House passes bill to tax employee bonuses at AIG, other companies with big bailouts

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Acting swiftly, the Democratic-led House approved a bill Thursday to slap punishing taxes on big employee bonuses at firms bailed out by taxpayers. In some cases the bonuses might be taxed 100 percent leaving the recipients with nothing.

The bill would impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses given to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at American International Group and other companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.

"We want our money back now for the taxpayers," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

Here is Pelosi's Hypocrisy:

HURRY, FELLAS, LET'S VOTE, I AM OFF TO ROME!
Fri Feb 13 2009 09:18:52 ET

Rep. John Culberson, TX claims the "stimulus" bill must be urgently voted on today -- because Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leaving at 6:00 PM for an 8 day trip to Europe!

Culberson made the charge on Houston's KSEV radio.

Pelosi is hoping to lead a delegation to Europe; there's a meeting with the Pope and an award from an Italian legislative group.

Calls to Pelosi's spokesman went unreturned.

In the rushing, Democrats have now broken their promise to have the public see the $790 billion bill for 48 hours before any vote.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted that none of his Senate colleagues would 'have the chance' to read the entire final version of the 1,071-page bill before it comes up for a final vote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is time to get back on the saddle.  I don’t know about you, but I am happy and excited about the times we are in.  We are energizing.  And those of you who are involved know this and sense this.  Now is the time to capture this opportunity to develop plans and good ideas.  Right now we are watching the Democrats make horrible decisions with our tax money!

 

On March 1, 2009, Obama said he wanted to give more money to AIG. Guess what AIG is doing?  They are giving $165 million in executive bonuses with our tax paying money.  Why?  Do you remember that not one member read the stimulus bill?  Nope!  Republicans thought that we should have time to read the bill before passing it.  Obama went back on another campaign promise when he said we ought to put bills out on the internet for five days because he wanted Americans to believe he was transparent.  But the truth of it is…..the democrats shoved the stimulus bill down your throats without fully looking at it and realizing what the consequences were going to be!  THE AIG bill is a direct consequence of the Obama administration signing bills before knowing how it affects us all!

 

It gets better. Recently, Obama’s Omnibus bill damaged the Pilot Mexico Truck Program and it violates our NAFTA agreement with Mexico.  As a result of the Obama administration stepping all over themselves, Mexico has now started a trade war due to Obama’s signing of the bill.  I guess this fits into Obama’s vision of “Buy American”.  Obama is a protectionist.  He’s a restrictionist that made himself known early on when he attacked the Clinton Administration NAFTA policies.  The Latino Liberals who believed that Obama was some sort of democrat messiah have another think coming.  Obama is going to militarize the border and will continue to take PROTECTIONIST measures against our soil neighbor, and those who voted for him – deserve his protectionist ideology. The NCLR is already seeing the writing on the wall when they issued a statement  expressing their profound disappointment in the Obama administration regarding the Saenz decision.

 

So far, Obama has managed to start a war on business which has sparked Rick Santelli parties all over the US of A, and people are participating in massive protests. Obama has created a moral hazard with regard to how he handles our economy. Obama appoints the likes of Geithner (the tax fleeing idiot) who signed off on AIG and financial banks getting YOUR tax paying money in the name of Socialism.  Obama has intentions of harming our Veterans because he wants to make Veterans pay for their own medical services even though they lost limbs and are disabled during WAR TIME.  I guess Obama thinks it is better to give  $300 million in aid to Gaza and another $600 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority, than to make sure that our own AMERICAN Veterans are taken care of.  Obama thinks giving small business a mere 15 million dollars will put a dent on things, but 15 million is nothing compared to the 900 million he is giving to aid Gaza and the Palestinian cause.  Obama has sparked a Trade war with Mexico after he stepped on himself earlier with his “Buy American” bullshit that provoked the EU.  Since then, his "buy American" BS has been watered down. The list goes on, and on, and on, and on.

 

Those who voted for Obama (the proclaimed democrat savior) deserve Obama. While our economy is crumbling and pointing towards socialism…..the Obama administration would rather be busy in attacking mere radio and tv entertainers such as Rush and Cramer.  

 

Obama’s actions are energizing our base.  We are excited and we look forward to working harder than before.  Participate with your State Party Fellow Members.  Go to GOP.com and get involved.  We have to control our own destinies.  Become precinct leaders and let’s continue the American Revolution.  When you have a rookie as a President who doesn’t know what their doing, then we’d better step up to the plate and start putting our words into action by being aggressive with Conservative grassroots organizations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxyW7_0prdg

Beyond appropriations, the bill’s 1,132 pages carry with them legislative provisions touching on an array of issues. State attorneys general are given new powers to pursue truth-in-lending cases. The bill terminates an 18-month pilot program to allow Mexican-licensed trucks to compete for long-haul routes in the United States. And down to the last hours, a set of Cuba travel provisions required the Treasury Department to step in to ease differences among Democrats that threatened passage. 

The Mexico truck program began in September 2007 as a way for the United States to meet its commitment under NAFTA to allow freer trucking operations on both sides of the border. But it has faced persistent opposition in Congress, and a recent Transportation Department report found that only 29 of 100 projected Mexican carriers were admitted to the project, and this “level of participation is not adequate to yield statistically valid findings.”

Read more.

“Mexico would expect that at a time of global recession and economic distress, the U.S. would play by the rules, fulfill its international treaty obligations and ensure that bilateral trade is a level playing field, rather than erect trade barriers that undermine much needed incentives to foster growth,” he said, predicting the action would increase consumer costs.

He said the decision has never been about safety. “During the cross-border trucking demonstration program’s 18 months of operation, 26 carriers from Mexico, with 103 trucks, and 10 from the U.S., with 61 trucks, crossed the border over 45,000 times without a significant incident.”

When do Mexican trucks disappear from our highways?

The short answer, they don’t! Cross border drayage rigs will continue to travel within the commercial zones, generally 25 miles from the border, 75 miles in Arizona. This means these trucks can conceivably travel US highways from Brownsville to Del Rio Texas as they have done for years.

SEC May Weigh Reviving Uptick Rule to Bolster Markets (Update2)

By Jesse Westbrook and Edgar Ortega

March 10 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission may propose within a month that the so-called uptick rule be reinstated, as regulators aim to bolster markets roiled by the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

‘Manchurian Candidate’ Starts War on Business: Kevin Hassett

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- Back in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson gave us the War on Poverty. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon launched the War on Drugs. Now that we have seen President Barack Obama’s first-year legislative agenda, we know what kind of a war he intends to wage.

It is no wonder that markets are imploding around us. Obama is giving us the War on Business.

Imagine that some hypothetical enemy state spent years preparing a “Manchurian Candidate” to destroy the U.S. economy once elected. What policies might that leader pursue?

He might discourage private capital from entering the financial sector by instructing his Treasury secretary to repeatedly promise a brilliant rescue plan, but never actually have one. Private firms, spooked by the thought of what government might do, would shy away from transactions altogether. If the secretary were smooth and played rope-a-dope long enough, the whole financial sector would be gone before voters could demand action.

Another diabolical idea would be to significantly increase taxes on whatever firms are still standing. That would require subterfuge, since increasing tax rates would be too obvious. Our Manchurian Candidate would have plenty of sophisticated ideas on changing the rules to get more revenue without increasing rates, such as auctioning off “permits.”

