Senate Passes $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill

on Sunday. Since when have they been this hard-working?

On the 57-35 vote, the U.S. Senate approved $1.1 trillion spending bill on Sunday and sent the bill to Obama to sign.

Senate sends $1.1 trillion spending bill to Obama
(12/13/09 AP via Yahoo Finance)

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Sunday passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill with increased budgets for vast areas of the federal government, including health, education, law enforcement and veterans' programs.

"The more-than-1,000-page package, one of the last essential chores of Congress this year, passed 57-35 and now goes to President Barack Obama for his signature.

"The weekend action underlined the legislative crush faced by Congress as it tries to wind up the year. After the vote, the Senate immediately returned to the debate on health care legislation that has consumed its time and energy for weeks. Senate Democrats hope to reach a consensus in the coming days on Obama's chief domestic priority.

"The spending bill combines six of the 12 annual appropriation bills for the 2010 budget year that began Oct. 1. Obama has signed into law five others.

"The final one, a $626 billion defense bill, will be used as the base bill for another catch-all package of measures that Congress must deal with in the coming days. Those include action to raise the $12.1 trillion debt ceiling and proposals to stimulate the job market."

Here are some items in the bill I gleaned out of the article:

• $447 billion for departmental operating budgets(the departments are part of the Executive Branch of the government) - 10% increase over last year;
• $640 billion for federal benefit programs (Medicare, Medicaid);
• 2 % pay raise for federal workers.

The average pay of the federal workers is $71,206, with those workers receiving 6-figure compensations dramatically increasing. In contrast, the average pay of the private sector is $40,331. (Read this article on USA Today, on 12/11/09.) That means federal workers earn, on average, 76.6% more than private sector workers.

So, with $1.1 trillion just for federal government spending, and $626 billion defense bill still to come, the total is already $1.726 trillion. And the Congressional Democrats want to raise the debt limit by $1.8 trillion so that they can avoid an embarrassing situation of having to raise that again in the election year. Good luck with that.

Here's an interesting chart I created by changing parameters from the original chart at usgovernmentspending.com. It is a chart of the government's deficit spending as percentage of national GDP, since 1792. Notice four sharp spikes; they correspond to war-time spending - Civil War, World War I, and World War II, except the current one. The current deficit spending binge has already surpassed the Civil War level, and approaching the World War I level. It looks it would take a gargantuan effort for the President to match FDR, but never say never, particularly when he has a self-proclaimed expert on the Great Depression as the Federal Reserve chairman.



Well I guess you could say the current one is also a war-time spending. The U.S. are indeed still fighting a war in Iraq, another one in Afghanistan, another covert one in Pakistan, and may set to embark on yet another (Iran, anyone?). You could say also that the government is waging war against its own citizens by rapidly eroding what remains of civil liberty and free market.

Tweet

Matt Taibbi Still Does't Get It.

I stand corrected. Matt Taibbi is nowhere near swallowing the red pill of the reality-based world.

I've read his entire article "Obama's Big Sellout" which I linked in my last post, and my conclusion is that he still doesn't get it, or I should say he refuses to get it for one reason or another. (One good reason could be that his career as a widely-read liberal journalist would be in jeopardy.)

There are some curious omissions and unconnected dots in the article.

In discussing the financial reform, Taibbi mentions the Federal Reserve only once. And when he does, it is to say the Federal Reserve is left exposed to future Citi losses, as if the Federal Reserve is one of the victims of Citi. The Federal Reserve has been the enabler of its member banks who took on huge risks with the secure knowledge that the Fed would be there to backstop them anyway. Taibbi completely ignores this aspect of the financial crisis that we have had.

He doesn't even mention the name Ben Bernanke at all, while he names everybody else - Bush, Obama, McCain, Greenspan, Geithner, Paulson, Rubin, Summers, etc. No reference to the architect of the unprecedented rescue of the nation's (and the world's) biggest banks at the expense of the U.S. taxpayers.

He is also completely silent about the Audit the Fed amendment that was attached to the financial reform bill. The amendment's (and the original bill's) author, Ron Paul, is not mentioned at all.

Toward the end of the piece, Taibbi takes a swipe at "Republican teabaggers" he snicker at and disparages, as "idiots". For one, I am not so sure they are all "Republicans" with a capital R. Taibbi despises those who descended on Washington D.C in September to protest against a wide array of Obama's policies - from Af-Pak war and Gitmo, gun control, immigration, health care "reform", to bankster bailout and Chrysler/GM bailout.

But no matter. He chooses to box it as anti-health care reform demonstration. And one of the reason why he thinks these "teabaggers" are stupid is really stupid on its own, showing his complete inability to connect the dots.

He says, "They are here to protest Obama's "socialist" health care bill — you know, the one that even a bloodsucking capitalist interest group like Big Pharma spent $150 million to get passed."

Hey Matt, why do you think the bloodsucking capitalist interest group like Big Pharma spent mega bucks like that? Because they stand to benefit greatly from the passage of this so-called reform! Duh. Haven't you read about a secret White House meeting between the administration and Big Pharma? It was reported on Huffington Post. Or is that another thing you can't admit you've read?

The financial reform bill which just past the House is very likely to have been written by outside interests, and Taibbi seems to admit as much. But so is this government's health care bill, so is the climate bill. And those outside interests are not the U.S. taxpayers, Democrat or Republican, or Independent.

He then describes a chat he had with one of the "teabaggers" who, according to him, knew nothing about financial reform (I'm not so sure about that). But do his fellow Democratic supporters of health care reform by the government know anything about financial reform? Does he himself know about health care reform, by the way? Did he talk to people who carried the placard condemning the government bailout of Wall Street? If he did, he chose not to tell us, because that would negate his whole thesis that "teabaggers" are ignorant and idiotic.

