And that would be Obamacare. Specifically, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a major part of the unread-before-passed-bill. You might know it better as the “Death Panels.” From The Daily Caller:

[snip]Frank, who announced Monday that he would retire at the end of his current term in office, became the 12th Democrat, and the 212th member of the House, to co-sponsor Tennessee Republican Rep. Phil Roe’s bill aimed at repealing the IPAB.

[...]

IPAB is a 15-member board, appointed by the president, scheduled to convene in 2014. In order to reduce per capita Medicare spending, the board will recommend levels at which Medicare recipients, including seniors, can be reimbursed for health care expenses.

In March, Roe told The Daily Caller the IPAB is the “real death panel” in the health care law, as compared to “end-of-life counseling” Obamacare provisions which former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once deemed “death panels.”

“This one is the real baby right here — and most people missed this,” Roe told TheDC then. “What everybody was talking about, when you saw Sarah Palin and so forth, what they were talking about these advanced directives where you sit down and there’s sort of mandatory counseling — and Medicare paid for it. This IPAB got missed — and it’s the real death panel.”

Isn’t that pretty much what we had been saying? But wait, there is more:

“Basically, there’s a certain amount of money that’s allocated for Medicare spending each year,” Roe said in March. “Once you hit that amount that’s been appropriated, this board, this bureaucratically appointed board, can then decide, not based on quality or need, but based on strictly cost.”

According to Diane Cohen, the conservative Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney covering Obamacare, IPAB is the “most notorious” of all the bureaucracies the health care law created because it hands Medicare payment decisions over to an unelected board. (Click here to read the rest.)

Isn’t this incredible? I guess it should be no surprise given the numerous czars Obama has put in place making major decisions for us. They aren’t elected, either. Hell, they aren’t even vetted by anyone! But that the Democrats, and it was SOLELY the Democrats, voted to make this the law of the land is telling indeed.

Too bad Rep. Frank didn’t make this decision two years, and maybe states wouldn’t be saddled with fighting the Constitutionality of Obamacare. They wouldn’t have to be spending so much time and treasure trying to protect their citizens from the unilateral move of one party against all of the objections of its citizenry. Party Before Country rules the day far too often, as I have said, and this was no exemption. But maybe, just MAYBE, these people will finally start caring more about the country than whatever perks they might get for selling their souls for the benefit of the Party leaders.

And speaking of money, given all of the brouhaha paid to mere whispers of allegations over Herman Cain 24/7, you may be surprised to learn that former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton backstabbing opportunist, is under investigation for a regarding allegations of paying off his mistress. Oh, yes, and it was not a small sum of money, either, as the Wall Street Journal reports:

A federal grand jury is investigating former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson over possible campaign-finance violations stemming from his 2008 presidential run, including allegations that he arranged for supporters to pay off a woman who planned to say they had engaged in an extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Several of Mr. Richardson’s close associates have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony before the panel in Albuquerque, the people said. The panel is one of several grand juries in recent years to examine aspects of Mr. Richardson’s administration and campaigns.

[...]

The investigation comes at a difficult time for New Mexico Democrats, who are struggling to regroup after losing the governor’s mansion—Mr. Richardson couldn’t run again because of term limits—and a number of state legislative seats in 2010. The state is considered a key battleground in the 2012 presidential election and also may be crucial to control of the U.S. Senate, as both parties fight for a vacant seat now held by retiring Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman.

New Mexico Republicans benefited in the last election from grand-jury investigations related to the departing Richardson administration, said Brian Sanderoff, president of an independent polling firm in Albuquerque. If an indictment rekindles memories of alleged Democratic corruption, “it sure won’t help” Democrats in 2012, he said.

Uh, yeah – I imagine that won’t be too helpful to the Democrats in New Mexico. And now for that number:

[snip]The most explosive matter under investigation involves allegations by a former member of Mr. Richardson’s inner circle. That individual said Mr. Richardson’s political allies gave $250,000 to placate a woman who was considering suing the governor in 2007, exposing their alleged extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the federal probe. They said the woman was a state employee at the time that she allegedly became romantically involved with Mr. Richardson around 2004. The woman’s identity has not been disclosed, and the type of suit considered has not been confirmed. (Click here to read the rest.)

The article goes on, and I recommend you read the rest. You may recall, as I mentioned above, that Richardson threw Hillary Clinton under the bus so fast when he thought he was going to get some plumb assignment in Obama’s Circle that the bus didn’t even have a chance to leave skid marks (Commerce Secretary was the post for which he was being considered). So, if you wondered why he never showed up with all of Obama’s Chicago Thugs Cronies, it was a question related to contributions for his presidential run, and the possibility of links to some contracts he made. You know, just like Obama has done with our money to places like Solyndra, and a whole HOST of jobs in his Administration.

Doesn’t that kind of beg the question of if it kept Richardson OUT of Obama’s Administration to have even the question of a possible link between donors and contracts, why is it okay for Obama to have filled his White House with donors, or give our money to companies owned by his donors? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Maybe someone out there can fill me in.

Well, I will sure be interested to see how things shake out now that Barney has joined in to fight against the IPAB. Perhaps this is just the push we need to get this horrible law off the books, and do it RIGHT the next time, with thoughtful consideration, no handouts to Big Pharma, and the support of the majority of the people.

As for Richardson, couldn’t happen to a more deserving person, if you ask me. Sure would be nice if the media bothered to report on this the way they couldn’t WAIT to throw out mere rumors around Herman Cain, but I guess that is just too much to ask these days. Kinda like how they are gleeful over the new Unemployment numbers, until you read further down and find out WHY the numbers are lower. Even The Hill is guilty of that (and Eric Bolling said this morning that the new number is TOO low considering jobs created and files for unemployment, which I thought, too. It should be closer to 8.9%, not 8.6%.). Oh,and in case you missed why, it is because a big bunch of people just dropped out. They gave up. They just gave up trying to find work. THAT should be the headline, IMHO.

Wouldn’t it be nice if our politicians stopped playing politics with people’s lives? Yeah, though I am not going to hold my breath for that day. Anyway, consider this an Open Thread. What’s on your minds?

You remember the Patriot Act – it is the one many of us were furious about when the Bush Administration came up with it. It is the one that permits warrant-less wiretapping on US citizens. The very one Obama, as Candidate Obama, took time out from pandering to the masses to vote to extend the last time, though Senators Clinton and McCain were opposed to it.

And you may recall, Obama’s minions were adamantly opposed to the Patriot Act. Adamantly opposed. When he pulled that stunt, going to vote for it, their eyes glossed over, their ears closed, and their brains shut down so they wouldn’t go into apoplexy. My younger brother, a stalwart Obamabot, said it was “disappointing” that Obama voted for it. “Disappointing.” Right.

So, what is it now that President Obama has signed an extension, huh? Where is MoveOn.org NOW? Where is Code Pink? Where is DailyKos? I’m just wondering.

Another question I have is, why does Barney Frank not think it is a conflict of interest for him to push his then-lover to work for Fannie Mae? He doesn’t think there are any “ethical” problems with it at all:

[snip] “If it is (a conflict of interest), then much of Washington is involved (in conflicts),” Frank told the Herald last night. “It is a common thing in Washington for members of Congress to have spouses work for the federal government. There is no rule against it at all.”

Frank said he helped his former longtime companion, Herb Moses, land a job at Fannie Mae in 1991 after Moses graduated with a master’s degree in business administration from Dartmouth College. Frank said he was approached by a Fannie Mae executive and vouched for Moses, who formerly worked as an economist in the Department of Agriculture. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh huh. Yeah, this is just how Washington does it, so what’s the big deal? Well, this is:

[snip] OK. But Barney’s problem with this latest “bias and vitriol” is that it doesn’t come from the Herald. It comes from a New York Times [NYT] reporter, Gretchen Morgenson — a Pulitzer Prize winner — in a new book, “Reckless Endangerment.”

