Today the U.S. Marine Corps is celebrating its 234th birthday. Established in 1775 by the Continental Congress, the Marines made their first amphibious landing at New Providence Island in the Bahamas on March 3, 1776. After almost two and a half centuries the Marine Corps continues to uphold its proud tradition.
The Marine Corps motto, "Semper Fidelis" means more than "Always Faithful." It represents commitment, love of country, honor, duty and ability to go the extra mile for your Marine brother and humankind. Marines in all walks of life who wore the Eagle, Globe and
Anchor all share the same common bond, "Once a Marine, Always a Marine."
So today in this birthday message I would like to pass along the following tribute.
THE TITLE
It cannot be inherited
Nor can it ever be purchased,
You and no one alive
Can buy it for any price.
It is impossible to rent,
And it cannot be lent
You alone and our own
Have earned it with your
Sweat, Blood and lives
You own it forever.
THE TITLE
UNITED STATES MARINE
So to all my Marine brothers, Happy Birthday Marines, may all of you enjoy good health and a safe return home.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
President Obama and Fiscal Stability
Unlike President George W. Bush who took over a government that was in top fiscal shape and then left in poor fiscal shape, the job now falls to President Obama to reverse the record deficit spending and debt of the past eight years. It will not be easy but it is a situation that has to be addressed and acted upon.
The most significant sign in the fight to get our fiscal house in order is that Obama said he will make fiscal responsibility a priority after he deals with the economy and gets back on track. The last three Republican Presidents never made a commitment to get our fiscal house in order and in fact never gave the problem any serious thought or effort.
It is more important now that President Obama keep his promise because the situation is now critical. The President said he would veto any health-care plan that adds to the deficit. That is a statement the President needs to back up with his veto pen if necessary. There can be no turning back from this problem and no excuses are allowed. Balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility will allow our nation to solve many of our problems without creating more debt and raising the cost of living for our people unnecessarlly.
The growth of federal expenditures can be controlled, the Clinton administration proved that and it did not damage our country or our people. There has to be a plan and the President needs to make sure the plan is sound, workable and enforced. The most important element now is to put our people back to work on a sustained basis so the consumer will once again get the economy moving. Jobs are the key and should continue to be the focus.
There will be a lot of distractions for the President, especially from those in Congress and the news media who will try to oppose every move he makes. It has already started. The American people will be in a position to judge the President's action when his term comes to a close. It won't be hard to document what progress was made on his watch. He deserves the chance to have enough time to turn things around for the better.
The unprecedented increase in the National Debt of over $6 trillion just in the eight years of the previous administration has put our country in jeopardy fiscally. President Obama needs to be decisive and firm in reversing this horrow story thrust on our country and its people.
The most significant sign in the fight to get our fiscal house in order is that Obama said he will make fiscal responsibility a priority after he deals with the economy and gets back on track. The last three Republican Presidents never made a commitment to get our fiscal house in order and in fact never gave the problem any serious thought or effort.
It is more important now that President Obama keep his promise because the situation is now critical. The President said he would veto any health-care plan that adds to the deficit. That is a statement the President needs to back up with his veto pen if necessary. There can be no turning back from this problem and no excuses are allowed. Balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility will allow our nation to solve many of our problems without creating more debt and raising the cost of living for our people unnecessarlly.
The growth of federal expenditures can be controlled, the Clinton administration proved that and it did not damage our country or our people. There has to be a plan and the President needs to make sure the plan is sound, workable and enforced. The most important element now is to put our people back to work on a sustained basis so the consumer will once again get the economy moving. Jobs are the key and should continue to be the focus.
There will be a lot of distractions for the President, especially from those in Congress and the news media who will try to oppose every move he makes. It has already started. The American people will be in a position to judge the President's action when his term comes to a close. It won't be hard to document what progress was made on his watch. He deserves the chance to have enough time to turn things around for the better.
The unprecedented increase in the National Debt of over $6 trillion just in the eight years of the previous administration has put our country in jeopardy fiscally. President Obama needs to be decisive and firm in reversing this horrow story thrust on our country and its people.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Louisiana Representative Steve Scalise: Another No Vote
Congress on 11/5/09 decisively approved an extension of unemployment benefits for almost two million people out of work nearly a year or more reported the Associated Press by the Times Picayune dated 11/6/09. The U.S. House cleared the measure 403-12 after unanimous support in the U.S. Senate.