He depicts "teabaggers" as Republicans, middle-aged whites who can't stand a black guy in the White House. Excuse me, Matt, but did you not know, or did you choose to ignore, exactly whose votes were instrumental in electing your idol? It was whites, more likely to be middle-age, middle-class (i.e. taxpayers) and seniors, who thought voting for Obama would redress the past injuries and injustice done to African Americans in the past.

Now who's the idiot here? I don't think it's the "teabaggers".

It gets worse toward the end of the article. Instead of placing the blame squarely on Obama, he, like many left-leaning pundits (like her, but at least she gets the health care "reform" issues right), makes excuse for Obama by saying "Oh it's his advisers who are to blame, and Obama should fire them as soon as possible." Ummm, Obama specifically put "sniveling, low-rent shitheads" (as Taibbi describes them in the article) in their respective positions, because he wants them there. And he keeps them there because he likes the results he's getting. Then, Taibbi comes up with the ultimate blame. He blames "us": "Maybe it's our fault, for thinking he was different".

Don't blame more than half the country who didn't even vote for your idol, Matt. They are not your "we".

Tweet

Matt Taibbi: Obama's Big Sellout (Or Bait and Switch)

Matt Taibbi is slowly waking up from kool-aid he drank...

Obama's Big Sellout (Matt Taibbi, 12/9/09 Rolling Stones)

"Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers "at the expense of hardworking Americans." Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it's not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.

"Then he got elected.

"What's taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.

"How could Obama let this happen? Is he just a rookie in the political big leagues, hoodwinked by Beltway old-timers? Or is the vacillating, ineffectual servant of banking interests we've been seeing on TV this fall who Obama really is?

Taibbi's naïveté is almost painful to see. He tries his best to forget that Obama was a strong supporter of the $700 billion bank bailout bill of 2008. He doesn't mention that Wall Street bankers, including those at Vampire Squid (aka Goldman Sachs), were big campaign contributors for Obama. He even calls Candidate Obama a "genuine outsider". Obama was a first-term U.S. Senator when he was nominated as the Democratic candidate. Before that, he was an Illinois state senator. I wouldn't call him a "genuine outsider". Obama has been immersed in left liberal politics all his adult life, from community organizing level all the way to the presidency. Taibbi fails to mention also that this "outsider" is a multi-millionaire for having written, supposedly, an autobiographical memoir before the age of 34. That's one "man of the people". What kind of people Taibbi is talking about, I haven't a clue.

The article continues:

"Whatever the president's real motives are, the extensive series of loophole-rich financial "reforms" that the Democrats are currently pushing may ultimately do more harm than good. In fact, some parts of the new reforms border on insanity, threatening to vastly amplify Wall Street's political power by institutionalizing the taxpayer's role as a welfare provider for the financial-services industry. At one point in the debate, Obama's top economic advisers demanded the power to award future bailouts without even going to Congress for approval — and without providing taxpayers a single dime in equity on the deals.

"How did we get here? It started just moments after the election — and almost nobody noticed."

Well, I think I can guess what it was without further reading the article. I noticed. Many traders noticed. It's the special bailout of Citigroup, announced on November 23, 2008. The rumor of it must have leaked on November 21 Friday, because that's the day another collapse of the stock market since Obama's election (more than 2000 points slide on Dow Jones Industrial Average in 12 trading days) was finally arrested. Now am I right?

"'Just look at the timeline of the Citigroup deal," says one leading Democratic consultant. "Just look at it. It's fucking amazing. Amazing! And nobody said a thing about it."

"Barack Obama was still just the president-elect when it happened, but the revolting and inexcusable $306 billion bailout that Citigroup received was the first major act of his presidency."

Yup. I was right. It is very telling, isn't it? Equally telling as the first major act of his presidency after the inauguration, which was to bomb Pakistan with killer drones. (And he was awarded Nobel Peace Prize.)

The entire article is about 10 pages long, and available as a convenient printer-friendly version by following the link above.

Welcome, Matt, to the real world. Take your red pill. Better late than never.

Tweet

Ron Paul Votes Against His Own Amendment

to be exact, against the bill that contains his own amendment.

Ron Paul votes against his own amendment
(Robert Rule, 12/11/09 Examiner.com San Francisco) [emphasis is mine]

"Congressman Ron Paul (R Texas) is the last true statesman. Want proof, the Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate fought more than twenty years to finally create an amendment to fully audit the Federal Reserve, which is the main cause of the present financial crisis.

"The Audit the Fed bill was accepted as an amendment to a larger bill, the Wall Street Regulatory Overhaul. Even though the congressman’s bill was attached he could not in good faith vote for the larger legislation. Imagine a country full of men like that. Imagine just having 100 representatives like that.

"The legislation will now go to the Senate for a vote. Ron Paul said “I have no clout in Congress, it was the people (grass roots) who made this happen.” A good guess would be that the Senate will try to take this amendment out. Reportedly, Senator’s are a little closer to those at the Fed than Congressman. It will be up to the people once again to make sure this amendment sticks if the larger bill is passed." (The article continues.)

I had suspected that Dr. Paul would do exactly what he just did. In good conscience he couldn't have voted for the larger bill, H.R. 4173 "The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009", which will create another federal bureaucratic monstrosity called Consumer Financial Protection Agency and will give the federal government unprecedented authority to seize a private entity which it deems to be of a threat to the greater economy, even before the threat becomes real. And of course that "threat" is defined by the government.

Sound familiar to you? It should, because that's the Bush doctrine of preemptive strike even if the threat is not there. All this government needs is a possibility of a threat that it may jeopardize the system sometime in the indeterminate future.

Are we entering the Greater Depression, contrary to what Obama said ("we avoided the depression" he averred the other day), where the government is set to control every single aspect of our economic life to "save us from ourselves", so to speak? From our capitalist mentality that a free market gives us prosperity, from our (dwindling majority, maybe) deeply ingrained belief that we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps?

Tweet

Congressional Dems to Raise Debt Limit by $1.8 Trillion

Why even bother setting a limit?

