Crony Capitalists paid their Friends in Government to Ban the Incandescent Lamp

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Competition makes everything better.  For consumers.  That’s you and me.  For it’s that competition that makes business give us more for less.  To please us.  And to persuade us to give them our dollars for their products.  It’s a great system.  It prevents businesses from giving us shoddy goods at high prices.  For if they did they would lose their customers.  And go out of business.  So competition in free market capitalism gets businesses to choose to please their customers.  By giving them more for less.  Which allows them to stay in business.  Unless they have corrupt friends in government (see Industry, not environmentalists, killed traditional bulbs by TIMOTHY P. CARNEY posted 1/1/2014 on the Washington Examiner).

Say goodbye to the regular light bulb this New Year.

… Starting Jan. 1, the famous bulb is illegal to manufacture in the U.S., and it has become a fitting symbol for the collusion of big business and big government.

The 2007 Energy Bill, a stew of regulations and subsidies, set mandatory efficiency standards for most light bulbs. Any bulbs that couldn’t produce a given brightness at the specified energy input would be illegal. That meant the 25-cent bulbs most Americans used in nearly every socket of their home would be outlawed…

Competitive markets with low costs of entry have a characteristic that consumers love and businesses lament: very low profit margins. GE, Philips and Sylvania dominated the U.S. market in incandescents, but they couldn’t convert that dominance into price hikes. Because of light bulb’s low material and manufacturing costs, any big climb in prices would have invited new competitors to undercut the giants — and that new competitor would probably have won a distribution deal with Wal-Mart.

So, simply the threat of competition kept profit margins low on the traditional light bulb — that’s the magic of capitalism. GE and Sylvania searched for higher profits by improving the bulb — think of the GE Soft White bulb. These companies, with their giant research budgets, made advances with halogen, LED and fluorescent technologies, and even high-efficiency incandescents. They sold these bulbs at a much higher prices — but they couldn’t get many customers to buy them for those high prices. That’s the hard part about capitalism — consumers, not manufacturers, get to demand what something is worth.

Capitalism ruining their party, the bulb-makers turned to government. Philips teamed up with NRDC. GE leaned on its huge lobbying army — the largest in the nation — and soon they were able to ban the low-profit-margin bulbs.

When you have collusion between big business and big government you no longer have free market capitalism.  No.  Instead you have crony capitalism.  Where rich people both in business and government collude with each other to make themselves even richer.  While making consumers poorer.

The lamp manufacturers got new laws that forced consumers to pay the higher prices they wouldn’t without a law compelling them to do so.  Making the lamp manufacturers richer.  And the lobbyists poured lobbying money over their friends in government.  Who probably stripped naked and rolled around on it, rubbing that cash all over their naked bodies.  And said God bless global warming.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GE Engine Failures on Boeing’s Newest Aircraft cause Rapid Response and Fix from GE

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 6th, 2012

Week in Review

Airbus built the A380 to compete against the Boeing 747.  In fact, there is a great competition between Airbus and Boeing.  Each even claiming that the other’s government is unfairly subsidizing the other company.  Which is a big deal because Boeing is a large part of total US exports.  Airbus has taken a lot of their business, though.  So they are very protective of their remaining market share.  And will take aggressive action whenever a problem arises that can affect their market share or their profits (see NTSB Urges Action After Engine Failures in New Boeing 787, 747 Airliners by Jason Paur posted 9/17/2012 on Wired).

The National Transportation Safety Board is recommending inspections for all new Boeing 787 and 747-8 aircraft with General Electric engines. The NTSB made the recommendation to the Federal Aviation Administration after two of GE’s newest engines experienced failures in the past few months. Three separate incidents all point to a similar cause for the failures in the engines.

“The parties to our investigation – the FAA, GE and Boeing – have taken many important steps and additional efforts are in progress to ensure that the fleet is inspected properly,” NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman said in a statement on Friday. “We are issuing this recommendation today because of the potential for multiple engine failures on a single aircraft and the urgent need for the FAA to act immediately…”

According to the NTSB, GE has developed an ultrasonic inspection method for the fan midshaft that can be used while the engine is still on the airplane. All of the GEnx-1B engines used on 787 Dreamliners as well as spare engines have been inspected. All of the GEnx-2B engines on passenger versions of the 747-8 have also been inspected. There are more than 40 General Electric engines on freighter versions of the new jumbo jet that still await engine inspections and are expected to be completed this week.

