After months of indecisiveness, Barack Obama finally has his strategy for Afghanistan.  He is going to pretty-much honor General McChrystal's request and will send four combat brigades and thousands of support troops.  Looks like the dithering is over ... for now.  At least we finally have a decision from the President.  I'm happy to say that leftist panties are already in a wad over this one.

 

Let's take Barney Frank.  Slobbering Barney has already decided that he will oppose a troop increase in Afghanistan.  He says that he opposes the troop increase because people in his voting district face greater threats than al Qaeda.  Barney the Bombastic believes that the federal government should be spending more on domestic priorities rather than on wars.  He says ... you'll love this ... crime and global warming pose a greater threat to voters in his district than does al Qaeda.  He says, "There are cops in my districts who have been laid off. And there are people in my district who need more protection from criminals than they need from al Qaeda.

 

Thank you Barney. We're so glad to have you in the congress.  Without great minds like yours we might have gone on thinking that the Taliban with a nuke might present more of a threat than global warming.  Stupid us.  Glad you're around to keep us straight (so to speak). 

Slobbering Barney has let the cat out of the bag. Barney has gone on record saying that the Democrats are trying to do everything they can to increase the role of government in your lives. Now if you have been listening to me for a while or you have been a reader of Nealz Nuze, this is a real big "duh." Consider, though, that only a minority of Americans listen to talk radio, and there sure hasn't been anyone on their TV news or their newspapers telling them that the ultimate goal of the Democrat Party is to grow government while reducing the private sector. Actually ... they're too busy watching Entertainment Tonight and talking about this coming weekend's football games. Growing the role of government in our lives has been the Democrat goal for decades. After all, this is a party that believes America's greatness comes from government. The surprise is that they're finally saying it out loud! Maybe they think they've come to the point where the people share that goal. Have you ever heard such venom aimed at the private sector? The word "corporation" is now used as an epithet. People worry more about what businessmen earn than the corruption of their elected officials. The Democrats see this as their time ... get on the government growth road and go as fast as you can before the voters throw up a roadblock.

Keeping this quote in mind from Barney Frank, what is he currently doing with his position of authority in Washington? He is the guy in charge of solving this problem of "too big to fail." Yep. Slobbering Barney is the one who will figure out how to "give the federal government more powers to wind down major financial firms." How do ya like that? Barney Frank admits that he wants to increase the role of government while working on a piece of legislation to give the federal government unprecedented (and Constitutionally questionable) authority over private businesses.

Barney even got a little clever, comparing his plan to the Republicans "death panels." He says, "We're going to have death panels. But they're going to have death panels that are going to put to death these institutions before they can cause us problems, not old people."

I want you to remember something. Ever heard of someone named Herb Moses? Probably not. Moses was Barney's boyfriend for a number of years. OK ... so no problem with Barney and Moses having a relationship, right? But did you know that Moses was an executive with Fannie Mae while he and Barney were boxing tonsils? Yup; 'tis true! In fact; Herb Moses was one of the Fannie Mae executives pushing the very Fannie Mae loan guarantee programs that led to our housing and mortgage crisis ... all this while his boyfriend was serving on the House Banking Committee (now the House Financial Services Committee) for the entire 10 years of their relationship. During and since that time Barney Frank could be counted on to defend Fannie Mae and to make sure that nobody looked to closely at what was actually going on. Since 1989 Frank has received tens of thousands of campaign contributions from the now-defunct Fannie Mae. Why bring this up? Well ... considering the type of people we have running the show, aren't you looking forward to all that government moving into your personal life? And remember ---- it's the corporations, not government, that are evil.

As early as this week, the Democrats could introduce legislation giving the federal government even more authority over private businesses.  Where the federal government is deriving this authority is questionable ... apparently people in Washington are reading a different Constitution than I am ... but who am I kidding?  The Constitution is more like a "guideline" that gets in the way of the federal government doing what it needs to do!  Right?

 

Moving right along ... Barney Frank will be introducing legislation that would make it easier for the federal government to seize control of institutions that have been deemed "too big to fail."  The legislation would make it easier to take over the institutions, throw out management, wipe out the shareholders and change the terms of any existing loans held by the institution.

 

This is wonderful, right?  First of all ... who gets to make the "too big to fail" decision?  Why the government, of course!  And what happens then?  Well the same government that brought us Social Security, Medicare, The Postal Service, AMTRAK, and so many other sterling examples of government efficiency and business acumen will be running more and more of American business.  Just what we need. 

We all know of the disaster that occurred, thanks in large part to the Community Reinvestment Act of the 1970s. This is the brilliant idea that government would require financial institutions to lend to unqualified borrowers. Long story very short ... eventually this policy led to the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to the economic difficulties we're facing today.

So what is the logic emanating from Washington today? Let's EXPAND the scope and power of the Community Reinvestment Act.

