Blog @ MoreWhat.com

This video presentation is dated from the end of June 2010. Although DeMint is speaking about a particular piece of legislation he also expresses the continuing need for our US government to abandon an agenda that does not work and runs counter to our founding in addition to the immediate need for economic recovery.

That is why this video is presented. It emphasizes the desire by most Americans to adhere to those principles that have served us well for so long. The notable and well-known examples are to stop spending, stop increasing deficits and the national debt and above all get government out of the way of Americans who are the engine that drives our economic prosperity.

Thank you Senator Jim Demint (R-SC)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is no surprise to anyone. Beyond the problem of national security, border control and ignoring the rule of law and founding principles of our nation illegal immigration is a crushing economic burden. It’s time for a reminder to all the liberals supporting shamnesty. Like the rest of the liberal agenda the notion of shamnesty is dangerous. An excerpt from a new report on the economic risks associated with illegal immigration is presented below followed by a link to the full report. Read it and weep, or join the fight against illegal immigration to save our country.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers

Executive Summary

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84.2 billion at the state and local level.

The full report (click here)

Like DeMint you can pass by the Steele problem as it is merely a distraction. There are many reasons why ousting Democrats this November is important. Not the least of which is the Obama Administration’s decision to sue over Arizona defending its borders since the Obamanation will not. The other items mentioned in the title are equally important.

But the overall consideration is to return this beloved nation back to its founding principles and only conservatives seem interested in that goal. And be clear. Candidates like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are not conservatives. Fiorina destroyed HP. Fiorina is an establishment Republican who is in lock step with RINO McCain. Whitman is in the news for two things recently. Her support from other billionaires and shamnesty. Like Bloomberg and Murdoch as well as other limousine liberals they claim conservative values while eroding the rule of law and support liberal fantasies that are dangerous.

Find real conservatives to support and get them in office. Our nation needs them. Let’s move the country in the right direction after years of neglect.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

I don’t know what Stephen J. Rose is smokin’ but his pie in the sky forecast is exactly that.

Morning Is Coming
Four reasons why the economy will roar back to life.
Stephen J. Rose

From April of this year to the end of 2011, I predict GDP growth of 3 percent to 5 percent per year and five million net new jobs (about 250,000 jobs a month) from the lowest level of the downturn, along with an unemployment rate of 8 percent. The recovery should continue in 2012 and the unemployment rate should dip below 7 percent by the summer of 2012.

Am I crazy?

He points to four items he views as positive for recovery. The first is ‘real private investment spending’. Following his link does not explain how he arrived at his numbers. But it does show nothing but bad news.

His second item, rising inventories, leads to the same link, the same outcome and the same conclusion. A poll of business owners is his third item. While the link offers a view of the poll for subscribers and he suggests more businesses are ‘planning’ to invest such information is of limited usefulness.

The value of polls and surveys and their usefulness is again demonstrated by the author’s fourth item. Consumer confidence has contrasts and contradictions this time out not unlike the views of economists.

U.S. Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index Rose to 75.5 (Update2)
June 11, 2010, 11:56 AM EDT
Shobhana Chandra

June 11 (Bloomberg) — Confidence among U.S. consumers rose in June to the highest level in more than two years, a private survey showed.

Wow, consumer confidence is way up. Wait a minute. What’s that? Consumer confidence cratered?

Consumer confidence tumbles in June
By ANNE D’INNOCENZIO (AP) – 2 days ago

The Conference Board, a private research group based in New York, said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index dropped almost 10 points to 52.9, down from the revised 62.7 in May. Economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters had been expecting 62.8 for June.

June’s reading marked the biggest drop since February, when the index fell 10 points. The index had risen for three straight months since then.

Based on market data presented in the previous post, the items in this post and other indicators you may care to browse, the economy stinks and there’s no relief in sight contrary to the Rose article.

The economy needs less government as in no takeovers, bailouts, porkulus or other nonsense and lower taxes, less spending and reducing debt. The same people (politicians) who criticized others for greed and poor judgment leading to the so-called meltdown do not practice what they preach. But then it was never about the truth or doing the right things.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Contrary to some of the information in the report below which may be typical of most news accounts this week the US economy and many of those around the globe have no strength. Just as jobs lag behind other factors related to recovery it may take the public a long time to finally decide things are really bad. The latest consumer confidence report may indicate that time has come. And unfortunately for nearly everything about economies, if the public doesn’t spend the economic engine has no fuel. Talk about your energy crisis.