Morgenson accused Barney of getting a job for his boyfriend on a show a couple of days ago on, of all places, National Public Radio.

[snip]

Can anyone dispute that the New York Times/Boston Globe protects and venerates Barney Frank? And yet here is what the Times’ Pulitzer Prize winner says:

“Frank actually called up the company (Fannie Mae) and asked them to hire his companion, who had just gotten an MBA from the Amos Tuck School of Business (at Dartmouth). . . . Of course the company was happy to provide a job for his companion and rolled out the red carpet in a series of interviews with a variety of executives, and it ultimately did hire the man.”

Another nationwide search!

“And he stayed there for, I believe, seven years.”

[...]

The Pulitzer Prize winner from the Times interviewed Barney about his Significant Other, and Mr. Hot Bottom assured her he never, ever went to bat for his boyfriend’s employer at congressional hearings. Not true, says the NYT reporter.

“The record shows that he was very aggressive and really tough on those who were testifying in Congress about reining in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

True love is what it was. Later on, Barney had an epiphany about Fannie Mae’s corruption. But as Morgenson puts it, “He had been a vocal supporter for so long that it was sort of an odd turnabout.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I’ll say it was. And if you recall, Fannie and Freddie have had wide ranging, far reaching, effects on our economy. So, thanks a lot for that, Barney. And of course, you did NOTHING wrong. Ahahahahahaha. Right.

And it came out the other day that Obama Administration has paid the six top executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the past two years – $34.4 MILLION. Yes, you read that right. Read more here:

[snip] Over the last two years, the Obama administration has approved a whopping $34.4 million in compensation to the top six executives of the financially troubled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage giants, and lacks the necessary protections to ensure such compensation is even warranted.
The largesse flowed to the six executives even though the two companies they run struggle to staunch billions of dollars in losses, remain in government conservatorship, and must compensate taxpayers for assuming the companies’ liabilities during the mortgage crisis. To compensate taxpayers, Fannie and Freddie are tapping Treasury Department funds to pay required 10 percent dividends each quarter to the U.S. government.[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

These two mortgage behemoths have helped to throw this country into an economic tailspin, and are still bleeding money. And WE are paying them that kind of money?? This is insane. It is absolutely insane. Wow…

And finally, I’d also like to know why Obama is wanting to shell out billions of OUR taxpaying dollars to go to Egypt and other so-called “Arab Spring” countries? I understand he wants to send money there for job creation? What about job creation in his OWN country?? (The other day, when I posted this at my blog, I had mentioned Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her “Do As I Say, Not As I Do, and Buy American,” but Larry Johnson covered it in his own inimitable style, so no need to rehash it here unless you want to do so.)

And not for nothing, but this money will be going to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, the “rebels” in Libya, who are not all freedom loving would be Democrats. Not at all, since some of them have ties to Al-Qaeda. And we are going to help fund them WHY, exactly?

See, I have questions, though the above are just the beginning. Anyone have some answers?

I must say, she does make some good points in this article:

[snip] After enjoying ephemeral highs and spending binges, you suffer crashes that culminate in brief, unsuccessful stints in rehab. This cycle repeats itself every five to 10 years, as the rest of the country looks on with a mixture of horror and amusement. We’d feel sorry for you if you didn’t constantly flip us the bird.

Instead, we’re making bets on how long it will be before your next meltdown. Oh, wait—you’re already melting down.

You’ve racked up nearly $70 billion in general obligation debt, and that doesn’t include your $500 billion unfunded pension liability. Your own analysts predict you’ll face a hole of at least $80 billion over the next four years. [snip]

This reminds me of something a friend of mine who lives in California told me. A family member of hers didn’t understand how a business person like Meg Whitman could possibly govern California. As in, what would she know about running a state?

Huh?

How is it that I know that California has one of the largest economies in the WORLD (8th, down from 6th), but someone who lives there doesn’t get that? Isn’t a business person EXACTLY who you would want to try and pull your state up out of its flirtation with bankruptcy?

To continue with Ms. Finley’s piece:

[snip]It’s not as if you don’t recognize that you’ve got problems. Roughly three-quarters of you say you’re headed in the wrong direction, according to a recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. You’re even more depressed than Illinois and New York, and you’ve got sunshine 10 months of the year!

You appropriately give your government low marks—28% approval for outgoing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, 16% for the legislature—yet you continue to re-elect the politicians who got you into this mess. Not a single incumbent state legislator lost re-election this year, including one Democrat who died a month ago (no joke). What’s scarier is that you’ve just given almost all of the keys to statewide offices to Democrats.

Jerry Brown will be your new (old) governor. This is the man who acted as a gateway drug to your spending addiction three decades ago when he gave public-sector employees collective bargaining rights. Helping enforce your wacky laws will be Lt. Gov-elect Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco mayor who flouted state law by allowing same-sex marriage. On the plus side, he has nice hair and loves you just the way you are…{snip]

Isn’t that the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome? I’m pretty sure it is. And no doubt, that is why Ms. Finley concluded her article with this:

[snip] We’ve tried to help you, California. Some spent millions on campaigns to entice you to change your reckless behavior. And you told them to kick rocks.

So here’s our final warning: When you inevitably crash and burn, don’t count on us to bail you out.(Click HERE to read the rest.)

Amen to that. Whatever happens to you next, California, you brought it squarely on yourself. Time to grow up, and take responsibility for your actions (same goes for Lindsey Lohan).

And while we are talking about insanity, how about Massachusetts re-electing Barney Frank? No, I am not just talking about his post-election rant, but how many of you knew that his partner was busted in 2007 for growing marijuana? Not just was his partner, James Ready busted for it, but Frank was PRESENT at the time of his arrest. Oh, but wait – it gets better. In Jonah Goldberg’s very good piece on Frank, Frank claimed that he “is not a great outdoorsman,” so you know he, um, didn’t recognize that the plants in front of him just happened to be pot ’cause he just doesn’t know about plants and stuff. Riiiiggghhhttttt.

But it gets even better (I tell you, this Goldberg article is a wealth of hilarious information about Barney Frank – that is, if you think an elected official breaking the law repeatedly is funny). Yes, this also has to do with one of Frank’s partners, and it’s a doozy:

[snip] Twenty years earlier, Mr. Frank endured another controversy when his one-time partner, personal aide and roommate was revealed to be running a prostitution service out of Mr. Frank’s home. The Massachusetts congressmen insisted he hadn’t noticed anything amiss until informed by his landlord. [snip]

Are you freaking kidding me?? And this guy is SILL in office? I’m sorry, but what the hell is wrong with the people in Massachusetts that this guy keeps getting elected?

I mean, personal stuff aside (and holy moley), even more than the above is his involvement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, about which I have written previously. Not for nothing, but helping to send our country down the tubes economically is no small thing:

[snip] And when Mr. Frank helped fuel a housing bubble that nearly crippled the economy for a generation, he again failed to notice anything was awry until it was obvious for all to see. [snip]

But here is the crux of the matter with Mr. Frank (and a few other elected officials, say Rangel, Waters, et al):

[snip] While lesser men, perhaps those not dubbed the “brainiest” man on Capitol Hill by congressional staffers, might worry about accountability, Mr. Frank considers it an affront, given his personal and professional record. In short, Mr. Frank has a very solid record of obliviousness, denial and entitlement.[snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

I’ll say. The same can be said for “Call me SENATOR, General” Boxer, and a host of other folks sitting in Congress. I reckon we can add Nancy Pelosi to the “oblivious” team given her desire to run for the Minority Leader position after many Democrats lost their jobs as a result of her heavy-handed, tone-deaf leadership. Yikes. Clearly, she thinks the “shellacking” the Democrats received in the recent election had nothing to do with her.