Yesterday, Barney Frank held a hearing on the "Community Reinvestment Modernization Act of 2009." The bill's purpose is "to close the wealth gap in the United States" by increasing "home ownership and small business ownership for low- and moderate-income borrowers and persons of color." And, according to this column by Byron York, "It would also make CRA more explicitly race-based by requiring CRA standards to be applied to minorities, regardless of income, going beyond earlier requirements that applied solely to low- and moderate-income areas."

Here we have the man largely responsible for the disasters we're facing today proposing even more power for his pet agency. Yeah .. that's going to work out real well for all of us. I wonder if Barney still has some boyfriends working out there who might get a career boost from this proposal.

Slobbering Barney Frank held a town hall in his district. If you could manage to understand him, you would have learned a startling new fact: "we would have had enough money to pay for healthcare reform if we hadn't gone to Iraq." Yes, according to Congressman Barney Frank, one of the ways that he wants to pay for healthcare reform is by decreasing military spending which he currently characterizes as "excessive." Other ways that he wants to pay for healthcare are by increasing taxes on the evil rich and cracking down on overseas tax evasion. He also alluded to the idea that the small business cut off is too high - set at $500,000. Also if I'm not mistaken, Barney Frank also wants subsidies for people who can't afford healthcare. Yet another government handout.

Well have more from Slobbering Barney - plus some soundclips - on the show today.

This is so completely lame. Just another indication of how stupid the politicians in Washington think you are. I'm talking about the White House response to those video clips that evil, mean, racist, bigoted, ugly, hairless (speak for yourself, Boortz) radio talk show hosts have been playing on the air.

OK ... definition first. We have to be clear on the definition of the term "single payer." This means that there's one entity that writes the checks for all health care services. Prescription drugs, doctor visits, hospital stays ... one person writes the checks. Now of course that one person will be the government. Now I suppose you could have a situation where that one person would be one insurance company ... but it would be an insurance company selected by the government and, of course, controlled by the government. Hopefully you can see if the "single payer" is the government, then the government decides what gets paid for and what does not. This means the government gets to determine the extent of your access to health care, prescription drugs, etc. "Single payer" sounds innocuous enough, but it is merely a euphemism for "government."

Now the current debate is whether or not Obama and the looters are taking us to a single payer plan .. a plan where government makes all the decisions as to who gets paid how much for what medical-related service. Those video clips you heard on the show earlier this week were pretty plain. We had Obama speaking to the AFL-CIO in 2003 saying "Single payer health care plan - universal health care -- that is what I would like to see." He also says "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care plan." He follows up with "but first we gotta take back the White House, we gotta take back the Senate, and we gotta take back the House of Representatives." The language is pretty clear. There's no "taking out of context" stuff here. Listen to the clip and see for yourself. We also played clips from such luminaries as Slobbering Barney Frank making it absolutely clear that single payer - government payer - government control is what we are after here. Remember .. if all payments for health care come from the government ... the single payer ... where are the private health insurance companies? Gone! That's where.

So .. the people don't like what they're hearing, and the White House reacts. They pull out ABC retread Linda Douglass ... now in charge of White House propaganda for health care ... to do a little three-minute video trying to convince us that Barack Obama is not for a single payer plan. He's actually in favor of health insurance reform! You can watch Linda Douglass' White House video here or right below. She plays a couple of clips - recent clips - from Obama where he promises that you can keep your health insurance if you like it. Nowhere does she address Obama's previous dedication to a single payer plan. Nowhere does she mention that once there is any change, no matter how minute, in your private plan you must drop that plan and head to the government plan. This is a lady who has sold her soul to the cause of socialized medicine. Pretty much what you would expect from a network news hack.

I have a message for Slobbering Barney Frank: stay out of the housing crisis. You've already caused enough damage for this country. Please butt out ... if I can use the phrase "butt out" with you.

Who am I kidding? Yesterday Barney Frank threatened the banks. Yep he says that if the banks do not volunteer to save more homeowners from foreclosure, Congress is going to force them. All hail the imperial federal government!

Barney Frank is going to revive the legislation that I told you about earlier in the year. This is the bill that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify home loans. He also says that his committee will not consider any legislation to help banks with lending unless there is a "significant increase" in mortgage modifications.

Promise you this ... as soon as bankruptcy judges are allowed to modify the provisions of home loans, including the principal balance due, mortgage interest rates will be on the way up. Way up.

You know ... maybe the real goal here on the part of Slobbering Barney and his Democrat fellow travelers is to nationalize the home mortgage business. Only by making the government the one and only mortgage lender can you make sure that Barney stays happy.

This Friday the House is going to vote to ban corporate pay practices at financial firms. What kind of pay practices? Anything that the government deems to be an "inappropriate risk." What exactly is considered an "inappropriate risk." Well that is for the government - that means bureaucrats -- to decide. People like Barney Frank or other government hacks will suddenly be in charge of determining what pay practices are appropriate for financial firms in this country. This is a prime example of our imperial federal government run amuck. We are talking about unprecedented power in the hands of the federal government. This is power that would have our Founding Fathers spinning around like they were on a rotisserie.

