Sunday, March 22, 2009
will Senator Chris Dodd get a rentention bonus in 2010 or the boot in 2010 election?
will Senator Chris Dodd get a rentention bonus in 2010 or the boot in 2010 election?
Saturday, March 21, 2009
that shithead Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut
that shithead Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut
Jay Leno even mention Chris Dodd got over $100k from AIG, this was not a joke.
Over the years, Dodd has been the top recipient of campaign contributions from AIG employees. During 2007-2008, when he ran for president, he received nearly $104,000 from AIG employees and their families, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that monitors money in politics.
Jay Leno even mention Chris Dodd got over $100k from AIG, this was not a joke.
Over the years, Dodd has been the top recipient of campaign contributions from AIG employees. During 2007-2008, when he ran for president, he received nearly $104,000 from AIG employees and their families, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that monitors money in politics.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Shithead senator Chris Dodd top recipient of campaign cash from AIG
Senator Chris Dodd getting rebates from AIG ?
Some of the worst blows came amid the furor over $165 million in bonuses American International Group Inc. paid some of its employees while receiving billions of dollars in federal bailout money.
After first denying it, Dodd admitted he agreed to a request by Treasury Department officials to dilute an executive bonus restriction in the big economic stimulus bill that Congress passed last month. The change to Dodd's amendment allowed AIG to hand out the bonuses and sparked a blame game between Dodd and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Dodd was guarded Thursday when asked about Geithner.
"This is obviously a matter that obviously should have been dealt with differently, but we are where we are," he said.
Republicans branded Dodd's reversal "astonishing and alarming" and fingered Dodd as the top recipient of campaign cash from AIG employees over the years.
Some of the worst blows came amid the furor over $165 million in bonuses American International Group Inc. paid some of its employees while receiving billions of dollars in federal bailout money.
After first denying it, Dodd admitted he agreed to a request by Treasury Department officials to dilute an executive bonus restriction in the big economic stimulus bill that Congress passed last month. The change to Dodd's amendment allowed AIG to hand out the bonuses and sparked a blame game between Dodd and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Dodd was guarded Thursday when asked about Geithner.
"This is obviously a matter that obviously should have been dealt with differently, but we are where we are," he said.
Republicans branded Dodd's reversal "astonishing and alarming" and fingered Dodd as the top recipient of campaign cash from AIG employees over the years.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
OBAMA FEELS HEAT IN POLLS
OBAMA FEELS HEAT IN POLLS
By DICK MORRIS
Published on March 17, 2009
He may not be paying much attention to the stock market, where $11 trillion of pensions, investments and 401(k)s have been destroyed, but you can be sure that President Obama is paying attention to the polls showing diminishing support for his policies.
Of course, in presidential polling, all numbers are not equally important. Obama got 52 percent of the national vote. So when his approval drops, as it has, from 65 percent on Inauguration Day to 56 percent now (according to Rasmussen), he is playing with house money. Most of those who are coming to negative conclusions about his administration didn't vote for him in the first place.
But there are ominous signs in the data.
So far, Obama's administration has been characterized by two main programs: the stimulus spending and bank bailouts. But the polls indicate problems with each pillar of his package.
The public generally approves of his stimulus proposals. CNN found that voters approved of his economic program in general by 59-40, while Pew Research discovered that they backed his stimulus program specifically by 56-35.
But the problem is that voters don't think the stimulus package will work. CNN's poll, while showing broad approval of his programs, also found that voters did not believe his economic proposals would work, by 22-64. In fact, the CBS survey data indicates that 48 percent feel that the "economy would improve without government intervention," while only 41 percent agreed that intervention was "necessary."
If voters approve of the stimulus program, even while they are pessimistic about its impact and question its necessity, they are downright hostile to the bank bailouts. CBS found that they disapproved of the bailouts by 37-53 and noted that "48 percent are mostly resentful toward Obama's policies toward banks and financial institutions." While Pew found 48-40 approval of the bailouts, it also noted that 87 percent are "bothered by the bank bailout."
So Obama has one program that is popular but won't work and another that is downright unpopular.
And his presidency is dependent on how they work out.
Clinton could sustain his presidency with small-bore initiatives. But Obama can't. Stem cell research is well and good, but it's not the central concern of the nation at the moment.
Some news organizations like to compare how Obama is doing with how other presidents fared. Specifically, at this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush was at 58 percent approval while Clinton stood at 53 percent. By that measurement, Obama's 56 percent would seem in the normal range.
But Clinton won with only 42 percent of the vote in 1992, and Bush got 49 percent. Obama, of course, won 52 percent of the vote. So here's how the vote-to-popularity ratio stacks up:
• Clinton: Vote 42%; Job Approval 53%; Difference +11%
• W. Bush: Vote 49%; Job Approval 58%; Difference + 9%
• Obama: Vote 52%; Job Approval 56%; Difference + 4%
...not very good.
And let's remember that Clinton lost control of Congress in 1994 while Bush's presidency -- heading downward -- was saved by his excellent response to Sept. 11.
But presidential popularity is not going to be the key determinant of Obama's political success or failure. The unemployment rate is going to fill the role of political harbinger. And that front is unlikely to be favorable. Despite the current reports of a false dawn -- based on ratings that, while still dropping, have slowed somewhat in their descent -- we are in for a long, hard haul in trying to turn this economy around. And Obama's vigorous pronouncements that he plans to raise taxes in two years are not going to help induce the economy's most prodigious spenders -- the wealthy -- to step up to the checkout counter.
Obama's fate is deeply linked to the economy. These days, that's like being tied to an anchor.
By DICK MORRIS
Published on March 17, 2009
He may not be paying much attention to the stock market, where $11 trillion of pensions, investments and 401(k)s have been destroyed, but you can be sure that President Obama is paying attention to the polls showing diminishing support for his policies.
Of course, in presidential polling, all numbers are not equally important. Obama got 52 percent of the national vote. So when his approval drops, as it has, from 65 percent on Inauguration Day to 56 percent now (according to Rasmussen), he is playing with house money. Most of those who are coming to negative conclusions about his administration didn't vote for him in the first place.
But there are ominous signs in the data.
So far, Obama's administration has been characterized by two main programs: the stimulus spending and bank bailouts. But the polls indicate problems with each pillar of his package.