Oh, wait – she’s from California. Yeah, okay – given the Lindsey Lohan-ness of that state, I guess this makes sense. It’s not her with the problem, it’s everyone else, I guess. Gotcha.

At some point, we have to stop the insanity. We have to stop keeping the same people in office who got us into the big mess in which we find ourselves. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi both have a great deal to answer for in terms of where we are economically, yet both will be returning to The Hill.

All I can say is, don’t come crying to the rest of us when things continue to go horribly wrong, especially you, California – you had your chance. And you blew it.

In the court case “Win” Column, there is this promising article from the Washington Post, “Judge Questions Justice Department’s Lawsuit Against Arizona Immigration Law.” According to the article, this does not bode well for the DOJ’s argument.

My favorite part of the article:

Judge John T. Noonan Jr. grilled administration lawyers at a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He took aim at the core of the Justice Department’s argument: that the Arizona statute is “preempted” by federal law and is especially troublesome because it requires mandatory immigration status checks in certain circumstances.

“I’ve read your brief, I’ve read the District Court opinion, I’ve heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don’t understand your argument,” Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. “We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That’s not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don’t have an argument.”

“With respect, I do believe we have an argument,” said Kneedler, who asserts that the Arizona law is unconstitutional and threatens civil liberties by subjecting lawful immigrants to “interrogation and police surveillance.”

The exchange came at a hearing on efforts by the Justice Department to overturn the Arizona law, which empowers police to question people they suspect are in the country illegally and has triggered a fierce national debate. A federal judge in Phoenix issued a July injunction blocking the law’s most contested provisions from taking effect. Arizona appealed, leading to the Monday hearing.

Holy moley, huh? I bet THAT was some fun to watch.

This case is still being considered, and no telling what the final outcome will be, but the attitude exhibited by Judge Noonan was certainly entertaining.

In the court case “Lose” category was this decision, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Is Back On, Indefinitely: Initial Reactions”

In the “I Told You So” category in terms of DADT, Harry Reid has already come out after the election with this claim, “Reid: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal Depends On GOP Cooperation.” Have I not been saying this all along, that this was the Democrats’ strategy? They knew they were going to lose their Super-majority in the recent election, and despite every opportunity to repeal DADT, Obama and the Democrats pushed it off. Check that – Obama did everything in his power to KEEP “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in place, as the recent appeal highlights. Unbelievable. Not unexpected, just unbelievable that they are starting the blame game the DAY after the election. Spare me.

And in the case of the recent election, the “I Won, But I’m Going To Act Like I Lost” category is Rep. Barney, Frank of MA, he of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac infamy (he claimed they were not in crisis -uh, riiigghhhttt…). As Ed Morrissey of Hot Air highlights, you would never know Barney Frank actually WON his seat against a late challenger(sigh) by the way he acted in his “acceptance” speech. Yes, it is over ten minutes long, but as Mr. Morrissey said:

[snip] Heck, when this got sent to me, I didn’t expect me to sit through it all, either. Once it gets started, it has a certain train-wreck quality to it that kept me hanging on until it finished. It’s a bit like watching Battlefield Earth all the way through to see if it actually gets worse, and in both cases, yes it does. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

See for yourself below:

Yikes. And he’s the WINNER?? Wow. I am a bit embarrassed that I actually voted for this guy. In my defense, then, he was not so much of a political hack (no, really, he wasn’t!! Sheesh. I might add, I can’t believe Deval Patrick won again, too. Holy moley.). Oh, and about Frank’s partner, Jim Ready, having to take it on the chin. Frank seems to forget that there is VIDEO available of his partner heckling Frank’s opponent, Sean Bielat, not the other way around. Wow, talk about revisionist history…

The past two years, along with the recent election, are lessons in winning some, and losing some, I guess. There were a couple of cases in which I wish we had won more, like on DADT and DOMA, but I never expected Obama to live up to his word on that, so I am not surprised. Just more anger at the DNC for shoving this man down our throats against the will of the majority. Hillary would have kept her promise to abolish DADT, not appealed a decision to stay it. Of that I am sure.

And we are still stuck with Harry Reid. Not that I thought Sharron Angle was a great alternative, I just cannot stand Harry Reid. I never did think he was a good choice for Senate Majority leader, and that opinion has only been strengthened in the time he has held that position. His quick blame of the GOP for an utter failure of Obama and the DNC is just another reason.

On the plus side, Nancy Pelosi will have to give up her gavel. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving person. I guess I should not be surprised that Pelosi continues to be in unbelievable denial about her tenure, saying she “has no regrets” (h/t to my aunt). Well, many of the REST of us sure have regrets about how she operated since we’ll be paying for it for years to come (unless Obamacare, the law that no one read, is repealed). That she cannot see her own myopia is no big surprise though, is it? Yeah, no.

So yes, you win some, you lose some. “Cest la vie.” Ain’t that the truth…

The Wall Street-Washington incest MUST end.

This coming Tuesday, America has a chance to ring that bell, expose that incest, cleanse the system, and deliver the message loud and clear. The peal of that bell must emanate from the 4th District in the state of Massachusetts.

You do not need to read Sense on Cents to appreciate that many politicians from both sides of the aisle have badly forsaken our nation’s future with misguided and ill-advised policies over the last few decades. Many of these politicians now look to save their skins– if not their souls– by professing a newly found religion with an anti-Wall Street mantel. America, and the residents of the 4th District in Massachusetts, should not be so easily hoodwinked. These politicians, especially Barney Frank, must be held accountable and sent home.

I implore the voters of the 4th District to think long and hard and appreciate that their longstanding elected representative Barney Frank embraced the people and the policies which continue to crush our nation. Which people? What policies? Those which were centered in America’s great financial sinkhole known as Fannie Mae then led by its former CEO Franklin Raines. During my own career on Wall Street, I witnessed Barney’s bear hug of Fannie and Franklin from up close. Do not forget Barney’s desire to ‘roll the dice’ with sub-prime mortgage financing.

Many media outlets will look the other way in holding Barney accountable; I have no interest in that.

In my strong opinion, Fannie Mae was nothing more than a Washington sponsored “Enron on steroids.” Who led the charge on Capitol Hill for the ‘private profit, social loss’ housing monster? Many Democrat and Republican politicos gladly stuck their hands in the Fannie Mae gift bag, but no politician more stridently promoted the programs of Fannie Mae than Barney Frank. Recalling Barney’s work on behalf of Fannie over the years, it was readily apparent to me that he had no understanding of the risks of mispricing capital. For those involved in the private sector and focused on properly pricing risk, the reality of a career politician not appreciating the proper price of capital is not difficult to understand. Regrettably, all of America now pays the price for Barney’s shortcoming and that of so many of his colleagues. While we pay that price, we do not need to and must not suffer from that shortcoming any longer.

I am not endorsing Sean Bielat simply because Barney ran interference for Fannie Mae and its failed socialized housing program for the last few decades. No, my interest in seeing the voters of the 4th District in Massachusetts “retire Barney” is also predicated on events of the last twelve months as well. How so? Where else did Barney fail us? Let’s continue to navigate.

Barney Frank is the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. In that role, he led the charge to supposedly re-regulate Wall Street via the Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Reform legislation. Say what you want about that legislation, but let me remind all of America that our pal Barney did not venture close to ‘ground zero’ during this process. Really? How so? As I wrote last March 22nd in my commentary, The BIG Hole in Financial Regulatory Reform:

Why am I so skeptical that Senator Chris Dodd’s proposed Financial Regulatory Reform (for overachievers in the audience, the link connects to the 89-page proposal) will truly change behaviors on Wall Street? For the very simple reason that I have seen no highlighting of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority within the proposed Financial Regulatory Reform. Strike you as a little odd? It strikes me that the Wall Street lobby is hard at work keeping its self-regulator, that being FINRA, right where they want it.

