Wednesday, April 28, 2010
With our current administration will it matter. I bet no one is outed or punished.
Cuba spies cooperating with U.S. authorities, officials sayRead more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/27/92990/cuba-spies-cooperating-with-us.html#ixzz0mQ4ah6ZR
Just a Thought
Does the new Arizona law mean that if Obama travels to the state he can be asked to show proof of citizenship?
Financial markets
The Return of 'Social Utility'Tony Blankley
In the last few weeks, I have found myself debating on radio and TV programs whether various financial instruments have any social utility -- any "real world" purpose other than "speculation or gambling." (Disclosure: I give professional advice to a number of financial organizations.)
My first instinct was to defend various derivatives as serving useful purposes: to hedge against various risks -- such as currency fluctuation or aviation-fuel price rises, to promote innovation, competition, efficiency and liquidity (paraphrasing Lawrence H. Summers, Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levitt and William J. Rainer from a 1999 Clinton administration report.)
I pointed out that creating a venue to which community banks could sell their mortgages freed up their capital to make more home loans, thus creating more homeowners. That is why Franklin D. Roosevelt set up Fannie Mae in 1938. Secondary markets tend to enlarge the primary market. This is good.
Short-selling, which is now being attacked as immoral, can be well defended in the words of Dean Baker, writing at the American Prospect: "Short-selling can play a very important role in the market. If informed investors recognize that a stock is overvalued, they perform a valuable service by selling it short and pushing down its stock price. This can both deprive the company of capital and be a signal to other actors in the market that the company might not be as healthy as is generally believed.
"The economy would have benefited enormously if large numbers of traders had shorted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac four years ago when they were buying up hundreds of billions of mortgages issued to buyers who bought homes at bubble-inflated prices. This would have stopped the bubble years ago. Similarly, we could have prevented the financial chaos at Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Bear Stearns and the rest, if traders had recognized their financial shenanigans and aggressively shorted their stock. In the same vein, heavy shorting by informed investors could have prevented the boom and bust of the tech bubble."
One could go on making rational arguments to irrational people. But the very idea of being asked to defend freely entered transactions on the grounds of "social utility" is socialist-Marxist bunk. What in the world is "social utility"? And who gets to say so? Why is making a profit as an athlete or a politician better than making a profit as a banker or insurance salesman?
As Ayn Rand explained so long ago: "When the 'common good' (i.e., social utility) of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that 'the common good' means the good of the majority as against the minority or individual."
It seems unfathomable that after a century of constant failure by every "social utility-minded" government on the planet, that today in 2010, the American government must be re-educated to that history of failure.
Yet, we have heard recently from Democrats in Washington that Wall Street makes too much money and is too big a share of the American economy. Compared to what? The financial juggernauts of Libya, Romania or the Congo? Or for that matter France, Russia or Spain. Or for that matter Japan, Saudi Arabia or China (yes, China with its fraudulent banks and corrupt, finagling government).
Well, one of the reasons our economy continues to amount to 25 percent of all human economic activity on this planet (although our population is less than 5 percent) is because a free, risk-taking, innovative Wall Street has been the financial capital of the world. Yes, we have busts from time to time. But our booms have outdone our busts. That's why we have been the leading economy on earth for over a hundred years.
But now the current majority in Congress and the White House (and their fellow thinkers in the media) seem to be possessed of cobwebbed, left-wing social utility theorems compounded by mental devolution to the historic idiocies and bigotries that our ancestors in the Old World -- in their ignorance -- imputed to money lenders, bankers, the Bavarian Illuminati, the House of Rothschild, etc.
Shakespeare's moving, but anti-Semitic "Merchant of Venice" seemed to make a re-appearance in The Washington Post's lead Sunday story headlined: "Cheers at Goldman as housing market fell; Executives reveled in bets made against the market."
"Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh; But, in the cutting it, if thou dost shed One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods Are by the laws of Venice confiscate Unto the state of Venice." -- Portia, "Merchant of Venice," Act IV, scene 1.
The flagrant Securities and Exchange Commission charge of civil fraud against Goldman Sachs last week, followed by Congress' release of embarrassing interoffice Goldman Sachs e-mails on Sunday, are obviously intended to set a moral tone for the final stage of the financial re-regulation bill currently before the Senate.
It would seem that statism, historical amnesia, economic ignorance and bigotry are the mental and moral dispositions that will be shaping the passage of our financial re-regulations bill in the Senate this week.
The current, ill-fated 111th Congress continues to blunder its way into our history books along with the dreadful 94th (cut off money to South Vietnam in 1975, lost the war and triggered the Cambodian genocide); 71st (1929-1930, passed the Smoot-Hawley Act, which led to the Great Depression); 63rd (1913-14, passed the 16th Amendment -- income tax; the 17th Amendment -- direct election of the Senate; and creation of the Federal Reserve, which led to weakening of the states, encroachment of the federal government); and 33rd (1854-55, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which quickened steps to the Civil War). A couple of more destructive laws enacted and the 111th will be No. 1.
In the last few weeks, I have found myself debating on radio and TV programs whether various financial instruments have any social utility -- any "real world" purpose other than "speculation or gambling." (Disclosure: I give professional advice to a number of financial organizations.)
My first instinct was to defend various derivatives as serving useful purposes: to hedge against various risks -- such as currency fluctuation or aviation-fuel price rises, to promote innovation, competition, efficiency and liquidity (paraphrasing Lawrence H. Summers, Alan Greenspan, Arthur Levitt and William J. Rainer from a 1999 Clinton administration report.)
I pointed out that creating a venue to which community banks could sell their mortgages freed up their capital to make more home loans, thus creating more homeowners. That is why Franklin D. Roosevelt set up Fannie Mae in 1938. Secondary markets tend to enlarge the primary market. This is good.
Short-selling, which is now being attacked as immoral, can be well defended in the words of Dean Baker, writing at the American Prospect: "Short-selling can play a very important role in the market. If informed investors recognize that a stock is overvalued, they perform a valuable service by selling it short and pushing down its stock price. This can both deprive the company of capital and be a signal to other actors in the market that the company might not be as healthy as is generally believed.
"The economy would have benefited enormously if large numbers of traders had shorted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac four years ago when they were buying up hundreds of billions of mortgages issued to buyers who bought homes at bubble-inflated prices. This would have stopped the bubble years ago. Similarly, we could have prevented the financial chaos at Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Bear Stearns and the rest, if traders had recognized their financial shenanigans and aggressively shorted their stock. In the same vein, heavy shorting by informed investors could have prevented the boom and bust of the tech bubble."
