Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, May 19, 2010


With all due respect to our British cousins...
Posted by at

8 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703460404575244772070710374.html

*** Editor's note: The following article is co-authored by former Federal Election Commissioners Joan Aikens, Lee Ann Elliott, Thomas Josefiak, David Mason, Bradley Smith, Hans A. von Spakovsky, Michael Toner and Darryl R. Wold:

As former commissioners on the Federal Election Commission with almost 75 years of combined experience, we believe that the bill proposed on April 30th by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen to "blunt" the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC is unnecessary, partially duplicative of existing law, and severely burdensome to the right to engage in political speech and advocacy. Moreover, the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act, or Disclose Act, abandons the longstanding policy of treating unions and businesses equally, suggesting partisan motives that undermine respect for campaign finance laws.

At least one of us served on the FEC at all times from its inception in 1975 through August 2008. We are well aware of the practical difficulties involved in enforcing the overly complex Federal Election Campaign Act and the problems posed by additional laws that curtail the ability of Americans to participate in the political process.

As we noted in our amicus brief supporting Citizens United, the FEC now has regulations for 33 types of contributions and speech and 71 different types of speakers. Regardless of the abstract merit of the various arguments for and against limits on political contributions and spending, this very complexity raises serious concerns about whether the law can be enforced consistent with the First Amendment.

The Disclose Act exacerbates many of these problems and is a blatant attempt by its sponsors to do indirectly, through excessively onerous regulatory requirements, what the Supreme Court told Congress it cannot do directly - restrict political speech. Perhaps the most striking thing about the Disclose Act is that, while the Supreme Court overturned limits on spending by both corporations and unions, Disclose seeks to reimpose them only on corporations.

The FEC must constantly fight to overcome the perception that the law is merely a partisan tool of dominant political interests. Failure to maintain an evenhanded approach towards unions and corporations threatens public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system.

* BILL OF RIGHTS...??? WHAT BILL OF RIGHTS...?!?! (*SMIRK*)

* FOLKS... SERIOUSLY... ALL WISEASS CRACKS ASIDE... THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS CLEARLY UNDER ASSAULT.

May 19, 2010 at 10:19 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/doj-voting-rights-attorney-resigns-over-black-panthers-stonewalling-94202249.html

A trial attorney with the Department of Justice’s Voting Rights Section has resigned, citing concerns about the government’s refusal to prosecute a case involving voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party.

A letter of resignation obtained by The Washington Examiner from a former Justice Department employee makes clear DOJ has refused to allow attorneys in the Voting Rights Section to testify before the congressionally-chartered bipartisan U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, despite subpoenas...

* THE AGE OF HOLDER...???

May 19, 2010 at 11:43 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://article.nationalreview.com/434422/senate-storm-warning/tony-blankley

Today, liberal presidents attempt to use their appointments with the intent to systematically undermine - not uphold - the Constitution.

* THAT IS TRUE!

And they do so because their vision of an ever more statist America is inconsistent with the Constitution’s fundamental purpose: to limit the size and scope of government.

* AS ANYONE WITH EVEN AN ADEQUATE EDUCATION KNOWS, THIS ALSO IS TRUE.

And note, this is not a case of “both sides do it,” although it is true that conservative presidents look for nominees who will support original intent, strict construction, or other methods of trying to adhere to the Constitution. But - and this is paramount - because liberal justices tend to seek to undermine the clear intent of the Constitution while conservative justices try to hold the line, the result is an inexorable march toward undermining the Constitution, with conservative appointments functioning as mere temporary holding actions.

* EXACTLY...!!! THERE IS NO "MORAL EQUIVALENCY" BETWEEN ON THE ONE HAND SEEKING TO APPOINT JUSTICES WHO WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THEIR SWORN OATHS TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND ON THE OTHER HAND SEEKING TO APPOINT JUSTICES WHO WILL IGNORE THE TEXT AND MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN THAT TEXT AND MEANING CONFLICTS WITH THEIR "PROGRESSIVE" PERSONAL IDEOLOGICAL VIEWS AND ASPIRATIONS FOR THE COUNTRY.

May 19, 2010 at 11:44 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703957904575252671939962604.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

Senate Democrats continue to claim that their pending financial reform bill will end bailouts.

* THEY'RE LYING.

Gus Sauter is the Chief Investment Officer at Vanguard Group, the mutual fund giant that manages more than $1 trillion of investor savings.

Mr. Sauter told [the WSJ editorial board] this week that, even after recent amendments, the [Dodd] Senate bill still allows the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to play favorites among the creditors of a failing institution undergoing FDIC resolution.

Specifically, the FDIC could provide a 100% bailout to whichever of these creditors it favors, while imposing severe losses on other investors who bought the exact same bonds.

* SEE THE PREVIOUS NEWSBITE CONCERNING HOW THE DEMS ARE TRYING TO PLAY FAVORITES ON BASIC FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS... (*SIGH*)... AND THEN TELL ME WITH A STRAIGHT FACE YOU DON'T DISCERN A PATTERN HERE.

