Out of Touch

In his third press conference in 17 days, President Obama stood in front of the American people and told them what they were thinking.

He told the American people that they were “sold.” He told the American people that he was listening to them, and that republicans were more concerned with ideology and playing the Washington way.

Then he preceded to lie about what the American people believe.

Obama made the claim that 80% of the American people support raising revenues (fancy talk for tax increases) as a way to come to an agreement on the debt limit.

At best, the number is somewhere around 43%, according to a Gallup poll. A Rasmussen poll shows that “just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling.”

Well, there goes the argument that you understand the American people better than the Republicans.

There’s no doubt that everyone in this debate is in re-election mode. The 2012 election will be here before you know it, and it looks as though the debt limit talks are going to sway a lot of people one way or the other. Mitch McConnell has already stated that if the country does default it will have catastrophic results for the republicans electorally.

However, we have to remember, Obama has launched a re-election campaign, he’s in campaign mode as well. Is it any surprise that before this 17 day marathon of press conferences, Obama hadn’t held one since March? Of course not, the campaign wasn’t in full swing back then. Now, the debt limit is a major topic, and a major election issue, Obama needs to capitalize on it.

But he’s doing a rather poor job. He is the president, a deal should go through him. But instead Obama sat on the sideline until about four weeks ago. And now that he’s in the debate…well, it hasn’t gotten much better. It seemed a deal was close, then entitlements somehow got taken off the table and tax increases became a center piece. Instead of bringing people together, which was a campaign promise of his, it seems the sides are growing further apart.

Gosh, I thought Obama was the guy who would unite us and bring us together. We were tired of the bickering, that’s why we voted for him (well, I didn’t, but other people did). Has he come through on that promise at all? Or any of his promises outside of health care?

That’s a big, fat, no.

The administration is claiming that a deal will get done and the government won’t default, yet Obama himself opposes a short term solution that buys more time to argue the cuts. Wait, I thought default would send the world into a financial fireball, the likes of which won’t be seen for another fives years when global warming kills us all.

This is all politics, for both sides. They’re both stubborn, someone needs to step up, bring a real compromise to the table, and avert the crisis. Where are the real leaders at?

–jb

We Just Need Some Vision…and Money

Enjoy this clip of Neil Cavuto and Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson from Texas.


Dear Dallas and surrounding areas, you suck. The end.

Eddie Bernice Johnson offers up a very robust platter of solutions for our deficit problems. It includes:

1.) Vision
2.) Innovation
3.) Taxes
4.) Some more Vision
5.) And some more Innovation

What exactly does Johnson mean by “vision” and “innovation.” Well, your guess is as good as mine. It appears she believes that the government does most of the innovating in this country. Which is entirely false, they certainly innovate new excuses to not do anything about the deficit (i.e. we need vision, and we’re not broke), but they certainly don’t innovate product or technology.

There is an argument to be made that the government finances that innovation, and that’s true to some extent. But it’s usually at the hands of a tax credit, so why not just lower the business tax rate and let business innovate on their own with the money they currently have? Believe it or not we can invest money without actually spending money, just cut taxes.

According to Johnson we can cut spending, just not education, social security, Medicaid, or Medicare. Well that’s nice, so essentially what she’s saying is she wants to continue to run a deficit. Because as I’ve shown before, you can’t cut spending and raise enough taxes to fill the hole we’re in now.

So go get innovative everybody. Let’s get some vision up in here. Then we can solve our problems.

Maybe.

–jb

4,000 Words, Not a Single Solution

In a 4,000+ word speech today, Obama manged to outline no new proposals for cutting the deficit, said that everything should be on the table in bipartisan discussions, then talked about why the republicans were wrong and said Medicaid and Medicare shouldn’t be on the table.

The speech was so long and so boring it appeared to put Vice President Joe Biden to sleep for a solid 30 seconds. Note to Joe: you’re the flippin’ vice president, they’re going to have a camera on you, is it going to take until year four to figure that out?

