The 2013 budget being released Monday will propose public works spending while seeking tax increases on the wealthy and corporations to claim progress on the federal deficit in his upcoming budget. The spending plan projects a deficit for this year of $1.3 trillion, the fourth straight year of $1 trillion-plus deficits, and $901 billion next year.

Jacob Lew, the president’s chief of staff, said the new budget would put the country on track to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reductions over the next 10 years, achieved by raising taxes on the wealthy and trimming government spending. Lew said the president’s budget would cut spending by $2.50 for every $1 it raises in new taxes.

“In the long run, we need to get the deficit under control in a way that builds the economy,” Lew said during appearances on the Sunday talk shows. “We do it in a way that’s consistent with American values so that everyone pays a fair share.”

The release of Obama’s spending plan for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 marks the official start to an election-year budget battle over taxes and spending as the nation’s debt tops $15 trillion.

Read more at the Associated Press

While Presidents sign legislation into law, it is Congress – the House and the Senate; the Legislative Branch – that actually crafts and passes legislation. Therefore, any promise made on the campaign trail by a presidential candidate, be it by the incumbent or the challenger (or the field of candidates vying to be the challenger), is subject to the debate and acquiescence of those in the Legislative Branch; in Congress. It is because of this that any promise made by a presidential candidate must be received by the voting public as more of an intention, rather than a promise. To accept a campaign promise as an impending reality is to set oneself up for almost certain disappointment. And to blame a successful candidate for not living up to those campaign promises requires a level of certainty that the promise was actually ignored, not thwarted.

A good example of campaign promises thwarted comes in the form of the Republican TEA Party supported congressional freshman class who, during the 2010 Mid-Term Elections, promised to “repeal or defund Obamacare” and to “bring fiscal responsibility to Washington.” Each of those elected sincerely believed that they would be able to succeed in doing what they promised. In fact, HR2 of the 112th Congress did, in fact, attempt to repeal Obamacare and many of the TEA Party supported members of the House took it straight on the chin during the debt, deficit and budget debates. But for all of their good intentions and actions, the freshmen Republicans of the 112th Congress learned that unless you have a veto-proof majority in the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a friendly inhabitant in the White House, absolutes in campaign promises do not exist.

The same must be said about the Executive Branch and the President of the United States, although he has some additional quivers in his pouch where getting his way is concerned: the bully pulpit (self-explanatory) and the Executive Order.

About.com’s US Politics pages say this about Executive Orders:

“Executive Orders (EOs) are official documents, numbered consecutively, by which the President of the US manages the operations of the Federal Government.

“Since 1789, US presidents (“the executive”) have issued directives that are now known as Executive Orders. These are legally binding directives to federal administrative agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials as their agencies implement congressionally-established law. However, Executive Orders may be controversial if the President is acting counter to real or perceived legislative intent…

“Presidents have been accused of using the power of the Executive Order to make, not merely implement, policy. This is controversial, as it subverts the Separation of Powers as outlined in the Constitution.”

Some accurate examples of a President transgressing the Separation of Powers via Executive Oder have been provided by the Obama Administration in the form of:

▪ The EPA: Functioning under the authority of the Executive, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has enacted regulations that serve, effectively, as legislation, so much so that many members of Congress – from both parties, sans the Progressive contingent of the Democrat Party – have sought to craft legislation to forbid the agency from enforcing said regulations. Additionally, the EPA, again, under the authority of the Executive, is questing to expand its power “to regulate businesses, communities and ecosystems in the name of ‘sustainable development’”; to make the EPA more “anticipatory” in its approach to environmental issues. Under agency chief Lisa Jackson, the EPA targets broadening its focus to include both “social” and “economic,” as well as environmental “pillars” to its mission and authority.

▪ The NLRB: Again, functioning under the authority of the Executive, albeit at an arm’s length – thus providing plausible deniability to the Oval Office, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has, under the Obama Administration, routinely championed labor unions over private sector corporations and businesses, i.e. the job creators. Even as the hierarchy of the Government Sponsored Entity (GSE) that is General Motors discusses exporting the manufacturing of the Chevy Volt to China, so as to avoid the high cost of domestic manufacturing (thank you labor unions), the NLRB has moved forward with regulations that mandate unprecedented facilitation to labor unions in non-union shops so as to organize and hold organizational votes; votes that jettison the sanctity of the secret ballot.