The fact that FINRA is not singled out by name in Dodd’s report is a HUGE red flag. Over and above that, Dodd’s proposal is nothing more than a review of the SEC’s oversight of FINRA. Why only once every three years? A review of the reviewer? That’s accountability? That’s transparency? Not in my book. In my opinion, that’s both a joke and a confirmation that the Wall Street lobby was hard at work to keep the wolves at bay!!

While my commentary last March focused specifically on Chris Dodd, the simple fact is Barney Frank walked very much in lock step with Dodd on this reform. The ultimate 2000-plus page Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Reform legislation barely makes mention of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Strike you as a little odd? Yes, me too. Very odd!!

Regrettably, America has come to understand that most political and financial reform is ultimately that in name only.

Neither Dodd nor Frank can say that they were not FULLY apprised of ALL the issues within FINRA. I shared all of my concerns regarding FINRA with the Project on Government Oversight early this year. POGO itself was also looking hard at the structural and practical failings of FINRA. Regular readers of Sense on Cents are well aware of my calls for increased transparency for FINRA. Those calls were echoed by POGO but they fell upon deaf ears in Washington. I wrote in my March commentary:

Perhaps Senator Dodd and his colleagues may want to review the Project on Government Oversight’s thoughts on FINRA in which they call the very concept of self-regulation for Wall Street into question. POGO’s letter to four separate Congressional sub-committees can be found here.

Neither Dodd, Frank, nor anybody else on Capitol Hill ever addressed POGO’s letter and grave concerns. That fact should be the final nail in Barney Frank’s political coffin.

Chris Dodd’s political career is over.

I implore the citizens of the 4th District in Massachusetts to do our nation an enormous service and end Barney Frank’s political career this coming Tuesday.

Sense on Cents strongly endorses Sean Bielat!!

Larry Doyle

P.S. I typically shun from this type of commentary. That said,  given the historic nature of this election and this specific race, I believe it is my civic responsibility to share my feelings and a link to my March commentary. Comments, questions, and constructive criticisms are encouraged and appreciated.

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no affiliation or business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. As President of Greenwich Investment Management, an SEC regulated privately held registered investment adviser, I am merely a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

The consumer protection bureau was the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren, a bankruptcy expert, consumer advocate and Harvard Law Professor who lobbied heavily for the creation of bureau.  So naturally, Ms. Warren seemed the obvious, as well as the ideal, person to head the new consumer protection bureau.

(Video by the Main Street Brigade in support of Elizabeth Warren candidacy for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau directorship.)

Pressure mounts for ‘Sheriff’ Elizabeth Warren says Jennifer Liberto at CNN Money:

Last week, 43 House Democrats sent a letter to President Obama, asking him to nominate Warren and requesting a meeting at the White House to discuss Warren’s appointment.

“You have an opportunity to appoint to head this body a true visionary — not the usual Washington careerist. You have an opportunity to appoint to this body the single best-qualified choice,” said the letter, signed by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., among others.

But Ms. Warren hasn’t exactly made friends with the powerful Banking community or the Treasury Department in her role as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program).

(h/t Alain Sherter for this oldie, but goodie of Ms. Warren and Mr. Geithner)

From the moment the bill was signed into law the Obama administration was quick to point out Warren isn’t the only candidate for the director job.  And even some congressional allies began sounding like detractors.  Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee warned Warren’s nomination could cause a protracted and lengthy battle in the Senate.  And he has repeatedly questioned whether Warren has the appropriate management skills to lead a large federal bureaucracy.

As Shahien Nasiripour at Huffington Post explains Dodd Questions Elizabeth Warren’s Management Experience — A Concern He’s Never Raised Before

… it’s the first time Chairman Dodd has publicly raised such an issue when it came to evaluating presidential nominees to agency positions under the banking committee’s purview.

A review of transcripts from past confirmation hearings shows that Dodd has never questioned the management experience of nominees to head federal agencies his committee oversees. The heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Housing Administration, the Export-Import Bank and the National Credit Union Administration all survived hearings under Dodd’s chairmanship without him once asking a question about the experience needed to guide their respective agencies.

Nor did Dodd raise any management questions when prospective bank regulators came before his committee — even when the regulators did not have significant management experience. In the two years prior to his assuming the chairmanship in 2007, the heads of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Thrift Supervision, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and a prior chief of the SEC all came before his committee. Each time, Dodd declined to ask about their experience running bureaucracies, a review of transcripts shows.

In fact, Dodd didn’t even show up for two of those hearings.

Two names that are bandied about to the director Michael Barr, a top lieutenant to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and Eugene Kimmelman, a top lawyer in the Justice Department.  But a third might win the prize.

In Obama & Frank: double dips and Washington exit strategies, Christopher Whalen:

It is becoming clear that the Obama Administration may not pick a candidate for the CFPB job until after the November election in order to dodge this very political issue.  By holding the voting on the new agency head until after the election, members of both parties will be able to extract maximum contributions from the banking lobby.  But I hear that the choice may have already been made.

It may surprise some observers that House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank may want the CFPB job for himself.  Frank reportedly has already expressed interest to the White House.  Sad to say, Chairman Frank probably has seniority over Chairman Warren.

“Barney did some heavy lifting,” says a source on the committee who is close to Frank.  “He might want a different gig, especially if he loses the chairman’s seat in November.  Frank would not want to hang around in Congress as part of the minority.  Being the first CFPB emperor, however, could be a more interesting gig than, say, eventually being made head of HUD of the FHA.”

Elizabeth Warren explains her problem with Congress’ response to protecting the American people during a radio interview in June ’10 with host Tom Ashbrook of On Point:

I got nothing when I walk into the room. You have to understand this. I don’t walk in with any votes, I don’t have any money to give. I just want to talk to people about what’s going on. And I think the part that is the hardest is sometimes I will talk to people in Congress – look, I think most of them, they didn’t go to Congress in order to lie, cheat, and steal. I think most of them went because they had some sense somewhere in their hearts at some point about public service. And I talk about what happens to middle class families and I watch faces, I watch eyes, connect on this, that say, “Yeah, I go back home, too.” And they name towns across America. And they say, “People are scared, people are worried, people are out of work. These are the things I hear in the grocery store, these are things I hear in the town hall meetings.”

TOM ASHBROOK: So what’s the counterweight then?

ELIZABETH WARREN: And then I say, “OK, look, here are three things we can do. But it’s about reining in an incredibly powerful industry. It’s about reining in a group that gives money and knows how to exercise power in Washington.” And I just watch the light go out, because it’s not going to happen.

Elizabeth Warren wants to protect the people.  But it’s the Bankers, not Ms. Warren or the American people, that have the money and the power to keep the lights on for Congress and President. So Congress knows who they need to protect first and foremost.  And its not the people.  Or Ms. Warren.

But why Barney Frank for the Director of the consumer financial protection bureau?

From Alain Sherter’s at BNet - Is Barney Frank After Elizabeth Warren’s Job Even Before She Has It?:

Frank, a fixture on Capitol Hill, knows how to cut deals with big business, as he showed in helping lead the fight over financial reform. It’s no accident that his leading financial contributor over his career is the American Bankers Association, followed by JPMorgan Chase (JPM).

So what are the odds of the Bankers getting what the Bankers want?

***

Uh, um, hell yes, there was a big problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Rep. Waters.