La. Representative Scalise was the only Louisiana House member who voted against the measure along with 11 other Republicans who voted no. The legislation also covered the expansion of the tax credit for homebuyers. A no vote is nothing new for Scalise who opposes most every thing that comes out of the Obama administration. He was a subject of one of my commentaries on April 27.
The Louisiana Workforce Commission said that 6,829 Louisiana residents as of Nov. 2 would be eligible for the extra 14 weeks of benefits provided under the bill. Scalise said the cost of the bill will only cause more Americans to lose their jobs. Scalise and Republicans are familiar with job loses because their party has a dismal record when it comes to creating jobs. Just ask former President George Bush.
Representative Scalise will also oppose any health-care reform that comes out of Congress that Democrats are in favor of. He is proving to be the next Newt Gingrich of the Republican party. That is not very encouraging for the people of Louisiana. The Republican party would like to see Obama fail like they wanted to see Clinton fail. They hate to see a Democrat be successful in moving the country forward and they will become more negative as the economy improves. Keep an eye on Scalise, he is one of those "ditto heads" who has mastered the "no" word.
La. Representative Scalise was the only Louisiana House member who voted against the measure along with 11 other Republicans who voted no. The legislation also covered the expansion of the tax credit for homebuyers. A no vote is nothing new for Scalise who opposes most every thing that comes out of the Obama administration. He was a subject of one of my commentaries on April 27.
The Louisiana Workforce Commission said that 6,829 Louisiana residents as of Nov. 2 would be eligible for the extra 14 weeks of benefits provided under the bill. Scalise said the cost of the bill will only cause more Americans to lose their jobs. Scalise and Republicans are familiar with job loses because their party has a dismal record when it comes to creating jobs. Just ask former President George Bush.
Representative Scalise will also oppose any health-care reform that comes out of Congress that Democrats are in favor of. He is proving to be the next Newt Gingrich of the Republican party. That is not very encouraging for the people of Louisiana. The Republican party would like to see Obama fail like they wanted to see Clinton fail. They hate to see a Democrat be successful in moving the country forward and they will become more negative as the economy improves. Keep an eye on Scalise, he is one of those "ditto heads" who has mastered the "no" word.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Louisiana Medicaid and Lobbyist
The Times Picayune in its "Briefing Book" of November 1 published the following: The high powered Washington D.C., lobbying firm of Patton Boggs has been brought in to help Governor Jindal's administration to convince Congress to give Louisiana a break from a costly change in the Medicaid match rate. "We need representation up there that goes beyond our own delegation, Health and Hospitals Secretary Alan Levine said." This is related to the issue that Louisiana may be forced to make deep cuts to its health care budget because the federal Medicaid match rate is scheduled to drop from 80% to 63% in January 2011.
State officials have argued for months that the formula that determines the match rate is unfair to Louisiana because the state's average personal income was artificially inflated after Katrina by the influx of federal relief dollars. The state can not legally hire a lobbying firm so Levine enlisted the help from private health-care providers who thru LRA Support Foundation hired the lobbying firm and is paying for it. It was noted in the article that the private health-care providers would be the biggest financial losers if the state is forced to make deep cuts to its health-care budget.
The state of Louisiana is represented in Congress to serve the people on issues such as this yet the state is getting involved with a lobbying group financed by the private health-care industry who will be looking out for their own well being and not the state and its people. In other words hire a lobbying firm instead of relying on the people's representation to handle the problem. How can lobbyist know more about the problem than our elected officials? The answer is they don't but money talks which is why our elected officials should be outraged if they have any character. Government for the people, by the people has become government for the lobbyist, by the lobbyist.
Maybe Governor Jindal does not have the time to go to Washington himself and speak on behalf of the people of Louisiana and the state because he spends so much of his time outside the state seeking campaign contributions. Leaders have to lead, that is why they are elected. Once again the people of our state come last. The status quo is alive and well. That says it all.