▪ The Recess Appointment: Although recess appointments are commonplace in presidential politics, the recess appointments made thus far during the Obama Administration have been to entities that champion a Progressive social engineering of the country and to fill vacancies on boards and agency chairs that have been contested by a significant number in the US Senate. A perfect example comes in the recess appointment of Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an entity created of the infamous Dodd-Frank Financial Reform Bill and which is being actively contested by Republicans in both the House and the Senate. This recess appointment followed, in rapid-fire succession, by three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, thus facilitating that entities ability to execute its labor-friendly special interest agenda in the run-up to the 2012 General Elections.

It should be noted here that all four of the recess appointments mentioned should be challenged in court – that is if the Republican leadership in Congress can dislodge their heads from their rectums – on the basis of constitutionality as recess appointments cannot be made while Congress is in session. The Senate is in pro-forma session.

Further, when the cancer of social engineering is at the root of an empirical presidency – as is the case with the Obama Administration, the rights of some are manipulated in a quest to “correct” a perceived wrong affecting others.

A perfect example of one voter demographic’s rights being manipulated or denied in deference to another’s comes at the hand of Attorney General Eric Holder and the US Department of Justice (DoJ).

Starting with the DoJ’s refusal to prosecute, to the fullest extent of the law, two New Black Panther Party members who executed gross and egregious voter intimidation during the 2008 election cycle outside a Philadelphia polling place, to the DoJ’s lawsuit targeting the State of Arizona for daring to attempt the securing of its borders, to the DoJ’s politically opportunistic denial of State Voter ID laws under the guise of an adherence to “civil rights,” the US Department of Justice exists as an entity that obliterates the notion of “justice for all,” instead affecting justice to some over others, predicated on skin color, sexual preference or allegiance to foreign entities hostile to the United States.

Governing unilaterally, such as with the examples above, executes an empirical presidency and, in most cases, usurps the Separation of Powers needed to maintain the checks and balances established by our Founders and Framers in the three co-equal branches of our Constitutional Republic.

So, as is evidenced, the promises made by those running for office – whether they are running for POTUS, Congress or the many State, County and local seats of power – can either be thwarted by opposition or rendered unrealistic by the law. Further, in a quest to keep campaign promises made to those who want more than good government in return, some candidates may consent to nefarious, and in some cases unconstitutional, means by which to satisfy their commitments to these ideological benefactors, their base voting blocs or both.

Because of these realities, we must understand that while politicos might say things we would like to hear on the campaign stump, we – you and I, both – must be more deliberative in our decision making before we pledge our support; before we dedicate our most precious of constitutional rights – our vote, to any one man of woman seeking political office; to any politician seeking to represent you and I in elected office.

It is our constitutional duty – by right of citizenship – to take the time to research the deeds of each of the candidates; their records, dispensing with the ever-placating rhetorical commitments packaged with the precursor, “when I become president of the United States.” Most often a campaign trail promise and $16.00 will buy you a $16.00 government purchased muffin.

When a candidate says that he is going to “repeal Obamacare,” ask the question “How?” Make them explain to you the process by which they will affect satisfaction of that promise.

When a candidate says that his experience will afford him the wherewithal to “create jobs,” ask him how he will cajole Congress into passing legislation that will free the private sector of burdensome legal constraints, or how he will pressure the labor unions into accepting reasonable restrictions on their greed.

And when a candidate says he will not “allow Iran to become nuclear capable,” ask him how, exactly, they intend to utilize the full force of the office of President of the United States to affect that reality. Will he seek a Declaration of War from Congress, a feat which has eluded every president elected during a time of military action since World War II? Or will he allow Congress to once again – and in cowardly and political opportune fashion – abdicate its responsibility to define the mission for our brave men and women in uniform?

Asking the rough and tough questions and demanding no-nonsense, direct and real answers from candidates for public office is how We the People can defend the US Constitution from those who believe it is a “fundamentally flawed document.”

It is well past time that we expect detailed information and definitions about solutions and agendas from those running for office. It is also well past time that we refuse to accept as truth the pre-packaged, agendized, bumper-sticker sound-bite, oratorical vomit that passes for media coverage of political campaigns by the mainstream media.

Ask questions and demand real, substantive and detailed answers before vocalizing your support for any candidate. To paraphrase the unwashed masses from all of the labor union protests and “Occupy” rallies: This is what defending the Constitution looks like.

With Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives, the body where – by the mandate of the US Constitution – all legislation relating to revenue is to begin, many on the Right and in the Center believed that the reckless and spendthrift fiscal actions of the 111th Congress would be constrained if not reversed. With a sizable number of new members identifying with the oft demonized TEA Party, there was high hope for a glimmer of fiscal sanity to emerge from the halls of Congress. And while the TEA Party members of Congress are to be congratulated for doing exactly what their constituents sent them to Washington to do, in the end, they were thwarted by establishment, inside the beltway Republicans and the despotic obstructionism foisted upon them by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-NV, (to be fair, Reid was aided by a less than reform-minded Republican leadership in the senate, led by Mitch McConnell, R-KY).

The Budget
In absolute defiance of the fact that it is law that Congress must pass an annual budget for the federal government, Senate Democrats – once again, led by the indignant political disgrace that is Harry Reid – refused to abide by said law in passing, reconciling and advancing to the President an annual budget. It has been over 900 days – almost three years – since the last budget has been presented to the President for his signature or veto.

Of this, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, Chairman of the House Budget Committee, wrote:

“As required by law, House Republicans presented a budget in committee, brought it to the floor, and passed it earlier this spring. It was an honest, detailed, concrete plan to put our budget on the path to balance and our economy on the path to prosperity. But Senate Democrats, during this time of national crisis, failed even to present a budget plan – in open defiance of the law and the public they serve. Senate Majority Leader Reid said it would be ‘foolish’ to have a budget…This is the second consecutive year Senate Democrats have disregarded the legally mandated budget process.”

They went on to call Reid’s obstructionist tactics “a national disgrace,” and they couldn’t be more correct.

Debt & Deficit
On this date back in 2008, as we were approaching the catastrophe that would be the “historic election” of someone who was, arguably, the most ill-prepared person in the history of our nation to the presidency of the United States, the US National Debt stood at approximately $10.7 trillion. Our federal budget deficit was at almost $500 billion and our Gross Debt to GDP Ratio was at 75.361 percent. We weren’t in the greatest financial shape and the horizon had some ominous clouds heading our way in the form of a mortgage meltdown that led to a significant recession, which led to a financial markets crisis, all of which put the world – the entire world – on the brink of financial calamity.

Today, three years later, President Obama and his financial gurus – otherwise known as the Manson Family of financial ineptitude – tell us we are “on the mend,” we have “turned the corner,” – even as unemployment remains around 9 percent on average, but that there is “a lot more work to do” and that we should allow him four more years to complete his work toward righting the ship of state – or, as the aware see all too well, his “transformation of the United States of America.” But what have his efforts achieved?

As it stands today, the US National Debt is $15.1trillion. Our federal budget deficit is $1.3 trillion and our Gross Debt to GDP Ratio is 100.480 percent. An even more relevant number – in light of all the “fixing” that Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi have been doing – is the US Unfunded Liabilities, you know, the total the government is committed to paying out for all those nanny state entitlements, including Medicare, Social Security, Prescription Drug Benefits and, now, Obamacare. The Unfunded Liabilities held by the US federal government is a stunning $117.011 trillion. I’m going to write the full number out so you can see it, accurate to extent that the lower numbers are rolling so incredibly fast I can only be relevant to the billions digits: $117,011,381,000,000 and climbing.

On Tuesday it was announced that President Obama will ask for a third increase of the debt ceiling limit this year, raising that limit to $16.394 trillion.

Boards, Agencies & Departments
With the seating of the 112th Congress, we all held the hope that some of the more activist federal boards, agencies and departments would at least have their funding scrutinized and perhaps adjusted so that the Progressive activists and special interest cronies seated to their leadership would be restrained from ruling roughshod over the American private sector through President Obama’s favorite tool: legislation via regulation. But that financial leash failed to appear.

The Boeing Corporation felt the sting of the National Labor Relations Board when it fell victim to a labor union friendly lawsuit, filed by the NLRB, which sought to interfere with the construction of a new plant in South Carolina; a plant that promises to create thousands of new jobs. The lawsuit was later dropped only because Boeing, in juxtaposition to what was a sound financial business decision to move to a right-to-work State (South Carolina) from a State that rolled over to union largess (Washington), acquiesced to keeping the Washington plant open.