Slobbering Barney says, "If the risk pays off, you make money .. and if the risk doesn't, you suffer no penalties. Heads you win, tails you break even. It's like selling lottery tickets that only cost you money if they pay off." Yep. That's the man who is going to be in charge of regulating corporate pay for our financial system. His bill would ban any "risky" compensation that could threaten the "safety and soundness" of our economy.

Also, I think that Barney also managed to include in the bill a provision that would require financial companies to disclose to federal regulators any details on "incentive-based" compensation. Any details on ALL incentive-based compensation? We are talking about any and all bonuses paid out by the financial sector.

Oh and you will love this comment. This comes from one of my favorite Representatives. You people in Central Florida should be ashamed. Rep. Alan Grayson says that any attempts to water down this bill would only help "irresponsible managers who loot their companies.". Yep, because that is exactly what these financial institutions are all about.

Here's what this all boils down to: Government hacks who probably would have a tough time making it in the private sector are going to be telling business owners and managers what they can and what they cannot do in the operations of their businesses. This is a wholesale attack on economic liberty and free enterprise, and it is exactly what you would expect of the Democrat party and a president who, in writing, professed his affinity for Communism and Marxism.

You folks with the Obama bumper stickers? Thanks a pantload.

The government has some money left over from the $700 billion bank bailout. There is something like $259 billion in the fund plus another $70 billion that has been repaid by the banks. So now the debate remains ... what should be done with the "extra" money?

Tax cheat Tim Geithner wants to keep money in the program to provide "headroom" for "additional flexibility to Treasury in its efforts to stabilize the economy and build the foundation for long-term economic growth." Politicians, like Barney Frank, are just itching to get their hands on the money to be used for entitlement program. Slobbering Barney, for example, wants to use the dividends earned through interest owed by banks to go toward affordable housing programs .. read: welfare.

But the answer here should be really simple, folks. Give the money back to the taxpayers. This is not the government's money. It is not money that was willingly donated to Timothy Geithner's piggy bank. This is money that has been seized by the government from you, the taxpayers. How hard is this?

Slobbering Barney Frank has been busy lately. Last week he proposed the idea of relaxing regulations on the sale of condos. This week he wants to use TARP money to put poor people into housing. See, banks participating in TARP have to pay dividends to the Treasury. So far those banks have paid $5 billion. So now Barney Frank comes along and says, "Hey, I know how we can spend all of this money!" Certainly not to stimulate the economy, Barney, and not to pay off some of the debt you're running up either.

So here's Barney's plan. He has introduced legislation that would use $1 billion of those dividends in order to give rental housing to the poor, poor pitiful poor and to urban outdoorsmen. Here's the plan ... the $1 billion would be put into something called a national housing trust fund. This fund has apparently already been created ... it was done when the government decided to takeover Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. So Barney has the fund .. but no funds. Now Barack Obama's 2010 budget calls for this fund to receive $1 billion, so Barney's plan is just a way to make that happen. That's just the beginning, folks. That's just "seed money." The goal would be to put $150 billion over the next decade into this housing trust for poor people. That's a "15" with a pant-load of zeroes behind it.

Stay tuned! That's not all ... another $1.5 billion of these TARP dividends will be allocated to state and local governments to help them redevelop abandoned and foreclosed properties.

It keeps going. Barney Frank also wants to use some of the TARP money itself, not just the dividends. He wants $2 billion in TARP dollars to go toward an emergency mortgage relief program. Then another $2 billion in TARP dollars would create a program to help people cope with foreclosures on multifamily properties. All of this would be run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

We're never going to pay any of this money back my friends, not while the Washington Barneys see ways to use it to buy votes.

Yesterday Barney Frank was being interviewed by CNBC about these executive compensation levels.  Between all the spit and mumbling, you quickly notice that Barney Frank is really irritated.  After all, he's two damned important to have to stand around and answer to the people.  Another explanation is that he realized he was being bested by the interviewer, Mark Haines of CNBC, and wanted to get the hell out of there.  He knows that he can't rationally explain why the government should be able to set any type of guidelines or regulations on pay levels at private companies.

 

So Barney Frank, the quintessential void surrounded by a sphincter muscle, throws a hissy fit and declares the interview to be over and rips out his earpiece.  Haines' response, "Fine, goodbye sir. We'll manage without you."  Ain't that the truth.

The White House has decided that private companies deemed "too big to fail" need to be policed by a supercop, and the White House is recommending the Federal Reserve play the role.

