 |
|
|
BOB EHRLICH
|
|
Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. was raised in the working class suburb of Arbutus just outside Baltimore. Bob rose through the state legislature and the U.S. Congress to become Maryland's first Republican Governor in 36 years in 2002. He is currently a member at the law firm Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC in Baltimore.
|
BOB EHRLICH'S BLOG
11/19/09
Letter to Bob Ehrlich
The complete text of Susan Turnbull's letter is below:
Dear Former Governor Ehrlich,
Running for governor is an intensely personal decision for you and your family, and no one - Republicans or Democrats - should fault you for taking the time to consider your prospects in 2010. As you conduct - in your own words - your "objective analysis," "hold focus groups" and "look at cross-tabs," I wanted to make sure that you and your pollster ask the right questions on which to base your decision.
For instance, do voters know that:
1. You increased spending by almost 22% in your last two years in office - exceeding the Spending Affordability guidelines?
2. You raised more than $3 billion in hidden taxes, tolls and fees on Maryland families?
3. You raised taxes on income from manufacturing?
4. You raised state property taxes 57%?
5. You raised the corporate filing fees by $188 million during your first three years in office?
These are very important questions that you should ask in your poll - especially since spending levels in the State of Maryland are lower today than they were during your last year in office. No doubt voters will be very interested in your spending record given the state of the
national economy.
Voters and opinion leaders are already aware that you were the only incumbent governor in the country to lose re-election in November. Sure it was a bad year for Republicans after six years of George Bush, but you were the only incumbent governor of either party to lose re-election. So, as you prepare your poll and focus groups, I recommend you ask whether you would, yet again:
* Cut funding for K-12 public education, since you failed to fully-fund Thornton while you were in office.
* Roll-back the progress we have made to make college more affordable by increasing college tuition by over 40% again, as you did during your term in office.
* Start raiding Program Open Space dollars instead of making difficult decisions to balance the budget.
* Block any increase in the minimum wage for hard working Marylanders.
Warm Regards,
Susan W. Turnbull
Chair, Maryland State Democratic Party
P.S. Please also be sure that you ask voters about your flip flop on slots, which you supported for all four years of your Administration as the centerpiece of your budget program, only to oppose in last year's referendum, which passed with 59% of support from Maryland's voters.
Letter to Bob Ehrlich
The complete text of Susan Turnbull's letter is below:
Dear Former Governor Ehrlich,
Running for governor is an intensely personal decision for you and your family, and no one - Republicans or Democrats - should fault you for taking the time to consider your prospects in 2010. As you conduct - in your own words - your "objective analysis," "hold focus groups" and "look at cross-tabs," I wanted to make sure that you and your pollster ask the right questions on which to base your decision.
For instance, do voters know that:
1. You increased spending by almost 22% in your last two years in office - exceeding the Spending Affordability guidelines?
2. You raised more than $3 billion in hidden taxes, tolls and fees on Maryland families?
3. You raised taxes on income from manufacturing?
4. You raised state property taxes 57%?
5. You raised the corporate filing fees by $188 million during your first three years in office?
These are very important questions that you should ask in your poll - especially since spending levels in the State of Maryland are lower today than they were during your last year in office. No doubt voters will be very interested in your spending record given the state of the
national economy.
Voters and opinion leaders are already aware that you were the only incumbent governor in the country to lose re-election in November. Sure it was a bad year for Republicans after six years of George Bush, but you were the only incumbent governor of either party to lose re-election. So, as you prepare your poll and focus groups, I recommend you ask whether you would, yet again:
* Cut funding for K-12 public education, since you failed to fully-fund Thornton while you were in office.
* Roll-back the progress we have made to make college more affordable by increasing college tuition by over 40% again, as you did during your term in office.
* Start raiding Program Open Space dollars instead of making difficult decisions to balance the budget.
* Block any increase in the minimum wage for hard working Marylanders.
Warm Regards,
Susan W. Turnbull
Chair, Maryland State Democratic Party
P.S. Please also be sure that you ask voters about your flip flop on slots, which you supported for all four years of your Administration as the centerpiece of your budget program, only to oppose in last year's referendum, which passed with 59% of support from Maryland's voters.
01/01/10
Must Read
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Maryland among highest in nation for energy costs
Baltimore Business Journal
Maryland's energy cost ranks among the highest in the country, according to a new study released by The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council.
The council's report ranks Maryland 40th among the 50 states. The rankings places the lowest cost states at the top.
The index ranks states according to two major energy costs affecting small businesses, individuals and families: The price of regular gasoline at the pump and the cost of electricity.
Raymond Keating, the council's chief economist and author of the report, said making energy more affordable and abundant should be a key objective for policy makers to help small businesses survive the current economic turmoil.
"In tough economic conditions such as these, elected officials at all levels of government need to be aware of how their policies impact energy costs, and in turn small businesses," Keating said in a news release.
According to the index, the lowest cost states are: 1) Wyoming; 2) Idaho; 3) Utah; 4) Kentucky; and 5) West Virginia.
The highest cost states are: 46) Massachusetts; 47) Rhode Island; 48) Alaska; 49) Connecticut-- tied with New York -- and 50) Hawaii.
Must Read
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Maryland among highest in nation for energy costs
Baltimore Business Journal
Maryland's energy cost ranks among the highest in the country, according to a new study released by The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council.
The council's report ranks Maryland 40th among the 50 states. The rankings places the lowest cost states at the top.
The index ranks states according to two major energy costs affecting small businesses, individuals and families: The price of regular gasoline at the pump and the cost of electricity.
Raymond Keating, the council's chief economist and author of the report, said making energy more affordable and abundant should be a key objective for policy makers to help small businesses survive the current economic turmoil.
"In tough economic conditions such as these, elected officials at all levels of government need to be aware of how their policies impact energy costs, and in turn small businesses," Keating said in a news release.
According to the index, the lowest cost states are: 1) Wyoming; 2) Idaho; 3) Utah; 4) Kentucky; and 5) West Virginia.
The highest cost states are: 46) Massachusetts; 47) Rhode Island; 48) Alaska; 49) Connecticut-- tied with New York -- and 50) Hawaii.
01/01/10
Legislative session punishes families and small businesses
Martin O'Malley and the General Assembly just concluded the 2009 legislative session. If you are a labor union that funds democrat campaigns, you made out very well. If you are an illegal immigrant in immediate need of a Maryland drivers license, you scored a victory. If you believe that a homeowner or small business owner's greatest worth is the taxes and fees they pay government, you can take a victory lap.
However, if you are a new homeowner, small business owner, state employee, residential or commercial buyer of electricity, or a driver of Maryland roads, you lost big in the 2009 legislative session. Here's how:
Small businesses will pay more under House Bill 310, which increases unemployment insurances tax rates, making it more difficult for employers to keep and hire employees.
Individuals and business pay more for electricity under House Bill 315, which requires companies to cut their CO2 emissions by 25% by 2020. The costs incurred by companies to comply with this mandate will be passed on to you, the consumer. Yet Maryland's most powerful labor unions, who bankrolled the campaigns of the lawmakers who wrote the legislation, were protected by virtue of a "manufacturing exemption" in the bill.
State employees will pay more under House Bill 298, which imposes a $400 annual tax on state employees who are not members of a labor union. Once again, our liberal leaders favored the special interests who financed their campaigns while punishing ordinary, non-union state employees who were already forced to take furloughs in December.
Drivers pay more under House Bill 313, which places speed surveillance cameras throughout the state, despite clear evidence that the devices can be manipulated. For instance, Montgomery County high school students were caught duplicating the license plates of teachers and students and speeding through surveillance camera zones. The cameras do not distinguish between the owner and operator of the vehicle, yet drivers are still forced to pay $40 fines. Drivers who use E-Z Pass will also pay higher fees.
Homeowners with septic systems pay more under Senate Bill 554, which requires nitrogen-removing technology for new home or commercial renovation and construction projects. This legislation will cost new homeowners and renovators an additional $12,000.
Students and parents pay more as college and university room and board charges will increase as much as 7 percent next school year.
Illegal immigrants will continue to reap rewards from Maryland's amnesty policy toward drivers license. Maryland is the only state west of the Rockies that allows illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. As a result, a staggering 300,000 have obtained Maryland licenses since 2006. While legal immigration is an important American tradition, the legislation passed by O'Malley and the legislature this year leaves the welcome mat out for illegal immigrants.
That summarizes the winners and losers of this year's legislative session. So ask yourself: did you win or lose?