These steps would create near-term distress. If our Manchurian Candidate leader really wanted to knock the country down for good, he would have to provide insurance against any long-run recovery.

Obama Wasting Taxpayer Resources Attacking a Radio Entertainer – Rush Limbaugh

Is it me?  Or does the reasonable thinking individual perceive the Obama administration as a petty administration going after mere radio show entertainers? 

It seems to me that the Obama administration should focus on the economy instead of wasting White House resources on attacking radio show entertainers such as Rush Limbaugh.  Now, believe me, I’m not a Rush Limbaugh listener, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Obama is trying to find a boogeyman in hopes of diverting attention to real American issues.  Issues such as how the DOW has plummeted 2000 points since Obama became President. 

Does Obama really want to be viewed as a President that deals with petty issues such as attacking radio show entertainers?  My goodness, the President should start acting like a President instead of trying so hard to set the “bar low”.  Obama’s hope hype quickly turned around once he became President, and his doom and gloom nature of attacking drug companies, banks, oil companies is being translated into how radical he has become. 

It seems as if Obama is seeking some sort of   “creative reparation” by punishing companies as his trickle-up-poverty-way-of-thinking spreads it’s cancer into our free enterprise system.  It is also evident that Obama is not confident in how to lead the country; else, he would not waste taxpaying resources in attacking mere radio show entertainers.  I think it’s time for Obama to get to work instead of wasting so much time in attacking entertainers.  There are real issues out there, Obama.  Quit partying so much and get to work! 

Clinton Pessimistic on Iran Outreach

By Glenn Kessler

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt, March 2 -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday expressed doubts in a private meeting with an Arab counterpart that the Obama administration's outreach to Iran would be successful.

Clinton "said she is doubtful that Iran will respond to any kind of engagement and opening the hand out and reaching out to them," said a senior State Department official, who requested anonymity because he was describing a closed-door conversation.

I believe the Hispanic Leadership Fund will bridge some of the problems we are facing as a party.

CPAC Highlights GOP’s
Struggle With Diversity

Feb. 28, 8:28 A.M.

On Thursday afternoon, about 80 attendees of the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference sat in on a panel called “Building the Conservative Hispanic Coalition” — and what was scheduled to be an hourlong panel stretched into nearly three hours.

Bernanke Says There May Be Benefit to Resurrecting Uptick Rule

By Jesse Westbrook

Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said there may be a benefit in resurrecting a rule that restricts short-selling stocks when share prices are falling amid the current bear market.

“In the kind of environment we have seen more recently” the so-called uptick rule “might have had some benefit,” Bernanke said in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee today. The rule, scrapped by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2007, barred investors from betting against a stock until it sells at a higher price than the preceding trade.

Bernanke’s comments may give credence to lawmakers such as U.S. Representative Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, who blamed the rule’s elimination for triggering attacks on financial stocks. The Standard & Poor’s index has tumbled 50 percent since the SEC dropped the uptick rule 16 months ago. New SEC Chairman Mary Shapiro said in January she may resurrect the provision.

The SEC approved the rule in 1938 to prevent bear raids on companies. The agency eliminated the regulation after studying its effect on share prices and determining it was no longer relevant in markets dominated by fast-paced electronic trading.

To contact the reporter on this story:  Jesse Westbrook in Washington at jwestbrook1@bloomberg.net.

Editors' Video Picks

Bernanke Testifies About Economic Policy (Statement)

Dems seek billions more for 2009

With a new budget cycle about to begin, Democrats scrambled Tuesday to fill in the blanks for this fiscal year, rolling out a nearly $410 billion spending bill that will serve as a benchmark for the Obama administration’s own 2010 plan, due Thursday.

A reasonable definition of socialized medicine is possible. Socialized medicine exists to the extent that government controls medical resources and socializes the costs. Notice that under this definition, it is irrelevant whether we describe medical resources (e.g., hospitals, employees) as "public" or "private." What matters-what determines real as opposed to nominal ownership-is who controls the resources. By that definition, America’s health sector is already more than half socialized, and Obama’s health care plan would socialize medicine even further.

Reasonable people can disagree over whether Obama’s health plan would be good or bad. But to suggest that it is not a step toward socialized medicine is absurd.

Source

Remember the bill that nobody read before the democrats voted for it?  Let's look deeper and see what the dems voted for............

States prepare to combat stimulus strings

Assert sovereignty with 10th Amendment

Worried the federal government is increasing its dominance over their affairs, several states are pursuing legislative action to assert their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution in hopes of warding off demands from Washington on how to spend money or enact policy. The growing concerns even have a handful of governors questioning whether to accept federal stimulus money that comes with strings attached.

The sentiments to declare themselves legally independent from Washington have swept across as many as a dozen states, renewing a debate over so-called unfunded mandates that last raged in the 1990s. The states question whether the U.S. government can force states to take actions without paying for them or impose conditions on states if they accept certain federal funding.

Source

States Have No Voice With Obama.

Constitution Is Violated.

This provision in the stimulus bill basically means that even if governors oppose the stimulus package and want to block it, they will have no voice in the process. So now all of the governors who might have opposed the massive imposition of federal spending and obligations on their states are powerless. The implications for the future are ominous, because if this bill stands as a precedent it transfers a huge amount of power away from state governments and to the congress, taking away any ability of states to determine their own fiscal policies when federal funds are involved.

The inclusion of this rule is troubling because there is very little question that it is blatantly unconstitutional and a clear violation of the 10th Amendment. It’s a big stretch interpret the constitution to allow for the Congress to force money on the states and then force them to accept federal government dictates on how to spend that money. This creates a situation reminiscent of the case in Schechter Poultry vs. the United States where the Supreme Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 for giving powers to the federal government which were not granted to it constitutionally. It may also run afoul of the ruling in New York vs. the United States which ruled that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to force state governments to act as its agents. The passage of the stimulus bill with this inclusion may lead to legal challenges from some states and legal rights groups. If it does not, the danger of the precedent it will set in weakening state autonomy is frightening.

Source

Meltdown 101: What it means to nationalize a bank

Rachel Beck

Buying stakes in troubled banks. Taking control of toxic assets.

Someof the tactics the government has turned to, or proposed, as it tries to rescue the financial system have inspired a discussion of whether the institutions should be nationalized.

But what does it really mean to nationalize a bank? And what are the potential consequences of an expanded government role in the financial industry?

Here are some questions and answers about what this all could mean:

Q: What is nationalization?

A: A textbook definition would say nationalization involves the government seizing control of a private-sector entity by taking a majority stake in it and dictating how it is run.

[snip]

Here's Pelosi's spin on the issue:

In an interview Sunday on "This Week" on ABC, the House speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked about whether the only way to fairly deal with banks that are close to insolvency is through nationalization, or partial nationalization.

"Well, whatever you want to call it," the Democrat from California said. "If we are strengthening them, then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization."

Source.

Even though Congressional approval ratings have spiked since the stimulus, many in the GOP are taking solace from several recent polls showing ambivalence about the $787 billion package.

A Feb. 16 Rasmussen poll showed that 53 percent of Americans thought the stimulus would hurt or have little effect; Only 38 percent thought it would help.

The same poll showed that GOP defector Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) was hurt, at least temporarily, at home by his decision to back the package: 41 percent said his vote made it less likely they'd support him to the 31 percent who said it made them more likely yo back Specter.

A Pew poll, taken on the 10th, showed that support for the stimulus had fallen from 57 to 51 percent since January.