Last week, Obama's economic advisors had a meeting with representatives from banks, hedge funds and financial groups. These groups had suggested to the president that if the government insisted on regulating industries, that the task should be divided among various regulators. But that doesn't seem to be what the White House is going for. It wants a single independent regulator to monitor system-wide risk, and that one regulator "should be given better visibility into all institutions that pose a risk to the financial system, regardless of what business they are in."

So we aren't just talking the financial industry here. We are talking about any company that the government feels is too big to fail and would pose a risk to the financial system. Who in Congress has been chosen to lead the task for drafting legislation for such a supercop?? None other than slobbering Barney Frank.

This legislation, according to tax cheat Tim Geithner will include an "aggressive" package of reforms for the financial industry. That includes a fundamental overhaul of how the industry pays its senior executives. In other words, those evil bonuses will be a thing of the past.

This is a massive proposed increase in the control privately-owned businesses by government. But I don't have to tell you that, do I? What you may not know, however, is what you call this type of economic system --- a system where business is owned privately but owned by the government. The word would be Fascism.

What more can you say about Slobbering Barney Frank? I mean, when you strain to understand the guy, you realize that there isn't much point ... his thought process is about as mushy as his syllables.

So Barney was making a speech ... wait, people PAY to hear this guy speak??? Anyway, Barney was making a speech at the National Low Income Housing Coalition. And get this. Barney tried to blame this entire mortgage meltdown on George Bush. I kid you not! Barney said that it was "a Bush-era policy to help low-income families become homeowners instead of renters contributed to the sub-prime mortgage crisis and, ultimately, the larger economic crisis now confronting the country." How blatant! The policy was promoted by Bush, to be sure ... but it originated under Clinton and was promoted by none other than Barney Frank himself!

But don't worry. It's Barney Frank to the rescue! He says, "We will do everything legally possible to preserve every unit of affordable (rental) housing." Yeah. It's the government's job to make sure that people can obtain affordable housing. Amazing stuff, isn't it folks?

Remember ... if you're not part of the parasite class, when you go out there to rent or buy a place to live, find out where these government-subsidized living units are, and get as far away from them as you possibly can. Unless, that is, you enjoy living around criminals and druggies.

Last week, Slobbering Barney (a man who has never worked in the private sector during his entire life) passed a bill through the House called the Pay for Performance Act that would allow the government to set compensation restrictions on all employees of all banks receiving bailout funds. Here comes the law of unintended consequences. Now we have the Obama administration is apparently trying to figure out ways to get around these restrictions. Why? Because some banks out there are trying to pay back their bailout funds while others are sending the signal that they don't want to get into the bailout process at all. Obama wants to control the banks. In order to control the banks he needs this bailout connection. Essentially it's a "you take my money and I own you" deal. Barney's wealth-envy based restrictions are a problem here.

So .. what do you do as president if there's a law in the way of your agenda? Simple. You figure out a way around the law. What do you think we're operating here? A system based on the rule of law? Get serious. So here's the plan. Sources indicate that Obama can get around the rules by not providing direct aid to financial companies. What you do here is set up some special entity that will act as a middleman. The government pays the middleman, and the middleman then sends the money off to the financial institution. Since the financial institution isn't getting bailout money "from the government" the Barney restrictions don't apply.

Is this legal? Heck, that doesn't really seem to be an issue any more. What does legality have to do with it? Where is the Constitutional authority for the government to seize these banks in the first place? Questions of legal and illegal have come to only apply to the private sector. As Mark Levin says in his book, we're now in what you might term a soft tyranny. The Constitution is only in the way. For the time being questions of legality don't apply.

Slobbering Barney Frank has never held a private sector job in his life. That might explain why this man holds the private sector in such disdain. Just two weeks ago, he was up there in Washington spitting nails about these AIG bonuses and how the government needed to "recover" this money. But people finally came to their senses and the bill quietly died.

But the latest move from the House Financial Services Committee .. which is led by Sylvester the Chairman has approved legislation that could be even more outrageous than the 90% tax on bailout bonuses. This new legislation is called the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009." Pay for performance? Since when has the government been one to pay anyone based on level of performance? If Barney is so hot about paying for performance, why not apply that to teachers in government schools? For right now Barney's legislation would impose government control on the pay of all employees at companies that have received bailout money from the government. The controls would be retroactive. That would mean that our government could walk into one of these workplaces, pick out one employee, and tell him that he has to "give back" some of the money he has already received.

So tax cheat Timothy Geithner - a government hack - will be determining the pay of thousands of employees of private American companies. Not only that, but the government will come up with the way in which to evaluate employee performance. And what is the excuse, according to the bill? In order to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards."

OK .. I know what you're saying. You think that Barney is serious when he says it would only be limited to companies receiving bailout funds. You may have been born at night, but was it last night? You really don't see that Barney and Friends would soon be looking for a way to extend these compensation controls to the rest of our economy? Look ... they have already put a floor on compensation with minimum wage laws. Why should they not believe they can install a ceiling?