The engine maker believes it has found the cause of the cracks and has changed the way the shafts are coated during the manufacturing and assembly process…

Did GE respond like this just because of the NTSB?  No.  They have a vested interest in their engines not failing.  For if they have a reputation of providing bad engines their customers will go someplace else.  Or the flying public will refuse to get on any plane with GE engines.  That’s why GE scrambled to fix this problem.  Because hiding it would have been a bigger hit on profitability.  This is the free market in action.  The market demanded fuel efficient and reliable engines.  Which GE delivered.  And when there was a problem GE responded quickly.  To protect the bottom line.  And their biggest customer.  Who could take their business elsewhere if GE costs them any market share.  For they are not the only engine supplier out there.

Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner can be ordered with either the General Electric or Rolls-Royce engines. Both of the new engines are responsible for a significant portion of the fuel efficiency improvements of the new airplane. And the Rolls-Royce engines haven’t been trouble free. Earlier in the summer the launch customer fo[r] the 787, All Nippon Airways, temporarily grounded its fleet of Dreamliners after premature corrosion was found in the gearboxes of the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 engines.

If this was a government manufacturer you would not have seen such quick action.  Why?  Because if there was a government monopoly for those engines where else could the aircraft manufacturers go?  The NTSB would have grounded all planes.  But there would not have been any urgency in resolving this problem.  As there was no potential for lost profits.  Which there was for GE.  Especially with a competitor in the wings just waiting to take their customers.

Government regulations don’t make aircraft safe.  The fear of losing profits on unsafe planes does.  Which is why people would much rather fly in a Boeing airplane rather than a plane produced under the command economy of the Soviet Union.  For back in the Seventies and Eighties the chances of a plane falling out of the sky were greater with a Soviet-built plane than with a private sector-built Boeing.  It’s the profits earned on safe airplanes that do the most to keep them from falling out of the sky.  Not bloated government bureaucracy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GE vs. TransCanada – Is the President too much of an Environmentalist or just too Anti-American?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 20th, 2011

Week in Review

General Electric is everything the Occupy Wall Street protestors hate.  But they don’t protest them.  Or President Obama.  Who has a close personal relationship with GE (see Occupy GE posted 11/18/2011 on Investors.com).

At a recent town hall meeting, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee, reminded constituents of a story that broke earlier in the year — that General Electric paid no taxes on profit of $14 billion, $9 billion of which was earned overseas.

Ryan related how he had asked a GE tax officer the length of GE’s tax filing. The tax guy said it was filed electronically but if it had been printed out he reckoned about 57,000 pages. This speaks both to the complexity and unfairness of the tax code.

…businesses large and small are encumbered by regulations and a byzantine tax code designed not to raise money for the needed functions of government but to reward or punish the behavior of corporations and individuals as the government sees fit.

57,000 pages?  For what?  To maximize tax revenue?  Apparently not.  As GE paid zero taxes on $14 billion.  So this complicated mess of a tax code clearly doesn’t maximize tax revenue.  It actually minimizes tax revenue.  By giving the well-connected corporations (i.e., government cronies) a way to escape paying their ‘fair share’.

In the mean time, though, the Obama administration is trying to raise taxes on the rich.  To make them pay their ‘fair’ share.  And by rich they mean the middle class.  For they definitely don’t mean crony capitalists like GE.

General Electric, a “good” and “green” company that makes wind turbines instead of drilling for oil, is rewarded for successfully jumping through government hoops and gaming the system.

TransCanada, which wants to build a pipeline to bring oil from Alberta’s tar sands to American refineries, is deemed a “bad” company that wants to rape the earth and give us bad air and water. It, and the 20,000 jobs it would create for the 99% by building the Keystone XL pipeline, is told to cool its heels.

GE is a crony capitalist.  And close friend of the Obama administration.  They can ship jobs out of the country.  And not pay income taxes.  TransCanada, on the other hand, will create jobs in America.  As Americans will build their pipeline to pump their oil to American refineries.  Thus benefiting all Americans by lowering the price of gasoline.  But this company is no friend of the Obama administration.  So Obama won’t allow them to build their pipeline.  Create American jobs.  Or lower the price of gasoline.