Currently, the debt limit is at $12,104 billion. The Congressional Democrats want to raise it by $1,800 billion (or if you prefer, $1.8 trillion) to $$13,904 billion, a 15% increase over the current limit.

(Source: "The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases" April 7, 2009, Congressional Research Service)

According to Politico's article, "Dems to lift debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion, fear 2010 backlash" (12/9/09) (Politico, by the way, is the latest target of dissing campaign by the thin-skinned White House), of that $1.8 trillion, over 60% of that will be appropriated in the very near future, like within this year:

• $636.4 billion Pentagon appropriations bill
• $446.8 billion year-end package covering more than a dozen Cabinet departments and agencies and representing a healthy 9 percent to 10 percent increase over current spending for the same accounts.

There you go. 60.2% of the debt ceiling increase is gone with just these two bills to pay for the ever-expanding government.

Add to that the unused portion (majority) of the February stimulus bill, which so far has preserved about 600,000 jobs including 3 in Hillary Clinton-related PR firms that received nearly $6 million. The government's official accounting method is cash accounting, even though they do keep books using accrual method. Cash accounting doesn't account for money unless it is actually spent. When that bulk of stimulus money hit Main Street, as is planned right now for 2010, you can pretty much kiss the new debt ceiling goodbye much sooner than Congressional Democrats are hoping.

According to Politico, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told Politico "We’ve incurred this debt. We have to pay our bills."

Who are "we"? I have a feeling that "we" in his first sentence is different from the "we" in his second sentence. The correct sentences would be: We the Congress and the Government have incurred this debt. We the taxpayers of the United States have to pay Congress's bills.

Tweet

Climategate: Gore Falsifies the Record

or he misspoke. (Ooo I hate that word.)

This from Andrew Bolt of Australia's Herald Sun, regarding Slate magazine's Q&A with Al Gore over global warming, those pesky leaked emails, and his new book (what a surprise). Andrew Bolt has other excellent posts on global warming and the "Climategate".

(Remember that Australia's Senate voted down the government's bill on carbon trading recently, partly thanks to the "Climategate" emails.)

Climategate: Gore falsifies the record (12/9/09, Herald Sun, Australia)
[emphasis is original]

"Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle:

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.

" And in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue:

Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.

"In fact, thrice denied:

These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R.
dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.

"In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 - just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.

"How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?"


It's Newspeak, Mr. Bolt. "One month ago" means "10-years ago", and "two months ago" means "more than 10 years ago", by imperious Al Gore's decree. Well, Mr. Gore has a lot depending on the global consensus on global warming and implementation of cap and trade globally.

What I want to ask in addition is this: Since when is the validity of science determined by consensus?

If the age of the planet earth had been determined by the consensus, it would have stayed at 100 million years, the number mathematically derived by the very influential and brilliant physicist (Lord Kelvin). For the next three decades, it stayed that way during which scientists tried their best to come up with the evidence that would justify Lord Kelvin's conclusion. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

This brilliant conclusion about the age of the planet, agreed upon by most scientists, was rudely overturned by empirical evidence: Discovery of radioactivity that threw a monkey wrench into Lord Kelvin's meticulous calculation on thermodynamics. (For more, please read the article by David Deming, titled "Global Warming and the Age of the Earth: A Lesson on the Nature of Scientific Knowledge", 12/3/09 Lewrockwell.com)

But the age of the planet didn't affect nation's GDP or welfare of the nation's inhabitants the way this idea of global warming is going to affect.

Mr. Gore, himself a non-scientist, seems to have decided science should be run like politics - compromise, consensus, arm-twisting, silencing the opponent, outspending the opponent to win the race. And partly thanks to people like Mr. Gore, science, particularly climate science, has become exactly that: a branch of politics.

Another thing I want to ask is about Slate: Were they also unaware that the emails were as recent as a month ago? Or are they taking part in perpetuating this new myth created by Al Gore that those emails were "more than 10 years ago"?

Tweet

CO2 Is a Dangerous Pollutant

so declared the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday.

The agency is dutifully doing the bidding of the administration just in time for the Copenhagen climate summit. I will believe that when these officials at the agency show us the way by stopping breathing completely in order to save the planet.

Here's a take on the issue by the Heritage Foundation:

EPA Formally Declares CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant
(12/7/09 The Foundry, Heritage Foundation)

"Step aside, elected Members of Congress. If you can’t pass cap and trade legislation, The Environmental Protection Agency will move in with massively complex and costly regulations that would micromanage just about every aspect of the economy. They announced today that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten public health and the environment." (The article continues. Click on the link above to read.)

This, despite the "Climategate" where the world's leading climate scientists are accused of falsifying the data to fit their theory of global warming.

The following article about the "Climategate" is about the only one posted on the mainstream media outlets. The author, Declan McCullah, has written good articles on health care "reform" and climate change legislation.

ClimateGate Could Threaten Copenhagen Climate Deal
(Declan McCullah, 12/7/09, CBS News)

Soon, the government will decree that:

War is peace;
Fiscal responsibility means profligate spending;
Recession/Depression is over;
Only the government can save you;
The world is flat;
The sun revolves around the earth, again;
Sky is falling.

What else?

Ooops forgot the obvious.

The earth is warming because of pesky humans.

Tweet

Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act of 2009

This idea of taxing the trading has been around. Each time it went nowhere, but this time it may actually go somewhere, with unintended but totally predictable consequences. Nancy Pelosi even wants to make it a "global tax".

Pelosi Endorses ‘Global’ Tax on Stocks, Bonds, and other Financial Transactions (Matt Cover, 12/7/09 CNS News)

"(CNSNews.com) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) endorsed the idea of a “global” tax on stock trades and other financial transactions, saying the estimated $150 billion in annual revenue from such a tax could be used to help fund more stimulus spending.

"At her weekly press briefing on Thursday, Pelosi said the financial transactions tax (HR4191) currently before Congress would have to be made “global” to keep U.S. investors from taking their business overseas and out of taxable reach."

