The new financial regulatory bill of Senator Dodd and Representative Barney Frank is sure to be a big hit. Not with the American people or the financial system; but, with the lawyers. This 2300 page monstrosity contains 533 new laws and regulations for the banking and financial industries to digest and navigate through. The entire system will have to hire and contract more and more lawyers to keep themselves from cracking any legal eggs as they tip-toe through life under the new bill. In effect, the Dodd/Frank bill will do to the banking/financial system what Congress has done to the tax codes: Both confusing and contradictory laws.
I mention the tax codes because tax laws in this country are so complex that if you have any little natty problem on your tax return and you call the IRS for clarification, no one person will actually be able to help you. In fact, if you talk to 10 people at the IRS about the same issue, you will more than likely get 10 different answers.
I find it interesting that we even have the Dodd/Frank bill to begin with. Following the housing collapse and the recession, Congress created a new commission, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in May of 2009, that was supposed to determine the "what's" that created the housing/economic collapse in the first place. Yet, now, we have a bunch of new laws that -- evidently psychic in their creation -- presume to know what the conclusions of that commission will be when it finally issues its report in December.
Even more amazing is that fact that Dodd and Frank, who many believe caused the housing meltdown by their actions on their respective banking committees, were allowed to author the new regulations. More incredible, is the fact that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are being left untouched by congressional Democrats. With few exceptions, most financial experts and economists believe that Freddie and Fannie were the key to the housing crisis and subprime loan debacle. After all, those two government sponsored enterprises collateralize and process about 60% of home mortgages in America, and the vast majority of subprime loans were allowed to exist because of them.
Quite frankly, the Dodd and Frank bill is a hit list of things the Democrats don't like about the banking and financial industry. You might say it is their personal vendetta against the "business" of finance in this country. Nothing in this bill will actually prevent another meltdown. Instead, most of the 533 new laws and the requirement for additional legal consul will only make banking and stock transactions more expensive; and, it is you and I that will pick up the tab for that. Further, the regulations are designed to tighten all forms of lending. In doing so, expect the expansion of small business and corporations to be crippled. Lastly, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, now choked with massive deficit spending, are left alone to continue to push unqualified buyers into homes they can't afford. You can clearly hear the footsteps of another economic collapse approaching.
For all of this, we can thank the consummate team of Chris "Dodge the Blame" Dodd, and Barney "Not So Frank" Frank!
Showing posts with label Chris Dodd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Dodd. Show all posts
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
And, So, The Rats Start Jumping Ship
Politicians have big egos. An electoral loss would be a wrenching blow. To avoid that possibility, we now have a bunch of Democrats who clearly see the writing on the wall and have decided to jump ship and retire.
In just the last 36 hours, 2 Democratic Senators have announced that they will not run again. The first-term Governor of Colorado, Bill Ritter, is quitting because he can't raise money. Most notably, Chris Dodd -- in serious trouble in Connecticut -- is the biggest loss for the Democrats to date. Besides the Senate losses, the Dems have also had four Congressmen decide to retire in 2010, and one Congressman, Parker Griffith of Alabama, is switching parties.
It seems that last year's legislative agenda and those to come in 2010 are clearly intended to be kamakaze in nature. The Democrats, primarily Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, have apparently decided to sacrifice the weakest of the party for their highly liberal, socialist, and so-called progressive agendas. They know that they will never have another chance like this. The fact that they have a majority in both Houses -- with an agenda ramming 60-vote majority in the Senate -- and a far left President at the helm puts them in what can only be described as a political perfect storm enabling them to maximize the destruction of our Democratic and capitalistic society. They also are aware that the chances are extremely slim that the Republicans will ever gain the majority they would need in order to correct any damage that has already been done.
In conclusion, I would expect more to make the decision to retire. However, if enough decide to call it quits, others who may want to stick around, just might start to vote against the Pelosi/Reid/Obama agendas in order to save their jobs. If so, this could be a God send.
In just the last 36 hours, 2 Democratic Senators have announced that they will not run again. The first-term Governor of Colorado, Bill Ritter, is quitting because he can't raise money. Most notably, Chris Dodd -- in serious trouble in Connecticut -- is the biggest loss for the Democrats to date. Besides the Senate losses, the Dems have also had four Congressmen decide to retire in 2010, and one Congressman, Parker Griffith of Alabama, is switching parties.
It seems that last year's legislative agenda and those to come in 2010 are clearly intended to be kamakaze in nature. The Democrats, primarily Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, have apparently decided to sacrifice the weakest of the party for their highly liberal, socialist, and so-called progressive agendas. They know that they will never have another chance like this. The fact that they have a majority in both Houses -- with an agenda ramming 60-vote majority in the Senate -- and a far left President at the helm puts them in what can only be described as a political perfect storm enabling them to maximize the destruction of our Democratic and capitalistic society. They also are aware that the chances are extremely slim that the Republicans will ever gain the majority they would need in order to correct any damage that has already been done.
