Barney Frank - Poster Child For Term Limits
Change you can believe in was the motto. Yes, we got some change, but only a little and not for the better. What we need is real change - in the right place. We need a change in Congress. We need the near-sighted Representatives and Senators who led us into this mess to be gone. Think what we could accomplish with 535 people who were looking out for what is in the best interest of our country over the next 10 years, rather than how to get re-elected.
I have not been a fan of term limits because I think the people need a choice. However, the system has developed to the point that the incumbent has an incredible advantage. Congress has developed into a club where years in the seat gives you far more power. Why would someone want to replace one of the Senators who sits on the Appropriations Committee, the Committee which oversees the budget. Sen. Feinstein of California was unapologetic about loading up the pork for California, even when it was to companies in which her husband was a major stockholder.
Likewise, Senators and Representatives get the franking privilege. They get to send mail to everyone in the congressional district for free. Talk about free advertising. Actually, it is not free, each of us pays for it. It just lets our politicians charge us to send us advertising. Image how well your business would be doing if the general public had to pay your company to send them advertisements.
Last, but not least, is the ability of sitting politicians to raise large amounts of cash. Senators and Representatives can get huge contributions by selling their votes. (Well, they are not really selling their votes, they are just voting the way the were going to right after getting a large check from some special interest, wink, wink).
What is the result - a Congress that it completely reactionary and which has a complete lack of foresight. The latest bail out bill allowed companies to pay bonuses. AIG did so - arguably they had contracts they had to honor. When the public got ticked, Congress, lead in part by Barney Frank, rushed to penalize those who received the bonuses by passing a law to tax them at 90 percent. Sounds good - Right? Maybe if you do not take any time to look at the unintended consequences. Once Congress gave these entities billions of dollars of taxpayer money, it became important that they survive. Their survival, however, is going to take really bright people - i.e. different people than have been running these firms for the last decade. But why would anyone smart enough to fix AIG sign on for the job if the government is going to tax any bonuses you earn at 90%.
Congress has a long history of doing the politically expedient for short term (election) benefit at the expense of the American people. For example, the same Barney Frank who wants to tax the AIG bonuses at 90 percent fought government regulators who were warning that the policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a train wreck waiting to happen.
Ironically, during that same period, a couple of Barney Frank's cohorts were making out like bandits. Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick managed to make a combined $165 million (interesting irony that it is the same amount as the AIG bonuses) at Fannie Mae. During that time there were "accounting irregularities" at Fannie Mae and the firm was required to pay $400 million in civil fines. Interestingly, Mr. Frank never proposed the idea of taxing Mr. Raines' or Ms. Gorelick's windfall profits. To the contrary, Rep. Frank and several of his allies actively fought attempts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Apparently, the executives at AIG do not have enough friends in Congress. (Ms. Gorelick is the same individual who heightened the wall barring the CIA and other intelligence agencies from sharing information with law enforcement while in the Department of Justice in the 1990s - and then was appointed to the 9/11 commission to oversee (at least in part) work she had done). Isn't it interesting that no-one in Congress seems to understand a conflict of interest. Next time at work when there is a problem that you might have had something to do with, make sure you get on the committee that reviews the problem so you can make sure that anything you did is excluded as part of the problem
Do your remember when Hank Paulson told us that there were only a few days for Congress to pass a $700 Billion bailout to keep the credit markets alive in light of the credit crisis brought on by collaterialized debt obligations (CMOs) - ie. bundled mortgages and derivative thereof. Congress did so. Of course, most people are unaware that Paulson's job prior to Treasury Secretary was making big money as the Chairman of Goldman Sachs - one of the top sellers of CMOs. So what did Hank do with all that money (the bailout money rather than his windfall from the sale of paper that brought on the credit crisis) - not what he originally represented. And did he solve the credit crisis - No!
So we, the American people, wanted change. We got it. A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office predicts that Pres. Obama's budget will produce a deficit of $9.3 Trillion over the next decade. Yes, who would have thought that anyone could outspend the man from Crawford, Texas, but things have changed. By the end of Pres. Obama's administration (if he can win the next election), the deficit will be nearly $20 Trillion. In other words, the average American will owe $66,000 for the government debt, on top of what ever house, education and commercial debt they have. The statistical average family (Mom, Dad and 2.4 children) will owe $300,000.
