I am sure you will be SHOCKED to learn that Obama is acting in much the same way. I know, I know – what a surprise. Ahem. Well, it seems some one has been doing a little investigative journalism, something in VERY short supply of late. But get this – I tell you, you better be sitting down – in this case, it was – WAIT FOR IT –
MSNBC. YES, the very network to which we routinely refer as “MSNBO”! Once I recovered from the shock of it all, I couldn’t wait to see just how transparent President Obama was compared to Bush. (I wonder if there is a way for us to do a pool on these kinds of things, like for NCAA basketball or something?)

This is what MSNBC uncovered in this report:

Obama Names 110 White House Visitors

The White House on Friday released a small list of visitors to the White House since President Barack Obama took office in January, including lobbyists, business executives, activists and celebrities.

No previous administration has released such a list, though the information out so far is incomplete. Only about 110 names —and 481 visits —out of the hundreds of thousands who have visited the Obama White House were made public. Like the Bush administration before it, Obama is arguing that any release is voluntary, not required by law, despite two federal court rulings to the contrary.

The emphasis there is mine. This is a bit of a schizophrenic opening. On the one hand, they want to champion that Obama released 110 names – Woohoo!! On the other hand, they have to acknowledge that, once again, President Obama is using the SAME arguments as Bush. Moreover, this “Constitutional Scholar” is doing so in clear violation of not one, but TWO federal court rulings! Maybe the KoolAide was made improperly that day, I don’t know, but the report continues:

Under the Obama White House’s policy, most names of visitors from Inauguration Day in January through the end of September will never be released. The White House says it plans to release most of the names of visitors from October on, and that release is due near the end of the year. There are limitations there as well, including potential Supreme Court nominees, personal guests of the First Family, and certain security officials.

The names released Friday include business leaders and lobbyists with a lot to gain or lose from Obama policies. They include Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates (whose foundation is pushing for changes in teacher pay), former AIG chairman Maurice Greenberg, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Chevron CEO David O’Reilly, Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, JP Morgan’s James Dimon, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis, John Stumpf of Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley’s John Mack, State Street bank’s Ron Logue, BNY Mellon’s Robert Kelly, labor leader Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union (22 visits)*, American Bankers Association CEO Ed Yingling, community bankers president Camden Fine, and lobbyists Heather and Anthony Podesta, whose brother John Podesta led Obama’s transition team.

Besides Gates, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt are also on the list. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC. One of NBC’s parents is GE.)

Advocates and nonprofit leaders include National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is interested in health policy.

So, this is how Obama is paying these people and organizations back, by having them in the White House? I bet Kim Gandy was just all aflutter after she threw ALL women under the bus to endorse Obama over a life-long women’s advocate. There is more on her below.

I know many readers will be interested in this White House guest:

Democratic donor and businessman George Soros visited with White House aides twice.

Yes, indeedy, a major funder of Moveon.org has been to check up on his biggest investment – ahem – twice.

We’re just getting started:

Political figures include former Sen. Thomas Daschle, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, former Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Al Franken, former Vice President Al Gore, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, and Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf.

Celebrities at the White House include Oprah Winfrey, actors Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Denzel Washington, and tennis star Serena Williams. Journalists include Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner in economics.

Conservative religious leader Gary Bauer visited, as did liberal civil rights leaders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Okay, the last two, along with Oprah, are NOT a surprise. Gary Bauer? Just a tad surprising.

For anyone who wants to see more:

Msnbc.com has put the full list in a handy PDF file, and also in an Excel file for those who like to sort.

One guest is mighty interesting:

Not that Bill Ayers

The White House warns that many names that may appear familiar — and controversial — do not in fact refer to the most famous people to carry those names. Jeremiah Wright is on the list, but it’s not the president’s former pastor. This Michael Jordan is not the basketball player. This Michael Moore is not a filmmaker. The William Ayers who took a group tour of the White House isn’t the former radical from Chicago who figured so prominently in the 2008 campaign. And the Angela Davis on the list has a different middle initial than the activist and former fugitive.

The White House could have avoided some of that sort of confusion by providing more information on the visitors, such as an employer name and the city they hail from. For example, is the Shawn Carter who attended a poetry reading the same one who goes by Jay-Z and had campaigned for Obama?

“This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information,” a White House special counsel, Norm Eisen, wrote on the White House blog.

If you spot a name on the list that bears investigating, please drop us a note.

Of COURSE we will just trust Obama and his spokes-minions when they assure us that this Bill Ayers could not POSSIBLY be domestic terrorist – Capitol Building and Pentagon bomber – long time friend and mentor Bill Ayers! He is just some guy who wanted to visit the White House Gift Shop and pick up a couple of Marine One helicopter models for his boys. I am sure of it. Sheesh. Really? They expect us to believe this crap? Evidently – they got plenty of other people to believe that kind of crap and more, so why stop now?

Okay – if you are consuming any liquids right this minute, I suggest you put it down when you read this:

Limited release

Despite the accompanying White House claim of “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” the Obama White House continues to take the same legal position as the Bush White House, arguing that the records are not public records subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Only limited “voluntary releases” are being made to settle a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group, though a federal judge has twice ruled that all the visitor logs are public. (Again, emphasis is mine.)

Yet there are severe limitations to the transparency:

Most of the visitors from Inauguration Day to September will never be released by the White House under this voluntary disclosure — unless the public can guess their names. The White House policy doesn’t allow members of the public or press to ask for “everyone who visited health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle,” or everyone who visited on May 4, or everyone from the American Medical Association. Only individual names can be checked.

I know, right? Didn’t this sound just a little pissy?? From someone at MSNBC?? The bigger picture is that the Obama Administration is BREAKING THE LAW. Hell to the YES, that information falls under FOIA – this is OUR White House, not the Obamas. We most definitely DO get to know every single John Smith and Jane Doe who cross the threshold of the White House. You better believe we do.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it is a start:

The list released at 4:30 p.m. Friday includes just about 110 names with 481 visits. Those names were among those requested by members of the public so far, for visits during the period from Inauguration Day through July. (That’s why we know of visits by the wrong Bill Ayers, the wrong Angela Davis, etc., but we don’t know of visits by countless unnamed lobbyists.) Members of the public who used the White House online form to check names did not receive a personal reply indicating whether or not the request was received, or whether the name appeared on the list, so the system provides no feedback. Does the absence of Bill Clinton’s name on the list mean that he has not been to the White House, or that the request wasn’t received by the White House online system?

A request for the complete records of all visitors from the first months of the administration, filed by msnbc.com, was rejected by the White House, and an appeal is pending. The news organization requested the names of all visitors to the Obama White House beginning with Inauguration Day. Msnbc.com has filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.

Say whaa?? The White House rejected a request from their lapdog “news” source?? Huh. There’s a shocker. Welcome to the “Under The Bus” club, MSNBC!

The Wall Street Journal focused on the most frequent visitor to the White House. He was mentioned in the list above, but without the acknowledgment of the frequency:

SEIU’s Stern Tops White House Visitor List

Promising “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” The White House released its visitor log this evening under a new voluntary disclosure policy.