Legislative session punishes families and small businesses
Martin O'Malley and the General Assembly just concluded the 2009 legislative session. If you are a labor union that funds democrat campaigns, you made out very well. If you are an illegal immigrant in immediate need of a Maryland drivers license, you scored a victory. If you believe that a homeowner or small business owner's greatest worth is the taxes and fees they pay government, you can take a victory lap.
However, if you are a new homeowner, small business owner, state employee, residential or commercial buyer of electricity, or a driver of Maryland roads, you lost big in the 2009 legislative session. Here's how:
Small businesses will pay more under House Bill 310, which increases unemployment insurances tax rates, making it more difficult for employers to keep and hire employees.
Individuals and business pay more for electricity under House Bill 315, which requires companies to cut their CO2 emissions by 25% by 2020. The costs incurred by companies to comply with this mandate will be passed on to you, the consumer. Yet Maryland's most powerful labor unions, who bankrolled the campaigns of the lawmakers who wrote the legislation, were protected by virtue of a "manufacturing exemption" in the bill.
State employees will pay more under House Bill 298, which imposes a $400 annual tax on state employees who are not members of a labor union. Once again, our liberal leaders favored the special interests who financed their campaigns while punishing ordinary, non-union state employees who were already forced to take furloughs in December.
Drivers pay more under House Bill 313, which places speed surveillance cameras throughout the state, despite clear evidence that the devices can be manipulated. For instance, Montgomery County high school students were caught duplicating the license plates of teachers and students and speeding through surveillance camera zones. The cameras do not distinguish between the owner and operator of the vehicle, yet drivers are still forced to pay $40 fines. Drivers who use E-Z Pass will also pay higher fees.
Homeowners with septic systems pay more under Senate Bill 554, which requires nitrogen-removing technology for new home or commercial renovation and construction projects. This legislation will cost new homeowners and renovators an additional $12,000.
Students and parents pay more as college and university room and board charges will increase as much as 7 percent next school year.
Illegal immigrants will continue to reap rewards from Maryland's amnesty policy toward drivers license. Maryland is the only state west of the Rockies that allows illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. As a result, a staggering 300,000 have obtained Maryland licenses since 2006. While legal immigration is an important American tradition, the legislation passed by O'Malley and the legislature this year leaves the welcome mat out for illegal immigrants.
That summarizes the winners and losers of this year's legislative session. So ask yourself: did you win or lose?
01/01/10
"1994"
All this talk about a two trillion dollar "new" New Deal has brought me back to November, 1994.
It seems so long ago. Newt. The New Majority. The "Contract With America." Lots of newly minted Congressmen with no previous political experience. Most were small business people unapologetic in their enthusiasm for private initiative. They celebrated the market economy. "Work" was in and "entitlement" was out. What passes for fiscal austerity in Washington was in vogue a balanced federal budget was passed for four years in a row. A super-majority requirement to pass tax increases passed the House with 243 votes. A significant slimming down of the departments of Education and Commerce was under discussion. There was even criticism about how the Community Reinvestment Act was being manipulated to get community banks to write increasing numbers of risky loans. (But Barney Frank and Maxine Waters assured us it was not the case).
My most vivid recollection was the constant use of the phrase "opportunity society". It was everywhere. Frank Luntz, Newts Contract With America pollster, assured us that it polled quite well. Speaker Gingrich worked it into just about every public (and private) discussion. The words conveyed a sense of individual freedom romantic notion that in America one could achieve just about any goal with the requisite degree of brains and hard work. As policy, it referenced new growth orientated measures aimed at freeing up capital through cuts in capital gains and the federal estate tax.
At the center of this new agenda was the small business owner. An heroic figure to many of us. He/She was the classic risk taker willing to fail but determined to succeed through self reliance and hard work. This celebrated group was all about "up from the bootstraps" success; their stories emanated from Main Street not Wall Street.
A few high profile GOP scandals, a controversial war, a series of spendthrift budgets, and two disastrous election cycles later, the antithesis of that entrepreneurial spirit now envelops our politics. It is not a positive, or promising, development.
A nervous middle class now turns to government to cure all social and economic ills. Our new Vice President assures us that paying higher taxes is our patriotic duty. Our new President bypasses the annual Congressional appropriations process to expand the scope and reach of the federal government as never before. Recently, that same President (ACORNs former lawyer) told everyone who has kept up with their mortgage obligations that they must pay for the mistakes of so many of those who have not. As if we needed it, further proof that "spreading the wealth" is indeed his governing philosophy.
The Obama Administration is all about egalitarian economics and income redistribution. And nobody seems interested in how the unsavory manipulation of the mortgage market by the aforementioned Mr. Frank, Madam Waters and company helped lead to the mortgage crisis in the first place.
The present enthusiasm for everything bailout has pushed aside all those great thoughts about the heroic nature of the entrepreneurial class. Today, in the words of our President, its about limited horizons ("[To] those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the worlds resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it...") and a lower standard of living ( ["You just cant] keep on using 25% of the worlds energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population.").
In the coming months, maybe "We the People" will begin to resist this Obama-Pelosi-Reid assault on American investors and producers. A wholesale repudiation of class warfare rhetoric and policies would (hopefully) follow. A re-energized taxpayer might more fully understand that the Democratic wish list sold as an economic "Stimulus Plan" has very little to do with reinvigorating our economy and far more to do with a fundamental realigning of the role of government and markets dating back to the 1980s. The defeat of the Democrats attempt to end workplace freedom through the so-called "card check" bill would be a great place to begin a great reawakening on the part of "opportunity society" conservatives seeking a legislative victory.
Until then, I (and many others) intend to keep reminding the voters that an agenda based on individual freedom and equal opportunity promises a far better future than the prohibitively expensive nanny state evolving in front of our eyes today.
"1994"
All this talk about a two trillion dollar "new" New Deal has brought me back to November, 1994.
It seems so long ago. Newt. The New Majority. The "Contract With America." Lots of newly minted Congressmen with no previous political experience. Most were small business people unapologetic in their enthusiasm for private initiative. They celebrated the market economy. "Work" was in and "entitlement" was out. What passes for fiscal austerity in Washington was in vogue a balanced federal budget was passed for four years in a row. A super-majority requirement to pass tax increases passed the House with 243 votes. A significant slimming down of the departments of Education and Commerce was under discussion. There was even criticism about how the Community Reinvestment Act was being manipulated to get community banks to write increasing numbers of risky loans. (But Barney Frank and Maxine Waters assured us it was not the case).
My most vivid recollection was the constant use of the phrase "opportunity society". It was everywhere. Frank Luntz, Newts Contract With America pollster, assured us that it polled quite well. Speaker Gingrich worked it into just about every public (and private) discussion. The words conveyed a sense of individual freedom romantic notion that in America one could achieve just about any goal with the requisite degree of brains and hard work. As policy, it referenced new growth orientated measures aimed at freeing up capital through cuts in capital gains and the federal estate tax.
At the center of this new agenda was the small business owner. An heroic figure to many of us. He/She was the classic risk taker willing to fail but determined to succeed through self reliance and hard work. This celebrated group was all about "up from the bootstraps" success; their stories emanated from Main Street not Wall Street.
A few high profile GOP scandals, a controversial war, a series of spendthrift budgets, and two disastrous election cycles later, the antithesis of that entrepreneurial spirit now envelops our politics. It is not a positive, or promising, development.
A nervous middle class now turns to government to cure all social and economic ills. Our new Vice President assures us that paying higher taxes is our patriotic duty. Our new President bypasses the annual Congressional appropriations process to expand the scope and reach of the federal government as never before. Recently, that same President (ACORNs former lawyer) told everyone who has kept up with their mortgage obligations that they must pay for the mistakes of so many of those who have not. As if we needed it, further proof that "spreading the wealth" is indeed his governing philosophy.
The Obama Administration is all about egalitarian economics and income redistribution. And nobody seems interested in how the unsavory manipulation of the mortgage market by the aforementioned Mr. Frank, Madam Waters and company helped lead to the mortgage crisis in the first place.
The present enthusiasm for everything bailout has pushed aside all those great thoughts about the heroic nature of the entrepreneurial class. Today, in the words of our President, its about limited horizons ("[To] those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the worlds resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it...") and a lower standard of living ( ["You just cant] keep on using 25% of the worlds energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population.").
In the coming months, maybe "We the People" will begin to resist this Obama-Pelosi-Reid assault on American investors and producers. A wholesale repudiation of class warfare rhetoric and policies would (hopefully) follow. A re-energized taxpayer might more fully understand that the Democratic wish list sold as an economic "Stimulus Plan" has very little to do with reinvigorating our economy and far more to do with a fundamental realigning of the role of government and markets dating back to the 1980s. The defeat of the Democrats attempt to end workplace freedom through the so-called "card check" bill would be a great place to begin a great reawakening on the part of "opportunity society" conservatives seeking a legislative victory.