In conclusion, I would expect more to make the decision to retire. However, if enough decide to call it quits, others who may want to stick around, just might start to vote against the Pelosi/Reid/Obama agendas in order to save their jobs. If so, this could be a God send.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
On Heath Care: Insuring the Uninusured Appears No Longer Important!
Going all the way back to Hilliary-Care in the early 1990's, the push for health care reform in America has always been to inure those -- now 46 million Americans -- who have no health care insurance. Suddenly, with Obama in office and with the Democrats in full-throttle control of our government, the need to insure the uninsured has become less important than totally dismantling our current health care system.
The goal now seems to be for the Democrats to create a single-payer health care system that is run by the government and that will ration health care so that bureaucrats of Washington, D. C. -- not your doctor -- can decide what medical procedures and practices are necessary to keep you alive. That decision won't be based on efficacy but, instead, simply based on cost. In the health care world according to the Democrats, there will be no extraordinary efforts, by either drugs or procedures, to save our lives. The Democrats not only see this as reducing health care costs in this country; but, they also believe it will save Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid by literally shortening the lives of an ever aging population who statistically rack up the largest amount of medical expenses in the last few years of their lives. But, you will never actually hear that from any of them. One of the biggest expenses of Medicare/Social Security is the cost of long-term nursing home care for people being increasingly kept alive "longer" by extraordinary medical practices and drugs.
I know that insuring the uninsured is no longer important because the initial Kennedy-Dodd Senate bill for health care reform only reduced the uninsured population from 46 million to 38 million. So, obviously, the plight of the uninsured is not what's really important to the Democrats. Simply, they want to have complete control of our health care and, subsequently, our lives. Or, better said, control over our deaths.
Nowhere in the Kennedy bill or in the Obama mindset on health care reform are there any plans for tort reform to reduce rapidly rising monetary awards stemming from medical malpractice lawsuits. It is these awards that are, more than anything, pushing up costs. Almost every economics study of health care costs in America have identified malpractice lawsuits as the primary driver behind the rapidly rising costs. By far, we are ten times more the litigious society than any other country in the world. If countries like Britain, France, and Canada had the same malpractice activity as seen in this country, their health care costs would be just as expensive as ours.
To put this fact into perspective, just think about what happens in a court room when a doctor and his insurance company are being sued for supposed malpractice. The lawyer representing the litigant in the malpractice suit won't ever focus on what that doctor did right in providing care to his client. Instead, that lawyer will focus on what the doctor didn't do or should have done in the most perfect of medical worlds. To reinforce that opinion, the lawyer will bring in paid experts to tell the jury what the doctor failed to do. This fact, alone, has driven most doctors in America to protect themselves by initiating every unnecessary test in the world so, that if they do have to go into court, they can testify that they covered all the bases. Besides unnecessary tests, doctors now rely heavily on expensive specialist referrals as a means of covering their rears in the event of any future litigation. That's why health care costs have spiraled out of control. But, the Democrats get a lot a campaign funds from the lawyers and they have no desire to punish these golden geese in order to lower heath care costs. They would rather ration health care than minimize big paydays for the lawyers of America.
If all that health care reform is supposed to do is to cover the uninsured, the task is both simple and cheaply done. All you would have to do is force employers to cover all their employees through some access to lower cost pooled insurance. Then, for those not able to afford insurance, provide private pooled insurance that is partially funded by the taxpayers. Further, make insurance coverage portable so that workers can move from one job to another without losing insurance. As part of this portability requirement, make it illegal for insurers to exclude coverage for anyone who has a pre-existing medical condition.
But, the true fact is that Obama, Kennedy, Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the Democrats could really care less about the uninsured. Their goal is all about government control. And, that's the truth!
The goal now seems to be for the Democrats to create a single-payer health care system that is run by the government and that will ration health care so that bureaucrats of Washington, D. C. -- not your doctor -- can decide what medical procedures and practices are necessary to keep you alive. That decision won't be based on efficacy but, instead, simply based on cost. In the health care world according to the Democrats, there will be no extraordinary efforts, by either drugs or procedures, to save our lives. The Democrats not only see this as reducing health care costs in this country; but, they also believe it will save Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid by literally shortening the lives of an ever aging population who statistically rack up the largest amount of medical expenses in the last few years of their lives. But, you will never actually hear that from any of them. One of the biggest expenses of Medicare/Social Security is the cost of long-term nursing home care for people being increasingly kept alive "longer" by extraordinary medical practices and drugs.
I know that insuring the uninsured is no longer important because the initial Kennedy-Dodd Senate bill for health care reform only reduced the uninsured population from 46 million to 38 million. So, obviously, the plight of the uninsured is not what's really important to the Democrats. Simply, they want to have complete control of our health care and, subsequently, our lives. Or, better said, control over our deaths.