Barney Frank has been a fierce defender of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac .. considering he was sleeping with a Freddie Mac executive when ...... well never mind. I don't want you to lose your breakfast. But he has also when one of the most outspoken (if that is what we can call that mumbo-jumbo coming out of Barney's mouth) critics of these AIG bonuses.

Guess what other companies are gearing up to dole out retention bonuses? Yep, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are companies that are at the epicenter of our mortgage meltdown. The US Treasury has agreed to give Fannie and Freddie $200 billion a piece in exchange for preferred stock. In 2008, they lost a combined total of about $108 billion.

But wait, Fannie may is going to pay retention bonuses of as much as much $470,000 to $611,000 this year to some of its executives. Freddie is planning to do the same, but we don't yet have the details.

Now I don't know if Barney's ex is still working there ... I think not ... but if he were, you could bet your bottom sheckle that Barney would dummy up on this one.

One of the most prominent phrases we heard in this AIG hearing yesterday was "give back." That phrase is such a mindless liberal talking point. You might have heard my discussion with a caller yesterday. I just hate this "give back" nonsense. I'm heavily involved in charitable giving. My wife has a 501C(3) charitable foundation. But I am NOT giving back. I'm giving. The money I give I earned. It was not given me. Therefore ... I am not giving it back. I'm convinced this whole "giving back" nonsense was created to cause people to subconsciously believe that whatever wealth a person might have was given them, not earned.

Did you happen to listen to those parts of the hearings yesterday where Slobbering Barney was demanding the names of the AIG employees who got the bonuses? These people committed no crimes .. yet here is the Imperial Federal Government demanding their names and sputtering about subpoenas. This is not only disgusting, it's chilling. You do something perfectly legal, and suddenly you have this politically powerful troll demanding your name.

Barney said that if AIG honcho Ed Liddy didn't turn over the names, he would ask his committee to vote to subpoena the names. Even though AIG employees are receiving death threats from the dumbmasses who couldn't tell their head from a hole in the ground .. Barney wants to make sure that we get those names!

But other members of Congress didn't seem to think this was a bad idea. Senator John Tester said, "Is there a downside? If they don't give the money back, they ought to have their names released." Senator Ben Cardin suggested that if the bonuses were not returned, the names should be given to the Justice Department and Eric Holder would decide if they should be released. Cardin said, "These bonuses have to be given back ... It's just unconscionable, and we can't allow that to happen. If necessary, we should take legislative action."

And let's not let this comment from Barack Obama go by the wayside. He said on the South Lawn yesterday, "People are rightly outraged about these particular bonuses ... But just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of that have existed for far too long." Just what culture is PrezBO talking about? The culture of capitalism?

There was so much more.

Perhaps the hokiest statement came from Rep. Paul Hodes, a Democrat from New Hampshire. He said that AIG stands for "Arrogance. Incompetence. Greed." How cute.

But moving right along ... AIG CEO Edward Liddy did ask that some of these bonus recipients give at least half of the money back. Those receiving retention payments of $100,000 or more were asked to return at least half of those payments.

Today in Washington we are going to have a Congressional beat down of AIG CEO Edward Liddy. He is going to appear in front of a House financial services subcommittee. And I think we can safely say that he is going to get a less than pleasant welcome. Liddy is going to have to defend the concept of abiding by the terms of your contracts with your employees. Look for Maxine Waters ask Liddy some questions ..

"What is a contract?" would be a good start. Mensa Maxine is so darn good at this sort of stuff. We'll also be treated to some posturing from the man most responsible for this mess ... and that would be Barney Frank.

So it turns out that AIG paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 of its employees. Eleven of those bonuses went to former employees. The contracts were written in March 2008, and they guaranteed 100% of their 2007 pay for 2008. They were not based on performance. Apparently the top individual bonus was more than $6.4 million, and the top seven received more than $4 million each. Did these people really earn this money? Possibly not. But they were parties to a contract .. and if the money had not been paid they would have most certainly sued for it.

Here's something I'm guessing you don't know. The Financial Services Division of AIG is headquartered in Wilton, Conn. In Connecticut they have a little gem called the "Wage Act." This law says that if an employee has to sue for wages payable pursuant to a contract they recover twice the amount that is contractually owed. That would have meant $330 million instead of $165 million. Add some attorney's fees on top of that. So ... you're running AIG. What would YOU do?

Now ... here is just a sampling of some of the comments coming out of Washington.

I'm sure that Chuckie Schumer would like to have his way with Edward Liddy. Did you hear what he had to say about these AIG bonuses? If not, here's a brief synopsis of what Chuckie had to say on the Senate floor:

"My colleagues and I are sending a letter to [AIG CEO Edward] Liddy informing him that he can go right ahead and tell the employees that are scheduled to get bonuses that they should voluntarily return them. Because if they don't, we plan to tax virtually all of it. He should tell his employees that if they don't give the money back, we'll put in place a new law that will allow us to tax these bonuses at a very high rate so it is returned to its rightful owners, the taxpayers. So for those of you who are getting these bonuses be forewarned, you will not be getting to keep them."