One could go on making rational arguments to irrational people. But the very idea of being asked to defend freely entered transactions on the grounds of "social utility" is socialist-Marxist bunk. What in the world is "social utility"? And who gets to say so? Why is making a profit as an athlete or a politician better than making a profit as a banker or insurance salesman?
As Ayn Rand explained so long ago: "When the 'common good' (i.e., social utility) of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that 'the common good' means the good of the majority as against the minority or individual."
It seems unfathomable that after a century of constant failure by every "social utility-minded" government on the planet, that today in 2010, the American government must be re-educated to that history of failure.
Yet, we have heard recently from Democrats in Washington that Wall Street makes too much money and is too big a share of the American economy. Compared to what? The financial juggernauts of Libya, Romania or the Congo? Or for that matter France, Russia or Spain. Or for that matter Japan, Saudi Arabia or China (yes, China with its fraudulent banks and corrupt, finagling government).
Well, one of the reasons our economy continues to amount to 25 percent of all human economic activity on this planet (although our population is less than 5 percent) is because a free, risk-taking, innovative Wall Street has been the financial capital of the world. Yes, we have busts from time to time. But our booms have outdone our busts. That's why we have been the leading economy on earth for over a hundred years.
But now the current majority in Congress and the White House (and their fellow thinkers in the media) seem to be possessed of cobwebbed, left-wing social utility theorems compounded by mental devolution to the historic idiocies and bigotries that our ancestors in the Old World -- in their ignorance -- imputed to money lenders, bankers, the Bavarian Illuminati, the House of Rothschild, etc.
Shakespeare's moving, but anti-Semitic "Merchant of Venice" seemed to make a re-appearance in The Washington Post's lead Sunday story headlined: "Cheers at Goldman as housing market fell; Executives reveled in bets made against the market."
"Take then thy bond, take thou thy pound of flesh; But, in the cutting it, if thou dost shed One drop of Christian blood, thy lands and goods Are by the laws of Venice confiscate Unto the state of Venice." -- Portia, "Merchant of Venice," Act IV, scene 1.
The flagrant Securities and Exchange Commission charge of civil fraud against Goldman Sachs last week, followed by Congress' release of embarrassing interoffice Goldman Sachs e-mails on Sunday, are obviously intended to set a moral tone for the final stage of the financial re-regulation bill currently before the Senate.
It would seem that statism, historical amnesia, economic ignorance and bigotry are the mental and moral dispositions that will be shaping the passage of our financial re-regulations bill in the Senate this week.
The current, ill-fated 111th Congress continues to blunder its way into our history books along with the dreadful 94th (cut off money to South Vietnam in 1975, lost the war and triggered the Cambodian genocide); 71st (1929-1930, passed the Smoot-Hawley Act, which led to the Great Depression); 63rd (1913-14, passed the 16th Amendment -- income tax; the 17th Amendment -- direct election of the Senate; and creation of the Federal Reserve, which led to weakening of the states, encroachment of the federal government); and 33rd (1854-55, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which quickened steps to the Civil War). A couple of more destructive laws enacted and the 111th will be No. 1.
The Democrats are hysterical because it threatens their illegal voter base
Hoyer Says Arizona Immigration Enforcement Law ‘Inconsistent’ with Civil Liberties
So the federal law that says the same thing is inconsistent?
What part of illegal don't you understand?
We mere peasants are asked for our ID (papers) all the time.
The Democrat Party is a criminal operation.
Do you doubt that the only way to get a study funded is to start with the global wraming disaster mantra
CNSNews.comGovernment Report Says Global Warming May Cause Cancer, Mental Illness
Planet Earth.
(CNSNews.com) – A new government report says global warming could lead to an increase in both cancer and mental illness worldwide, and it calls for more federally funded research to determine how that might happen. The report, A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change, was published by the Interagency Working Group on Climate Change and Health – a combination of scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIH, State Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Agriculture, the EPA, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The report's overall thrust is for more federally funded research to investigate the alleged links between global warming and public health, including the potentially negative effects from warming and the potentially negative side-effect of green technologies. While the report touches on, for example, the health effects of unclean water and respiratory ailments, it also deals with two other types of health issues not normally associated with global warming: cancer and mental illness. Cancer While the report does not claim that global warming will cause new types of cancer, it says that “higher ambient temperatures” caused by global warming will have an effect on cancer rates, probably pushing them higher. “There are potential impacts on cancer both directly from climate change and indirectly from climate change mitigation strategies,” the report said. This increased risk supposedly comes from increased exposure to toxic chemicals, caused by global warming. The report also said that global warming would cause heavy rainfall, which would wash these toxic chemicals into the water. Hotter temperatures may also make these toxic chemicals even more toxic. “One possible direct impact of climate change on cancer may be through increases in exposure to toxic chemicals that are known or suspected to cause cancer following heavy rainfall and by increased volatilization of chemicals under conditions of increased temperature,” states the report. Another way that global warming will cause more cancer, the report said, was from increased exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which is known to cause some types of skin cancer. While UV exposure happens every time you go out into the sun, the report said that global warming will make it worse, leading to potentially more skin cancer. “Another direct effect of climate change, depletion of stratospheric ozone, will result in increased ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure. UV radiation exposure increases the risk of skin cancers and cataracts,” the report stated. The report also highlighted a surprising way that global warming may cause more cancer: the development of green technologies. Green technologies often involve exotic metals and alloys that, according to the report, may cause cancer. “Increased use of NiMH [nickel-metal-hydride] batteries [used in hybrid and electric cars] will necessarily require significant increases in nickel production and the impacts associated with nickel mining and refining,” states the report. “High-level nickel exposure is associated with increased cancer risk, respiratory disease, and birth defects; the same is true with certain other metals, especially cadmium and lead [used in solar cells and batteries]. “Increased production of solar cells also can lead to increased environmental risks,” reads the report. “For example, cadmium-tellurium (CdTe) compounds in photovoltaic systems and the potential for increased cadmium emissions from mining, refining, and the manufacture, utilization, and disposal of photovoltaic modules. Cadmium and cadmium compounds like CdTe are classified as known human carcinogens.” Despite these warnings and predictions, the report admitted that the government knows little about whether or not any of these supposed new causes of cancer will actually cause any more cancer.
