GE Payback

            Events are moving so fast these days, it's hard to keep up. Comments made by pundits in the media might be appropriate one day, but are forgotten the next because the situation has changed so drastically. Yet, certain images remain etched in our brains. Pictures of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, for instance. Or the riots in the Middle East. Or President Obama looking at me straight in the eye (no teleprompter needed for this) on March 29 and lying about how and why he exercised his leadership by taking us to war in Libya.

            Closer to home, another image is a recurrent visitor from my memory cells. It is the picture of President Obama welcoming GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt to his team as the new President of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.       

            Why does this image refuse to go away?

            In 2008, GE contributed over $3 million to political campaigns, most of it to Democrats, and a large chunk to candidate Obama. In 2009, the administration directed $80 billion in TARP funds to GE on the flimsy grounds that GE happened to own two banks in Utah.

            In 2010, GE contributed over $2 million to political campaigns, again with most of it going to Democrats. In January, President Obama made Immelt part of his administration.

            This couldn't possibly be political payback.....Could it?

            Special treatment you say? How about this: In 2010 GE made over $5 billion in profits; and in 2010 GE paid $0, yes ZERO dollars, in corporate taxes.

            How did GE manage to get all this special treatment? Political contributions buy lots of legislation that favors special interests. That we know. But there's another thing called lobbying. In 2010 GE spent over $39 million on lobbying. That's correct: over $39,000,000. Not confining its lobbying efforts to Washington, D.C., GE came up with over $1 million to defeat just one issue, a California ballot initiative to eliminate tax loopholes for major corporations. You just have to admire GE's concern for its stockholders!

            So I have this image that just won't go away: President Obama shaking hands with the man he put in charge of this country's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Great move. Jeffrey Immelt can sure show us how to be competitive.

            Maybe the president could put Immelt in charge of the IRS. No, wait. That job belongs to a guy who didn't pay his taxes.

Abdication

            ABDICATION: The relinquishing of power or responsibility.

            The most famous abdication in modern history was that of King Edward VIII of England in 1936. He gave up the throne to marry Wallace Simpson, a twice-divorced American socialite.

            The most recent abdication is going on right now. It is the abdication of presidential leadership by Barack Obama.

            When the country cries out for salvation from its intolerable 14 trillion dollars of debt, the president leads by paying lip service to the need to cut spending while proposing more spending, which he calls "investments." He wouldn't want to offend anyone who might vote for him, now, would he?.

            While all agree that entitlements must be reformed, beginning with Social Security, Obama refuses to put forth any proposals. He prefers to let Republicans come up with a plan so he can claim that they are throwing grandma out on the street. That's good strategy for his reelection, you see.

            With union goons inciting demonstrations outside state capitols, the president has all but forgotten his call for civility. We don't need to be reminded that he is one of them and that they are his biggest supporters. Let's not jeopardize the flow of union dues to Democrat party coffers.

            With rebels in Libya crying out for help in the form of a No-Fly Zone, our leader agrees that Qaddhafi must go, but that the United States cannot lead any military effort to oust him. With the crisis worsening and the rebels about to snuffed out, the president prefers to go out and play golf. After all, no one can deny him a little recreation after the exertions of fundraising.

            With prices at the pump rising daily as the result of the turmoil in the Middle East, the president still preaches windmills and solar energy instead of permitting the extraction of oil and gas from our enormous reserves. Protecting one caribou in the frozen tundra of Alaska is much more important than fighting extortion by OPEC. We can all agree on that.

            When pictures of the unimaginable tragedy in Japan appeared hourly on our TV screens, Obama came on to tell America that his heart was broken. Days passed without another word until he went on the air to sketch out his NCAA March Madness picks. What's more important than the spirit of American competiveness?

            After all this hard work, our leader scheduled a vacation to Rio de Janeiro with his family. At the taxpayers' expense, of course. Leadership is exhausting, as we all know.

            This is presidential cynicism at its worse. It is crass dereliction of duty. It is the shameful abdication of Obama's responsibilities as a world leader.

            Abdication. What a legacy!

Dissimulator in Chief

             When you hear a reporter preface his question with the phrase "With all due respect," it usually indicates he disagrees with the person he is interviewing. It is often a courteous way of saying, "I think you're lying."

            Had I been called upon to ask a question at President Obama's press conference on March 11, I would have started with it.

            The president's statements on the efforts of his administration to boost domestic oil production were a masterpiece of dissimulation, if not outright lies.

            How can he boast of having issued 35 new drilling permits, while Ken Salazar, his Energy Czar, is in Contempt of Court for refusing to issue them?

            How can he suggest that taking steps to gather data on drilling off the mid and south Atlantic is in any way a positive step, when we all know he has taken these areas off the table?

            How can he say that his administration is looking at the potential of Alaska, when we all know what that potential is, and that he has always been opposed to drilling there?

            How can he blame the lack of production on undeveloped leases, when his EPA and Energy departments keep coming up with reasons to block exploration and drilling at every turn?

            How can he take credit for oil production being at a higher level now than it was in 2003, when this increase in production is the result of policies of the previous administration, not his?

            And why did he not mention that current US oil production is only 50% of what it was in the 70s, even though we are sitting on oil reserves greater than the reserves of all the Middle Eastern countries put together?

            Oh, but the president is in favor of windmills, solar shingles, and giving $7,500 subsidies to buyers of electric cars that nobody wants.

            With all due respect, Mr. President, your energy policy stinks.

Cowardice Redefined

            I am beginning to experience a severe dislike for Attorney General Eric Holder.

             Holder once said, "I am not a proponent of the death penalty, but I will enforce the law as this Congress gives it to us." Now he refuses to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law banning recognition of same sex marriage, because he thinks the law is unconstitutional. Just where does Eric Holder stand on his sworn responsibility to uphold the law?

          Holder also once said, " Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards." How does this fit with his refusal to cooperate with the Civil Rights Commission's investigation into a 2008 incident in which New Black Panthers  intimidated voters outside a polling place in Philadelphia?

            If I recall correctly, the 15th Amendment to the Constitution says, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."         

            When challenged, Holder said, "...to compare what people were subjected to [in the South in the 60's] to what happened in Philadelphia...does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people." So the Black Panthers will not be prosecuted because of the brutal treatment of blacks during the Civil Rights protests of the60's?

            I am so naive: I thought the Attorney General of the United States was the nation's principal advocate for ALL the people of this country.

            So who is the coward now?

Tsunami of Debt

            The airways are congested with nonsense about cutting the deficit. Pundits and politicians alike are issuing dire warnings that the government may shut down because Democrats and Republicans can 't agree on what and how much to cut from discretionary spending.

            What an enormous waste of time!

            What difference will it make if the cut is $61 billion of $10 billion? The latter proposal from Democrats amounts to .28 percent of the federal budget. That's less than one third of one percent! The country is collapsing under the weight of 13 trillion dollars of debt, and we are arguing over whether or not to defund NPR? Gimme a break!

            The solution to our debt problem is not to found in discretionary spending, although there is much to cut there. The real work will begin when our leaders address entitlements. The White House will not provide leadership here. That's clear. The president and his Senate sycophants will wait until Republicans offer a plan and then scream bloody murder in defense of the poor and the elderly. Pardon me for being cynical.

            One word describes the only real approach to a solution. The word is ELIGIBILITY.  Take Medicaid, for instance. Obamacare threatens to make thirty million more people eligible for Medicaid, when 28 percent of Americans are already getting it. That's an incredibly huge number. You only have to study the criteria for eligibility to understand why.

            Medicaid was designed as a safety net for the poor who can't afford to buy health  insurance. That's laudable. But the law mandates that not only individuals below the poverty line are eligible, but also those who are up to thirty percent above it. That is a prescription for insolvency if I ever saw one. And that is just one example of entitlement eligibilty gone wild. Social Security and Medicare have many more.

            No one wants to remove the safety net for the poor. But until we restore sanity to our entitlement programs by re-examining eligibility for benefits, we will be left to argue about inconsequential government programs, while we sink below the surface of a tsunami of debt.