He wasn't the only one who had something to say about these bonuses. Harry Reid declared on the Senate floor, "Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money."

And slobbering Barney can't let a good wealth-envy moment go to waste. He's still sputtering about all of these bonuses asserting, "The time has come to exercise our ownership rights. We own most of the company. And then say, as owner, 'No, I'm not paying you the bonus. You didn't perform. You didn't live up to this contract."

Oh and we're not done yet. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus says, "They're not going to get the financial benefit of those bonuses."

And Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan introduced a bill into the House that would tax at 100% bonuses above $100,000 for any company receiving bailout money. Ryan says, "We will use any means necessary ... It boggles my mind how these executives can be so unaware of what the American people are going through." Democrat Rep Steve Israel also sponsored this bill. Israel says, "If we can't kill the bonuses, we'll tax the bonuses." He says, "American families shouldn't be forced to reward these professional financial failures with extravagant bonuses that could buy fancy cars and yachts ... AIG may not like it, but since they had to come to the federal government for help, the federal government now has a say in how they spend taxpayer money."

Another bill introduced by Democrat Rep Gary Peters would "create a 60 percent surtax on bonuses over $10,000 to any company in which the U.S. government has a 79 percent or greater equity stake in the company. Currently, AIG is the only company that meets this threshold."

This is an absolute orgy of pandering to wealth envy. In the meantime the government cruises along operating a Ponzi scheme that makes Bernie Madoff look like he's selling brushes door-to-door. That would be Social Security. Someday we're going to face a meltdown over this soon-to-be welfare program that is going to make AIG and Madoff look like two-bit operators.

Over the weekend, one of the big stories was these AIG bonuses. If you'll remember, AIG has received three government bailouts totaling $180 billion. But yesterday, the company paid out $165 million in bonuses to employees. The fact that AIG had to pay millions in bonuses, considering its massive failings, has politicians irate. Politicians don't get irate when millions of dollars are spent by government on blueberry research or lobster farms .. but let the private sector pay that type of money pursuant to a contract and all hell breaks loose. We're certainly not at all shocked to find that one of the ticked-off politicians is none other than Barney Frank. He says that we need to figure out whether or not these bonuses are "legally recoverable." Barney wants to know, "Who said and at what point, 'We're going to give these bonuses no matter what.' And I do think it's inappropriate for those people to stay in power at that company."

Hey Barney ... some taxpayers out here might want to know whether some of the pork you clowns throw around to buy votes is legally recoverable as well. Remember - if you had to put the blame for this economic mess we're facing right now on just one person in Washington, that person would, without a doubt, be Slobbering Barney. Maybe someday we'll get the full story about Barney protecting his boyfriend who worked at Fannie Mae while this mess was building.

AIG Chairman Edward Liddy says that "the firm was legally obligated to make already-committed 2008 employee-retention payments, the value of which were set early last year before problems at its Financial Products unit became public."

Here's the new reality my friends. Government can seize and spend as much as it wants where it wants and when it wants. The private sector? Not so much. God forbid a company should reward performance. Rewarding performance is something very foreign to politicians and they don't like it. They're used to punishing performance, not rewarding it. The private sector rewards performance and punishes failure .. just the opposite for Barney and his clown circus.

By now I am sure that you've heard about the Wall Street Journal report on Maxine Waters. Maxine Waters is arguably one of the most brain-dead politicians in Washington today. Do you remember her recent attempt to grill bank CEOs? Yeah, it is hard to watch, ain't it?

It is pretty well-known that Maxine Waters has close ties with OneUnited Bank, which happens to be a minority-owned institution (at least that is the politically correct way to say it). And when I say "close ties" I mean that Maxine and her husband have large financial stakes in the bank and her husband used to be a director. While enjoying the benefits of her family ties to OneUnited Maxine was publicly boosting OneUnited's executives and criticizing its government regulators during congressional hearings. Last fall, according to The Wall Street Journal, Maxine helped secure the bank a meeting with Treasury officials.

Here's more ....

In January, Ms. Waters acknowledged she made a call to the Treasury on OneUnited's behalf. The bank's capital, which was heavily invested in shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was all but wiped out with the federal takeover of the two mortgage giants, and the bank was seeking help from regulators.

OneUnited eventually secured bailout funds under the government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was set up later that month.

In a brief interview in January, Ms. Waters said she was unaware the bank received $12 million of TARP money, which arrived in December. OneUnited was "just a small" bank, she said.

A provision designed to aid OneUnited was written into the federal bailout legislation by none other than Barney Frank, the chairman of the financial-services panel. Mr. Frank has said he inserted the provision to help the only African-American owned bank in his home state. He said in an interview that Ms. Waters's interest "had zero impact on the outcome because I would have done it anyway."