And where does she think the money is going? A second stimulus, of course.

"The House speaker said that a transaction tax could be imposed in conjunction with congressional efforts to divert funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), with funds from both going to fund a second stimulus spending package. (The first stimulus bill, $789-billion, was signed into law by President Barack Obama on Feb. 13, 2009.)

"“I believe that the transaction tax still has a great deal of merit,” Pelosi told reporters. “The concern that many of us or others have had is that it will send, it will send transactions overseas.""

They want to divert TARP funds and this proposed "Wall Street tax" into a second stimulus to stimulate job creation. The first stimulus has been a great success, so far having created 600,000 jobs, as the administration claims. The cost per job estimate ranges from $70,000 to $250,000, and the stimulus spending to create such jobs include $30 million for pro baseball spring training camps and $4000-per-bike bike locker and garage (see here).

Now, let's take a look at the actual bill, H.R. 4191, shall we?

H.R. 4191 was crafted by an Oregon Democrat Peter DeFazio and the bill was introduced in the House on December 3, 2009.

Section 1 is the preposterous official title: Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act of 2009.

What a joke. As you will see, it is more like Let Main Street and Wall Street Pay for Both Ends of Pennsylvania Avenue Act of 2009.

Section 2 lists 12 reasons why DeFazio and his cosponsors believe this bill must pass [my comment in bold italic]:

(1) Our Nation continues to be hamstrung by a recession that led to the current jobless recovery and record deficits. [Well, that's partly thanks to you, government and the Fed.]

(2) The unemployment rate is now 10.2 percent and most economists expect it to climb higher.

(3) The Federal deficit has reached $1,400,000,000,000 for 2009. [That's your problem, not Main Street or Wall Street.]

(4) The jobless recovery suggests that the Federal Government must continue to prime the economy, but the record deficit is a real obstacle. [That's what you think, but there are a lot of people who totally disagree with you.]

(5) Following their $700,000,000,000 bailout, Wall Street is now enjoying a resurgence in profits and bonuses.

(6) A robust economy needs more than Wall Street profits. Main Street America is strengthened by good paying jobs for all Americans, not just Wall Street bankers.

(7) To restore Main Street America, a small securities transaction tax on Wall Street should be invested in job creation for Main Street America. [Who will invest? You, the government, who has created a record deficit, the highest in peacetime history of the U.S.?]

(8) A securities transaction tax on Wall Street has a negligible impact on the average investor and pension funds. [How can you say that, when the actual tax you are proposing is on all securities transactions done by all investors big and small, not a surtax only on Wall Street firms?]

(9) This transfer tax would be assessed on the sale and purchase of financial instruments such as stocks, options, and futures. A quarter percent (0.25 percent) tax on financial transactions could raise approximately $150,000,000,000 a year.

(10) The United States had a transfer tax from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 (Act of Oct. 22, 1914 (ch. 331, 38 Stat. 745)) levied a 0.2 percent tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled the tax to help financial recovery and job creation during the Great Depression. [During the Great Depression, did this transfer tax help financial recovery and job creation? History says otherwise. It was more likely to have been another obstacle for real recovery.]

(11) Half the revenue generated by this transaction tax will be used to directly reduce the deficit.
[Yeah right. Nancy doesn't say anything about deficit reduction, does she?]

(12) Half of the revenue generated by this transaction tax will deposited in a Job Creation Reserve to fund the creation of good paying jobs and put Americans back to work rebuilding our Nation. [Good paying jobs were in manufacturing. Manufacturing firms have very little incentive to bring the jobs back. They are not coming back.]

Section 3 talks about the creation of the "Job Creation Reserve" from half the receipt of this proposed tax. Jobs have to be paying at least the median wage, and come from manufacturing and "other jobs we are losing to unfair overseas competition". The U.S. government once said that a foreign language spoken in a foreign country was an unfair trade barrier.

Section 4, short and strange, talks about the deficit reduction part of the deal. "It is the Sense of Congress that half the additional Federal receipts by reason of the enactment of this Act shall not be expended and therefore reduce the Federal deficit."

The "Sense of Congress" means that they think it is a good idea to do so, but it's just an opinion and nothing more; nothing is binding here to use half the tax receipt for deficit reduction. (Read this explanation about the term.)

Section 5 is where the details of this trading tax are spelled out.

• 0.25% tax on transactions (buying and selling) of stocks, futures, swaps, CDS, and options
• IRA accounts are exempt, so the investment in mutual funds
• Covered transaction - any purchase/sale made in the U.S., any purchase/sale made by a U.S. person (Nancy Peloci wants to make this global - any purchase/sale made anywhere by anyone).
• $250 credit allowed against the tax
• First $100,000 transactions per year are exempt

$100,000 transactions don't amount to much at all. Say you buy 100 shares of GLD, a gold tracking ETF. Currently it is $113.23. 100 shares cost $11,323. GLD goes to $120 and you decide to take profit. You sell 100 shares for $12,000. The round-trip transactions amount to $23,323, already near 1/4 of $100,000. Many, many retail investors and traders trade shares, options, futures more than 4 round-trips per year. Many of them trade more than 4 per week, if not by day or hour.

Far from "not affecting small retail investors" as they claim, the tax hits them directly. The total transaction cost per trade, which is very low thanks to online discount brokerages (some of them offer $0 commission), will skyrocket. In the above GLD case, if I use the commission of my broker, the transaction cost per trade is currently $8. Under the proposed tax, this will become $8 plus 0.25% of $11,323, which is $36.31. That is 354% jump in trading cost.

Instead of punishing Wall Street, this will end up punishing Main Street investors and traders who try to recover what they've lost by participating in the stock market. (Remember, this is a jobless recovery...)

"Punishing" Wall Street idea seems bizarre to me to begin with. Congress was the one who gave Hank and Ben the TARP money, against overwhelming objections from taxpayers. Congress couldn't pass up an opportunity to tack on their pet projects. Hank proceeded to half threaten the bank CEOs to accept the bailout capital injection.