Until then, I (and many others) intend to keep reminding the voters that an agenda based on individual freedom and equal opportunity promises a far better future than the prohibitively expensive nanny state evolving in front of our eyes today.
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS
|
Armstrong Williams is called "one of the most recognizable conservative voices in America" by The Washington Post. Williams is a pugnacious, provocative and principled voice for conservatives and Christian values in America's public debates.
|
ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS' BLOG
02/04/10
Bush was right?!?!
Bush was right?!?!
Did anyone hear that giant thud on Tuesday morning? That was the collective sound of the millions of jaws dropping when they heard the news of a landmark study published by the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine that sexual abstinence education works. Note the historic nature of such a finding on social policy in this country. This wasn't some controlled study of white folks in a tiny Midwest neighborhood where pregnant teens are forced to wear scarlet letters. No, researchers examined 662 high-risk African-Americans in 6th and 7th grades, when hormones are running high and parents are rarely around.
Yet in the midst of all the reverberations, not even the paper which broke the story acknowledged the contributions by (and subsequent vindication of) the nations leading proponent of abstinence funding " former President George W.Bush.
Its not as if the Washington Post wasn't aware of Bush's policies on abstinence. In April 2007, the paper ran a story questioning the effectiveness of the practice, beginning the piece with this critical refrain:
A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex,they will use a condom.
Can a brother get some credit when its rightfully due him? If such a policy was the cornerstone of a presidents entire social agenda, and it was later discovered to contain some kernels of benefit and true policy impact, then why wouldn't the Post want to acknowledge that? Is the former president no longer relevant? I don't think so. Apparently, the Obama Administration doesn't think so, either, as they incessantly lay the blame for all their policy woes on Bush's doorstep.
In a blog post earlier this week by Focus on the Family, the organization highlighted four key discoveries on why this report should change the way abstinence programs are viewed and utilized. Students receiving abstinence-centered education:
- initiated sex less;
- had fewer sexual partners;
- did not reduce their use of condoms among the sexually active;
- had more pronounced risk reductions than those receiving safe-sex and comprehensive sex education.
Some longtime critics of abstinence programs did the right thing and embraced the study's findings, even if it meant eating a little crow. In that same2007 Post story, a spokeswoman for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States dismissed Bush's policy as too narrow. Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed, said Council spokeswoman Martha Kempner at the time. Then on Feb. 2nd, the Post quoted Monica Rodriguez of the Council calling the study's findings exciting and saying, [W]e have a new tool to add to our repertoire. Good for her, and for all those science-based academics interested in facts first, while leaving the hand-wringing rhetoric to the liberals who thought Jocelyn Elders belonged on Sesame Street.
Was any of this covered with the level of depth and attention it deserved, given its radioactive nature and the policy lines abstinence-only programs draw? Is the medias hatred of Bush so visceral that should they acknowledge his role in this they may eventually be forced to acquiesce that (null!) he had something to do with preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil?!??!
I guess I'm not surprised by the short shrift President Bush received when this new study was released, but we all should be as a country. For when the media starts believing it has the omniscience to pick and choose what gets written in the annals of history, history suffers.
Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9pm - 10 pm est. and can be found at ArmstrongWilliams.com
02/03/10
How Does One Spell Government Bankruptcy? "O-B-A-M-A"
How Does One Spell Government Bankruptcy? "O-B-A-M-A"
If any CEO in the USA presented his board with a budget that was one third unfunded he would be fired and tossed out of the board room immediately. President Obama recently revealed a Three Trillion dollar budget which had a1.6 trillion dollar deficit. The maximum deficit presented to Congress prior to this President was approximately a half trillion dollars (In Bush last year 700 billion dollars of his deficit was a loan resulting in a net deficit of 500 billion dollars). Our President has made anemic gestures to reduce spending in his budget in certain non discretionary areas. However, these are not to take place this fiscal year. If President Obama truly and sincerely wishes to reduce the deficit he must take similar action that everyday US corporations implement when confronted with huge losses. Unfortunately the principle way companies reduce their losses is by reducing it's work force to meet the short fall. The U.S government on the other hand continues to increase it's workforce in this great recession and are promoting and increasing the salaries of all government employees. This is insane when our government continues to have this catastrophic deficit. This insanity is clearly a reflection on the extraordinary power public sector Unions have on the Democratic Party. What this does without question, is transfer wealth from the productive private sector to the unproductive public sector.
Not only is the deficit driven by outrageous increase in labor cost, but by inextricably increasing entitlement cost. Unless this government under the Obama era face the grim reality, these entitlement cost will soon drive our nation to severe bankruptcy. A bankruptcy from which our children and grand children will never recover.
How does one spell economic doom and government bankruptcy for the once greatest economic engine known to human kind around the globe? "O-B-A-M-A".
02/01/10
Mr. President, how are you defining a small business owner?
In the aftermath of President Obama's State of the Union address, its evident,and rightfully so, that the economy continues to impact and exert enormous weight on the eyes of those looking at empty bank accounts. President Obama continues to infuse heavy doses of hope infused rhetoric aimed directly at the middle class and small business; only time will answer whether his propositions come with a wickedly pure heart.
Mr. President, how are you defining a small business owner?
In the aftermath of President Obama's State of the Union address, its evident,and rightfully so, that the economy continues to impact and exert enormous weight on the eyes of those looking at empty bank accounts. President Obama continues to infuse heavy doses of hope infused rhetoric aimed directly at the middle class and small business; only time will answer whether his propositions come with a wickedly pure heart.
The President's assertion of no capital gains tax on small business investments is likely to instill hope in those seeking real change in the marketplace.However, many unanswered questions and concerns remain among a doubting public.Many small business owners now question the Presidents criteria for a small business owner.
Clearly,depending on where your business is established, a small business can take on radical and a more complex meaning. The definition of a small business changes from state to state. Whats President Obama's definition? He has only gone so far as to stipulate that these businesses need to hire new employees or raise wages. One can only hope that these are the only prerequisites.
Any market capitalist should be fearful of policy that allocates funds to only a specific segment in the market. We should want these benefits to go to all small businesses, not just those that fit an Obama defined specific profile.Though, we must acknowledge that while the parameters are vague and left to the Administrations interpretation, it is still a step in the necessary direction.
The American people should also be incredulous of the Washington's usual smoke mirrors that can be deceptively painful to interpret. This policy does nothing to repair a broken monetary system that has pumped trillions of recklessly printed dollars into the Almighty American dollar reservoir. This would in turn spell more disaster and further contribute to untold inflation inflicted damage that would make Hannibal Lector look like the Easter Bunny.
So, while President Obama has convinced the world that he is going in the right direction of pro-small business policy, he, in all actuality, is doing little to correct the bigger threat at hand: inflation, and soon to be crippling stagflation.
Knowing that the damage is severe and ongoing, are their Obama policies in place to alleviate the suffering of many Americans and halt the downward spiral of this economy? The deeper sadness is that this administration has squandered trillions of wasted dollars that this economy or the people will ever see again. Can the American people ever be assured of ever recouping their investment in the foreseeable future?
Taking on the monetary policy of the nation will be far too much of a task for a President lacking in financial policy savvy and who is infected with a socialist financial ideology. Irrespective, Americans deserve politicians who will fight to honor that historical little piece of green paper that sustains their value in a much larger world.
02/01/10
Nihilistic and Repulsive comments by NOW's President, Terry O'Neil
Why are the relativists always the first to cast judgment on the religious, while the religious reserve judgment not so that their own beliefs will remain unchallenged, but because they either fear the reaction of those they're judging or are trying to judge not, lest[they] be judged themselves. Take a comment recently made by the National Organization for Women president Terry O'Neil upon learning that CBS will run a commercial during the Super Bowl paid for by Focus on the Family about Heisman winner Tim Tebows mothers decision to oppose her doctors recommendation to abort Tim for medical reasons.Terry said she had respect for the private choices made by women such as Pam Tebow but condemned the planned ad as "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning. She went on: That's not being respectful of other people's lives," O'Neill said. "It is offensive to hold one way out as being a superior way over everybody else's." Her statement"nihilistic and repulsive to the core"is self-refuting: on the one hand, she argues that there is no superior truth or way, but underscoring this claim is 100% certainty that her way"her nonjudgmental-ism"is clearly the superior way. [Her comment is truly vile. The commercial in question doesn't preach. It simply leads by example, providing would-be mothers who contemplate whether abortion is right for them with"yes, gasp!"a bit of compunction, hoping women pause to contemplate whether abortion is really the right move. What her comments reveal is that this isn't about choice for them " its about abortion the right to abort whenever, why ever, however, wherever a woman wants, with no need to pause or consider. It is truly evil. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed an unusual amount of courage and thoughtfulness"and yes, even a sense of morality!"when she said abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.]