But wait, there’s more. Here is Rep. Waters revealing her true position on the government’s role in terms of Big Oil:

Okay, okay – I couldn’t resist that version. Too funny. Here is the real version:

Yes, all of that stuttering trying to cover up what she had just said is real. Yowzer.

Now, personally, I think Rep. Waters has demonstrated a complete and utter lack of integrity when it comes to financial issues, judging by her comments on Fannie and Freddie. So have Dodd and Frank, for that matter. That the latter two are the authors of a financial regulatory bill should give great pause to everyone.

So, it really should come as no surprise that now she wants to legislate quotas into the new Dood-Frank Financial Regulatory bill. Oh, how I wish I was kidding. According to this Daily Caller piece, that is exactly what Rep. Waters has done,
Racial Quotas in Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Bill:

The Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill, ostensibly aimed at reforming Wall Street and preventing a future financial crisis, will impose racial and gender quotas on financial institutions if passed, according to economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth.

Section 342 of the bill will establish Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion in at least 20 federal financial services agencies. These offices will be tasked with implementing “standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts.”

So called “fair inclusion” will apply to “financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and providers of legal services.”

The provision goes on to assert that the government will terminate contracts with institutions they deem have “failed to make a good faith effort to include minorities and women in their workforce.” [snip]

Good grief. Quotas? Where does that leave “anti-discrimination” regulations, then? That question is answered here:

The provision goes on to assert that the government will terminate contracts with institutions they deem have “failed to make a good faith effort to include minorities and women in their workforce.”

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, spotlighted the controversial section in an article at Real Clear Markets on June 8th. She told The Daily Caller that the law amounts to a quota system.

“This is a radical shift in employment legislation,” she said. “The law effectively changes the standard by which institutions are evaluated from anti-discrimination regulations to quotas. In order to be in compliance with the law these businesses will have to show that they have a certain percentage of women and a certain percentage of minorities.”

Furchtgott-Roth worries that this might be a harbinger of things to come.

“So what does this mean? Are we going to get rid of anti-discrimination laws all together and just put in quotas? Could this be what’s to come in other sectors?” she questioned. [snip]

Click HERE to read the rest.

Yes, I would say this is a huge departure from anti-discrimination regulations. That a quota system is being buried in this financial regulation shouldn’t really come as a surprise, I guess. But still, it does.

Wow. Has it really been less than two years since the Democrats controlled all three houses? Sure seems longer, especially considering all they have shoved down our throats. Er, I mean, “accomplished.”

And I guess if Rep. Waters gets her way, we’ll have another one shoved down our throats. Yep, pretty soon, quotas for everyone, coming to a business near you soon!! Good grief…

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)

Banks are increasingly healthy, right? Our nation’s accounting rules promote real transparency and integrity in our financial reporting, right? Housing is bottoming, right? No, no, and no!

Why so pessimistic, you may ask? I am not pessimistic at all. I am merely searching for the truth in the midst of the smoke and mirrors on Wall Street and in Washington.

Thank you to our friends at 12th Street Capital for sharing a recently released letter from Congressman Barney Frank imploring the four largest banks involved in mortgage originations to write off second liens they are holding on their books at inflated values.

Why does Congressman Frank believe these loans need to be written off? The liens must be largely written off so that Washington can then compel banks to engage in writing down principal on first liens in an attempt to keep people in their homes. Keeping people and families in homes is certainly a worthy cause, but the process is fraught with all kinds of violations of moral hazards and assorted unintended consequences. When you hear that your neighbor receives a principal reduction, how long will it take you to go to your bank and demand the same?

Let’s review Frank’s brief, two-page letter (click on image below to access pdf document). Focus on Frank’s comment that the second liens have no real value but accounting rules allow the banks to carry them at artificially high values. Can you say, “cooking the books”?

What are the projected losses in these second liens? Well, how much of this paper is outstanding? The Wall Street Journal provides a bar graph in an article, Home-Savings Moves Afoot:

So, with $1 trillion in outstanding second liens on the books, the question begs as to how much of this indebtedness is current, how much is delinquent, and how much is truly worthless but not yet acknowledged. In discussions with those in the industry, suffice it to say, the most optimistic assessment is that the industry has at least a few hundred billion in losses yet to be acknowledged.

The larger banks addressed by Congressman Frank are the largest holders of these second liens. These banks do have earnings power given the free flow of liquidity provided by the Fed and accompanying capital markets activities. That is not the case with smaller institutions. How many of those institutions are already dead, but not yet buried?

Wonder why banks are reluctant to provide credit? They need to increase capital knowing these second liens are truly an ongoing sinkhole.

LD

That would be Mort Zuckerman. If you are not familiar with the name, you surely are with the U.S. News and World Report, of which he is Editor-in-Chief, or the New York Daily News, which he owns (along with other properties). He is a gazillionaire (okay, just a billionaire), and he supported Obama in the 2008 Election. Now, he is just a tad put out as his Op-Ed, “He’s Done Everything Wrong,” indicates (h/t to Andy):

Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.

He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.

This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.

In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.

Holy moley! Bear in mind, this man, Mr. Zuckerman, was a SUPPORTER. I sure can’t disagree with his assessment, though. He continues:

Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery. I suppose they could say, that’s the system. He was supposed to change it or try to change it.

Even that is not the worst part. He could have said, “I know. I promised these things, but let me try to do them one at a time.” You want to deal with health care? Fine. Issue No. 1 with health care was the cost. You know I think it was 37 percent or 33 who were worried about coverage. Fine, I wrote an editorial to this effect. Focus on cost-containment first. But he’s trying to boil the ocean, trying to do too much. This is not leadership.

Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.

I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.

You and me both, Mr. Zuckerman. But if I may be so bold, perhaps lofty words are not a prerequisite for the highest office in the land. Just saying. Perhaps you should have looked a little deeper into how much Obama enjoyed the adoring masses, buying the PR spin that he was The One. The problem is, he started to believe it. He believed/believes it really is all about him. But, as a truly great president said, “I feel your pain.”

And speaking of Clinton:

One business leader said to me, “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”

Again, YES. I hate to keep harping on this, but why were you not capable of seeing this BEFORE?? When Obama regurgitated Deval Patrick’s speeches, that should have been a clue that it was absolutely NOT about policy, but all about politics. When he continually took Hillary Clinton’s policy positions for his own, instead of crafting them himself, that should have been a bit of a clue. But no. Zuckerman, and to many like him, failed to see what was right before their eyes. They believed the hype, too:

I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.

I hope there are changes. I think he’s already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster. You have to get the money as quickly as possible into the economy. They didn’t do that. By end of the first year, only one-third of the money was spent. Why is that?

He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, “This is it. No changes. Don’t give me that bullshit. We have a national emergency.” Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.

It’s very sad. It’s really sad.

He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”

The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.

Well, for a moment, perhaps, but even in other countries, people are waking up (check out The Telegraph, or Der Spiegel sometime). But here’s the thing: by caring more about appearances than policy, being liked more than fixing problems, Obama, and all who voted for him, have done this country a tremendous disservice. We told you it wasn’t American Idol for which he was running, but the presidency.

There is still some delusion, though:

It’s really interesting because he had brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign. I don’t know what has happened to them. His appointments present somebody who has a lot to learn about how government works. He better get some very talented businesspeople who know how to implement things. It’s unbelievable. Everybody says so. You can’t believe how dismayed people are. That’s why he’s plunging in the polls.

I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration. In the generic vote, the Democrats were ahead something like 52 to 30. They are now behind the Republicans 48 to 44 in the last poll. Nobody has ever seen anything that dramatic.

Did you mention by how much Obama has run up the National Debt? You know, the one he has increased by $1.7 TRILLION since he took office? And he’s looking to increase it by even more. Oh, yippee.

