Holy Sh@t, what did you do America??

[linemanpaul]

Change my ass, this man is a student of history

[linemanpaul]

And now for something completely different








For the rest, here you go
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/03/...ay-funnies-33/

[Jesse Hodge]

Wow! There are a lot of "I will" statements in his agenda.

How does he know what WILL happen?

I had no idea he was a prophet!

Perhaps he really IS the messiah!

I've decided to quit doing anything cause Obama will take care of my every need and want. Some rich guy will pay for it. It's not my concern any more.

[linemanpaul]

This says it all

[linemanpaul]

Serve Your Country and get SCREWED by the Pacifist in Chief

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate '... to care for him who shall have borne the battle...' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."

Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.

"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.

"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.

The American Legion :: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

[Jesse Hodge]

LMAO!!!

"Pacifist in Chief"

Well, he's certainly not pacifist to anyone who might be a true capitalist.

How did I hear it put....

President Obama is no longer waging the war on terror, he's waging a war on capitalism...

something like that.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Jesse Hodge

LMAO!!!

"Pacifist in Chief"

Well, he's certainly not pacifist to anyone who might be a true capitalist.

How did I hear it put....

President Obama is no longer waging the war on terror, he's waging a war on capitalism...

something like that.

You heard that all right. Larry Kudlow (for one) said:

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget. He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

[ckn]

Originally Posted by linemanpaul

Serve Your Country and get SCREWED by the Pacifist in Chief



The American Legion :: The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

I don't understand how that works. So, the VA gets the ex-soldiers the treatment they need then bills the private insurance firms. What if an ex-soldier doesn't have private healthcare?

I'm not being difficult here, I just don't understand how it works...

[linemanpaul]

This may clear it up a little

" There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."

[ckn]

Originally Posted by linemanpaul

This may clear it up a little

Thanks but... what happens if an ex-soldier is one of the millions in the USA without private healthcare insurance? Some soldiers are leaving with long-term ongoing health problems that require continuous expensive healthcare and will not get affordable coverage by any healthcare provider.

Do they not get treatment or is it just those with insurance that are recharged? If it's the latter then expect a lot of insurance companies to start giving huge increases in insurance premium prices for ex-soldiers, especially those with pre-existing conditions.

Either way, it's shoddy treatment of the armed forces.

[linemanpaul]

Originally Posted by ckn

Thanks but... what happens if an ex-soldier is one of the millions in the USA without private healthcare insurance? Some soldiers are leaving with long-term ongoing health problems that require continuous expensive healthcare and will not get affordable coverage by any healthcare provider.

Do they not get treatment or is it just those with insurance that are recharged? If it's the latter then expect a lot of insurance companies to start giving huge increases in insurance premium prices for ex-soldiers, especially those with pre-existing conditions.

Either way, it's shoddy treatment of the armed forces.

This a way for the Administration to further along it's Nationalizing of a substantial part of the USA's GDP by Nationalizing Healthcare by using Combat Veterans as pawns to make a case for their agenda, one can only wonder how this kind of SCUM sleeps at night.

[linemanpaul]

Anyone that thinks we are safe and protected by this Administration, YOU ARE FUCKING CRAZY!!!

Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Janet Napolitano: Islamic Terrorism Not Politically Correct; Preffers To Call It "Man-Caused Disaster"
George Orwell was not only a brilliant author -- he was a true prophet.


INTERVIEW WITH HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY JANET NAPOLITANO

'Away From the Politics of Fear'

Janet Napolitano, 51, is President Obama's new Homeland Security Secretary. She spoke with a reporter from the German newspaper DER SPIEGEL about immigration, the continued threat of terrorism and the changing tone in Washington.

Transsylvania Phoenix: Janet Napolitano: Islamic Terrorism Not Politically Correct; Preffers To Call It "Man-Caused Disaster"

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

The complete interview here

Interview with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano: 'Away From the Politics of Fear' - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International



Say "Liberal" and flush the toilet.
Man-made disasters do exist: like the American sheeple electing a super-majority of corrupt socialist liberals in the Legislative, then electing a disciple of Saul Alinsky and friend of the domestic terrorist Bill Ayers as President of the United States of America.