Nihilistic and Repulsive comments by NOW's President, Terry O'Neil
Why are the relativists always the first to cast judgment on the religious, while the religious reserve judgment not so that their own beliefs will remain unchallenged, but because they either fear the reaction of those they're judging or are trying to judge not, lest[they] be judged themselves. Take a comment recently made by the National Organization for Women president Terry O'Neil upon learning that CBS will run a commercial during the Super Bowl paid for by Focus on the Family about Heisman winner Tim Tebows mothers decision to oppose her doctors recommendation to abort Tim for medical reasons.Terry said she had respect for the private choices made by women such as Pam Tebow but condemned the planned ad as "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning. She went on: That's not being respectful of other people's lives," O'Neill said. "It is offensive to hold one way out as being a superior way over everybody else's." Her statement"nihilistic and repulsive to the core"is self-refuting: on the one hand, she argues that there is no superior truth or way, but underscoring this claim is 100% certainty that her way"her nonjudgmental-ism"is clearly the superior way. [Her comment is truly vile. The commercial in question doesn't preach. It simply leads by example, providing would-be mothers who contemplate whether abortion is right for them with"yes, gasp!"a bit of compunction, hoping women pause to contemplate whether abortion is really the right move. What her comments reveal is that this isn't about choice for them " its about abortion the right to abort whenever, why ever, however, wherever a woman wants, with no need to pause or consider. It is truly evil. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed an unusual amount of courage and thoughtfulness"and yes, even a sense of morality!"when she said abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.]
01/28/10
Mr. President. Let's Make a Tepid Recovery Worst.
Dear Mr. President:
1. Let the Bush tax cuts expire and thereby raising income taxes by 20% in the middle of a tepid recovery. Economist and Business like minded individual all agree that raising income taxes cheats Americans out of their hard earned money that they would otherwise spend in the economy. Nobody in their right mind would impose a tax increase in the middle of a recovery unless they were trying to inflict mortality on the recovery.
2. Continue to rob the private sector of government expenditures only to give to the less efficient public sector. The only means of financing this nonsense is through additional debt. The increased debt will displace money needed by businesses in the private sector to add capital that will eventually provide much needed jobs.
3. Chain down businesses by aimlessly increasing regulation and imposing additional fees on successful financial institutions. This will immobilize banks working capital and the amount of funds available for lending to financially strapped businesses that put food on familys tables across the America.
4. Continue making it clear that all Businesses are the villains in the American Economy; responsible for the great Recession. This public pillorying of the business community will assure that risk adverse entrepreneurs will continue to harness and restrain their investment and expansion activities.
Let' s pray and hope that this anti business president and his liberal entourage in Congress will place economic recovery above ideological misguided politics. History has and will continue to reaffirm that the only way to sustain the recovery is to encourage spending and investment. This will eventually provide jobs and return the economy to recovery. Redistribution of income by misguided Washington is a sure formula for further disaster and suffering to this economy.
Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9pm - 10 pm est.
Mr. President. Let's Make a Tepid Recovery Worst.
Dear Mr. President:
1. Let the Bush tax cuts expire and thereby raising income taxes by 20% in the middle of a tepid recovery. Economist and Business like minded individual all agree that raising income taxes cheats Americans out of their hard earned money that they would otherwise spend in the economy. Nobody in their right mind would impose a tax increase in the middle of a recovery unless they were trying to inflict mortality on the recovery.
2. Continue to rob the private sector of government expenditures only to give to the less efficient public sector. The only means of financing this nonsense is through additional debt. The increased debt will displace money needed by businesses in the private sector to add capital that will eventually provide much needed jobs.
3. Chain down businesses by aimlessly increasing regulation and imposing additional fees on successful financial institutions. This will immobilize banks working capital and the amount of funds available for lending to financially strapped businesses that put food on familys tables across the America.
4. Continue making it clear that all Businesses are the villains in the American Economy; responsible for the great Recession. This public pillorying of the business community will assure that risk adverse entrepreneurs will continue to harness and restrain their investment and expansion activities.
Let' s pray and hope that this anti business president and his liberal entourage in Congress will place economic recovery above ideological misguided politics. History has and will continue to reaffirm that the only way to sustain the recovery is to encourage spending and investment. This will eventually provide jobs and return the economy to recovery. Redistribution of income by misguided Washington is a sure formula for further disaster and suffering to this economy.
Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9pm - 10 pm est.
01/21/10
Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten: You're Fired.
It is extremely difficult to understand how the President and his White House feels that the loss in Massachusetts is no reflection on his leadership, policies or agenda. Have they become so arrogant and out of touch? Will they remain stubborn, blind and deaf, only to continue to ignore the will of the people? The people personally like and respect our president, but he needs to hear their outcry, anger and disgust with the direction our America is quickly headed. The victory in Massachusetts last night was not about Republicans or Democrats, it was about America. America fired the Republicans in 2006 and 2008, and hired the Democrats in the process. The people have since turned the tables and have become so utterly disappointed with what few positive results the Democrats have produced that they are now firing them in hopes that they will finally get someone who represents their interests and not the interests of banks, Wall Street, the auto industry, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. In other words, everyday Americans would like to see their individual lives improved from the many policies Congress and the White house are now initiating.
Mayday! Mayday! Abandon healthcare, abandon cap and trade, give us real immigration reform, protect us against terrorism, create jobs in the economy and listen to our angst! The midterm election started last night, ten months in advance. Last night's midterm election results dont bode well for our President, Congress, and the current Democratic leadership.
And, the republicans are no better, as they havent shown the leadership expected to thrive and succeed at a time when our country needs them most. Irrespective, the American people have decided: Democrats are worse! And they will continue to fire them until they understand and put in place policies that serve them, and not their monarchical mentality.
The people have spoken: to Democrats, Republicans, and to anyone else who wants to lead them, both in Congress and in the white house. They need jobs, a healthcare plan that doesnt punish us and destroy our entrepreneurial way of life. Cap and trade is destructive to the economy for many states in this country. Wake up Mr. President, Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike; the American people are livid, disgusted and fatigued with a Washington that only serves their selfish interest. And, if you don't start serving the American people, then, like they say on the apprentice, "You're fired!
Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 0pm - 10 pm est.
Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten: You're Fired.
It is extremely difficult to understand how the President and his White House feels that the loss in Massachusetts is no reflection on his leadership, policies or agenda. Have they become so arrogant and out of touch? Will they remain stubborn, blind and deaf, only to continue to ignore the will of the people? The people personally like and respect our president, but he needs to hear their outcry, anger and disgust with the direction our America is quickly headed. The victory in Massachusetts last night was not about Republicans or Democrats, it was about America. America fired the Republicans in 2006 and 2008, and hired the Democrats in the process. The people have since turned the tables and have become so utterly disappointed with what few positive results the Democrats have produced that they are now firing them in hopes that they will finally get someone who represents their interests and not the interests of banks, Wall Street, the auto industry, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. In other words, everyday Americans would like to see their individual lives improved from the many policies Congress and the White house are now initiating.
Mayday! Mayday! Abandon healthcare, abandon cap and trade, give us real immigration reform, protect us against terrorism, create jobs in the economy and listen to our angst! The midterm election started last night, ten months in advance. Last night's midterm election results dont bode well for our President, Congress, and the current Democratic leadership.
And, the republicans are no better, as they havent shown the leadership expected to thrive and succeed at a time when our country needs them most. Irrespective, the American people have decided: Democrats are worse! And they will continue to fire them until they understand and put in place policies that serve them, and not their monarchical mentality.
The people have spoken: to Democrats, Republicans, and to anyone else who wants to lead them, both in Congress and in the white house. They need jobs, a healthcare plan that doesnt punish us and destroy our entrepreneurial way of life. Cap and trade is destructive to the economy for many states in this country. Wake up Mr. President, Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike; the American people are livid, disgusted and fatigued with a Washington that only serves their selfish interest. And, if you don't start serving the American people, then, like they say on the apprentice, "You're fired!
Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 0pm - 10 pm est.
01/19/10
Screw Nonunion Workers for Health Care Reform
Nonunion workers of America unite and defeat health care reform legislation before you are screwed.