If I may return to another part of Mr. Zuckerman’s editorial, no offense, sir, but OBAMA didn’t have “brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign,” his HANDLERS, Axelrod and Plouffe. did. Had you taken just a few minutes and used the considerable resources at your disposal, you could have looked into his REAL record in IL. You would have seen the shenanigans he employed to even get elected. Now, maybe YOU think that is “brilliant,” but I see it as being an indicator of the man’s moral fiber, and his “win at all costs,” mentality, no matter who he steps on, or what kind of damage he does. Perhaps what Zuckerman is seeing now, is the failure of Axelrod and Plouffe to pull the man off the Campaign Trail and him getting to work. Obama still hasn’t stopped, as he heads off to Ohio on Friday.

Still, at least he is finally getting is. In this interview with Neil Cavuto (h/t to Logistics Monster), he can barely contain himself:

Mr. Zuckerman made some mighty interesting assertions in there, didn’t he, especially in terms of housing? Welcome to the reality based community, sir.

Indeed, slowly but surely, the Kool Aide is wearing off, but not until Obama has done untold damage to out country – IN ONE YEAR. Will he be able to turn it around? I don’t know, but that would presuppose he was capable of introspection, and a willingness to actually listen to the people, as opposed to talk, talk, talking to us (though apparently, he hasn’t talked at us enough – we just don’t get it, you know – because apparently, we are all a bunch of mo-rons not to buy his healthcare bill). Just a thought.

In the meantime, maybe we have all learned a lesson after this presidential election, and after the Massachusetts election. People can be hoodwinked, but not forever. When they wake up, they are none too happy at the lies they were told. That’s why we have elections, and this year is shaping up to be mighty interesting indeed…

Well, it’s official: Scott Brown won the US Senate seat in Massachusetts, easily one of the most liberal states in the Union. Brown’s win is the first by a Republican in that state since 1972. Holy moley. Time and time again, people claimed the Healthcare Bill the Democrats are trying to ram through as the reason they voted for Scott Brown. If this isn’t a wake up call to the Democrats, I don’t know what is.

And yet, there are people like Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who seems completely oblivious to the massive alarm bells ringing throughout the country. One would think this would filter into her, but apparently no:

“The reports of its death, as Mark Twain would say, have been exaggerated,” Larson added. “We’re going to move forward, and we’re going to pass health care reform.”

This afternoon, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said much the same. “Whatever happens in Massachusetts, we have to do that,” she said. “And whatever happens in Massachusetts we will have quality affordable health care for all Americans, and it will be soon.”

Oh, boy. Add to that the ramped up call for the “Reconciliation Option,” including by the organization, Credo, which sent out an email immediately following the declaration of Brown’s win asking people to sign this petition:

Your message to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

“The loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat — due to a lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and Independents — sends a clear message to Congress. The Senate health care bill is not the change we were promised in 2008, and it must be improved. The Senate must use ‘reconciliation’ to pass a better bill with a strong public option.”

In case you don’t know what “reconciliation” means, they are suggesting the Democrats use a 51 majority vote to shove through this bill with its payoffs, bribes, and strong-arming. I might add, this tactic was designed for use with BUDGET bills. Clearly, Credo didn’t like the message Massachusetts sent, and believes it is a better idea for the Democrats to inflame passions against this bill even MORE by using a filibuster-proof tactic. Nice.

Make no mistake, the Democrats are trying mighty hard to figure out how to get this bill through regardless of what the people say. I mean, really – it’s not like it’s their JOB or anything to care, right? Ahem.

On the other side, though, one of my favorite Democratic senators (and one I have supported), is Sen. Jim Webb of VA. This was his immediate response to Scott Brown’s win:

Less than 15 minutes after the race was called for Republican Scott Brown, the first of what could be many conservative Democrats asks for leadership to put the brakes on health care reform.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) congratulated Brown on his win and delivered a zinger:

“In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”

That is more like it. He is hearing the message the people are sending, and wants to take a step back here, and look again at this bill.

But Senator Webb is not the only one. You may be a bit surprised by this, but Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), of all people, warns against changing horses in mid-stream (of course, my cynical side says he is a bit worried about his seat in the future, too):

“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process.”

Gee, ya think?? You know, it is amazing what it takes to actually get through to these people. Maybe if this doesn’t hammer it home, this great piece by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild will:

The problem for the Democrats in Massachusetts was not Martha Coakley; it was the Obama agenda. In 2008, voters believed that they were electing a person who would focus on the economy with laser intensity and lead in a bipartisan and principled matter. What they have gotten is a deeply divisive President committed to transforming America into a European-style social democracy. In this first year, he forced a health care bill at the expense of vitally needed focus on job creation. He has scared hard-working American voters with his hard-left rhetoric and his signature policies.

The Obama approach to health care reform is the most egregious example of breaking trust with the American people. He brokered no Republican compromise; he demonized the other side for being captive to vested interests as he made private deals with Democratic special interest groups like the unions, the insurance companies and “hold-out” Senators like Ben Nelson (who was just looking for his pound of flesh at the expense of the rest of the American people); he outsourced the bill to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid behind closed doors as he focused only on taking the victory lap for pathetic, piecemeal legislation that does not deal with our exorbitant health care costs. Have no doubt, the speech trumpeting “his” historic achievement, where other less talented Presidents than himself have failed, is already loaded on the teleprompter.

These are major negative factors for the independent voters who believed that Barack Obama was a principled and moderate Democrat. This is particularly true in Massachusetts where the nation’s only universal health care plan is bankrupting the state because of politicians’ congenital inability to deal with spiraling costs. In Massachusetts, a full 47% of voters are Independents, with 33% Democrat and only 11% Republican. For many of these voters, Barack Obama is now a busted flush; he was full of promise but has neither delivered on that promise nor exhibited the capability to deliver. He has broken the trust of the people, and voters are taking the only action available to them: Electing a candidate who can stop the Obama agenda and help restore balance to a broken political system. The voters in the Bay State are resorting to the principle that our Founding Fathers made famous: checks and balances. It is unlikely that all voters overwhelmingly support Republican State Senator Scott Brown, but it is certain that they see him as a vital player in forcing Barack Obama to come back to the center.

Preach it, Sister Lynn! Bring it on home:

This is important to keep in mind in reviewing Tuesday’s results. Equally important is to reject the demonization of Coakley that is being perpetrated by the Obama White House and the Pelosi/Reid Congress. Coakley’s troubles were never about her as a candidate; she has won state-wide elections before and few would argue she is more removed than John Kerry. Her problem was simply about the President and the radical course being charted by Democrats in Congress. A year after his inauguration — and three years since Democrats regained Congress — voters were holding Obama accountable. This simple fact makes scapegoating Coakley unconscionable, and yet this week all knives are out from the Obama White House. Coakley was insufficiently charismatic, leading Democrats are saying; she did not have an emotional connection to the voters. She did not work hard enough. She was more a “nun” than a political candidate!

This is all nonsense of course, but not surprising. After all, it’s not the first time the current crop of Democratic party leaders have torn down a talented woman in their midst.

That Hillary Clinton won Massachusetts by a resounding sixteen points in 2008 is not unrelated. While Massachusetts may be bluest of the blue, it’s a state where working class liberalism still runs deep, where an honest day’s work is still held in higher esteem than entitlement handouts. When Hillary ran on these principles, Massachusetts voters embraced her. And for this same reason, on Tuesday they embraced Scott Brown.

Obama’s team may want to make the election about Martha Coakley, but it’s not about her. As rank-and-file Democrats try to make Martha Coakley the issue and engage in her assassination, they miss the fact that they are in a circular firing squad. Their problem is that they are out of touch, and their boosters in the media cannot save them.

Voters this week stood up and said ‘enough is enough.’ It’s high time Obama and the Democrats in Congress got the message.