The log chronicles 481 visits to the White House from individuals ranging from Jay-Z to Bill Gates from January through July.

The list includes William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Moore, Robert Kelly (R. Kelly), Malik Shabazz, and Michael Jordan.

But the White House said those aren’t the guys you’re thinking of. Nor is the log complete.

Ahahahahahahaha!!! I just cannot get enough of this one – sure, they aren’t the same people. Yeah, okay, we believe you. NOT. And because it is just so much fun to see them squirm, I am keeping in the part that is repetitive of the article above, especially the quotes from Eisen. Oh, what a funny guy:

“A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few ‘false positives’ – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else,” Norm Eisen, a special counsel to the president, writes on the White House blog. “The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.”

Adds Eisen: “This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information.”

Uh, ya know, I think we are all smart enough to not get all confused by this incredible level of “transparency.” Beginning with, we actually know the definition of “transparency,” something Eisen and Obama apparently do not.

And then there is this:

One thing is clear: *Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern holds sway at the White House, where he’s listed for 22 visits—the top number on the logs. Visitors in the top 10 also include former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan.

So THAT’S what Gandy and Keenan got for stabbing Hillary Clinton and, well, WOMEN, int he back – visits to the White House. I guess there is something gained by selling your soul, though, personally, I don’t think it is worth it. But that’s just me.

Anywho – yes, the President of the SEIU, again, the union co-founded by the founder of ACORN, Wade Rathke, is the TOP visitor at the White House. The SEIU has been in the news quite a bit, especially for holding California hostage – threatening that their good buddy, Obama, would not give the state any federal stimulus funds if it had the audacity to expect the union to cut wages like everyone else so the state wouldn’t go bankrupt. NOW we know how the union was able to do that. All those visits to the White House apparently paid off – for the union, not California, the state with one of the largest budgets around (as in 5th in the world). What makes this more egregious is that California pays a lot into the federal tax system and receives little comparatively speaking. And this union is allowed – by the White House – to hold it over a barrel. Yep, all those meetings seemed to do the trick!

Aren’t you just so heartened by all of this “transparency”? And by seeing who Obama is welcoming into our White House? Yeah, me, too. As long as the Obama Administration continues to thumb its nose at Federal Law, I reckon we should be “thankful” for this (no, not really – it’s BS that they are still sitting on so much information).

Oh, but if you can just GUESS who might else have been there and submit that form asking them, maybe you can confirm some other folks who have been there, too. Lemme know what you find out, okay? I am sure we would all just love to know…

Well, it turns out that figure of $1 million is just a little low. By $4 million dollars, that is. Holy smokes. In this article, ACORN Embezzlement Was $5 Million, LA Attorney General Says, that figure is revised way up, and not by a reporter, or a politician with an ax to grind, as ACORN would not doubt claim, but the State Attorney General:

Louisiana’s attorney general has broadened the scope of an investigation of ACORN to include a possible embezzlement of $5 million a decade ago within the community organization, five times more than previously reported.

ACORN Chief Executive Officer Bertha Lewis said the new reported amount is “completely false.”

Attorney General Buddy Caldwell has been conducting an investigation of ACORN since June. He issued subpoenas in August seeking documents related to former ACORN International President Wade Rathke and his brother Dale Rathke, who kept the group’s books. Those subpoenas were focused on possible ACORN violations for non-payment of employee withholding taxes, obstructing justice and violating the Employee Retirement Security Act. No charges have been made.

The attorney general had inquired in June into an alleged embezzlement within ACORN that happened 10 years ago. The group last year dealt with an internal dispute and a lawsuit involving accusations that Dale Rathke made nearly $1 million in improper credit card charges in 1999 and 2000. The brother and a donor repaid the money.

Did you catch that? A “donor” helped pay back the money. Dale was not formally charged, nor did he have to spend any time in prison. None. Now we know it was so much more money than previously thought:

Caldwell said last month that the statute of limitations presented obstacles to prosecutors taking action on the embezzlement, and that his investigation was not focused on that issue. The subpoena issued Monday changed the tone of the investigation and put a new emphasis on the embezzlement issue.

“Current high-ranking members of ACORN have publicly acknowledged that embezzlement did in fact occur, but the exact amount of the embezzlement was unknown until it was recently acknowledged in a board of directors meeting on Oct. 17, 2008, by Bertha Lewis and Liz Wolf that an internal review had determined that the amount embezzled was $5 million, ” the new subpoena says.

The subpoena says, “It is still unclear if some of the monies embezzled are from state, federal or private funds.”

The subpoena requests documents from Citizens Consulting Inc., a financial arm of ACORN, and from various accounting and legal consultants in New Orleans. Investigators are trying to verify the issues raised in the subpoena.

“We’re going to follow the evidence where it leads us and try to do the right thing,” said David Caldwell, head of the attorney general’s public corruption and special prosecutions divisions. “We are actively investigating the case, whatever the outcome might be. This is something we are devoting our full attention to.”

Wade Rathke, who was in Bangkok, Thailand, on Monday, referred questions to ACORN officials. Lewis said she would comment further after she and ACORN attorneys had a chance to review the subpoena.

ACORN board member Vanessa Gueringer, chairwoman of the Lower 9th Ward Chapter, said she had not seen the subpoena but that the accusation about the larger embezzlement was untrue.

“I believe it is another lie, another witch hunt, ” Gueringer said.

ACORN, which provides counseling on housing and other assistance to low and moderate income families, has been reeling from national negative publicity in recent weeks. Actions have been taken on the federal level and by many states, including Louisiana, to end public contracts with the group. (Robert Travis Scott can be reached at rscott@timespicayune.com or 225.342.4197.)

Now that’s some Major League Denial going on there, isn’t it?? The Attorney General of the State isn’t just making stuff up. He has actually been INVESTIGATING ACORN, and rightly so.

Let’s just do the math here. ACORN has received $53 Million of our taxpaying dollars. Dale Rathke embezzled $5 million from ACORN. Sure they get donations, but honestly – you don’t think some of that money was OURS???? And why is he NOT IN PRISON?? That’s what I’d like to know. Hopefully, he will be soon, thanks to the LA State Attorney General.

And that begs the question – where has everyone ELSE been on this issue? It’s not like it wasn’t public knowledge, and not like it hasn’t been reported in major newspapers across the country. I’m glad someone is doing his job.

And speaking of the Rathke Brothers, don’t forget that Wade is also the one who co-founded the SEIU, yes, the union that held California hostage. Well, you are not going to believe where their name pops up in connection to the White House. Check out this video, beginning at the 1:45 minute mark:

Holy smokes. The SEIU is working with the Wite House and the NEA to spend YOUR/OUR money on propaganda.

And we thought the Bush Administration was bad about the whole propaganda thing…

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)

One proposal is to mimic the Massachusetts’ plan. Except there are some problems with that:

Huh. Well, that sounds just perfect – go ahead and implement a program that has quickly gone into the red. Perfect management of our tax-paying dollars, right? Oh, yeah.

So, just how would we even pay for this? Oh, you are gonna love this plan by the US Senate:
Senate Health Plan Could Tax 1 in 8 Workers. One in EIGHT. 12.5% of Americans will be helping to foot the bill for everyone else. Holy smokes. Here’s the nitty gritty:

About one in eight U.S. workers who receive health benefits from an employer — more than nine million workers — could pay higher income taxes on benefits as part of a Senate proposal that aims to raise billions of dollars to finance health-care reform, according an independent analysis of the proposal.

A five-page presentation, obtained by FOX Business, was prepared by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is leading efforts by Senate Democrats to formulate funding alternatives for a reform plan. In the document, Baucus proposes “options to limit allowable tax free health benefits.”

Since World War II, when companies facing work-force shortages began offering comprehensive health-care coverage to attract and retain workers, such benefits have been tax-free to employees. Today, more than 150 million workers and their dependents receive health insurance from their current — or, if retired, former — employer.

Preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office put the cost of health-care reform at $1 trillion or more over 10 years.

Read the whole presentation here.

According to the document, Sen. Baucus is looking at four ways to tax benefits starting in 2013, when many reform proposals would take full effect:

* Tax benefits of single workers who earn more than $100,000 a year and couples that earn more than $200,000. The presentation cites a previous estimate from the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation [JCT] that the proposal would raise $161.9 billion over 10 years if the changes were effective on January 1, 2010.
* Tax benefits that exceed a value of $6,182 for a single worker and a value of $15,700 for a worker who also receives coverage for his family. The document cites a previous JCT estimate that the proposal would raise $418 billion over a decade if the changes were effective January 1, 2010.
* Tax those “base” benefits plus 10%, or a value of $6,800 for an individual worker and a value of $17,240 for families. The higher cap would eliminate taxes for some workers. The document says Baucus has requested an estimate, presumably from the JCT, of how much this proposal would generate in new tax revenue with the change effective January 1, 2013.
* Tax base benefits plus 20%, or a value of $7,420 for an individual and a value of $18,840 for families, which would shelter even more workers from tax liability. Baucus also has requested, presumably from the JTC, an estimate for this proposal also effective January 1, 2013.

Now, I know numbers like these can make your head spin. But what they are considering is pretty important for, well, one out of EIGHT of us, who will be helping to provide health care. Ahem. It is actually important to all of us, I know. Especially since health care is an important part of many people’s benefits package:

Most of the value of amounts cited in the presentation is the cost of insurance premiums that companies pay for their employees’ health benefits. But the presentation says the total value calculated for taxation would also include supplemental health plans for vision and dental care, as well as contributions employees make to their flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts, which workers contribute to with pre-tax dollars. Baucus would also adjust benchmarks annually to inflation.

A 2008 survey of employer health benefits suggests more than nine million workers could face new tax liabilities under the Baucus proposals, according one of the survey’s authors. The survey was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center, for the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Education Trust.

The survey, of 1,900 small and large companies, can be found here.

Among other things, the survey identified insurance-premium levels employers paid for their workers’ coverage last year. To analyze variations around national averages, the survey reported higher premiums due to factors such as geography and benefit differences.

Based on the survey, Jon Gabel, NORC senior fellow for health policy and evaluation in Washington, D.C., said that if the Baucus proposal to tax single workers receiving more than $6,182 in benefits were in effect today, about 15% of single workers, or 4.7 million, could face new tax payments — potentially hundreds of dollars or more per person per year, depending on tax brackets and the size of benefit packages.

Gabel estimated that about 17% of workers with family coverage, or 4.5 million workers, could face new taxes if the proposal to tax employees with families who receive more than $15,700 in health benefits were in effect today. Under the survey methodology, with family coverage defined as a policy insuring four people, the tax could affect benefits for about 18 million people, Gabel estimated.

The survey and the Baucus proposals did not address another 12 million workers who receive coverage for themselves and one dependent, usually a spouse. Presumably any tax proposal would apply to a subset of them as well.

With health care inflation, even more workers could face tax payments by 2013 as premium payments rose. But by adopting higher benchmarks, such as Baucus’ “base plus 10%” and “base plus 20%,” policymakers would narrow the number of workers required to pay taxes, if Congress adopts such proposals. Congress could also limit their impact by combining a benefits level cap with an income test — such as taxing only single workers who receive $6,182 in annual health care benefits and who earn more than $100,000 a year.

Gabel said most workers will have to ask their employer for benefit information to determine the value of their individual health care packages.

For more information on taxation of health benefits, you can read Center for Budget Policy and Priorities report here.

In these difficult economic times, I’m sure this is just what these people want to hear. But this seems to be one area in which there is agreement across the aisle:

The idea of taxing health-care benefits has bipartisan roots. Some conservative economists and Republican policymakers believe health-care costs are soaring faster then general inflation in part because such benefits are excluded from taxable income, encouraging excessive health care spending by consumers. Some Democrats agree.

During the presidential campaign last year, then-candidate Barack Obama criticized his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for proposing to tax all health-care benefits. Under his health-care reform plan, McCain would have used the new revenues to the government to fund health-care tax credits.

But in a meeting with Baucus and other senators earlier this month, President Obama signaled he would not rule out taxing benefits to help finance a reform plan.

“If I’m not mistaken, I can think of at least one Republican off the top of my head that talked about changing the tax benefits for the exclusion,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at his daily press briefing on Friday. “I think if I sat at Google for about five minutes I could probably get you several dozen. I think one of the major reform bills that’s up there right now that’s been written by Sen. [Richard] Burr (R-N.C.) includes, if not a complete ending of the exclusion, some cap of it.”

The Obama Administration has already proposed more than $300 billion in tax increases to pay for reform, mainly by limiting deductions for wealthier families, and proposed more than $600 billion in cuts in Medicare and Medicaid spending.

But NORC’s Gabel said of specifically taxing benefits, “I think it’s very difficult to sell. As we know, Americans are almost schizophrenic in their views on taxing and spending. You name it, they think we should do more on it — spend more on education, more on defense, more on health care. On the other hand, they think taxes are too high and they don’t see a contradiction between the two.”

Well, at least this proposal would apply to everyone, right? Wrong:

The tax proposals also likely face strong opposition from some of the President’s and the Democratic party’s key supporters — unions that enjoy more generous health-care benefits won through hard-fought contact negotiations over decades. Apparently anticipating some objections about the possibility of affecting contracts already in place, Baucus has proposed protecting some union benefits by “grandfathering” collective-bargaining agreements existing on January 1, 2013, in his “base plus 10%” and “base plus 20%” options, according to his presentation.

Did you catch that? Unions may be exempt from having to pony up like everyone else will have to do. WOW – they really DID buy themselves a president, didn’t they??? I wonder how hard it would be to organize a United Office Workers Union (h/t to my partner for that union idea)?? How long are most Americans just going to accept that Union workers have far better benefits and pensions than the rest of us because we are subsidizing them? (Again, I’m not anti-union, but these things kind of stick in my craw…)

But there does seem to be agreement (more or less) that something needs to change:

On Sunday, a New York Times poll on health-care reform suggested taxing health benefits may not be as politically treacherous as assumed: the Times reported that 57% of voters said they would be willing to pay higher taxes “so that all Americans have health insurance that they can’t lose no matter what.” Just over a third — 37% — said they would not be willing to pay such taxes, and 6% had no opinion.

In a press briefing on June 9, Baucus said he was considering either a 50-50 or 60-40 split between taxes and savings to pay for a reform plan. Baucus specifically mentioned a “grandfathering” idea that he said would help mitigate taxes to some people who receive health-insurance benefits and said he favored an income test to narrow the impact as well.

In the House, Democratic leaders announced their own draft reform plan on Friday. But they did not present any options for financing it.

Gabel said taxes on benefits could not only raise some revenue for a new government plan but could also help to reduce health care spending, and thus inflation, as some economists believe.

“People will move from rich benefits where they don’t face deductibles to higher deductibles so their premiums are lower, and this will reduce the use of services,” Gabel said. “Also, they may move back into tightly managed HMOs like Kaiser, which have shown they can deliver care at lower cost.”

Well, that would be something at least. I think it would be great if everyone had health care – as long as we can PAY for it without going further into massive debt as a country. Or without putting the lion’s share of burden on some employees while allowing others off scott free. Surely a more just proposal can be worked out, yes? Let’s hope so, otherwise, those aren’t great odds for the 12.5% of employees who will pay more…

Basically, the Germans wanted an adult in the room as opposed to the adolescent they got:

Hillary Clinton has intervened in talks over the future of Opel and Vauxhall at the request of German ministers as the American Government unveiled plans to sink more taxpayers’ funds into the European carmakers’ US parent, General Motors (GM).

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German Finance Minister, spoke by telephone today with Mrs Clinton to seek “support in the search for a solution,” his spokesman said. Mrs Clinton pledged to intervene to demand “the greatest possible American support” from Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, the spokesman added.

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, the Economics Minister, also denounced the US Treasury for dispatching a junior official who had to consult Washington through a video link at regular intervals during the night.

Mr Guttenberg said the talks had been “absurd in parts” and demanded “more seriousness and a greater willingness to compromise on the part of the US.”

It is also hoped that developments today in the US could pave the way for smoother negotiations with the two preferred bidders – Fiat, the Italian car group, and Magna, the Canadian components maker.

Nothing like insulting one of our big allies and business partners by sending some flunky to do a woman’s job. Ahem.

As for the rest of the article, some of this may have changed – who knows? I guess it depends on whatever mood Obama is in today and just how much control he is handing over to the union that bought him, but here it is:

GM’s biggest bondholders have agreed to a new offer to wipe out the automaker’s debt, raising hopes that the carmaker will make a quick exit from the now inevitable move into bankruptcy.

Bondholders that own about 20 per cent of GM’s $27.2 billion of unsecured debt agreed to wipe out the borrowings in return for a 10 per cent stake in the company and warrants to buy a further 15 per cent of the equity in the new business.

They had previously rejected an offer of a flat 10 per cent because the United Auto Workers (UAW) union had been promised more equity – 17.5 per cent – for a smaller $20 billion debt.

The remainder of GM’s debt investors, which include individuals and pension funds, have until Saturday afternoon to agree to the new offer.

If they do not support the offer, forcing GM into a contentious bankruptcy, the Government has warned that bondholders will be all but wiped out.

In exchange for the improved payout, creditors must agree not to oppose a move to sell GM’s profitable assets to a new company funded by the Government in a fast-track bankruptcy process.

Just a teensy weensy little reminder – when they talk about wiping out GM’s debt, that’s all the money WE paid to bail them out because they were “to big to fail.” So, all those BILLIONS of dollars of OUR money that Obama was handing out like candy to them? Poof – GONE!!!!

And then, add to that, the government going into the automobile business – as if it knows ANYTHING about it:

GM’s filing also revealed that the Government’s stake in the restructured company would be 72.5 per cent, much larger than the 50 per cent it was expected to be handed in return for forgiving some of the bailout cash it has provided the company.

The bigger stake is likely to increase the cost of GM’s bankruptcy to taxpayers, which is estimated to reach as high as $50 billion.

Overnight negotiations over the future of the US carmaker’s European operation broke down when GM sought more funding for Opel despite Germany’s pledge to provide billions of euros in state guarantees as well as a €1.5 billion bridging loan.

Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary today reiterated the British government’s support for Vauxhall but said it was too early to comment on what funding the UK may provide since talks over Opel needed to be resolved first.

He also said that unlike Opel, Vauxhall was not in desperate need of funding.

Lord Mandelson has extracted promises from both Fiat and Opel over the future of Vauxhall and British jobs.

Although the Business Secretary has conceded that GM Europe suffers from excess costs and is selling vehicles into a depressed market, he has made clear that the amount of money that Britain will commit will depend on the level of job guarantees in the medium term and the long term.

“Each of the bids envisages government support, but we are some way off from a discussion about government’s role in any commercial outcome to these discussions,” he said.

The assurances represent a significant victory for Lord Mandelson, who has been desperate to make sure that the German Government does not give in to election-year pressure with a pledge to protect domestic jobs at the expense of those in the UK. Berlin’s view is crucial because it is being asked to stump up billions of euros in loan guarantees as part of any deal.

Magna calculates job losses of 9,000 across Europe – 2,500 of them in Germany. However, before a Chancellery meeting last night, Magna hinted that it could shift the production of the Opel Astra from Antwerp, Belgium, to Bochum, Germany. Under that scenario, job losses in Germany would total only 300.

Fiat has promised to cut fewer than 10,000 jobs in GM Europe. That could entail closing an engine factory in Kaiserslautern, Germany. Unions fear that overlapping of Fiat’s products with those of Opel and Vauxhall will mean that redundancies could be much higher than promised.

Whew. This is really a pickle, isn’t it? We have taken over, no – check that – OBAMA and the UAW have taken over a private business in this country, about which Obama, anyway, knows NOTHING. He is not a businessman, you know. The UAW is certainly a business – some might say a racket – which has ensured ITS pensions at the expense of ours. How is it that some Americans deserve to have one and others don’t?

That’s just one of those pesky little questions I am certain Obama would label as “Un-American,” just like he did the secured creditors to GM – you know, the Teachers Retirement Fund and State Police of Indiana, for example:

Maybe Obama should follow Germany’s example, and ask Secretary Clinton to figure this out for everyone – GM, the taxpayers, the UAW, everyone. Heck, she could probably design a more aerodynamic, fuel efficient vehicle, change the oil in everyone’s car, AND not rip off the taxpayers for billions of dollars all at the same time! Oh c’mon, you know she could!! In any event, it is sure worth a try.

I mean, really, if it is good enough for Germany to have her step in, it is surely good enough for us! No doubt she would do far better at this than Obama and the UAW are doing now. I say, bring her on!!

See the UPDATE at end of story.

*You’re Ahead In A Ford All The Way – Ford Ad slogan 1950s-60s.

Ford, the American carmaker most likely to survive the auto implosion without going bankrupt or taking government aid, deserves credit for making prescient decisions before the meltdown. – The Street

“We’ve been trying to engage with some automobile manufacturer, and let’s face it, a couple have had other things on their mind,” said Don Clevenger, vice president of external affairs for Oncor, a Texas Utility.

UPDATE. The shareholders meeting is over and the Ford family still controls 40% of the vote. Some quotes from the meeting:

“At last year’s meeting, talk was of profitability in 2009. Now, there is talk of profitability in 2011,” said William Thrower, of Katy, Texas, who introduced a proposal seeking limits on executive pay and an elimination of bonuses until Ford reports a profit. “As stockholders, we must insist that all available capital be used for …restructuring.”

My comment: You still own a car company. Be happy.

Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford Jr. acknowledged the company’s challenges.

“In all my years with the company, I have never seen market conditions as difficult as they are now,” Ford said. “However, I have never been more excited about the prospects for our future.”

Ford’s stock price, now trading at more than $5 per share, has more than tripled since Feb. 20 when it was at $1.58, while GM’s stock hovering around $1.20 per share.

“I’m glad to see the stock price has come up, and I’m glad they did not take Obama dollars,” said Melody Schools, a nurse from Richwood, N.J., who occasionally attends Ford’s annual meeting. “Compared to some of the other companies, they are doing pretty good.”

Agreed.

Disclosure statement:   My first car was a 1964 ½ Ford Mustang.

WackyMacky01 posted this video. He asks a great question at the end of his description:

Fox report with Bret Baier focuses on a small Albion Indiana Company with 50 employees that was pressed by UAW organizers into an open vote to unionize. Is this what we’re in for?

I am referring to the Employee Free Choice Act, the brainchild of the large unions in this country, who paid a whopping $67,500,000 (round figure) to elect Obama. And now they want their payback.

I hasten to add, as I have said before, I am NOT anti-Union. As long as the unions are acting in the best interest of their employees, and the industry in which they work. But I gotta tell you – when we are having to essentially bailout unions, and then find out they have spent over 67 MILLION dollars this past year to get Obama elected, or find out that AFL/CIO officials are meeting in a very swanky resort in Miami, it gets just a tad irritating. We are bailing them out, and they are hanging out by the pool at a resort which bills it’s CHEAPEST room at approximately $400 a night.

And now, the big unions, along with the help of President Obama, want to remove the secret ballot to determine if a shop becomes union or not. The following video highlights the problems with that:

To provide a fuller view, and to hear from the other side, there is this exchange:

Lou Dobbs also considers this issue on his program (as well as another union bill):

Here’s the thing. The right to vote in secret, without fear of threat or intimidation, is a fundamental DEMOCRATIC right. For Unions, and DEMOCRATS, to push to remove that option is hypocritical in the extreme, and a dangerous precedent.

The DNC already demonstrated May 31, 2008, that they do not give a damn about the rule of law when they took lawfully cast, certified votes from one candidate to give to another. The one receiving the votes declared it “fair,” which it was only to him, not the hundreds of thousands of people who did not vote for him. So, I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised that the Democrats are now pushing for even more unfair voting, in this case, a payoff to a group that gave them tens of millions of dollars. BUT – that is so far from the concept of free and fair elections, of the right to cast a SECRET ballot, as one can get. And it is flat out undemocratic, no matter how anyone wants to spin it.

What’s in a name? A lot, to be sure, but only when the name is accurate. The “Employee Free Choice Act” is not free, and not a choice.

Barack Obama on Thursday stated the following:

“I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I am confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat. I think the materials released by the U.S. attorney reflect that fact,” Obama said at a Chicago news conference. “I’ve asked my team to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor’s office about this vacancy so that we can share them with you over the next few days.”

But on Friday we learned the following:

Emanuel, who has long been close to both Blagojevich and Obama, has refused to respond to questions about any involvement he may have had with the Blagojevich camp over the Senate pick. A spokeswoman for Emanuel also declined to comment Friday.

One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.

Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.

Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.

Where do we begin with Obama’s statement on Thursday?

“I am confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat.”

I am confident you phrased this statement in the manner you did, for you knew Emanuel was in contact with Blagojevich through his Chief of Staff and through other advisors and operatives. I am also confident that Emanuel is avoiding reporters, for Emanuel knows his voice is recorded on wiretaps gathered by Fitzgerald and his investigators. It is time for Emanuel to resign and to vacate his House seat. And by the way, is not former Daley operative Valerie Jarrett Co-Chair of your Transition Team? Why was the Co-Chair of your Transition Team in contact with Tom Balanoff, the SEIU Representative, who according to page 69 of the criminal complaint filed by Special Agent of the FBI David Cain “stated that he would find out if Senate Candidate 1 [Valerie Jarrett] wanted SEIU Official to keep pushing her for Senator with ROD BLAGOJEVICH.” Maybe it is time you answer questions about Valerie Jarrett’s contact with Blagojevich and his operatives.

“I have never spoken to the governor on this subject.”

You claim you did not speak to the Governor, but Emanuel submitted a letter with a list of candidates you preferred to Blagojevich. In other words, you communicated with the Governor about the open Senate seat. Moreover, news reports you and your operatives have attempted to remove from the Internet reveal you met with the Governor the week following the Presidential election. You met with him, and you sent him letters. This website contains two screen shots and a press release from Blagojevich’s office documenting that meeting. I recommend you read them and explain their existence to the media during your next press conference. Thank you for your prompt and anticipated cooperation.

“I think the materials released by the U.S. attorney reflect that fact.”

Perhaps you need to think again, for the criminal complaint filed by Special Agent of the FBI David Cain reveals that a line of communication existed between your team and that of Blagojevich. We also know that members of your team, including Emanuel, were engaged in conversation with members of Blagojevich’s team about the open Senate seat and the possibility of positions for Blagojevich since November 4, 2008. Maybe you need to read and reread the criminal complaint until its full import and significance is understood. And besides, no one cares what you “think;” we care about what is known.

“I’ve asked my team to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor’s office about this vacancy so that we can share them with you over the next few days.”

Ask your staff again. Obviously they are incapable of compiling information, for it is Sunday, and no documents have been made available to the public. Do you have any intention of sharing any and all communications between your staff and that of Rod Blagojevich? And while your seemingly inept, incompetent and corrupt staff compiles these records for the perusal of the traditional media and writers online, I recommend you ask them to create a dossier on your dealings with Rezko. This staff, after all, is housed in the Kluczynksi Federal Building on Dearborn Street in Chicago. Access to records from your days as a state Senator of an inner city Chicago state Senate district should not be difficult for a group of overpaid operatives in your Transition offices to obtain. I imagine they are not very bright, but if they refrain from engaging in drunken gang rape simulations with your speechwriter Jon Favreau, the lazy and inept lot will probably have the energy and focus to locate and compile these documents in a timely manner.

=========================

One paragraph, one lie, two equivocations and one false promise: how and why does anyone take Barack Obama seriously?

UPDATE:

Obama is clearly losing goodwill points every day that Blago-gate drags on. Now it appears that indeed Rahm Emanuel was in touch with Blago and aide Harris about the senate seat though no evidence yet of malfeasance on Emanuel’s part.

The stench of Chicago machine politics now clings to Obama like a cheap cologne.

It did not have to be this way.

Obama started out his career firmly in the reform anti-Daley machine wing of the Chicago Democratic Party. That’s what it meant to be an Alinsky-ite Community Organizer in black south side poor and working class neighborhoods in the 80s (where, by the way, he first got to know the powerful Balanoff family of Tom Balanoff aka “SEIU Official” – the flag pole contact in the Feds affidavit against Blagojevich).

That’s what it meant to fight the Mayor’s office and the powerful school board and the teachers union simultaneously in the push for a school reform bill in 1988 which Obama did alongside his pal Bill Ayers. And Obama did that in opposition to mainstream black organizations like Operation PUSH and The Woodlawn Organization.

That’s what it meant to join again with Ayers in securing and then spending $160 million on education reform AGAINST the desires of Mayor Daley in what were called the Chicago School Wars. That’s what it meant to hold his initial campaign event in the home of his “family friends” Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. That’s what it meant to step into the shoes of outgoing state rep. and fellow traveler Alice Palmer.

In fact, that’s what it meant if your aspiration in political life, as it was for Obama, was to depose Richard Daley Jr. inspired by Obama’s hero, Harold Washington, the first black mayor of the city who died in office while Obama was a community organizer.

But at some point in the late 90s or so, Obama realized he had higher ambitions and perhaps becoming Chicago Mayor was not enough. At that point he began to establish relationships with the Chicago mainstream, including key business figures like Penny Pritzker and he even began cozying up to the Daley machine itself. These would prove critical in his rise to national prominence

And now he is stuck with them. Instead of taking advantage of his new national ties to the Kennedy family or VP-elect Joe Biden he immediately fell back on the Chicago crowd for his earliest appointments – Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett, for example – while only leaving behind Jeremiah Wright and, hopefully, Billy Ayers.

For whatever reason Democratic Presidents seem too heavily dependent on the home team. Carter had his Georgia buddies as Clinton had his Arkansas cronies. Usually, however, it takes a few years for their inadequacies to shine through. Obama hasn’t even moved to Washington yet!

From my blog, Global Labor and Politics.

I am a firm believer in unions. But, for the love of God, their appetites make pigs look like Twiggy.

One night — I think it was on Nightline — I watched one of those sigh-it’s-sad-and-sober and it’s-the-end-of-an-American-way-of-life-sniffle stories about automotive workers being forced to take early retirement. One woman who was interviewed said that it would be a struggle for her to no longer make $60,000 a year as a janitor. A janitor? Who earns $60K? Excuse me? And she gets great health insurance, a pension, and lord only knows how many other perks?

And now President-elect Obama is spending his first days catering and pander-bearing to the labor unions and to the auto industry that is so poorly run it deserves to go out of business.

Then there are those Boeing machinists who just finished off yet another strike on November 1st because, by God, who can get by on this salary?

The average Machinist base wage for the past year was about $54,000, and with overtime about $65,000.

Look at that photo. Do those people look hungry to you? Or like they’ve been sleeping under bridges? One woman had some good ol’ C.S. (that common sense my parents always emphasized):

“I don’t think the strike ever should have happened,” said Sluys. “It’s a dangerous thing to do in this economy.”

No kidding. And now the Democrats and Obama want to end secret ballots in order to FORCE people — through intimidation (JUST LIKE IN THE CAUCUSES!) — to join the piggy unions?

Lots of people NEED unions.

There’s that receptionist at a medical office I go to. She gets minimum wage. I happened to see her working nights at a pizza parlor, and she was so embarrassed that I saw her that she hid in the kitchen until I left.

I felt so badly for her.

I’ve seen how the medical personnel at that office treat her — they’re bossy, condescending, demanding, and rude. They accost her verbally in FRONT of us patients. It’s awful. And for a lousy $8 an hour, so paltry she has to work a second job at night and then pray that no one sees her.

And there are millions of Americans like her.

$60,000 a year?

$54,000 a year?

People like that receptionist I know would be utterly THRILLED to get $30,000 a year.

Shame on those piggy union members.

And shame on the piggy Democrats pocketing all their campaign donations and making THEM the top priority instead of stimulating small businesses, and more.

::::::

P.S. Teacher’s unions need to go, like yesterday. They permit nasty battleaxes to stay on the job who are abusive — emotionally and verbally — to children, and have no business in the classroom. Then school district have to pay huge settlements to get rid of the worst. They dare not fire those who are merely horrible.

It’s dumb.

I’m tired.

So I’m just ranting.

You can rant too! It’s fun! It’s bracing!

OPEN THREAD!!!

The title tells the story:

Then blogger J. Justin Wilson reveals the depressing details:

I just got off the AFL-CIO’s kick-off conference call with Obama. What a tragedy of errors.

First of all, Sen. Obama was about 40 minutes late to the show. You can image how fantastic 40 minutes of Muzak went over. Finally, John Sweeney introduced Obama.

Next …

After rattling off nearly the exact same speech he delivered a few months ago to the AFL-CIO (see above [video]), Obama proceeded to hang up. Click. Just like that.

Someone at the AFL-CIO muttered something like “is that it?” and then we went back to hold music.

A lady came back on and made an excuse, saying Obama’s line was cut off and that he would come back on the call. Minutes pass, and then she came back on and said that Obama had left the building. …

Go to “Stood Up and Hung Up” to view a video and to listen to the actual phone call.

Oh well. I completely understand.

It is such an annoyance to have to talk to those “typical” little people.

:::::

P.S. Originally I described the blog as “pro-labor.” That is not entirely true. However, the facts of the event — backed up with an AUDIO — remain true.

In the nearly two months since Obama became the presumptive nominee, he has tried to present himself as a moderate, edging ever closer to the middle of the road. Fortunately enough, Obama has left a “footprint in the sand”, his voting record. He has one of the most liberal voting records in the United States Senate. Recently, McCain had this to say about Obama’s voting record:

That’s his voting record. All I said was his voting record-and that is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Could he really be farther left than Senator Sanders (D-VT)? Yes his voting record supports his far left liberal leanings, right down to partial birth abortions! The seed of his far left leanings were developed in those summer days post high school, pre-college and a future on the horizon, while he spent days on a Waikiki Beach, with none other than late self professed communist, Frank Marshall Davis. The influence was great as Obama followed in Davis’ footsteps by becoming a Chicago-based community organizer.

His association with Trinity UCC was no mistake either. Reverend Wright spewed forth Marxist after Marxist sermon from the pulpit. He preached Black Liberation Theory as we well know now. Obama sat in that church for 20 years because he saw it as a tool. A tool, where he could affect change, and reach for the presidency he wrote about here as a youth. This what his third grade teacher said about that:

Third-grade teacher Fermina Katarina Sinaga, now 67, has perhaps the most telling story. In an essay about what he wanted to be when he grew up, Obama “wrote he wanted to be president,” Sinaga recalled.

TUCC and Reverend Wright made a wonderful, but scary back drop for Obama’s meteoric rise as a politician.

Now Obama talks about a presidency that will last 8 – 10 years. He says he will accomplish many things in his first term. Among them is the following list from Investor’s Business Daily Editorials:

• “Universal,” “guaranteed” health care.

• “Free” college tuition.

• “Universal national service” (a la Havana).

• “Universal 401(k)s” (in which the government would match contributions made by “low- and moderate-income families”).

• “Free” job training (even for criminals).

• “Wage insurance” (to supplement dislocated union workers’ old income levels).

• “Free” child care and “universal” preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for “working poor.”

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a “living wage,” with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and “fair trade” and “fair labor practices,” with breaks for “patriot employers” who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for “nonpatriot” companies that don’t.

Of course he has more plans to socialize human resource departments at companies. Obama wants to micromanage companies by insisting certain requirements be met, like 7 paid sick days a year. He suggests these mandates without considering the small business person and their company bottom line, a backbone of our country.

Obama certainly appears to be following in his father’s, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.’s footsteps, who espoused massive taxes on the “rich” and redistribution of wealth”. Obama Sr, even believed in 100% taxation of wealth as long as the government gave the citizens something back they was commensurate with the taxation. More on that here.

With the economy slowing, even in a recession, gas prices high at the pumps, prices rising in every other area of our lives as transportation costs are passed on to us, we can’t afford this type of quiet stealth socialism. Obama seems to think ending the Iraq War will free up billions of dollars for the “big” government but he seems to forget we borrowed money from China to stay the days and months to come in Iraq.

Obama, who appears to not understand that the USA is using a non-existent credit card to fund the war among other things, will with his ever growing socialistic plans further push the economy in the toilet and stall the economy. It is time for Obama to take a course on economy, Economy 101.

Well, not really all of a sudden, it’s just a few days after the AFL-CIO decided to throw in the towel and endorse Obama over Clinton now that Clinton has put her campaign on ice.  And just a few days before Obama is scheduled to appear before the national conventions of both of the major teachers’ unions.  The AFT has recommended its convention meeting next week in Chicago endorse Obama, as has the National Education Association, before which Obama speaks tomorrow, July 5.

When I pointed out at the Edwize Blog sponsored by the United Federation of Teachers, the big New York division of the AFL-CIO affiliated AFT, that Darling-Hammond backs the same key policy proposal (repayment of centuries of “education debt” to people of color) as Bill Ayers, long-time education advocate and co-worker of Obama, and that Ayers and Obama are far from being “casual acquaintances” as Leo Casey of the AFT had contended, Casey replied with the following false claims on the Democratic Left Yahoo group: 

1) that I had painted an “unrecognizable caricature” of Darling-Hammond;

2) that I had contended that the $110 million Chicago Annenberg Challenge that Ayers and Obama ran together for five years was a “political front” for Ayers and his politics;

3) that Obama had only a “quite superficial grasp of what [was] going on” at the Annenberg Challenge the board of which he chaired and was not “involve[d] in the nitty-gritty” of the five year long project and that he was only “lending..his name and his ability to make a couple of telephone calls to get things done.”

4) that I contended there was “some sort of sinister hidden connection between Obama and Ayers”

None of this is true and Casey provides no documentation at all for any of his specious contentions.  I wrote the following reply to both Democratic Left and Edwize, but so far neither site has “approved” my posts (pretty remarkable for Democratic Left, a site that considers itself an opponent of authoritarianism in modern political life) so I am putting up a copy here:

Well, at least Leo now seems to be admitting that Ayers and Obama were more than “casual acquaintances” as he asserted on Democratic Left and on Edwize.

So now on to the second line of defense.

Frankly, I am not sure what that is because I only assert two things: Obama and Ayers have a longstanding political relationship – which is clear from the public record; and two, Ayers and Darling-Hammond are now advocating a race-based solution to education – the repayment of centuries of “education debt” to people of color or, in other words, reparations. Nothing you have said contradicts this.

I did not paint a portrait of Darling-Hammond or caricature her as you have speciously asserted. I only stated the facts as supported by her public record. She and I have exchanged emails on this issue and this is reported on my blog. She herself has never suggested that I have made any factually incorrect statements about her.

I never suggested the Annenberg Challenge which Obama and Ayers ran together, though not alone, was a political front as you, again without substantiation, contend I did. In fact, Ayers was quite open about his political goals and those goals run right through the lengthy grant proposal, the annual reports of the organization and its board minutes, which I have reviewed (though some board minutes were not provided me).

Some in Chicago shared those goals. Some understood the background of his views and others did not. I view the local schools councils as an attempt to create a new center of power that was aimed at the power of the teachers’ union. They were set up in the wake of an unpopular teachers strike in 1987. Obama and Ayers were active in the lobbying effort for that “radical” reform, as Ayers called it in his proposal to the Annenberg Foundation.

I do not consider such local councils a democratic step forward for school progress, but rather as a potential base of power for those with a different kind of agenda, based on racial politics and “social justice” teaching. A genuine democratic alternative would be built, as Dorothy Shipps has written, in district wide assemblies elected by the public that are transparent and accountable.

I have not imputed any particular agenda to Ayers, Obama or Darling-Hammond, other than to note that Ayers and Darling-Hammond support repayment of the education debt as a top priority. Obama has not stated what his views are on this very clearly though he indicated sympathy for the idea while campaigning in South Carolina. 

Given the long and close ties between Ayers and Obama and the professional ties among education debt repayment advocates Ayers, Darling-Hammond and Ladson-Billings, it is reasonable to ask if this kind of race-based approach to educational problems is going to be part of the Obama presidency.

Obama was not as you contend an elected official when he first worked on school reform with Ayers in the late 80s, nor was he even yet a candidate when he became Chairman of the board of the Annenberg Challenge in 1995. He was a relative unknown and quite a junior person at that point, just two years out of law school when Ayers submitted the grant proposal, with only a voter registration drive to his credit since leaving Harvard.

Thus, I think it is a fair question to ask why Obama would have been chosen to head up such a prestigious effort as the $110 million Annenberg Challenge. I think Ayers backed him because he knew he could rely on Obama to support Ayers’ agenda of propping up the troubling and troubled local schools councils.

And, in fact, the record of the Challenge – its annual reports, mid term reports and board minutes – indicate that that is precisely what happened. Even when concerns were raised by a business sector representative on the board that the councils represented a potential “political threat” to school principals (and unions??) Obama backed Ayers in pushing money into the school council election process.

Finally, when you suggest that Obama played no significant role in directing the Challenge, are you suggesting that as chairman of the board of a major non profit corporation in the state of Illinois, that Obama had a hands-off attitude? That he was NOT aware that the Challenge was signing off on, for example, a $175,000 grant to Ayers buddy Mike Klonsky, as they did in 1995 for the Small Schools Workshop Klonsky was recruited to head up by Ayers? That suggests to me a problem of fiduciary duty. Quite unlikely for a Harvard Law School graduate – and frankly, more worrying for me about Obama if true.

No, I think Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he voted as a board member to approve the disbursement of millions of dollars in order to intervene in the Chicago school wars. And so did Ayers. They were using each other for advancement of their careers and their shared political perspective on education policy. 

The Challenge ended in 2001. It is certainly reasonable for voters to ask seven years later for Obama to explain the relationship and Ayers’ influence on his approach to education policy.



While no one could, or should, impute to Obama any support for the terroristic activity of Ayers, Dohrn and others, there is an important connection between Ayers’ politics then and his approach to education policy today: Ayers and the Weather Underground promoted a politics built around the absurd idea of “white supremacy,” which Ayers calls even today the “monster in the room” at the heart of American life. 

This was linked to another idea that was widely held among the maoist elements that took hold in the early 70s in the US: that American workers and their unions were part of a giant labor aristocracy that exploited workers of the south, the so-called Third World. Inside the US, the Weather Underground argued that global form of “unequal exchange” was reproduced in the relationship between white and black workers.

Thus, when an idea like repayment of centuries of accumulated “education debt” is proposed as the top priority of the next federal government as it has been by Darling-Hammond, Ladson-Billings and Bill Ayers, all of whom have links to Obama it is reasonable to ask what Obama’s view are on such a critical issue. The presumptive nominee has yet to explain how it is that his education advisor can promote such an idea and yet he remains silent on it.

I would think the members of America’s teachers’ unions would like to know the answers to such questions as well before they decide how to approach the upcoming elections.

::::::

My most recent previous article here: “How is it under that bus, Comrade Klonsky?”

Read my other posts here at No Quarter.

About me: I am a law professor and political scientist on the faculty of Santa Clara University School of Law in Santa Clara, California, which is in the heart of Silicon Valley. I teach courses on the global capital markets, the international economy, corporate governance and international labor and human rights. Prior to joining the faculty I was in private legal practice in New York and in Palo Alto. I also have an extensive background in the labor movement and advise a wide range of unions, workers and institutional investors on financial and legal issues. This website is an independent project and hence is my responsibility and it is not affiliated in any other way with the law school or Santa Clara University.

However, shortly, we will reveal additional details about the membership of the Chicago-headquartered billionaire Crown family on the board of directors of Northern Trust, which granted the Obamas their advantageous loan. Crown family members have been major donors to Obama’s campaigns, and serve on his elite fundraisers group for his presidential campaign.

Among the most disturbing stories of Obama’s many efforts to give political and legislative advantages to the Crown family’s holdings, Senate candidate Barack Obama promised Illinois’ Maytag workers he’d work to protect their jobs — and took campaign donations from the beleagured workers — but then met with Lester Crown, on the board of directors of Maytag, to take his campaign donations. Crown later told the press that Obama never raised the workers’ fate with him. The machinists lost their jobs to Maytag’s Mexican plant. From my story, “Machinists’ Union TELLS It Like It Is ,” quoting a must-read article at TradingMarkets.com, “Obama’s fundraising, rhetoric collide: Union says senator did little to save jobs“:

Obama had a special connection to Maytag: Lester Crown, one of the company’s directors and biggest investors whose family, records show, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for Obama’s campaigns since 2003. But Crown says Obama never raised the fate of the Galesburg plant with him, …

These are the ties that bind:

Barack Obama plays the “populist” routine in his campaign speeches, but he delivers to his billionaire benefactors, not the common working stiffs who are losing their jobs and their homes.

Now for a quick round-up of bloggers’ reports on the Obamas’ “sweetheart” home mortgage from Northern Trust, on whose board a billionaire member of the Crown family sits:

Hot Air blog:

Barack Obama’s home loan has more questionable aspects than just the Tony Rezko connections, according to the Washington Post. After ten years as a prominent Chicago politician and in his first year in the Senate, Obama got a $1.32 million loan below market rates without paying the normal extra fees — a rate which saved him $300 per month on his mortgage. Obama managed to do this despite the extraordinarily large mortgage and his lack of history with the lender:

The couple wanted to step up from their $415,000 condo. They chose a house with six bedrooms, four fireplaces, a four-car garage and 5 1/2 baths, including a double steam shower and a marble powder room. It had a wine cellar, a music room, a library, a solarium, beveled glass doors and a granite-floored kitchen.

The Obamas had no prior relationship with Northern Trust when they applied for the loan. They received an oral commitment on Feb. 4, 2005, and locked in the rate of 5.625 percent, the campaign said. On that date, HSH data show, the average rate in Chicago for a 30-year fixed-rate jumbo loan with no points was about 5.94 percent. [...]

Thus far, no evidence has arisen that the Obamas took advantage of a “Friends of Angelo” program, as Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad did with Countrywide. However, the difference in rates — especially for such a large mortgage — gives the appearance of a political favor, at the very least. Combined with the Tony Rezko’s financial involvement in the deal, at a time when Rezko had little income other than that from a shady Iraqi financier and fraudster, and it looks as though people in Chicago really wanted to see the Obamas move into that house.

Northern Trust has helped out Barack Obama in other ways … their employees have donated $71,000 to Obama’s campaigns. When Obama rejected public financing, were these donations the kind that he insisted represented the moral equivalent of the system he championed until he found that he could outraise and outspend his opponents?

Obama has spent plenty of time castigating credit lenders in this campaign for their capricious practices and bad management. He has rung the populist bell. …

The Swamp, Chicago Tribune’s blog — which generally downplays the importance of the WaPo story:

[C]oming as it does after all the disclosures of the erstwhile Friends of Angelo program at Countrywide Financial which apparently benefited some members of Congress and at least one former member of the Obama campaign team, James Johnson, who headed up Obama’s vice presidential selection process until stepping down because of the scandalette, this story about Obama’s mortgage is certainly worth knowing about.

Redstate.com blog:

Obama, caught off-guard about Johnson’s sweetheart Countrywide deals, initially tried to defend his vice presidential talent scout. But, Obama threw Johnson, under the bus, just a few days after Johnson’s Countrywide sweetheart deals came to light.

Obama is spinning his sweetheart mortgage deal as the lender competing for Obama’s business:

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the rate was adjusted to account for a competing offer from another lender and other factors.

[. . .]

The Obama campaign called the rate “consistent with Northern Trust policies, and it reflected the base rate set for that period discounted to address the competition for the account and other opportunities, such as personal financial services, that the relationship would bring to Northern Trust.”

It’s those “other factors” and “other opportunities” that worry me. Those “factors” and “opportunities” could be anything, including special access to a grateful U.S. Senator or a President.

Presidents, and U.S. Senators, need to avoid the appearance of impropriety. As with Obama’s relationship with the crook, Antoin Rezko, Obama’s judgment once again failed both Obama and America.