State officials have argued for months that the formula that determines the match rate is unfair to Louisiana because the state's average personal income was artificially inflated after Katrina by the influx of federal relief dollars. The state can not legally hire a lobbying firm so Levine enlisted the help from private health-care providers who thru LRA Support Foundation hired the lobbying firm and is paying for it. It was noted in the article that the private health-care providers would be the biggest financial losers if the state is forced to make deep cuts to its health-care budget.
The state of Louisiana is represented in Congress to serve the people on issues such as this yet the state is getting involved with a lobbying group financed by the private health-care industry who will be looking out for their own well being and not the state and its people. In other words hire a lobbying firm instead of relying on the people's representation to handle the problem. How can lobbyist know more about the problem than our elected officials? The answer is they don't but money talks which is why our elected officials should be outraged if they have any character. Government for the people, by the people has become government for the lobbyist, by the lobbyist.
Maybe Governor Jindal does not have the time to go to Washington himself and speak on behalf of the people of Louisiana and the state because he spends so much of his time outside the state seeking campaign contributions. Leaders have to lead, that is why they are elected. Once again the people of our state come last. The status quo is alive and well. That says it all.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Federal Spending, Facts vs. Myth
Conservative Republicans are still telling the people we need to go back to the Reagan era and control federal spending like he did. It was especially pronounced during the last Presidential campaign during the Republican debates. Romney and McCain talked about the Reagan legacy often even though they knew it was a fairy tale. Lets examine the spending record of the Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 administrations and see who actually did the best job of controlling federal spending.
The below information covers the four year term of each President ending in that fiscal year. Source is taken from the Congressional Budget Office.
Jimmie Carter 1981 Total Federal Spending $2.232 Trillion
Ronald Reagan 1985 Total Federal Spending $3.352 Trillion Up $1.120 trillion or 50%
Ronald Reagan 1989 Total Federal Spending 4.203 Trillion Up $851 billion or 25%
George H.W. Bush 1993 Total Federal Spending $5.369 Trillion Up $1.166 trillion or 28%
Bill Clinton 1997 Total Federal Spending $6.140 Trillion Up $771 billion or 14%
Bill Clinton 2001 Total Federal Spending $ 7.007 Trillion Up $867 billion or 14%
George W. Bush 2005 Total Federal Spending $8.936 Trillion Up $1.929 trillion or 28%
George W. Bush 2009 Total Federal Spending $11.883 Trillion Up $2.947 trillion or 33%
The numbers show not only did federal spending increase much less under President Clinton for eight years, but the increase was at a steady 14% for each of his two terms. Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 do not even come close. The numbers indicate those three Presidents never had federal spending under control while Clinton did. Also Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 did not face the magnitude of deficit spending that Clinton had to face and take on and that makes Clinton's record even more impressive.
Bob Woodward pointed out in one of his books on Clinton that Clinton new more about the federal budget than members of Congress who had been dealing with budget matters for decades. That explains in part why Clinton was so successful in balancing the budget and bringing federal spending under control, and why he knew his deficit reduction and economic policies would work for America and its people.
Conservative Republican Presidents are champions when it comes to increasing federal spending. That is why you never heard a peep out of them during the 20 years of spending spree of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 and none of those three Presidents faced the fiscal disaster Clinton took over or the fiscal and economic disaster Bush 43 left President Obama.
President Reagan presided over the first trillion dollar budget. George Bush 43 presided over the first two and three trillion dollar budgets. It took the country 15 years to go from a one trillion dollar budget to a two trillion dollar budget. But it only took Bush 43 seven years to go from a two trillion dollar budget to a three trillion dollar budget.
Federal spending is made up of discretionary spending and non-discretionary spending. If anyone is interested go to the CBO site and you will find that Clinton was also the best at holding down spending in those two categories as well by a wide margin.
Conservative Republican Presidents are best at controlling federal spending????????? That is pure myth, the numbers speak loud and clear.
The below information covers the four year term of each President ending in that fiscal year. Source is taken from the Congressional Budget Office.