Obama’s plan didn’t need 4,000 words, I can explain it in just a few: some cuts, raise taxes, don’t touch Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security (after all it’s an election year.)

So, with the being said, let’s get into the meat and potatoes of Obama’s speech.

Claim #1

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

For starters, the spending problem goes back a lot further than the 1990′s, or even the 1980′s. This thing traces back to the 1930′s. We never seemed to have consistent debt problems until FDR’s New Deal. That’s not a coincidence.

Furthermore, it certainly wasn’t the wars and the prescription drug program that drove us into this fiscal crisis. We certainly didn’t do ourselves any favors from 2001 to today, but on January 20, 2001 the national debt was still at $5 trillion. So we had a problem long before Bush came to Washington. Even going back to January 20, 1993 the national debt was still at $4 trillion.

The idea that the Bush tax cuts made the problem worse is a fabrication. Fact is from 2003 to 2006 federal revenues grew by about $625 billion according to the CBO.

And the idea that the tax cuts went to “every millionaire and billionaire” in the country is extraordinarily misleading. The Bush tax cuts, for the 15,000th time, went to EVERYBODY. And the largest rate reduction went to the lowest earners, who went from a 15% rate to a 10% rate. The tax rates in 2001 were: 15%, 27.5%, 30.5%, 35.5%, 39.1%.

The rates in 2003 were, and still are today: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%. The lowest earners got a 5% rate reduction, while the wealthy got a 4.1% reduction.

Also, Obama actually makes a very good point here…well, he does in theory. He says we added millions in spending early on last decade with no way of paying for it. Which is partially correct, after all tax revenues did increase. However, he begins to spell out the fundamental problem with tax increases in this statement. Just because you increase revenues does not mean that politicians will begin spending within the constraints of those new revenues.

For instance, you raise revenues by $1 trillion. What’s more likely to happen, the government runs a surplus and begins paying off the debt, or the government finds more things to spend money on to the tune of $1 trillion? It’s clearly the latter. We’ve raised revenues in the past and it never seems to fix the problem, that’s because there’s a good number of politicians who just turn around and start spending that money, instead of putting it towards paying down the debt.

Claim #2

So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That’s 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.

This is all very true, so why not do something about entitlements? To this point Obama has been mum about cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. I’m sorry, he hasn’t been entirely mum about Social Security, he claims it’s not in a crisis, despite the fact that it will go bankrupt this year.

By the way, all those college kids that voted enthusiastically for Obama, I want you to look Obama in the face when he inevitably comes to your campus, and ask him if you’ll be getting a social security check when you retire. Because he’ll say yes and be lying to you. Ask him why he thinks the program isn’t in a crisis when, if we don’t do anything about it, our generation won’t be getting social security because it will bankrupt the government.

So after Obama explicitly said that we cannot just focus on the 12% in discretionary spending, that we have to put everything on the table, he then attacks the GOP’s proposal to…well, put everything on the table. He claims that the GOP’s budget and it’s reform of Medicaid and Medicare will “lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.”

Really Obama? Medicaid and Medicare have been around since 1965, that’s a total of 46 years. We’ve been a country since 1776, or 235 years. Which means we’ve had Medicaid and Medicare for about 20% of this country’s history. So no, reforming Medicaid and Medicare would not lead to a fundamentally different America than we’ve known throughout most of our history because throughout most of our history we haven’t even had Medicaid and Medicare.

He goes on to paint a little bit of a fearful image, “It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them.”

But, gee, I only thought Glenn Beck was a fear mongerer. Look, the idea behind cutting the deficit is so we can repair our bridges and our roads. The idea to not having a $1.6 trillion deficit (like Obama’s last budget had) is so we can address those issues.

He goes on for about another three stanzas whining and crying about how this vision is an America where we have no health insurance and no car insurance and no butterflies and no candy, no apples, no automobiles, no sunny days, no clowns, no balloons, and we all live in a cloudy world where it rains 23 hours out of the day and we have to drag ourselves out of bed in the morning because the republicans took away any reason for us to ever want to leave the house again.