Striking fear and promoting uncertainty in the American business community – you know, the sector that actually creates jobs – the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to “expand” its authority and reach, transforming the EPA into what its administrator, Lisa Jackson, says will be an agency that is more “anticipatory” in its approach to environmental issues, broadening “its focus” – or regulatory reach – to include both social and economic as well as environmental “pillars.”

The vehicle for this transformation comes in the form of a $700,000 study the agency commissioned last year from the National Academies of Science. Its aim: how to use existing laws to new ends.

The EPA announced on December 21st, new national standards to cut air pollutants from power plants, a regulation that will force older facilities to close – costing thousands of people their jobs, or clean up – costing consumers more in passed on costs.

The Department of Health & Human Services, under Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, disregarding the fact that the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare) is set to be heard for its constitutionality by the US Supreme Court later this year, has moved forward with its implementation of the entitlement program. In HHS’s implementation, Sec. Sebelius has issued over 1,800 waivers to the health insurance law, mostly to Progressive and labor union friendly businesses

HHS did, however, thwart the plans of another agency, the Food & Drug Administration, to lift a controversial age limit and make Plan B One-Step – or “the morning after pill,” the nation’s first over-the-counter emergency contraceptive, available for purchase by people of any age without a prescription.

Foreign Policy
And while there was hope that controlling the purse strings in Washington would affect Mr. Obama’s dismal foreign policy record by, perhaps, scrutinizing the funding of myriad UN agency programs enveloped in graft and corruption; by questioning the allocation of funds by USAID to pro-Islamist entities in the Middle East; and by examining the distribution of foreign aid to countries, including China, Mr. Obama’s foreign policy agenda has been left unscathed, for the most part.

And we see the fruits of Mr. Obama’s global handiwork across the globe.

In the reckless pursuit of “hope and change,” international style, the pro-democracy agenda, started administrations ago, was given a dose of steroids, only to see leader after leader in the Middle East and North Africa toppled, replaced by fundamentalist – and in some cases violent – Islamist factions. In location after location, from Egypt to Libya, from Syria to Tunisia, we are witnessing the rise of organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda sympathetic factions to the seats of power, threatening a regional war for influence between the Sunni and the Shi’ite; the Shi’ites championed by an about-to-be nuclear capable Iran, another nefarious facilitation labeled an “accomplishment.”

And while it is true that US Navy Seal Team VI took out “Geronimo” – albeit not a stone’s throw away from Pakistan’s “West Point,” it can hardly be attributed to the “extended open hand of peace” that Mr. Obama said US foreign policy in the Middle East would be under his administration. Conversely, it was the continuation and, even, the escalation of former President George W. Bush’s “War on Terror” strategies that found Osama bin Laden with an extra hole in his head.

But, perhaps the biggest foreign policy disappointment – and one where Congress held significant influence to affect a positive outcome – was in the Obama Administration’s refusal to confront China on its currency manipulation.

The Washington Times reports:

“The Obama administration said Tuesday that China is making headway on its currency-valuation policies and should not be deemed a currency manipulator — fighting back against top Senate Democrats who had demanded President Obama sanction the US’s top economic competitor…

“Earlier this fall, the Democrat-led Senate passed a bill that would push the administration to declare China a currency manipulator, which would trigger automatic penalties…

“[The] Republican-led House bottled the bill up, saying it wanted to see the White House take a position. The administration has been reticent to do that, saying it feared action would spark a trade war.

“Tuesday’s report, released while Mr. Obama is vacationing in Hawaii, signals the administration has not changed its attitude and likely means the China-currency legislation is moribund in Congress.”

China owns the United States and Mr. Obama ducks the issue…he’s on vacation, don’t you know…as is Congress.

So, as 2011 winds down, a year that began with so much promise for the reform of a runaway federal government; that started with enthusiasm – at least among the freshmen TEA Party class – to affect real and meaningful change for the American people and change that would see the marginalization of the anti-American despotism exhibited by Progressives elected under the Democrat banner, what did we actually receive from our elected officials in Washington? No budget; no meaningful deficit or debt reduction and, in fact, increased debt and spending; boards, agencies and departments expanding the authority and reach of government; and a foreign policy that sees fundamentalist Islamists taking control of the Middle East and North Africa, and China getting away with currency manipulation even as they continue to receive foreign aid for their biggest debtor; the United States government.

