Here's my take on the good, the bad and the ugly when it comes to national news this week.
The Good: President Obama announced yesterday that he will nominate geneticist Francis Collins to be the next director of the National Institutes of Health. Collins led the government's Human Genome Project while serving as director of the NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute and is well-respected for his work -- in most circles.
But as I wrote in a previous blog, there are some scientists who take issue with Collins because he is an evangelical Christian. These people don't think anyone who believes in God is fit to run a government agency that deals with science.
The Bad: Our economy is still spiraling downward. Despite the billions of dollars we have borrowed and spent on "stimulus" projects, the national unemployment rate is now expected to hit 10 percent. The latest employment figures show 467,000 jobs were lost in June, and the jobless rate hit a 26-year high of 9.5 percent, according to the Associated Press.
To sell the stimulus package, the administration and Congress talked a lot about all the new jobs it would create across the country. Those promises have changed. Now all the talk is about the jobs the stimulus is "saving."
The Ugly: When it comes to efforts to change the nation's healthcare, things are getting pretty ugly. At first, it was just the Democrats fighting the Republicans. But now the Dems are fighting each other, according to an AP report. A group of Blue Dog Democrats are threatening the due date the president and congressional leaders had set for a "reform" package, making the case that more time is needed to craft legislation that tackles the real problems.
One of the concerns is paying for the massive changes many Dems have proposed. A solution bandied about this week is a "surtax on the wealthy." The suggestion is to levy a new tax on individuals who make $200,000 or more and couples who make $250,000 or more. But that would create a $150,000 "marriage penalty" that could throw the whole thing to the courts. (That reminds me of a "sale" I once saw in a clothing store. The item cost $2.50, but the sale let you buy three for $10.)
Showing posts with label stimulus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stimulus. Show all posts
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Coming Back to Bite Us
A few days ago, President Obama surrounded himself with grinning "scientists" and activists flashing gestures of victory as he signed away Bush's ban on spending our money to pay for research using the stem cells of aborted babies.
Compare that image to his signing today of the earmark-littered omnibus bill that will put us another $410 billion into debt. There were no cameras, no adoring throngs, no signs of victory. Instead, the president was basically in hiding -- perhaps a bit shamefaced at his inability to deliver on his campaign promises to do away with earmarks, to control a Democratic Congress and to bring real change to Washington. He admitted it was an imperfect bill, basically saying that he's still trying to clean up after Bush.
It's time for the truth brigade. The economic crisis we find ourselves in began -- not with the Iraq War -- but when the housing industry collapsed like a house of cards. And the roots of that crisis pre-date Bush.
"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. ... Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stockholders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits," according to a Sept. 30, 1999, New York Times article.
That's right -- 1999. Ten years ago when Bill Clinton was focusing on crafting his presidential legacy.
"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times," the article says. "But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."
A bit of an understatement given the hundreds of billions Congress is shelling out in bailouts and stimulus. In this instance, it took 10 years for an ill-advised policy to come back to bite us. I wonder how long it will be before we start feeling the bite of Washington's current over-the-top deficit spending spree?
Compare that image to his signing today of the earmark-littered omnibus bill that will put us another $410 billion into debt. There were no cameras, no adoring throngs, no signs of victory. Instead, the president was basically in hiding -- perhaps a bit shamefaced at his inability to deliver on his campaign promises to do away with earmarks, to control a Democratic Congress and to bring real change to Washington. He admitted it was an imperfect bill, basically saying that he's still trying to clean up after Bush.
It's time for the truth brigade. The economic crisis we find ourselves in began -- not with the Iraq War -- but when the housing industry collapsed like a house of cards. And the roots of that crisis pre-date Bush.
"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. ... Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stockholders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits," according to a Sept. 30, 1999, New York Times article.
That's right -- 1999. Ten years ago when Bill Clinton was focusing on crafting his presidential legacy.
"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times," the article says. "But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."
A bit of an understatement given the hundreds of billions Congress is shelling out in bailouts and stimulus. In this instance, it took 10 years for an ill-advised policy to come back to bite us. I wonder how long it will be before we start feeling the bite of Washington's current over-the-top deficit spending spree?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)