The public generally approves of his stimulus proposals. CNN found that voters approved of his economic program in general by 59-40, while Pew Research discovered that they backed his stimulus program specifically by 56-35.
But the problem is that voters don't think the stimulus package will work. CNN's poll, while showing broad approval of his programs, also found that voters did not believe his economic proposals would work, by 22-64. In fact, the CBS survey data indicates that 48 percent feel that the "economy would improve without government intervention," while only 41 percent agreed that intervention was "necessary."
If voters approve of the stimulus program, even while they are pessimistic about its impact and question its necessity, they are downright hostile to the bank bailouts. CBS found that they disapproved of the bailouts by 37-53 and noted that "48 percent are mostly resentful toward Obama's policies toward banks and financial institutions." While Pew found 48-40 approval of the bailouts, it also noted that 87 percent are "bothered by the bank bailout."
So Obama has one program that is popular but won't work and another that is downright unpopular.
And his presidency is dependent on how they work out.
Clinton could sustain his presidency with small-bore initiatives. But Obama can't. Stem cell research is well and good, but it's not the central concern of the nation at the moment.
Some news organizations like to compare how Obama is doing with how other presidents fared. Specifically, at this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush was at 58 percent approval while Clinton stood at 53 percent. By that measurement, Obama's 56 percent would seem in the normal range.
But Clinton won with only 42 percent of the vote in 1992, and Bush got 49 percent. Obama, of course, won 52 percent of the vote. So here's how the vote-to-popularity ratio stacks up:
• Clinton: Vote 42%; Job Approval 53%; Difference +11%
• W. Bush: Vote 49%; Job Approval 58%; Difference + 9%
• Obama: Vote 52%; Job Approval 56%; Difference + 4%
...not very good.
And let's remember that Clinton lost control of Congress in 1994 while Bush's presidency -- heading downward -- was saved by his excellent response to Sept. 11.
But presidential popularity is not going to be the key determinant of Obama's political success or failure. The unemployment rate is going to fill the role of political harbinger. And that front is unlikely to be favorable. Despite the current reports of a false dawn -- based on ratings that, while still dropping, have slowed somewhat in their descent -- we are in for a long, hard haul in trying to turn this economy around. And Obama's vigorous pronouncements that he plans to raise taxes in two years are not going to help induce the economy's most prodigious spenders -- the wealthy -- to step up to the checkout counter.
Obama's fate is deeply linked to the economy. These days, that's like being tied to an anchor.
Obama's Lies -- and YOUR Money
Obama's Lies -- and YOUR Money
Dear Reader,
You know what really irritates me about liberals? (Besides the fact that they're spineless little girls in pretty dresses who can't play rough because it musses up their hair...)
They always think liberalism fixes the problem -- even when it was liberalism that caused the problem in the first place!
Case in point, the Financial Meltdown of 2008 (and counting). To hear liberals tell it, it all goes back to Ronald Reagan -- who with his seductive "B-actor" charm fooled America into thinking that by slashing taxes, regulation, and government spending we could unleash free enterprise and create a new wave of prosperity.
Sure, liberals concede, that seemed to work for, oh, the better part of three decades, but now we're paying the price for all that "greed." The solution? A return to the pre-Reagan policies of Jimmy Carter, LBJ, FDR... Speaking of which, what will victory look like in the "War on Poverty"? When are they going to produce an "exit strategy" from that quagmire?
Unfortunately, the facts -- as always when you're talking about liberal theories -- tell a different story. A story in which all the major villains, it turns out, have one thing in common: government.
That's right. From the "Community Reinvestment Act" that pressured banks into affirmative-action lending, to those "government-sponsored enterprises" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who bought up all the resulting subprime loans and repackaged them as "investment grade" securities -- the greasy thumb-prints of government were all over this fiasco from beginning to end.
But those, as I say, are facts. And facts have no place in the fantasy world of Democratic policy-makers. Nor does history -- true history, that is, as opposed to the public-school propaganda that teaches, for instance, that FDR's New Deal got us out of the Great Depression, when in reality it only deepened and prolonged it.
But the question remains: What can those of us in the fast-dwindling, Reality-Based Community do to survive financially as the Obamacrats prepare a "New New Deal" that threatens to outspend the original by about ten thousand to one?
Personally, I don't have a clue. But thank goodness I know of someone who does.
His name is Mark Skousen, Ph.D., editor of the investment newsletter Forecasts & Strategies -- and he just might be the smartest financial advisor working today.
Don't let that "Ph.D." fool you -- this is no pointy-headed leftist like Obama's economic team who seem to think that all the economy needs in order to flourish are more liberals running the economy.
Skousen, after all, launched his career by predicting during the 1980-82 recession -- and to the scornful laughter of nearly all the other so-called experts -- that "Reaganomics will work."
Boy, did he get that right. And boy, has he gotten it right ever since:
Like when he issued a "sell everything" recommendation to his Forecasts & Strategies subscribers just 41 days before the stock market crash of 1987 -- then told them to get fully invested again several weeks later, just in time for the recovery.
And when he called the Gulf War of 1990 "a turning point for U.S. stocks" -- and the Dow subsequently began a bull market that didn't end for nearly 10 years.
And when he told his subscribers in 1995 that the NASDAQ would double, and then double again -- which is exactly what it did.
And when, just weeks before the NASDAQ collapsed in 2000, he warned his subscribers that tech stocks were dangerously overvalued.
And when, in 2006 -- more than two years before the financial meltdown -- he warned subscribers that "we clearly are headed for fiscal disaster," and showed them how to protect themselves.
What's Skousen's secret? I think it begins with understanding the real laws of economics -- not the warmed-over Marxism that passes for "new thinking" to Obama's media groupies.
And here's the best thing about Mark Skousen. He knows how to make you money no matter how bad things get in the financial markets and the economy overall.
After all, he points out, the late billionaire John Templeton -- whom Money magazine called "the greatest stock-picker of the 20th century" -- began to build his vast fortune in the depths of the Great Depression.
Maybe you're not looking to be a billionaire. Maybe you're just looking to keep your head above water while the Obamacrats do their best to sink the economy. Either way, Mark Skousen can help -- and I urge you to give his Forecasts & Strategies a try.