[linemanpaul]

Maybe if the 535 Assholes in Congress knew what they approved by their votes, and the Idiot at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave signed, we would not be in this situation we are in. They rewarded AIG for being a Successful Failure with billions and billions of taxpayer dollars and now they were made to look as the fools they are all 536 of them

Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses


WASHINGTON – Talking tougher by the hour, livid Democrats confronted beleaguered insurance giant AIG with an ultimatum Tuesday: Give back $165 million in post-bailout bonuses or watch Congress tax it away with emergency legislation. Republicans declared the Democrats were hardly blameless, accusing them of standing by while the bonus deal was cemented and suggesting that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner could and should have done more. While the White House expressed confidence in Geithner, it was clearly placing the responsibility for how the matter was handled on his shoulders.

Geithner sent a letter late Tuesday to congressional leaders informing them that he was working with the Justice Department to determine whether any of the AIG payments could be recovered. He cited a provision in the recent economic stimulus law that gave him authority to review compensation to the highest-paid employees of companies that already have received federal assistance.

Fresh details, meanwhile, pushed outrage over AIG ever higher: New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo reported that 73 company employees received bonus checks of $1 million or more last Friday. This at a company that was failing so spectacularly that the government felt the need to prop it up with a $170 billion bailout.

The financial bailout program remains politically unpopular and has been a drag on Barack Obama's new presidency, even though the plan began under his predecessor, George W. Bush. The White House is well aware of the nation's bailout fatigue — anger that hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have gone to prop up financial institutions that made poor decisions, while many others who have done no wrong pay the price.

White House officials, for the first time, on Tuesday night said Geithner told the White House about the bonus payments last Thursday, and senior aides informed the president later that day. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal details of the timeline involving AIG.

The administration wouldn't be pleased to hear what Maria Panza-Villa, of Hillsboro, Ore., had to say. "Wasn't Obama supposed to fix this?" asked the mother of two who said she has lost three jobs since November as one employer after another went under.

AIG chief executive Edward Liddy can expect a verbal pummeling Wednesday when he testifies before a House subcommittee.

On Capitol Hill late Tuesday, House Democrats directed three powerful committees to come up with legislation this week to authorize Attorney General Eric Holder to recover massive bonus payments made by companies like the ones paid last week by American International Group Inc.

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, suggested that if the AIG executives had any integrity, they would return the $165 million in bonus money. One leading Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, even suggested they might honorably kill themselves, then said he didn't really mean it.

Whatever the process, lawmakers of all stripes said, the money — generally "retention payments" to keep prized employees — belongs back in the government's hands.

"Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," declared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in an unusually strong threat delivered on the Senate floor.

"If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," echoed Chuck Schumer of New York.

Not all Democratic leaders were racing in that direction. Penalizing people with the tax code could be inappropriate, declared Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the taxwriting Ways and Means Committee. He said, "It's difficult for me to think of the code as a political weapon."

Others saw the connection as reasonable and relevant. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., noted that the government, through the bailout, is now an 80 percent owner of the company and suggested that was grounds to sue to recover the bonuses.

Republicans said Obama and his administration should have leaned harder on AIG executives to reject the extra pay, raising some speculation over Geithner's future.

"I don't know if he should resign over this," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. "He works for the president of the United States. But I can tell you, this is just another example of where he seems to be out of the loop. Treasury should have let the American people know about this."

The administration quickly moved to quash talk of Geithner's ouster. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama retains full confidence in his treasury secretary.

And White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel categorically dismissed to The Associated Press any suggestion that Geithner is in trouble.

On Capitol Hill, there was a daylong rush to the microphones — a bipartisan campaign to out-outrage each other.

Grassley led the stampede with a statement Monday night on a radio show that AIG executives should either return the money or commit suicide in what he described as the Japanese style of taking responsibility. He spent much of Tuesday backtracking but still calling for corporate titans to take responsibility for grievous errors in judgment.

Other Republicans said Democratic leaders last month killed a plan that would have forced financial institutions to compensate taxpayers if they paid their executives large bonuses after receiving federal bailout money.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, a co-sponsor of the amendment to Obama's stimulus bill, said striking it "left open an escape hatch of golden parachutes for top executives on Wall Street."