President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Read, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the leaders of the Democratic Congress have negotiated a health care compromise which screws nonunion American workers. Under the terms of the compromise, Cadillac health insurance plans for unionized and government employees will be exempt from a 40% tax on these rich plans. However, the 40% tax will be paid on identical plans provided to nonunionized private sector employees. This compromise will add about $60 billion to the costs of the pending health care reform legislation. It is an understatement to say that this compromise is grossly unfair to nonunion American workers and is a national scandal to payoff the political allies of the Democratic Party.
The union bosses who agreed to this compromise should be ashamed of their hypocrisy toward American workers. Union leaders have once again shown that they care more about their power and influence in the Democratic Party than they do about American workers. It is no wonder that the labor union movement in the United States has been declining for decades. American workers in the private sector have long recognized organized labors Faustian bargain with the Democratic Party and have been abandoning the labor movement. Unions represent 9% of the private sector workers today compared to a high of 36% in 1945.
Americans need to take a serious look at how the Democrats controlling the White House and Congress are abusing their power and ignoring the will of the people in the name of health care reform. The Cadillac insurance tax exemption is only the most recent bribe to a reluctant constituency that Congressional Democratic leaders have concocted to pass unpopular health care reform. A number of other bribes have surfaced from closed congressional negotiations over the past several weeks.
The Cornhusker Kickback negotiated by Democratic Senator Nelson of Nebraska unfairly exempted his state from future unfunded Medicare and Medicaid mandates generated by the health care reform legislation. These as yet undisclosed costs estimated to be in the billions of dollars will be paid by the taxpayers of the remaining 49 states. Senator Nelson negotiated such a sweet heard deal for his constituents that a majority of the voters of Nebraska are embarrassed at their senators unconscionable fleecing of their fellow Americans.
In the Louisiana Purchase, Democratic Senator Landrieu sold her vote for a $300 million aide package. Louisiana, like the other 48 states (excluding Nebraska), will incur a huge unfunded mandated expenses from Medicare and Medicare if the health care legislation is passed. The state will have to fund these expenses with additional taxes without additional federal revenue. ($300 million is not enough to prevent state tax increases.) Yes, President Obama may literally keep his promise not to raise Federal taxes on Americans making less than $250,000, but he is breaching the spirit of his promise by forcing the states to raise taxes to pay for his unfunded federal health care mandates. America got a much better deal in the original Louisiana Purchase. The taxpayers of Louisiana will realize that they did not get such a good deal in Landrieus Louisiana Purchase when the state has to increase taxes to pay for health care reform.
Poor Senator Dodd of Connecticut sold his vote for a mere $100 million university health facility. He was such a poor negotiator that he decided not to seek reelection rather than have his constituents unceremoniously fire him.
These unconscionable political deals using your taxpayer dollars are the tip of the iceberg. Michigan got a deal to exempt Michigan Blue Cross from the insurance company tax. Florida, Pennsylvania and New York got a deal to protect their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Vermont got $10 Billion for health centers. If President Obama had not breached his campaign promises to put these negotiations on C-span, undoubtly more of these deals would be exposed for American voters to review and accept or reject.
Fortunately, this legislation is not the fait de complis that many of us thought on Christmas Eve. Out of left field, Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown is creating a tsunami in the health care debate. In the special election on Tuesday to fill Ted Kennedys Senate seat, Democratic candidate Attorney General Martha Coakley was expected to blow away Brown in the most reliable blue state in the nation where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by three to one. Several weeks ago, Coakley led Brown in the polls by 19 points. Today the race is a dead heat. The game changer was Browns promise to be the 41st vote in the US Senate against the pending health care reform legislation. If Brown wins the election, this health care legislation is DOA.
Do not expect President Obamas visit to the Bay State on Sunday to help Coakley gather white working class votes. The president tore his britches with this group of voters when he said the Cambridge police acted Stupidly in arresting African-American Harvard professor Louis Gates for talking back to the cops. While the Massachusetts white working class usually votes predictably for Democrats, they tend to be law and order Democrats and are not particularly tolerant on racial issues. Coakley took a huge risk in having Obama come to the Bay State.
Even if Brown looses the race, he would have sent a resonating message to Blue Dog and moderate Democrats. If they want to keep their seats, they should vote against this legislation. Americans do not want this corrupt version of health care reform. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 55% of Americans are against this legislation and only 40% are in favor .
Nonunion private sector workers will not benefit from the Democrats health care reform legislation. They are being used by the Democratic Party and the labor unions to finance this health care legislation with the Cadillac health care tax. Their state taxes will increase because of unfunded Medicare and Medicaid mandates placed on the states. Federal taxes will eventually increase to pay for the disclosed and undisclosed deals in this legislation for special interest groups and to buy votes. Even if their federal taxes are not directly increased, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and medical providers will pass on their increased federal taxes to their customers in the form of higher prices. Workers health care will not improve and the cost of their health care will not decline as a result of this legislation.
Nonunion private sector working Americans are the key to turning the tide on this health care legislation. If they live in Massachusetts, they can vote for Brown on Tuesday or stay home if they cannot pull the lever for a Republican. If they live in the other 49 states, they need to contact their congressmen and and senators with a clear message " Kill This Health Care Legislation. The Democrats will listen to American workers now and kill the bill or loose their jobs in November.
www.armstrongwilliams.com
Williams can be heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9pm - 10pm est.
Screw Nonunion Workers for Health Care Reform
Nonunion workers of America unite and defeat health care reform legislation before you are screwed.
President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Read, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the leaders of the Democratic Congress have negotiated a health care compromise which screws nonunion American workers. Under the terms of the compromise, Cadillac health insurance plans for unionized and government employees will be exempt from a 40% tax on these rich plans. However, the 40% tax will be paid on identical plans provided to nonunionized private sector employees. This compromise will add about $60 billion to the costs of the pending health care reform legislation. It is an understatement to say that this compromise is grossly unfair to nonunion American workers and is a national scandal to payoff the political allies of the Democratic Party.
The union bosses who agreed to this compromise should be ashamed of their hypocrisy toward American workers. Union leaders have once again shown that they care more about their power and influence in the Democratic Party than they do about American workers. It is no wonder that the labor union movement in the United States has been declining for decades. American workers in the private sector have long recognized organized labors Faustian bargain with the Democratic Party and have been abandoning the labor movement. Unions represent 9% of the private sector workers today compared to a high of 36% in 1945.
Americans need to take a serious look at how the Democrats controlling the White House and Congress are abusing their power and ignoring the will of the people in the name of health care reform. The Cadillac insurance tax exemption is only the most recent bribe to a reluctant constituency that Congressional Democratic leaders have concocted to pass unpopular health care reform. A number of other bribes have surfaced from closed congressional negotiations over the past several weeks.
The Cornhusker Kickback negotiated by Democratic Senator Nelson of Nebraska unfairly exempted his state from future unfunded Medicare and Medicaid mandates generated by the health care reform legislation. These as yet undisclosed costs estimated to be in the billions of dollars will be paid by the taxpayers of the remaining 49 states. Senator Nelson negotiated such a sweet heard deal for his constituents that a majority of the voters of Nebraska are embarrassed at their senators unconscionable fleecing of their fellow Americans.
In the Louisiana Purchase, Democratic Senator Landrieu sold her vote for a $300 million aide package. Louisiana, like the other 48 states (excluding Nebraska), will incur a huge unfunded mandated expenses from Medicare and Medicare if the health care legislation is passed. The state will have to fund these expenses with additional taxes without additional federal revenue. ($300 million is not enough to prevent state tax increases.) Yes, President Obama may literally keep his promise not to raise Federal taxes on Americans making less than $250,000, but he is breaching the spirit of his promise by forcing the states to raise taxes to pay for his unfunded federal health care mandates. America got a much better deal in the original Louisiana Purchase. The taxpayers of Louisiana will realize that they did not get such a good deal in Landrieus Louisiana Purchase when the state has to increase taxes to pay for health care reform.
Poor Senator Dodd of Connecticut sold his vote for a mere $100 million university health facility. He was such a poor negotiator that he decided not to seek reelection rather than have his constituents unceremoniously fire him.
These unconscionable political deals using your taxpayer dollars are the tip of the iceberg. Michigan got a deal to exempt Michigan Blue Cross from the insurance company tax. Florida, Pennsylvania and New York got a deal to protect their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Vermont got $10 Billion for health centers. If President Obama had not breached his campaign promises to put these negotiations on C-span, undoubtly more of these deals would be exposed for American voters to review and accept or reject.