Jimmie Carter 1981 Total Federal Spending $2.232 Trillion
Ronald Reagan 1985 Total Federal Spending $3.352 Trillion Up $1.120 trillion or 50%
Ronald Reagan 1989 Total Federal Spending 4.203 Trillion Up $851 billion or 25%
George H.W. Bush 1993 Total Federal Spending $5.369 Trillion Up $1.166 trillion or 28%
Bill Clinton 1997 Total Federal Spending $6.140 Trillion Up $771 billion or 14%
Bill Clinton 2001 Total Federal Spending $ 7.007 Trillion Up $867 billion or 14%
George W. Bush 2005 Total Federal Spending $8.936 Trillion Up $1.929 trillion or 28%
George W. Bush 2009 Total Federal Spending $11.883 Trillion Up $2.947 trillion or 33%
The numbers show not only did federal spending increase much less under President Clinton for eight years, but the increase was at a steady 14% for each of his two terms. Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 do not even come close. The numbers indicate those three Presidents never had federal spending under control while Clinton did. Also Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 did not face the magnitude of deficit spending that Clinton had to face and take on and that makes Clinton's record even more impressive.
Bob Woodward pointed out in one of his books on Clinton that Clinton new more about the federal budget than members of Congress who had been dealing with budget matters for decades. That explains in part why Clinton was so successful in balancing the budget and bringing federal spending under control, and why he knew his deficit reduction and economic policies would work for America and its people.
Conservative Republican Presidents are champions when it comes to increasing federal spending. That is why you never heard a peep out of them during the 20 years of spending spree of Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 and none of those three Presidents faced the fiscal disaster Clinton took over or the fiscal and economic disaster Bush 43 left President Obama.
President Reagan presided over the first trillion dollar budget. George Bush 43 presided over the first two and three trillion dollar budgets. It took the country 15 years to go from a one trillion dollar budget to a two trillion dollar budget. But it only took Bush 43 seven years to go from a two trillion dollar budget to a three trillion dollar budget.
Federal spending is made up of discretionary spending and non-discretionary spending. If anyone is interested go to the CBO site and you will find that Clinton was also the best at holding down spending in those two categories as well by a wide margin.
Conservative Republican Presidents are best at controlling federal spending????????? That is pure myth, the numbers speak loud and clear.
Friday, October 30, 2009
The Fiscal Legacy Of President George W. Bush
The final numbers are in on President Bush's last budget for fiscal year ending 9/30/09. It showed another record federal deficit, this time to the tune of $1.42 trillion. Like Reagan and Bush 41 before him the President failed to balance the budget during his term in office. No Republican President has balanced the federal budget since Dwight Eisenhower in 1960. One would never believe that if you listen to the rhetoric coming from the conservatives in the news media or the Republican party. Below is the fiscal record of President Bush and the previous administration of President Clinton.
Fiscal Years Ending 9/30/
President Clinton
1994 $203.2 billion Deficit
1995 164.0 billion Deficit
1996 107.4 billion Deficit
1997 21.9 billion Deficit
1998 69.3 billion Surplus
1999 125.6 billion Surplus
2000 236.0 billion Surplus
2001 128.0 billion Surplus
Total Budget Surplus $62.8 billion
President George W. Bush
2002 $157.8 billion Deficit
2003 377.6 billion Deficit
2004 412.7 billion Deficit
2005 318.3 billion Deficit
2006 248.2 billion Deficit
2007 160.7 billion Deficit
2008 454.8 billion Deficit
2009 1.42 Trillion Deficit
Total Budget Deficits $3.53 Trillion
President Bush's final budget that ended 9/30/09 was sent to Congress on July 28, 2008 and contained a projected deficit of $482 billion. That was before the economic meltdown and the financial collapse. His budget message at the time contained the following information. "The nations economy has continued to expand and remains fundamentally resilient." One should remember at the same time the economy had lost jobs every month since December 2007. The administration was completly out of touch with the economic facts.
Part of the deficit problem that made it swell to $1.42 trillion was the $700 billion Bush asked Congress to pass to bail out the financial industry, plus federal revenue was down 16.6% from fiscal 2008. Also there was approximately $200 billion from Obama's $787 billion spent of the stimulus money. However, without the expenditures for the bail out and stimulus the budget deficit would still have been another record number around $600 billion plus.
