The Toxis Assets We Elected

[DarrinS]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032302140.html

With the braying of 328 yahoos -- members of the House of Representatives who voted for retroactive and punitive use of the tax code to confiscate the legal earnings of a small, unpopular group -- still reverberating, the Obama administration yesterday invited private-sector investors to become business partners with the capricious and increasingly anti-cons utional government. This latest plan to unfreeze the financial system came almost half a year after Congress shoveled $700 billion into the Troubled Assets Relief Program, $325 billion of which has been spent without purchasing any toxic assets.

TARP funds have, however, semi-purchased, among many other things, two automobile companies (and, last week, some of their parts suppliers), which must amaze Sweden. That unlikely tutor of America regarding capitalist common sense has said, through a Cabinet minister, that the ailing Saab automobile company is on its own: "The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories."

ad_icon

Another embarrassing auditor of American misgovernment is China, whose premier has rightly noted the unsustainable trajectory of America's high-consumption, low-savings economy. He has also decorously but clearly expressed sensible fears that his country's $1 trillion-plus of dollar-denominated assets might be devalued by America choosing, as banana republics have done, to use inflation for partial repudiation of improvidently incurred debts.

From Mexico, America is receiving needed instruction about fundamental rights and the rule of law. A leading Democrat trying to abolish the right of workers to secret ballots in unionization elections is California's Rep. George Miller who, with 15 other Democrats, in 2001 admonished Mexico: "The secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose." Last year, Mexico's highest court unanimously affirmed for Mexicans the right that Democrats want to strip from Americans.

Congress, with the approval of a president who has waxed censorious about his predecessor's imperious unilateralism in dealing with other nations, has shredded the North American Free Trade Agreement. Congress used the omnibus spending bill to abolish a program that was created as part of a protracted U.S. stall regarding compliance with its obligation to allow Mexican long-haul trucks on U.S. roads. The program, testing the safety of Mexican trucking, became an embarrassment because it found Mexican trucking at least as safe as U.S. trucking. Mexico has resorted to protectionism -- tariffs on many U.S. goods -- in retaliation for Democrats' protection of the Teamsters union.

NAFTA, like all treaties, is the "supreme law of the land." So says the Cons ution. It is, however, a cobweb constraint on a Congress that, ignoring the do ent's unambiguous stipulations that the House shall be composed of members chosen "by the people of the several states," is voting to pretend that the District of Columbia is a state. Hence it supposedly can have a Democratic member of the House and, down the descending road, two Democratic senators. Congress rationalizes this anti-cons utional willfulness by citing the Cons ution's language that each house shall be the judge of the "qualifications" of its members and that Congress can "exercise exclusive legislation" over the District. What, then, prevents Congress from giving House and Senate seats to Yellowstone National Park, over which Congress exercises exclusive legislation? Only Congress's capacity for embarrassment. So, not much.

The Federal Reserve, by long practice rather than law, has been insulated from politics in performing its fundamental function of preserving the currency as a store of value -- preventing inflation. Now, however, by undertaking hitherto uncontemplated functions, it has become an appendage of the executive branch. The coming costs, in political manipulation of the money supply, of this forfeiture of independence could be steep.

Jefferson warned that "great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities." But Democrats, who trace their party's pedigree to Jefferson, are contemplating using "reconciliation" -- a legislative maneuver abused by both parties to severely truncate debate and limit the minority's right to resist -- to impose vast and controversial changes on the 17 percent of the economy that is health care. When the Congressional Budget Office announced that the president's budget underestimates by $2.3 trillion the likely deficits over the next decade, his budget director, Peter Orszag, said: All long-range budget forecasts are notoriously unreliable -- so rely on ours.

This is but a partial list of recent lawlessness, situational cons utionalism and ins utional derangement. Such political malfeasance is pertinent to the financial meltdown as the administration, desperately seeking confidence, tries to stabilize the economy by vastly enlarging government's role in it.