This speech was a campaign speech. It was not a policy speech, it was not a let’s fix this speech. It was pretend. He extended an arm across the isle for about five seconds until he quickly yanked it away and said, “gotcha!” He claimed he wanted everything on the table, and then quickly took off Medicaid and Medicare and didn’t even mention Social Security. There was no new proposals or policies, he again avoided any mention of policies from the debt commission, which he put together. And his only solution seems to be higher taxes, despite the fact that we’re still recovering from an economic collapse.

At least the Republicans put together a specific proposal that would cut the deficit. Obama has no specifics, he has broad ideas, but nothing solid.

Let’s be honest, if Republicans weren’t putting pressure on him to cut spending, he wouldn’t. This speech would have never happened and we would be continuing down a path of amazingly outrageous debt and high taxes. That’s the Obama way.

He’s serious about one thing, and one thing only. Getting re-elected and gaining more power. Let’s make sure he doesn’t get his wish.

–jb

That’s Transparency For Ya

I updated the post for The Current #138 yesterday with information about the cost of Obama’s date night with Michelle to New York City. All-in-all the trip cost taxpayers $24,000, we were nice enough to chip in for the flight, security, and the travel costs for aides and reporters. At least the Obama’s picked up the tab for the tickets and the dinner.

A reporter questioned Robert Gibbs about it today and Gibbs rallied off some nonsense about researching it yourself.

Is that the transparency Obama promised, withholding the amount of taxpayer money he spent because it might look a wee bit hypocritical and insensitive?

Do I have a beef with them traveling all the way to New York for a date? Yeah, there’s plenty to do in D.C. Not to mention all the carbon the three planes they took emitted. If that’s not the definition of hypocritical I don’t know what is. This is the man who while campaigning said we can’t drive around our SUV’s anymore yet he unnecessarily flew three plans to New York for a date with his wife. Spare me the climate change lecture Obama.

However, it’s Obama’s prerogative where he wants to go on a date, but the taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill. Obama should be expected to reimburse the government for the use of the Gulf Streams and the cost of security. Hell, I’ll even cut him some slack on the security, just pay the travel expenses.

–jb

The Current #137

The Current #137
Hosts: Jacob Bodnar and Logan Sparrow

Topics (bolded topics are available as separate audio segments below): Obama/Cheney spar on torture and Gitmo, Pentagon report shows 1 in 7 Gitmo detainees went back to terrorism, Pelosi stonewalls question on CIA comments, lawmakers divided on whether Pelosi knew or not, 12 of 16 Congressmen under investigation are democrats, US close to losing AAA rating, Obama says we’re running out of money, GM to head into bankruptcy, Obama’s new fuel standards, Republicans happier than Democrats, Gaffama of the week, Paid Vacation act introduced, and Woman hand cuffed and fined for not holding escalator rail.

The word of the week is Torture…and Gitmo
Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney had competing speeches this week about torture and Guantanamo Bay. Both speeches were opposite of each other. Obama said that torture didn’t work and we need to shut down Gitmo, Cheney said torture worked and Gitmo needs to remain open. What specifically did each have to say, and who’s right?

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

We’re out of Money but don’t worry I’m Spending More
It was released this week that the United States is dangerously close to losing it’s AAA rating. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner has correctly said we need to lower the deficit, but he didn’t mention spending cuts just “policies” that need to be adjusted. Could he be talking tax increases? Probably. Also, Obama said this week we’ve run out of money and then tried to defend spending billions more on health care. Listen to how he’s trying to deceive the public about our debt.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The Real Criminals
Ya know the handrails on escalators, who really uses those? Well apparently if you’re in Montreal, Canada and you don’t use them you can be fined upwards of $100. Just ask Bela Kosoian, she wasn’t just fined $100 she was placed in a “small holding cell” as well. All for not holding the rail.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

You’ll hear all those topic and much more in the full episode.

