ObamaCare bailout for Members of Congress and their staffs

How does even the most devoted Democrat justify this?

“Thanks to an amendment from Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley that Democrats enacted in 2010, the Affordable Care Act says that "the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available" to Congress are the ones offered on the ObamaCare insurance exchanges. But Members and many aides have been flipping out because they won't qualify for ObamaCare subsidies and they'll lose employer contributions they now receive under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, or FEHBP, which picks up about three-quarters of the average premium.

At President Obama's personal request, the Office of Personnel Management decreed that the Members don't have to get off the gravy train after all. The eat-your-own-cooking provision begins with the phrase "Notwithstanding any other provision of law." The feds now interpret that clause as a loophole to mean that the Affordable Care Act did not change the 1959 law that created the FEHBP.

Since Members and staff still technically meet the definition of federal employees qualified for the FEHBP, the Administration says they're still entitled to enroll in the FEHBP concurrently with the exchanges. The feds then "clarify"—their euphemism—that the regulatory meaning of health benefits in the FEHBP can be ObamaCare plans. Voila, taxpayers will continue to chip in $4,900 for individual and $10,000 for family coverage.”

Wall St. Journal, Review and Outlook, August 7, 2013

Screwed again by the very guys that assured us they also would be covered by Obamacare, so how bad could it be.  As it has turned out, worse than anyone expected.

But who’s counting?

The Volt vs. the Cruze

“The $40,000 Volt is basically a $17,000 Cruze - with a 500 lb., 25-mile range, eight-hour-to-charge battery. Which is toxic when spent - and costs somewhere between $8,000 and$15,000 to replace. . .

We the Taxpayers own 26% of GM’s stock - and are poised to lose more than $40 billion on the auto bailout.

In no small part because GM - the company in which we are conscripted investors - is wasting tens of millions - and the Feds billions more - tilting at Volt windmills.”   Seton Motley

More on the auto bailout

"U.S. Treasury Department boosted its estimate of government losses in the $85 billion auto bailout by $170 million.

In the government's latest report to Congress this month, the Treasury upped its estimate to $23.77 billion, up from $23.6 billion.

Last fall, the government dramatically boosted its forecast of losses on the rescues of General Motors Co., Chrysler Group LLC and their finance units from $14 billion to $23.6 billion.

Much of the increase in losses is due to the sharp decline of GM's stock price over the last six months.

GM was trading at noon today at $24.24. It's down 35 percent over its 52-week-high of $37.23, but the Detroit automaker has rebounded from a low set last year of $19.05.

The Treasury, [that's us, folks] which initially held a 61 percent majority stake in GM, now holds a 26.5 percent share, or 500 million shares in GM. To break even, the government would need to average $53 per share for its remaining stake."

Detroit News

The Omaha anecdote and the Obama antidote

"The Omaha Public Schools used more than $130,000 in federal stimulus dollars to buy each teacher, administrator and staff member a manual on how to become more culturally sensitive. . . ." The book is infused with the usual hate and diversity drivel about America--and we paid for 8,000 copies.

James Taranto reports today that Clinton asked for a stimulus package in 1993 of 16 billion when unemployment was 7.3, and Congress didn't approve and 12 months later unemployment was 6.5. The economy recovered without massive infusion of federal money. Obama asked for 800 billion when unemployment was 7.6, got it, and the economy tanked and unemployment rose to 10.2.

Liberals believe government programs fail because they aren't big enough. It's the classic plan of doing more that fails. Really? How about a nice big tax increase, that should do it. How big did the stimulus need to be in order to really tank the economy into a real Depression--which actually we haven't avoided yet.

Did You Know--General Motors

"There are some 13,000 porn films made in the United States generating near $100 billion per year. General Motors owns DirectTV, which distributes over 40 million streams of porn into American homes every month. AT&T and GM rake in approximately 80 percent of all porn dollars."

Read more: http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/charlie-sheen-or-the-empire-of1/page-2/#ixzz1L2nL23Gl

And now through the bail out, we the people own General Motors. The payback then, will be through porn profits?

Fannie-Freddie Fix at $160 Billion With $1 Trillion Worst Case

When will Congress call Fannie and Fred in for the hot seat tongue lashing?. Never. Both parties are to blame. Better to go after "big oil" or bankers or evil capitalists. Their mistakes were no accident, they are 100% the fault of the Congress which created the Federal National Mortgage Association, known as Fannie Mae, in 1938 to expand home ownership by buying mortgages from banks and other lenders and bundling them into bonds for investors. It set up the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., Freddie Mac, in 1970 to compete with Fannie.