On the other hand, a Gallup survey released on Feb. 13th showed support for the plan growing from 53 to 59 percent over the same period.

Source.

It also looks like Obama is getting an F on his financial report card.  We dipped BELOW 7400 points, people!  Obama's "savior based economy" is not what he thought it would be after he gave all that hype to the American people.

Liz Peek: Stock Market Gives Obama’s First Month An 'F'

It turns out that Obama is not the messiah.  The 'one' does not have the ability to restore confidence in the American people and their investments.

Dow Trades Below 7400

VIDEO: 'The government is promoting bad behavior... do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages... This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage? President Obama are you listening? How about we all stop paying our mortgage! It's a moral hazard'... MORE...

ND House Passes Abortion Ban

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.

The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed.

He also sponsored today's bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.

(Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot) "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does." VO CONTINUES But Minot Democrat Kari Conrad says the bill will land North Dakota in court, trying to defend the constitutionality of a law that goes against the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

(Rep. Kari Conrad, -D- Minot) "People who presented this bill, were very clear that they intended to challenge Roe versus Wade. So they intend to put the state of North Dakota into court defending Roe vs. Wade"

The bill now goes to the North Dakota Senate. watch the video |

VIDEO: 'NOT ONE MEMBER HAS READ THIS BILL'

SURPRISE! Dems Break Promise: Stimulus Bill to Floor Friday

by  Connie Hair

02/12/2009

In a press conference Thursday, the House Republican leadership spoke candidly about being kept out of the House-Senate conference on the Obama-Pelosi-Reid so-called “economic stimulus” bill. They confirmed they had not yet seen the text of the bill as of 4 p.m.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was unsure how many Democrats would vote with Republicans again on this bill but that he thought Republicans “may get a few” Democrats to side with them. The fact that the Demos have now broken their promise to have the public able to see the bill for 48 hours may drive more Dems into the Republican camp.

“[I] don’t know, ‘cause they haven’t seen the bill either,” Boehner said.

“The American people have a right to know what’s in this bill,” Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind) told HUMAN EVENTS after the press conference. “Every member of Congress -- Republicans and Democrats -- voted to post this bill on the internet for 48 hours, 48 hours ago. We’ll see if the Democrats keep their word.”

Actually -- as of 5:15 pm, the the Democrats had broken their word. The stimulus bill -- which we still haven’t seen -- will be released late tonight and will be brought up on the House floor at 9 am tomorrow.

Source.

Iran rejects Obama's "carrot and stick" policy in nuclear issue

TEHRAN, Dec. 8 (Xinhua) -- Iran on Monday rejected U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's latest call for a "carrot and stick" policy in dealing with Tehran's nuclear issue and reiterated its unbent will to continue the nuclear work.

    "The carrot and stick policy has proven to be useless. It is an unacceptable policy that had failed in the past," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi told reporters.

    Qashqavi stressed that Iran would not halt its nuclear work, which the West suspected was aimed to produce nuclear weapons.

Read on.

To be fair, the inability of Keynesianism to boost growth may not necessarily mean that government spending does not create jobs. Moreover, the argument that government can create jobs is not dependent on Keynesian economics. Politicians from both parties, for instance, argued in favor of pork-filled transportation bills earlier this decade when the economy was enjoying strong growth — and job creation generally was their primary talking point.

Unfortunately, no matter how the issue is analyzed, there is virtually no support for the notion that government spending creates jobs. Indeed, the more relevant consideration is the degree to which bigger government destroys jobs. Both the theoretical and empirical evidence argues against the notion that big government boosts job creation. Theory and evidence lead to three unavoidable conclusions:

• The theory of government-instigated job creation overlooks the loss of resources available to the productive sector of the economy. Frederic Bastiat, the great French economist (yes, there were admirable French economists, albeit all of them lived in the 1800s), is well known for many reasons, including his explanation of the "seen" and the "unseen." If the government decides to build a "Bridge to Nowhere," it is very easy to see the workers who are employed on that project. This is the "seen." But what is less obvious is that the resources to build that bridge are taken from the private sector and thus are no longer available for other uses. This is the "unseen."
  
• So-called stimulus packages have little bang for the buck. Even if one assumes that money floats down from Heaven and we don't have to worry about the "unseen," government is never an efficient way to achieve an objective. Based on the amount of money that is being discussed and the claims of how many jobs will be created, Harvard Professor Greg Mankiw filled in the blanks and calculated that each new job (assuming they actually materialize) will cost $280,000. But since money doesn't come from Heaven, this calculation is only a partial measure of cost. In reality, the cost of each government job should reflect how that $280,000 would have been spent more productively in the private sector.
  
• Government workers are grossly overpaid. There are several reasons why it costs so much for the government to "create" a job, including the inherent inefficiency of the public sector. But the dominant factor is probably the excessive compensation packages for bureaucrats. According to Bureau of Economic Analysis data, the average employee for the federal government now earns gets paid nearly twice as much as workers in the productive sector of the economy.

Notwithstanding these points, it is quite likely that politicians in Washington will pass a boondoggle-filled "stimulus" bill. While there may be a few naïve folks who think a big increase in the burden of government somehow is a recipe for job creation, politicians have a self-interested motive to move in that direction because it increases their power and influence.

They win and taxpayers lose.

RICHARDSON'S CAREER HAS BEEN FILLED WITH SCANDAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS

During Richardson's Tenure As Director, Peregrine Systems Engaged In An Accounting Scheme Which Allowed Executives To Take Millions While Investors Were Defrauded:

Richardson Served As A Board Member Of Peregrine Systems From February 2001 To June 2002. "New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was a member of Peregrine's board of directors from February 2001 until he resigned after winning the Democratic nomination for governor in the June 2002 primary." (Elliot Spagat, "Former Peregrine CFO Pleads Guilty To Conspiracy, Fraud," The Associated Press, 4/13/03)

Peregrine Engaged In Accounting "Scheme To Prematurely Recognize Revenue, An Effort To Boost The Company's Share Price And Mislead Investors." "The former chief financial officer at Peregrine Systems Inc. pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiracy and securities fraud after agreeing to cooperate with prosecutors who are investigating accounting irregularities at the software company. Matthew C. Gless, Peregrine's chief financial officer from November 2000 to May 2002, admitted taking part in a scheme to prematurely recognize revenue, an effort to boost the company's share price and mislead investors." (Elliot Spagat, "Former Peregrine CFO Pleads Guilty To Conspiracy, Fraud," The Associated Press, 4/13/03)

• Peregrine Executives "Spent Millions Of Dollars On Bonuses And Golf-Club Memberships" As Investors, Including Pension And School Funds "Suffered Losses Totaling Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars." "Public reports filed by Peregrine Systems while Bill Richardson was a director showed the company was headed toward possible failure at a time it spent millions of dollars on bonuses and golf-club memberships for executives. Investors in the San Diego-based software company, including pension and school funds in New Mexico, have suffered losses totaling hundreds of millions of dollars and the company has filed for bankruptcy protection." (Thomas J. Cole, "Tenure At Peregrine Haunts Richardson," The Albuquerque Journal, 10/27/02)

Richardson Claimed He Was An "Outside" Director, Had "No Involvement" With The Company's Accounting Behavior, And Attended Just Five Board Meetings. "'Really, I had no involvement because I was what was called an outside director,' Richardson said in an interview Friday. 'I had no stock or made no stock purchases, and I was unaware of some of the accounting disputes.' Richardson said he attended about five meetings of the board of directors during the 16 months he was with Peregrine. He said he learned about the accounting problems and the ensuing SEC investigation from newspaper articles." (Gilbert Gallegos, "SEC Probes Tech Company Once Linked To Richardson ," The Albuquerque Tribune, 7/9/02)