The cost? Less than the tip on a John Edwards haircut -- in today's dollars, that is. After Obama gets done driving down the value of the dollar it wouldn't be enough to buy Governor Rod Blogojevich a haircut.
Click here to learn more.
Sincerely,
Ann Coulter
P.S. My friend Dr. Mark Skousen has just identified 6 "Obama-Proof" investments to help you survive -- and thrive -- during the presidency of "The One We Have Been Waiting For." It's all part of a FREE Investor's Dossier Dr. Skousen has prepared called "Obamanomics and Your Money."
Dear Reader,
You know what really irritates me about liberals? (Besides the fact that they're spineless little girls in pretty dresses who can't play rough because it musses up their hair...)
They always think liberalism fixes the problem -- even when it was liberalism that caused the problem in the first place!
Case in point, the Financial Meltdown of 2008 (and counting). To hear liberals tell it, it all goes back to Ronald Reagan -- who with his seductive "B-actor" charm fooled America into thinking that by slashing taxes, regulation, and government spending we could unleash free enterprise and create a new wave of prosperity.
Sure, liberals concede, that seemed to work for, oh, the better part of three decades, but now we're paying the price for all that "greed." The solution? A return to the pre-Reagan policies of Jimmy Carter, LBJ, FDR... Speaking of which, what will victory look like in the "War on Poverty"? When are they going to produce an "exit strategy" from that quagmire?
Unfortunately, the facts -- as always when you're talking about liberal theories -- tell a different story. A story in which all the major villains, it turns out, have one thing in common: government.
That's right. From the "Community Reinvestment Act" that pressured banks into affirmative-action lending, to those "government-sponsored enterprises" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who bought up all the resulting subprime loans and repackaged them as "investment grade" securities -- the greasy thumb-prints of government were all over this fiasco from beginning to end.
But those, as I say, are facts. And facts have no place in the fantasy world of Democratic policy-makers. Nor does history -- true history, that is, as opposed to the public-school propaganda that teaches, for instance, that FDR's New Deal got us out of the Great Depression, when in reality it only deepened and prolonged it.
But the question remains: What can those of us in the fast-dwindling, Reality-Based Community do to survive financially as the Obamacrats prepare a "New New Deal" that threatens to outspend the original by about ten thousand to one?
Personally, I don't have a clue. But thank goodness I know of someone who does.
His name is Mark Skousen, Ph.D., editor of the investment newsletter Forecasts & Strategies -- and he just might be the smartest financial advisor working today.
Don't let that "Ph.D." fool you -- this is no pointy-headed leftist like Obama's economic team who seem to think that all the economy needs in order to flourish are more liberals running the economy.
Skousen, after all, launched his career by predicting during the 1980-82 recession -- and to the scornful laughter of nearly all the other so-called experts -- that "Reaganomics will work."
Boy, did he get that right. And boy, has he gotten it right ever since:
Like when he issued a "sell everything" recommendation to his Forecasts & Strategies subscribers just 41 days before the stock market crash of 1987 -- then told them to get fully invested again several weeks later, just in time for the recovery.
And when he called the Gulf War of 1990 "a turning point for U.S. stocks" -- and the Dow subsequently began a bull market that didn't end for nearly 10 years.
And when he told his subscribers in 1995 that the NASDAQ would double, and then double again -- which is exactly what it did.
And when, just weeks before the NASDAQ collapsed in 2000, he warned his subscribers that tech stocks were dangerously overvalued.
And when, in 2006 -- more than two years before the financial meltdown -- he warned subscribers that "we clearly are headed for fiscal disaster," and showed them how to protect themselves.
What's Skousen's secret? I think it begins with understanding the real laws of economics -- not the warmed-over Marxism that passes for "new thinking" to Obama's media groupies.
And here's the best thing about Mark Skousen. He knows how to make you money no matter how bad things get in the financial markets and the economy overall.
After all, he points out, the late billionaire John Templeton -- whom Money magazine called "the greatest stock-picker of the 20th century" -- began to build his vast fortune in the depths of the Great Depression.
Maybe you're not looking to be a billionaire. Maybe you're just looking to keep your head above water while the Obamacrats do their best to sink the economy. Either way, Mark Skousen can help -- and I urge you to give his Forecasts & Strategies a try.
The cost? Less than the tip on a John Edwards haircut -- in today's dollars, that is. After Obama gets done driving down the value of the dollar it wouldn't be enough to buy Governor Rod Blogojevich a haircut.
Click here to learn more.
Sincerely,
Ann Coulter
P.S. My friend Dr. Mark Skousen has just identified 6 "Obama-Proof" investments to help you survive -- and thrive -- during the presidency of "The One We Have Been Waiting For." It's all part of a FREE Investor's Dossier Dr. Skousen has prepared called "Obamanomics and Your Money."
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
AIG paid $1M-plus bonuses to 73 workers
Cuomo says AIG paid $1M-plus bonuses to 73 workers
ALBANY, N.Y. – Troubled insurance giant American International Group paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, including 11 who no longer work for the company, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Tuesday.
Cuomo subpoenaed information from AIG on Monday to determine whether the payments made over the past weekend constitute fraud under state law. Contracts written last March guaranteed employees 100 percent of their 2007 bonus amounts for 2008, "despite obvious signs that 2008 performance would be disastrous in comparison to the year before," Cuomo said.
President Barack Obama and Washington lawmakers have blasted AIG for paying more than $160 million in bonuses to employees of its Financial Products division, the unit primarily responsible for the meltdown that led to a federal bailout of the company, while the company has received billions in taxpayer bailout funds.
Cuomo said AIG mailed the retention bonus checks Friday.
In a letter Tuesday to Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, Cuomo outlined the bonus and contract information and asked the panel to take up the issue at a hearing scheduled for Wednesday.
By MICHAEL VIRTANEN, Associated Press Writer Michael Virtanen
ALBANY, N.Y. – Troubled insurance giant American International Group paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, including 11 who no longer work for the company, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Tuesday.
Cuomo subpoenaed information from AIG on Monday to determine whether the payments made over the past weekend constitute fraud under state law. Contracts written last March guaranteed employees 100 percent of their 2007 bonus amounts for 2008, "despite obvious signs that 2008 performance would be disastrous in comparison to the year before," Cuomo said.
