Where does a trillion dollars go?
So how many of you are actually budget oriented in your house? Do you sit down at the beginning of the month and spend every dollar you have “On paper On purpose” as Dave Ramsey says? Ok, so maybe you do. Do you think that you could do that for a trillion dollars? I doubt it. Any budget that contained that much money to be allocated is certain to have a few “leaks”. You know, where people try to allocate some of the money to an organization or company for a “good” reason… Sooner or later (usually later) we find out that the organization in question has ties back to the progenitor of the disbursement.
In today’s episode, we are looking at the little reported ‘coincidence’ that Senator Diane Feinstein’s (D-Cal.) husband and his firm were recently hired by a firm that strangely enough got a $25 Billion, taxpayer-funded chunk of cash… courtesy of legislation introduced by Senator Feinstein herself. Hmmm…
Now, when you’re looking at a budget (this year) of a trillion dollars (that’s a thousand-billion dollars by the way) 25 billion isn’t really that big of a number. I mean, it’s only 2.5% of the budget, so no big deal. Right?
Well, the story from the Washington Times says that the Senator’s husband Richard Blum sits as a Board Charmain for CB Richard Ellis. CBRE won a contract to sell FDIC insured properties from failed banks. The $25 Billion comes in as a hand-out to the FDIC to pay someone to sell off these properties.
Now, there is always the possibility that this is actually all ‘above-board’ and CBRE really is the best company for the job. I mean, look at some of the no-bid contracts that Halliburton won. They were, without a doubt, the best company for some of the jobs that needed to be done. The stink comes in when the fact that the Senator doesn’t sit on the comittee that oversees the banking industry. It wasn’t really ‘her place’ to be offering this type of legislation.
I was always taught to ‘avoid even the appearance of impropriety’. Sound advice for sure. It doesn’t look like it was applied here, however. I’ll let you be the judge.
You’re from where? Well then, we don’t care what you think.
So today I find myself reading an article about our only (present) female Supreme Court Justice, Ms. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The article appeared in the New York Times and discussed Justice Ginsburg’s propensity for considering foreign law when rendering decisions in cases that come before her. She was discussing these views at Ohio State University as part of a symposium honoring her time as a Justice. (see article here)
Her defense of this practice was stated thusly:
“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a law school professor?”
Well, here’s a reason: Neither of those documents holds any legal value in the Supreme Court of the United States. How about that? An article in a law review could be about anything, written by anyone, and hold firm to any set of standards, depending on the subject and the jurisdiction… so that narrows it down to… well, everything. Just because some law school professor writes it doesn’t mean that it should be given consideration by a Supreme Court Justice as part of their particular jurisprudence. Besides, if law professors are like other types of professors, then there are plenty of stupid, arrogant, self-involved, liberally twisted, loudmouth Law Professors to go around. Hardly a winning combination.
Reason number two? Article III, Section 2 of our Constitution states in part:
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;”
Um, that pretty much explains where the limits lie. The Court is allowed to preside over cases that arise under OUR laws and Constitution. I don’t see anything in those sentences (or the surrounding text) that would give any credence to the ability of a foreign judge of any level to have a say or even the chance of influencing the outcome of a case under US law. Foreign judges consider cases under THEIR laws and are not beholden to the rights that we as US citizens are granted. So, to use their opinions as part of any consideration or citation in a US case before the Supreme Court is at best foolish. Justice Roberts stated it best when he said:
“If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. “And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.”
Amen to that. Foreign law has NO PLACE in the courts of the United States on ANY level, much less the highest level.
Justice Ginsburg says that citing the foreign case and considering oneself bound by it are two different issues. I beg to differ. Why the hell would you bring it up in the first place if you did not feel somehow bound (or at least deferential) to that decision and it’s underlying argument? So what if you like what it says. I like creamed spinach, but I don’t bring it up in discussions on tax policy because I think it should be considered as part of the argument.
During the same appearance, she used the Canadian Supreme Court as an example of a Court that is cited abroad, both widely and frequently. Presumably, that is meant to be a good thing. So people like to quote the Canadians, eh …and your point is?
I don’t live in Canada, or in any of those countries that might feel beholden to the moral values and legal structures of our frozen neighbors to the north. I live in the US, under US law and the US Constitution. (Well, at least for a little while longer.) Her subtending argument for the example of Canada being cited abroad more that the US Supreme Court topped off the touchy-feely, liberally twisted logic. Check out this winner of a quote:
“You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”
HEY, RUTH! You weren’t appointed to the bench to be cited abroad!! We don’t give one sweet rat’s rear what they think of our court system in Bangladesh or Belize. If they want to quote Canada, let ‘em. If they want to climb trees in orange pants while their doing it, good for them. Your job is to apply the US Constitution and the laws derived from it to the cases that are brought to you under the above stated confines of the same document. At the same time, it is not the purpose of the US Supreme Court to attempt to mold the decisions of foreign courts. They have their laws and their own founding beliefs. If they want to cite foreign law, that is their perogative.
This whole issue goes back to the basic liberal tenent that if you’re not getting along with everyone, YOU must be doing something wrong. Anyone who was ever picked on in grade school by a bully knows how sound that logic is… Some people are just jerks and they like it that way. At some point, you have to realize that being the most “popular” person, country or government stopped being important in High School.
Look, if you want to be a US Supreme Court Justice, do it using OUR laws and precedent set in OUR courts. If you want to make a living being quoted around the world, quit your job and go work with Al Gore. He’s a twisted liberal loony toon and people around the world quote him like a god.
“You’re fired.”