• "But Corporate Governance Experts Say He Should Have Known Better. 'It's The Job Of The Board Of Directors To Know What's Going On,' Said Nell Minow Of The Corporate Executive Board, A Longtime Governance Gadfly. 'When You're A Director, It's No Better To Be A Schnook Than A Crook.'" (Justin Rood and Robert Lewis, "'A Schnook Is No Better Than A Crook,'" ABC News' "The Blotter" Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 7/9/07)

• "Records Show That Richardson Attended, In Person Or By Phone, 15 Board Meetings. In Those Meetings, Directors Were Hearing That The Company Might Get Caught Cooking The Books." (Don Bauder, "Feeble Alibis," The San Diego Reader, www.sandiegoreader.com, 3/22/07)

Richardson Was Named As A Defendant In A Class Action Law Suit Filed By Shareholders Against Peregrine. "Some shareholders have joined in class-action lawsuits against Peregrine, and Richardson is a defendant in some of those suits." (Thomas J. Cole, "Tenure At Peregrine Haunts Richardson," The Albuquerque Journal, 10/27/02)

Lawmakers And Media Called For Richardson's Resignation Over Security Breach At Laboratory In Los Alamos, NM:

Richardson's Department Of Energy Showed Extreme Carelessness In Securing Our National Secrets.  "The whereabouts of two computer hard drives at the center of a Los Alamos National Laboratory security breach investigation may have been unknown for as long as six months - not the six weeks originally reported ..." ("Timeline On Missing Los Alamos Hard Drives in Question: Their Whereabouts May Have Been Unknown For Months, Not Weeks," CNN.com, 6/20/00)

• Richardson Faced Scrutiny Because Scientist Was Under Investigation For Three Years And Allowed To Keep Job. "Under Republican attack over security at federal nuclear weapons labs, the Clinton administration fired a Chinese-American computer scientist who has been the subject of a three-year espionage investigation." (H. Josef Hebert, "Chinese-American Scientist Fired At Weapons Lab Amid Spy Probe," The Associated Press, 3/9/99)

In Aftermath, Senate Intel Chairman Called For Richardson's Resignation. "Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., called on Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to step down in light of security lapses at the Los Alamos nuclear labs." ("Senate Leader Calls On Richardson To Step Down," United Press International, 6/18/00)

Even Democrats Were Upset With Richardson Over Handling Of Security Breach. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV): "You have shown an extreme contempt ... of this Congress." (H. Josef Hebert, "Richardson At The Center Of Security, Gas Prices Firestorm," The Associated Press, 6/22/00)

• Sen. Byrd: "You've had a bright and brilliant career. But you will never again receive the support of the Senate of the United States for any office to which you might be appointed. It's gone. You've squandered your treasure." (H. Josef Hebert, "Richardson At The Center Of Security, Gas Prices Firestorm," The Associated Press, 6/22/00)

• Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Also Criticized Richardson. Sen. Kerry: "In my judgment the damage to U.S. interests is very real and what has leaked out is a very serious issue." (Andrew Miga, "Kerry Warns Of More Cases Of Alleged Chinese Spying," The Boston Herald, 3/22/99)

As Governor, Richardson Used Tobacco Company's Jet For Five Trips Worth More Than $40,000:

Richardson Took Tens Of Thousands Of Dollars In Free Flights From Largest Smokeless Tobacco Firm. "Gov. Bill Richardson has taken tens of thousands of dollars worth of free corporate jet flights from the world's largest smokeless-tobacco company in his role as head of the Democratic Governors Association." (Jeff Jones, "Smokeless On These Flights," Albuquerque Journal, 5/14/06)

• "The Company, UST, Is The Parent Corporation Of The Firm That Makes Skoal And Copenhagen, Among Other Brands." ("Tobacco Company Provides Travel To Richardson," The Associated Press, 5/15/06)

• "The Five Free Flights Provided To Richardson Through The Association, Which He Chairs, In 2005 And Early 2006 Were Worth More Than $40,000 ..." ("Tobacco Company Provides Travel To Richardson," The Associated Press, 5/15/06)

UST Lobbied New Mexico Legislature For Beneficial Legislation. "That company - UST, the parent corporation of the firm that makes Skoal, Copenhagen and other brands - lobbied hard at the New Mexico Legislature earlier this year for a tobacco-tax change that critics said would have exclusively benefited UST." (Jeff Jones, "Smokeless On These Flights," Albuquerque Journal, 5/14/06)

• The Bill Was Sponsored By Richardson's Chief Ally. "The bill, sponsored by Richardson's chief legislative ally, House Speaker Ben Lujan, passed the House after a state financial impact report to lawmakers was drastically changed using UST's numbers. The measure ran out of steam in the Senate, where it died." (Jeff Jones, "Smokeless On These Flights," Albuquerque Journal, 5/14/06)

Gov. Richardson Invented Portion Of Biography:

Richardson Falsely Claimed To Have Been Drafted By The Kansas City A's. "The Albuquerque Journal reported last month that it had found no record of Richardson being drafted by the Kansas City Athletics in the 1960s as Richardson had claimed in a biography when he ran for Congress in 1982. The governor acknowledged the error." (Barry Massey, "GOP Airs Ad Criticizing Governor As 'King Bill,'" The Associated Press, 12/6/05)

As Governor, Richardson Used State Helicopter To Go Horseback Riding At A Ranch:

"The New Mexican's Mitote Column Of Sept. 21 Reported The Governor Had Taken A State Helicopter To Go Horseback Riding At The Chama Ranch Of Santa Fe Art And Real-Estate Investor Gerald Peters." (Tom Sharpe, "Helicopter Flight Raises Questions," The Santa Fe New Mexican, 10/10/03)

• Use Of Helicopter Cost Taxpayers $2,500. "According to the report, a high-tech Blackhawk helicopter scheduled for a training trip from Santa Fe to Carlsbad on Sept. 6 [2003] was diverted to Chama at Richardson's request -- a cost to taxpayers of $2,500 -- on a day when a state police helicopter often used by Richardson was grounded for maintenance." (Tom Sharpe, "Helicopter Flight Raises Questions," The Santa Fe New Mexican, 10/10/03)

As Governor, Richardson Used Taxpayer Money For Private Needs:

Richardson Uses Taxpayer Money To Buy Starbucks, Cigars, Newspaper, A Mattress And Meals While Traveling. "Cigars. Starbucks coffee. Copies of The New York Times. A $960 mattress. Meals in Switzerland, Mexico City and Washington and hotel rooms in Phoenix. They are among the items taxpayers have bought for Gov. Bill Richardson or his staff in recent months by virtue of a little-known state fund - an unaudited expense account that the Democratic-controlled Legislature quietly boosted by $60,000 shortly after the governor took office." (Barry Massey, "Richardson Uses State 'Contingency' Fund For Cigars, Starbucks, Overseas Meals," The Associated Press, 10/31/03)

• Richardson Refused To Say How Expensive Meals Were. "[T]he governor refuses to elaborate on some of the fund's expenditures - including costs of meals and lodging that were charged on state credit cards by state police officers who serve as his security agents." (Barry Massey, "Richardson Uses State 'Contingency' Fund For Cigars, Starbucks, Overseas Meals," The Associated Press, 10/3130/03)

