How to Speak Washingtonian

Today we learn how to see through the utter crap that comes out of the political offices in DC today..... here is a case study.

"Washington, DC—Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore) today introduced bipartisan legislation to establish a Water Trust Fund for investing in America’s broken drinking water and sewage treatment systems. The “Water Protection and Reinvestment Act,” H.R.3202, establishes a $10 billion annual fund for repairing America’s corroded pipes and overburdened sewer systems, which pose serious health, environmental, and security consequences." (Please refrane from making fun of him based on appearance alone. I assure you there is more reason to hate him than just his bicycle pin and awful fashion sense.)

The above passage is directly from Rep. Blumenauer's website: http://blumenauer.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1524&Itemid=1

Upon first reading of the above passage, most people think "Oh, that sounds noble and worthwhile." (sounds like how O! got elected). I agree it may sound benign enough but let's look a little deeper (something most Americans clearly fail to do so regularly or this guy would be out of a job). We need to ask the question "Where will this $10 billion come from every year?"

Here's the answer: "The Water Protection and Reinvestment Act will be financed broadly by small fees on such things as bottled beverages, products disposed of in waste water, corporate profits, and the pharmaceutical industry. This will provide a long-term, sustainable source of revenue to ensure economic prosperity and protect the health of people and the environment."

Translation: Taxes will be put on bottled beverages (Coca-Cola, Pepsi, bottled water, etc), products disposed of in waste water (toothpaste, toilet paper, mouthwash, dish soaps, etc..... yes, I double checked this), corporate profits (the overall profits that companies make that are already doubly taxed), and the pharmaceutical industry (why single them out? They already have to compete with generic drugs). So what this boils down to is that all the items we buy because we need are going to go up in price (the companies cannot afford to eat these costs and there is no reason they should have to). So this means less money in YOUR pocket.

Next question we need to ask, "Where is this money to go?"

Answer: "The $10 billion annual fund will create more than 250,000 jobs."

Translation: All the money taken from you (through the increased prices of the taxed consumer goods) will go to creating and paying the operating costs of a brand new governmental agency that will oversee the entire process of taxing and enforcing this new Act. In the past, when this type of agency has been created, it turns out to be a bureaucratic nightmare (the money all goes into paying people to create the organization and the ultimate task (upgrading sewer systems in this case) never gets done). The phrasing here about creating jobs has the unmistakable stench of a PR house about it (guess who paid for the PR work for Rep. Blumenauer?). Job creation is a buzz term that is used in cases just like this to make one thing seem like something completely different.

There are numerous stories like this that run almost hourly. People read them and say 'Oh that sounds noble, why not?' when, in fact, they should be saying 'Stop trying to trick me into giving you more money!' And let's not make this a partisan issue either because Republicans have their hand just as deep in the cookie jar as the Dems do (who am I kidding....much deeper in the cookie jar, that's how they all got so damn fat).

So don't let yourself be sweet talked by politicians. We elected them, they should be doing exactly what we want. Let's cut through their crockery and take a stand.

Yes, he bikes around the capital. I'll knock him off of it if I ever see him (BTW he is breaking the law by going the wrong way down the street, can I have a cut of the tax dollars generated from the ticket?)

Whoring of The Public Sector

So it just came out this morning that Steven Rattner is stepping down as Advisor to the US Treasury (aka Car Czar) (link here: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/economy/Rattner-leaving-auto-task-force_07_14-50679542.html). He took this job on February 23rd of this year after coming from Quadrangle Group (where he was one of 4 founders. The group apparently has about $2.5B invested). So, more or less, he left a position in the private financial industry where I'm sure he was making a healthy salary (and don't forget about his investments in Cerberus Capital Management) for a government posting which I'm sure resulted in a significant step down salarywise.

Apparently no one saw a problem with hiring a guy from the private financial sector to drag GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy. Generalization warning: the private financial sector (while may not being the cause of) made this economic downturn much worse than it should have been so why would we (the taxpayers) hire someone in the private financial sector for this job? I have no idea. But that is neither here nor there (that decision was made without consulting me back in February).


The issue at hand is why is Rattner stepping down days after bringing GM out of bankruptcy? There could be many reasons (and I'm speculating here). Maybe he just wanted to gain some notoriety by being 'the car czar' for a few months and leverage that in the private sector afterwards. Maybe he realized there is NO money in working for the federal government, especially with Obama's policies (except if you are a senator apparently). Maybe he rushed GM through the bankruptcy process and doesn't want to stick around to be responsible for GM going down in flames (again, which it most likely will). According to Rattner, he is leaving in order to return to private life and his family in New York City. This probably means that he will be returning to Quadrangle Group in the near future but that is just my own speculation. I'm guessing the answer to this question will come out in the near future and I will be watching the news closely for it.




So this going-on raises a few bones that I have to pick. The first being, if the Obama administration wants (more like they NEED) executive level talent like Rattner, they need to pay accordingly. You can NOT cap pay at $150,000 per year. Someone who is making 3 or 4 times that amount will not leave their cushy private sector job for a federal posting with heavy public scrutiny for less pay (someone who does make that decision should be required to undergo extensive psychological testing). If you want the best people in the country working for you, pay accordingly.





Another issue is that of private industry goons using the government as a tool of publicity. I have a feeling that not many people, apart from financial insiders, knew who Rattner was before he started working for the Treasury (I know I didn't). After working for the government for 5 months, he now enjoys top of the mind awareness and is a household name (even the best PR firms can't bring that kind of notoriety). So this guy is more or less going to make more money in the coming months because he working for the government (going along with the Obama theme, shouldn't he be taxed on the difference between his pay before working for the Treasury and after citing that his brief foray into government work is responsible for this increase in pay? Doesn't Democrat logic suck when turned on those who constantly spew it?)

That's all I've got for this morning, I may have an afternoon rant in me later on. Enjoy some satire below for the time being:

Good Job Pelosi? Yup, I said it

For those who know me, I normally respond to anything that comes out of Nancy Pelosi's mouth with a stream of curses. I do believe that she has done more to destroy this country than all KGB agents, terrorists, and N Koreans put together but today she actually did something to redeem herself (albeit on an issue that has no purpose being in front of Congress in the first place).

What I'm talking about is this: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jackson-pelosi10-2009jul10,0,764678.story

The cliff notes version you say? Ok here goes, Rep Jackson Lee - D Texas (I thought Texas summarily executed all Democrats?) sponsored a resolution to honor the illustrious Michael Jackson on the floor of the House (honor how, I don't know but I heard the resolution itself was more-or-less a biography of his music and the money he donated to various charities). Now Pelosi has come out saying that, because of the shitstorm that MJ's life became in the last decade (I'm paraphrasing here), the House should not even vote on a resolution to honor him.

This will probably be the only time I will ever say this but good for you Nance! This marks a departure from her policy of appeasement and means that she might actually have some values and sense of purpose of her own (shocking!). The House is not a place to talk about such a topic. You want to have a moment of silence for the death of a pop icon, that's fine and dandy but let the issue die there (pun UNintended).

Now I plan on resuming my undying hatred for this woman and everything she stands for (I am quite proud of myself for admitting that I agree with her for once even though it's a meaningless issue)