AIG has received more than $170 billion from U.S. taxpayers. With bailouts in hand, AIG has paid out tens of billions of dollars to banks, municipal governments and other financial institutions around the world.

AIG is no stranger to controversy, nor is it the only publicly rescued company to give bonuses while being bailed out of financial ruin.

Merrill Lynch paid $3.6 billion in bonuses to its executives while its sale to Bank of America Corp., a big recipient of bailout money, was pending.

Morgan Stanley also came under fire Tuesday. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., urged Geithner to halt retention awards planned by the company's joint brokerage venture with Citigroup. Both firms have received billions of dollars in government bailout funds. Morgan Stanley is reportedly planning to pay its brokers up to $3 billion in retention payments — a spokeswoman said the program amounts to a nine-year loan — to keep them from jumping to other firms.

Cuomo said AIG last week paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, including 11 who no longer work there. Despite their company contracts, the AIG employees agreed to take 2009 salaries of $1 in exchange for receiving their bonus packages, he said.

Administration officials said Geithner did all that he legally could to avert the payments.

Geithner urged AIG's Liddy last week to renegotiate the contracts that called for the bonuses.

"He recognized that you can't just abrogate contracts willy-nilly, but he moved to do what could be done," Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, told the AP in an interview Tuesday.

In his letter to congressional leaders, Geithner said that any bonus payments that Treasury cannot recoup will be recovered by requiring AIG to repay the Treasury an amount equal to the remaining bonuses. He said Treasury also will deduct an amount equal to the payments from AIG's latest $30 billion credit line from the government.

Though AIG's bonus plans were disclosed last year, Congress' outrage and threats have begun pouring forth only recently.

At least three Democratic bills and one Republican measure were introduced to crack down on the Treasury Department and stiffen rules for recipients of bailout funds. Two bills in the House aimed to impose a 100 percent tax on the bonuses.

In the Senate, the top two members of the Senate Finance Committee — a Republican and Democrat — announced a proposal to impose a 35 percent excise tax on the companies paying the bonuses and a 35 percent excise tax on the employees receiving them.

The Internal Revenue Service currently withholds 25 percent from bonuses less than $1 million and 35 percent for bonuses more than $1 million.

The Obama administration said it was trying to put strict limits on how future government bailout dollars could be used, and Reid on Tuesday said he urged the administration to step up its pace on that.

Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses

[linemanpaul]

Someone is in the dog house

Dodd facing fresh political firestorm


Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm.

Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward – after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. .

“We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill,” Dodd told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.

“But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.”

Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodd’s spokeswoman denied the senator’s involvement.

The AIG bonuses have caused a political firestorm, with Republicans and Democrats alike looking to lay blame for who’s responsible, and leading lawmakers looking to revoke the bonuses.

Dodd’s role in the legislation will likely come up as he faces the likelihood of a tough re-election. Former GOP congressman Rob Simmons announced he was running this week, and has already taken issue with Dodd’s stewardship as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Dodd facing fresh political firestorm

[linemanpaul]

Another TOOL, signing legislation that the People oppose

New Mexico gov signs bill banning death penalty



SANTA FE, N.M. – Gov. Bill Richardson signed legislation Wednesday repealing New Mexico's death penalty, making it the second state to ban executions since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976.

Richardson, a Democrat who formerly supported capital punishment, said signing the bill was the "most difficult decision" of his political life.

"Faced with the reality that our system for imposing the death penalty can never be perfect, my conscience compels me to replace the death penalty with a solution that keeps society safe," Richardson told a news conference in the state Capitol.

The most severe punishment now will be a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

By signing the measure, New Mexico joins 14 other states that do not impose capital punishment. New Jersey, in 2007, was the first and only other state to outlaw capital punishment since its reinstatement by the Supreme Court.

New Mexico has executed one person since 1960, child killer Terry Clark in 2001.

The sentences of two men currently on death row will not be affected by the new law.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and former President Jimmy Carter were among those who urged Richardson to sign the bill.

The New Mexico Sheriffs' and Police Association opposed repealing the death penalty, saying capital punishment deters violence against police officers, jailers and prison guards. District attorneys also opposed the legislation, arguing that the death penalty was a useful prosecutorial tool.

New Mexico was one of several states considering repealing the death penalty this year.