As Governor, Richardson Hired Lavish New Chef On Taxpayer's Dime:

Richardson Hired New Chef On Taxpayer Dollars. "All that wining and dining legislators have been raving about at the governor's mansion comes with a price [of] nearly $60,000 a year for a new chef." (David Miles, "Governor's Entertaining Runs Up Salary Costs," Albuquerque Journal, 4/2/03)

• Richardson Spent Thousands More On Mansion Personnel Than His Republican Predecessor. "Based on a 40-hour workweek, the salaries of four employees at the mansion will total about $167,100 a year under Richardson, according to state Department of Finance and Administration records obtained by the Journal. The combined salaries of four mansion workers in the [Gov. Gary] Johnson [(R-NM)] era added up to roughly $93,900 as of last July." (David Miles, "Governor's Entertaining Runs Up Salary Costs," Albuquerque Journal, 4/2/03)

As Governor, Richardson's Administration Bought Land From Major Contributor And Then Received Large Donation From Contractor:

"Gov. Bill Richardson's Administration Bought 12 Acres Of Vacant Santa Fe Land From A Major Campaign Contributor And His Family, Paying $3.2 Million More Than The Family Had Paid For The Property 28 Months Before." ("Richardson Donor Sold 12 Acres To Administration," The Associated Press, 6/19/06)

• "Contractor Sonny Otero Then Made A $50,000 Donation To Richardson's Re-Election Campaign About Two Months After The Sale Was Finalized ..." ("Richardson Donor Sold 12 Acres To Administration," The Associated Press, 6/19/06)

• "Several Of Richardson's Largest Campaign Donors Have Contracts Or Other Business With His Administration. The Governor Has Said He Makes Decisions Based On What Is Best For The State, Not For His Contributors." ("Richardson Donor Sold 12 Acres To Administration," The Associated Press, 6/19/06)

As Governor, Richardson Created Jobs "Out Of Thin Air" To Please Friends And Relatives In Need Of Work:

Richardson Allegedly Bypassed Paper Trail To Invent Jobs For Supporters. "What do you do when you're the governor and you've already filled the executive branch's 647 exempt positions, but you've still got friends, political supporters and their relatives who need work? According to a report by KRQE Channel 13 investigative reporter Larry Barker, when you're Gov. Bill Richardson, you just create new jobs 'out of thin air.'" (Steve Terrell, "Governor's 'Gifts' Under Scrutiny," The Santa Fe New Mexican, 3/2/06)

• KRQE [Albuquerque, NM] Channel 13 Investigative Reporter Larry Barker: "The practice is so common that state agencies have coined a name for it ... When the governor sends a new hire down to claim a job that doesn't exist, they call it 'a gift from the North.'" (Steve Terrell, "Governor's 'Gifts' Under Scrutiny," The Santa Fe New Mexican, 3/2/06)

In 2004, Richardson Gave 122 State Jobs To Campaign Contributors And Family Members:

"Gov. Bill Richardson Has Doled Out At Least 122 State Jobs To Campaign Contributors Or Family Members Of Financial Supporters, Many Of Them Getting High-Paying Positions." ("Richardson Gives Jobs To Campaign Donors; Says Workers Are Qualified," The Associated Press, 6/13/04)

• "Contributors Or Their Family Members Hired By Richardson Gave At Least $245,500 To The Governor's Campaign In 2002. One Appointee Gave More Than $22,000." (Thomas J. Cole, "Governor's Contributors Rake In Jobs," Albuquerque Journal, 6/13/04)

• "The Top 25 Individual Contributors To Richardson Who Were Appointed To Jobs Earn An Average Of Just Under $76,000 A Year On The State Payroll." (Thomas J. Cole, "Governor's Contributors Rake In Jobs," Albuquerque Journal, 6/13/04)

• The Median Household Income In New Mexico As Of 2006 Was $40,126. (U.S. Census Bureau Website, www.census.gov, Accessed 12/3/08)

Richardson Almost Doubled The Number Of Positions That Serve At The Pleasure Of The Governor. "Richardson has expanded the number of exempt positions, which stood at 292 within 23 executive agencies as of April 30 ... There were 167 under Johnson [the previous governor]." ("Richardson Gives Jobs To Campaign Donors; Says Workers Are Qualified," The Associated Press, 6/13/04)

As Governor, Richardson Appointed Man Convicted Of Vehicular Homicide To Commission On Higher Education:

"Gov. Bill Richardson Has Appointed [Paul Donisthorpe, Partner Of Spectrum Financial Group, An Albuquerque Investment Banking Firm] ... To The 15-Member Commission On Higher Education." (Olivier Uyttebrouck, "Gov. Names Pick To Head Higher Ed," Albuquerque Journal, 6/10/03)

• "Paul Donisthorpe Pleaded No Contest And Was Sentenced To Two Years In Prison For The 1990 Alcohol-Related Crash That Killed Albuquerque Sixth-Grade Teacher Jillian A. Howard." ("New Commissioner Once Convicted Of Vehicular Homicide," The Associated Press, 6/14/03)

Richardson Defended The Appointment. "Gov. Bill Richardson defended the appointment, saying Paul Donisthorpe is 'sufficiently rehabilitated to warrant the public trust,' a spokesman said." (Olivier Uyttebrouck, "Convicted Banker Seated On Board," Albuquerque Journal, 6/14/03)

• Richardson's Spokesman, Gilbert Gallegos: "The governor was aware of Mr. Donisthorpe's history and, while it was troubling, after careful consideration the governor decided he was fit to serve on the Commission on Higher Education." (Olivier Uyttebrouck, "Convicted Banker Seated On Board," Albuquerque Journal, 6/14/03)

Donisthorpe Had Also Contributed Thousands To Richardson's Campaign. "Donisthorpe, a partner in the Albuquerque investment firm Spectrum Financial Group, contributed $7,700 to Richardson's gubernatorial campaign last year, according to campaign contribution reports." ("State Official Once Convicted Of Vehicular Homicide Resigns," The Associated Press, 6/16/03)

Donisthorpe Resigned Less Than A Week After He Was Sworn In. "A member of the state Commission on Higher Education resigned Monday because his vehicular homicide conviction from more than a decade ago was drawing too much negative attention, he said." ("State Official Once Convicted Of Vehicular Homicide Resigns," The Associated Press, 6/16/03)

As Governor, Richardson Hired Motor Vehicle Division Director Who Had Prior Drunk Driving Charge:

Richardson Removed Motor Vehicle Division Director After It Was Released That He Was Arrested For Drunk Driving. "Gov. Bill Richardson ... on Tuesday removed Julian Luna as Motor Vehicle Division director after it was revealed that he was arrested for drunken driving in a state car 10 years ago." ("Richardson Removes New MVD Chief," The Associated Press, 1/29/03)

• "Luna Was Arrested On A Driving-While-Intoxicated Charge In August 1993 Near Belen After Police Said He Nearly Hit An Ambulance." ("Richardson Removes New MVD Chief," The Associated Press, 1/29/03)

As Governor, Richardson's Choice For Director Of Adult Probation And Parole Division Had A Domestic Abuse Restraining Order Against Him:

"Charles Countee, Richardson's Pick As Director Of The Adult Probation And Parole Division, Who Lost His Job In January After His Domestic Abuse Restraining Order Came To Light." (David Miles, "Gov.'s Hiring Hit, Defended," Albuquerque Journal, 5/25/03)