‘But economists say’ are weasel words. Not all economists hold one view on anything. The same holds true for every other group. The great psychological forces that influence markets are in play. And the liberal majority in the US Congress and occupying the White House are desperately trying to advance their agenda even though it runs contrary to recovery.

The suggestion within the report below that suggests recovery may be illusive for six months to a year conveniently aligns with the 2010 elections and enough time to have new blood reign in government meddling in the private sector. That could spur a recovery.

Check the numbers below after the report from Mil Arcega.

Stocks Fall on Double Dip Fears
Mil Arcega | Washington 30 June 2010

Global stocks fell again on Wednesday on new worries about the pace of the global economic recovery. In the U.S., the Dow Jones Industrial Average has declined more than nine percent in the second quarter, fueled in part by a drop in consumer confidence and continuing worries about the health of the global economy. But economists say speculation that the world economy could slip back into another recession is simply that - speculation.

Falling stocks and a slow recovery in the job market have put many Americans in a pessimistic mood. Consumer confidence fell sharply in June — raising fears that a decline in consumer spending could trigger another recession.

But economist Jim Glassman at JP Morgan Chase says the worries are greatly exaggerated. “When you look at the consumer trends, consumer spending is actually pretty steady, and the job front, we will find out on Friday,” he said.

That’s when the monthly U.S. unemployment report comes out.

Meanwhile, doubts about the pace of recovery continues to roil global stocks. In Asia, key indexes finished the second quarter with the worst performance since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.

“Of course, the main concern is really the ongoing credit crisis in Europe. The sovereign risk — Greece can’t repay their debt even though the Central Bank and IMF announced a 750 billion euro facility that still has not restored the confidence of the financial markets,” said Francis Lun, the head of Fullbright Securities in Hong Kong.

Some reports added to the pessimism, suggesting the U.S. could fall back into recession as the effects of the 800 billion dollar stimulus begins to fade.
But economist Mark Zandi says a double-dip scenario is unlikely. “I think the economy will make it through. It’s going to be a bit tricky. We’re going to feel uncomfortable over the next six to 12 months. As the reporter said, the benefits of the stimulus is fading, but I think there’s enough good going on that we’ll make it through without a recession,” he said.

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Wisconsin on Wednesday President Barack Obama acknowledged the frustration many Americans feel about the economy and more importantly — jobs. “Today, we’ve added private sector jobs for five months in a row. So the economy is headed in the right direction. But I know that for a lot of Americans - for Racine and a lot of other communities - it’s not heading there fast enough,” he said.

The much anticipated employment report coming out on Friday should give investors a clearer picture of how fast the U.S. economy is growing. Preliminary reports suggest job growth in the private sector is likely to fall short of expectations.

Here are some of the preliminary numbers on the quarter, from the close on March 31 through 4 p.m. Wednesday according to Thomson Reuters data.

S&P 500: -11.86%
Nasdaq Composite: -12.04%
Dow Jones Industrials: -9.97%
Russell 2000: -9.24%
U.S. Dollar Index: +6.19%

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

When the last vestige of the Kennedy political machine lost the liberal lion, Ted Kennedy’s US Senate seat was transferred to rookie politician Scott Brown. Brown’s performance as the junior senator from Taxachusetts may be the only transparency in Washington, DC.

A laughable commentary at Salon might serve as the liberal take on the subject given Brown’s negotiation with the majority party, his campaign finance sources and the status of financial legislation pending in Congress.

Let the mockery begin. Mere moments ago, I was urging Democrats to go on the attack, and make it clear that Republicans simply aren’t serious about governing. But as it stands now, the Dems are folding without a fight. The Republicans might not be serious, but the Democrats are simply incapable.

That excerpt is from a diatribe on so-called Wall Street reform and the author’s frustration about Scott Brown impeding the liberal agenda.

The take from WaPo features some quotes from the junior Senator.

Brown said in a statement Monday that he was “surprised and extremely disappointed” by the proposed assessment. “While I’m still reviewing the bill’s details, these provisions were not in the Senate version of the bill which I previously supported,” he said. “My fear is that these costs would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher bank, ATM and credit card fees and put a strain on lending at the worst possible time for our economy. I’ve said repeatedly that I cannot support any bill that raises taxes.”