FULL EPISODE

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

DOWNLOAD
64kbps | 96kbps

Subscribe in iTunes

Subscribe via RSS

Links to Stories

The Current #136

The Current #136
Monday May 18, 2009
Hosts: Jacob Bodnar and Logan Sparrow

Tell Me Lies, Tell Me Sweet Little Lies
Nancy Pelosi and the CIA are not on good terms. After being nailed to the wall about briefings on waterboarding dating back to 2002, Pelosi stooped to a new low claiming the CIA lied to her and “misled” Congress about enhanced interrogation methods. And then she stooped even lower, backtracking from her claim, pining all the blame on Bush. Is there a ladder long enough to get Pelosi out of this hole?

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Politics as Usual
Telling the people what they want to hear is typical politics. Doing what the people want is the opposite of politics. Barack Obama seems to be doing more of the former than the latter. A poll was released this week showing the vast majority of Americans (71%) want less government in their lives, and 54% say Obama is spending too much. So, at a townhall speech, Obama said we cannot sustain deficit spending. Well Obama, if we can’t sustain it, why are you doing it?

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Crazy Environmentalists
In Ann Arbor, Michigan they are trying to build an underground parking structure because like any city it’s difficult to find parking spots. But wait, the environmentalists have a problem with that, they claim the structure will attract more cars downtown and thus pollute the earth even more. Uhh right, because those cars wouldn’t be turned on otherwise.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

FULL EPISODE

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

DOWNLOAD
64kbps | 96kbps

Subscribe in iTunes

Subscribe via RSS

Links to Stories

Obama: Deficits Aren’t My Fault UPDATE: AP Fact Checks

There is an update to this post at the bottom (1:19am…yes I’m really up that late, don’t worry I’m going to sleep now)

When the tea parties actually happened Obama claimed to know nothing about them. It didn’t sound like someone who was very tuned in to his constituents thoughts.

Well between then and now someone caught him up on the grassroots movement, because he’s taking shots at the thousands of Americans who came out to show their disgust with Washington’s spending.

Asked about fiscal discipline and entitlements reform, Obama seemed to be repressing a smile as he jabbed critics of his spending plans.

“Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I’m not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around, Obama said, “let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security.”

“But,” Obama continued, “let’s not play games and pretend that the reason [for the deficit] is because of the Recovery Act.”

First of all, this doesn’t sound like someone who’s concerned with bipartisanship. Something like 200,000 people showed up to tea parties across the country, that’s huge for a protest. You can’t simply dismiss and demonize those people as “folks waving tea bags around.” If you want to get anything accomplished you’re going to have to take our concerns to heart.

Second, no one is claiming that the Recovery Act is the sole reason the deficit is so large, but it is certainly part of the problem. There’s a reason the Congressional Budget Office predicts Obama’s budget will produce deficits totaling $9.3 trillion over the next nine years, it’s because Obama has proposed a lot of spending.

Let’s take a quick look at Obama’s spending plans:
-$787 billion Recovery Plan
-$452 billion/year for Universal Health Care ($6 trillion over 10-year period)
-Increased spending for education
-Increased investment in health research
-Total increased spending to 22% of the GDP

Not to mention he has no solution to curb spending on social security, which is currently the largest lag on the budget. He says that his universal health care plan will fix the medicare problem but I can’t imagine why. Creating a new, even larger, government bureaucracy to fix a broken government bureaucracy hardly seems like a sound solution.

I don’t think people realize how hard it will be to get out of a $1 trillion hole. The CBO estimates our budget deficit for fiscal year 2009-2010 will be $1.8 trillion. The federal government takes in about $1.7 trillion in taxes, and that number will certainly retract because of the economy. So in order to pay off that debt we would need to freeze spending completely and then devote all of our tax revenues to paying down debt, and we would still be in the red.