This blog has reported on this trading tax on a few occasions, and my fear remains the same: this time they will pass this labor union-supported (by AFL-CIO) piece of you know what.

Tweet

US Ambassador to Japan Shouts at Japan's Ministers in Rage Over Okinawa Base

Chicagoland thuggery goes to Japan.

Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) came to power, promising "change" (just like the new U.S. administration). Unlike the U.S. counterpart, though, they are actually trying. One of the things they are trying to change is the relocation plan of U.S. Marine Corps Air Station in Okinawa.

Between Japan's Aso administration and U.S.'s Bush administration, they agreed in 2006 to move the Marine airbase in Futenma, Okinawa, to another city, Nago, also in Okinawa. The strong opposition of Nago citizens as well as environmentalists' opposition (the base would be built on a landfill over coral reef) was totally ignored. Now, Prime Minister Hatoyama, whatever his political calculation is (or lack thereof), seems aligned with the citizens of both Futenma and Nago in opposing ANY U.S. military presence at all in Okinawa. He has delayed the decision on Futenma until next year.

This has angered the Obama administration, which has just expanded the Afghan war. Defense Secrerary Gates went to Japan and threatened Japanese of "serious consequences" if they didn't do the U.S. bidding. President Obama couldn't solve the Futenma issue when he visited Japan. (Why did he go to Asia, to begin with?) Now, Japan and the U.S. have started high-level negotiations in Tokyo to resolve the relocation issues.

The American Ambassador to Japan, John V. Roos, a big Obama campaign donor with zero foreign and diplomatic experience or knowledge, is a member of the U.S. negotiation team. He apparently blew up on the first day of the negotiation, according to Sankei Shinbun:

"In a closed session of the negotiation, Ambassador Roos flew into a rage and started shouting at Japan's Foreign Minister Okada and Defense Minister Kitazawa."

Don't you dare renege on the promise under Bush administration!

That sounds like Rahm Emanuel cloned.

(Sankei Shinbun, by the way, seems highly approving of the rude manner of the ambassador. The newspaper is heavily right-leaning, and heavily pro-U.S., a combination possible only in Japan.)

The base relocation was agreed upon in 2006 after an incident in 1995 of an abduction and rape of a 12-year-old girl by three U.S. Marines. Violent crimes (rape, armed robbery, homicide) committed by the U.S. soldiers based in Japan, particularly in Okinawa, have irked and angered Japanese over the years, but this particular incident triggered an overwhelming disgust and protest against the U.S. military presence in Okinawa. (One of the Marines later killed himself after raping a woman in Georgia.)

Japan, like so many other nations in the world, was ecstatic over the election of Barack Obama, welcoming the "change" from Bush administration. Now the reality sets in. Okinawa's newspaper Ryukyu Shinpo, in its editorial, has this to say to Obama administration: "Change? What change?" [rough translation from original Japanese]:

"It is highly doubtful that Ambassador Roos knew or understood anything about Okinawa's situation before he visited Okinawa. Obama administration's call for "change" rings so hollow now.

"New administrations in Japan and the U.S. have sparked the hope that problems associated with the U.S. bases in Okinawa, which have been highly contentious and divisive, may finally be resolved. But Ambassador Roos simply repeats the same old official U.S. line that the U.S. believes the current plan (move the base from Futenma to Nago, with Japanese government paying for most of the cost) is the best option.

"The Japan-U.S. working group, which is made up of ministers and high-ranking officials including Mr. Roos, is supposedly examining the issues and exploring options. But if the U.S. has already decided on the conclusion (that the current plan is the best one for the U.S.), what is the point of even negotiating?"

According to Yomiuri Shinbun, Michael Green, former senior director of Asian affairs of the U.S. National Security Council under George W. Bush, warned that if the Japanese government does not proceed with the base relocation plan as agreed, it will jeopardize the entire U.S. plan for military reorganization in the Far East. He predicted total collapse of trust between the U.S. and Japan, and threatened that the U.S. would go over Japan's head and discuss important issues with China only. (Just like it routinely bypass Korea now.)

So the Obama "Change" administration enlists a former official from the previous administration to bully the new Japanese administration. Same old, same old. I guess the occupation of Japan has never been lifted.

Japan has almost always liked and respected the U.S. ambassadors sent by the administrations over the years. The U.S. always took care to pick a respected, senior member of the diplomatic corp, senior politician, or noted scholar - Reischauer, Mansfield, Mondale. The ambassador under George Bush, Tom Schieffer, was also very much liked and respected by the Japanese politicians and businessmen. That tradition was rudely ended when Obama appointed his campaign contributor and political/diplomatic/scholarly nobody as the ambassador.

Several days ago Zero Hedge reported the rumor that Japan is planning to sell U.S. Treasuries [that they hold]. I hope the U.S. won't regret having bullied a long-time subservient "ally" if and when that rumor turns out to be true.

Tweet

Job Growth From Paper Shuffling, Garbage Collection

This morning the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced its November result of number fudging by "Net Birth/Death Model", aka "The Employment Situation in November 2009".

Net job loss for November was a surprising 11,000. So where did the gains happen?

Private Sector = - 18,000
Natural Resources & Mining = - 1,000
Construction = - 27,000
Manufacturing = - 41,000
Services = + 58,000
Government = + 7,000

So it is Services and Government. What's in the Services?