President Barack Obama and Washington lawmakers have blasted AIG for paying more than $160 million in bonuses to employees of its Financial Products division, the unit primarily responsible for the meltdown that led to a federal bailout of the company, while the company has received billions in taxpayer bailout funds.
Cuomo said AIG mailed the retention bonus checks Friday.
In a letter Tuesday to Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, Cuomo outlined the bonus and contract information and asked the panel to take up the issue at a hearing scheduled for Wednesday.
By MICHAEL VIRTANEN, Associated Press Writer Michael Virtanen
Monday, March 16, 2009
Ninth Circuit Upholds Arizona Illegal Alien Hiring Law
Ninth Circuit Upholds Arizona Illegal Alien Hiring Law
On Monday, March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a request to revisit a September 2008 decision by a three-judge panel that upheld an Arizona employer sanctions law that penalizes employers for hiring illegal workers. Opponents - including business interests that support illegal immigration like the Arizona Contractors Association, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry and the pro-illegal immigration advocacy group Chicanos Por La Causa - claimed that the Legal Arizona Workers Act violated the U.S. Constitution and federal law. These interest groups claimed that the three-judge panel had wrongly rejected their claims. In refusing to rehear the case, the Ninth Circuit effectively affirmed the panel's earlier decision, which concluded that the Arizona law did not interfere with the federal government's authority to enforce immigration laws and that it did not violate employers' rights.
(Phoenix Business Journal, March 10, 2009 and Maricopa County Attorney's Office.)
On Monday, March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a request to revisit a September 2008 decision by a three-judge panel that upheld an Arizona employer sanctions law that penalizes employers for hiring illegal workers. Opponents - including business interests that support illegal immigration like the Arizona Contractors Association, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry and the pro-illegal immigration advocacy group Chicanos Por La Causa - claimed that the Legal Arizona Workers Act violated the U.S. Constitution and federal law. These interest groups claimed that the three-judge panel had wrongly rejected their claims. In refusing to rehear the case, the Ninth Circuit effectively affirmed the panel's earlier decision, which concluded that the Arizona law did not interfere with the federal government's authority to enforce immigration laws and that it did not violate employers' rights.
(Phoenix Business Journal, March 10, 2009 and Maricopa County Attorney's Office.)
THE COMING "DEPRESSFLATION"...AND YOUR MONEY
THE COMING "DEPRESSFLATION"...AND YOUR MONEY
You may recall that, in one of my recent columns, I coined the term "depressflation" to describe the inevitable result of the Democrats' plans to "rescue" the economy.
A "depressflation," I explained, would be like the "stagflation" of the 1970s, only worse: massive inflation, even hyper-inflation, together with Depression-like economic stagnation.
Why is this inevitable? Because with a bi-partisan consensus that deficits are vital in fighting the crisis (or easing the pain) there is no constraint on Obama and his party. The sky is the limit on spending, to the tune of a trillion-plus dollars over the next two years alone.
And there are only two ways to pay for it: (1) printing more money, which causes inflation, and (2) hiking taxes, which kills investment, businesses and jobs.
Then the question will be: When will we realize that government intervention is magnifying, not solving the problems that caused the crisis? When will the patience of the public with Obama's remedies run out?
My guess is that it won't be until 2012 -- or after.
In the meantime, however, there are ways to protect yourself and your family from the coming "depressflation."
It's crucial to understand: Hard times for America does not necessarily mean hard times for you. As a very wise investment expert of my acquaintance, Nicholas Vardy, likes to say, "No matter what the state of financial markets, there is always a strategy out there that can make you money."
Full disclosure: I receive a percentage of each subscription sold, but even if I didn't, I'd want you to know about this amazing service. Nicholas' advice is rock solid. If you check into it, you'll thank me later.
The key, Vardy explains, is to recognize opportunities wherever they may be and, more importantly, detach yourself from old investment themes that no longer work.
Vardy himself, an American based in London, is a master at crafting such cutting-edge investment strategies -- which he then passes on to subscribers to his Global Stock Investor investment newsletter.
So, for instance, back in mid-2007 Vardy was months ahead of the curve in spotting the coming boom in "soft" (agricultural) commodities -- recommending stocks like Canadian fertilizer giant Potash, which shot up quickly in price before coming back down to earth, by which time his subscribers had safely banked profits of 82% in just over three months time.
And that's nothing compared to the magic Vardy performed for his subscribers during these past few months, now on record as some of the worst in Wall Street history.
Consider this: Since October 2008, which wiped out close to $7 trillion in shareholder wealth, Vardy's Global Stock Investor portfolio's open positions are up as much as 18%.
Compared to the 16% decline in the Dow during the same time, that's incredible.
How does Nicholas Vardy do it? If I knew, I'd be in his business, not mine. But I'm sure those countless hours he spends sharing investment ideas with Europe's top money managers has something to do with it -- not to mention his graduate degrees from Stanford and Harvard.
Don't get me wrong: Nicholas Vardy is no elitist snob. Though he makes his "real" money managing money for a few wealthy clients, he also likes to "spread the wealth" -- not through higher taxes (sorry, Obama), but by helping people like you and me make profitable investments.
Let's face it, the next few years will be tough ones for America. But, to repeat, they don't have to be tough ones for you -- if you find and follow sound investment advice like the brilliant investment strategies in Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor. I urge you to give it a try.
Click here to learn more.
http://www.globalstockinvestor.com/visitor.php?offer=358
Sincerely,
Dick Morris
P.S. Right now, for a limited time, you can get a full year of Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor for about the cost of a mid-priced dinner for two. Of course, with all the great investment tips you'll be getting, you'll be able to afford lots of dinners -- high-priced ones at that. Click here to learn more.
http://www.globalstockinvestor.com/visitor.php?offer=358
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
You may recall that, in one of my recent columns, I coined the term "depressflation" to describe the inevitable result of the Democrats' plans to "rescue" the economy.
A "depressflation," I explained, would be like the "stagflation" of the 1970s, only worse: massive inflation, even hyper-inflation, together with Depression-like economic stagnation.
Why is this inevitable? Because with a bi-partisan consensus that deficits are vital in fighting the crisis (or easing the pain) there is no constraint on Obama and his party. The sky is the limit on spending, to the tune of a trillion-plus dollars over the next two years alone.