In Kansas, a bill failed to clear the Senate this week.

New Mexico gov signs bill banning death penalty - Yahoo! News

[linemanpaul]

Congress playing the role of Pontius Pilate

Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Most Disgusting Congressional Reactions To AIG

If you asked me a week ago I would have said that Congress had sunk as low as humanly possible, but I was wrong. The last 72 hours the as the United States Congress has reacted to the AIG "issue" they have proven themselves to be the most intellectually dishonest, narcissistic legislative body in history.

Here are some of the most disgusting examples:

* Today Barney Frank Asked Edward Liddy to turn over the names of the people who recived bonuses. When Liddy responded that he would if Frank would promise to keep them secret, he refused. When Liddy gave the said he wanted to keep the names secret because his "people" and their families had been threatened with things such as being choked to death with piano wire, Frank just looked at him and said I am not convinced.

* Chuck Schumer made a speech in front of the cameras yesterday. He spoke about how outraged America is about the bonuses. Those bonuses represent less than 3/10 of one percent of the 78 Billion the US taxpayers gave AIG. Wasn't Chuck the guy who defended all the pork in the stimulus bill? America doesn't care about pork?



* How about Chris Dodd? Maybe the Senator should return the $104 thousand dollars in AIG campaign donations before he calls for the AIG workers to return their bonuses. After all it he was the guy who put the little item in the Omnibus bill that allowed people to keep their bonuses.

* Then there's the most embarrassing display at today's hearings Mr. Nasty, Congressman Steven Lynch who blamed Liddy for everything that happened before he came out of retirement and accepted a volunteer position at AIG.



Congressman Stephen Lynch says, "I agree with Chairman Frank we should probably try to challenge this as shareholders on behalf of the American people. do you have anything to say for yourself?"
Liddy replies, "These contracts were all put together before I was at AIG. I would not have done these contracts this way. So I really do sir, I take offense sir at the use of the word... "
Lynch interrupts, "Well offense was intended so you take it rightfully."

Those are pretty strong words for Lynch who placed almost $36,000,000 of earmarks in the latest Omnibus bill, including several for clients of The PMA Group, the lobbying firm being investigated for the FBI.

Folks today's show in the congressional hearing room was nothing short of embarrising, in fact the past 72 hours have been disgusting. Our congressional representitives wasted a day of their time and Mr Liddy's time, just so they deflect critisism from the real culprets CONGRESS. And they did it in the worst possible way, acting like mean bastards to a guy who volunteered to help rescue AIG and get the American people back our $78 billion dollars. Proving once again that old adage "The Opposite of pro is con, the opposite of progress is..."

YID With LID: The Most Disgusting Congressional Reactions To AIG

[wil]

Originally Posted by linemanpaul

Maybe if the 535 Assholes in Congress knew what they approved by their votes, and the Idiot at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave signed, we would not be in this situation we are in. They rewarded AIG for being a Successful Failure with billions and billions of taxpayer dollars and now they were made to look as the fools they are all 536 of them

Livid Democrats demand AIG return bailout bonuses

Not all 536 are a-holes. For one, I know that my representative Todd Platts voted against the bailout.

And there were only 3 republicans (Olympia Snowe (ME), Susan Collins (ME) and Arlen coughdouchebagcough Specter (PA)) who voted for the stimulus.

[linemanpaul]

The Pacifist got Bitch Slapped, DO NOT FUCK WITH THE BRAVE!!!

Obama backtracks on veterans' insurance
By JEN DIMASCIO | 3/18/09 5:57 PM EDT


President Barack Obama reversed course Wednesday on a highly charged proposal to have private insurance companies, instead of the Veterans Affairs Department, pay for veterans' service-related injuries.

The proposed policy shift was aimed at recouping $540 million, but it risked souring goodwill of veterans, an enormous political constituency. And veterans groups, learning of the possibility last month, had quickly mobilized to oppose it.

Eleven veterans' service organizations met the president on Monday, then followed up with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday.

Later, at another meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), they were assured the president had changed his mind, said Jim King, executive director of Amvets.

"Our message to the president was simple and direct: that our government must not abandon its moral responsibility to the men and women who have sacrificed so much for our freedoms," said David Gorman, executive director of Disabled American Veterans.