TransCanada is better for America.  Yet GE is getting all of the breaks.  What’s wrong with this picture?  Is the president too much of an environmentalist?  Or just too anti-American?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #59: “When the Right partners with business the Left calls it crony capitalism. When they partner with business the Left calls that smart government.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 31st, 2011

Microsoft Learns the hard way to Lobby Congress

Microsoft was a rogue corporation.  A big, profitable, rogue corporation.  And it was in the government’s crosshairs.  With all of their going about their business.  Alone.  Without any federal assistance.  Who did these people think they were?  They didn’t spend a dime lobbying the federal government for anything.  As if they could just go on about their business competing in the free market.  Scoffing at the government’s business resources.  All those things they could bring to the table.  To make an unorganized market organized.  Make Microsoft better.  Make Microsoft’s products better.  All for a nominal fee.  Some campaign contributions.  A vacation junket or two.  A little monkey business with someone you’re not married to.  A Roman indulgence of intoxicating substances and flesh.  You know, lobbying stuff.  But no!  Not Microsoft.  Those holier than thou sons of bitches.  Who did they think they were?

Well, Microsoft went too far.  Pissed off the wrong people.  People with friends in Washington.  People with power.  And a justice department.  Empowered with antitrust legislation.  Big, nasty, legal teeth.  Their crime?  They gave away Internet Explorer free.  And that was unfair to their competitors.  But it was a sweet deal to the consumer.  None of them complained.  They were happy to get IE free.  It saved them money.  It was their competitors that were pissed.  Because they couldn’t sell something that Microsoft was giving away free.  So the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Microsoft claiming they violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.  Which Congress passed in 1890 to protect consumers.  And here the DOJ was fighting a case.  And if the DOJ won, the consumer lost.  They would have to pay for IE or a web browser from one of Microsoft’s competitors.  Which just goes to prove that it is never a consumer that complains about ‘predatory’ pricing.  It’s always a competitor that can’t compete at the same price that runs to the DOJ crying for antitrust protection.

Microsoft learned a very important lesson.  When you sit on big piles of money you don’t dis the federal government.  You show them the proper respect and give them some of that money. For your own protection.  For if you don’t they will go after you.  Like they did with Microsoft.  Who is smarter now.  Today, Microsoft spends millions on lobbyists.  To pay tribute for the pleasure of being left alone to operate in the free market.

Money Corrupts, Big Piles of Money Corrupt Absolutely

Microsoft is not alone.  There are a lot of honest companies out there.  But, sadly, there are a lot that aren’t.  Especially if they have a friend in Washington.  Because Washington sits on great big piles of money courtesy of the tax payers.  And a select few spend that money.   Put these two together and it’s a recipe for corruption.  Because one person can skim a little off the top of a huge transaction that is all but impossible to see.  Unless you start living like a Rockefeller on a government salary, that is.

The Teapot Dome scandal was the biggest government scandal of its time.  It involved leases to oil reserves transferred from the Navy to the Department of the Interior.  These were strategic reserves for our navy in case we went to war.  Important to have.  Because you don’t want to run out of oil during a war.  Albert Fall was the Secretary of the Interior.  And it was his job to lease those oil reserves.  Which he did.  But they didn’t go to the low bidder.  They went to the one that made it most worth his while.  Ultimately it was all that ‘making it worth his while’ that did him in.  He became a very rich man.  Which was impossible on his salary.  So they caught him.

Congressmen profit as Shareholders in Crédit Mobilier

The Teapot Dome was a big scandal perpetrated by a few players.  The Crédit Mobilier scandal, on the other hand, had far greater tentacles.  And is a good example of how government partnering with business goes wrong.  It involved the Union Pacific Railroad.  A sham company they created called Crédit Mobilier.  And some 30 Congressmen. 

The railroad to the pacific was a risky proposition.  It would take a very long time to build.  It would go through some very difficult terrain and hostile Indian country.  And there were few shippers on the proposed road.  In other words, it would take a long time to earn any revenue on this line.  And it was possible that they would never complete it.  Or ship enough freight to operate it profitably.  So the government stepped in and partnered with the Union Pacific.  And the fraud began.

The trick was how to make this loser a winner.  Railroad profits weren’t the answer.  So how can a railroad company make a profit without running any trains?  Why, from construction, of course.  That’s where Crédit Mobilier came in.  They built the railroad.  Billed Union Pacific.  Who then billed the government.  And, surprise, surprise, construction costs went way over budget.  Because they were overbilling Union Pacific.  Who then overbilled the government.  But the government just kept on paying.  Why?  Because they had shares in the very profitable Crédit Mobilier.  You see, when you share in the obscene profits of a government contractor you have little incentive to see or stop the fraud.