Maybe 2012 will be different…maybe not…all I know is this: for all the compromising and deal making, for all the speeches, rhetoric and congratulations, We the People are in the very same position we were in prior to the 2010 election…and it’s pathetic.

And the debt clock keeps ticking…as does the nuclear clock in the Middle East…as does the encroachment of government into our lives…

To pursue his highly visible programs and agendas, Blagojevich needed money. He found it by diverting billions from the state’s pension system. By taking “holidays” from required pension system contributions and by nearly doubling Illinois’s debt, he burdened future generations to support favored groups in the present.

Perhaps worst of all, as CEO of Illinois, Blagojevich institutionalized a culture of deficit spending. He accomplished this so effectively that Blagojevich’s successor, Gov. Pat Quinn, and today’s lawmakers feel comfortable perpetuating the ruinous habits of spending and borrowing more than the state can afford. Fiscal ineptitude is the new norm.

The Illinois Policy Institute has a new report out that details Blagojevich’s lasting effect on Illinois’ fiscal condition. Read it at www.illinoispolicy.org/blago. Here’s the “top ten” list:

No. 1: Disregarded obligations to state pensioners

Policy: Blagojevich diverted billions of dollars from the pension funds of future government retirees to pay for his own spending priorities.
Problem: Blagojevich ballooned existing spending programs, ignoring his responsibility to ensure the health of the state’s pension systems. Retirees and taxpayers are on the hook for his political expediency.
Program cost: Excess of $3 billion for future taxpayers

No. 2: A culture of deficits

Policy: Grow spending to appease Blagojevich’s core constituencies.
Problem: While Blagojevich was creating and expanding unaffordable programs, the state’s financial position deteriorated year after year.
Program cost: Worst rating of net assets in the nation.

No. 3: All Kids

Policy: Expand Medicaid to all children in Illinois regardless of citizenship or family income
Problem: Blagojevich traded the future of state pensioners for middle class entitlements in the present. Even though the program significantly spent more money per child than predicted, still it was ineffective at accomplishing its goals.
Program cost: $316.5 million over five years

No. 4: Illinois Cares Rx

Policy: Expand prescription drug coverage beyond Medicare eligibility
Problem: Blagojevich spent money the state did not have to expand a program that could not be sustained, creating dependency among one of the state’s most vulnerable populations.
Program cost: $750 million since 2006

No. 5: Preschool for All

Policy: Expand government-paid preschool programs beyond those at risk for academic failure
Problem: Another example of Blagojevich unnecessarily expanding middle-class entitlements, even though state resources already were stretched too thin
Program cost: $107 million over three years

No. 6: Seniors Ride Free

Policy: Provide free rides for all seniors on the Chicago-area regional transportation system, regardless of the rider’s ability to pay
Problem: Blagojevich created another unsustainable, feel-good program for seniors that ignored the financial condition of both the Regional Transportation Authority and general government finances.
Program cost: $100 million over three years

No. 7: Flu vaccines

Policy: Bypass the FDA and federal law to acquire flu vaccines during vaccine shortage
Problem: Blagojevich ignored the federal government and spent $2.6 million on unnecessary vaccines that could not be imported to the U.S. The vaccines eventually were destroyed in Pakistan.
Program cost: $2.6 million

No. 8: I-SaveRx

Policy: In another attempt to bypass the FDA, Blagojevich set up a prescription drug importation program from Canada and other countries.
Problem: Blagojevich promoted a program that encouraged residents to flaunt federal law, resulting in more wasted taxpayer money. 
Program cost:
$1 million

No. 9: Video game lawsuit

Policy: Protect children by banning the sale of certain video games to minors
Problem: Blagojevich ignored existing court decisions that established the bans violated the First Amendment. He challenged the courts at taxpayers’ expense.
Program cost: $520,000

No. 10: Tollway road signs

Policy: Putting the governor’s name on tollway signs
Problem: Taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for signs promoting a politician on public areas, especially if the signs egregiously are expensive.
Program cost: $480,000

And finally, let’s not forget those who help make Blago’s terms in office possible. ILReference.com has a list of donors. Some notable contributions:

• Sep 17, 2002

  Illinois Education Association

  $300,000

• Feb 12, 2002

  SEIU/Washington, D.C.