So where does the money come from. China has already indicated that they do not have the money to keep funding our deficits. The only way out is to keep the government printing presses running day and night. Of course, this will ultimately lead to high inflation rates. (Unless we change course quickly, this will be the only way that the government can ever hope to pay off the national debt). Of course, anyone living on a fixed income will be devastated as the value of their savings plummets. It has happened over and over again in other countries. In Zimbabwe they now have a $100 Billion bank note. It is worth roughly $1 in U.S. currency. In 1980, the currencies were of equal value. (On the bright side, everyone in Zimbabwe is a multi-billionaire - if we could be so lucky).
High inflation rewards those who are deeply in debt and penalizes those who have savings or lived on a fixed income. Unfortunately, it now seems like it is the goal of government to protect those who have acted foolishly - i.e. AIG, GM, Chrysler and individuals who bought homes they clearly could not afford - and penalize those who have acted responsibly by passing on the debt to those who have actually saved and invested.
That is why I am in favor of term limits. It is the only way to get our politicians to go home. We can't vote them out. They will just promise benefits to enough people to win the vote. Look how easy it was for Pres. Obama to promise that he would reduce taxes on the majority of Americans by raising taxes on the wealthy. Of course, most of the population overlooked the fact that approximately 1/3 of Americans do not pay any federal income taxes at all, and many of those actually get money back from the government through the Earned Income Credit. (So how exactly do you reduce taxes on people who do not pay any to begin with?).
The only way to get our country back is to get them out and ensure turn over. The only reason a lobbyist has any power, it that he or she can promise to bring in the donations for the next election cycle. If politicians knew that this stay in office would be their last (at least temporarily) they would be more likely to actually address the issues the country is facing. In other words, why not make the tough decisions if you do not have to worry about whether you can get re-elected.
Sorry for the rant, but as the abuses in Washington are getting no better and some get worse, I am increasingly concerned by the lack of outrage in the American people. It is if Americans are saying "It is o.k. to bankrupt our country and take away our freedom - just promise to take care of us and protect us from the disasters you have created." If we put up with it, we deserve what we get. If you want to see where we are headed, Venezuela or 1930s Germany or Italy provide a pretty good road map. As soon as the people abdicate power to the government to solve some problem, the odds that they will ever get the power back go down.
I really hope that Americans find the nerve to realize that unemployment is a good thing when it comes to politicians.
I have not been a fan of term limits because I think the people need a choice. However, the system has developed to the point that the incumbent has an incredible advantage. Congress has developed into a club where years in the seat gives you far more power. Why would someone want to replace one of the Senators who sits on the Appropriations Committee, the Committee which oversees the budget. Sen. Feinstein of California was unapologetic about loading up the pork for California, even when it was to companies in which her husband was a major stockholder.
Likewise, Senators and Representatives get the franking privilege. They get to send mail to everyone in the congressional district for free. Talk about free advertising. Actually, it is not free, each of us pays for it. It just lets our politicians charge us to send us advertising. Image how well your business would be doing if the general public had to pay your company to send them advertisements.
Last, but not least, is the ability of sitting politicians to raise large amounts of cash. Senators and Representatives can get huge contributions by selling their votes. (Well, they are not really selling their votes, they are just voting the way the were going to right after getting a large check from some special interest, wink, wink).
What is the result - a Congress that it completely reactionary and which has a complete lack of foresight. The latest bail out bill allowed companies to pay bonuses. AIG did so - arguably they had contracts they had to honor. When the public got ticked, Congress, lead in part by Barney Frank, rushed to penalize those who received the bonuses by passing a law to tax them at 90 percent. Sounds good - Right? Maybe if you do not take any time to look at the unintended consequences. Once Congress gave these entities billions of dollars of taxpayer money, it became important that they survive. Their survival, however, is going to take really bright people - i.e. different people than have been running these firms for the last decade. But why would anyone smart enough to fix AIG sign on for the job if the government is going to tax any bonuses you earn at 90%.
Congress has a long history of doing the politically expedient for short term (election) benefit at the expense of the American people. For example, the same Barney Frank who wants to tax the AIG bonuses at 90 percent fought government regulators who were warning that the policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a train wreck waiting to happen.