Fannie Mae and Fred Mac will cost the American taxpayer more than the BP spill and clean up. Estimated at $160 billion and rising, possibly to $1 trillion.

Fannie-Freddie Fix at $160 Billion With $1 Trillion Worst Case « Finance Blog

Get in line. . . Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, New York. . .

"Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked for $6.9 billion in federal funds in his state-budget proposal Friday and warned that state health and welfare programs would be threatened without the emergency help." Link at WSJ

Kiplinger drinks the Obama Kool-aid

This little item came through today in AIArchitect, the "Kiplinger Connection."

Economic Stimulus
Was the economic stimulus a success? Depends on how you measure.
The answer’s no, if set against Obama’s original goals: Holding joblessness around 8% and limiting the economic contraction this year to about 1.2%. [Yup, he missed that big time.]

But measured against what would have been, it was a rousing success. [You're kidding, right? Have you noticed your grandchildren will pay for this?] Washington added about $90 billion to GDP in the second and third quarters, through direct payments to the states, COBRA subsidies for the unemployed, reduced income tax withholding plus the first round of infrastructure spending. [Notice how little was spent on infrastructure--but isn't that what he promised?] Otherwise, the second quarter contraction would have been worse than the 0.7% it was, and third quarter GDP would have been expected to come in flat. As it is … GDP surely rose in the third quarter, probably by a healthy 3.5% or so. [Gee, maybe he can keep this going 10 years like FDR did?]

One reason for the view that the stimulus isn’t panning out: Obama’s tendency to focus on infrastructure development. Spending on it has been slow to take off…with long lead times for planning and contracting … and slow to pay off in terms of increased business spending and job creation. [Or maybe he was wasting too much political capital on stealing our health care and had no appointments who knew anything about business and capitalism?]

Shoulda coulda woulda--there is no way to measure "what would have been," just as there's no way to know about that job you didn't take, or the one you didn't marry, or that promotion you didn't get, or club you didn't join, or that trip you didn't take. Sure--might have been super, or it could have been a bust. You just don't know. Nor do we know what would have happened if the federal government had just let the recession run its course, let bad companies fail--no cash for clunkers, no take-over of banks and automakers, no petty czars poking their noses into business, no threatening Fox News for pointing out the obvious, no denigration of 95% of American businesses who belong to the Chamber, no take over of the economy in order "not to waste a crisis." But if government stayed out of our business, out of market manipulation, out of mortgages, out of schools--well, wouldn't that mean we don't need them. And what would they do with all that surplus, pent up wind power?

Clunker cars

Do you suppose this Bentley loves Obama gets 18 mpg? Could the owner qualify for a tax break from me who drives a 2002 Dodge Van that gets 26 mpg on the road, is a real workhorse, and doesn't hurt my back? (As near as I can tell from the model, this one gets about 10 in the city, 17 on the road).

GM to move jobs overseas--with our bailout money

"A simmering pot is reaching the boiling point. Did GM forget that Barack Obama owns them now? Obama doesn't like those overseas jobs. Obama doesn't care a fig about profits. His plan is to provide jobs and infinite union benefits. Who needs profits. Socialism doesn't need profits." Maggie's Notebook. I guess that's what you get when you don't read the small print.

Biden Says Act As if "We're At War"

Joe Biden--the gaffe that keeps on giving. After the 20th of January we saw less and less of him. He called the economic crisis a WAR requiring hasty action at this ABC site, in January, shortly before the coronation. The readers thought otherwise--their comments in boxes. And 3 months down the line, they are still right on target.

“Someone tell Joe Biden that if you’re at war, you need to identify the enemy first. That means one of the first orders of business is to remove Barney Frank from the Chair of the House Financial Services Committee.”

“Biden declares war!! That's a hoot!! This man is a TRUE coward and HE declares WAR!! If the POTUS and VPOTUS were serious about this they would get to the bottom of who started this, who allowed this to continue and start tossing Congress and Senate BUTTS in the Federal Prison system and collect every penny back from those criminals!! Sell all their property and assets! Stop all the photo-opts and the posturing.

How dare you people criticize the GREATEST PRESIDENT ever before he takes office!