Wholesale Trade = - 11,700
Retail Trade = - 14,500
Transportation & Warehousing = - 5,300
Utilities = - 2,400
Information & Media = - 17,000
Financial Svcs & Real Estate = - 10,000
Professional & Business Svcs = + 86,000
Education = + 11,100
Health Svcs = + 28,100
Leisure = - 11,000

What's in the "Professional Svcs & Business Svcs"? BLS says:

Legal Services: NAICS 5411
Accounting, Tax Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Payroll Services: NAICS 5412
Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services: NAICS 5413
Specialized Design Services: NAICS 5414
Computer Systems Design and Related Services: NAICS 5415
Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services: NAICS 5416
Scientific Research and Development Services: NAICS 5417
Advertising and Related Services: NAICS 5418
Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services: NAICS 5419

Management of Companies and Enterprises: NAICS 55

Office Administrative Services: NAICS 5611
Facilities Support Services: NAICS 5612
Employment Services: NAICS 5613
Business Support Services: NAICS 5614
Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services: NAICS 5615
Investigation and Security Services: NAICS 5616
Services to Buildings and Dwellings: NAICS 5617
Other Support Services: NAICS 5619

Waste Collection: NAICS 5621
Waste Treatment and Disposal: NAICS 5622
Remediation and Other Waste Management Services: NAICS 5629

I can't imagine the number of lawyers, accountants, management consultants suddenly jumped in November. My wild guess is that the employment increase was in the last two categories - paper shuffling and garbage collection. Hardly the engines for robust growth.

After the initial pop, the market cratered after 11:30 AM EST. Dow is currently down 24 points at 10,342. Earlier, it was at 10,516, up nearly 150 points, highest for the year. Profit taking and locking in the year's gain is the explanation offered by MarketWatch.

Tweet

Senator Bunning to Bernanke: You Are A Moral Hazard

Ouch.

Jim Bunning, Republican Senator from Kentucky and the only one who voted no on the 1st confirmation 4 years ago, had some harsh words to Ben Bernanke in today's confirmation hearing.

Mish Shedlock has a partial transcript on his blogsite. Among other things, Senator Bunning said to the Fed chairman:

"Chairman Greenspan sold the Fed's independence to Wall Street on the so called "Greenspan PUT". Whenever Wall Street needed a boost, Alan was there. But you went even farther than that when you bowed to the political pressure of the Bush and Obama Administrations, and turned the Fed into an arm of the Treasury.

"Under your watch the "Bernanke PUT" became a bailout for all large financial institutions, including many foreign banks.

"And you put the printing presses into overdrive to fund the government's spending and hand out cheap money to your masters on Wall Street.

"In short, you are the definition of a moral hazard.

"You are repeating the same mistakes as Japan in the 1990's on a much larger scale while sowing the seeds for the next bubble.The AIG bailout alone is reason enough to send you back to Princeton.

"I will do everything I can to stop your nomination and drag out this process as long as I can. We must put an end to your and the Fed's failure and there is no better time than now.

"Your Fed has become the creature from Jekyll Island."

>

Tweet

Case Against Ben Bernanke

Big Ben Bernanke's Senate confirmation hearing has started.

I am not too thrilled to have him around any longer, or for that matter to have the Federal Reserve.

This is the person who proclaimed there was no housing bubble. Bernanke insisted that the subprime mortgage problem was contained and there would be no spill-over into other mortgage types. Into a broader economy? Of course not, are you kidding? He insisted that banks had a credit/liquidity problems and nothing more, while all along it was a solvency problem. He told the Congressional leaders that unless they gave him and buddy Paulson $700 billion the world would collapse and cease to exist, and then yanked the liquidity from the struggling financial market which facilitated the fantastic tanking of global stock markets and then economies, as some speculated.

After the crash of the stock market and credit market, he proceeded to double the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve supposedly to help the economy recover. The economy at large has done no such thing, decidedly not because of the money thrown by the Fed. Bulk of Bernanke's money went to the nation's biggest commercial banks (including hastily converted banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and a host of insurance companies and credit card companies), who simply parked the money at the Fed as "excess reserves".

By the Fed's own admission, that excess reserves were not meant to be loaned out from the beginning when the Fed started buying up assets other than Treasury bills/notes/bonds last fall. The Fed immediately started paying interest on the excess reserves so that the banks would keep the money at the Fed. It has been the Fed's policy that the excess reserves be kept at the Fed. New York Fed has even produced a research paper discussing why banks are holding so many excess reserves. The Fed needed the money there on the Fed balance sheet so that they could justify the ballooning asset portfolio of agency bonds (that no one else wants) and agency MBS (that no one else wants), commercial papers, corporate bonds, whatever else they took in as collateral, even a shopping mall and a hotel chain.

He claims it is important for the Fed to be "independent" from meddling politicians but if you look at his institution's balance sheet it is full of fiscal policy items to expressly assist the government: monetization of the government debts through open market operations; buyer of last resort for agency bonds and MBS in order to lower the mortgage rates; various lending programs to help financial firms. Definition of "financial" seems pretty broad, as John Deere, a tractor company, issued bonds with FDIC debt guarantee program, which is supervised by the Federal Reserve.

In this administration, just like the previous one, incompetency is to be rewarded. So I have no doubt that he will be confirmed for his second term. Never mind that only 21% of likely voters support his confirmation, according to Rasmussen. But when have the general public counted for anything to the politicians, other than to collect taxes from?

(Zero Hedge's poll is even worse. Only 11% think he should be reappointed.)

I am still wondering why Bernanke wanted the second term so badly. I guess it's the face issue. His predecessor, Alan Greenspan, had the job for 19 years. Paul Volcker had 8 years. A one-term Fed chairman who presided over the worst stock market and economic collapse since the Great Depression doesn't look too good on his resume.

(I would much like to see him as the last chairman of the Fed.)

Tweet

Foreign Policy Magazine's Top 100 Global Thinkers in 2009

(Hahahahahahahahahahahaha)

1. Ben Bernanke
2. Barack Obama
4. Nouriel Roubini
5. Rajendra Pachauri (climate change propagandist)
6. Bill Clinton & Hillary Clinton
7. Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler (Sunstein is Obama's Regulatory Czar who favors "senior death discount".)
8. David Petraeus
21. Thomas Friedman

The whole list is here, for your entertainment.

Tweet

House Panel 'Yes' On Dismantling Financial Firms

that pose a risk to the economy.