When the above budget numbers are compared for Bush and Clinton one can see the tragic results of Bush's 8 years in office and the tremendous burden the American people are left with fiscally and economically and the challenge that falls to President Obama. President Clinton had a deficit reduction and economic plan and policy when he took office and the Democratic controlled Congress passed that plan in 1993 without one vote from the Republicans in Congress. They predicted doom and gloom but the opposite happened. Bush had no economic or fiscal policy to keep the budget in balance when he took office. Instead he continued the policy of trickle down economics which proved once again not to be a policy at all to deal with the economy and the nations fiscal health.
Clinton's policy reduced the budget deficit every year his first term in office and was in surplus every year his second term in office. The Clinton administration also paid down $453 billion on the public debt. The Bush administration paid down zero and added over $6 trillion to the national debt. Bush never got a hand on deficit spending because he lacked the fundamental knowledge of how to create a sound economy and how to use government policy wisely. The ideology of trickle down economics being the engine for growing the economy and jobs in the private sector is a fairy tale. There were over 22.7 million new jobs created during the Clinton administration and 91% came from the private sector. The highest in over 50 years. Clinton did it with an economic policy that created an even 11 million plus jobs in each of his terms. Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 talked, but it was Clinton who performed. In fact try this on for size. More new jobs were created under Clinton in 8 years than were created under Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 in the 20 years they served. Their trickle down economics never got past the wealthy to the private sector.
When President Bush took office the governments fiscal health had never been better. In 8 years he managed to take the country and its people to the cleaners and it started in his very first year. If this is the conservatism that Republicans like to brag about, lets hope we never see another Republican President.
Coming next: Federal Spending: Facts vs. Myth. Stay tuned.
Note l: The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were handled outside the budget by the Bush administration. The cost of those wars are now handled within the budget by the Obama administration.
Note 2: National Debt number taken from Treasury Department.
Note 3: To read more why a policy of trickle down economics is not a policy at all read my three part series with conclusion titled: The U.S. Economy: Which Part Performs Best, dated 1/27/08/
Note 4: Budget Surplus and Deficits shown above taken from Congressional Budget Office Records.
Fiscal Years Ending 9/30/
President Clinton
1994 $203.2 billion Deficit
1995 164.0 billion Deficit
1996 107.4 billion Deficit
1997 21.9 billion Deficit
1998 69.3 billion Surplus
1999 125.6 billion Surplus
2000 236.0 billion Surplus
2001 128.0 billion Surplus
Total Budget Surplus $62.8 billion
President George W. Bush
2002 $157.8 billion Deficit
2003 377.6 billion Deficit
2004 412.7 billion Deficit
2005 318.3 billion Deficit
2006 248.2 billion Deficit
2007 160.7 billion Deficit
2008 454.8 billion Deficit
2009 1.42 Trillion Deficit
Total Budget Deficits $3.53 Trillion
President Bush's final budget that ended 9/30/09 was sent to Congress on July 28, 2008 and contained a projected deficit of $482 billion. That was before the economic meltdown and the financial collapse. His budget message at the time contained the following information. "The nations economy has continued to expand and remains fundamentally resilient." One should remember at the same time the economy had lost jobs every month since December 2007. The administration was completly out of touch with the economic facts.
Part of the deficit problem that made it swell to $1.42 trillion was the $700 billion Bush asked Congress to pass to bail out the financial industry, plus federal revenue was down 16.6% from fiscal 2008. Also there was approximately $200 billion from Obama's $787 billion spent of the stimulus money. However, without the expenditures for the bail out and stimulus the budget deficit would still have been another record number around $600 billion plus.
When the above budget numbers are compared for Bush and Clinton one can see the tragic results of Bush's 8 years in office and the tremendous burden the American people are left with fiscally and economically and the challenge that falls to President Obama. President Clinton had a deficit reduction and economic plan and policy when he took office and the Democratic controlled Congress passed that plan in 1993 without one vote from the Republicans in Congress. They predicted doom and gloom but the opposite happened. Bush had no economic or fiscal policy to keep the budget in balance when he took office. Instead he continued the policy of trickle down economics which proved once again not to be a policy at all to deal with the economy and the nations fiscal health.