This is not going to be an easy hole to get out of. Universal health care, besides costing $500 billion a year, and I’m sure that number will grow, will costs billions to enact. And let’s not forget, these budget deficit numbers don’t take into account the $7 trillion we’ve spent on bailing out the financial sector.

We’re in huge danger right now with our budget. I wish our president took it a little more seriously, rather than calling dissenters of his big spending “folks waving tea bags around.”

UPDATE: The AP ran a good fact check on Obama’s remarks about the deficit today. You can see it here.

One of the more laughable quotes is…

“Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit…. That wasn’t me.”

As the AP points out in their fact check, the ultimate decider on the budget is Congress, assuming the president doesn’t veto the budget sent to him. And guess who was in congress the last couple of years? Barack Obama.

It seems Obama has forgotten that all of the programs that got us into this $1.3 trillion hole, TARP, summer stimulus, recovery act, auto bailout, etc; he supported. So yes, Obama shares the blame for this deficit. But it doesn’t rest squarely on his shoulders. The blame is split between Bush, Obama, and everyone else who voted for the big spending that got us here. For Obama to say the deficit “wasn’t me,” is ridiculous at best.

–jb

Where are the Cuts?

When it comes to the budget Obama has been talking out of two sides of his mouth.

The one side says that he’ll cut the budget deficit in half in five years. He says that we’re going to make government more efficient and cut programs that don’t work or aren’t needed.

The other side continually promotes spending. Whether it be universal health care or throwing money at the economy, Obama has proposed massive spending increases.

Well, he’s at it again, today he announced another massive spending project.

President Barack Obama on Monday promised a major investment in research and development, with the goal of spending 3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product on scientific innovation.

“I believe it is not in our character, American character, to follow — but to lead. And it is time for us to lead once again. I am here today to set this goal: we will devote more than 3 percent of our GDP to research and development,” Obama said.

For the record, the United State’s GDP as of 2008 was $14,264,600,000,000 – three percent of that would be $427,938,000,000 – nearly half a trillion dollars.

So if I’m not mistaken, Obama just proposed another half a trillion dollars worth of spending. Funny, because in Obama’s presidential address this week he said this…

“We cannot sustain deficits that mortgage our children’s future, nor tolerate wasteful inefficiency.”

Hmm, interesting line from a guy whose budget contains a $1.75 trillion deficit. Not only that but the CBO projects that Obama’s budgets will result in a $9.3 trillion deficit over ten years, and that doesn’t include this new promise to spend half a trillion dollars on research.

Obama has proposed a myriad of new spending, but he hasn’t produced any ideas for meaningful cuts in the budget. The closest he’s come is telling his cabinet to cut $100 million, that’s only .00005% of the deficit of his budget. Other than that measly $100 million, Obama has been mum about spending cuts other than to say he’s going to cut wasteful and inefficient programs.

He’s been in office 100 days, he’s proposed billions in new spending, yet somehow he hasn’t been able to track down an wasteful and inefficient programs to cut. It makes you wonder how one earth he’s going to meet that goal in five years.

–jb

Obama’s Two Way Cut and Run

I completely forgot that I haven’t commented on any news for several days now, and there have been two big stories that have emerged that require at least a quick comment from me, although I must forewarn, it’s really not all that quick.

The first is Obama’s newly announced Iraq plan, which seems to be more party politics influenced than actually what’s good for the troops.

Amid complaints from his own party that he’s moving too slowly to end the war in Iraq, President Barack Obama will announce Friday that U.S. combat troops will be withdrawn by Aug. 31, 2010, but that as many as 50,000 Marines and soldiers would remain until the end of 2011.

Well that’s nice. It wasn’t, “amid complaints from military commanders,” it’s “amid complaints from his own party.” Good to see that Obama is consulting and listening to the right people in this situation.