At the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement confirming the reversal, saying the president had listened closely to the veterans' concerns and ordered the proposal "dropped."

Now, Gibbs said, the president was eager to "continue a constructive partnership" with the veterans' groups as they work through other budget issues.

For Obama, pressing forward would have been politically risky, King suggested, because going to the insurance companies could have had the ultimate effect of curtailing veterans' health care. And doing so would have been seen as "breaking of that bond" of those who served the nation, he said.

With the president backing down, King said, veterans can focus again on Obama's proposal to dramatically increase funding for veterans' health care, which had been overshadowed by the insurance controversy.

Obama backtracks on veterans policy - Jen DiMascio - POLITICO.com

[wil]

Originally Posted by linemanpaul

The Pacifist got Bitch Slapped, DO NOT FUCK WITH THE BRAVE!!!

Obama backtracks on veterans policy - Jen DiMascio - POLITICO.com

Talk about a CYA moment.

[linemanpaul]

Can you smell what Barack is cooking??

March 18, 2009
Obama seeking power to seize troubled companies via “resolution authority”

Posted by: MataHarley @ 4:37 pm in Barack Obama, Economy, Politics, Socialism
Visited 121 times, 121 so far today

When US banks are in trouble, the FDIC is empowered to seize the banks, and dispose of the assets.

Now Obama is fast tracking legislation to create a new regulatory agency - a “resolution authority” to do the same for other “financial institutions” using AIG, and it’s bonus contracts, as the example for it’s need.

AP’s Economic Writer, Martin Crutsinger’s lead paragraph chills one to the bone…

President Barack Obama seeks new powers that would allow his administration to seize troubled companies like the insurer AIG — and take ownership of their toxic assets — if their collapse would threaten the financial system.

Who is the authority who decides if a company’s collapse would “threaten the financial system”? And where does this end?

Specifics on the new entity? But of course not.

“This is part of the broader package of financial regulatory steps that we’re going to be taking that ensures that, going forward in the future, we’re not going to find ourselves in these kinds of terrible positions again,” Obama told reporters before departing on a trip to California.

Administration officials did not provide any details on how the new resolution authority would be financed. That could be a key sticking point in Congress.


The outlines of the Obama administration’s regulatory overhaul package are expected to be unveiled as early as next week, in advance of an April 2 meeting that the president will attend on the financial crisis in London.
~~~

One administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because a detailed plan has not yet been released, said that the proposal would give the treasury secretary the power, after consulting with officials at the Federal Reserve, to take control of a major financial institution and run the company in a type of conservatorship.

They’re only worried about the cost of these new business czars?? Dear god…. And more power in the hands of the Treasury Secretary? Mercy….

And what, pray tell, will they use as parameters defining a “financial institution”?

According to the WSJ report on this new entity, it all seems to stem from Obama and Barney Frank’s outrage at not being able to legally intercede in private contractual issues… i.e., the AIG bonuses.

The president said he spoke with House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank this morning about granting him “resolution authority” similar to the power the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has over the thrifts it regulates. That would allow his administration to potentially abrogate contracts that it can show does not serve the good of newly regulated entities like AIG.

Obama said he needs the regulatory power “to allow us proactively to get out in front, to separate bad assets from good in dealing with contracts that may be inappropriate.”

Frankly, I do not want to set precedents that government has the power to negate contracts made between two willing private parties. And the legal world is just waiting for such an overreach by government.

But is this only for the companies that Congress is busy nationalizing with their sundry bailouts? Hard to tell. Because Obama wants the US public to look even further than federal interference in private contracts, but sees this new entity as a preventative measure for future financial woes…. asking them “to consider broader issues of re-regulating the financial system to prevent the kinds of institutional collapses that have dragged the entire economy down with firms like AIG, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

“We’ve got to have tools that under our legal authority we can do something about this,” Obama said.

Prevention of insitutional collapses. uh oh…

Fast tracked to boot… will this be considered emergency legislation? Wonder if the public will get their five days to view this piece of legislation. Or if the Congress will bother to read the bill.

This new power to “seize” and control liquidation of companies for the good of the country’s economy. You must be joking. But I’m quite sure that back in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is smiling, and giving an approving nod.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/03/...ion-authority/