• Countee Said He Was Hired But Governor's Aide Said He Was Never Hired. "A juvenile probation officer who is under a domestic abuse restraining order said he was fired after one day as director of the state Adult Probation and Parole Division, but a governor's aide said he was never hired." ("Man Contends He Was Hired, Fired As State Probation Head," The Associated Press, 1/8/03)

 

RICHARDSON HAS BEEN A RELENTLESS SELF PROMOTER

A Billboard In Times Square Featured A Picture Of Richardson:

"The 70-Foot-Long Billboard Beams Down From The Northwest Corner Of 48th Street And 7th Avenue, Showing Blue Skies, Snow-Capped Mountains, A Desert Mesa And A Grinning Richardson." ("Richardson Dominates N.M. Big Apple Billboard," The Associated Press, 3/1/03)

• "The Billboard In Times Square Inviting People To Visit The Land Of Enchantment Will Feature An Image Of The Governor In Western Wear." (Steve Terrell, "Pitchman Or Ambitious Self-Promoter?," Santa Fe New Mexican, 2/22/03)

Richardson Hired More Press Aides To Help With His Image Than Any Other Governor:

"To Trumpet His Accomplishments, Richardson-- Who Long Has Been Tagged As A Publicity Hound-- Has Created A Public-Relations Machine, With More Press Aides That Any Previous Governor." (Thomas J. Cole, "Govzilla 24/7," Albuquerque Journal, 2/11/07)

• "He Hired More Than Two Dozen Print, TV And Radio Reporters, Many Of Them Filling Newly Created PR Jobs In State Agencies." (Thomas J. Cole, "Govzilla 24/7," Albuquerque Journal, 2/11/07)

Richardson Used "Goodie Bags" At 2004 Democratic National Convention To Promote Himself:

Richardson's Gift To Convention Delegates Had His Picture And Name On It. "Richardson's gift seems to have won out for pure self-promotion. The salsa is manufactured for the Albuquerque restaurant Garduno's, but labeled as if the governor diced the tomatoes himself somewhere in Santa Fe. The jar bears his picture, and its most prominent words are 'Governor Bill Richardson,' appearing atop a pile of chili peppers and other salsa ingredients." (John Dyer, Herb Jackson, and Josh Gohlke, "Lautenberg's View: Kerry Offers Strong Voice For Israel," The [Bergen County, NJ] Record, 7/29/04)

• The New York Times' Reporters Gave Richardson The "Most Relentless Self-Promotion" Award For The Gift. "Most Relentless Self-Promotion: Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, for bringing bottles of his own brand of salsa into the hall to give to delegates, despite security regulations barring glass containers. He got special Secret Service approval." (Sheryl Gay Stolberg and John Tierney, "The Democrats; The Convention In Boston," The New York Times, 7/30/04)

Richardson Rode On New Mexico's Float In The Tournament Of Roses Parade:

"New Mexico's Float In The Tournament Of Roses Parade Will Feature ... Gov. Bill Richardson." (Deborah Baker, "New Mexico Governor To Be On Rose Parade Float," The Associated Press, 11/11/05)

"With Publicity-Conscious Richardson Considered A Likely Contender For The Democratic Presidential Nomination In 2008, One Critic Expressed Mock Relief At The Float Design Announced This Week." (Deborah Baker, "New Mexico Governor To Be On Rose Parade Float," The Associated Press, 11/11/05)

• Dan Foley, A Republican Lawmaker From Roswell, New Mexico: "I figured (the float) was going to be a big bobble-head of the governor." (Deborah Baker, "New Mexico Governor To Be On Rose Parade Float," The Associated Press, 11/11/05)

Richardson Spent Time Away From Energy Department To Pursue Vice Presidency In 2000:

"Richardson Has Made No Secret Of His Interest In Becoming Vice President Gore's Running Mate." (Laurence McQuillan, "Political Light Fading For Energy Secretary," USA Today, 6/19/00)

• He Was Behind Al Gore All The Way. "Few of Mr. Richardson's rivals could have failed to notice him beaming behind Mr. Gore's confetti-caked shoulder last week as the vice president gave his victory speech after sweeping the Super Tuesday primaries." (Philip Shenon, "Public Lives; The Magic Blue Blazer Vs. An Oily Patch Of Bad Luck," The New York Times, 3/13/00)

He Attended Fundraisers For Al Gore.  "Gore had been scheduled to appear ... at the Hollywood home of Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth for a cocktail reception fund-raiser and then attend a gala honoring the 25th anniversary of Century Village in Deerfield Beach.  Karenna Gore Schiff, the vice president's 26-year-old daughter, and Richardson, who is rumored to be a possible Gore running mate, are now expected in his place." (Steve Friess, "Gore Breaks S. Florida Date To Campaign in N.H., Iowa; His Daughter, Energy Chief To Be Fill-Ins," Sun-Sentinel [Fort Lauderdale, FL], 1/13/00)

Source.

Over the past two weeks, Obama has begun to reveal his appointments. It will be Hillary Clinton at State and Timothy Geithner at Treasury. According to persistent rumors, current Defense Secretary Robert Gates might be asked to stay on. The national security adviser has not been announced, but rumors have the post going to former Clinton administration appointees or to former military people. Interestingly and revealingly, it was made very public that Obama has met with Brent Scowcroft to discuss foreign policy. Scowcroft was national security adviser under President George H.W. Bush, and while a critic of the younger Bush’s policies in Iraq from the beginning, he is very much part of the foreign policy establishment and on the non-neoconservative right. That Obama met with Scowcroft, and that this was deliberately publicized, is a signal — and Obama understands political signals — that he will be conducting foreign policy from the center.

Consider Clinton and Geithner. Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq war — a major bone of contention between Obama and her during the primaries. She is also a committed free trade advocate, as was her husband, and strongly supports continuity in U.S. policy toward Israel and Iran. Geithner comes from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he participated in crafting the strategies currently being implemented by U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Everything Obama is doing with his appointments is signaling continuity in U.S. policy.

This does not surprise us. As we have written previously, when Obama’s precise statements and position papers were examined with care.

Source:  www.stratfor.com

Obama's Detroit dilemma

The promises he had to make in order to head off Sen. Clinton have put the President-elect in a very tight spot over bailing out the automakers. A crisis atmosphere is building, but so far he hasn't made any moves.

By Ted Van Dyk

By now you know that, aside from naming his cabinet, President-elect Barack Obama must come to terms quite quickly with what he will and will not do to help the Detroit auto industry. The choices he makes will tell us a great deal about other choices to follow.

The present Congress already has authorized a $25 billion "modernization" package for Detroit. But now the industry and the United Auto Workers union want a big chunk of financial bailout money for a generally unspecified rescue.

......

Those promises, though, have created residual trouble. The auto industry and UAW believe Obama owes them bigtime. Not only did he promise an industry and job rescue but he also took a position against trade liberalization that pleased Detroit. In the midst of global financial crisis, such a protectionist posture will be impossible to sustain. Already European Union and other countries are pledging to bring World Trade Organization complaints against the U.S. — and retaliations if necessary — if special subsidies are extended to the U.S. auto industry. They would be fully justified in doing so.

The present lameduck Congress is unlikely to give Detroit what it wants.

