Obama’s Ludicrous Self- Portrait as a Budget Hawk – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative Columnists

Deficit and debt increases 2001–2009. Gross de...

Deficit and debt increases 2001–2009. Gross debt has increased over $500 billion each year since FY2003. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Obama’s Ludicrous Self- Portrait as a Budget Hawk – David Limbaugh – Townhall Conservative Columnists.

I saw it with my own eyes on a video clip that Sean Hannity played. At a speech in Baltimore, President Obama laughingly dismissed the notion that he is responsible for our nation’s current spending orgy. Seriously.

Sporting a wide grin, Obama said, “I love listening to these guys give us lectures about debt and deficits.” He must think this subject is a real knee-slapper. He continued: “I inherited a trillion-dollar deficit. We had a surplus; they turned it into a deficit, built in a structural deficit that extends for decades. … We signed $2 trillion in spending cuts into law. I laid out a detailed plan for a total of $4 trillion in deficit reduction. … But even when you account for the steps we took to prevent a depression and jump-start the economy … spending under my administration has grown more slowly than under any president in 60 years.”

A fascinating question is whether Obama actually believes this fantasy or he and his disciples are laughing at us, as well.

Yes, he’s had some delusional enablers who have argued that he has been fiscally frugal, having actually slowed the rate of government spending. Yes, you read that correctly.

But how do these enablers make such a claim — in print, no less? Well, the best I can figure is that they say that the deficit for Bush’s final fiscal year was above $1 trillion and that hence Obama’s $1 trillion deficits thereafter constitute continuing the status quo; he’s not increasing the level of the deficits.

Wow. That’s creative, but it’s completely disingenuous. We must first understand that presidential term years don’t coincide with budget years. There is overlap, and the final Bush year was partially Obama’s.

Also, the final Bush budget year was extraordinary because the housing crisis had unfolded and there were TARP expenditures, many of which were later repaid. It’s also worth remembering that the primary cause of the housing crisis was the affordable housing policies that were mostly pushed by liberal lawmakers. President Bush might have been on board for some of this early on, but he strongly appealed to Democrats in Congress to curtail this program well before it had reached crisis levels, and scoffers such as Rep. Barney Frank dismissed him out of hand and assured the nation there was nothing to fear from these reckless policies.

In addition, in running for re-election, President Bush promised to cut the budget deficit in half, and he did so. By 2007, his budget deficit was $161 billion, a mere fraction of every one of Obama’s trillion-dollar-plus deficits. In that year, by the way, we were still at war in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and the tax cuts had been fully implemented years before, conclusively putting the lie to Obama’s claim that Bush handed him astronomical deficits as a result of his tax cuts and two wars. Utter nonsense. Shameless propaganda.

President Bush did spend too much, though Obama’s deficits have dwarfed his. But for the sake of argument, let’s take Obama at his word that he inherited enormous deficits from President Bush. Wouldn’t the reaction of a responsible presidential successor have been to say, “We have racked up bankrupting spending, so we must reverse course and get our spending under control; we owe it to our kids not to squander their future and saddle them with mountains of debt”?

Instead, Obama cynically used the extraordinary deficit in that final year as a license to re-establish the base line for future deficits so that he could embark on his extravagant spending spree while pretending he was not increasing the deficit. He has piled on deficits of more than $1 trillion during each of his four years. Unintentionally, you say?

Nice try, but the Congressional Budget Office says that his most recent 10-year budget also gives us annual deficits averaging almost $1 trillion per year. He does not even aspire to bring the budget into balance. Add to this that he is steadfastly obstructing entitlement reform — so that our $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities will continue to grow apace — and we will soon be out of time to avoid going the way of Greece.

Obama has not cut trillions in spending. At most, he has been forced to agree to reductions in the level of spending increases. But even here, he has gone back on his word and broken his agreements. He offers us nothing but more spending proposals — claiming it’s the only way to stimulate the economy and pretending we are too stupid to realize we’ve already been there and done that.

Obama’s claim that he is not a big spender is preposterous, but if he insists on insulting the intelligence of the American people in sticking to his story, that’s fine with me because it will make our task of defeating him in November that much easier.

Advertisements

Why ObamaCare is bad medicine for seniors – The Hill’s Congress Blog

 

OBAMA: THE SOCIALIST/MARXIST/COMMUNIST -- UNMA...

Image by SS&SS via Flickr

Why ObamaCare is bad medicine for seniors – The Hill’s Congress Blog.

By Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.)

As a physician, access to quality care for our nation’s citizens, especially our seniors, has been and will continue to be a top priority of mine in Congress. During my 15 years as a practicing cardiothoracic surgeon, I treated hundreds of Medicare patients. My experience as a Medicare provider provides me firsthand knowledge of the negative impact the so-called Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) will have on America’s seniors.

Medicare is a solemn promise that we have made to our seniors. ObamaCare threatens this vital program and the health care of millions of Americans. ObamaCare will exacerbate existing access problems and places unelected bureaucrats between patients and their doctors.

According to the American Medical Association, one in three primary care doctors currently limit the number of new Medicare patients and more than one in eight are forced to refuse new Medicare patients altogether. Even with this information, the provisions in ObamaCare cut $575 billion from Medicare, including $233 billion from Medicare Parts A and B and $145 billion from Medicare Advantage plans. These figures come directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) chief actuary report on the financial effects of ObamaCare. These are facts provided by the Obama administration on the future funding of Medicare. Additionally, beginning in 2015, ObamaCare will impose caps on the spending growth of Medicare each year. With access already an issue for many seniors, these cuts and caps on future growth will lead to further reductions in access to vital medical services.

By CMS’s own estimates, these cuts to providers could jeopardize access to care for seniors and force roughly 15 percent of Medicare Part A providers to become unprofitable and drop out of Medicare. Rural community hospitals, like many throughout my district, will be most at risk. Anticipating fewer providers accepting Medicare, the issue of access to quality care for our seniors is real and was made worse with the passage of ObamaCare.

If over half a trillion dollars in cuts were not enough, ObamaCare included another provision that could result in a European style of rationing of care based on age or severity of health problems. This 15-member bureaucratic panel appointed by the president, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), is intended to control future Medicare spending. If Medicare grows beyond its yearly target, then IPAB will make a recommendation of cuts. The only authority granted to Congress to prevent these recommendations from taking effect is to create our own package of cuts equally as large as IPAB’s or override the recommendations with a three-fifths super majority in the Senate. At the end of the day, cuts to Medicare will be all but guaranteed. With the previously mentioned cuts to Medicare, the only real option left is to begin rationing care to seniors by controlling the way physicians practice medicine. There is no reason to have unelected bureaucrats invading the doctor-patient relationship and manipulating medical decisions based on costs.

One ironic result of IPAB is the strong bipartisan support for its repeal. Several House Democrats were opposed to the formation of this board. Dr. Phil Roe of Tennessee, a fellow physician, introduced a bill to repeal IPAB, which has received the support of 221 members, including Barney Frank and 14 other Democratic Members of Congress.

In addition, ObamaCare does not adequately address the need to increase the number of physicians and other health care providers that will be required to care for an aging population. While there are provisions to incentivize medical students to become primary care physicians, other physician specialties are largely forgotten. Cardiothoracic surgeons, general surgeons, neurosurgeons and many others are needed to provide the specialized care our seniors deserve and have come to expect. It takes over a decade to properly train physicians in many surgical specialties and rural areas are already seeing physician shortages.

At one time, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Well, the American people have been paying attention and, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, support for ObamaCare is at an all-time low. The truth about the future of Medicare is this: ObamaCare creates access issues for those in need of quality medical care.

As the baby boomers begin to retire, we can no longer continue to delay important decisions about the future care of our nation’s seniors, but it is clear that ObamaCare is the wrong prescription.Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.), a physician, represents the 8th District of Indiana

A herd of angry RINOs. – Tea Party Nation

John Boehner tells American Unemployed its You...A herd of angry RINOs. – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips on November 30, 2011 at 7:58am in Tea Party Nation Forum

The RINOs are stirring on Capitol Hill and they are angry.   The angry RINOs are the big spenders who are in positions of authority. 

What are they angry about?

They are angry that many of the Republican rank and file and even a few in the Republican leadership broke ranks recently on a spending bill and voted against it. 

Before Thanksgiving, the House passed a small appropriations bill.  In Washington-speak, it was called a “mini-bus.”   The full appropriations bill is called an “omnibus-spending bill.” 

The bill passed but 101 Republicans broke with the leadership and voted against the bill.  It passed with massive support from the Democrats.

Now, House appropriators, in other words, the one’s responsible for spending decisions on Capitol Hill are worried and now want John Boehner to crack the whip and get Republicans in line to support these spending bills.