The House Financial Services Committee (chair: Barney Frank) has approved the legislation, by 31-27, that would give the government the power to dismantle financial firms that it thinks pose a risk to the economy, even if they are healthy. It will also force big financial firms to pay the fees upfront for dismantling.

The question here is: WHO IS TO DECIDE, AND HOW? HOW IS 'RISK' DEFINED? BY WHOM?

By Timmy Geithner and Ben Bernanke, who didn't see anything bad coming their way? Or Barney Frank who insisted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were sound businesses? Or Chris Dodd who was a "friend of Angelo"? Or another Presidential Task Force headed by an ex-banker supported by ex-campaign staff?

As this is part of so-called financial overhaul attempt by the government, it also contains the audit of the Federal Reserve.

Panel OKs key regulatory measure; House vote next
(12/2/09 AP via Yahoo Finance) [emphasis is mine]

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- A key House panel voted Wednesday to slap new restraints on big Wall Street institutions and to demand greater openness from the nation's central bank, clearing a significant hurdle in the drive for a sweeping financial regulations overhaul.

"Motivated by the crisis that caused a near collapse in financial markets, the House Financial Services Committee approved legislation 31-27 that would give the government the right to dismantle financial firms that pose a risk to the economy, even if they are healthy.

"The legislation also would require a detailed congressional audit of the privacy-shrouded Federal Reserve and would assess fees up front on large financial institutions to pay for the failure of their competitors.

"The action sets the stage for a full House vote next week on comprehensive regulatory changes meant as a response to the financial sector's meltdown more than a year ago. That package, set to go to the House floor on Wednesday, would include the creation of a new consumer finance protection agency, restrictions on complex financial instruments blamed for feeding last year's panic and restrictions on Wall Street compensation."

Why don't we, citizens, have the right to dismantle institutions that pose a risk to the economy? The first on my list would be the Federal Reserve, IRS next, and then dismantle the entire federal government, as the biggest risk to the economy and liberty and welfare of the citizens.

Read the post on 30-day makeover of the U.S. by Lew Rockwell.

Tweet

Michael Moore to Obama: This Is Absolutely Insane

Michael Moore is dead-set against Afghanistan surge.

Tweet

Japan: Quantitative Easing Part Deux

through and through Keynesian

(and the very definition of a fool as someone who keeps repeating the same thing over and over even if it doesn't produce the result he wants).

Bank of Japan held an emergency meeting on December 1 afternoon (their time) and decided to embark on the second round of quantitative easing. The first one was from 2001 to 2006, with dubious results (more later in the post). Just like the first one, BOJ wants to induce further decline of longer-term interest rates to stimulate borrowing and spending. This time, there is an added purpose of stabilizing Japanese yen (i.e. reversing the recent rapid rise of yen). Here's the BOJ statement in English.

BOJ intends to roughly double the size of "current deposits" at BOJ (Japanese equivalent of "excess reserve") by introducing a new 10 trillion yen (US$115 billion) lending program in which financial institutions can get a 3-month loan at 0.1% fixed rate (overnight call rate). Eligible collateral includes Japanese government bonds, corporate bonds, commercial papers, and loans on deeds.

Looking at BOJ's latest balance sheet, they have about 40 trillion yen (US$460 billion) of various lending programs. Unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve, its balance sheet size has remained steady at about 110-115 trillion yen (US$1.26 - 1.32 trillion) since 2007.

Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has a paper on the last quantitative easing by Bank of Japan. Their conclusion was that it did lower the longer rate somewhat, but it was hard to tell whether it was the direct result of quantitative easing or the future expectation. They also said that Japan's quantitative easing probably had an unintended consequence of helping weaker banks stay afloat and encouraging further risk-taking, thus delaying the real structural reform.

From the Japanese consumers' perspective, price deflation has been the only good thing that has happened since their real estate bubble burst in 1989-90. But Keynesians in the government and at Bank of Japan would have none of that. Price must increase.

(John Maynard Keynes, who didn't even have a degree in economics...)

It's safe to assume they know nothing about Austrian economics.

Tweet

N. Korea Carries Out Currency Redenomination

100 to 1. Citizens panick.

The news is from Japan's Yomiuri Shinbun.

North Korea carries out currency redenomination, citizens in panic (12/1/09 Yomiuri Shinbun, original in Japanese)

"(Seoul - Masahiko Takekoshi) South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported that North Korea redenominated their currency (North Korean won) on November 20, citing several North Korean trade representatives in China.

"100 units of old North Korean won are to be exchanged for 1 unit of the new currency. It is the first new currency issue in North Korea since 1992.

"According to experts in Korea, North Korea's partial market reform that started in 2002 has resulted in the price of rice rising 50-fold, and the price of daily goods rising 20 to 30-fold, as the value of the currency plunged.

"In addition to supressing inflation, the redenomination is aimed at crack down on the private assets in the black market. According to Yonhap News, the currency exchange started on November 30 at 2:00 PM. Citizens, fearful that the government would find out about their hidden assets, flooded the black market in a panic to exchange into Chinese yuan and U.S. dollars.

"Korea's Daily NK, Internet newspaper specializing in North Korea says the exchange covers both paper currency and coins, and the exchange has started at North Korean central bank and its branches. Korea's Ministry of Unification says it cannot confirm the redenomination at this time."

Tweet

China: Dubai Crisis Good for Buying Gold, Oil

call it "Beijing Put"...

Chinese are counting on the Dubai crisis to linger for a while so that they can buy gold cheaper. Will they get their wish?

Dubai crisis gives China chance to buy oil, gold: report (11/30/09 Reuters via Washington Post)

"BEIJING (Reuters) - Dubai's debt crisis could be China's opportunity to snap up gold and oil assets, a senior Chinese official said in remarks published on Monday.

"No Chinese banks have yet reported exposure to debt from Dubai World, a flagship firm that last week said it was seeking to delay debt payments by six months. Some Chinese real estate and construction firms have limited exposure to projects in the emirate, state television reported this weekend.