A globe is projected as people are seen in Town Hall Square on the opening day of the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, Monday Dec. 7, 2009. The largest and most important U.N. climate change conference in history opened Monday, with organizers warning diplomats from 192 nations that this could be the best, last chance for a deal to protect the world from calamitous global warming. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
“Very little is known about how such transfers will affect people’s exposure to these chemicals -- some of which are known carcinogens -- and its ultimate impact on incidence of cancer,” the report states. “The largest research gaps are in the materials and methods used for mitigation and adaptation, and their potential to increase or decrease cancer risks.” Mental Health Another effect of global warming, the report said, was increased mental illness caused by natural disasters. These disasters, which already occur but will be more catastrophic as the world warms, cause stress and anxiety, which can lead to mental illness. “A variety of psychological impacts can be associated with extreme weather and other climate related events,” reads the interagency report. The people most likely to be affected by global warming-caused mental illness are those already susceptible to mental illness, especially stress-induced mental illness. The report states: “Extreme weather events such as hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding, can create increased anxiety and emotional stress about the future, as well as create added stress to vulnerable communities already experiencing social, economic, and environmental disruption. Individuals already vulnerable to mental health disease and stress-related disorders are likely to be at increased risk of exacerbated effects following extreme weather or other climate change events.” The possible mental health conditions that could be caused by global warming range from irritability to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, sexual dysfunction, and drug abuse. “The most common mental health conditions associated with extreme events range from acute traumatic stress to more chronic stress-related conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated grief, depression, anxiety disorders, somatic complaints, poor concentration, sleep difficulties, sexual dysfunction, social avoidance, irritability, and drug or alcohol abuse,” reads the report. As with global warming-caused cancer, the report admits that much more scientific work is needed on the links between global warming and mental illness, saying “numerous research gaps exist.” “More work is necessary to understand the effects of climate change and extreme weather events on mental health status, to determine how to mitigate these effects, and to overcome the barriers to utilization and delivery of mental health services following extreme weather events,” says the interagency report. Despite the admissions that more research was needed, the report concluded that there was “abundant evidence” of man-caused global warming, saying that “climate change will have” direct impacts on public health. “There is abundant evidence that human activities are altering the earth’s climate and that climate change will have significant health impacts both domestically and globally.” The report then called for an “overarching” international research effort to determine how all of the “abundant evidence” of global warming would lead to poorer public health. “To be successful, an overarching research program needs to be integrated, focused, interdisciplinary, supported, and sustainable, yet flexible enough to adjust to new information and broad enough to cover the very diverse components described in this document,” states the report. “The effort must also be multinational, multiagency, and multidisciplinary, bringing together the strengths of all partners.” The other public health effects of global warming cited in the report include: asthma and other respiratory diseases, cardiovascular disease, heat-related deaths, human developmental effects, neurological diseases, waterborne diseases, weather-related deaths, and infectious and animal-borne diseases.
Planet Earth.
(CNSNews.com) – A new government report says global warming could lead to an increase in both cancer and mental illness worldwide, and it calls for more federally funded research to determine how that might happen. The report, A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change, was published by the Interagency Working Group on Climate Change and Health – a combination of scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIH, State Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Agriculture, the EPA, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The report's overall thrust is for more federally funded research to investigate the alleged links between global warming and public health, including the potentially negative effects from warming and the potentially negative side-effect of green technologies. While the report touches on, for example, the health effects of unclean water and respiratory ailments, it also deals with two other types of health issues not normally associated with global warming: cancer and mental illness. Cancer While the report does not claim that global warming will cause new types of cancer, it says that “higher ambient temperatures” caused by global warming will have an effect on cancer rates, probably pushing them higher. “There are potential impacts on cancer both directly from climate change and indirectly from climate change mitigation strategies,” the report said. This increased risk supposedly comes from increased exposure to toxic chemicals, caused by global warming. The report also said that global warming would cause heavy rainfall, which would wash these toxic chemicals into the water. Hotter temperatures may also make these toxic chemicals even more toxic. “One possible direct impact of climate change on cancer may be through increases in exposure to toxic chemicals that are known or suspected to cause cancer following heavy rainfall and by increased volatilization of chemicals under conditions of increased temperature,” states the report. Another way that global warming will cause more cancer, the report said, was from increased exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which is known to cause some types of skin cancer. While UV exposure happens every time you go out into the sun, the report said that global warming will make it worse, leading to potentially more skin cancer. “Another direct effect of climate change, depletion of stratospheric ozone, will result in increased ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure. UV radiation exposure increases the risk of skin cancers and cataracts,” the report stated. The report also highlighted a surprising way that global warming may cause more cancer: the development of green technologies. Green technologies often involve exotic metals and alloys that, according to the report, may cause cancer. “Increased use of NiMH [nickel-metal-hydride] batteries [used in hybrid and electric cars] will necessarily require significant increases in nickel production and the impacts associated with nickel mining and refining,” states the report. “High-level nickel exposure is associated with increased cancer risk, respiratory disease, and birth defects; the same is true with certain other metals, especially cadmium and lead [used in solar cells and batteries]. “Increased production of solar cells also can lead to increased environmental risks,” reads the report. “For example, cadmium-tellurium (CdTe) compounds in photovoltaic systems and the potential for increased cadmium emissions from mining, refining, and the manufacture, utilization, and disposal of photovoltaic modules. Cadmium and cadmium compounds like CdTe are classified as known human carcinogens.” Despite these warnings and predictions, the report admitted that the government knows little about whether or not any of these supposed new causes of cancer will actually cause any more cancer.
A globe is projected as people are seen in Town Hall Square on the opening day of the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, Monday Dec. 7, 2009. The largest and most important U.N. climate change conference in history opened Monday, with organizers warning diplomats from 192 nations that this could be the best, last chance for a deal to protect the world from calamitous global warming. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
“Very little is known about how such transfers will affect people’s exposure to these chemicals -- some of which are known carcinogens -- and its ultimate impact on incidence of cancer,” the report states. “The largest research gaps are in the materials and methods used for mitigation and adaptation, and their potential to increase or decrease cancer risks.” Mental Health Another effect of global warming, the report said, was increased mental illness caused by natural disasters. These disasters, which already occur but will be more catastrophic as the world warms, cause stress and anxiety, which can lead to mental illness. “A variety of psychological impacts can be associated with extreme weather and other climate related events,” reads the interagency report. The people most likely to be affected by global warming-caused mental illness are those already susceptible to mental illness, especially stress-induced mental illness. The report states: “Extreme weather events such as hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding, can create increased anxiety and emotional stress about the future, as well as create added stress to vulnerable communities already experiencing social, economic, and environmental disruption. Individuals already vulnerable to mental health disease and stress-related disorders are likely to be at increased risk of exacerbated effects following extreme weather or other climate change events.” The possible mental health conditions that could be caused by global warming range from irritability to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, sexual dysfunction, and drug abuse. “The most common mental health conditions associated with extreme events range from acute traumatic stress to more chronic stress-related conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated grief, depression, anxiety disorders, somatic complaints, poor concentration, sleep difficulties, sexual dysfunction, social avoidance, irritability, and drug or alcohol abuse,” reads the report. As with global warming-caused cancer, the report admits that much more scientific work is needed on the links between global warming and mental illness, saying “numerous research gaps exist.” “More work is necessary to understand the effects of climate change and extreme weather events on mental health status, to determine how to mitigate these effects, and to overcome the barriers to utilization and delivery of mental health services following extreme weather events,” says the interagency report. Despite the admissions that more research was needed, the report concluded that there was “abundant evidence” of man-caused global warming, saying that “climate change will have” direct impacts on public health. “There is abundant evidence that human activities are altering the earth’s climate and that climate change will have significant health impacts both domestically and globally.” The report then called for an “overarching” international research effort to determine how all of the “abundant evidence” of global warming would lead to poorer public health. “To be successful, an overarching research program needs to be integrated, focused, interdisciplinary, supported, and sustainable, yet flexible enough to adjust to new information and broad enough to cover the very diverse components described in this document,” states the report. “The effort must also be multinational, multiagency, and multidisciplinary, bringing together the strengths of all partners.” The other public health effects of global warming cited in the report include: asthma and other respiratory diseases, cardiovascular disease, heat-related deaths, human developmental effects, neurological diseases, waterborne diseases, weather-related deaths, and infectious and animal-borne diseases.
Democrats want absolute power and care not a whit about sovereignty
Fght against the U.S. Constitution, World Criminal Court at the Hague to begin prosecuting gun manufacturers and gun dealers here in America
Mayor Daley Wants Foreign Kangaroo Court to Rule in Chicago By Warner Todd Huston
Mayor Richard “King” Daley has just earned his monarchical (or is that maniacal) nickname by announcing his desire to have a European “court” invade the U.S. and begin prosecuting American citizens for doing a legal, Constitutionally protected business in America.
google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
The despicable, mob-infested mayor of Chicago’s newest harebrained scheme in his fight against the U.S. Constitution is to have the so-called World Criminal Court at the Hague to begin prosecuting gun manufacturers and gun dealers here in America.
It’s bad enough that this Eurocrat wannabe thinks that this kangaroo court in Europe has legal jurisdiction in the USA, but he’s teaming up with a foreign plutocrat in Mexico to try and pursue this idiot’s scheme.
Mayor Daley again proves his essential hate for his own country. First by wallowing in his mob connected lifestyle, next by his surrounding himself with criminal Democrats that rob the city blind, then by siding with foreigners against his own country.
Maybe we would be better off with Rahm Emanuel in the big chair at City Hall? At least Rahm is just an average crook!
Mayor Daley Wants Foreign Kangaroo Court to Rule in Chicago By Warner Todd Huston
Mayor Richard “King” Daley has just earned his monarchical (or is that maniacal) nickname by announcing his desire to have a European “court” invade the U.S. and begin prosecuting American citizens for doing a legal, Constitutionally protected business in America.
google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
The despicable, mob-infested mayor of Chicago’s newest harebrained scheme in his fight against the U.S. Constitution is to have the so-called World Criminal Court at the Hague to begin prosecuting gun manufacturers and gun dealers here in America.
It’s bad enough that this Eurocrat wannabe thinks that this kangaroo court in Europe has legal jurisdiction in the USA, but he’s teaming up with a foreign plutocrat in Mexico to try and pursue this idiot’s scheme.
Mayor Daley again proves his essential hate for his own country. First by wallowing in his mob connected lifestyle, next by his surrounding himself with criminal Democrats that rob the city blind, then by siding with foreigners against his own country.
Maybe we would be better off with Rahm Emanuel in the big chair at City Hall? At least Rahm is just an average crook!
Where the real corruption exists...follow the money
Barbara Hollingsworth: Fannie Mae owns patent on residential 'cap and trade' exchange
By: Barbara Hollingsworth
When he wasn't busy helping create a $127 billion mess for taxpayers to clean up, former Fannie Mae Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines, two of his top underlings and select individuals in the "green" movement were inventing a patented system to trade residential carbon credits.
Patent No. 6904336 was approved by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on Nov. 7, 2006 -- the day after Democrats took control of Congress. Former Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., criticized the award at the time, pointing out that it had "nothing to do with Fannie Mae's charter, nothing to do with making mortgages more affordable."
It wasn't about mortgages. It was about greenbacks. The patent, which Fannie Mae confirmed it still owns with Cantor Fitzgerald subsidiary CO2e.com, gives the mortgage giant a lock on the fledgling carbon trading market, thus also giving it a major financial stake in the success of cap-and-trade legislation.
Besides Raines, the other "inventors" are:
* Former Fannie Vice President and Deputy General Counsel G. Scott Lesmes, who provided legal advice on Fannie Mae's debt and equity offerings;
* Former Fannie Vice President Robert Sahadi, who now runs GreenSpace Investment Financial Services out of his 5,002-square-foot Clarksburg home;
* 2008 Barack Obama fundraiser Kenneth Berlin, an environmental law partner at Skadden Arps;
* Michelle Desiderio, director of the National Green Building Certification program, which trains "green" monitors;
* Former Cantor Fitzgerald employee Elizabeth Arner Cavey, wife of Democratic donor Brian Cavey of the Stanton Park Group, which received $200,000 last year to lobby on climate change legislation; and
* Jane Bartels, widow of former CO2e.com CEO Carlton Bartels. Three weeks before Carlton Bartels was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, he filed for another patent on the software used in 2003 to set up the Chicago Climate Exchange.
The patent, which covers both the "cap" and "trade" parts of Obama's top domestic energy initiation, gives Fannie Mae proprietary control over an automated trading system that pools and sells credits for hard-to-quantify residential carbon reduction efforts (such as solar panels and high-efficiency appliances) to companies and utilities that don't meet emission reduction targets. Depending on where the Environmental Protection Agency sets arbitrary CO2 standards, that could be every company in America.