Too often POLS of one stripe who successfully seek office in an area dominated by the other stripe become double agents and in the case of Republicans, RINOs. Part of a report from Forbes on this topic makes the point.

Some of the biggest contributors to his campaign committee include political action committees and employees associated with FMR (think Fidelity Investments), Bain Capital, Credit Suisse Group and Barclay’s, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Whether it’s regarding constituents or campaign contributors, Brown has quickly learned in Washington that it’s not smart to bite that hand that feeds you.

As with health care reform, don’t expect the Massachusetts Republican to derail financial regulatory reform. But he’s certainly making life difficult for Democrats.

The writer from Salon must not have considered the oldest ploy in politics. Your contributors are your masters. Brown has no interest in being conservative. He is acting on behalf of Massachusetts’ employers and his largest campaign donors. As Forbes suggests, he will not torpedo liberal Wall Street legislation. He will just play conservative long enough to get what he wants…. re-elected.

If there are any conservatives in Massachusetts they need to find a replacement for Scott Brown next time around.

As for the other members of the Senate who voted against others in their respective political party the five have their stated reasons.

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) voted against the Senate version of a financial regulatory reform bill, saying it did not close potentially dangerous loopholes in the derivatives regulations.

Leave it to Russ Feingold to tie his vote to a plausible explanation that would play well to voters whether liberal or conservative. That may explain why he has been re-elected. Casual voters do not detect the ruse. And of course, liberals only vote for liberals. The following is Senator Feingold’s stated reason for voting against the bill.

“The bill does not eliminate the risk to our economy posed by ‘too big to fail’ financial firms, nor does it restore the proven safeguards established after the Great Depression, which separated Main Street banks from big Wall Street firms and are essential to preventing another economic meltdown. The recent financial crisis triggered the nation’s worst recession since the Great Depression. The bill should have included reforms to prevent another such crisis. Regrettably, it did not.”

Brown voted for the bill because Dems said they would give him what he wanted.

Grassley voted for the bill because his amendments were passed.

Collins voted for the bill because her amendments were passed.

Snowe voted for the bill because her amendments were passed.

Feingold and Grassley face re-election this year. Brown, Cantwell and Snowe face re-election in 2012 and Collins in 2014. It is easy to believe Feingold opposed the bill to please conservative voters in the liberal-leaning state of Wisconsin while Grassley supported it to please the liberals in Iowa. Brown supports it with conditions his state gets perks in the bill. Collins and Snowe are well-known RINOs and their support for the bill was expected as well as for the rest of the liberal agenda. Cantwell is a liberal in a liberal state. Who knows if her stated reason is genuine?

If you follow the link below and click on the bill number there are reports available including the minority view (GOP) on the legislation considered. These are statements offering compelling arguments in opposition to the proposed legislation. Something many people probably do not read (but should).

Roll Call Vote for H.R. 4173 (Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 )

This blog has frequently published items that include the sentiment of ‘throwing the bums out’. Some of what is discussed in this post gives rise to that rallying cry again. The legislative process serves the legislators and not the voting public. Bills that produce thousands of pages and much lawyer speak as well as the hideous phrase ‘and for other purposes’ suggest most legislation is bad. And it is.

The public needs to push elected officials to change the process. All bills should be limited in scope and effect. This would reduce the time necessary to determine whether or not a bill has merit and eliminate much of the charade that allows politicians to game the system. And the public would not be burdened by results of poor legislation that only serves the POLS and those whose financial support aids in their re-election. That merely allows this flawed arrangement to continue indefinitely.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the finance committee and key player in passing Obamacare posted an item in Roll Call defending his work. The November 2010 elections are approaching and apparently Mr Baucus, like Mr Obama is focusing on damage control. If that were not the case and if Obamacare was inspired legislation that is good for the nation he would not have to defend it.  But defend it he does, again.

I have some questions for you Senator Baucus. But you probably will never read them on this tiny and obscure little blog in cyberspace.  And I do not have the time or patients to try to get your attention by other methods.  So let’s just give it a go and see how it works out.

The first question has essentially been asked at the top of this post.  If Obamacare, Demcare, HillaryCare, LiberalCare is so wonderful why do you need to defend it?  Good legislation that can stand on its own merits does not need to be defended.

Question two: Given the CBO estimates, your own actuary reports from HHS and numerous other sources, how can you claim Obamacare will ‘lower skyrocketing costs’ of healthcare? Just the half trillion dollars to be removed from Medicare plunges an iceberg into this titanic.