[MannyIsGod]

What has the government done thats uncons utional?

[Crookshanks]

2010 can't get here soon enough!!!

[TDMVPDPOY]

problem with these non toxic assets, what happens if they dont recover...then ur fck with a negative asset

[LnGrrrR]

So card check will outlaw secret ballots? Oh no, it won't. Way to go hackjob George Will! It's must be much easier to throw out a false meme than to actually explain a problem.

Also, the government has often "undertook hitherto uncontemplated actions". Using fancy words won't impress me, sadly. Government is often taking uncontemplated actions actually, or at least, barely contemplated actions. You know, things like allowing 'enhanced interrogation', or wiretapping our own citizens, or creating Medicare/Social Security. Heck, if George Will knows his history, and I'm sure he does, the Founding Fathers didn't even want to beholden ourselves to allies too greatly. I think our Israel policy would disprove that though.

[Cry Havoc]

What has the government done thats uncons utional?

I honestly wonder if we'll ever have a Democratic President who isn't subject to this partisan hackery for the rest of our lives. It's depressing.

[DarrinS]

I honestly wonder if we'll ever have a Democratic President who isn't subject to this partisan hackery for the rest of our lives. It's depressing.

He's been absolutely brilliant thus far.

[boutons_deux]

Will has become very dishonest, a robotic shill for bull conservatism that has been totally discredited.

[AntiChrist]

Will has become very dishonest, a robotic shill for bull conservatism that has been totally discredited.

Unless he writes something you agree with.

[word]

What has the government done thats uncons utional?

I doubt taxing a selected 15 people 90% is cons utional.

[TDMVPDPOY]

So whats the difference here? USAG gives out 1 trillion again buying bad debt, directors will use some of that money paying themselves bonuses, another fukn bailout under different name serving same purpose....

[word]

George Will wrote a piece on Obama in ..october or around there, that was absolutely slobbering on his . George Will. Did he not listen to what Obama was saying ? Apparently he, and a good many other 'journalists' were not. 48 million poeple did and voted for...*cough* McCain/Palin..perhaps the weakest duo the repugs have put up in..at least my lifetime...maybe Dole...no...much worse than Robert Dole/Kemp.

[johnsmith]

So whats the difference here? USAG gives out 1 trillion again buying bad debt, directors will use some of that money paying themselves bonuses, another fukn bailout under different name serving same purpose....

Frankly, I'm still a little confused where all this money is coming from.

[word]

So whats the difference here? USAG gives out 1 trillion again buying bad debt, directors will use some of that money paying themselves bonuses, another fukn bailout under different name serving same purpose....

The difference is, when has there ever been a tax code, written just for...15 or so people ? So the federal government says...you know...we don't like YOU...we're going to tax YOU...at a higher tax rate than anyone else.

Not a few million people. Not a few thousand people. 15 people.

15 people the US Government made an exception and said...'you pay 90% ...' And did so retroactively. And those people, broke no laws.

I seriously doubt that is 'cons utional'.

[word]

Frankly, I'm still a little confused where all this money is coming from.

Really ? Well the US gov just bought back some 700 billion of US treasuries which means they monatized the debt which means they are simply printing money which means...inflation is coming.

That's what China is afraid of. They are afraid that the US will do what every nation on earth has done to pay off debt...turn on the printing presses and pay for it with devalued dollars. Gold is nearly $1000 an ounce for a reason. It was $400 an ounce in 2004. Silver was like...$8...now around $14. 'Fiat' money as they call it.

I personally own...quite a bit of PM's. Have been heavily in PM's since 2004 and I'm a happier man for it.

I don't think people realize how unusual of times we are in and what is going on. Dems scream...repubs scream...yadda yadda...

It's worse than that. You're still fighting 'culture wars' and have no clue as to what is going on. The numbers are staggering.

[TDMVPDPOY]

The difference is, when has there ever been a tax code, written just for...15 or so people ? So the federal government says...you know...we don't like YOU...we're going to tax YOU...at a higher tax rate than anyone else.