  $250,000

• Sep 21, 2002

  AFSCME Illinois Council No. 31

  $250,000

• Oct 4, 2006

  Illinois Federation of Teachers-COPE

  $300,000

And the list goes on…

Passersby were also offered free pizza and soft drinks on GM’s dime.

$20 bucks and pizza, not bad….

While donating money to this presumably noble cause seems like a nice thing for Chevy to do, who decided now is a good time for them to do so? And a $10 giveaway to students? Who decided that was a good idea?

We spoke with one of the marketing team members who said this was a promo that Chevy was just kicking off around the Midwest. He estimated the economically brain-challenged auto company, who received a $49 billion TARP bailout from the taxpayers, would be giving away about $1,200-$1,500 that day.

Sadly, after the smoke-and-mirror reporting over the past year or so, GM has still not repaid its TARP loan, and 33 percent of the company is still owned by the taxpayers.

$1,200-$1,500 to students who hardly pay taxes at all, roaming around a university campus on a Saturday…. All the while, the likelihood that these kids are even in the market to buy a car is slim.

Aside from making the worst cars on the street, it seems GM is also plagued with the decision-making skills of three-year-old children. But then again, three-year-olds might be less irresponsible….

Cross Posted at: RebelPundit

Follow @RebelPundit on Twitter

This mess is our fault — corporations have no responsibility.

Capitalism is the best thing that ever happened to human beings. The welfare state sounds wonderful but it doesn’t work.

Governments hand out more money than they have to support welfare and they land in debt.

Then they have to borrow money — and then there’s interest on top of that.

That’s bad business. And it has created a culture of entitlement.

When I was growing up my mother went to work. There was no welfare. If you worked, you made money.

If you didn’t work, you had to figure it out — you’d go and wash dishes.

The new breed of 20-year-olds don’t want to do those jobs.

So people from other countries come over and are thrilled to get the chance to wipe the floors.

Kiss are the only business-savvy band about and I make no apologies for that.

We sell everything from condoms to caskets — we’ll get you coming and we’ll get you going.

We outsell The Beatles and Elvis put together.

People say things like: “Oh, you make so much money. What do you need any more for?”

Well, actually, b*tch, I never asked for your opinion. I’ll let you know when I have enough money.

Read the whole speech here.

Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren could be the poster child for the law of unintended consequences.  Warren’s career was built upon advocacy of government regulations that created bigger problems than those she initially addressed.  As the problems compound, so does her call for even more government red tape.

All of this mader her a hero to the progressive community, a Harvard professor, an advisor to the president and a creator of a new regulation-pushing agency of government known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  Maybe once, she will get something right but don’t hold your breath. The housing market collapse is a case in point.

In 1994, President Clinton and his cronies laid the groundwork for the creation of the Housing Bubble and the Wall Street crisis a decade later.  The Investors Business Daily uncovered a “smoking gun” memo that declared war on a near invisible enemy – racism is mortgage lending:

At President Clinton’s direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.

The threat was codified in a 20-page “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

This government edict unleashed a wave of mortgage lending – including a significant number to those who could never pay back their loans – that ultimately lead to the collapse.

Rather than recognizing that a government edict led to the demise of the economy, Elizabeth Warren and her protégé, Richard Cordray not only called for more government regulations to fix the problems that the initial government regulation created, but Cordray took it a step further – suing companies who took advantage of the new government rules.  Cordray took advantage of the lawsuits by gathering hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions for the state Democrat Party, but that story is for another day.

Warren declared that a new government agency – the CFPB – would police Wall Street and Main Street for abuses of the free market.  The president cited a fee increase from Bank of America as an example of where the CFPB would be empowered to roll back.  The president failed to mention the fee was a response to another government action –price limits imposed on credit card transactions by the reform bill he signed into law.

The Investor Business Daily’s investigation into the subprime mess offers compelling evidence that should cast a distressful light on the CFPB.

The CFPB has been empowered to regulate nearly every financial transaction known to man.  From banning “payday loans” to limiting fee increases, this government agency will compound existing problems and call for more government regulations to addresses the inequities they created with their mandates.  This of course will be destructive to the economy, but given Cordray’s past, its safe to assume it will be profitable for the DNC.

And unless unaccountable structure of the CFPB is changed (or the agency repealed outright), there will be little Congress can do about it.