When the “mini-bus” came up for a vote, 101 Republicans, including Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling and Policy Chairman Tom Price voted against it.

RINO big spender Hal Rogers of Kentucky is throwing a hissy fit worthy of Barney Frank.   He and other Republican appropriators are complaining that they are not getting the support they need from Republicans as they try to spend the country into bankruptcy.  They have gone to John Boehner and demanded that Boehner pressure the GOP 101 who had the good sense to vote against out of control spending, to now support a spending bill that is worthy of Nancy Pelosi.

Well good for the GOP 101!

Some of the folks we sent to Washington actually have a clue.

The problem is the spending.  A year ago, as the Republicans swept into power, no one wanted to be one of the appropriators.   No one wanted to be associated with the problem that we identified and sent new people to Washington to address.  

My how things change in only a few months. 

Once John Boehner was convinced he had enough of the new GOP Freshmen in his pocket to guarantee his job, it has been back to business as usual.   

Under John Boehner, the only difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is the Republicans want to spend only a little less than the Democrats. 

Is that why we the people put the Republicans back in charge of the House of Representatives?

The good news here is there appears to be a fracture in the GOP in the House of Representatives and that is something we can exploit.

Every Tea Party supporter and every Tea Party group should reach out immediately to their individual Congressman and to all of the Representatives in your area.  The message is simple.  Cut spending. 

While many of the Congressmen will be concerned about what the leadership will do to them, they are more concerned about the voters.  If the voters turn against them, they will not have to worry about the leadership because they won’t be in Congress anymore.

The Omnibus-spending bill is going to be voted on sometime in December.   The bill is going to be loaded with pork barrel projects and massive, wasteful spending.   Not only will it not address our spending problem, it will make it worse. 

We need to be all over our Congressmen and ask them to vote against the bill.  With the support of Democrats, the bill will probably pass.  Stopping the bill is probably not possible, but is certainly worth trying for.

Reforming the GOP so that next year and the year after, they stop the insane spending is the goal.

Barney Frank Backs IPAB Repeal – By Andrew Stiles – The Corner – National Review Online

 

English: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Ser...

Barney Frank Backs IPAB Repeal – By Andrew Stiles – The Corner – National Review Online.

By Andrew Stiles

As the editors make clear on the homepage, outgoing Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) will not be missed. However, just one day after announcing his retirement from Congress, the curmudgeonly liberal has, perhaps for the first time in his career, given conservatives something to cheer about:  

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank announced on Tuesday his support for the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a significant portion of President Obama’s health care overhaul. Frank…became the 12th Democrat, and the 212th member of the House, to co-sponsor Tennessee Republican Rep. Phil Roe’s bill aimed at repealing the IPAB.

Frank is by far the most prominent of those 12 Democratic co-sponsors, the ranks of whom have been steadily growing as more of them are actually reading President Obama’s health-care reform legislation and “finding out what’s in it.” Under the new law, a 15-member panel of appointed “experts” — IPAB — will be given sweeping authority to rein in out-of-control Medicare costs. For example:

Under the law, there are only a few ways for the board’s cost-control recommendations to be amended. Congress can pass alternative measures that reduce Medicare spending by at least as much as the IPAB proposal; or, three-fifths of the Senate can vote to override the IPAB proposal entirely. If Congress fails to pass its own version by a certain deadline and the Senate doesn’t waive the requirement with a three-fifths vote, the board’s recommendations automatically become law.

Too many Republicans insist that President Obama has offered no alternative to House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s (R., Wis.) bold proposal to reform (and, thus, to preserve) Medicare for future generations. But he has. That alternative is IPAB. Whereas Ryan’s reforms would employ free-market principles to drive down costs by giving seniors the ability to choose their own plans, Obama’s top-down approach involves a board of unelected bureaucrats employing cold cost-benefit analysis to make far-reaching decisions about what procedures will be covered under Medicare and at what cost; in other words, heath-care rationing.