The patent summary describes how carbon "and other pollutants yet to be determined" would be "combined into a single emissions pool" and traded -- just as Fannie's toxic portfolio of subprime mortgages were.
"Fannie Mae earns no money on this patent," communications director Amy Bonitatibus told the Washington Examiner. "We can't conjecture as to the cap-and-trade legislation."
But passage of the legislation would create an artificial, government-mandated, trillion-dollar carbon trading market that would drive up the price of energy, indirectly making housing more expensive.
If the proprietary emissions trading system functions like other exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange, which makes most of its revenue on listing and trading fees, its owners could see extremely generous profits, especially with a patent that keeps out competition for two decades.
So Fannie Mae, a quasi-governmental entity whose congressionally mandated mission is to make housing more affordable, has been a behind-the-scenes participant in a carbon trading scheme that would do just the opposite.
In January, Europol announced that up to 90 percent of the volume in the European Union's own carbon-trading market was fraudulent, costing EU members $5 billion during the previous 18 months. That would be just the tip of the iceberg if the Congress were to make a similar mistake.
But if it does, thanks to Raines and his fellow "inventors," Fannie Mae will be laughing all the way to the (bailed-out) bank.
By: Barbara Hollingsworth
When he wasn't busy helping create a $127 billion mess for taxpayers to clean up, former Fannie Mae Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines, two of his top underlings and select individuals in the "green" movement were inventing a patented system to trade residential carbon credits.
Patent No. 6904336 was approved by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on Nov. 7, 2006 -- the day after Democrats took control of Congress. Former Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., criticized the award at the time, pointing out that it had "nothing to do with Fannie Mae's charter, nothing to do with making mortgages more affordable."
It wasn't about mortgages. It was about greenbacks. The patent, which Fannie Mae confirmed it still owns with Cantor Fitzgerald subsidiary CO2e.com, gives the mortgage giant a lock on the fledgling carbon trading market, thus also giving it a major financial stake in the success of cap-and-trade legislation.
Besides Raines, the other "inventors" are:
* Former Fannie Vice President and Deputy General Counsel G. Scott Lesmes, who provided legal advice on Fannie Mae's debt and equity offerings;
* Former Fannie Vice President Robert Sahadi, who now runs GreenSpace Investment Financial Services out of his 5,002-square-foot Clarksburg home;
* 2008 Barack Obama fundraiser Kenneth Berlin, an environmental law partner at Skadden Arps;
* Michelle Desiderio, director of the National Green Building Certification program, which trains "green" monitors;
* Former Cantor Fitzgerald employee Elizabeth Arner Cavey, wife of Democratic donor Brian Cavey of the Stanton Park Group, which received $200,000 last year to lobby on climate change legislation; and
* Jane Bartels, widow of former CO2e.com CEO Carlton Bartels. Three weeks before Carlton Bartels was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, he filed for another patent on the software used in 2003 to set up the Chicago Climate Exchange.
The patent, which covers both the "cap" and "trade" parts of Obama's top domestic energy initiation, gives Fannie Mae proprietary control over an automated trading system that pools and sells credits for hard-to-quantify residential carbon reduction efforts (such as solar panels and high-efficiency appliances) to companies and utilities that don't meet emission reduction targets. Depending on where the Environmental Protection Agency sets arbitrary CO2 standards, that could be every company in America.
The patent summary describes how carbon "and other pollutants yet to be determined" would be "combined into a single emissions pool" and traded -- just as Fannie's toxic portfolio of subprime mortgages were.
"Fannie Mae earns no money on this patent," communications director Amy Bonitatibus told the Washington Examiner. "We can't conjecture as to the cap-and-trade legislation."
But passage of the legislation would create an artificial, government-mandated, trillion-dollar carbon trading market that would drive up the price of energy, indirectly making housing more expensive.
If the proprietary emissions trading system functions like other exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange, which makes most of its revenue on listing and trading fees, its owners could see extremely generous profits, especially with a patent that keeps out competition for two decades.
So Fannie Mae, a quasi-governmental entity whose congressionally mandated mission is to make housing more affordable, has been a behind-the-scenes participant in a carbon trading scheme that would do just the opposite.
In January, Europol announced that up to 90 percent of the volume in the European Union's own carbon-trading market was fraudulent, costing EU members $5 billion during the previous 18 months. That would be just the tip of the iceberg if the Congress were to make a similar mistake.
But if it does, thanks to Raines and his fellow "inventors," Fannie Mae will be laughing all the way to the (bailed-out) bank.
Want to see left wing violence watch the Maoists
Where is the world condemnation of these thugs. Just imagine the outcry (justifiable) if these were neo-Nazis.
Maoists converge on Nepal capital
Thousands of Maoists have converged on the Nepalese capital, Kathmandu, ahead of a planned May Day rally on Saturday.
Members of the Maoist youth wing as well as ordinary supporters are camping in hundreds of private schools that they shut down last week.
Maoist leaders insist that Saturday's demonstration will be against the government and will be non-violent.
However, tension is mounting in the capital where the security forces have been put on high-alert.
On Monday Maoist leader Prachanda urged the public to support the nationwide street protest aimed at toppling the current government.
He said Saturday's protest - to be followed by a general strike - would be a massive but peaceful show of popular will.
Prachanda said the Maoists had "no alternative" but to exert pressure on the government which he said had no intention of moving the peace process forward or writing the constitution before the deadline of 28 May.
The Maoist party has the largest number of seats in parliament and wants to lead a national government.
BBC Nepali service editor Rabindra Mishra says political stalemates have been averted many times in the past in Nepal, often at the last minute.
There is still time for this to happen before the planned protests at the weekend, he says.
However, the scale of the current crisis and the fact that neither side seems willing to back down suggests the Maoists and the government could well be headed for a showdown, our correspondent says.
Our Racist President
I didn't realize that Obama actually called on "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again." Imagine if a John McCain, called upon White voters to vote for him? Unbelievable. This schmuck is our President?
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Proof that Eric Holder is a racist
So let me get this straight. The DOJ won't prosecute Black Panthers who were forcibly disenfranchising white voters so that a black man can become President but they will challenge an Arizona law which makes breaking the law illegal.
Government General Motors ruse
Is anyone else disturbed by the disingenuous ad currently being run by GM?
Paid off their loan? Paid off? Paid?