Not a few million people. Not a few thousand people. 15 people.

15 people the US Government made an exception and said...'you pay 90% ...' And did so retroactively. And those people, broke no laws.

I seriously doubt that is 'cons utional'.

do you really think those 15ppl deserve bonuses?

why are they rewarding themselves bonuses for last years financial performance, when its this base on this year, they havnt done to show they deserve it.

[word]

do you really think those 15ppl deserve bonuses?

why are they rewarding themselves bonuses for last years financial performance, when its this base on this year, they havnt done to show they deserve it.

Moot, brother. What is more important is the US Government has gone after said people when they have broken no laws. That they 'deserve' it or not, is irrelevent.

If I'm not mistaken Frainklin Raines made more than $15 million in bonus when he was at Fannie Mae and they took what, $200 billion in bailout money without so much as a peep from you or anyone else. GM got $50 billion simply to pay their pensioners...the very people that bankrupted GM..or had a solid hand in it.

Where were you in August...September...October....November...

This just started with AIG and these piss ant bonus's ? 150 million ?

Try 2 trillion in bailouts in the last 6 months. Going on three.

Trilion...with a 'T'.

[ChumpDumper]

The difference is, when has there ever been a tax code, written just for...15 or so people ? So the federal government says...you know...we don't like YOU...we're going to tax YOU...at a higher tax rate than anyone else.

Not a few million people. Not a few thousand people. 15 people.

15 people the US Government made an exception and said...'you pay 90% ...' And did so retroactively. And those people, broke no laws.

I seriously doubt that is 'cons utional'.

Usually those targeted tax codes for few people (or even one person) are tax breaks. I don't think they have ever been challenged.

[word]

retroactive is the key word


And name ONE tax code written for one person.

[TDMVPDPOY]

Where were you in August...September...October....November...

i was on here giving everyone from govt to the posters on here....

should not fkn bail out companys, let the market correct itself. There will always be new players in the market that will expand and eat up the failed companys market share and workforce.

You know what was wrong with those companys and how the govt viewed them? too big to fail = too big to exists.

[ChumpDumper]

do you really think those 15ppl deserve bonuses?

why are they rewarding themselves bonuses for last years financial performance, when its this base on this year, they havnt done to show they deserve it.

If their chairman is to be believed, those responsible for the troubles are gone and the bonuses are to keep the people who are going to clean up the mess, eliminating their own jobs in the process.

[word]

i was on here giving everyone from govt to the posters on here....

should not fkn bail out companys, let the market correct itself. There will always be new players in the market that will expand and eat up the failed companys market share and workforce.

You know what was wrong with those companys and how the govt viewed them? too big to fail = too big to exists.

I agree. The problem here is, that I hate...is this 'too big to fail'...domino effect. Why did they let these banks get that big. That's where I want regulation.

It would be like ...if Southwest had a 3000 plane fleet, (they have about a 400 plane fleet...16% or so of the US market..) and if they failed...well...then air travel would completely halt in the US.

It's just assinine to have banks and financial ins utions so big, that if they fail...well the whole damn global economy melts down.

That's why people are mad at us and WE should be mad at us.

But lets be clear on this...this problem started in the 90's with a democrat president and republican congress. Plenty of blame to go around but more than anyone I would like to see in jail, it's our congress...but I doubt they'll indict themselves.

[TDMVPDPOY]

If their chairman is to be believed, those responsible for the troubles are gone and the bonuses are to keep the people who are going to clean up the mess, eliminating their own jobs in the process.

AIG shouldve been in involuntary administration, where the regulator will pay them how much are really worth....

[ChumpDumper]

AIG shouldve been in involuntary administration, where the regulator will pay them how much are really worth....

Which regulator?

[Marcus Bryant]

We can trace this all back to the prior administration when Goldman Sachs' potential demise became a national emergency and its former Chairman and CEO asked (and received) a blank check for $700 bil from the Congress.