I’m sure that most everyone has heard at least a soundbite of “the Trump” relaying his decisive television catchphrase “You’re Fired” on The Apprentice. I wonder, though how many of you have heard it from the office of the President of the United States? My bet is, that unless you are a former cabinet secretary or executive branch department head for the US Government, that you haven’t… and you shouldn’t have.
Does it strike anyone as odd that there has never been (to my admittedly limited knowledge) an instance until last week where the Chief Executive of the US Government has fired anyone in the private sector? It has always been very clearly understood that the private sector was exactly that – Private. The very thought that the President of the US could fire a private citizen from his or her position would have sent the men who signed the Constitution into fits of apoplectic rage. If that power were part of the final draft of the original document, it would have been voted down 13-0 by the states and the guy that wrote it would have been driven from town in tar and feathers. If you’ll remember, just a few years prior, they fought a war to relieve themselves up just such a menace.
Now we are come to the point where the government, by whatever method has enabled itself to exercise that kind of authority over private entities. How did this happen? Well, anyone who is paying any attention at all is beginning to see the end result of government “bailouts”. When an obviously power-hungry government is given partial ownership of anything, for any reason, it begins to exert its “say so” on every aspect of that operation based on politics. Politics itself has a funny way of serving those who employ it before and above those who are targeted by it.
Can any of you provide one instance in history where an financial decision was made better in the free market by the introduction of politics? Let me save you the time. If you think you can, you’re kidding yourself. There is a very good reason that UPS, Fedex and DHL all MAKE money while the US Postal Service LOSES money. Why, when there is a perfectly suitable and sustainable alternative available, does the government of the United States maintain a failing institution like the postal service? Well, it could be two reasons. One obviously more substantive than the other.
First, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that: “The Congress Shall have power… to establish post offices and post roads.” That is a pretty clear reason that the Post Office was started, and it certainly should have been. The question arises, however, does the congress have the power to MAINTAIN a failing government service at the expense of the taxpayers? That question leads to the other reason (and more likely the relevant reason) that the Government maintains this huge drain on the tax base… politics. The Postal Workers are members of a Union, more specifically the American Postal Workers Union. They currently advertise themselves as “The world’s largest Postal Union”. As if that was a bragging point… Congratulations. Perhaps the US Government could advertise itself as the largest collection of constitutionally uneducated buffoons. That would garner up about the same amount of respect and awe. As they have shown in past, unions have MASSIVE power in congress due to the effect that they can have on elections. The reason that the APWU is so powerful is that it is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, which is a “super union” of labor and industrial workers. Therefore, politicians feel the need to ’scratch the back of the Post office” to keep themselves in their office.
If the Postal Service was privatized, it would most likely be downsized, streamlined and completely overhauled. It would also work on a much more demand-based system. Currently, the post office is required to deliver mail to any address in the US. I don’t know that UPS or Fedex suffers under that same requirement… and why should they? If you live in the middle of a plateau in Utah without a house or human neighbor for 100 Miles, that’s your problem, not theirs. If you need communicative services, you’re going to pay a premium. That’s just the way it is. Welcome to the free market, friend.
Getting back to the free market, any CEO worth his salt and looking to keep his job will serve the best interests of the shareholders of the company. In many instances, that also includes the people that work for that company, not just the management. When the President exercises his authority over a private entity rather than the people who have invested their money, the best interest of the shareholders is entirely negated. In effect, all of their investment has been seized by the government and re-purposed however the president and/or congress sees fit. It’s base theft, really. Now the congress and the Pres are going to say: “When they took bailout money, they gave us the right to do this.” Hmmm. That sounds like a fantastic reason to never have started this bailout garbage in the first place.
Another instance of where politics will trump market based decisions is the pending elimination of many of the most popular styles of cars made by GM. SUVs and trucks are the bread and butter of those companies because people LOVE them. They are more versatile than a mini-van and provide a better view of the road than a standard sedan. The gas milage is much better than it used to be and they are comfortable to drive. So why get rid of them? Politics. The left is totally invested in the “Global Warming” theory and any piece of machinery that is deemed “bad” by the greenies has to go, regardless of the effect on business or the desires of the population. Politics has now killed the company. Left with nothing but unpopular, small, and decidedly less versatile cars is going to cripple the car market. Kill, probably not. Americans have this uncanny ability to prosper and innovate in spite of obstacles. Who knows, we may actually see a better thing than the SUV in the future… assuming that the government doesn’t squash it first.
Politics and politicians claim to serve the greater interest, but more often they serve the interests of the greater contributors. Companies that exist to make a profit (except in cases of fraud) serve all who are connected with them. Investors make money when the company prospers, more people are hired to do the work of the company, the vendors that serve the company do more business and so forth. When politicians pierce this realm and inject politics, the benefits are reversed and stop at the doors to the capital.
The power that our government (mainly in the form of the Democrat Party) is exercising is that of a tyrant and dictator. Hugo Chavez is engaged in the same type of private-sector nationalization as we speak. He’s an avowed communist.
This should scare the hell out of every person that loves freedom, regardless of race, creed or political background. Liberty to live your life as you choose is fundamental to the survival of this nation. Without it, we will slip into the flailing abyss of powerless dependency, living at the mercy of those who make their living off of governance. The first politcial volley has been fired at the heart of our prosperity. Every good Patriot must now hold the line and return fire in the form of their voice and their vote. We, who hold the Constitution dear, are the flank of the Nation’s well-being. We cannot retreat, we cannot fall back. This cannot merely be another delaying action. If we do not hold, the entirety of the principles that founded this nation will be rolled up and tossed back in utter chaos. Recognize the danger, reconcile yourself to the task and dig in. The left is coming, and they must be repulsed at all costs.