"China's $2.27 trillion in foreign exchange reserves are mostly parked in U.S. treasuries, despite calls from some in China to invest the reserves in oil and other natural resources that the fast-growing Chinese economy will need in future.

"While the impact of the Dubai crisis on the global economy and on China was not known yet, it would last a while at the very least, Ji Xiaonan, who chairs the supervisory board for big state-owned companies under the State Council's state assets commission, told the Economic Information Daily.

""That could give China a buying opportunity to put some forex reserves into gold or oil reserves," Ji was quoted as saying by the paper, which is widely read by Chinese officials.

"Another paper, the China Youth Daily, quoted Ji as saying that a team of experts from Beijing and Shanghai had set up a task force last year to look at the issue of gold reserves.

""We suggested that China's gold reserves should reach 6,000 tons in the next 3-5 years and perhaps 10,000 tons in 8-10 years," the paper quoted him as saying."

Currently, China's gold reserve is 1,054 tons, making it the 6th largest gold reserve holder in the world just above Switzerland. The U.S. gold reserve, in comparison, is 8,133 tons, the world largest. The second largest gold reserve holder is Germany, with 3,408 tons.

"Beijing put" is indeed on gold price.

Tweet

9,000 Marines Heading to Afghanistan Immediately

after Obama announcement on Tuesday

I wonder what will happen to that brilliant idea of taxing all Americans to support the Afghan war. I also wonder (in shudder) what will happen in Pakistan. (Read this Seymour Hersh article on Pakistan and her nukes and American role in destabilizing Pakistan.)

9,000 Marines Heading to Afghanistan Immediately After Obama Announcement (11/29/09 Antiwar.com)

"The United States is wasting no time in throwing more troops at the war in Afghanistan. Officials say as soon as President Obama makes his Tuesday announcement of the escalation of the war, 9,000 additional Marines will depart for Afghanistan.

"The 9,000 Marines will head to the Helmand Province, roughly doubling the number of marines on the ground in the tense province. It will also be a significant portion of the estimated 34,000 additional troops President Obama will commit to the war.

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates had said the escalation would come quickly, despite caution that it was complicated to add so many troops to a war in a landlocked, virtually infrastructure free country on the other side of the globe. Still, most assumed it would be at least January when the troops started arriving.

"That the troops are all heading to Helmand will no doubt be troubling news to Pakistan, as Prime Minister Gilani cautioned only two days ago that he was worried a US escalation in Helmand could destabilize the nation’s Balochistan Province."

"Might makes right, until they see the light..."

Tweet

Bernanke Defends Self, the Federal Reserve

in a very ineffectual op-ed piece.

Big Ben (Bernanke), aka the chairman of the besieged Federal Reserve, wrote an op-ed piece that appeared today in Washington Post. The arguments that he gives in support for his institution are the same old, tired ones he's already given elsewhere already. I'm wondering why he has bothered to write them up as an op-ed.

The danger that I see is this: He sounds rather anxious to keep his job and keep his institution intact, and he may intentionally let the next market crash happen sooner than later so that the Fed retains its credibility. ("See what happens when you try to mess with the Fed?") You can read it for yourself, by clicking on the link below:

The right reform for the Fed (Ben Bernanke, 11/29/09 Washington Post)

Ben wants to design a system of financial oversight that will embody the lessons of the past two years. Past two years? Only two years, during which you insisted that there was no big problem in just about everything - from subprime to soundness of nation's banks to commercial real estate.

He believe the legislative proposals circulating in Congress are "out of step with the global consensus". What global consensus? Of the like-minded central banks and B.I.S., bank of central banks which is totally unaccountable to anyone?

He also believe that the Fed played a major role in arresting the crisis last year and that now it's time to preserve the Fed's ability. He just wants to keep all the goodies (policy tools) that he grabbed last year with the help of Hank Paulson, then Treasury Secretary. Kevin Warsh of the Fed board already said as much.

Whenever I hear that argument that the total meltdown was averted thanks to the Fed, it reminds me of some rogue firefighters setting fire intentionally so that they can "fight" it. The Federal Reserve withdrew liquidity from the market just when such liquidity was needed in September last year. (See this post by Karl Denninger of the Market Ticker from last year.) It was after the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and huge withdrawal from money market funds, and after Ben and Hank went to Congressional leaders to demand $700 billion. It was right before the market started a spectacular crash. Yes, the Fed the hero.

Curiously, he seems to think the Fed's expertise conferred "stress tests" done in spring this year a great deal of credibility and clarity. I guess he didn't watch Saturday Night Live.

He makes statements without citing actual examples that justify such statements. He says that "Many studies have shown that countries whose central banks make monetary policy independently of such political influence have better economic performance, including lower inflation and interest rates." Ok, where? Can anyone name one country?

A central bank was born in Great Britain in 1694, so that the British government would have endless supply of money (Britain was near-broke from the Nine Years' War) as the central bank monetized the sovereign debt. Flush with newly minted money, Great Britain went on to fight the War of Spanish Succession. Not the paragon of independence to me. The Federal Reserve was modeled after the Bank of England.

Also, this particular statement in the article, that "[the Fed's] supervision is also informed by the grass-roots perspective derived from the Fed's unique regional structure and our experience in supervising community banks", is highly dubious and misleading. Majority of the U.S. banks ARE NOT the Federal Reserve member banks. (See the chart on this wiki page.)

Again, why did he write a lame article like that? Why now?

Ben Bernanke seems to lack the tact and finesse of the bankers before the Glass-Owen act (that became the Federal Reserve Act) was enacted. Big bankers, who wanted the Federal Reserve, publicly spoke vehemently against the Glass-Owens act. The public perception was that if the greedy bankers opposed, it was because they would be hurt by it, so let's pass it. Total opposite was true, and we are where we are today, with the U.S. dollar's purchasing power having plummeted by more than 95%. If Bernanke wants to be the top dog in the new monstrous financial regulation organ, he should oppose it.

Tweet