And while Ryan’s reforms would not go into effect until 2022, under the new health-care law, IPAB is scheduled to begin operating in 2014. However, a growing number of lawmakers and policy advocates are working to make sure it never does. Rep. Phil Roe (R., Tenn.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) have sponsored legislation to repeal IPAB in their respective chambers. But as demonstrated by Frank’s announcement, it’s not just Republicans who are wary of Obama’s plan: 

Health-care advocacy groups are also signing up to the effort. Organizations including the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), which vocally supported the health-care bill despite deep concerns about IPAB, are revamping their opposition to the board by lobbying for IPAB’s demise. Max Richtman, executive vice president and acting CEO of NCPSSM, cites concerns about IPAB’s lack of accountability to Congress and, consequently, the American people…

Richtman argues that the board would be able to impose “dramatic cuts” to Medicare, which would inevitably lead to restricted access to care for seniors. “It’s not going to address the problem in a way that doesn’t end up hurting the program,” he said. “The way the board is constituted is really not the right way to make those decisions.”

Of course, Democrats like Barney Frank and groups like the NCPSSM don’t actually agree with Republicans on what needs to be done with regard to Medicare spending; they live in a fantasy land where Medicare’s $23 trillion in unfunded liabilities can be solved by eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse” (and massively increasing taxes). But such bipartisan opposition to IPAB certainty poses another challenge to the Obama administration in its effort to defend an increasingly unpopular health-care law. Representative Roe tells me that his repeal bill is likely to see action sometime next year. “We have bipartisan agreement around the idea that this board will harm patient care and needs to be repealed,” he said in response to Frank’s announcement. “The IPAB will lack full Congressional oversight, compromising its accountability to the American people. This cannot be allowed to happen.”

Pity the Democratic Party – Tea Party Nation

Pity the Democratic Party – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

I actually pity the Democratic Party these days even though I think it has brought the nation to ruin because, as Joseph Curl recently noted in a Washington Times commentary, “Democrats must spend, spend, spend, and spend. It’s in their DNA.”

It got blown away in 1994 after forty years of control of the U.S. Congress when Newt Gingrich saved the nation from forty more. At the very least then-President Clinton has the political savvy to move to the center, earning a second term for himself.

This is not the case with President Obama who is running against a “do nothing” Congress to which he outsourced the writing of Obamacare, the stimulus programs, the budget, and, the most recent failure, the Super Committee which had been preceded by a blue ribbon commission whose recommendations he ignored.

Curl, like others, has come to the conclusion that Obama does not want to be reelected noting that this is the first President in the history of the nation to blame its present problems on Americans! While he campaigns furiously around the nation, he keeps telling voters that they are “lazy”, “a bit soft”, and have lost their “ambition and imagination.”

No, Americans are imagining what another four years of Obama would do to the nation and they don’t like what they see.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is stuck with their “messiah” and having some very serious second thoughts about him. When two top Democratic pollsters and strategists, Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas Schoen, go on record to urge the President to step aside and allow someone else—like Hillary Clinton—to run for the office in 2012, you know the party is in serious trouble.

The media personality, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, gained everlasting fame when he declared early in Obama’s 2008 campaign that he felt “a tingle” go up his leg when he contemplated an Obama presidency. These days, Matthews is telling anyone who will listen that he doesn’t think either Barack or Michelle “like being in the White House.” Michelle made that clear early on, openly saying she hated it.

When the likes of Rep. Barney Frank announces he will not run for reelection, he has joined fifteen other Democrats in Congress bailing out before the 2012 national elections, knowing it will be a political bloodbath for the Party. Watch for still more to opt out as well.

The Democrats who controlled both houses of Congress when Obama took office in 2009 lost the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections and saw a number of governorships go to Republicans. Unlike the Republicans who have numerous aspirants for the nomination, they have none. They are faced with spending millions to elect an unelectable President.

The chairwoman of the Democrat National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is so astoundingly stupid that it is a reflection on the party as a whole. Despite the fact that she drives an 2010 Infiniti FX35, a Japanese luxury SUV, she declared “If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars. They would have the auto industry in America go down the tubes.”

Meanwhile, Obama’s EPA just announced it is preempting Congress and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by imposing a ruling that America’s fleet of passenger cars and light trucks must meet an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, a doubling of today’s average of 27 miles per gallon. The reason? Cars and light trucks emit a “pollutant”, carbon dioxide, a gas on which all life on Earth depends in equal message with oxygen.

The EPA rule, by the way, defies the laws of physics inasmuch as one can only get a finite amount of power from a gallon of gasoline. When you add ethanol to the mix, you get less mileage, all in the name of saving the planet.

The sole reason the Party will offer regarding why voters will desert Obama in November 2012 will be “racism.” Debbie Blabbermouth, ignoring the fact that Obama doubled and tripled the national debt and saw unemployment increase, has said, “people don’t like to deal with it, but the fact of the matter is—the president’s problems are in large measure because of the color of his skin.”