Government Steps into the Mortgage Business and Gives us the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

For years the federal government implemented policies to increase home ownership.  In their models, this was the driver of all economic activity.  A lot of material and labor builds a house.  And a lot of material and labor builds the things that furnish a house.  Ergo, the more people who bought houses the greater the economic activity.  And that meant everyone.  Even the people who couldn’t qualify for a mortgage.  A lot of which were minorities.  So if a bank denied anyone a mortgage, it just reeked of racism.  So lenders had to find a way to make the unqualified qualified before the DOJ charged them with discrimination in lending.  So, in the mid 1990s, they figured out how to make the unqualified qualified.  Along with a little help from the government.

The subprime mortgage was the vehicle.  Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMS).  And No Income No Asset (NINA, aka, Ninja) loans.  Of course, these by themselves didn’t solve any problem.  Because no respectable lender would ever approve such risky mortgages.  This is where government came in.  Or, rather, the Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE).  Better known to you and me as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Here’s how it worked.  The GSEs bought those risky loans from the lenders.  Then sold them to Wall Street.  Where investment bankers packaged them into Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) and Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO).  High risk loans became low-risk, high-yield securities.  The risk was transferred from the bank to the taxpayer and then to the investor.  And back to the taxpayers when they had to pay for the bailout of the subprime mortgage crisis.

The enabler for this great financial crisis was the government.  First ‘encouraging’ banks to loan to the unqualified.  And then by their partnership with the GSEs.  Encouraging more and more risky behavior because they were getting a piece of the action.  So they turned a blind eye.  Even when some warned the committees responsible for their oversight.  They laughed.  Said they were just mean racists trying to deny fair and affordable housing to minorities.  And they insisted that these GSEs were financially strong and healthy.  Up until the world learned they weren’t.

Crony Capitalism can be Smart Government if it Saves the Environment

There’s one reason why government partners with business.  Corruption.  Crony capitalism.  Either an unscrupulous business trying to buy favors for personal gain.  Or an unscrupulous politician trying to sell favors for personal gain.  And good luck if you run an honest business.  Because the buying and selling of favors simply becomes paying tribute to be left alone.

Both sides are guilty of this.  Though the Left says it’s the Right that is in the pocket of the corporations.  Which is funny.  Because the Left is just as guilty.  But when they do it, it serves a higher purpose. So it’s smart government.  Such as when one of the world’s largest corporations, GE, doesn’t pay any income taxes.  By using some creative accounting practices.  But they’re very cozy with the current administration.  So they get a pass.  And they’re eager to cash in on all that green legislation.  To help them sell their green products.  You see, that’s good for the environment.  So it’s okay that they don’t pay income taxes.  And, more importantly, they have lobbyists.  They know how to play the game.  And they play it well.

But when the Right wants to cut the corporate income tax to stimulate the economy to create jobs, that’s just corporate welfare.  They’ll fight that every day of the week.  But if a corporation’s lobbyists treat them well, they’ll make the incandescent light bulb illegal.  So that corporation can sell more of their compact fluorescent lamps.  But that’s not crony capitalism.  That’s just smart government.  Because it saves the environment.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Explains Autocratic Action in Libya was Necessary to Keep UN Legitimate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 28th, 2011

Obama Explains the Libyan War

President Obama finally took to the television to explain what we’re doing in Libya.  He takes a dig at George W. Bush over the Iraq War.  Says this isn’t anything like the Iraq War.  And that the U.S. role will be short and sweet (see Obama: Libya Isn’t Iraq by Carol E. Lee posted 3/28/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

During the 2008 presidential campaign,  Barack Obama became a hero of the left for his opposition to the Iraq war. Tonight, he used the eight-year-old conflict to explain how the U.N.-backed mission to protect rebels in Libya, not overthrow Col. Moammar Gadhafi, won’t result in a prolonged U.S. engagement.

“If we tried to overthrow Gadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter,” President Obama said. “We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.”

He added: “To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq.”

“[R]egime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars,” Mr. Obama said. “That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.”