Amen to that. And if they don’t get it after this, there is always November…

*Updated: Ohmygosh – now Barney Frank has done a COMPLETE 180, saying he could vote for the Senate bill now. WTH is wrong with this guy? And who got to him? Wow, he is a piece of work. Way to stick to your guns there, Barney! Yeah. Right.

Second Update: well, Nancy must have heard an earful from the other representatives. Now she says the House has to make changes to the Senate’s bill:

Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been struggling for days to sell the Senate legislation to reluctant Democrats in order to get a health-care bill to the president’s desk quickly. But House liberals strongly dislike the Senate version, while moderate Democrats in both the House and Senate have raised doubts about forging ahead with the ambitious legislation without bipartisan support.

The only way to keep the Senate bill alive, Pelosi said, would be for senators to initiate a package of fixes that would address House concerns about the bill. In particular, Pelosi described her members as vehemently opposed to a provision that benefits only Nebraska’s Medicaid system. Also problematic are the level of federal subsidies the Senate would offer to uninsured individuals and its new excise tax on high-value policies, which could hit union households.

“There are certain things the members simply cannot support,” Pelosi said.

Like I said, I guess the representatives let her have it. It will sure be interesting to see what happens next.

America can not allow the passage of time to lessen the outrage over the Obama administration’s Christmas Eve bonus to the financial sinkholes known as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Platitudes and posturing aside, the American taxpayer is being set up as never before.

A blank check may serve to cover a host of past financial and legislative failures promoted by the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, John Kerry et al, but who is monitoring and verifying the legitimate and proper use of these funds? Are we to blindly trust Treasury Secretary Geithner, White House economic adviser Larry Summers, and their respective staffs in this process? Are you kidding me? America needs to voice its outrage long and hard. In that spirit, I called yesterday to Audit Freddie and Fannie.

In the same vein, I am heartened by initiatives launched this week by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Reps. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) and Spencer Bachus (R-AL) to pursue an investigation of this blank check.

The Wall Street Journal reports, Lawmakers Want Probe Into Treasury Aid for Fannie, Freddie:

The Treasury Department’s surprise Christmas Eve move to uncap the potential aid to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be investigated, lawmakers from both political parties said Wednesday.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) said his congressional subcommittee plans to investigate Treasury’s decision to lift the existing $400 billion cap on government cash available to the two firms. Separately, Reps. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.) and Spencer Bachus (R., Ala.) called for the House Financial Services Committee to hold a hearing on the matter.

Mr. Kucinich, who chairs the domestic policy subcommittee on the House Oversight and Government Reform panel, said he is concerned about how the two government-controlled firms will use their new flexibility.

“This cannot be used simply to purchase toxic assets at inflated prices, thus transferring the losses to the U.S. taxpayers and acting as a back door [Troubled Asset Relief Program],” Mr. Kucinich said in a statement released by his office.

Messrs. Garrett and Bachus raised similar concerns in a letter to Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), who chairs the Financial Services panel. The two GOP panel members decried what they called a “transparent attempt to hide the news from the American people” by announcing the news the day before a major holiday.

I am not only concerned about Geithner’s and Summer’s influence over the allocation of the funds behind this blank check, but I am equally concerned because of the influence of that individual to whom Garrett and Bachus directed their letter. Barney Frank (D-MA), Chair of the House Financial Services committee, has always been in bed with Freddie and Fannie. I do not doubt for a second that Frank would use this blank check to cover his misguided policies and misappropriated funds supporting Freddie and Fannie over the years.

Need I remind you of Frank’s “I want to roll the dice…” comment in regard to Freddie and Fannie’s support of sub-prime lending in 2003?

America can not allow time and other issues to distract us from what may very well be the single largest misallocation and misappropriation of taxpayer funds in the history of this country.

Trust Geithner? Trust Summers? Trust Frank?

Put Sense on Cents in the verify camp!!

How about you?

LD

So – for your enjoyment, I have the following photographs, sent to me by my cousin, who got them heaven-only-knows-where (somewhere on the internet). The headline of the emails was, “When Farm Kids Get Bored,” and who happen to be a bit creative (who knows if these were even done by kids?). Anyway, for your Halloween Viewing Pleasure, here they are:

I hope you have a good, safe, day. Happy Halloween, everyone!

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers – a Detroit Democrat – is weighing into the controversy involving a much-maligned national community organization, asking congressional researchers whether any laws may have been broken by surreptitious recording of the group’s employees.

Just last week, the Democratic-led House followed up on a Senate vote that started cutting off federal funding for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, amid Republican-led calls for a widespread investigation into the group and its activities.

Even President Barack Obama has criticized the actions of ACORN employees in Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere seen in sting videos. The employees appear to give tax advice to filmmakers pretending to be a hooker and her boyfriend. (Well, kinda – he said it wad “inappropriate. See video/transcript below.)

Conyers and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts asked the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service on Tuesday to provide an analysis on several aspects of ACORN. Among them:

# Any current or previous criminal investigations into the group.

# A breakdown of any funding received by the group and any violations of the terms of that funding.

# A report on alleged improprieties in collecting voter-registration forms and “the extent … that resulted in people being improperly placed on voting roles and actually attempting to vote.”

# The group’s programs to provide housing opportunities.

It also asked for a report on private sting activities “in which individuals have reportedly visited ACORN offices, misrepresented their identities and proposed activities, surreptitiously videotaped resulting conversations with ACORN workers, and widely distributed them.”

The letter went onto say, “Conflicting allegations have been made about the propriety of these activities. Please research and report on the federal and state laws that could apply to such videotaping and distribution of conversations without the consent of all parties.”

I’m sure they’ll get right on that.

Why the disdain dropping from my laptop? Because this isn’t the FIRST time Rep. Conyers was going to investigate ACORN. Previously, he had been pretty disturbed by the actions of ACORN, or so he claimed (this is a good article to see more of the underhanded workings of ACORN). Remember that they have been under investigation in over 14 states for voter fraud and voter registration fraud for some time now. The recent expose is just the icing on the cake. But the disdain comes for the REASON Conyers dropped it: The “Powers That Be” put an end to it. Yes, you read that right: THE POWERS THAT BE told the House Judiciary Chairman to knock it off.

Hmm. Let’s think. Just who is high enough to tell this powerful chairman to drop his investigation? It’s a pretty short list, I can tell you that much,

But, hey – better late than never, right? Yeah. Sure.

And I just KNOW once Obama has a spare moment, you know, when he’s not on The David Letterman Show, or something, maybe he will finally have a chance to follow what’s going on with ACORN, since he claimed to be out of the loop despite the millions ACORN has gotten, or the billions it stands to get. Yes, this is what he said in his recent interview with George Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the funding for ACORN?

OBAMA: You know, if — frankly, it’s not really something I’ve followed closely. I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Both the Senate and the House have voted to cut it off.

OBAMA: You know, what I know is, is that what I saw on that video was certainly inappropriate and deserves to be investigated.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not committing to — to cut off the federal funding?

OBAMA: George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It’s not something I’m paying a lot of attention to.

Or you can watch it here:

That Obama – he’s just so busy doing the talk show circuit, he couldn’t POSSIBLY know what is going on with ACORN. I mean, really, besides his having worked for them, and all of that, what possible connection could he have with them?

Oh, wait – he does. Right in the West Wing. Uh huh – his Rove, the Director of the Office of Political Affairs, is Patrick Gaspard. Mr. Gaspard, before moving into the West Wing, was the Executive Vice President of – Wait For It – SEIU. SEIU was founded by Dale Rathke, the brother who embezzled a million bucks from ACORN. Which they hid, by the way. Whatever. Just a million of your tax paying dollars, no biggie.