A lot of people voted for Barack Obama because he was black (well, actually half black). Now they will vote for whoever the Republican nominee is because Obama has exacerbated all the Democrat programs that have brought the nation to ruin.

As a longtime recovering Democrat who switched to the Republican Party during Ronald Reagan’s era, I almost feel sorry for the Party, but that is but a fleeting thought when I consider that it has saddled us with Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the likes of former Congressman Anthony Weiner, among others (Jimmy Carter!) too numerous to name.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

Can America survive? – Tea Party Nation

Can America survive? – Tea Party Nation.

Infomercials hit you with the shocking headline, “Can America survive?”  Some videos begin with dramatic music and ask the same question.  While the advertisers want to sell products, the question is legitimate. 

 Can America survive?

 America is certainly at a crossroads.  We have an administration that is engaging in economic policies that are beyond reckless.  When someone drives a car at 100 miles an hour towards a cliff, you are left with few other options except to conclude they have a death wish.   The Obama regime and the Party of Treason are pushing policies that have a very definite outcome:  National bankruptcy.

 Two things that have made America strong are the middle class and the possibility of upward mobility.  The great majority of Americans have always fallen into the middle class.  For years, the left has made war on the middle class.   The housing bubble, which we can thank Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for, has for the first time since the last great depression destroyed the American dream of home ownership.    Now, for many Americans, especially a majority in the twenty something generation, homeownership is at best a distant dream.

 The American dream of owning a business is becoming an impossibility too.  With a tax code that even the IRS cannot understand and expensive mandates from the government, many businesses are not able to make a profit and stay in business.

 The American tax code can only be described as a war on the productive.  47% of Americans not only do not pay any taxes but many of them receive tax refunds on taxes they did not pay.    What happens when only 47% of Americans are the productive and are the ones paying taxes and 53% are receiving money and benefits back from the government on taxes they did not pay? 

 The government’s immigration policy for the last thirty years has been nothing more than a war against the middle class.  Thirty years ago, American workers built houses.  Today, vast numbers of illegal aliens work on America’s McMansions.   Thirty years ago, workers who built houses could earn a wage that would get them at least into the lower middle class.  Today, illegal aliens who are paid far less than Americans, hold most of those jobs.  Go to a fast food restaurant and see what you find.  Thirty years ago, high school kids and even college students would work there and make a living while in school.   Today, if you go to your average McDonald’s, if you do not speak Spanish, the chances of your order being right are slim.

 One hundred years ago, immigrants came to this country because they wanted to be Americans.  Immigrants came and assimilated into America.  Immigrants who came from non-English speaking countries, such as Italy and Greece would refuse to teach their children the language of the country they came from and make them speak English so they would be Americans. 

 In most of the rest of the developed world, if you want to immigrate to a country, you must either have a lot of money or a skill that is in short supply.  In other words, the country asks every immigrant what they can do for their new country.  Not America. 

 This year, there will be another “diversity lottery.”  The diversity lottery was another bright idea of Ted Kennedy who wanted to figure out as many ways to damage his country as possible during his political career.   Under the diversity lottery, people are given visas to come to America based only on “diversity.”  Instead of waiting in line like others who want to come to America, the winners of the diversity lottery are bumped to the front of the line.   This year, there are almost ten thousand winners of the “diversity lottery” who come from countries that either support terrorism or are hostile to American. 

 Does anyone think this is a bright idea?

 2012 really is the ultimate battle for the soul of America.  In 2012, either we defeat the Party of Treason and put a conservative in the White House who is committed to ripping socialism out of our government root and branch or we will see the end of America.

 The difference between America and those third world banana republics is our large middle class.   We must do everything in our power to protect and grow the middle class.

 We the people need to insist, after the 2012 elections that the progressive income tax be dismantled.  The 16th Amendment must be repealed and some variation of the Fair Tax put in its place.  Government must be shrunk.  So much of government spending now is simply politicians seeking reelection by bribing Americans with their own money.    We must change immigration.  We must first end illegal immigration and send illegal aliens back to their countries so we can put Americans back to work.  Then we need to completely rework the immigration system.  The first criteria for immigration into this country is that the person who immigrates here wants to be an American and can offer this country something.

 If we lose in 2012, the consequences are dire.  If the Party of Treason is able to steal the 2012 elections through fraud, we will see the end of America.  It will not happen overnight, but it will happen. 

