Tuesday, the U.S. Senate passed another Democratic multi-billion dollar legislative handout designed to temporarily alleviate the continuous financial burden hanging over the nation’s unemployed and fiscally irresponsible states.

Democrats—with six Republicans tagging along for the spending spree—swiped the nation’s Centurion Card to the tune of $140 billion, and went home with bags overflowing with goodies: subsides for health insurance, funds to prevent states from laying off public service employees, extensions of unemployment benefits, etc.

Senator Chuck Schumer—apparently now worried about the chattering class—patted himself on the back for a day’s work and proclaimed, “While our Republican colleagues on healthcare have been stonewall[ing], on jobs they know that they block us at their own political peril … and substantive peril as well.”

New York’s senior senator is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

This initiative can’t possibly be touted as a jobs bill when nearly 90% of the funds appropriated are unrelated to job-creation. Moreover, the Republicans who did cross party lines to support this measure, supported—what amounted to—another spending bill, and they might be doing that at their own political peril.

(more…)

Barack Obama’s money train has steamrolled uncontrollably across the country, compiling record-breaking budgets, deficits, and debt along its path. Now, the train is running out of fuel, and the nation’s retirement money may find its way on board, to keep the train on the tracks.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments began a public discussion on the aim to convert 401(k) saving plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) into annuities and other forms of guaranteed income streams. Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry stated, “the question is how to encourage it, and whether the government can and should be helpful in that regard.” The supposition that the government is looking to be helpful with this proposal should automatically cause alarm.

The rationale for what would ultimately serve as a government takeover of the nation’s private pension system is of the same mold as the position Obama and Congressional Democrats have staked throughout the debate on health-care reform; “trust us, we know better than you”. Their assertion is that a weakened economy and a volatile stock market call for them to protect you and your interests, in this case your retirement money.

(more…)

Last week, with eyes glazed to the tube and hands filled with overflowing tubs of popcorn, the nation watched as the most powerful man in the world temporarily stepped down from his post to serve as a mere committee chairman of the bipartisan health care summit.

The Chairman-in-Chief spoke condescendingly, counted everyone’s minutes except his own, and ultimately watched his team get thoroughly embarrassed on national television in a political Stupor Bowl.

For nearly the past year, Congressional Democrats have run around like chickens with their heads cut off, ignoring the opposition to the president’s legacy-making initiative, and feverishly making deals which each other so enough support could be garnered to get a bill passed—any bill.

In their haste to make history, it’s unfortunate that the manufactured-crisis of health-care reform has unnecessarily dominated the national debate while a real, alive-and-well, housing crisis has continued to manifest itself.

Last year, the president’s signature housing program, Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), was supposed to stem the tide of foreclosures. In the words of his Treasury Secretary, the initiative would “show results quickly”, but homeowners, mortgage companies, and legislators all questioned its effectiveness. For a few months, foreclosures were down, until December, when filings had its first month to month increase since July.

Was the increase a sign of things to come?

(more…)

Several weeks after the Senate rejected Barack Obama’s plan to create a bipartisan congressional panel charged with decreasing the deficit, the president will use his executive authority to create the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

The less-powerful bipartisan commission, chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, will be tasked with formulating a plan to decrease the federal budget deficit to 3% of GDP by 2015.

Yawn.

With the signing of this executive order, Obama will add fiscal responsibility to his growing library of political theater. Thus far, his other featured films have starred earmarks, lobbyists, Sonia Sotomayor, bipartisanship, etc. Unsurprisingly, they all share a common theme: disingenuousness. You’re welcome to grab some popcorn and take a seat, but as you watch the production of fiscal responsibility featuring Obama the deficit hawk, keep in mind you’re only being entertained.

(more…)

A recent Pew survey revealed the nation’s big banks are drawing the most ire from the American public, and now that the Federal Reserve is poised to hand them another victory, it’s easy to see why Main Street’s anger burns deep.

Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke released a statement to the House Committee on Financial Services which detailed the accommodative policy the Fed implemented as a result of the Great Recession and outlined its exit strategy from that policy.

The objective of the Fed’s intervention was to alleviate the pressure on the balance sheets of the banks, which would provide them with the financial flexibility necessary to begin lending to consumers and businesses once again. To meet such an end, the Fed increased the size of its balance sheet through purchases of securities and real-estate loans from the banks, and decreased the interest-rate for interbank lending to nearly zero percent.

The banks’ first ‘Win’ came as a result of those sales to the Fed which produced billions of dollars in revenue. Afterwards, many of us were wondering why the banks weren’t lending again, despite raking in record profits, but the answer was simple. They quickly realized they had found themselves with a can’t lose proposition, as they could make guaranteed money instead of taking on more risk from lending to consumers and businesses during a period of economic uncertainty.

How could they do that?

(more…)