yet Congressional Republicans have been almost universally silent. Only Pundits and the stray Floridian is protesting the Speech. It's strange that Democrats would deny this tiny minority their due, much less use it to suggest a monolithic protest by the Republican Party.
- What moral right does President Obama, of all people, have to make such a speech? Consider the sheer disconnect between this President's words and his deeds, so different from those of his predecessors, including George W. Bush. For one example, he claimed openness in government was his number one priority, yet his first initiative was to ram $1.2 Trillion in extra spending through Congress without so much as an opportunity for Congress to read it. What informed citizen would not be offended by such an affront to Democracy? And should that not affect his credibility when he proposes to address our children?
- Finally, why should we take the Obama Administration at their word that the speech that was released to the public is the one he originally intended to give? The speech he gave was jarringly inconsistent with the Stalinist lesson plan that was to accompany it, yet still came across as a commercial for the Democrat Party. I'm not going out on much of a limb in speculating that the original speech was much more politicized, but we'll never know otherwise. With a compliant Media accepting the ex post facto claims of the Democrats about the intent and content of the speech, you could more productively flog a dead horse to produce the truth.
Which brings us to the handful of Republican stalwarts like Laura Bush and Newt Gingrich who have defended President Obama in this debate. What combination of Stockholm Syndrome (Bush) and Beltway Ennui (Gingrich) could cause them to support such a terrible precedent? I would ask these folks to address the questions above as readily as I would any Democrat. Their answers would be interesting to hear.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Municipal Surety Bonds - A Study In Corruption
It's not a topic that sounds too sexy, I'll grant you that. But there was an interesting article in the paper last week about the relationship between our politicians and the Surety bonding industry:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6587327.html
Titled "Metro light rail tactic raises funding concerns", it details the criticism Houston Metro President Frank Wilson endured because he had not obtained performance or payment bonds for the expansion of the Houston light rail system, as if doing so might put taxpayers in peril.
"And why", you ask OffHisMeds, "does this matter to me?"
Because across the country, Surety Bonds cost 1 to 3% of construction costs on virtually every road improvement, mass transit, building, bridge or airport project in the country, that's why. Yearly. In perpetuity. As if Houston Metro's multi-billion dollar spending orgy sending buses and trains all over town without passengers to nowhere wasn't bad enough, we now discover that one significant slice of the multi-generational gouging of taxpayers is a cozy arrangement whereby politicians and Surety providers raid an ever-expanding pool of billions by doing: nothing.
More about that later. On with the story:
In refusing to bond the Rail expansion, Wilson explained that the risk of default was small, the contractors were reputable, and that they had all guaranteed their work with the assets from their own companies. That all sounds reasonable, right? Well, not to his critics, including Mayoral candidate Peter Brown and representatives from the Bond industry, one of whom called Wilson's plans "foolhardy". You might think it a sign of how bad the corruption has gotten that "representatives of the Bond industry" feel they are even entitled to a frigging opinion as they are poised at the trough; OffHisMeds sure does.
That said, it strikes me that it is hardly "foolhardy" to question the status quo, particularly when it is revealed in the article that: "Texas statute requires public agencies to obtain performance bonds on construction contracts larger than $100,000 and payment bonds on contracts larger than $25,000". This is where it gets interesting.
Texas statute sprung from a federal law known as The Miller Act, passed in 1935. Like today, that law also mandated performance and payment bonds on projects of $100,000 or more: but that was back in 1935. If you compare cost-of-living in 1935 with 2009, $100,000 was worth about 20 times what it is today, equivalent to around $2 Million. However, if you estimate inflation based strictly on the comparative cost of public works projects, the inflation factor is at least 100 to one.
One of the peculiarities of comparing inflation rates today and in the first half of the 20th century is that prior to modern times, America could crank out huge projects for next-to-nothing. For some perspective, the Hoover Dam was built in 1935 for $50 million. By comparison, Jerry Jones just took the gift wrapping off a new Cowboy's football stadium that is not a pimple on the butt of the Hoover Dam: for $1.15 Billion.
For another perspective, here in Houston $50 million these days gets you about 3/4's of a mile of MetroRail. You do the math: On the one hand, the Hoover Dam was built in 1935 to provide most of the electricity for the state of Nevada, including all the glittering lights in Las Vegas. It is the engine that drives an entire state's economy, and wildly profitable to boot. On the other hand, Metro can build only 4000 feet of trolley in 2009 that goes from nowhere to nowhere and operates at a permanent deficit, sucking up millions in taxpayer dollars every year. But hey, we're already in agreement that MetroRail is useless, so let's stick with the cash grab by the greedy Money Changers.