Clinton's policy reduced the budget deficit every year his first term in office and was in surplus every year his second term in office. The Clinton administration also paid down $453 billion on the public debt. The Bush administration paid down zero and added over $6 trillion to the national debt. Bush never got a hand on deficit spending because he lacked the fundamental knowledge of how to create a sound economy and how to use government policy wisely. The ideology of trickle down economics being the engine for growing the economy and jobs in the private sector is a fairy tale. There were over 22.7 million new jobs created during the Clinton administration and 91% came from the private sector. The highest in over 50 years. Clinton did it with an economic policy that created an even 11 million plus jobs in each of his terms. Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 talked, but it was Clinton who performed. In fact try this on for size. More new jobs were created under Clinton in 8 years than were created under Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 in the 20 years they served. Their trickle down economics never got past the wealthy to the private sector.
When President Bush took office the governments fiscal health had never been better. In 8 years he managed to take the country and its people to the cleaners and it started in his very first year. If this is the conservatism that Republicans like to brag about, lets hope we never see another Republican President.
Coming next: Federal Spending: Facts vs. Myth. Stay tuned.
Note l: The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were handled outside the budget by the Bush administration. The cost of those wars are now handled within the budget by the Obama administration.
Note 2: National Debt number taken from Treasury Department.
Note 3: To read more why a policy of trickle down economics is not a policy at all read my three part series with conclusion titled: The U.S. Economy: Which Part Performs Best, dated 1/27/08/
Note 4: Budget Surplus and Deficits shown above taken from Congressional Budget Office Records.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Treasury Department Slashes Executive Pay
The Associated Press reported that Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury official leading the pay review told reporters that average salaries for the top 25 executives are being cut 90% starting next month. The action applies to the top executives at Bank of America Corp, AIG Group, Citigroup Inc., General Motors, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.
The Federal Reserve unveiled a proposal that would police banks pay policies to ensure they don't encourage employees to take reckless gambles like those that contributed to the financial crisis. The Feds plan would cover thousands of banks. President Obama praised the action and urged Congress to pass legislation to give shareholders a voice in executive pay packages.
In this writers judgement, the above action was not only over due but necessary because the CEO's of Corporate America have proven by their past actions they are incapable of regulating their own greed. When executives make 400 times what the average worker makes and at the same time their companies are losing money, laying off workers, cutting back on health insurance only one word can describe that action. GREED.
The President and Congress need to make sure everything is in place that those companies who received bail outs pay back all the money they were loaned. Some years ago Chrysler and Mexico were the recepients of bail outs and they paid all money back plus interest. So Uncle Sam does have a record of doing something right. The President and Congress needs to keep that record intact.
The Federal Reserve unveiled a proposal that would police banks pay policies to ensure they don't encourage employees to take reckless gambles like those that contributed to the financial crisis. The Feds plan would cover thousands of banks. President Obama praised the action and urged Congress to pass legislation to give shareholders a voice in executive pay packages.
In this writers judgement, the above action was not only over due but necessary because the CEO's of Corporate America have proven by their past actions they are incapable of regulating their own greed. When executives make 400 times what the average worker makes and at the same time their companies are losing money, laying off workers, cutting back on health insurance only one word can describe that action. GREED.
The President and Congress need to make sure everything is in place that those companies who received bail outs pay back all the money they were loaned. Some years ago Chrysler and Mexico were the recepients of bail outs and they paid all money back plus interest. So Uncle Sam does have a record of doing something right. The President and Congress needs to keep that record intact.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Absence Of Competition
Competition is the engine that enables the public to have a say in obtaining products and services at a reasonable price. It has been known for some time that is not the case with government contracts, especially when it comes to Defense spending. It is also not the case outside the government in many instances. Cost over runs are a daily happening with defense contractors and the nations defense cost is over a half trillion dollars a year.
Rear Admiral William Landay, one of the Navy's top acaquisition officials promises that the Pentagon will do everything it can to foster competition and reduce prices for key shipbuilding projects. He was alluding to the fact that the six major shipyards are controlled by only two companies, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics and that is a major barrier. Landay said companies with shipbuilding contracts won't be guaranteed future contracts for newer models of the same boats. Landay added that cost overruns for Navy ships have been a big problem.