They still owe billions. The paid about $5.6 billion using tarp funds to do it. So, they took the money out of one pocket and put it in the other. They would have had to have made the money to pay it off and they certainly not running that kind of profit.
Supposing Toyota were in this kind of financial condition and ran an ad like this wouldn't they be guilty of deceptive advertising.
Obama's government and General motors a perfect example of a crony capitalism facade over soft socialism.
Why Arizona acted...
The Arizona Uproar
By Leo W. Banks
Listening to the national uproar, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Arizona has marched into the civil rights apocalypse with its new state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.
Last Friday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB1070, making it a crime to be in the state illegally and requiring cops, where "reasonable suspicion" exists, to determine a person's legal status.
Rev. Al Sharpton is promising to come to Arizona to march, the New York Times says that the state has gone "off the deep end," and the Nazi references are flying. Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony likened SB1070 to "German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques."
Riding the noise for political advantage, President Obama is summoning his Justice Department to look into the matter, saying that the law would "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans."
But 70 percent of Arizona residents support the law, according to Rasmussen.
What's going on here? Do we know something the rest of the country doesn't?
Actually, we do. Context is everything, and it'd be nice if the national media provided some, rather than simply slamming Arizona as a redneck haven filled with nativists and bubbas with a hankering for racial profiling.
An estimated 500,000 illegal aliens live in Arizona, and many are decent folks, to be sure. But the border is still wide open, and many more are coming. Last year in Border Patrol's 262-mile-wide Tucson Sector, agents arrested 241,000 illegal aliens, a drop of more than 130,000 from 2007.
It sounds great until you understand that gotaways outnumber arrests by three to one.
Does the country realize this, or have the people bought Janet Napolitano's political fairy tale that border security has been "transformed" from where we were in 2007?
As Obama lectures Arizona, citizens here await his decision on an urgent request to send three thousand National Guard troops to the border. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl recently asked for soldiers, as did Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, to bring some security to American citizens being hammered by cross-border smugglers and thugs.
Here's an important bit of context: This isn't your father's illegal immigration, when polite farm workers offered to do chores in return for some water and a sandwich as they walked north. Today, the drug cartels have taken over the people-smuggling business. They own the trails into the country and dominate the land, the same way urban gangs control neighborhoods
Any group wanting in has to deal with them, and the going rate is $2,500 per person. If you don't have the cash, the cartel coyote will offer to bring you in for free if you carry his dope. As Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever testified to the Senate Homeland Security Committee last week, most of the groups coming up now have a gun behind them.
Along the Chiricahua Corridor smuggling route north and east of Douglas, Arizona, residents have been screaming for some time about break-ins, threats, intimidation, vandalism, and home invasions. But the feds did nothing to keep citizens safe. Instead, they talked amnesty. Then the inevitable happened.
On March 27, Cochise County rancher Rob Krentz was murdered on his land, presumably by a drug smuggler. The death occurred on a well-known drug trail, and trackers followed the killer's prints back into Mexico. He is still at large.
Now, I can't argue with those who say that SB1070 has some provisions that smack of desperation -- such as making it a crime to stop your car to pick up a day laborer or to enter a stopped car to get temporary work. That sounds impossible to enforce.
But critics also say that it will have no impact on besieged residents of southern Arizona, and I disagree. It could help.
We have a huge problem with crooks coming up from Mexico to our cities and towns, committing crimes, and bolting back south of the border. Not long ago, I wrote a story that backtracked the records of two of these border coyotes and found that between them, they'd been arrested and released by either law enforcement or the courts a total of 35 times.
One was let go after a traffic stop, and the other had worked construction in Phoenix for years. If this law had been in effect, the police might've been able to get them off the street before they were able to lead more groups into southern Arizona, break into homes, and frighten citizens.
Civil rights? What about the civil right of American citizens to drive up to their homes at night and have some reasonable assurance that no one is inside?
On March 31, four hundred people gathered outside the one-room Apache School to tell their elected reps what it's like to live in smuggler-occupied territory. The meeting was held there, in the cold, open air, in part because the nearest place to host a group that size inside was seventy round-trip miles away, and these folks didn't feel comfortable leaving their homes for that length of time.
They live by a rule of thumb: If you leave your house empty, it will be occupied by illegals or drug smugglers. We're not talking just about homes five miles from the international line. We're talking about homes up to sixty miles north of the border.
Racial profiling doesn't matter much when you're in a fight to preserve your way of life and keep your family and property safe. Let me give you a different perspective on racial profiling. Now, when Border Patrol chases down and arrests illegals south of I-10, everybody says, "Atta boy. Good police work."
But if these crossers put a toe north of I-10, they're home free. Except for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, nobody is looking for them, and if you do, it's racial profiling.
The farther you get from the line, the more people want to make this problem about race. It's the ground the left wants to fight on because it's so effective. Political correctness shuts people up and keeps the border open.
Arizona has had enough and seen enough. This bill, admittedly flawed, motivated in part by anger and frustration, is an effort to step in and do something about a serious national problem on our southern border that grows more dangerous all the time.
But the national media largely ignore it because it offers up the wrong victims and the wrong politics. They don't send reporters out to Arizona get the story, to walk the smuggling trails, to sit with beleaguered Americans at their kitchen tables and understand the torment their lives have become.
Instead, they adopt the preening pose of the self-righteous, screaming from a safe distance about the bubbas. All 70 percent of them.
It's more fun than context.
Leo W. Banks covers the border for Tucson Weekly.
By Leo W. Banks
Listening to the national uproar, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Arizona has marched into the civil rights apocalypse with its new state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.
Last Friday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB1070, making it a crime to be in the state illegally and requiring cops, where "reasonable suspicion" exists, to determine a person's legal status.
Rev. Al Sharpton is promising to come to Arizona to march, the New York Times says that the state has gone "off the deep end," and the Nazi references are flying. Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony likened SB1070 to "German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques."
Riding the noise for political advantage, President Obama is summoning his Justice Department to look into the matter, saying that the law would "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans."
But 70 percent of Arizona residents support the law, according to Rasmussen.
What's going on here? Do we know something the rest of the country doesn't?
Actually, we do. Context is everything, and it'd be nice if the national media provided some, rather than simply slamming Arizona as a redneck haven filled with nativists and bubbas with a hankering for racial profiling.
An estimated 500,000 illegal aliens live in Arizona, and many are decent folks, to be sure. But the border is still wide open, and many more are coming. Last year in Border Patrol's 262-mile-wide Tucson Sector, agents arrested 241,000 illegal aliens, a drop of more than 130,000 from 2007.