The Steps Necessary to Save GM

Can GM be saved? Sure. Here’s all that Congress would have to do in its lame-duck session starting next week:

1. Pass H.R. 6690, a bill that would stabilize the dollar at a gold price of $500/oz. This would restore sanity to the financial markets and stabilize gasoline prices in the $2.00 - $2.50/gallon range.

4. Amend the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act to prevent these laws from being used to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

5. Make it illegal for companies to offer benefit plans that create unfunded liabilities (as GM’s promises of health care for retirees did).

Even if all five of these measures were passed, GM would still have to go through Chapter 11 bankruptcy to get its cost structure in line and rationalize its dealer networks. However, the capital markets would almost certainly provide the “Debtor in Possession” financing required for this.

Baring these drastic actions, GM cannot be saved. The best that the “bailout” plans currently being proposed could do is to turn GM into “Amtrak on rubber tires”, a UAW-staffed, taxpayer-subsidized museum of mid-20th-century American business glory.

Obama’s Challenge

November 5, 2008 | 1202 GMT

By George Friedman

Barack Obama has been elected president of the United States by a large majority in the Electoral College. The Democrats have dramatically increased their control of Congress, increasing the number of seats they hold in the House of Representatives and moving close to the point where — with a few Republican defections — they can have filibuster-proof control of the Senate. Given the age of some Supreme Court justices, Obama might well have the opportunity to appoint at least one and possibly two new justices. He will begin as one of the most powerful presidents in a long while.

Truly extraordinary were the celebrations held around the world upon Obama’s victory. They affirm the global expectations Obama has raised — and reveal that the United States must be more important to Europeans than the latter like to admit. (We can’t imagine late-night vigils in the United States over a French election.)

Obama is an extraordinary rhetorician, and as Aristotle pointed out, rhetoric is one of the foundations of political power. Rhetoric has raised him to the presidency, along with the tremendous unpopularity of his predecessor and a financial crisis that took a tied campaign and gave Obama a lead he carefully nurtured to victory. So, as with all politicians, his victory was a matter of rhetoric and, according to Machiavelli, luck. Obama had both, but now the question is whether he has Machiavelli’s virtue in full by possessing the ability to exercise power. This last element is what governing is about, and it is what will determine if his presidency succeeds.

Embedded in his tremendous victory is a single weakness: Obama won the popular vote by a fairly narrow margin, about 52 percent of the vote. That means that almost as many people voted against him as voted for him.

Obama’s Agenda vs. Expanding His Base

U.S. President George W. Bush demonstrated that the inability to understand the uses and limits of power can crush a presidency very quickly. The enormous enthusiasm of Obama’s followers could conceal how he — like Bush — is governing a deeply, and nearly evenly, divided country. Obama’s first test will be simple: Can he maintain the devotion of his followers while increasing his political base? Or will he believe, as Bush and Cheney did, that he can govern without concern for the other half of the country because he controls the presidency and Congress, as Bush and Cheney did in 2001? Presidents are elected by electoral votes, but they govern through public support.

Obama and his supporters will say there is no danger of a repeat of Bush — who believed he could carry out his agenda and build his political base at the same time, but couldn’t. Building a political base requires modifying one’s agenda. But when you start modifying your agenda, when you become pragmatic, you start to lose your supporters. If Obama had won with 60 percent of the popular vote, this would not be as pressing a question. But he barely won by more than Bush in 2004. Now, we will find out if Obama is as skillful a president as he was a candidate.

Obama will soon face the problem of beginning to disappoint people all over the world, a problem built into his job. The first disappointments will be minor. There are thousands of people hoping for appointments, some to Cabinet positions, others to the White House, others to federal agencies. Many will get something, but few will get as much as they hoped for. Some will feel betrayed and become bitter. During the transition process, the disappointed office seeker — an institution in American politics — will start leaking on background to whatever reporters are available. This will strike a small, discordant note; creating no serious problems, but serving as a harbinger of things to come.

Later, Obama will be sworn in. He will give a memorable, perhaps historic speech at his inauguration. There will be great expectations about him in the country and around the world. He will enjoy the traditional presidential honeymoon, during which all but his bitterest enemies will give him the benefit of the doubt. The press initially will adore him, but will begin writing stories about all the positions he hasn’t filled, the mistakes he made in the vetting process and so on. And then, sometime in March or April, things will get interesting.

Iran and a U.S. Withdrawal From Iraq

Obama has promised to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, where he does not intend to leave any residual force. If he follows that course, he will open the door for the Iranians. Iran’s primary national security interest is containing or dominating Iraq, with which Iran fought a long war. If the United States remains in Iraq, the Iranians will be forced to accept a neutral government in Iraq. A U.S. withdrawal will pave the way for the Iranians to use Iraqi proxies to create, at a minimum, an Iraqi government more heavily influenced by Iran.

Apart from upsetting Sunni and Kurdish allies of the United States in Iraq, the Iranian ascendancy in Iraq will disturb some major American allies — particularly the Saudis, who fear Iranian power. The United States can’t afford a scenario under which Iranian power is projected into the Saudi oil fields. While that might be an unlikely scenario, it carries catastrophic consequences. The Jordanians and possibly the Turks, also American allies, will pressure Obama not simply to withdraw. And, of course, the Israelis will want the United States to remain in place to block Iranian expansion. Resisting a coalition of Saudis and Israelis will not be easy.

This will be the point where Obama’s pledge to talk to the Iranians will become crucial. If he simply withdraws from Iraq without a solid understanding with Iran, the entire American coalition in the region will come apart. Obama has pledged to build coalitions, something that will be difficult in the Middle East if he withdraws from Iraq without ironclad Iranian guarantees. He therefore will talk to the Iranians. But what can Obama offer the Iranians that would induce them to forego their primary national security interest? It is difficult to imagine a U.S.-Iranian deal that is both mutually beneficial and enforceable.

Obama will then be forced to make a decision. He can withdraw from Iraq and suffer the geopolitical consequences while coming under fire from the substantial political right in the United States that he needs at least in part to bring into his coalition. Or, he can retain some force in Iraq, thereby disappointing his supporters. If he is clumsy, he could wind up under attack from the right for negotiating with the Iranians and from his own supporters for not withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq. His skills in foreign policy and domestic politics will be tested on this core question, and he undoubtedly will disappoint many.

The Afghan Dilemma

Obama will need to address Afghanistan next. He has said that this is the real war, and that he will ask U.S. allies to join him in the effort. This means he will go to the Europeans and NATO, as he has said he will do. The Europeans are delighted with Obama’s victory because they feel Obama will consult them and stop making demands of them. But demands are precisely what he will bring the Europeans. In particular, he will want the Europeans to provide more forces for Afghanistan.

Many European countries will be inclined to provide some support, if for no other reason than to show that they are prepared to work with Obama. But European public opinion is not about to support a major deployment in Afghanistan, and the Europeans don’t have the force to deploy there anyway. In fact, as the global financial crisis begins to have a more dire impact in Europe than in the United States, many European countries are actively reducing their deployments in Afghanistan to save money. Expanding operations is the last thing on European minds.

Obama’s Afghan solution of building a coalition centered on the Europeans will thus meet a divided Europe with little inclination to send troops and with few troops to send in any event. That will force him into a confrontation with the Europeans in spring 2009, and then into a decision. The United States and its allies collectively lack the force to stabilize Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban. They certainly lack the force to make a significant move into Pakistan — something Obama has floated on several occasions that might be a good idea if force were in fact available.