Barack Obama doesn't take on Washington politics, he takes on Republicans. He knew Gov. Blagojevich was selling his Senate seat, and he said nothing. When Gov. Murkowski bought a private jet for the Governor's office with taxpayer money, Sarah put it on eBay. Gov. Richardson was giving away state government contracts in exchange for campaign contributions, and in exchange for his endorsement in the Democratic Primary, Barack Obama nominated him for Sec. of Commerce. When Sen. Stevens brought home $300M in federal pork for the Bridge to Nowhere, Gov. Palin said "thanks, but NO, thanks." I'm a Democrat that supports Sarah Palin because unlike Barack Obama, she doesn't think her party can do no bad.

I used to support President Elect Barack Obama, but the Bush-Obama bailout is an outrage. Only George and Barack can call their record deficit spending "investments" "in the future." We the American people voted with our dollars to put General Motors out of business. The Untied Autoworkers Union makes $73/hr, $150K/yr for assembling vehicles, but when we, the American people, say "that's too much" by buying Toyota, and Nissan, and Hyundai, the United States Government says "noooo... if you don't buy their cars, we're going to give them your tax money." They don't deserve to exist. The UAW striked GM's only profitable factory, the Chevy Cobalt's, as soon as GM turned in a profitable quarter last year; by definition, they will never be a viable company, ever.

And now Blue states want "federal" money because they can't keep up their spending. New York Gov. David Paterson (D), New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D), Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D), Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D) and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D) just said they need $1T of "federal" money to "stay afloat," and by "stay afloat" they mean to keep up their frivolous spending. They spent and spent and spent, and now that they're out of money, they are asking the "federal government" to give them money. But ladies and gentlemen, what they mean by "federal government" is red states that actually lived within their means, states that spent no more than they collected in taxes. Now they want the "federal" government to send the message, if you spend too much, don't worry, we will take it from someone that saved. And if you don't spend like drunken sailors, if you actually save your tax revenues for a rainy day, like today, you're wasting your time, because the federal government is going to come in and take it from you anyway. Red states make and Blue states take.

What has happened to your nest egg?

Our purple and green bureaucracy

As the New Yorker cartoon by Frank Cotham says, “It’s always cozy in here. We’re insulated by layers of bureaucracy.”

Red state or blue, green bureaucrats are pure gold for large companies--Goldman Sachs and General Electric, for instance--they help regulate the little guy out of competition. Even back when I was a liberal writing about supermarket coupons and sweepstakes (1983), I noted that the best and biggest offers came from the largest food companies, and eventually through the cooperation of the penny pinching consumer, would put the small companies out of business and then raise prices.

Forward looking green businessmen like Henry Paulson (our Bush Secretary of Treasury who helped design our current bailouts) and his partner Al Gore (our Clinton vice president) in GIM will get rich from imaginary carbon footprints and cap and trade points. Both will lead a lifestyle of wealth and privilege the rest of us can only imagine, with you and me footing the bill, and Joe Biden leading cheers assuring us he‘s looking out for the middle class tax payer.

But the poor will pay the most. The US poor are rich by the rest of the world’s standards, but even they will be hurt by the green quicksand that drags down the economy. It’s only when you’ve got the basics of life taken care of that you can turn your attention to taking care of the environment. It doesn’t make sense to spend billions of resources fantasizing about miniscule amounts of this or that in our food, water and air when millions around the world go to bed hungry or are unable to work, weakened by malaria through the hyper-vigilant actions of environmentalists fearing the death of a bird egg. There are thousands of non-profits, religious groups and think-tanks dependent on keeping us terrified and anxious about all the products, foods, building materials, and vehicles in our lives. They "earn" their salaries and research funding with government grants. Technically, they aren't on the government payroll, but they might as well be.

Our green bureaucrats will eventually destroy American auto manufacturers, those three companies they first built by reducing competition (did you ever wonder where the rest of them went?) or taxing them out of the industrial Midwest. First the jobs building automobiles went south, and then to overseas workers, to be shipped back to us. The newer angle is to force on us cars no one wants, built in plants that could only please a large union work force, supporting the medical bills of millions of UAW retirees for a few more years.

Dear readers, the men and women we’ve sent to Washington aren’t stupid; but at their deep purple heart of heart on the fringes, they are socialists. They may reach to extol Reagan, but they stand on the back of FDR. Government will own it all--and 2008 will be the watershed year. And for those officials of either party--staff, appointees or elected--it’s a paid-in-full ride to the end. When they retire, or are voted out, they hang around in Washington think tanks or their branches and become lobbyists, researchers, writers or conference organizers, but nothing changes.