Yes, we’ve been down the ‘regime-change’ road before.  And we’ve also been down the ‘no-fly-zone’ road before.  In Iraq, for example.  After the Gulf War.  Some twelve years before the Iraq War.  You see, after we threw Iraq out of Kuwait we entered into a ceasefire.  But Saddam Hussein did not behave.  Or honor many of the terms of the armistice that ended the Gulf War.  Worse, he was violently oppressing Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south that were rising up against his Sunni government.  We were hoping for regime change.  We didn’t get it.  And we didn’t try to help the Kurds or the Shiites.  For the same reasons Obama cites in the Libyan War.  Of course, the Left brutally criticized George H.W. Bush for ending the war too soon.  For not toppling the Hussein regime.  And there we were.  Watching Hussein putting down those uprisings with extreme prejudice (i.e., deadly force).  Oh, it was bad.  Like in Libya. Only worse.

The atrocities got so bad that the international community finally did something.  They established no-fly zones in the north and the south.  And maintained them for some eleven years.  Did we end them after we’ve achieved success?  No.  They ended after the Iraq War toppled Hussein from power making them moot.  You see, here’s the ugly truth.  Unless you topple the bad guy from power, those no-fly zones can never go away.  Even Bill Clinton launched an attack against Hussein while president.  Because he kept attacking the Kurds.  Even with the no-fly zone in place.

What Obama says in effect is that we’re going into Libya half-assed.  We’re not going to do anything that will have a permanent affect.  Just like after 1991 in Iraq.  And we’re leaving ourselves with an open-ended commitment that won’t end until Qaddafi dies by natural causes.  Because he ain’t going anywhere.  He’s a marked man.  And even if he finds safe sanctuary, whoever takes him in may become another Jimmy Carter and see their embassy staff taken hostage (when Carter reluctantly allowed the deposed Shah of Iran into America for medical care).

So the question remains.  Why Libya?  There’s suffering all around the world.  But we help only Libya.  Some have suggested that it was to help the Europeans protect their Libyan oil as they fear another ‘Hugo Chavez‘ nationalization of their oil assets.  Being that they made those agreements with the Qaddafi regime, I’m not sure why they would want to help the rebels trying to topple him from power.  If the Muslim Brotherhood or al-Qaeda fills the power vacuum in a post-Qaddafi Libya, you can bet that their terms on the ‘revised’ contracts won’t be as favorable to any Western economy.  So I don’t know.  It’s a stretch.  But one thing for sure Obama isn’t telling us the whole story.  There has to be a reason why Libya.  Better than the weak arguments he’s making now.

We Attacked Libya so the UN can Save Face

In making his case President Obama inadvertently attacks the role of the UN.  And tries to ease our concerns about a third war with the nation mired in recession.  And buried under a rapidly growing debt (see Obama on Libya: ‘We have a responsibility to act’ by Ben Feller posted 3/28/2011 on The Associated Press).

Citing a failure to act in Libya, he said: “The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the U.N. Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security.”

 Well, isn’t that a fact?  That that “writ of the UN Security Council” is pretty worthless unless backed by the wealth and military might of the United States?  The UN has no military.  Article 43 of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter tried to build a UN military but no nation contributed any forces.  So the UN has no teeth.  Oh, sure, you can say NATO can fill that role.  But the bulk of NATO’s assets are whose?  That’s right.  Ours.  However you want to slice it doesn’t change this fundamental truth.  Any UN or NATO operation is only as strong and as effective as the size of the U.S. role in that operation.

Domestic politics got a nod, too, in a nation saddled in debt and embroiled over how to cut spending.

“The risk and cost of this operation – to our military and to American taxpayers – will be reduced significantly” Obama said.

The president said transferring the mission to NATO would leave the United States in a supporting role, providing intelligence, logistical support and search and rescue assistance. He said the U.S. would also use its capabilities to jam Gadhafi’s means of communication.

The U.S. in a supporting role?  Whenever has the U.S. played that part before?  We’re the John Wayne of international peace-keeping and humanitarian efforts.  We don’t get supporting roles.  Even if that’s all we want.  And the sop to the taxpayers?  This from the guy that is running trillion dollar deficits?  That’s ‘trillion’ with a ‘t’.  Not the ‘billion’ dollar deficits of Ronald Reagan that were irresponsible and bankrupting the country.  He has shown little regard to the American taxpayer.  Why should we believe him now?  He likes to spend tax dollars.  And he likes to tax. 

Fighting Illegal Wars and Cozying up to Big Corporations just isn’t for Republicans Anymore

And tax he does.  He and his progressive Democrats.  They go after rich people.  And big corporations.  Well, some of the big corporations (see 15 Tax Escape Artists by The Daily Beast posted 3/28/2011 on The Daily Beast).