You also might notice two interesting points in his new Iraq plan. One, it’s sightly longer than he promised on the campaign, and two, it’s not really a withdraw. I guess when you become president you’re also granted the right to amend the dictionary. He’s changed “tax credits” into “tax cuts” and now he’s changed the idea of a “draw down” into a “withdraw.” It must be nice.

The 18-month timetable for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq is two months longer than he promised during his campaign. Aides who spoke on condition of anonymity to speak frankly said that military commanders wanted the extra time. “The president found that compelling,” said one senior administration official.

So the extra time (an added 3 months from his 16 month campaign promise) is the doing of military commanders. Wait a minute, didn’t he consult military commanders before making his announcement of a 16 month timetable. That was the idea, the plan was “endorsed” by military commanders on the ground. Conditions haven’t gotten worse in the last couple months, why all of a sudden are these commanders requesting more time?

The other big news is the budget, which is big news for it’s sheer size. It tops out at a mind shattering $3.55 trillion, so much for fiscal responsibility. Speaking of that term, Obama has redefined that as well. Obama, and the liberals believe, that fiscal responsibility means a balanced budget, regardless of how large it is.

Uhhh…no, fiscal responsibility means as small a budget as possible while still funding the government’s basic responsibilities. But anyway…

The new bill increases taxes on just about everyone over the next 10 years. Obama has spun the tax increases as only on the 5% wealthiest people in the country, but that’s simply false. As Newt Gingrich said today, so long as those people don’t use electricity, gasoline, or heating oil in their homes, Obama is correct.

The bill brings forth a cap and trade program to reign in carbon dioxide, something that will certainly lead to higher costs at the pump and at people’s homes. It also increases various business taxes by $353 billion over the next 10 years, something that certainly won’t help with job creation. And it increases taxes on the wealthy by $636 billion over 10 years, including a money killing capital gains tax hike.

Remember what happened when Hoover raised taxes in the late 20′s and early 30′s? It turned a depression into the great depression. You might also remember that Hoover created the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which increased tariffs on thousands of imports, the cost of which were passed down to consumers. Not only did that act decrease the number of imports and exports it also increased the price of the products that successfully arrived here.

That same type of crippling tax increase is being supported by Obama as a cap and trade system. Because businesses will have to pay for emitting CO2 they’ll have to either budget money to pay for the CO2 (thus having to increase their revenue by increasing prices), or they’ll have to spend money and renovate all of their factories and buildings to emit less CO2, either way the consumer will be paying higher prices.

The final irony of this whole spending bill is that Obama promised to halve the deficit by the end of his first term, he’s certainly not getting off on the right foot. He also said he was going to reign in earmarks, well the Democrats spending bill included over 8,000 earmarks.

As Todd Tiahrt said today at CPAC, “making promises creates hope, keeping promises creates trust.”

–jb

Bailout Brouhaha UPDATE: Positive News

I’m running out of alliterations for the bailout, but I’ll see what I can continue to come up with.

I want to take a quick walk down memory lane and listen to the words of Nancy Pelosi from October 2. This was after the Senate version of the bailout bill was passed by the House. Pelosi touts the protection the bill includes for taxpayers by enforcing strict oversight on the process.

Well so much for that.

In the six weeks since lawmakers approved the Treasury’s massive bailout of financial firms, the government has poured money into the country’s largest banks, recruited smaller banks into the program and repeatedly widened its scope to cover yet other types of businesses, from insurers to consumer lenders.

Along the way, the Bush administration has committed $290 billion of the $700 billion rescue package.

Yet for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed.

So not only have the positions on the oversight board not been filled, but the deadline for the first monitoring report has gone and past. Yet Pelosi was adamant about the strict oversight the government would have on this process.

So where was Pelosi yesterday, when Henry Paulson announced that he didn’t like the idea of buying trouble assets, he wanted to buy actual stock in banks. Of course that move went completely against the intentions of the bill, after all it was titled the Troubled Assets Relief Program, however Paulson was permitted to make that move because of the wiggle room included.