Handing the executive branch the power to provide risk-free investing to favored institutions opens the door for all kinds of political mischief and favoritism and is fundamentally incompatible with a market economy. Americans have made it crystal-clear that they want the freedom to fail restored in U.S. financial markets, and those who vote for the current Senate bill will be defying the public and voting for more bailouts.

May 19, 2010 at 11:44 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=534453http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=534453

Can someone who misrepresents his military record be elected to the U.S. Senate? Connecticut's Democratic attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, has little enough shame to try and find out.

May 19, 2010 at 11:46 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635204575242241281902852.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecondBucket

The U.S. corporate tax system has become unwieldy, inconsistent with world practice, and highly anti-competitive. The statutory corporate income tax rate is one of the highest in the world at about 40%, which harms the economy and encourages companies to shift investment and profits abroad to lower-tax jurisdictions.

[T]he U.S. effective corporate rate is 35%, which is much higher than the 80-nation average of just 18.2%.

In recent years, most major nations have reduced their statutory corporate income tax rates. ... Along with these rate cuts, many nations have reformed their corporate tax bases to reduce the disparity of tax burdens across business activities. A recent OECD study found that these reforms have benefited both governments and economies - capital investment has grown and corporate tax revenues as a share of gross domestic product has risen in many countries as reported profits have increased.

By contrast, the past decade is a lost one for U.S. business tax reform. Unlike most OECD countries that cut their corporate income tax rates or reduced other taxes on business investment, the United States enacted some targeted preferences while maintaining a very high federal corporate rate. The United States imposes additional tax burdens on investment as a result of state and local sales taxes on capital purchases and asset-based taxes on capital goods. These taxes increase the overall effective tax rate and create an additional disincentive for new investment.

[T]he high U.S. corporate tax rate is applied to worldwide profits, which places the overseas operations of U.S. multinational corporations at a tax disadvantage compared to businesses based in countries that have both a lower corporate tax rate and a tax exemption for repatriated foreign profits.

* JUST STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW... (*SHRUG*)

May 19, 2010 at 11:46 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/lenders-agree-prop-ailing-shorebank/

Some of the nation's largest banks have agreed to contribute enough money to save Chicago-based ShoreBank, the community lender with strong ties to the Obama administration...

The banks have agreed to contribute $140 million to bail out the bank, while the federal government will donate tens of millions more, according to people close to the talks.

In addition to major Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, which agreed to contribute $20 million to the bailout effort, as well as Citigroup and JPMorgan, General Electric's GE Capital will also contribute $20 million to the rescue effort. All the firms have either received massive government assistance during the financial crisis or, in the case of Goldman Sachs, are facing multiple regulatory investigations into their business practices.

Senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett served on a Chicago civic organization with a director of the bank, and President Obama himself has singled out the bank for praise in lending to low-income communities.

[T]he bank has made its share of bad bets, and some of the Wall Street firms that have given money have said they've received political pressure to contribute to the bailout of a business that under normal circumstances would have been left to fail.

* OK. THAT ONE'S A BRIDGE TOO FAR UNLESS THE CLAIM IS BACKED UP BY NAMED SOURCES; EVEN THEN, I'D WANT TO HAVE THE TESTIMONY TAKEN UNDER OATH AS PART OF A FORMAL INVESTIGATION.

It's still unclear how much the federal government will contribute to save the bank because it's unclear exactly how much is needed to save the institution, which without the bailout would have been taken over by the FDIC.

* REFERRING BACK TO MY PREVIOUS COMMENT, IT SEEMS THAT JOURNALISTS AREN'T THE ONLY ONE'S SEEKING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS. CHECK OUT THE NEXT NEWSBITE!

May 19, 2010 at 4:41 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://bachus.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=997&Itemid=104

Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) today asked the Obama Administration to explain its role in the bailout of ShoreBank in light of recent reports suggesting that the Administration pressured banks that previously received funding under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to inject capital into the Chicago-based bank.

“The Obama Administration’s involvement raises very serious questions as to why the federal government is rescuing a politically connected hometown bank when hundreds of others are forced to close,” said Bachus, who is Ranking Member on the House Financial Services Committee.

In a letter sent to the President, Bachus and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Ranking Member Judy Biggert (R-IL) demanded to know who in the Administration was involved in orchestrating capital contributions totaling approximately $150 million by some of the nation’s largest banks, including Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, so that ShoreBank could qualify for $75 million in TARP funding.

“When you have the Obama Administration picking winners and losers, their political friends get bailed out while taxpayers and those less politically connected get the short end of the stick,” Bachus said.

In addition to requesting responses as to who in the Administration was involved, Bachus and Biggert called on the White House to release all records of communication - including emails, phone logs and meeting records - related to the ShoreBank negotiations that exist between the Administration and representatives of ShoreBank, and executives of the banks involved in the bailout, including, but not limited to Lloyd Blankfein, Eugene Ludwig and consultants to these banks and Promontory Financial Group.

“There is no way a bank without ShoreBank’s political connections would receive this kind of attention, and these actions fully make the case as to why the government should refrain from subjective, ad-hoc bailout practices,” Bachus continued.

* WE'LL SEE... (*SHRUG*)

May 19, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)