And Patrick has a brother, Michael, who works for the Advance Group. Which represents – like you need to wait for it – ACORN. Coincidentally (hahahahaha), the national spokesman for The Advance Group, and ACORN, is one in the same, Scott Levenson.

I gotta wonder, how long will it be before Conyers is called off of THIS investigation?

(Photo above bymusicFIRSTCoalition)

Holy shit, right?? YOUR TAXPAYING DOLLARS!!!!! Can you believe this? It is simply mind bogging.

In related news, eleven warrants have been issued for ACORN workers in Florida. The charges? Oh, you can guess this one: voter fraud. Yes, arrests are already being made by state authorities and the FBI. As of this writing, six have been arrested, and they are searching for the other five.

Again, your tax paying dollars hard at work, courtesy of Barney Frank, Barack Obama, and the DNC.

UPDATE: This first video has the filmmaker, James O’Keefe, on it, talking about how “helpful” the ACORN people were:

And this one with Megyn Kelly and Andrew Breitbart. ACORN denounces this “gotcha” journalism, claiming that there was some convenient editing going on. Breitbart provides the FULL audio and FULL transcript at BigGovernment.com, and discusses it more fully below:

Did you catch that? How much money ACORN stands to get under the new Stimulus Plan?? Now you know how they are spending that money…

Well, here is another one: Signing Statements. Yes, the bane of our existence, or at least one of them, during the Bush Years. Yep, apparently, Obama has changed his mind. Just like he did on FISA. DADT. DOMA. And I could go on. So could you, I am sure (and feel free to do so). In this NY Times article, “Obama’s Embrace of a Bush Tactic Riles Congress,” we have yet another example of how much like Bush Obama really is:

President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties.

President George W. Bush, citing expansive theories about his constitutional powers, set off a national debate in 2006 over the propriety of signing statements — instructions to executive officials about how to interpret and put in place new laws — after he used them to assert that he could authorize officials to bypass laws like a torture ban and oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

In the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements an “abuse,” and said he would issue them with greater restraint. The Obama administration says the signing statements the president has signed so far, challenging portions of five bills, have been based on mainstream interpretations of the Constitution and echo reservations routinely expressed by presidents of both parties.

Still, since taking office, Mr. Obama has relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate. And last month several leading Democrats — including Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David R. Obey of Wisconsin — sent a letter to Mr. Obama complaining about one of his signing statements.

Wow! How shocking that Obama would do this!!!! That is so unlike him! Which, by the upside-down rules that now seem to govern journalism, and well, governance, I mean, “Of course Obama was going to do this!! Did anyone really believe otherwise?” Apparently, some people did:

“During the previous administration, all of us were critical of the president’s assertion that he could pick and choose which aspects of Congressional statutes he was required to enforce,” they wrote. “We were therefore chagrined to see you appear to express a similar attitude.”

They were reacting to a statement Mr. Obama issued after signing a bill that expanded assistance to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank while requiring the administration to pressure the organizations to adopt certain policies. Mr. Obama said he could disregard the negotiation instructions under his power to conduct foreign relations.

The administration protested that it planned to carry out the provisions anyway and that its statement merely expressed a general principle. But Congress was not mollified. On July 9, in a bipartisan rebuke, the House of Representatives voted 429 to 2 to ban officials from using federal money to disobey the restrictions. And in their July 21 letter, Mr. Frank and Mr. Obey — the chairmen of the Financial Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee — asked Mr. Obama to stop issuing such signing statements, warning that Congress might not approve more money for the banking organizations unless he agreed.

Oh, nice. And it gets worse:

In March, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, sent Mr. Obama a letter criticizing a signing statement that challenged a statute protecting government whistle-blowers who tell lawmakers privileged or “otherwise confidential” information. He accused Mr. Obama of chilling potential whistle-blowers, undermining the intent of Congress in a way that violated his campaign promises. The White House said it intended only to reaffirm similar reservations made by previous presidents. (Emphasis mine)

Yes, I am sure that was Obama’s intent – not to threaten government whistle blowers. No, of COURSE not – who would think such a thing???
That’s not all:

Other laws Mr. Obama has said he need not obey as written include format requirements for budget requests, limits on whom he may appoint to a commission, and a restriction on putting troops under United Nations command.

After Mr. Bush transformed signing statements from an obscure tool into a commonplace term, Mr. Obama’s willingness to use them has disappointed some who had hoped he would roll back the practice, not entrench it.

“We didn’t think it was an appropriate practice when President Bush was doing it, and our policy is such that we don’t think it is an appropriate practice when President Obama is doing it,” said H. Thomas Wells, who just stepped down as president of the American Bar Association.

In 2006, the association called the practice unconstitutional and said presidents should veto legislation if it had flaws, giving Congress a chance to override the pronouncements.

No freakin’ duh. And not for nothing, but OBAMA claimed that it was inappropriate, too, when Bush was doing it. But that was then, this is now.

Naturally, Obama has some folks in his corner:

But other legal experts argued that signing statements were lawful and appropriate because it was impractical to veto important bills over small problems. Among them, Walter Dellinger, who helped develop the legal framework for signing statements as a Clinton administration official, said Mr. Obama was using the mechanism appropriately, and the problem with Mr. Bush’s statements was that he cited dubious legal theories.

“The fact that a previous or subsequent president might refuse to comply with laws that are valid is not a reason for this president to decline to assert his authority with regard to laws that are invalid,” Mr. Dellinger said.

Mr. Dellinger signed a 2006 essay defending signing statements with other former Clinton officials, including David Barron and Martin Lederman, who now run the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. They work with White House lawyers Daniel Meltzer and Trevor Morrison, along with Office of Management and Budget officials, to produce Mr. Obama’s statements.

Since the 19th century, presidents have occasionally signed bills while calling a provision unconstitutional. But the practice was rare until President Ronald Reagan. He and his successors, including Bill Clinton, began issuing signing statements much more frequently and challenging far more provisions.

The practice peaked under Mr. Bush, who challenged nearly 1,200 provisions of bills over eight years — about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio professor.

Remember when Obama invoked the name of Ronald Reagan as a pivotal president, singing his praises? Well, that told SOME of us something Not enough of us were paying attention, though. Anyway, thus far, here are the numbers:

Mr. Obama has attached signing statements to 5 of the 42 bills he has signed, focusing on 19 specific provisions. He also challenged, without listing them, “numerous provisions” in a budget bill requiring officials to obtain permission from a Congressional committee before spending money. It contained dozens of such requirements.

In the presidential campaign, the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, promised never to issue a signing statement. By contrast, Mr. Obama said it was a legitimate way “to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives” when used with greater restraint than Mr. Bush.

“Restraint,” Mr. Obama and his campaign said then, included not issuing “signing statements that undermine the legislative intent” or “nullify or undermine Congressional instructions as enacted into law.”

But in March, when he issued a presidential memorandum on signing statements, Mr. Obama defined restraint as citing only “interpretations of the Constitution that are well founded,” a subtle shift that provides greater leeway.

Still, unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama has not mentioned the Unitary Executive Theory, an expansive view of executive power that conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. His only invocation of his commander-in-chief authority was limited, taking aim at a requirement that he get permission from a military subordinate before taking an action.

“He has not pushed the envelope as far as the Bush administration in making the kind of claims that Bush made,” said Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University professor who studies signing statements. “But he is still using it in ways that were controversial before George W. Bush came to office.”

Yet. He has not mentioned the “Unitary Executive Theory” YET. Does anyone honestly think he won’t at some point? That’s what I thought.

This is what else I think: Obama = Bush = Obushma. Really, they should have seen it coming. He gave out some not-so-subtle hints, all along the way, which they chose to ignore. At our peril, of course – because we are the ones who will ultimately bear the brunt of it all. Again.