Monopolies have never worked for America and its people or the Pentagon. They work for their own greed by controlling prices. It plays into the hand of being another element in the failure of our economic well being. I wrote a commentary titled, "Innovation, Lost in America concerning how Corporate America has been transferring wealth from those who should share in it to those who already have it and having a monopoly is a sure way to do it. The few who control the financial industry in this country proved it just last year and now we are being told they are ready to announce billions of dollars of bonuses to their CEO's and executives once again. Greed has become a sickness with them and Congress has to address that problem.
The major oil companies in the past 20 or so years have bought most of the large independent oil companies and said the purchase would make them more efficient, drill more wells, produce more oil and increase production. Yet today the country is more dependent on foreign oil then ever before. What the buy outs did was increase the bonuses and other goodies of the CEO's and executives of the surviving major oil companies and they still own or lease millions of acres of land they have yet to drill on. That says it all.
Rear Admiral William Landay, one of the Navy's top acaquisition officials promises that the Pentagon will do everything it can to foster competition and reduce prices for key shipbuilding projects. He was alluding to the fact that the six major shipyards are controlled by only two companies, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics and that is a major barrier. Landay said companies with shipbuilding contracts won't be guaranteed future contracts for newer models of the same boats. Landay added that cost overruns for Navy ships have been a big problem.
Monopolies have never worked for America and its people or the Pentagon. They work for their own greed by controlling prices. It plays into the hand of being another element in the failure of our economic well being. I wrote a commentary titled, "Innovation, Lost in America concerning how Corporate America has been transferring wealth from those who should share in it to those who already have it and having a monopoly is a sure way to do it. The few who control the financial industry in this country proved it just last year and now we are being told they are ready to announce billions of dollars of bonuses to their CEO's and executives once again. Greed has become a sickness with them and Congress has to address that problem.
The major oil companies in the past 20 or so years have bought most of the large independent oil companies and said the purchase would make them more efficient, drill more wells, produce more oil and increase production. Yet today the country is more dependent on foreign oil then ever before. What the buy outs did was increase the bonuses and other goodies of the CEO's and executives of the surviving major oil companies and they still own or lease millions of acres of land they have yet to drill on. That says it all.
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Rush Limbaugh Boomerang
The king of the "ditto heads" Rush Limbaugh who excels at personal attacks against those he dislikes just met his waterloo and blames others for being dropped from the group trying to buy the St. Louis Rams professional football franchise.
Rush who has mastered the game of blame is now blaming DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFLPA, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for the Blues decision to exclude him from the groups bid. Rush said he's been made an example by a players union seeking leverage in talk over a new collective bargaining agreement according to wire reports. The king of blame also blamed President Obama's political clout for his sacking. (Nothing new there)
As usual, Rush is all over the lot. Here is a person who uses his position to destroy other people and their reputation and who is now crying wolf. I think it is safe to say that the NFL owners themselves played a key role in what took place. Why would any owner want a person like Rush to be part of an ownership of a NFL franchise.
This is a case where the wheel of justice was spun and came back around and pointed the finger at the king of blame and gave him a dose of his own medicine. The issue will give Rush and his ditto heads another subject to talk about for the duration of the season. His huffing and puffing will be louder than ever. One should remember those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. It will come back to bite you.
Rush who has mastered the game of blame is now blaming DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the NFLPA, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for the Blues decision to exclude him from the groups bid. Rush said he's been made an example by a players union seeking leverage in talk over a new collective bargaining agreement according to wire reports. The king of blame also blamed President Obama's political clout for his sacking. (Nothing new there)
As usual, Rush is all over the lot. Here is a person who uses his position to destroy other people and their reputation and who is now crying wolf. I think it is safe to say that the NFL owners themselves played a key role in what took place. Why would any owner want a person like Rush to be part of an ownership of a NFL franchise.
This is a case where the wheel of justice was spun and came back around and pointed the finger at the king of blame and gave him a dose of his own medicine. The issue will give Rush and his ditto heads another subject to talk about for the duration of the season. His huffing and puffing will be louder than ever. One should remember those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. It will come back to bite you.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)