And there are only two ways to pay for it: (1) printing more money, which causes inflation, and (2) hiking taxes, which kills investment, businesses and jobs.
Then the question will be: When will we realize that government intervention is magnifying, not solving the problems that caused the crisis? When will the patience of the public with Obama's remedies run out?
My guess is that it won't be until 2012 -- or after.
In the meantime, however, there are ways to protect yourself and your family from the coming "depressflation."
It's crucial to understand: Hard times for America does not necessarily mean hard times for you. As a very wise investment expert of my acquaintance, Nicholas Vardy, likes to say, "No matter what the state of financial markets, there is always a strategy out there that can make you money."
Full disclosure: I receive a percentage of each subscription sold, but even if I didn't, I'd want you to know about this amazing service. Nicholas' advice is rock solid. If you check into it, you'll thank me later.
The key, Vardy explains, is to recognize opportunities wherever they may be and, more importantly, detach yourself from old investment themes that no longer work.
Vardy himself, an American based in London, is a master at crafting such cutting-edge investment strategies -- which he then passes on to subscribers to his Global Stock Investor investment newsletter.
So, for instance, back in mid-2007 Vardy was months ahead of the curve in spotting the coming boom in "soft" (agricultural) commodities -- recommending stocks like Canadian fertilizer giant Potash, which shot up quickly in price before coming back down to earth, by which time his subscribers had safely banked profits of 82% in just over three months time.
And that's nothing compared to the magic Vardy performed for his subscribers during these past few months, now on record as some of the worst in Wall Street history.
Consider this: Since October 2008, which wiped out close to $7 trillion in shareholder wealth, Vardy's Global Stock Investor portfolio's open positions are up as much as 18%.
Compared to the 16% decline in the Dow during the same time, that's incredible.
How does Nicholas Vardy do it? If I knew, I'd be in his business, not mine. But I'm sure those countless hours he spends sharing investment ideas with Europe's top money managers has something to do with it -- not to mention his graduate degrees from Stanford and Harvard.
Don't get me wrong: Nicholas Vardy is no elitist snob. Though he makes his "real" money managing money for a few wealthy clients, he also likes to "spread the wealth" -- not through higher taxes (sorry, Obama), but by helping people like you and me make profitable investments.
Let's face it, the next few years will be tough ones for America. But, to repeat, they don't have to be tough ones for you -- if you find and follow sound investment advice like the brilliant investment strategies in Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor. I urge you to give it a try.
Click here to learn more.
http://www.globalstockinvestor.com/visitor.php?offer=358
Sincerely,
Dick Morris
P.S. Right now, for a limited time, you can get a full year of Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor for about the cost of a mid-priced dinner for two. Of course, with all the great investment tips you'll be getting, you'll be able to afford lots of dinners -- high-priced ones at that. Click here to learn more.
http://www.globalstockinvestor.com/visitor.php?offer=358
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Morris :does Obamaknow what he is doing?
BOGGLED BAM - CAN PRESIDENT GET JOB DONE?
By DICK MORRIS / EILEEN MCGANN
The furor over the huge federal spending under President Obama - a $1.75 trillion deficit, 13 percent - obscures an even more basic question: Does he know what he is doing?
That is, does he know how to do anything other than spend?
His stimulus package, of course, took no special ability: He left the details to Democrats in Congress. But his two other major initiatives - his banking - and mortgage-relief plans - are both flawed and unlikely to solve their respective problems.
Indeed, they're so wide of the mark as to prompt questions not of Obama's ideology but of his basic competence.
The bank-bailout plan seems to be largely stillborn. Having wished that the private sector would flock to invest in toxic assets if offered the right incentives, the Treasury secretary is still hoping. Crossing his fingers seems to have replaced effective policy in his planning.
To date, no massive infusion of private-sector capital seems in view and Washington is doing little more than writing checks to prop up the failing banks. That doesn't take a genius. But the difficult task of relieving the banks of toxic assets so they can rekindle the flow of loans seems to be beyond the ability of the president and his administration.
Perhaps Obama privately isn't so concerned about the banks or the businesses that need the credit markets restored. Those are Republican interest groups, right? But he surely must want his mortgage-rescue plan to work - the homeowners facing foreclosure tend to be Democratic constituents.
But this plan, too, falls far short of the mark.
Incredibly, it excludes anyone who has lost their job and can't afford to make their payments even if they were to spend 31 percent of their income trying to do so. If you can't come close to affording your mortgage, even if only because of a (hopefully temporary) loss of employment, forget about it: Obama is not going to help you.
Nor will he help you if your mortgage exceeds your home's value. One out of five mortgages now falls into this category - and the continued fall in property values will put more and more homeowners in it. But they can expect no help from Obama's rescue plan.
Why would a liberal be so callous? Why would he leave so many out in the cold? Could it be that the administration simply can't figure out how to help these folks? That the president couldn't devise a counter to his financial advisers, who presumably wanted to exclude these folks?
It was Clinton-era Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros who urged Fannie Mae to spend 42 percent of its money buying mortgages for lower-income people and who suggested that they no longer require down payments. And it was his successor, Andrew Cuomo, who upped the ante to 50 percent of the Fannie Mae portfolio.
After Democrats inveigled people to buy homes they could not afford, how can they justify passing a plan that excludes them from assistance?
It appears that Obama is at sea when it comes to financial policy, economic-recovery planning and credit-rescue efforts. We're stuck not only with a socialist but seemingly an incompetent one.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns.
Published in the New York Post on March 16, 2009
By DICK MORRIS / EILEEN MCGANN
The furor over the huge federal spending under President Obama - a $1.75 trillion deficit, 13 percent - obscures an even more basic question: Does he know what he is doing?
That is, does he know how to do anything other than spend?
His stimulus package, of course, took no special ability: He left the details to Democrats in Congress. But his two other major initiatives - his banking - and mortgage-relief plans - are both flawed and unlikely to solve their respective problems.
Indeed, they're so wide of the mark as to prompt questions not of Obama's ideology but of his basic competence.
The bank-bailout plan seems to be largely stillborn. Having wished that the private sector would flock to invest in toxic assets if offered the right incentives, the Treasury secretary is still hoping. Crossing his fingers seems to have replaced effective policy in his planning.