 The American middle class will mostly disappear and we will end our lives telling our children and grand children what it was like to grow up in America, when America was the land of the free and the land of opportunity.

 This is what we face in 2012 and to quote the famous words from Apollo 13, “failure is not an option.”

The Beltway Industry Full-Time Employment Act – Michelle Malkin – Townhall Conservative

Representative Barney Frank, co-architect of t...

Image via Wikipedia

The Beltway Industry Full-Time Employment Act – Michelle Malkin – Townhall Conservative.

Dodd-Frank, the 2,300-page financial “reform” monstrosity spearheaded by Capitol Hill corruptocrats, turned 1 this week. It made too-big banks bigger. It made too-risky incentives riskier. It made a lousy economy lousier. Billed as a “consumer protection” act, Dodd-Frank has succeeded phenomenally — in protecting and stimulating the business-stifling business of government.

Dodd-Frank is a tyrannical triumph of rule-makers, lobbyists and other non-elected spongers over taxpayers. If you don’t want an unseemly glimpse into the self-serving, sausage-making process that feeds the insatiable Beltway industry, read no further. The law’s implementation process is so far-reaching and Byzantine that every member of Congress should be suffering migraines from it.

Quite expectedly, the feds have met a scant 12 percent of rule-making requirements dictated by the grandstanding Dodd-Frank law as of July 1. According to legal and regulatory watchdogs Davis Polk and Wardwell, regulators missed 131 deadlines over the past year. Moreover, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Commodities and Futures Trading Commission have been granting “temporary relief” deferrals (de facto waivers a la Obamacare) left and right to targets in the swaps industry.

Here is just a brief sample of “upcoming activity” on Dodd-Frank (with many rule-making deadlines still to be determined) published on the Securities and Exchange Commission website:

Section 342: Create and staff Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (pending reprogramming approval by appropriators)

Section 911: Create new Investor Advisory Committee (pending appointment of Investor Advocate)

Sections 915 and 919D: Create and staff Office of Investor Advocate (pending reprogramming approval by appropriators)

Section 919: Issue rules, as the Commission deems appropriate, designating documents or information that must be provided by a broker or dealer to a retail investor before the purchase of an investment product or service

Section 921: Issue rules, as the Commission deems appropriate, addressing agreements that require customers or clients of any broker, dealer or investment adviser to arbitrate disputes arising under the Federal securities laws

Section 932: Create and staff Office of Credit Ratings (pending reprogramming approval by appropriators)

Section 979: Create and staff Office of Municipal Securities (pending reprogramming approval by appropriators)

Section 967: Report to Congress describing actions to implement the regulatory and administrative recommendations contained in the independent consultant’s report on the SEC’s organization.

Now multiply that language by more than 400 rules total and tens of thousands of pages, scores of lobbying firms and legions of lawyers.

While disastrous bailout behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get off scot-free, small businesses, small community banks and small broker-dealers have been hit hard by the vagueness, uncertainty and cost burdens created by the Dodd-Frank-enstein monster. Meanwhile, the Government Accountability Office estimates that the feds will need $1.25 billion for 11 different agencies to fund the rule-making racket by 2012 — including $481 million for the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Co-father Barney Frank bragged that his freakishly ineffective creation is “holding up well” in public opinion on its first birthday. But that’s because public opinion is shaped by vague, Wall Street-bashing sound bites instead of hard-nosed assessments of the law’s impotence-by-design.

In its analysis of the few rules that have been finalized, law firm Morrison and Foerster LLP — quoted in the financial adviser publication Investment News — concluded that Dodd-Frank regulations “do not address or resolve the core systemic risk issues in the act.” Moreover, “with elections coming up, and with international reform measures dragging along, one cannot help but wonder how, when or even if many of the act’s reforms will be put in place.”

As they say in the software industry, the government budget-lining bureaucratic delays are not bugs. They’re features of yet another Beltway Industry Full-Time Employment Act.

Obama’s Ghetto Style Tax and Spend Economics, PRICELESS! For everything else there’s…………… The China Card (via Voting American)

Mr. President the Chinese want their Money Back! All the eloquent speeches from the Anointed One will not improve our economy nor is it in any way shape or form going to create jobs. We now have a President that is so full of himself that America is suffering another financial setback that all the Kings men and all the Kings Czars cannot put back together again. The good news is that America is waking up and we have put real American Patriots in … Read More

via Voting American