It sounds great until you understand that gotaways outnumber arrests by three to one.
Does the country realize this, or have the people bought Janet Napolitano's political fairy tale that border security has been "transformed" from where we were in 2007?
As Obama lectures Arizona, citizens here await his decision on an urgent request to send three thousand National Guard troops to the border. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl recently asked for soldiers, as did Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, to bring some security to American citizens being hammered by cross-border smugglers and thugs.
Here's an important bit of context: This isn't your father's illegal immigration, when polite farm workers offered to do chores in return for some water and a sandwich as they walked north. Today, the drug cartels have taken over the people-smuggling business. They own the trails into the country and dominate the land, the same way urban gangs control neighborhoods
Any group wanting in has to deal with them, and the going rate is $2,500 per person. If you don't have the cash, the cartel coyote will offer to bring you in for free if you carry his dope. As Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever testified to the Senate Homeland Security Committee last week, most of the groups coming up now have a gun behind them.
Along the Chiricahua Corridor smuggling route north and east of Douglas, Arizona, residents have been screaming for some time about break-ins, threats, intimidation, vandalism, and home invasions. But the feds did nothing to keep citizens safe. Instead, they talked amnesty. Then the inevitable happened.
On March 27, Cochise County rancher Rob Krentz was murdered on his land, presumably by a drug smuggler. The death occurred on a well-known drug trail, and trackers followed the killer's prints back into Mexico. He is still at large.
Now, I can't argue with those who say that SB1070 has some provisions that smack of desperation -- such as making it a crime to stop your car to pick up a day laborer or to enter a stopped car to get temporary work. That sounds impossible to enforce.
But critics also say that it will have no impact on besieged residents of southern Arizona, and I disagree. It could help.
We have a huge problem with crooks coming up from Mexico to our cities and towns, committing crimes, and bolting back south of the border. Not long ago, I wrote a story that backtracked the records of two of these border coyotes and found that between them, they'd been arrested and released by either law enforcement or the courts a total of 35 times.
One was let go after a traffic stop, and the other had worked construction in Phoenix for years. If this law had been in effect, the police might've been able to get them off the street before they were able to lead more groups into southern Arizona, break into homes, and frighten citizens.
Civil rights? What about the civil right of American citizens to drive up to their homes at night and have some reasonable assurance that no one is inside?
On March 31, four hundred people gathered outside the one-room Apache School to tell their elected reps what it's like to live in smuggler-occupied territory. The meeting was held there, in the cold, open air, in part because the nearest place to host a group that size inside was seventy round-trip miles away, and these folks didn't feel comfortable leaving their homes for that length of time.
They live by a rule of thumb: If you leave your house empty, it will be occupied by illegals or drug smugglers. We're not talking just about homes five miles from the international line. We're talking about homes up to sixty miles north of the border.
Racial profiling doesn't matter much when you're in a fight to preserve your way of life and keep your family and property safe. Let me give you a different perspective on racial profiling. Now, when Border Patrol chases down and arrests illegals south of I-10, everybody says, "Atta boy. Good police work."
But if these crossers put a toe north of I-10, they're home free. Except for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, nobody is looking for them, and if you do, it's racial profiling.
The farther you get from the line, the more people want to make this problem about race. It's the ground the left wants to fight on because it's so effective. Political correctness shuts people up and keeps the border open.
Arizona has had enough and seen enough. This bill, admittedly flawed, motivated in part by anger and frustration, is an effort to step in and do something about a serious national problem on our southern border that grows more dangerous all the time.
But the national media largely ignore it because it offers up the wrong victims and the wrong politics. They don't send reporters out to Arizona get the story, to walk the smuggling trails, to sit with beleaguered Americans at their kitchen tables and understand the torment their lives have become.
Instead, they adopt the preening pose of the self-righteous, screaming from a safe distance about the bubbas. All 70 percent of them.
It's more fun than context.
Leo W. Banks covers the border for Tucson Weekly.
Model Schools
A combination of tons of taxpayer money combined with the latest and greatest educational theories to help underprivileged children - the perfect NEA/Big Government trifecta. How's that working out? Joanne Jacob explains:
How did it work out?
Maybe they're just unteachable? Er, no...
Stanford New Schools, run by the university’s school of education, seems to stress social and emotional support over academics.
Stanford New Schools hires well-trained teachers who use state-of-the-art progressive teaching methods; Stanford’s student teachers provide extra help. With an extra $3,000 per student raised privately, students enjoy small classes, mentoring, counseling and tutoring, technology access, field trips, summer enrichment, health van visits, community college classes on campus, and community service opportunities. The goal is to send graduates to college as critical thinkers, lifelong learners, and “global citizens.”
The school provides students a web of support, reports the New York Times:
High school students have one teacher/adviser who checks that homework is done, and when it is not, the teacher calls home. Teachers know students’ families and help with issues as varied as buying a bagel before an exam to helping an evicted family find a home. Teachers stay late and work weekends, and tend to burn out quickly — causing a high rate of turnover.
EPA Academy enrolls very disadvantaged students: Most are the children of poor and poorly educated Spanish-speaking immigrant families; the rest are black or Pacific Islanders. Their English skills are poor. Those who come in ninth grade are years behind in reading and math.
How did it work out?
It sounded like a great idea: Stanford education professors would create a model school to show how to educate low-income Hispanic and black students.
Or, as it’s turned out, how not to.
In March, Stanford New Schools (aka East Palo Alto Academy) — a charter high school started in 2001 and elementary grades added in 2006 – made California’s list of schools in the lowest-achieving five percent in the state.
This month, the Ravenswood school board denied a new five-year charter. The elementary school — now with K-4 and eighth grade — will close in June. Another year or two wouldn’t be enough to improve poor student performance and weak behavior management, Superintendent Maria De La Vega told the board.
Maybe they're just unteachable? Er, no...
In comments on the news stories that have run, I see a common refrain: It’s impossible to teach these kids. Not even Stanford can do it.
But other schools with demographically identical students are doing much better. The top-scoring school in the district is East Palo Alto Charter School (EPAC), a K-8 run by Aspire Public Schools, Stanford’s original partner. An all-minority school, EPAC outperforms the state average.
Is the tide turning?
The results of a poll in the SF Chronicle ( a notoriously left leaning paper) being taken today. Not what you'd expect from this santuary city:
S.F.'s threat to boycott Arizona:
Thanks for your vote!
Bold response to bad law (151)
22%
Ridiculous, city is on wrong side (351)
52%
Be careful of unintended consequences (177)
26%
S.F.'s threat to boycott Arizona:
Thanks for your vote!
Bold response to bad law (151)
22%
Ridiculous, city is on wrong side (351)
52%
Be careful of unintended consequences (177)
26%
Democrats: what they think of their subjects
Oakland unlikely to 'get over' mismanagement
Chip Johnson
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
It's inappropriate for any elected official, and certainly a big-city mayor, to tell constituents that the way their tax dollars are spent is of no importance.
But that's what Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums appeared to be saying last week when he told a Chronicle reporter that a state audit about how the city had handled $3 million in federal job training stimulus funds was "much ado about nothing, man."
"It's an accounting matter," the mayor said.
He went even further, criticizing the news media for highlighting field trips to the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk and a Concord water park that were paid for with federal stimulus funds intended for job training. Oakland claims the field trips were allowable expenses; the state says the money was misspent.
"Get over it," the mayor said after a news conference in which he announced yet another $3 million grant of federal stimulus dollars to help clean up Lake Merritt.
In the middle of the nation's worst economic depression in the last 70 years? Not likely, Mr. Mayor.
If anything, Dellums' comments are more a reflection of his own failure to connect with the needs of his constituents at a time of public and private financial crises. Oakland is a city with an 18.3 percent unemployment rate, which is nearly twice the national average. It's completely reasonable that citizens would raise concerns about how tax dollars are being used, especially in the wake of a government agency report that raises questions about such spending.
Interestingly enough, "get over it" wasn't the mayor's reaction on April 19, when he first learned of state Inspector General Laura Chick's intention to release the audit findings.
"I got a call from his office saying he wanted to meet, and I directed staff to set up a phone call," Chick said. "The next thing I knew his office was back on the phone saying the meeting had to be in person, and he would be driving here."
Chick would not disclose the gist of the meeting, but it's safe to say Dellums was not there to encourage her to publicly release the bad news.
Dellums' response to the state audit findings is eerily similar to his public reaction when it was revealed in November that the Internal Revenue Service had slapped a $239,000 lien on his property due to unpaid tax bills in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Dellums issued a statement saying, "The matter is being dealt with and will be resolved in short order." A month later, the IRS added a $13,000 lien for unpaid taxes in 2008.
Now, most people would not allow anyone with a financial track record like that to manage the cookie jar account in their home, let alone place fiduciary responsibility for a multimillion-dollar job training program in his office, but that's the arrangement here in Oakland.
The expenditure of federal funds provided to Oakland by the Workforce Investment Act and the performance those programs yielded have been a point of contention in Oakland since the program began in 1998.
In the past year, the Oakland City Council appointed District Two's Pat Kernighan to the Oakland WIB board to serve as its eyes and ears. Some council members have complained that performance reports have not been consistently generated.
There is no guarantee that a regime change in Oakland City Hall will create efficient programs, policies and rules, or that funding will always be expended for its intended use, but it's the logical place to start.
And if there is one thing Oakland residents, business owners and elected officials concerned about the adequate use of federal funds need to "get over," it would be one of the most lackluster, shoddy and inconsistent leadership efforts in recent city history.
And whether Dellums seeks re-election or stands idly by on the sidelines, mirroring much of his four-year term, the people of Oakland are about seven months away from getting over the city's single biggest obstacle of the past four years.
Chip Johnson
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
It's inappropriate for any elected official, and certainly a big-city mayor, to tell constituents that the way their tax dollars are spent is of no importance.
But that's what Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums appeared to be saying last week when he told a Chronicle reporter that a state audit about how the city had handled $3 million in federal job training stimulus funds was "much ado about nothing, man."
"It's an accounting matter," the mayor said.
He went even further, criticizing the news media for highlighting field trips to the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk and a Concord water park that were paid for with federal stimulus funds intended for job training. Oakland claims the field trips were allowable expenses; the state says the money was misspent.
"Get over it," the mayor said after a news conference in which he announced yet another $3 million grant of federal stimulus dollars to help clean up Lake Merritt.
In the middle of the nation's worst economic depression in the last 70 years? Not likely, Mr. Mayor.
If anything, Dellums' comments are more a reflection of his own failure to connect with the needs of his constituents at a time of public and private financial crises. Oakland is a city with an 18.3 percent unemployment rate, which is nearly twice the national average. It's completely reasonable that citizens would raise concerns about how tax dollars are being used, especially in the wake of a government agency report that raises questions about such spending.
Interestingly enough, "get over it" wasn't the mayor's reaction on April 19, when he first learned of state Inspector General Laura Chick's intention to release the audit findings.
"I got a call from his office saying he wanted to meet, and I directed staff to set up a phone call," Chick said. "The next thing I knew his office was back on the phone saying the meeting had to be in person, and he would be driving here."
Chick would not disclose the gist of the meeting, but it's safe to say Dellums was not there to encourage her to publicly release the bad news.
Dellums' response to the state audit findings is eerily similar to his public reaction when it was revealed in November that the Internal Revenue Service had slapped a $239,000 lien on his property due to unpaid tax bills in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Dellums issued a statement saying, "The matter is being dealt with and will be resolved in short order." A month later, the IRS added a $13,000 lien for unpaid taxes in 2008.
Now, most people would not allow anyone with a financial track record like that to manage the cookie jar account in their home, let alone place fiduciary responsibility for a multimillion-dollar job training program in his office, but that's the arrangement here in Oakland.
The expenditure of federal funds provided to Oakland by the Workforce Investment Act and the performance those programs yielded have been a point of contention in Oakland since the program began in 1998.
In the past year, the Oakland City Council appointed District Two's Pat Kernighan to the Oakland WIB board to serve as its eyes and ears. Some council members have complained that performance reports have not been consistently generated.
There is no guarantee that a regime change in Oakland City Hall will create efficient programs, policies and rules, or that funding will always be expended for its intended use, but it's the logical place to start.
And if there is one thing Oakland residents, business owners and elected officials concerned about the adequate use of federal funds need to "get over," it would be one of the most lackluster, shoddy and inconsistent leadership efforts in recent city history.
And whether Dellums seeks re-election or stands idly by on the sidelines, mirroring much of his four-year term, the people of Oakland are about seven months away from getting over the city's single biggest obstacle of the past four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