Fortunately, this legislation is not the fait de complis that many of us thought on Christmas Eve. Out of left field, Massachusetts State Senator Scott Brown is creating a tsunami in the health care debate. In the special election on Tuesday to fill Ted Kennedys Senate seat, Democratic candidate Attorney General Martha Coakley was expected to blow away Brown in the most reliable blue state in the nation where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by three to one. Several weeks ago, Coakley led Brown in the polls by 19 points. Today the race is a dead heat. The game changer was Browns promise to be the 41st vote in the US Senate against the pending health care reform legislation. If Brown wins the election, this health care legislation is DOA.
Do not expect President Obamas visit to the Bay State on Sunday to help Coakley gather white working class votes. The president tore his britches with this group of voters when he said the Cambridge police acted Stupidly in arresting African-American Harvard professor Louis Gates for talking back to the cops. While the Massachusetts white working class usually votes predictably for Democrats, they tend to be law and order Democrats and are not particularly tolerant on racial issues. Coakley took a huge risk in having Obama come to the Bay State.
Even if Brown looses the race, he would have sent a resonating message to Blue Dog and moderate Democrats. If they want to keep their seats, they should vote against this legislation. Americans do not want this corrupt version of health care reform. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 55% of Americans are against this legislation and only 40% are in favor .
Nonunion private sector workers will not benefit from the Democrats health care reform legislation. They are being used by the Democratic Party and the labor unions to finance this health care legislation with the Cadillac health care tax. Their state taxes will increase because of unfunded Medicare and Medicaid mandates placed on the states. Federal taxes will eventually increase to pay for the disclosed and undisclosed deals in this legislation for special interest groups and to buy votes. Even if their federal taxes are not directly increased, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and medical providers will pass on their increased federal taxes to their customers in the form of higher prices. Workers health care will not improve and the cost of their health care will not decline as a result of this legislation.
Nonunion private sector working Americans are the key to turning the tide on this health care legislation. If they live in Massachusetts, they can vote for Brown on Tuesday or stay home if they cannot pull the lever for a Republican. If they live in the other 49 states, they need to contact their congressmen and and senators with a clear message " Kill This Health Care Legislation. The Democrats will listen to American workers now and kill the bill or loose their jobs in November.
www.armstrongwilliams.com
Williams can be heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9pm - 10pm est.
01/15/10
The Vindictive Success Tax
Uncle Sams recent reckless clamoring through our weakened and volatile American economy is beginning to make the Russian economy, terrorized by mafia thugs, look like a walk along a moonlit beach.
If it wasnt enough that Uncle Sam has viciously coerced every last business and individual into an exploitative 35% partnership via the income tax"where he is always the first to get paid. He is also taking any means necessary to beat every last penny out of our top economic performers.
This can be clearly seen in the treatment of the successful institutions of the financial community who voluntarily or forcefully accepted TARP funds. The program committed $700 billion to financial institutions with troubled assets created by the 2008 financial crisis. Of the original commitment, $500 billion was lent to or invested in financial institutions and $100 billion of these loans were repaid. For its risky investment, Americas unwanted senior business partner pocketed an additional $35 billion in profit within the first nine months of the program. When the remainder of TARP funds is repaid, it is unlikely taxpayers will lose their investment. (This does not include the amount that the administration lent to the automobile industry outside of the original scope of TARP.)
But wait, Uncle Sam wants more from the nations most successful and profitable financial institutions: President Obama wants to levy a $90 billion Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee on the big banks who are the whipping boys for this financial mess. He is exonerating the government, the Fed, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac from any responsibility of the financial meltdown so he can place the full responsibility for the meltdown on the nations financial institutions. In the process, he can extort additional taxes from them, euphemistically called Responsibility Fees to finance his fiscally irresponsible budget by forcing them to pay twice for their TARP participation. It is obviously clear that his burring rhetoric is blinding even basic accounting.
Why do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get a pass from the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee even though they encouraged risky loans to be given out as a form of welfare? They made the politically correct payoff by flushing out hundreds-of-thousands of dollars a year to democratic candidates.
It shouldnt come as a surprise that the current administration is mustering another surprise attack on capitalism. Irrespective, I have faith that the American people are going to stand up against this thuggery?
Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9pm - 10 pm est.
The Vindictive Success Tax
Uncle Sams recent reckless clamoring through our weakened and volatile American economy is beginning to make the Russian economy, terrorized by mafia thugs, look like a walk along a moonlit beach.
If it wasnt enough that Uncle Sam has viciously coerced every last business and individual into an exploitative 35% partnership via the income tax"where he is always the first to get paid. He is also taking any means necessary to beat every last penny out of our top economic performers.
This can be clearly seen in the treatment of the successful institutions of the financial community who voluntarily or forcefully accepted TARP funds. The program committed $700 billion to financial institutions with troubled assets created by the 2008 financial crisis. Of the original commitment, $500 billion was lent to or invested in financial institutions and $100 billion of these loans were repaid. For its risky investment, Americas unwanted senior business partner pocketed an additional $35 billion in profit within the first nine months of the program. When the remainder of TARP funds is repaid, it is unlikely taxpayers will lose their investment. (This does not include the amount that the administration lent to the automobile industry outside of the original scope of TARP.)
But wait, Uncle Sam wants more from the nations most successful and profitable financial institutions: President Obama wants to levy a $90 billion Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee on the big banks who are the whipping boys for this financial mess. He is exonerating the government, the Fed, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac from any responsibility of the financial meltdown so he can place the full responsibility for the meltdown on the nations financial institutions. In the process, he can extort additional taxes from them, euphemistically called Responsibility Fees to finance his fiscally irresponsible budget by forcing them to pay twice for their TARP participation. It is obviously clear that his burring rhetoric is blinding even basic accounting.
Why do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get a pass from the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee even though they encouraged risky loans to be given out as a form of welfare? They made the politically correct payoff by flushing out hundreds-of-thousands of dollars a year to democratic candidates.
It shouldnt come as a surprise that the current administration is mustering another surprise attack on capitalism. Irrespective, I have faith that the American people are going to stand up against this thuggery?
Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9pm - 10 pm est.
01/14/10
How Far We Have Come; How Far We Have to Go.
In the midst of a civil upheaval that threatened to unravel our society, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of love and the need to overcome oppression without resorting to violence. He spoke of "a dream that one day this nation will rise up and hold . . .self-evident, that all men are created equal."
So how stands this country now, 41 years after Dr. King gave his life for his dream? The election of the first American Black President, Barack Obama, is an unmistakable sign that the country has taken an astonishing step away from its history of slavery and institutionalized racism. Equally instructive, however, is the work that remains to be done.
In the afterglow of Barack Obamas election, an overwhelming majority of the country believed that race relations would dramatically improve.
According to a Gallup poll, the day after Barack Obama won the presidency, 67 percent of Americans felt that racism would eventually be eradicated"thats ten percentage points higher than at any other point in the four decades that Gallup has been polling. Americans were more optimistic about solving race following Obamas election that after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Indeed, most Americans surveyed said that Obamas election represented the most important milestone for blacks in the last hundred years. Pundits wasted no time proclaiming that America had finally achieved a post-racial society.
The mood of the country was downright euphoric.
A little more than one year later, Americans opinion on race relations has changed. According to a new Gallup poll, the number of people who say racial problems will be worked out has dropped back to its pre-Obama level. Notably, the number of people who say race will always be a problem has risen from 30 percent to 40 percent; and one in five persons surveyed actually felt hat the race relations had gotten worse.
Perhaps most striking is that number of Americans reporting optimism regarding race relations"56%--was approximately the same as in 1963.
Bottom line: Most Americans feel the same about race relations in this country now, as they did before Obama was elected.
So what happened to all of that hope and optimism that greeted Obamas election"and what does it say about the countrys evolving dialogue on race? It seems that a majority of American Blacks do not feel that the election of Obama has brought substantive change to their daily lives.
While there is general consensus that seeing a Black man in the White House is inspiring, there is little to point to in terms of genuine gains in racial equality. In other words, while the election of Obama provided an emotional boost, it does not seem to have dramatically impacted the underlying dynamics between white and black Americans.
In less than one year, the possibility of electing a black president has given way to a sinking reality: Very little has actually changed for the average black person. America's legacy of racial injustices remains evident in the racial education and economic gap. Segregation remains a problem throughout America. Today, public schools are more segregated than during the Jim Crow era. Nearly one out of every four black families lives below the poverty line compared to just six percent of white families. American Blacks were particularly hard hit by the economic downturn. More than twice as likely as whites to receive subprime loans, Black families are now losing their homes at an alarming rate. Substandard education begets poverty begets violence.