To date, no massive infusion of private-sector capital seems in view and Washington is doing little more than writing checks to prop up the failing banks. That doesn't take a genius. But the difficult task of relieving the banks of toxic assets so they can rekindle the flow of loans seems to be beyond the ability of the president and his administration.
Perhaps Obama privately isn't so concerned about the banks or the businesses that need the credit markets restored. Those are Republican interest groups, right? But he surely must want his mortgage-rescue plan to work - the homeowners facing foreclosure tend to be Democratic constituents.
But this plan, too, falls far short of the mark.
Incredibly, it excludes anyone who has lost their job and can't afford to make their payments even if they were to spend 31 percent of their income trying to do so. If you can't come close to affording your mortgage, even if only because of a (hopefully temporary) loss of employment, forget about it: Obama is not going to help you.
Nor will he help you if your mortgage exceeds your home's value. One out of five mortgages now falls into this category - and the continued fall in property values will put more and more homeowners in it. But they can expect no help from Obama's rescue plan.
Why would a liberal be so callous? Why would he leave so many out in the cold? Could it be that the administration simply can't figure out how to help these folks? That the president couldn't devise a counter to his financial advisers, who presumably wanted to exclude these folks?
It was Clinton-era Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros who urged Fannie Mae to spend 42 percent of its money buying mortgages for lower-income people and who suggested that they no longer require down payments. And it was his successor, Andrew Cuomo, who upped the ante to 50 percent of the Fannie Mae portfolio.
After Democrats inveigled people to buy homes they could not afford, how can they justify passing a plan that excludes them from assistance?
It appears that Obama is at sea when it comes to financial policy, economic-recovery planning and credit-rescue efforts. We're stuck not only with a socialist but seemingly an incompetent one.
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns.
Published in the New York Post on March 16, 2009
Monday, March 09, 2009
E-Verify hits 100,000 employers, is your employer using it ? jobs for Americans
E-Verify hits 100,000 employers, is your employer using it ? jobs for Americans
NJ temprary Senator Mendez working against this E verify program, please email him at www.senate.gov with your opinion
E-Verify hits 100,000
The number of employers signed up to use E-Verify hits 100,000 employers. Bill Tucker reports.
see a quick video at
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/01/08/ldt.tucker.e.verify.employment.cnn?iref=videosearch
NJ temprary Senator Mendez working against this E verify program, please email him at www.senate.gov with your opinion
E-Verify hits 100,000
The number of employers signed up to use E-Verify hits 100,000 employers. Bill Tucker reports.
see a quick video at
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/01/08/ldt.tucker.e.verify.employment.cnn?iref=videosearch
Your job: Push for Tougher Enforcement Legislation
Texas, Utah Continue Push for Tougher Enforcement Legislation
On Thursday, February 26, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a legal opinion that concluded that a proposed state law that would suspend the business license of any employer that hires illegal aliens would be constitutional under federal law. The AG found that the legislation proposed in Texas - which closely mirrors an Arizona law - does not conflict with the federal government's constitutional role in immigration matters.
(Office of the Attorney General of Texas, February 26, 2009; The Dallas Morning News, February 27, 2009). The legislation is currently pending in the Texas state legislature and, if passed, would provide the state with additional enforcement measures to ensure employers are not hiring illegal aliens, but instead hire only workers who are authorized to work in the United States.
Meanwhile, on Monday, March 2, Utah lawmakers rejected a last-minute attempt by supporters of illegal immigration to delay implementation of legislation which strengthened in-state enforcement measures and barred illegal immigrants from receiving state benefits. Senate Bill 81, which is set to go into effect on July 1, 2009, includes provisions that: (1) require that public employers and state contractors use a "Status Verification System" to confirm that newly hired employees are eligible to work in the United States; (2) make it illegal for an employer to discharge U.S. citizen workers and replace them with illegal workers; (3) mandate applicants for public benefits demonstrate legal presence in the United States; and (4) empower local law enforcement to inquire about the citizenship and immigration status of arrestees.
On Thursday, February 26, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a legal opinion that concluded that a proposed state law that would suspend the business license of any employer that hires illegal aliens would be constitutional under federal law. The AG found that the legislation proposed in Texas - which closely mirrors an Arizona law - does not conflict with the federal government's constitutional role in immigration matters.
(Office of the Attorney General of Texas, February 26, 2009; The Dallas Morning News, February 27, 2009). The legislation is currently pending in the Texas state legislature and, if passed, would provide the state with additional enforcement measures to ensure employers are not hiring illegal aliens, but instead hire only workers who are authorized to work in the United States.
Meanwhile, on Monday, March 2, Utah lawmakers rejected a last-minute attempt by supporters of illegal immigration to delay implementation of legislation which strengthened in-state enforcement measures and barred illegal immigrants from receiving state benefits. Senate Bill 81, which is set to go into effect on July 1, 2009, includes provisions that: (1) require that public employers and state contractors use a "Status Verification System" to confirm that newly hired employees are eligible to work in the United States; (2) make it illegal for an employer to discharge U.S. citizen workers and replace them with illegal workers; (3) mandate applicants for public benefits demonstrate legal presence in the United States; and (4) empower local law enforcement to inquire about the citizenship and immigration status of arrestees.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Everify and the Job Creation Bill
$800 Billion Economic Stimulus and Job Creation Bill Includes
No Protections for U.S. Workers
The whirlwind legislative process that played out in the month between President Obama’s inaugural and Presidents Day resulted in the most massive government spending in history. The intent of the legislation is to jump start the sputtering economy with an infusion of borrowed cash, and to create or preserve some 4 million jobs. At the end of January, an estimated 25 million workers in the U.S. were either unemployed, involuntarily working part-time, or had given up hope of finding jobs.
While American taxpayers and future generations of Americans are being asked to take a nearly trillion dollar gamble that the stimulus bill will work as advertised, the legislation included no safeguards to ensure that the jobs created will actually be filled by legal U.S. workers. The failure to provide protections that jobs created under this program are not filled by illegal aliens was not an oversight. It was a conscious and deliberate decision of the congressional leadership and the Obama administration.
In putting together the largest government spending (and borrowing) package in the history of mankind, the House acted first. The bill approved by that body in late January included provisions that would have provided reasonable assurances that legal U.S. workers would get to fill the jobs created with taxpayer dollars. By unanimous consent, the House approved two key amendments:
A four-year reauthorization of the E-Verify program. Offered by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), this amendment would have ensured that the highly accurate program that allows employers to verify a worker’s Social Security number could continue to operate.