Other than being larger, with a bigger budget, do you see anything different between the Clinton bureaucracy of 1998 and the Bush bureaucracy of 2008? And they’re all back through the revolving door, along with a few newer Chicagoans funded by the sheiks from the middle east who banrolled the Clinton.

When the deep purple falls
over green regulatory walls
And the stars begin to twinkle in DC—
In the mist of a memory
you wander back to me
Taking my taxes with a grin...

Chrysler doesn't need a bailout

Cereberus’ $2 billion stake in Chrysler represents only about 7% of its assets. That means that it has tens of billions of dollars at its disposal to engineer its own private bailout of Chrysler. Out of Control explains why it doesn't. . . "Chrysler’s management is clueless; its unions are suicidal; and the auto market for the foreseeable future is in a deep freeze. The idea that Chrysler could make a comeback under such circumstances – when it couldn’t do so during a booming economy -- would represent more than an SUV-full of triumph of hope over reality."

Putting political pieces on the board the Chicago Way

Chicago Tribune writer John Kass writes on December 12 that Jimmy DeLeo is the real Illinois powerhouse who controls not only the governor, but Rahm Emanuel. Rahm is vacating a House seat, Rahm works for Obama, who is vacating a Senate seat. Why wouldn't Obama, or any incoming President, want a say in who gets appointed? Why shouldn't these guys trade favors for seats in Congress? These are politicians, for Pete's sake. The man behind the curtain

Other Tribune writers report U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. discussed raising at least $1 million for Blagojevich's campaign as a way to encourage him to pick Jackson for the job. Link.

The amount of money passing hands in Illinois is pennies compared to the give-aways in Congress. I don't know who DeLeo or Kass are, but do you feel like you're stepping in quick sand and afraid of what you'll find at the bottom? Is there a bottom? Or does it sometimes feels like a trick by the bailed out banks (remember those guys?) or the Fannie Mae execs or the Ben and Hank show so that we stay busy reading the headlines linking Chicago-Springfield-DC and not noticing what they did (or didn't do) with all our money?

Bankruptcy will be better than bailout both for Big 3 and American consumer

These points come from Don Weil, however, I've mentioned particularly the need for change in the auto industry going back to the 1970s. Ohio's economy is closely tied to the auto industry, as is my son's job, so I do have mixed emotions on the bailout, however, for the country and the global economy, a bailout is much worse than a bankruptcy. Overpaid unions, overpaid CEOs. Head-in-the-sand industry. Over regulated already with Congress trying to run the business and push cars no one wants. And who was it that allowed the loophole on gasoline efficiency so that light trucks became the rage? Congress, of course. Lame duck Bush will do nothing, although he'll get the blame either way; Obama will wait so he can be savior, and it will definitely be called a success no matter what the results. Even if we stay in a recession or fall into a depression that lasts over a decade like we did with FDR who grew it to massive proportions, Obama will be lauded and praised at least until Americans wake up a few generations from now. My generation won't live long enough to have history sort it out, and our "free press" will certain be no help, if it even survives

• If the companies go into bankruptcy and come out stronger, the industry will employ about the same amount of people. If not, foreign auto makers will produce more cars in the U.S. and pick up many of these workers.
• A prepackaged bankruptcy could actually leave the major auto makers in better shape than they were prior to the financial crisis. Since the mid-1990s, the Big Three made most of their money on gas guzzling SUVs and trucks. That simply won’t cut it anymore. Bankruptcy will force the auto makers to quicken their shift to smaller cars.
• bankruptcy would give the Big Three an opportunity to rework their labor contracts, cutting compensation, and to jettison incompetent executives.
• Plenty of companies have emerged stronger from bankruptcy. Nearly all the major airlines have gone through that process and came out stronger than when they entered.
• The Big Three have had so many opportunities to change their practices since the first oil crisis of the early 1970s, yet they have been reluctant to budge. GM still has eight brands of cars, even though critics have pointed out for years that’s probably about seven too many.
• this current "bailout" bears no resemblance to the rescue of Chrysler in 1980. In 1980, Congress passed, and President Carter signed, a law giving a U.S. government guarantee of a private $1.5 billion loan to Chrysler. Not one dollar of taxpayer funds was ever used in the deal. Chrysler also had a clear plan to make a comeback and the loan was relatively small.