The Justice Department estimates that 32 percent of black men will go to prison at some point in their lives compared with just six percent of white males.
If you ask most American Blacks how they feel about Obama, they are understandably proud. There is no doubt that Obamas election has instilled a sense of pride that gives American Blacks hope and inspiration. But if you ask American Blacks if Obamas election will reduce the foreclosure rate, or the racial economic gap, or keep cops from beating on them, they say of course not. Daily life is not changing just because there is a black face in the White House. And in some ways, it may be getting worse.
I worry that Obamas victory could undermine the push for equality by creating a sense of passivity amongst both black and white voters.
Though there is no way to prove this, I suspect that much of Obamas cross-over appeal resides in the fact that he seems safe to white voters. Like Bill Cosby or former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Obama is the perfect American Black faceplate to overcome latent biases "a homogenized black upper class person who seems to carry around none of the anger for centuries of racial injustices. This is the subliminal appeal to Obama's presidential candidacy: he seems to represent the exception to every black stereotype. By voting for Obama, the White voting populace was presented with a unique opportunity to vote for someone who evoked none of the black anger, while at the same time offering them atonement for centuries of racial inequality. With the pull of a lever, American Whites collectively congratulated itself for moving beyond its ugly past. At the same time, American Blacks seem to be regarding the mere fact of a black face in the White House as some sign of fundamental change. Both views are nave. A lot of work needs to be done to root out the systemic racism that remains in our society. No one success story"no matter how inspiring"should distracts us from the systemic racism that still exists.
So, what lessons can we draw from this historical moment? It could very well be that Obamas election signals a decline in individual racism, but not systemic racism. Systemic racism refers to the inequities that are entrenched in our social institutions. For example, the best public school systems are located in the most expensive communities.
Poor people"mostly of color"are priced out of these communities.
Consequently, public schools are now more segregated than during the Jim Crow era. These types of inequities may not be the result of individual bigotry, but they are certainly hangover from a shared history of racial and economic segregation.
What the success of Obama tells us is that our primary concern can no longer be with individual bigotry. We must shift our focus to the systemic issues that have resulted from a shared history of slavery.
The crucial first step is realizing that the lessons of liberalism no longer apply. The dialogue in the black community should not be about getting a seat at the table; it should be about owning the table. We need to educate ourselves on how to build wealth in our communities because the mere fact that the President is black, doesnt mean that our lives will change. The key to overcoming systemic racism is to rely on ourselves, instead of the government. Without this crucial first step, the dialogue on race relations in this country will remain mired in accusation and defensiveness"and the lingering systemic issues will remain unchanged.
www.armstrongwilliams.com
Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9 pm - 10 pm EST.
How Far We Have Come; How Far We Have to Go.
In the midst of a civil upheaval that threatened to unravel our society, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of love and the need to overcome oppression without resorting to violence. He spoke of "a dream that one day this nation will rise up and hold . . .self-evident, that all men are created equal."
So how stands this country now, 41 years after Dr. King gave his life for his dream? The election of the first American Black President, Barack Obama, is an unmistakable sign that the country has taken an astonishing step away from its history of slavery and institutionalized racism. Equally instructive, however, is the work that remains to be done.
In the afterglow of Barack Obamas election, an overwhelming majority of the country believed that race relations would dramatically improve.
According to a Gallup poll, the day after Barack Obama won the presidency, 67 percent of Americans felt that racism would eventually be eradicated"thats ten percentage points higher than at any other point in the four decades that Gallup has been polling. Americans were more optimistic about solving race following Obamas election that after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Indeed, most Americans surveyed said that Obamas election represented the most important milestone for blacks in the last hundred years. Pundits wasted no time proclaiming that America had finally achieved a post-racial society.
The mood of the country was downright euphoric.
A little more than one year later, Americans opinion on race relations has changed. According to a new Gallup poll, the number of people who say racial problems will be worked out has dropped back to its pre-Obama level. Notably, the number of people who say race will always be a problem has risen from 30 percent to 40 percent; and one in five persons surveyed actually felt hat the race relations had gotten worse.
Perhaps most striking is that number of Americans reporting optimism regarding race relations"56%--was approximately the same as in 1963.
Bottom line: Most Americans feel the same about race relations in this country now, as they did before Obama was elected.
So what happened to all of that hope and optimism that greeted Obamas election"and what does it say about the countrys evolving dialogue on race? It seems that a majority of American Blacks do not feel that the election of Obama has brought substantive change to their daily lives.
While there is general consensus that seeing a Black man in the White House is inspiring, there is little to point to in terms of genuine gains in racial equality. In other words, while the election of Obama provided an emotional boost, it does not seem to have dramatically impacted the underlying dynamics between white and black Americans.
In less than one year, the possibility of electing a black president has given way to a sinking reality: Very little has actually changed for the average black person. America's legacy of racial injustices remains evident in the racial education and economic gap. Segregation remains a problem throughout America. Today, public schools are more segregated than during the Jim Crow era. Nearly one out of every four black families lives below the poverty line compared to just six percent of white families. American Blacks were particularly hard hit by the economic downturn. More than twice as likely as whites to receive subprime loans, Black families are now losing their homes at an alarming rate. Substandard education begets poverty begets violence.
The Justice Department estimates that 32 percent of black men will go to prison at some point in their lives compared with just six percent of white males.
If you ask most American Blacks how they feel about Obama, they are understandably proud. There is no doubt that Obamas election has instilled a sense of pride that gives American Blacks hope and inspiration. But if you ask American Blacks if Obamas election will reduce the foreclosure rate, or the racial economic gap, or keep cops from beating on them, they say of course not. Daily life is not changing just because there is a black face in the White House. And in some ways, it may be getting worse.
I worry that Obamas victory could undermine the push for equality by creating a sense of passivity amongst both black and white voters.
Though there is no way to prove this, I suspect that much of Obamas cross-over appeal resides in the fact that he seems safe to white voters. Like Bill Cosby or former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Obama is the perfect American Black faceplate to overcome latent biases "a homogenized black upper class person who seems to carry around none of the anger for centuries of racial injustices. This is the subliminal appeal to Obama's presidential candidacy: he seems to represent the exception to every black stereotype. By voting for Obama, the White voting populace was presented with a unique opportunity to vote for someone who evoked none of the black anger, while at the same time offering them atonement for centuries of racial inequality. With the pull of a lever, American Whites collectively congratulated itself for moving beyond its ugly past. At the same time, American Blacks seem to be regarding the mere fact of a black face in the White House as some sign of fundamental change. Both views are nave. A lot of work needs to be done to root out the systemic racism that remains in our society. No one success story"no matter how inspiring"should distracts us from the systemic racism that still exists.
So, what lessons can we draw from this historical moment? It could very well be that Obamas election signals a decline in individual racism, but not systemic racism. Systemic racism refers to the inequities that are entrenched in our social institutions. For example, the best public school systems are located in the most expensive communities.
Poor people"mostly of color"are priced out of these communities.
Consequently, public schools are now more segregated than during the Jim Crow era. These types of inequities may not be the result of individual bigotry, but they are certainly hangover from a shared history of racial and economic segregation.
What the success of Obama tells us is that our primary concern can no longer be with individual bigotry. We must shift our focus to the systemic issues that have resulted from a shared history of slavery.
The crucial first step is realizing that the lessons of liberalism no longer apply. The dialogue in the black community should not be about getting a seat at the table; it should be about owning the table. We need to educate ourselves on how to build wealth in our communities because the mere fact that the President is black, doesnt mean that our lives will change. The key to overcoming systemic racism is to rely on ourselves, instead of the government. Without this crucial first step, the dialogue on race relations in this country will remain mired in accusation and defensiveness"and the lingering systemic issues will remain unchanged.
www.armstrongwilliams.com
Williams is heard nightly on Sirius/XM Power 169 9 pm - 10 pm EST.
01/12/10
Take Terrorist Cells Out Now
The Obama administration is currently embroiled in a public relations and policy vortex that threatens to consume an increasingly larger proportion of the shrinking agenda of the president and Congress if some swift actions are not taken.
Well after the holidays have ended, the White House continues to flak questions over whether the president had too much on his plate to anticipate and halt the twisted plots of terrorists. As legendary scribe Helen Thomas put it last Tuesday, the president "blew it" when it came to preventing Nigerian-born terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding a plane bound for America's heartland.
The sad commentary is none of this matters. The "systemic failures" this president is setting out to correct will yield no lasting impact unless and until the administration addresses an extremely dangerous and often visible enemy in our midst.