Question three: Given the power to be bestowed on bureaucrats to decide what constitutes insurance coverage, how doctors will be paid and what treatments are authorized how can you claim the quality of care will be improved?

Your anecdote on Billie Jo Meglen is heartwarming Mr Baucus.  But tell me; if the doughnut hole is $2000 and your fine legislation provided Billie Jo with a $250 ‘rebate’ check how does that really help? $250 is 12 1/2% of $2000.  Put another way, the $2000 she would pay without benefit of the $250 ‘rebate’ is 14.28% higher than with the $250 from the taxpayer. I can get a bigger discount by haggling with the pharmacy or the drug company.

And question four: I know, you said after that a 50% discount would be in place for drugs, etc.  Is that what the $80 billion payoff from Big Pharma was for or will the taxpayer be on the hook for the difference? Unless the drug companies keep handing you billions those discounts will be paid by taxpayers.

Mr Baucus, where is the offset to pay for the 35% discount to employers who provide health insurance?  And by the way, there’s a rumor out there that 60% or better of the current employer based plans will be disallowed once this thing gets going.  What say you, Senator?

And Senator, how is it you can magically make things disappear?  Like annual and lifetime claim limits and pre-existing conditions? If there is no limitation on claims a not-so-unlucky insurance carrier could easily go bust with too many high cost customers. How does Obamacare establish or maintain the basic idea of insurance for pooling risk?

And I really am unsure if I understand your terms when it comes to insurance company disclosure. If what you pay for claims are ‘costs’ how do you ask them to pay 80% of profits on those costs? Isn’t profit what you hopefully have left over after paying costs? BTW, just what is an ‘exorbitant salary’?  Who gets to make that determination?

Your claims and defense of Obamacare seems vague and ripe with generalities.  Like how ‘Americans and small businesses’ (interesting distinction) will receive billions in tax credits without, shall we say, breaking the bank?

‘The new law is fully paid for and won’t add a dime to the national debt.’ That’s a real difficult claim to believe Mr Baucus.  I didn’t believe it the first time I heard it.

Do you really expect American taxpayers to accept these claims? Especially given all the evidence to the contrary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Feed and clothe the poor. Now there’s a noble endeavor. And let’s not forget to give welfare recipients an ATM card. It would be equally enlightening to allow them to use the ATM card at their favorite casino.

ATM cards given to welfare recipients in, go figure, California, are enabled to withdraw money at more than half the state’s casinos. Now ’state officials’ are trying to determine how much ‘taxpayer’ money has been withdrawn from casinos using California’s welfare debit cards.

“We have instructed our vendors to prohibit these cards from being accepted at ATMs located in casinos and card rooms,” Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said Wednesday. “It is reprehensible that anyone would use taxpayer money for anything other than its intended purpose.”

While term-limited Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger has done nothing to change California’s image as the poster child for nanny state failures the state’s prospect of having shamnesty advocate Meg Whitman or Moonbeam Jerry Brown as the next governor almost guarantees the continued path to disaster for one of this nation’s socialist strongholds.

And you have to love McLear’s statement. So, limiting the use of the cards was not on their mind after reaching the hair-brained idea to give welfare recipients an ATM card in the first place? That’s more ‘reprehensible’ than what he suggests in the second sentence. Like you do not have to assume some will ‘game’ the system when you create one.

Individual liberty, individual responsibility and conservative principles are lost on the land of fruits, nuts and flakes.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sometimes one could understandably draw the conclusion the current President of the United States may need the help of a therapist. Not like his liberal agenda isn’t reason enough to be concerned about his mental health. And a report this week certainly supports such a concern.

President Barack Obama accused Republicans on Saturday of blocking legislation that would boost the nation’s economic recovery and lift a $75 million cap on what oil companies must pay to families and small businesses affected by an oil spill.

Look at the information on either side of the word ‘and’ in the report’s opening paragraph provided. A most hideous feature of most if not all legislation is characterized in a common phrase found in most bills. ‘And for other purposes’ is the phrase that plagues most legislation. Mr President fails to mention this fact while criticizing the loyal opposition.

Not that Republicans, Democrats, Independents or simply all POLS are not guilty of allowing this tactic but it needs to be addressed. The habit of placing bad legislation along with possibly good legislation in most or all bills is the problem. In voting for or against any particular bill each politician is likely forced to support or oppose items that are good and bad.