Dan Weil - Dec 8 at Newsmax
.
For explanation of how UAW labor costs compare with other workers, see Heritage.

Happy Holidays from Fred Thompson

Go ahead and spend--he's got it all figured out!

Why they won’t change their ways--the big three

In July 1987 National Geographic published a map of the Great Lakes, 15th in a series of 17 maps, “The Making of America.” It is has very interesting information and we keep it at our lake house on Lake Erie. From 1890-1960 it reports that the “lake ports of Hamilton, Cleveland, Detroit and Gary emerged as steel making giants in the heart of one of the world’s greatest concentrations of heavy manufacturing. Lake side mills devoured iron ore shipped south from the Gogebic, Mesabi, and other Lake Superior ranges, as well as coking coal brought by railroad and lake boat from the coalfields of Illinois and Appalachia.” But there were hard times--some 225,000 were forced to leave the north country of Minnesota--the farms and mines--between 1940 and 1950 alone.

However, for the 1970s and 1980s, we see a turn down for this region--the area of the big three that now comes to Congress hat in hand, asking for a bailout. It says “in the 1970s U.S. manufacturing ran afoul of global economic ills, foreign competition, poor management and extravagant wage pacts (the pensions they are now worried about). Tens of thousands left the so-called rust belt for the Sunbelt. “Japan quick to adopt the latest technology, forged ahead of the U.S. as the world’s largest steel producer. The substitution of lightweight plastics and aluminum for steel hammered the industry harder. Meanwhile U.S. automakers floundered under an invasion of fuel-efficient foreign cars; in Michigan car and truck output halved between 1976 and 1980.” . . “Detroit’s population shrank from 1,514,000 in 1970 to 1,203,000 a decade later. . . Many migrated to the South and West, were the booming service and high-tech economy required them to learn new skills.”

So here we are, more than 20 years after this was written, 30 years after our auto industry and the UAW were put on notice that they absolutely had to change, to streamline and reduce wages. Did they learn? No. They survived making light trucks and SUVs with huge management and union salaries, wages and benefits and big profits for shareholders. Now they sit in front of sour faced congressmen, berating and ridiculing them, babbling about sharing rides, people with no business expertise such as Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi who haven’t a clue how to get us out of this mess, people who owe their own jobs to unions and big business both for more benefits and higher salaries. Those of us who didn’t make a fraction of the union wage or the CEOs salary, or a Congress salary, are expected to save them.

Bailing with a hole in the bucket

Guest blogger Murray says:

I know that you know it is not too comforting knowing that the same people who allowed this country's subprime mortgage crisis to happen are the ones that our government put in charge of fixing it. I also know that you know that they really don't have the slightest knowledge how to fix it. I also know that you know that this is really a bailout to the Wall Street high flyers and the sleazy investment banking business. Now they are adding the very bankers that caused the stink to the team assigned to fix the problem. It seems that once you're in bed with them you can't get rid of them. Kinda like bedbugs.

Since it's the subprime mortgages that are the basis of the problem I would think the first thing they would do is put a stop to making these ridiculous loans. They have not done this. Banks and mortgage companies are still creating such loans. You can go to google and ask for "low price no money down mortgages" and you'll find all kinds of ads for these kinds of loans. It's pretty obvious to me that if we don't stop loaning with no money down and bad credit the "bailout" will go on forever.You can even apply on line. Here are a couple of examples:

http://www.mortgage-helper.com/zerodown.html

http://www.forthebestrate.com/no-money-down-mortgage.aspx

OK, the damage has been done. Our astute legislators are throwing billions of our hard earned tax dollars all over the place. They say not to worry cause the are going to sell these worthless mortgage packages and they will get the money back. Why... they say we might even make a profit!! Well, let me tell you. IF THEY DO FIND SOMEONE DUMB ENOUGH TO BUY THESE WORTHLESS PACKAGES JUST WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WILL DO WITH THE MONEY? Pay it towards the national debt? No, No, NO..... They will do the same thing they always do. THEY WILL SPEND IT. Folks, once they voted to spend that 700 billion, that money was spent never to return. That money can only be returned by you and I. The tax man cometh. If OBAMA gets elected it will come immediately. Find a way to protect yourself. Your first attempt would be to vote for McCain as feeble as that may be.

MURRAY