Some interesting questions pop up:
1) Why haven't surety bonds been inflation-adjusted since 1935? Had they done so over the past 74 years, there would be only a tiny handful of present-day improvement or construction projects that cost more than $10 million. By not adjusting for inflation, that means that for the vast majority of projects, surety bonds are now the rule rather than the exception. That's a sweet deal if you're in the Surety bond business, not so sweet for the taxpayers who have to pay for them.
2) The Miller Act mandates that the winning Contractor pays for the bonds. Why does Texas law mandate that a municipality (meaning taxpayers) subsidize them? Take Payment Bonds, for example. Why must the city buy a policy to protect itself from liability when a Contractor for the City doesn't pay it's sub-contractors? Why should Taxpayers be on the hook for transactions between two private parties?
3) Considering all that has changed in the past 74 years, are surety bonds even necessary? With improvements in financial reporting laws and the instantaneous nature of communications, computers and the internet, you'd expect to see less of this kind of thing, not one hundred times more. If Metro bureaucrats do their homework and get a serious peek under their contractors' kimonos, it seems like they ought to have a level of "surety" that would obviate the necessity of going out and paying a third party to do the job for them.
The premise seems to be that mandatory surety bonds relieve politicians of their responsibility to do their jobs, award honest contracts, and keep contractors at arm's length. Is it really necessary for taxpayers to take out a policy to ensure that their elected representatives are not incompetent or corrupt? The real scandal here, though, is Point Number One: the "Inflation Creep" that has forced bonding on even the smallest of projects instead of the very large projects that the 1935 law intended. Pretty it up anyway that you want to, but State-mandated surety bonding in this day and age strikes me as nothing more than a legalized protection racket.
And as I mentioned earlier, all the politicians, contractors and surety bond companies have had to do to grow the gravy train by orders of magnitude since 1935 was: nothing. Just let inflation work its magic, and the money torrent grows bigger and bigger. Stop me when this sounds like the "bracket creep" of graduated income tax rates that Democrats inflicted on us in the 20's. Makes you wonder how these people live with themselves.
A superficial take-away from this whole story appears to be that Metro President Frank Wilson - by not bonding this project - has broken with a corrupt tradition and taken a small and tentative step in the direction of the Public Interest. That may be. OffHisMeds will frankly admit that - as a neophyte in Municipal politics - he is not well enough informed to discern any other motive. That said, Wilson presides over the organization that routinely does to taxpayers what Willie Sutton did to bank vaults.
I'll take what I can get, though. And if Wilson continues down the good and righteous path by breaking with the bond merchants, who knows what else might happen? He might start asking his contractors why they're charging $75 million per mile for something that ought to cost less than a third that amount, and once again the Public Interest will be served.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6587327.html
Titled "Metro light rail tactic raises funding concerns", it details the criticism Houston Metro President Frank Wilson endured because he had not obtained performance or payment bonds for the expansion of the Houston light rail system, as if doing so might put taxpayers in peril.
"And why", you ask OffHisMeds, "does this matter to me?"
Because across the country, Surety Bonds cost 1 to 3% of construction costs on virtually every road improvement, mass transit, building, bridge or airport project in the country, that's why. Yearly. In perpetuity. As if Houston Metro's multi-billion dollar spending orgy sending buses and trains all over town without passengers to nowhere wasn't bad enough, we now discover that one significant slice of the multi-generational gouging of taxpayers is a cozy arrangement whereby politicians and Surety providers raid an ever-expanding pool of billions by doing: nothing.
More about that later. On with the story:
In refusing to bond the Rail expansion, Wilson explained that the risk of default was small, the contractors were reputable, and that they had all guaranteed their work with the assets from their own companies. That all sounds reasonable, right? Well, not to his critics, including Mayoral candidate Peter Brown and representatives from the Bond industry, one of whom called Wilson's plans "foolhardy". You might think it a sign of how bad the corruption has gotten that "representatives of the Bond industry" feel they are even entitled to a frigging opinion as they are poised at the trough; OffHisMeds sure does.