As reported Friday, General Electric concluded 2010 with $14.2 billion in profits, for which the Internal Revenue Service is paying them a tax benefit of $3.2 billion, thanks to a shrewd use of U.S. tax loopholes, aggressive lobbying and favorable international tax provisions. They’re far from alone.

“Companies are becoming much more sophisticated in the way they arbitrage the U.S. tax system,” says Howard Gleckman, a resident fellow at The Urban Institute, which analyzes economic issues in the U.S. “GE is not the only one, there are many other companies doing the same thing.”

Did you catch that?  GE earned $14.2 billion in profits and did not pay any taxes.  In fact, the IRS paid them a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.    How does that make you feel about a ‘green’ corporation in tight with the Obama administration?  GE is a heavy Democrat donor.  And crony.  A big proponent of green energy.  Because they want to sell compact fluorescent lamps and windmills.  They’re so committed to Obama in going green that Jeffrey Immelt, GE CEO, leads Obama’s economic advisory board.  And yet it’s always the Republicans that are criticized for being in the pocket of the big corporations.  But when it’s Democrats, we don’t call it crony capitalism.  Go figure.

Is GE getting favorable treatment?  Perhaps. 

Critics argue that the avoidance of corporate income tax hurts the economy and hampers domestic investment and job creation, but defenders of the practices argue it’s the only way their companies can stay competitive on a global scale as the American corporate tax rate of 35 percent is one the highest in the world…

“GE is a symptom of a much bigger problem and GE management uses the tax code for their benefit,” says Gleckman. “I’m not offended by GE, I’m offended by a tax system that allows this to go on. They have an obligation to their shareholders and their workers to maximize after-tax profits.”

Of course, the irony is that GE Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt is the same person Barack Obama appointed to head the panel of external economic advisers created in 2009 to help steer the U.S. out of the economic crisis. Says Willens, “when [Immelt] was appointed to that position, people who had familiarity with GE’s tax practices had a good laugh, which are rare for tax professionals.”

Obama says our role in Libya will be limited to help the American taxpayer.  Does having the highest corporate tax rates in the world that stifle economic growth and sends jobs overseas help, too?  These tax rates are so high that it forces poor corporations to manipulate the tax code to stay competitive.  Which is okay as long as you are pouring money into Democrat coffers apparently.  Even if you outsource jobs to countries with lower tax rates.

And having the fox guard the chicken house?  In the world of Obama, there’s no conflict there.  Of course, if George W. Bush selected an oilman to lead such a board I suspect there would have been some protestation.  But Obama can do no wrong.  Although the Libyan War is now straining some of his strongest supporters.  Which should make for an interesting 2012 election.  If we have one, that is.

Going Rogue or Just in over his Head?

Special tax deals and policy influence for cronies?  Wars launched without Congressional authority or any clear idea of what exactly our national security interests are?  High taxation?  Huge deficits?  You know, there is a name for this kind of leader.  Autocrat.  Someone who does whatever he wants.  This reminds me of another leader.  You might have heard of him in the news lately.  He’s Libyan.  Goes by the name of Qaddafi.

Of course, Obama is no Qaddafi.  He’s much more conservative in dress.  And he doesn’t murder his own people.  But apart from these two things, you have to admit there are some similarities.  Both are cults of personality (before you object remember that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize before he had a chance to do anything as president).  Friends of both get special treatment (the stimulus bill didn’t hire anyone – it went to the public sector unions and other supporters).  Both feel they’re above the law (take Obamacare, for example.  Ruled unconstitutional yet the Obama administration is still proceeding in defiance of the court’s ruling).  And they both attack their enemies (the Obama machinery bussed protesters to Wisconsin to try to prevent the elected Wisconsin Assembly from voting on the bill to restrict collective bargaining rights to public sector workers).  Oh, and even though he defied one judge (in the Obamacare ruling) he used another judge in Wisconsin to stop a law he didn’t personally like (restricting collective bargaining rights of public sector unions).

So this leaves all scratching our collective head.  Why Libya?  When you get right down to it, he must like a lot about Qaddafi.  He’s doing a lot of the same.  Only without the blood and fancy dress.  And while we’re asking questions, here’s another.  Will there be an election in 2012?  That may depend on how far his poll numbers drop.  Because there’s a limit to the number of dead people that can vote without drawing suspicion.  I’m joking, of course.  There will be an election.  Obama hasn’t gone rogue.  He’s just young, inexperienced and in over his head.  At least based on his incomprehensible actions.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,