Here’s more of the nonsense Mr President would like you to believe in his weekly address.

“Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the Senate won’t even allow this legislation to come up for a vote,” the president said in his weekly radio and Internet address. “And if this obstruction continues, unemployed Americans will see their benefits stop. Teachers and firefighters will lose their jobs. Families will pay more for their first home.”

Mr President really wants to spend more of your money. He also wants to spend more of the money of those he defines as villains, like oil companies. Mr President should remove the liability cap proposal from so-called recovery legislation if he wants to bring it to a vote.

As stated earlier in this post, ‘and for other purposes’ is a phrase that needs to go away. Let an idea for a bill stand on its own merits. Don’t continue to spew the rhetoric that the other guys are the problem. With that old ploy of mixing good and bad in legislation everyone loses.

Bad legislative items are simply bad. Good legislative items are only the least bad the government can do. Getting rid of ‘and for other purposes’ would force legislative items to be less problematic for citizens and more of a proble for POLS. We need to take away the POLS excuse that the mixture of items in a bill was responsible for their voting choice.

And BTW, Mr President coerced BP to agree to a $20 billion contingency fund for claims related to the Gulf oil mess. Never mind that this may give BP a leg up in likely court battles in the future but that fund and the fact BP has already paid out more than the $75 million limit renders Obama’s argument moot. He simply wants to gouge his defined villains for more money than current law allows.

That he expects you to believe his rhetoric is the cause for concern about his mental health.

Recently Mr Obama was heard to say he is tired of talk and wants action. Mr Obama, you are the President. Do something impressive. Do something most Americans can support. Or is that asking too much?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Upon reading an article from the Washington Examiner this morning I was once again reminded of the timely work of Michelle Malkin and her book the Culture of Corruption. This story has a connetion to the University of Chicago, the Obama administration and funny business going on in public office. Maybe not so funny for those affected by the acts of those in public office.

Fenty administration raided workers’ insurance fund
June 19, 2010

The Fenty administration took $10 million from a workers’ insurance fund that is now the center of multiple investigations, sources told The Washington Examiner .

Fenty and his attorney general, Peter Nickles, have now acknowledged that hundreds of disabled workers were charged for life insurance but weren’t actually given the policies. The administration announced that it was handing the matter over to the city’s inspector general last week.

The workers’ money, which might be worth up to $6 million, went into the city’s workers’ compensation fund.

And now for the Obama administration connection…..

Dan Tangherlini was the city administrator at the time and determined the city was safe in ‘raiding’ the fund. Tangherlini has been with Obama’s Treasury Department for a while now. The Examiner said he wasn’t available for comment on the story. Imagine that.

And the connection to the University of Chicago is, you guessed it, Dan Tangherlini. And even though the report states ‘authorities have not found any evidence of corruption’ you can bet there is.

It seems the Obamanation just can’t get enough people with questionable pasts to work for them. The only annoying part of the story is a common problem. ‘Sources familiar with the investigations’ and ’speaking on condition of anonymity’ appears in the report.

Tangherlini has been busy. He has had more than a few jobs at different levels of government. You can get his official info at Treasury simply searching on his last name. He seems a compatible match for tax cheat Tim Geithner. Although after AIG and his history at the NY Fed, Geithner’s tax problems may decline on the corruption scale.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Even though the national debt, budget deficits, unemployment, a recession, global economic turmoil and an absence of lending and investment plague the planet the liberals among us seem to think we can spend our way out of trouble. The question would be where does the money come from for that spending?

“It is essential that we continue to explore additional measures to spur job creation and build momentum toward recovery, even as we establish a path to long-term fiscal discipline,” Mr. Obama said in the letter to congressional leaders, a copy of which was seen by The Wall Street Journal. “At this critical moment, We cannot afford to slide backwards just as our recovery is taking hold.”

Mr President, where do you get the idea ‘our recovery is taking hold’? And even if it was where do you get the idea you can spend money we don’t have to create jobs? Just like the 410,000 jobs in the latest government report were all temporary census jobs save for 41,000 private sector additions make work jobs do not improve the economy.

Here’s the real deal.

…policymakers, who want to boost the economy and create more jobs ahead of midterm elections in November, but who worry about increasing the federal government’s record budget deficits. Polls have suggested that voters are concerned about both issues.