Nowhere in the Kennedy bill or in the Obama mindset on health care reform are there any plans for tort reform to reduce rapidly rising monetary awards stemming from medical malpractice lawsuits. It is these awards that are, more than anything, pushing up costs. Almost every economics study of health care costs in America have identified malpractice lawsuits as the primary driver behind the rapidly rising costs. By far, we are ten times more the litigious society than any other country in the world. If countries like Britain, France, and Canada had the same malpractice activity as seen in this country, their health care costs would be just as expensive as ours.
To put this fact into perspective, just think about what happens in a court room when a doctor and his insurance company are being sued for supposed malpractice. The lawyer representing the litigant in the malpractice suit won't ever focus on what that doctor did right in providing care to his client. Instead, that lawyer will focus on what the doctor didn't do or should have done in the most perfect of medical worlds. To reinforce that opinion, the lawyer will bring in paid experts to tell the jury what the doctor failed to do. This fact, alone, has driven most doctors in America to protect themselves by initiating every unnecessary test in the world so, that if they do have to go into court, they can testify that they covered all the bases. Besides unnecessary tests, doctors now rely heavily on expensive specialist referrals as a means of covering their rears in the event of any future litigation. That's why health care costs have spiraled out of control. But, the Democrats get a lot a campaign funds from the lawyers and they have no desire to punish these golden geese in order to lower heath care costs. They would rather ration health care than minimize big paydays for the lawyers of America.
If all that health care reform is supposed to do is to cover the uninsured, the task is both simple and cheaply done. All you would have to do is force employers to cover all their employees through some access to lower cost pooled insurance. Then, for those not able to afford insurance, provide private pooled insurance that is partially funded by the taxpayers. Further, make insurance coverage portable so that workers can move from one job to another without losing insurance. As part of this portability requirement, make it illegal for insurers to exclude coverage for anyone who has a pre-existing medical condition.
But, the true fact is that Obama, Kennedy, Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the Democrats could really care less about the uninsured. Their goal is all about government control. And, that's the truth!
Saturday, March 21, 2009
$168 Million Bucks That Stop At Obama's Desk
Senator Dodd blames Obama's Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner. The White House says it's Dodd and AIG's fault. Representative Maxine Waters is blaming Dodd, Tim Geithner, and the President (See Video & Audio).
It's almost like a scene out of a Three Stooges' movie with Congress slapping the White House and AIG; the White House slapping Congress and AIG; and Maxine Waters slapping everybody as if she was dragging a stick across the slats of a picket fence. You can take your pick as to which group looks more like Moe, Larry or Curly. But, my bet is that Maxine Waters is more like Moe because she's the smart one out of this whole mess by claiming that the President is out of touch.
If you note, the Republicans are increasingly backing off; letting the Democrats dogfight themselves. The expression "eating their own" would be an understatement.
When it's all said and done, it will be Obama that suffers the most. It was his Treasury Secretary that presented the bailout targets and the specific amounts to Congress. He was even involved in the original TARP bailouts because it was him, Hank Paulson, and Bernanke that worked on all of the bailout monies that were handed out in 2007. Obama certified that past activity of the Bush Administration by hiring Geithner.
Therefore, with Obama as the target, you can easily say "the buck stops here." In this particular case, it's $168 million bucks that are stopping in Obama's face.
What is really interesting is the idea that such a relatively small amount of money (as compared to other "trillions" that Obama is spending) may hurt this President the most. Like someone once said: "I's the little things that matter!"
It's almost like a scene out of a Three Stooges' movie with Congress slapping the White House and AIG; the White House slapping Congress and AIG; and Maxine Waters slapping everybody as if she was dragging a stick across the slats of a picket fence. You can take your pick as to which group looks more like Moe, Larry or Curly. But, my bet is that Maxine Waters is more like Moe because she's the smart one out of this whole mess by claiming that the President is out of touch.
If you note, the Republicans are increasingly backing off; letting the Democrats dogfight themselves. The expression "eating their own" would be an understatement.
When it's all said and done, it will be Obama that suffers the most. It was his Treasury Secretary that presented the bailout targets and the specific amounts to Congress. He was even involved in the original TARP bailouts because it was him, Hank Paulson, and Bernanke that worked on all of the bailout monies that were handed out in 2007. Obama certified that past activity of the Bush Administration by hiring Geithner.
Therefore, with Obama as the target, you can easily say "the buck stops here." In this particular case, it's $168 million bucks that are stopping in Obama's face.
What is really interesting is the idea that such a relatively small amount of money (as compared to other "trillions" that Obama is spending) may hurt this President the most. Like someone once said: "I's the little things that matter!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