According to one CIA analyst I spoke with last week, al Qaeda sleeper cells are embedded in most U.S. cities with sizable Islamic communities. "Why do you think 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta traveled to Maine the night before the attacks?" asked the analyst. The obvious answer, he explained, was that Atta was meeting with a "handler" to receive final instructions. There is no doubt, explained the analyst, that thousands of al Qaeda sleeper agents, including conspirators involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, remain in the country.
These covert networks are ticking time bombs that wield the capacity and hatred to carry out acts worse than 9/11. What's shocking, explained the analyst, is not the existence of this widespread covert network, but that law enforcement has largely been neutered in its response. According to the analyst, "the Agency" knows where most terrorist cells are located in the United States. But their hands are tied until the cells actually "go hot," or move into action.
Obviously, this is not the most effective way to combat terrorism. The most effective way to prevent another 9-11 style attack is to root it out before it even starts. That means taking advantage of the modern intelligence we have and abducting members of domestic terrorist cells before " not after " they "go hot."
The Christmas Day attempt by Mr. Abdulmutallab to detonate a bomb aboard a crowded Northwest Airlines flight should serve as a stark reminder of the threat presented by these cells. Though the New York Times is reporting that Mr. Abdulmutallab acted alone, the evidence suggests the opposite. Mr. Abdulmutallab studied in London, trained at Yemeni camps and departed from Holland to America. The obvious implication is that terrorist cells are interconnected.
It is equally clear that al Qaeda's desire to deliver mass murder to America has not weakened in the nine years since Osama bin Laden declared the Sept. 11 attacks a "glorious success" and called for a "thousand more operations like these." Since then, there have been at least 29 foiled terror plots against the United States.
According to ABC News, Mr. Abdulmutallab told interrogators that he was one of many bombers being groomed by al Qaeda to blow up American-bound aircraft. Get it?
The terrorists intend to destroy us. They will strike again. They have told us so. A teetering Pakistan only increases the possibility that the next attack will involve weapons of mass destruction, including radiological dispersion devices.
Unfortunately, attempts to prevent al Qaeda from constituting within our own borders are being hampered by the Obama administration's apparent uncertainty about how to treat sleeper cells. The Geneva conventions, which govern the treatment of enemy combatants, simply do not contemplate non-state members of sleeper cells.
If the decision to hold criminal trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 masterminds is any indication, this administration is unwilling to take swift remedial action. President Obama's desire to be liked by the international community has led him to risk American lives on the gamble that he can secure criminal convictions against the 9/11 masterminds.
But what if there is a mistrial? Or classified documents are leaked? Or we are legally unable to detain them? More generally, it seems that the administration's misguided insistence on criminal trials signals an ideological unwillingness to employ counterterrorism tools proactively.
This is a terrible mistake and it betrays a dangerous ignorance of how our enemies operate. In Afghanistan, not only are rapists and murderers punished, but the next three generations of their family are treated as criminals. There is a bloodlust that runs through their society that will not be cure by Mr. Obama's public policy overtures.
Following the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda brazenly declared its goal of building an Islamic empire capable of wiping the "infidels" off the face of the planet. There will be another terrorist attack. This is certain. The ability of our law enforcement authorities to mitigate the damage turns in large part on our ability to infiltrate terrorist cells and to undermine their operational infrastructure. A good place to start would be with those cells that we know to be operating within our own borders.
Where such cells exist, they must be shattered " preemptively. I understand the importance of due process. But we can find common ground on this point and still do the right thing. We are at war. And no war has ever been resolved by saying we're not going to be better than the enemy.
So, to the president, I offer this modest proposal: Take full advantage of our modern intelligence to wipe out terrorist cells before " not after " they spring into action.
On Christmas, we were lucky. The only thing that prevented Mr. Abdulmutallab from blowing up a crowded plane was a faulty fuse and vigilant passengers. Next time " and there will be a next time " we may not be so lucky.
"The Armstrong Williams Show" is broadcast on XM Satellite's Power 169 channel from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. weeknights.
Take Terrorist Cells Out Now
The Obama administration is currently embroiled in a public relations and policy vortex that threatens to consume an increasingly larger proportion of the shrinking agenda of the president and Congress if some swift actions are not taken.
Well after the holidays have ended, the White House continues to flak questions over whether the president had too much on his plate to anticipate and halt the twisted plots of terrorists. As legendary scribe Helen Thomas put it last Tuesday, the president "blew it" when it came to preventing Nigerian-born terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding a plane bound for America's heartland.
The sad commentary is none of this matters. The "systemic failures" this president is setting out to correct will yield no lasting impact unless and until the administration addresses an extremely dangerous and often visible enemy in our midst.
According to one CIA analyst I spoke with last week, al Qaeda sleeper cells are embedded in most U.S. cities with sizable Islamic communities. "Why do you think 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta traveled to Maine the night before the attacks?" asked the analyst. The obvious answer, he explained, was that Atta was meeting with a "handler" to receive final instructions. There is no doubt, explained the analyst, that thousands of al Qaeda sleeper agents, including conspirators involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, remain in the country.
These covert networks are ticking time bombs that wield the capacity and hatred to carry out acts worse than 9/11. What's shocking, explained the analyst, is not the existence of this widespread covert network, but that law enforcement has largely been neutered in its response. According to the analyst, "the Agency" knows where most terrorist cells are located in the United States. But their hands are tied until the cells actually "go hot," or move into action.
Obviously, this is not the most effective way to combat terrorism. The most effective way to prevent another 9-11 style attack is to root it out before it even starts. That means taking advantage of the modern intelligence we have and abducting members of domestic terrorist cells before " not after " they "go hot."
The Christmas Day attempt by Mr. Abdulmutallab to detonate a bomb aboard a crowded Northwest Airlines flight should serve as a stark reminder of the threat presented by these cells. Though the New York Times is reporting that Mr. Abdulmutallab acted alone, the evidence suggests the opposite. Mr. Abdulmutallab studied in London, trained at Yemeni camps and departed from Holland to America. The obvious implication is that terrorist cells are interconnected.
It is equally clear that al Qaeda's desire to deliver mass murder to America has not weakened in the nine years since Osama bin Laden declared the Sept. 11 attacks a "glorious success" and called for a "thousand more operations like these." Since then, there have been at least 29 foiled terror plots against the United States.
According to ABC News, Mr. Abdulmutallab told interrogators that he was one of many bombers being groomed by al Qaeda to blow up American-bound aircraft. Get it?
The terrorists intend to destroy us. They will strike again. They have told us so. A teetering Pakistan only increases the possibility that the next attack will involve weapons of mass destruction, including radiological dispersion devices.
Unfortunately, attempts to prevent al Qaeda from constituting within our own borders are being hampered by the Obama administration's apparent uncertainty about how to treat sleeper cells. The Geneva conventions, which govern the treatment of enemy combatants, simply do not contemplate non-state members of sleeper cells.
If the decision to hold criminal trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 masterminds is any indication, this administration is unwilling to take swift remedial action. President Obama's desire to be liked by the international community has led him to risk American lives on the gamble that he can secure criminal convictions against the 9/11 masterminds.
But what if there is a mistrial? Or classified documents are leaked? Or we are legally unable to detain them? More generally, it seems that the administration's misguided insistence on criminal trials signals an ideological unwillingness to employ counterterrorism tools proactively.
This is a terrible mistake and it betrays a dangerous ignorance of how our enemies operate. In Afghanistan, not only are rapists and murderers punished, but the next three generations of their family are treated as criminals. There is a bloodlust that runs through their society that will not be cure by Mr. Obama's public policy overtures.
Following the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda brazenly declared its goal of building an Islamic empire capable of wiping the "infidels" off the face of the planet. There will be another terrorist attack. This is certain. The ability of our law enforcement authorities to mitigate the damage turns in large part on our ability to infiltrate terrorist cells and to undermine their operational infrastructure. A good place to start would be with those cells that we know to be operating within our own borders.
Where such cells exist, they must be shattered " preemptively. I understand the importance of due process. But we can find common ground on this point and still do the right thing. We are at war. And no war has ever been resolved by saying we're not going to be better than the enemy.
So, to the president, I offer this modest proposal: Take full advantage of our modern intelligence to wipe out terrorist cells before " not after " they spring into action.
On Christmas, we were lucky. The only thing that prevented Mr. Abdulmutallab from blowing up a crowded plane was a faulty fuse and vigilant passengers. Next time " and there will be a next time " we may not be so lucky.
"The Armstrong Williams Show" is broadcast on XM Satellite's Power 169 channel from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. weeknights.
POLITICAL PULSE
VIDEO LIST
 |
|
|