Duh, POLS want to look good in advance of re-election bids. So let’s spend taxpayer money we don’t have to ‘create’ jobs that won’t exist for long. Or if they do it will simply mean continuing to spend that taxpayer money we don’t have. If enough taxpayers are not working that piggy bank you keep raiding will certainly not contain adequate funds.

You cry about public jobs lost as in police, fire and teacher positions. Reports indicate pay and benefits for public sector jobs far outweigh the private sector. So let’s see. You want to extend and increase public sector jobs at rates higher than those paid for private sector jobs from taxpayer money.

Your nanny state agenda where the government pays for everything is failing. The simple truth is you cannot expect taxpayers to provide the source for all your spending. If you strangle the private sector by your policies there is nothing left to pay for your nanny state ideology.

And yet there are liberal politiicians trying to figure out how to run for re-election and at the same time spend more taxpayer money we don’t have.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Economic stimulus legislation, aka, Porkulus, along with government bailouts and nationalizing private sector entities also with taxpayer dollars reeks of socialism of the European style and causes many voters to be outraged. Most of this occurs at the federal level but the public needs to focus on other similar circumstances as well.

An earlier post on this blog reminds readers that state governments have a knack for whining for federal dollars (taxpayer money of course) as if it is somehow manna from heaven and not associated with the citizen burden known as taxes.

Just as POLS in Washington are crippling our nation with debt those at the state and local level are not immune to the addiction. We need to understand that this disease is widespread and more failures and disaster loom if it is not corrected. A welcome report from the WSJ helps illuminate the problem further. Wreckless borrowing is alive and well at the state and local level in these United States.

These abuses came to a head in the second half of 2008, when spooked investors were unwilling to bet on more municipal debt after several insurers who typically back these bonds exited the market. Then Washington stepped in with a new Build America Bond (BAB), allowing states and municipalities to issue them. Thanks to a federal subsidy, they carry attractive interest rates. Last year municipalities used BABs to rack up another $58 billion in debt.

Taxpayers are only slowly realizing that their states and municipalities face long-term obligations that will be increasingly hard to meet. Rick Bookstaber, a senior policy adviser to the Securities and Exchange Commission, recently warned that the muni market has all the characteristics of a crisis that might unfold with “a widespread cascade in defaults.” If that painful scenario materializes, it will be because we have too long ignored how some politicians have become addicted to debt.

Just what we need. More fiduciary malfeasance from other levels of irresponsible government.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you really thought government bailouts were a good thing for our nation you might want to reconsider that opinion. It is refreshing to have someone express Wall Street has nothing to do with this latest chink in the bailout armor.

Banks defaulting on arrangements related to acceptance of bailout funds, aka, taxpayer dollars may not receive as much criticism as the defaults of others where financial transactions are concerned.

Is there anything positive about taxpayer’s propping up failing enterprises whether they are public or private? Probably not.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Small banks a growing drag on bailout program
More than 100 have missed dividend payments to government

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department’s financial bailout has a growing problem on its hands, and this time it has nothing to do with Wall Street.

A new report from the agency shows that community banks continue to plague the program.

A total of 101 bailed-out banks - nearly all are small - have missed paying the government a dividend, which was a condition of taking the aid.

That number is up 25 percent since February and has nearly doubled since November.

Not like the report below from CNN is earth-shattering news. Ealier this year reports revealed significant growth in temporary employment. Then there is the fantasy world of President Obama who continues to maintain nanny state temporary census jobs in the latest monthly data demonstrate the recovery is in progress and the employment picture is rosy.

Many of the jobs employers are adding are temporary or contract positions, rather than traditional full-time jobs with benefits. With unemployment remaining near 10%, employers have their pick of workers willing to accept less secure positions.

Given the restrictions and burdens placed on employers from Obamacare who can blame them for hiring temps or treating workers as contractors? When the government mandates how you must manage your business if they haven’t already nationalized it there is little room for anything beyond closing the doors.

But hey, liberals can rejoice now that they are destroying the very economy that pays for all their entitlements. Well, it doesn’t really pay for them. It passes the debt on to the next generation. Current taxpayers are merely making what amounts to interest only payments on debt as far as the eye can see.

If the big spenders and program generators are thrown out of federal, state and local government starting in November 2010 we might be able to save our nation from the crippling agenda of the Democratic party majority.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Can’t help but display the image below once again…..

To that must be added the following image for contrast….