Ironically, during that same period, a couple of Barney Frank's cohorts were making out like bandits. Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick managed to make a combined $165 million (interesting irony that it is the same amount as the AIG bonuses) at Fannie Mae. During that time there were "accounting irregularities" at Fannie Mae and the firm was required to pay $400 million in civil fines. Interestingly, Mr. Frank never proposed the idea of taxing Mr. Raines' or Ms. Gorelick's windfall profits. To the contrary, Rep. Frank and several of his allies actively fought attempts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Apparently, the executives at AIG do not have enough friends in Congress. (Ms. Gorelick is the same individual who heightened the wall barring the CIA and other intelligence agencies from sharing information with law enforcement while in the Department of Justice in the 1990s - and then was appointed to the 9/11 commission to oversee (at least in part) work she had done). Isn't it interesting that no-one in Congress seems to understand a conflict of interest. Next time at work when there is a problem that you might have had something to do with, make sure you get on the committee that reviews the problem so you can make sure that anything you did is excluded as part of the problem
Do your remember when Hank Paulson told us that there were only a few days for Congress to pass a $700 Billion bailout to keep the credit markets alive in light of the credit crisis brought on by collaterialized debt obligations (CMOs) - ie. bundled mortgages and derivative thereof. Congress did so. Of course, most people are unaware that Paulson's job prior to Treasury Secretary was making big money as the Chairman of Goldman Sachs - one of the top sellers of CMOs. So what did Hank do with all that money (the bailout money rather than his windfall from the sale of paper that brought on the credit crisis) - not what he originally represented. And did he solve the credit crisis - No!
So we, the American people, wanted change. We got it. A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office predicts that Pres. Obama's budget will produce a deficit of $9.3 Trillion over the next decade. Yes, who would have thought that anyone could outspend the man from Crawford, Texas, but things have changed. By the end of Pres. Obama's administration (if he can win the next election), the deficit will be nearly $20 Trillion. In other words, the average American will owe $66,000 for the government debt, on top of what ever house, education and commercial debt they have. The statistical average family (Mom, Dad and 2.4 children) will owe $300,000.
So where does the money come from. China has already indicated that they do not have the money to keep funding our deficits. The only way out is to keep the government printing presses running day and night. Of course, this will ultimately lead to high inflation rates. (Unless we change course quickly, this will be the only way that the government can ever hope to pay off the national debt). Of course, anyone living on a fixed income will be devastated as the value of their savings plummets. It has happened over and over again in other countries. In Zimbabwe they now have a $100 Billion bank note. It is worth roughly $1 in U.S. currency. In 1980, the currencies were of equal value. (On the bright side, everyone in Zimbabwe is a multi-billionaire - if we could be so lucky).
High inflation rewards those who are deeply in debt and penalizes those who have savings or lived on a fixed income. Unfortunately, it now seems like it is the goal of government to protect those who have acted foolishly - i.e. AIG, GM, Chrysler and individuals who bought homes they clearly could not afford - and penalize those who have acted responsibly by passing on the debt to those who have actually saved and invested.
That is why I am in favor of term limits. It is the only way to get our politicians to go home. We can't vote them out. They will just promise benefits to enough people to win the vote. Look how easy it was for Pres. Obama to promise that he would reduce taxes on the majority of Americans by raising taxes on the wealthy. Of course, most of the population overlooked the fact that approximately 1/3 of Americans do not pay any federal income taxes at all, and many of those actually get money back from the government through the Earned Income Credit. (So how exactly do you reduce taxes on people who do not pay any to begin with?).
The only way to get our country back is to get them out and ensure turn over. The only reason a lobbyist has any power, it that he or she can promise to bring in the donations for the next election cycle. If politicians knew that this stay in office would be their last (at least temporarily) they would be more likely to actually address the issues the country is facing. In other words, why not make the tough decisions if you do not have to worry about whether you can get re-elected.
Sorry for the rant, but as the abuses in Washington are getting no better and some get worse, I am increasingly concerned by the lack of outrage in the American people. It is if Americans are saying "It is o.k. to bankrupt our country and take away our freedom - just promise to take care of us and protect us from the disasters you have created." If we put up with it, we deserve what we get. If you want to see where we are headed, Venezuela or 1930s Germany or Italy provide a pretty good road map. As soon as the people abdicate power to the government to solve some problem, the odds that they will ever get the power back go down.
I really hope that Americans find the nerve to realize that unemployment is a good thing when it comes to politicians.
Comments