He will have to make a hard decision on Afghanistan. Obama can continue the war as it is currently being fought, without hope of anything but a long holding action, but this risks defining his presidency around a hopeless war. He can choose to withdraw, in effect reinstating the Taliban, going back on his commitment and drawing heavy fire from the right. Or he can do what we have suggested is the inevitable outcome, namely, negotiate — and reach a political accord — with the Taliban. Unlike Bush, however, withdrawal or negotiation with the Taliban will increase the pressure on Obama from the right. And if this is coupled with a decision to delay withdrawal from Iraq, Obama’s own supporters will become restive. His 52 percent Election Day support could deteriorate with remarkable speed.

The Russian Question

At the same time, Obama will face the Russian question. The morning after Obama’s election, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev announced that Russia was deploying missiles in its European exclave of Kaliningrad in response to the U.S. deployment of ballistic missile defense systems in Poland. Obama opposed the Russians on their August intervention in Georgia, but he has never enunciated a clear Russia policy. We expect Ukraine will have shifted its political alignment toward Russia, and Moscow will be rapidly moving to create a sphere of influence before Obama can bring his attention — and U.S. power — to bear.

Obama will again turn to the Europeans to create a coalition to resist the Russians. But the Europeans will again be divided. The Germans can’t afford to alienate the Russians because of German energy dependence on Russia and because Germany does not want to fight another Cold War. The British and French may be more inclined to address the question, but certainly not to the point of resurrecting NATO as a major military force. The Russians will be prepared to talk, and will want to talk a great deal, all the while pursuing their own national interest of increasing their power in what they call their “near abroad.”

Obama will have many options on domestic policy given his majorities in Congress. But his Achilles’ heel, as it was for Bush and for many presidents, will be foreign policy. He has made what appear to be three guarantees. First, he will withdraw from Iraq. Second, he will focus on Afghanistan. Third, he will oppose Russian expansionism. To deliver on the first promise, he must deal with the Iranians. To deliver on the second, he must deal with the Taliban. To deliver on the third, he must deal with the Europeans.

Global Finance and the European Problem

The Europeans will pose another critical problem, as they want a second Bretton Woods agreement. Some European states appear to desire a set of international regulations for the financial system. There are three problems with this.

First, unless Obama wants to change course dramatically, the U.S. and European positions differ over the degree to which governments will regulate interbank transactions. The Europeans want much more intrusion than the Americans. They are far less averse to direct government controls than the Americans have been. Obama has the power to shift American policy, but doing that will make it harder to expand his base.

Second, the creation of an international regulatory body that has authority over American banks would create a system where U.S. financial management was subordinated to European financial management.

And third, the Europeans themselves have no common understanding of things. Obama could thus quickly be drawn into complex EU policy issues that could tie his hands in the United States. These could quickly turn into painful negotiations, in which Obama’s allure to the Europeans will evaporate.

One of the foundations of Obama’s foreign policy — and one of the reasons the Europeans have celebrated his election — was the perception that Obama is prepared to work closely with the Europeans. He is in fact prepared to do so, but his problem will be the same one Bush had: The Europeans are in no position to give the things that Obama will need from them — namely, troops, a revived NATO to confront the Russians and a global financial system that doesn’t subordinate American financial authority to an international bureaucracy.

The Hard Road Ahead

Like any politician, Obama will face the challenge of having made a set of promises that are not mutually supportive. Much of his challenge boils down to problems that he needs to solve and that he wants European help on, but the Europeans are not prepared to provide the type and amount of help he needs. This, plus the fact that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq requires an agreement with Iran — something hard to imagine without a continued U.S. presence in Iraq — gives Obama a difficult road to move on.

As with all American presidents (who face midterm elections with astonishing speed), Obama’s foreign policy moves will be framed by his political support. Institutionally, he will be powerful. In terms of popular support, he begins knowing that almost half the country voted against him, and that he must increase his base. He must exploit the honeymoon period, when his support will expand, to bring another 5 percent or 10 percent of the public into his coalition. These people voted against him; now he needs to convince them to support him. But these are precisely the people who would regard talks with the Taliban or Iran with deep distrust. And if negotiations with the Iranians cause him to keep forces in Iraq, he will alienate his base without necessarily winning over his opponents.

And there is always the unknown. There could be a terrorist attack, the Russians could start pressuring the Baltic states, the Mexican situation could deteriorate. The unknown by definition cannot be anticipated. And many foreign leaders know it takes an administration months to settle in, something some will try to take advantage of. On top of that, there is now nearly a three-month window in which the old president is not yet out and the new president not yet in.

Obama must deal with extraordinarily difficult foreign policy issues in the context of an alliance failing not because of rough behavior among friends but because the allies’ interests have diverged. He must deal with this in the context of foreign policy positions difficult to sustain and reconcile, all against the backdrop of almost half an electorate that voted against him versus supporters who have enormous hopes vested in him. Obama knows all of this, of course, as he indicated in his victory speech.

We will now find out if Obama understands the exercise of political power as well as he understands the pursuit of that power. You really can’t know that until after the fact. There is no reason to think he can’t finesse these problems. Doing so will take cunning, trickery and the ability to make his supporters forget the promises he made while keeping their support. It will also require the ability to make some of his opponents embrace him despite the path he will have to take. In other words, he will have to be cunning and ruthless without appearing to be cunning and ruthless. That’s what successful presidents do.

In the meantime, he should enjoy the transition. It’s frequently the best part of a presidency.

Tell Stratfor What You Think

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com

Wall St. has worst week of a presidential election... ...

Did anyone notice how the DOW was up 250 points before Obama gave his economic speech?  When Obama started speaking the Dow went down to 80+ points.  After Obama gave his speech it went back up to 250 points.

It looks like the market priced in an Obama win before he was elected.  Can anyone say -- George Soros?

Post-Election Reflections: The Change We Need the Most by CPLC Executive Director Karen Garnett
November 7, 2008 Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ, After many long months and millions of prayers offered across our country, the presidential and congressional elections have been decided. We of course are feeling tremendous disappointment that the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for president has been elected.  With the many prayers offered to God begging "for a miracle" when so many conditions were stacked against the pro-life presidential candidate's chances – foremost the pendulum swing between incumbent administrations that has occurred consistently throughout U.S. history – some of us might be asking why God didn't grant us the miracle we so earnestly sought so that unborn children would have a greater chance of being protected. No, God did not grant the miracle we sought.  But that doesn't mean He and Our Lady did not hear our prayers!  I remember being taught growing up that God has a perfect will and a permissive will.  I don't believe it is God's perfect will for someone who not only believes in no restrictions on "abortion rights" but who also voted against protecting babies who survive abortions (i.e., supports infanticide!) to be the leader of our country.  As Cardinal Egan said so clearly about the precious unborn and pro-abortion politicians on August 26: "They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith.  Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being 'chooses' to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name." (emphasis added) I agree with the Cardinal wholeheartedly.  Support for the intrinsic evil of the killing of unborn children is a disqualifier, and we must continue to work toward a just society where all people, and especially those whom we elect, will be for the legal protection of human life and not its destruction. As Cardinal George recently said, our country is "drenched" in the blood of the innocents.  We are in a state of moral crisis, having killed 48 million of our young during the last 35 years, with nearly 4,000 dying again today.  Pope John Paul II said that "the condition for our survival as a society" depends on restoring legal protection to the unborn; Pope Benedict XVI said that "guaranteeing the right to life is a duty upon which the future of humanity depends."  Read the rest: