About Me 0095: Making Money Through

Two years into the Obama presidency and the economic data is still looking grim. Don't be fooled by the gyrations of the stock market, where optimism is mostly a reflection of the ability of financial corporations -- thanks to massive government largesse -- to survive the mess they created. The basics are dismal: unemployment is unacceptably high, the December consumer confidence index is down, and housing prices have fallen for four months in a row. The number of Americans living in poverty has never been higher, and a majority in a Washington Post poll said they were worried about making their next mortgage or rent payment.

In a parallel universe lives Peter Orszag, President Barack Obama's former budget director and key adviser, who even faster than his mentor, Robert Rubin, has passed through that revolving platinum door linking the White House with Wall Street. The goal is to use your government position to advance the interests of your future employer, and Orszag and Rubin's actions in the government and then at Citigroup provide stunning examples of the synergy between big government and high finance.

As Bill Clinton's treasury secretary, Rubin presided over the dismantling of Glass-Steagall, the New Deal legislation that would have prohibited the creation of the too-big-to-fail Citigroup. He was rewarded with a $15-million-a-year job at Citigroup, where he became a leader in the bank's aggressive move into high-risk ventures. An SEC report in September claimed that Rubin as Citigroup chairman was aware that the bank failed to disclose $40 billion it held in subprime mortgages before the collapse.

During those years at Citigroup, Rubin financed the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project, an economic policy program, and named Orszag, a Clinton economic adviser, as its director. The Hamilton Project continued to celebrate Rubin's deregulation philosophy up to the point of utter embarrassment. Clearly, Orszag is not easily embarrassed, for upon taking his new job recently he boasted "I am pleased to be joining Citi, with its unmatched global platform and dedication to providing clients with service and advice."

The most damning comment on this corrupt syndrome was offered by former Citigroup co-chief executive John Reed, who had worked with Rubin to get Glass-Steagall reversed and now is a sharp critic of the result. "We continue to listen to the same people whose errors in judgment were central to the problem," Reed told Bloomberg News. "I'm astounded because we basically dropped the world's biggest economy because of an error in bank management." Reed estimated that the financial deregulation proposals contained in the Dodd-Frank bill and other reforms of the Obama administration represent only 25 percent of the change needed.

The failure to provide serious regulation of the financial industry to avoid future downturns is documented in devastating detail in that Dec. 28 Bloomberg report, written by Christine Harper:

"The U.S. government, promising to make the system safer, buckled under many of the financial industry's protests. Lawmakers spurned changes that would wall off deposit-taking banks from riskier trading. They declined to limit the size of lenders or ban any form of derivatives."

The reason for that failure is obvious from the president's choice of advisers featuring Rubin acolytes from the Clinton years. Harper writes: "While Obama vowed to change the system, he filled his economic team with people who helped create it," referring to, among others, Timothy F. Geithner, who had gone from the Clinton Treasury Department to head the New York Fed, where he presided over the salvaging of Citigroup and AIG. As Obama's treasury secretary he was quick to appoint a Goldman Sachs lobbyist as his chief of staff. Geithner's subservience to Wall Street was reinforced by White House top economic adviser Lawrence Summers, Rubin's deputy and then replacement in the Clinton administration who pushed through the repeal of Glass Steagall and fought against the regulation of derivatives.

And with the decisive assistance from both a Republican and Democratic president, all has worked out just as planned for the banks. Harper reports: "The last two years have been the best ever for combined investment-banking and trading revenue at Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and Morgan Stanley, according to data compiled by Bloomberg."

It's all wonderfully bipartisan. Recently it was announced that Carlos Gutierrez, commerce secretary under George W. Bush, had been named to a high position at Citigroup. For President Obama, there's no cause for worry about the loss of indispensable talent from his administration. Orszag's replacement as head of the Office of Management and Budget, Jacob J. Lew, was both a member of Rubin's Hamilton Project and a former Citigroup executive -- thus insuring that government of the banks, by the banks, for the banks shall not perish from the earth.

The new Republican majority in the House of Representatives has begun the process of repealing the Healthcare law. Some have argued that, because the Senate may not repeal it as well, and the President will likely veto it, the House’s repeal is purely “symbolic.”

Just as the reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House, on Wednesday, was symbolic of a “return to constitutionalism,” as Charles Krauthammer writes, the repeal of the Healthcare law in the House will be symbolic not just of the fact that Republicans have heard the will of the American people, but also that they fully understand that the new law is, only superficially, a jumbled and thoughtless mess of rules about how healthcare should be delivered and paid for in this country. In reality, the Healthcare law is a liberal power grab that is gradually permitting the federal government to control more of our lives, making more people dependent upon the government and continuing the culture of dependency among minority groups who, up until now, have mostly voted liberals into power. The symbolism of the repeal will ring loud and clear.

Liberal Democrats will be launching a big campaign over the next few days, doing what they always accuse Republicans and conservatives of doing- “fear-mongering.” They will be telling their constituents that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the repeal of the Healthcare law will increase debt, that Republicans don’t want people with pre-existing conditions to have access to health insurance, and that Republicans want to defund Medicare, new chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan, has set out why these claims are wrong.

However, one of the features of the new Healthcare law, already in effect, is the extension of healthcare coverage to adult children (up until 26 years old), a hallmark of the true intention of this law- to make more people dependent, while it raises premiums on private health insurers who need more money to meet this new requirement.

For those who do not have adult children in the 21 to 26 age range, would it surprise you to know that these adult “children,” who are now covered, are not required to even live with their parents to remain on their plans, and that they may even be married and still be covered under their parents’ health plans?

Through the new Healthcare law, liberal Democrats have gradually introduced the concept that adult children should remain dependent on their parents, and when their parents are not around, perhaps the government can take over in that parental role? Of course, this new rule comes at a time when the economic decline made it difficult for young adults to obtain jobs. This is how the gradual creep of dependency begins: introduce a law which creates dependency on the government at a time of crisis, so that uninformed Americans will see it as a caring and positive intervention to help them in their time of need. This is how every entitlement legislation begins, and why none has ever been totally eradicated thus far, mainly because people have come to expect these benefits.

One of the newly elected members of Congress who understands well the liberals’ drive to make more Americans dependent on the government is Colonel Allen West of Florida. Congressman West will be serving in the Congressional Black Caucus and hopes to represent conservative philosophical ideas such as the importance of individual responsibility, creativity, and entrepreneurship.

In addition, as a result of the left’s encouragement of this culture of dependency, those who are truly in need will no longer have to seek voluntary assistance from neighbors and communities. Conversely, neighbors and communities will not be encouraged to voluntarily reach out to others because the knowledge that the government will provide for their friends’ needs may cause them to think twice. As such, dependency on the government creates more distance, and less connectivity, among members of a community.

At this point in time, any resistance to repealing the Healthcare law, and replacing it with commonsense legislation that reflects free market principles, will be almost entirely about continuing the culture of dependency, a hallmark of liberalism, that has taken over this country. We can be sure that liberals from the previous Congress will try hard to keep this culture in place. Their ability to remain powerful depends on it.

bench craft company reviews bench craft company reviews

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Making Money Through

No comments:

Post a Comment