All together now ... "Yeah, right."

Barney Frank, with his mouth full of marbles, managed to mutter something very telling. In an interview, which is actually from October of last year, Barney had this to say in regards to the idea of an economic stimulus bill:

"Yes, I believe later on there should be tax increases ... Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of this money."

Can anybody tell me what has my boxers in a bunch? Read it again. Did you catch the phrase "recover" some of this money? What's the premise there? The premise is that this money belonged to the government, and somehow these evil rich people got their hands on it. Now it's time for Slobbering Barney and his band of super-heroes to go out there and get the people's money back. That, in fact, is exactly what these government goons think. They believe that all wealth belongs to "the people;" that means to the government .. and that they are on some holy quest to go out there and get that money back from the crooks and wealthy criminals who have stolen it from worthy Americans.

Barney Frank is becoming more of a laughing-stock with each passing day. Well ... maybe not to people educated by government. It's hard to take the guy seriously with all those marbles in his mouth .. but when we can actually focus on his words, he is becoming increasingly comical. Get a load of this. This is the latest from the mind of Barney Frank. He had this to say to financial industry CEOs during the House Financial Services Committee hearing:

Let me ask you, on the incentive, and I'm glad to see that you're not, many of you are not taking bonuses. But I have to say this: if you believe in bonuses, then is that something bad? I mean, I guess, you've gotten bonuses over time. If in good times you were told you weren't going to get a bonus, what part of your job would you not do? I mean, if you weren't getting a bonus, would you like leave early on Wednesday? Or would you take longer lunches? Would you bypass a certain class of investors? I guess that's, you say, and somebody said, well, your incentive comes in shares that align your interests with that of the company's. Here's one of the problems: why in the world do some of the most highly-paid talented people who have jobs that are fun. Let's be clear, not always fun, this is not amusement park time. Why do you need to be bribed to have your interests aligned with the people who are paying your salary? And this is part of the problem. I know it's a problem at the lower end who get bonuses and that's been built into their compensation. But at your level, again, why do you need bonuses? Can't we just give you a good salary, or give yourselves a good salary, you're in charge of that -- and do the job? This notion that you need some special incentive to do the right thing troubles people.

Make no mistake .. Barney Frank is, at his core, a raving anti-capitalist. His rant against the concept of bonuses is designed to pander to the wealth-envy crowd, a cabal that has gained followers and strength that I've never seen in my 40 years of talk radio. Slobbering Barney will be one of Obama's main allies as we move to a government-controlled (that would be "fascist") economy.

We'll have to check with Jamie Dupree to see if this made it into the government growth agreement between the House and Senate. But in the version passed by the Senate, financial institutions that have received bailout money and paid executive bonuses would be required to compensate the taxpayers.

The amendment included in the bill would penalize companies that paid bonuses of more than $100,000 to executives after the company received bailout funds last year. The companies would be required to repay any portion of that bonus over $100,000 within four months or be hit with an excise tax of 35% on the portion above $100,000.

This amendment, by the way, was co-sponsored by Republican Sen. Olympia Snow of Maine. It is estimated that it could raise as much as $3.2 billion.

Let me say this again ... and I'll try to write more slowly so the government-educated among you can understand this.

We'll form this wonderful lecture on the economics of bonuses as a question:

The Dynamic Investment Bank is having a rough time. Projections are that DIB will lose about $5 billion dollars this year and will have to lay off as many as 2000 employees. You have a well-earned reputation as a financial turn-around artist. Many companies are trying to hire you. You tell DIB that there is no way you can avoid any losses this year, and some layoffs are inevitable. But you do think that you can save the company a lot of money and a lot of good employees. Here's the deal you want. In addition to a good salary, at the end of the year you want one-quarter of one percent of the amount by which you reduce that projected $5 billion loss. DIB agrees. At the end of the year the company has lost not $5 billion, but $2 billion and is on its way to profitability next year. What's more, you only had to lay off about 400 employees.

Now ... you have earned a bonus of $7,500,000. Should you get it? Should that revolting Barney Frank have the option of penalizing DIB if the bonus is paid?

Barney was on a roll yesterday. Someone must have slipped something into his Metamucil .. but Barney really went after the financial CEOs for complaining about government restrictions. And then we get this line: they will be out of the "driver's seat" when the economy turns around.

Now there's incentive to work hard to turn your companies around!

He goes on to say, "They have to convince people that they've learned enough from the mistakes they've made so that we can work together going forward with them not in the driver's seat, but inevitably playing a role so we can fix things."

Isn't that so nice of the government to allow these companies to "play a role" in the economic recovery of this nation? And if the company executives aren't in the driver's seat .. who is? Why GOVERNMENT, of course!