A requirement that employers who receive stimulus money use the E-Verify system. This amendment, authored by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), would have ensured that legal U.S. workers, not illegal aliens, would be able to fill newly created jobs.
In early February, the Senate got to work on their version of the stimulus bill. Amendments identical to the Calvert and Kingston provisions of the House bill were written by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to be added to the Senate legislation. However, these amendments were not part of the bill that the Senate passed on February 11—not because they were rejected by a vote of the full body, but because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) refused to allow them to be offered.
U.S. WORKERS DELIBERATELY SOLD OUT
The two versions of the economic stimulus package then went to a conference committee, where the many differences between them were ironed out by a handful of members of the respective bodies. For the vital worker protections provided by the Calvert and Kingston amendments to become part of the legislation signed by President Obama, all the Senate negotiators needed to do was accept the House language.
Exactly what transpired in these closed door sessions is unknown. However, congressional sources close to FAIR’s government relations staff report that the Calvert and Kingston amendments were stripped from the bill by order of the two congressional leaders, Sen. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Reports indicate that the removal of these protections for U.S. workers occurred without debate or explanation.
No Protections for U.S. Workers
The whirlwind legislative process that played out in the month between President Obama’s inaugural and Presidents Day resulted in the most massive government spending in history. The intent of the legislation is to jump start the sputtering economy with an infusion of borrowed cash, and to create or preserve some 4 million jobs. At the end of January, an estimated 25 million workers in the U.S. were either unemployed, involuntarily working part-time, or had given up hope of finding jobs.
While American taxpayers and future generations of Americans are being asked to take a nearly trillion dollar gamble that the stimulus bill will work as advertised, the legislation included no safeguards to ensure that the jobs created will actually be filled by legal U.S. workers. The failure to provide protections that jobs created under this program are not filled by illegal aliens was not an oversight. It was a conscious and deliberate decision of the congressional leadership and the Obama administration.
In putting together the largest government spending (and borrowing) package in the history of mankind, the House acted first. The bill approved by that body in late January included provisions that would have provided reasonable assurances that legal U.S. workers would get to fill the jobs created with taxpayer dollars. By unanimous consent, the House approved two key amendments:
A four-year reauthorization of the E-Verify program. Offered by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), this amendment would have ensured that the highly accurate program that allows employers to verify a worker’s Social Security number could continue to operate.
A requirement that employers who receive stimulus money use the E-Verify system. This amendment, authored by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), would have ensured that legal U.S. workers, not illegal aliens, would be able to fill newly created jobs.
In early February, the Senate got to work on their version of the stimulus bill. Amendments identical to the Calvert and Kingston provisions of the House bill were written by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to be added to the Senate legislation. However, these amendments were not part of the bill that the Senate passed on February 11—not because they were rejected by a vote of the full body, but because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) refused to allow them to be offered.
U.S. WORKERS DELIBERATELY SOLD OUT
The two versions of the economic stimulus package then went to a conference committee, where the many differences between them were ironed out by a handful of members of the respective bodies. For the vital worker protections provided by the Calvert and Kingston amendments to become part of the legislation signed by President Obama, all the Senate negotiators needed to do was accept the House language.
Exactly what transpired in these closed door sessions is unknown. However, congressional sources close to FAIR’s government relations staff report that the Calvert and Kingston amendments were stripped from the bill by order of the two congressional leaders, Sen. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Reports indicate that the removal of these protections for U.S. workers occurred without debate or explanation.
Friday, March 06, 2009
any regrets giving Obama access to the your federal Mastercard / Visa card ?
any regrets giving Obama access to the your federal Mastercard / Visa card ?
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
www.mccainalert.blogspot.com
Thursday, March 05, 2009
does Obama have the balls to veto the porky Omnibus Spending Bill?
does Obama have the balls to veto the porky Omnibus Spending Bill?
that was a major promise he made during his campaign,
will he disappoint the people who voted for him.
that was a major promise he made during his campaign,
will he disappoint the people who voted for him.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
where does Obama put his personal millions ?
where does Obama put his personal millions ?
he has made a lot of money from his 2 autobiographies,
which I never bought, is here buying GM . Ford AIG Citcorp stocks ?
he has made a lot of money from his 2 autobiographies,
which I never bought, is here buying GM . Ford AIG Citcorp stocks ?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
First Amendment Under Fire
Senator Jim DeMint (R) South Carolina
First Amendment Under Fire
Senator. DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, said he will offer the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill. The Broadcaster Freedom Act prevents the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Senator DeMint will join Lou tonight.
see more at CNN Lou Dobbs site
First Amendment Under Fire
Senator. DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, said he will offer the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill. The Broadcaster Freedom Act prevents the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Senator DeMint will join Lou tonight.
see more at CNN Lou Dobbs site
what's this cap-and-trade policy bullshit ?
what's this cap-and-trade policy bullshit ?
sounds like Obama new taxes for all businesses, who will merely pass this cost onto the consumer.
looks like tax, walks like a tax, sounds like a tax for everyone to bear.
sounds like Obama new taxes for all businesses, who will merely pass this cost onto the consumer.
looks like tax, walks like a tax, sounds like a tax for everyone to bear.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
California Supreme Court to Hear In-State Tuition Challenge
California Supreme Court to Hear In-State Tuition Challenge
Last fall, a California Appeals Court issued a resounding ruling declaring the state’s policy of granting in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens attending state-run colleges and universities to be unconstitutional. In early January, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and resolve the matter.
The challenge to the California policy was initiated in 2005 by FAIR and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) on behalf of 80,000 U.S. citizen students who were denied the same tuition benefits the state afforded to illegal aliens. The suit, Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, contends that the California law explicitly violates a 1996 federal law which requires states that make in-state benefits available to illegal aliens to make the same benefit available to all U.S. citizens, whether residents of that state or any other state.
The Appeals Court ruling is the first to address the merits of policies that grant in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens. The 84-page ruling declared emphatically that the California policy violates both the equal protection clause and privileges and immunity clause of the U.S. Constitution. Though the ruling in a state court is enforceable only in California, it sets an important legal precedent that will inevitably open the door to challenges of other state policies that grant in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens.
IRLI will continue to play a crucial role in the legal effort to clear the final hurdle of the California Supreme Court and ensure that this important judicial victory for the interests of American citizens is upheld.
Last fall, a California Appeals Court issued a resounding ruling declaring the state’s policy of granting in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens attending state-run colleges and universities to be unconstitutional. In early January, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and resolve the matter.
The challenge to the California policy was initiated in 2005 by FAIR and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) on behalf of 80,000 U.S. citizen students who were denied the same tuition benefits the state afforded to illegal aliens. The suit, Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, contends that the California law explicitly violates a 1996 federal law which requires states that make in-state benefits available to illegal aliens to make the same benefit available to all U.S. citizens, whether residents of that state or any other state.
The Appeals Court ruling is the first to address the merits of policies that grant in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens. The 84-page ruling declared emphatically that the California policy violates both the equal protection clause and privileges and immunity clause of the U.S. Constitution. Though the ruling in a state court is enforceable only in California, it sets an important legal precedent that will inevitably open the door to challenges of other state policies that grant in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens.
IRLI will continue to play a crucial role in the legal effort to clear the final hurdle of the California Supreme Court and ensure that this important judicial victory for the interests of American citizens is upheld.
Foe of Immigration Enforcement Named as Secretary of Labor
Foe of Immigration Enforcement Named as Secretary of Labor
For American workers, 2008 was a disastrous year. The U.S. economy lost nearly 2 million jobs during the last four months alone, and most economists see things getting worse before they get better.
Unfortunately, President Obama’s choice to head the Department of Labor gives millions of unemployed and underemployed American workers little hope of gaining access to the 8 million jobs estimated to be held by illegal aliens or raising wages depressed by cheap foreign labor. In appointing Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) as Secretary of Labor, the president chose an implacable foe of immigration enforcement generally, and specifically enforcement in the workplace. Coupled with the selection of Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, there is little reason to expect either department to vigorously enforce laws against businesses that employ illegal aliens.
During her time in Congress, Solis supported or co-sponsored just about every effort to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and expand the number of foreign guest workers in the U.S. While a member of the California Legislature, Solis fought to provide taxpayer supported benefits and services to illegal aliens and to allow them to obtain driver’s licenses.
In Congress, Rep. Solis has co-sponsored or supported numerous bills that would have harmed American workers, including:
The AgJOBs amnesty, which would have granted green cards to virtually every illegal alien employed in some agriculture-related industry.
The 2007 STRIVE Act, which would have granted amnesty to most illegal aliens in the U.S. In addition, the bill would have allowed an additional 400,000 to 600,000 foreign guest workers to enter the U.S. labor force each year.
The DREAM Act, which would have granted green cards to illegal aliens who entered the country before age 16, and would have granted them subsidized college tuition benefits.
The Department of Labor can play a significant role in preventing the employment of illegal aliens. It is the department’s responsibility to promote “the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment…[and] helping employers find workers.”
While President Obama has embarked on an ambitious jobs creation program to deal with the unemployment crisis, millions of existing jobs could be made available to American workers by enforcing laws against employing illegal aliens. Given Secretary Solis’s long history of siding with illegal aliens, if she is confirmed by the Senate in that position, it will require strong direction from the White House to ensure that the Labor Department fulfills its stated mission.
FAIR will be reaching out to Congress and the new administration to stress the added importance, in this time of economic crisis, of vigorous enforcement against employers who rob American workers of job opportunities and seek to suppress wages. The first test of the Obama administration’s and the Congress’s commitment to protecting American jobs is likely to come in early March when the E-Verify program will need to be reauthorized. (See FAIR op-ed, page 7.)
For American workers, 2008 was a disastrous year. The U.S. economy lost nearly 2 million jobs during the last four months alone, and most economists see things getting worse before they get better.
Unfortunately, President Obama’s choice to head the Department of Labor gives millions of unemployed and underemployed American workers little hope of gaining access to the 8 million jobs estimated to be held by illegal aliens or raising wages depressed by cheap foreign labor. In appointing Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) as Secretary of Labor, the president chose an implacable foe of immigration enforcement generally, and specifically enforcement in the workplace. Coupled with the selection of Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, there is little reason to expect either department to vigorously enforce laws against businesses that employ illegal aliens.
During her time in Congress, Solis supported or co-sponsored just about every effort to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and expand the number of foreign guest workers in the U.S. While a member of the California Legislature, Solis fought to provide taxpayer supported benefits and services to illegal aliens and to allow them to obtain driver’s licenses.
In Congress, Rep. Solis has co-sponsored or supported numerous bills that would have harmed American workers, including:
The AgJOBs amnesty, which would have granted green cards to virtually every illegal alien employed in some agriculture-related industry.
The 2007 STRIVE Act, which would have granted amnesty to most illegal aliens in the U.S. In addition, the bill would have allowed an additional 400,000 to 600,000 foreign guest workers to enter the U.S. labor force each year.
The DREAM Act, which would have granted green cards to illegal aliens who entered the country before age 16, and would have granted them subsidized college tuition benefits.
The Department of Labor can play a significant role in preventing the employment of illegal aliens. It is the department’s responsibility to promote “the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment…[and] helping employers find workers.”
While President Obama has embarked on an ambitious jobs creation program to deal with the unemployment crisis, millions of existing jobs could be made available to American workers by enforcing laws against employing illegal aliens. Given Secretary Solis’s long history of siding with illegal aliens, if she is confirmed by the Senate in that position, it will require strong direction from the White House to ensure that the Labor Department fulfills its stated mission.
FAIR will be reaching out to Congress and the new administration to stress the added importance, in this time of economic crisis, of vigorous enforcement against employers who rob American workers of job opportunities and seek to suppress wages. The first test of the Obama administration’s and the Congress’s commitment to protecting American jobs is likely to come in early March when the E-Verify program will need to be reauthorized. (See FAIR op-ed, page 7.)
Obama does another flip /flop on earmarks?
Obama does another flip /flop , this time on earmarks?
latest federal budget bill currently being debated includes
over 8,600 earmarks.
what the piss?
latest federal budget bill currently being debated includes
over 8,600 earmarks.
what the piss?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)