So where was Pelosi’s statement? The top story on her website is a picture of her snuggling with students from the San Francisco Life Learning Academy during their recent visit to D.C.

On the same note, where was the republican outcry. This was a bill that they supposedly reluctantly passed because this was an “urgent” crisis. Why aren’t they outraged by the bait and switch Paulson has pulled on the American people?

The White House isn’t in the clear either. The Bush Administration was suppose to appoint a special inspector general to watch over the process. It’s been six weeks since the bill has passed, where’s this inspector at? Is the Bush White House interviewing people now? What’s taking so long?

This is why the whole idea of spending $700 billion was a dumb plan. Forget the fact that we don’t have the money, the sheer volume of such a blank check to the Treasury makes it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to impose necessary oversight.

So you ask, “alight Jacob stop whining and give me some solutions!” Okay, okay, calm down. I’ve written about some ideas before but bear in mind, I am no economist. I’m a college freshman, I don’t claim to know much about the economy and how to fix it, but from listening to smart people and applying some simple common sense, I’ve come up with a few ideas.

1.) Lower the Corporate Tax Rate to 25% or lower – This one is a no brainer. Corporations pay too much tax in this country. Let’s take a quick look at ten countries with the lowest corporate taxes, in order they are; Vanuatu, Maldives, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Zambia, West Bank Gaza, and Botswana.

Omitting West Bank, because their economy is the worst in the world which is completely out of step with the other nine, the average GDP growth of those countries is 5.91%, nearly three times higher than the GDP growth of the United States (when comparing numbers from 2007 to 2008).

The seven fastest growing economies in the world (in order, based on GDP growth); Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Timor-Leste, Angola, Armenia, Equatorial Guinea, and Georgia, all have a lower statutory corporate tax rate than the United States.

Now obviously the tax rate in these countries isn’t the only factor for their economic boom. Most of these countries rely on only a few exports as their economic engine. But the sheer fact that a country like Azerbaijan, which I doubt any of you have heard of, has a lower tax rate than the United States and has a GDP growth of 23%, is embarrassing.

2.) Lower the foreign profits tax (I made up the name, but the tax exists) – When a U.S. based company owns a foreign subsidiary they have two options when allocating the profit. One, leave it in the foreign country and be subject to their corporate income tax. Or two, bring it back to the United States and be subject to our corporate income tax. Seeing as how the United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, most companies opt to leave it in the originating country.

This is a problem. U.S. based companies are investing in foreign countries rather than the United States. So in 2004 we experimented, and lowered the tax rate on foreign profits to 5.25%. The result was over $390 billion of cash being brought to the States and somewhere in the neighborhood of $14 billion in tax revenue for the government.

We need to go back to the 5.25% rate. Its success was wild, and with many auto makers owning foreign subsidiary companies, they would begin to bring some of that profit back here, and reinvest it in America.

3.) Lower the capital gains tax – History has proven that when the capital gains tax is low, the government makes more in tax revenue. When the capital gains tax is high…well…you get the picture. This goes back to giving money to the people who know how to spend it best, the ones who earned it.

4.) Cut spending – If we’re going to lower all these taxes it will more than likely decrease tax revenues, if for no other reason than people aren’t making many capital gains currently and businesses have less money to bring over to the states. We need to cut government spending and it starts with the entitlement programs (after all that makes up 34% of the budget). Then we need to freeze spending, take a good long look in the mirror, and find programs and salaries and jobs in the government we can cut. It won’t be easy but it’ll have a domino effect on the economy.

So there’s my very simplified fix to this crisis. Obviously more can be done, and needs to be done, but hey, that’s a start.

UPDATE: I mentioned the muteness from Capitol Hill on Paulson’s bait and switch on the American people. Well, there’s at least three Senators who have voiced concern over the change. Tom Coburn, Richard Burr, and David Vitter have sent a letter to Paulson voicing their dissent to his decision. Michelle Malkin has the letter.

–jb