Slobbering Barney Frank has a message for you bankers out there: people hate you. No, seriously. He said Tuesday during a briefing of his agenda, "People really hate you, and they're starting to hate us because we're hanging out with you. And you have to help us deal with that." He also returns to these evil corporate jets, which have become the newest target for the wealth-envy crowd. He says, "Oh, and they need to not buy $50 million corporate jets if they're getting taxpayer funding, either ... They've got to lean over backwards not to offend people."

Offend people? Slobbering Barney is talking about not offending people?

The Wall Street Journal came out with a pretty sobering (but not surprising) report yesterday: Political Interference Seen in Bank Bailout Decisions.

The Treasury had said it would give money only to healthy banks, to jump-start lending. But OneUnited had seen most of its capital evaporate. Moreover, it was under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use.

Nonetheless, in December OneUnited got a $12 million injection from the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. One apparent factor: the intercession of Rep. Barney Frank, the powerful head of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Frank, by his own account, wrote into the TARP bill a provision specifically aimed at helping this particular home-state bank. And later, he acknowledges, he spoke to regulators urging that OneUnited be considered for a cash injection .....

He cites the bank's status as the state's only financial institution owned by African-American (blacks). "We did say, yes, I thought it would have been a social tragedy if the one minority bank in Massachusetts that has been working so hard and had been overextended into housing was to be wiped out by a federal action, the Fannie-Freddie preferred [shares] thing, and that's why I think it was important to try to help them.

So .. there you go. Barney Frank raises his handsome head again; this time he is send money we don't have to a black-owned bank. The purpose here was not stimulus. The purpose was to use the financial crisis as an excuse to shore up a politically favored bank in Barney Frank's district.

There is not one bit of doubt in my mind that, considering the various ways Barney Frank has been involved in this financial mess, if he were a Republican the media and the entirety of the Democrat Party would be yelling - and yelling loudly - for his scalp.

Get used to this.

We know how much Barney Frank loves corporations and the evil rich. And if Barney Frank had it his way .. any company that owns, leases or holds an ownership stake in private planes would not receive any bailout money. Yep, Barney has introduced legislation with restrictions on how the rest of the TARP funds may be spent. And one of his restrictions is that no company will receive federal bailout money until they can show the Treasury secretary that they are in the process of getting rid of their corporate jets. Slobbering jerk. Playing to wealth envy, pure and simple.

This $15 billion loan package for the automakers is just something to tide them over. Barney Frank says that he is just waiting for the Obama administration in order to get a real long-term bailout for the automakers next March. Barney says, "We don't think the $15 billion is enough to get them into March, but given the administration's insistence ... that's where we are now."

But there is one sure thing right now. No matter what, there will be some sort of "Car Czar." I've even heard reports that this person could be included in the presidential cabinet. So if we are going to have a government bureaucrat in charge of re-tooling the auto industry ... and you just know its coming ... let's make it a good one. My vote is for Mitt Romney.

Not that anyone cares, but where is it written that some bureaucrat chosen by politicians has any better of an idea how to run the auto companies than some private businessmen do?

But in the end, what we are getting from this proposal is still nothing but fluff. Like a requirement that these CEOs sell their corporate jets. Don't you think that Congress has more important things to worry about when it comes to the viability of these companies? Let's start with these horrendous union contracts.

For those of you who want to read this proposal for yourself ... have at it. [pdf]

At least Barney Frank is being honest about this bailout. He has admitted, it is not about the auto industry, it is about the unions. And he doesn't think that $25 billion is enough to save them. In fact, he doesn't think that number is "fair" because companies like AIG have been given more of your tax dollars in the form of a bailout. And this is "biased" towards white collar workers.

Here's Barney Frank on NPR:

"Well, AIG, which I don't think anyone would think was as important to the American economy as the auto industry ... got $40 billion just now to make it up over $100 billion. To some extent, let's not have a white-collar/blue-collar bias in our public policy. You know, those who say, hey, go bankrupt so you can cut back on what the unions have won -- the unions have already made some concessions. But, you know, we've had enough anti-union activity, and enough increase in income inequality in this country. I don't want to set a precedent that bankruptcy now is a way in which you undo what gains unions have been able to hold on to."

Wow, he really hits on all the high points here. Wealth envy. Income inequality. Anti-union activity.

Then we have Senator Carl Levin. He says that it would be "unthinkable" for Congress to let a "dispute over the source of the funds" be the reason not to bailout the auto industry. A dispute over the source of funds? Those funds don't just magically appear, Mr. Senator. Those funds are the tax dollars of your constituents. That's the issue here .. not just an ancillary dispute.

And finally, we have GOP Rep. from Michigan Joe Knollenberg. He says that the money funding the auto bailout "isn't your money." Do you hear that? It's not your money. Someone needs to remind this guy, who thankfully lost his bid for reelection, that the government is not independently wealthy but funded by the taxpayers.