That said, it strikes me that it is hardly "foolhardy" to question the status quo, particularly when it is revealed in the article that: "Texas statute requires public agencies to obtain performance bonds on construction contracts larger than $100,000 and payment bonds on contracts larger than $25,000". This is where it gets interesting.
Texas statute sprung from a federal law known as The Miller Act, passed in 1935. Like today, that law also mandated performance and payment bonds on projects of $100,000 or more: but that was back in 1935. If you compare cost-of-living in 1935 with 2009, $100,000 was worth about 20 times what it is today, equivalent to around $2 Million. However, if you estimate inflation based strictly on the comparative cost of public works projects, the inflation factor is at least 100 to one.
One of the peculiarities of comparing inflation rates today and in the first half of the 20th century is that prior to modern times, America could crank out huge projects for next-to-nothing. For some perspective, the Hoover Dam was built in 1935 for $50 million. By comparison, Jerry Jones just took the gift wrapping off a new Cowboy's football stadium that is not a pimple on the butt of the Hoover Dam: for $1.15 Billion.
For another perspective, here in Houston $50 million these days gets you about 3/4's of a mile of MetroRail. You do the math: On the one hand, the Hoover Dam was built in 1935 to provide most of the electricity for the state of Nevada, including all the glittering lights in Las Vegas. It is the engine that drives an entire state's economy, and wildly profitable to boot. On the other hand, Metro can build only 4000 feet of trolley in 2009 that goes from nowhere to nowhere and operates at a permanent deficit, sucking up millions in taxpayer dollars every year. But hey, we're already in agreement that MetroRail is useless, so let's stick with the cash grab by the greedy Money Changers.
Some interesting questions pop up:
1) Why haven't surety bonds been inflation-adjusted since 1935? Had they done so over the past 74 years, there would be only a tiny handful of present-day improvement or construction projects that cost more than $10 million. By not adjusting for inflation, that means that for the vast majority of projects, surety bonds are now the rule rather than the exception. That's a sweet deal if you're in the Surety bond business, not so sweet for the taxpayers who have to pay for them.
2) The Miller Act mandates that the winning Contractor pays for the bonds. Why does Texas law mandate that a municipality (meaning taxpayers) subsidize them? Take Payment Bonds, for example. Why must the city buy a policy to protect itself from liability when a Contractor for the City doesn't pay it's sub-contractors? Why should Taxpayers be on the hook for transactions between two private parties?
3) Considering all that has changed in the past 74 years, are surety bonds even necessary? With improvements in financial reporting laws and the instantaneous nature of communications, computers and the internet, you'd expect to see less of this kind of thing, not one hundred times more. If Metro bureaucrats do their homework and get a serious peek under their contractors' kimonos, it seems like they ought to have a level of "surety" that would obviate the necessity of going out and paying a third party to do the job for them.
The premise seems to be that mandatory surety bonds relieve politicians of their responsibility to do their jobs, award honest contracts, and keep contractors at arm's length. Is it really necessary for taxpayers to take out a policy to ensure that their elected representatives are not incompetent or corrupt? The real scandal here, though, is Point Number One: the "Inflation Creep" that has forced bonding on even the smallest of projects instead of the very large projects that the 1935 law intended. Pretty it up anyway that you want to, but State-mandated surety bonding in this day and age strikes me as nothing more than a legalized protection racket.
And as I mentioned earlier, all the politicians, contractors and surety bond companies have had to do to grow the gravy train by orders of magnitude since 1935 was: nothing. Just let inflation work its magic, and the money torrent grows bigger and bigger. Stop me when this sounds like the "bracket creep" of graduated income tax rates that Democrats inflicted on us in the 20's. Makes you wonder how these people live with themselves.
A superficial take-away from this whole story appears to be that Metro President Frank Wilson - by not bonding this project - has broken with a corrupt tradition and taken a small and tentative step in the direction of the Public Interest. That may be. OffHisMeds will frankly admit that - as a neophyte in Municipal politics - he is not well enough informed to discern any other motive. That said, Wilson presides over the organization that routinely does to taxpayers what Willie Sutton did to bank vaults.
I'll take what I can get, though. And if Wilson continues down the good and righteous path by breaking with the bond merchants, who knows what else might happen? He might start asking his contractors why they're charging $75 million per mile for something that ought to cost less than a third that amount, and once again the Public Interest will be served.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)