James Kvaal, national policy director for the Obama for America team sent out an email today brandishing the “isn’t this obvious” card, wondering why Republicans were so unwilling to pass legislation that made insider trading among congress-critters illegal. From the email…

Right now, members of Congress can make personal investment decisions based on confidential information they get in the course of regulating industries and doing their work.

It’s kind of unbelievable that this isn’t already illegal. President Obama wants to make it illegal once and for all — no one should profit from inside information about the very businesses they’re supposed to be regulating.

Today, the Democratic leadership in the Senate voted to move forward on a bill to extend to Congress the same strict rules that apply to anyone else whose job gives them access to sensitive information about businesses. This legislation is expected to pass the Senate with bipartisan support later this week.

But Republicans in the House have yet to move on it.

There aren’t a lot of good reasons to disagree with this bill. So the question here isn’t how many people we have to persuade, but simply how loudly we can speak up to prevent the House Republicans from dodging this issue.

Members of Congress already have to disclose financial information every year. Check out the Financial Disclosure section starting on page 247 of the House Ethics Manual. Every financial transaction more than $1,000 must be disclosed … even if they set up a college fund for their 10 year-old daughter.

Instead of cutting off those in Congress from making personal investment decisions or implementing more rules and reporting, why don’t we just limit the power the federal government has from picking winners and losers? I know, I sound like a broken record but almost every major issue in Washington can be solved if we take the time to consider this solution. Sure, you’d have issues a the state level with corruption, but with the action closer to home, state residents would certainly become more involved and bring the pitchforks during visits to their local town halls and state capitals when the need to call out corruption surfaces.

I’m not advocating violence, just pointing out that politicians would not be able to get away with most of the crap they get away with now since the decisions are made on another planet … in some parallel universe called Washington, DC.

As I noted, the problem with this legislation is that it treats a symptom and not the disease. We have to ask the question, will legislation like the STOCK Act do any good or will it actually embolden the congress-critters to do more “insider trading” once the rules are specified?

The legislation – and this post is specific to the law as it would be applied to congress-critters – reads in part…

… prohibit any person from buying or selling any commodity for future delivery or swap while such person is in possession of material nonpublic information, as defined by the Commission, relating to any pending or prospective legislative action relating to such commodity …

From Jonathan Macey in the Wall Street Journal on Dec. 13, with my emphasis in bold.

On closer examination, it appears that what Congress really wants is to keep making the big bucks that come from trading on inside information but to trick those outside of the Beltway into believing they are doing something about this corruption. For one thing, the rules proposed for Capitol Hill are not like those that apply to the rest of us. Ours are so broad and vague that prosecutors enjoy almost unfettered discretion in deciding when and whom to prosecute.

Congress’s rules would be clear and precise. And not too broad; in fact they are too narrow. For example, the proposed rules in the Stock bill are directed only at information related to pending legislation. It would appear that inside information obtained by a congressman during a regulatory briefing, or in another context unrelated to pending legislation, would not be covered.

So, currently we require full disclosure once per year. New rules would require reporting every 90 days – of course, their budgets will be increased to cover the additional cost of reporting and we’ll pay that tab in more taxes – and ensure congress-critters can not trade on information they learn from information related to pending or prospective legislation.

In other words, the STOCK Act writes into law that all information gathered by politicians inside the beltway – except when specifically associated with pending or prospective legislation – would be fair game to trade on. It will not stop insider trading, and will no doubt actually increase the amount of “insider trading” by the elected beltway elite, simply because their rules are clearly defined and very narrow. I’m telling you … most of the information gathered by politicians is not directly associated with pending or prospective legislation.

When President Obama talks about change in Washington, just remember it’s a total whitewash.

Really now, please tell me. If it is constitutional for the federal government to create a board that would arbitrarily determine that the oil and gas industry have “made enough money,” and implemented a 100 percent tax on “excess” profits, what would stop them – or any state government for that matter – from doing this to any other industry?

Damn communists, all of them. From The Hill.

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a “windfall profit tax” as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.

The nutcase who has introduced this legislation three days ago is Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). The five co-sponsors are Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), Rep. James Langevin (D-R.I), and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).

If you’re so inclined to read this garbage, The Hill has the PDF of the proposed legislation.

The top three (Market Cap) oil and gas companies, Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron, have net profit margins for the past year that average 7.7 percent.

Hewlett-Packard and Dell are at 5.56 percent and 4.28 percent respectively. Apple’s net profit margin is 23.95 percent. Microsoft is at 33.1 percent.

Political. Grandstanding. Bull Feathers.

Palin certainly is familiar with dealing with corruption and graft at the state level, but the federal government issues in Washington D.C. can not be solved my more rules. There are plenty of rules for congress-critters and more rules would result in more loopholes.

The real reason there is such a huge problem in Washington? There are – quite sincerely - unlimited opportunities for members of Congress and their staff to make a buck. Palin writes…

How do politicians who arrive in Washington, D.C. as men and women of modest means leave as millionaires? How do they miraculously accumulate wealth at a rate faster than the rest of us? How do politicians’ stock portfolios outperform even the best hedge-fund managers’? I answered the question in that speech: Politicians derive power from the authority of their office and their access to our tax dollars, and they use that power to enrich and shield themselves.

Well there you go governor, you answer the question right there. The problem is not just that they have access to our tax dollars, it’s that they have access to a tremendously huge stockpile of our tax dollars. We send them so much money each year to distribute “back to the people” they literally have to create new (duplicate) programs, build gigantic airports that have few if any passengers and yes, build bridges to nowhere.

Palin suggests a few reforms, and some of them will certainly help. But here is one example.

We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.

OK. What about stock transactions of more than $5,000 for family and friends? Parents? Sons and daughters? How about first cousins once removed?

More rules. More rules with more loopholes. More symptoms of the disease.

The real solution is to take so much power away from the congress-critters in Washington as possible. You know, all that Article 1, Section 8 talk. Transport that power back to the states and the people – a.k.a. state legislatures. Does this mean we want government completely removed from our lives? Of course not, the states can more effectively do what the federal government fails to do today.

When you see the first congress-critters resign their position within the beltway with the goal to become a state legislator or governor, we’ll know we’re moving in the right direction and doing the right thing for our country.

[Read that last line again ... if you like it, send this article to friends and share on the social network of your choice. Thanks!]

From the Washington Examiner.

… President Obama told a Hispanic group in Washington Wednesday that when it comes to the issue of immigration, “I’d like to work my way around Congress.”

“As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own,” Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “There are times where — until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again — I’d like to work my way around Congress.”

He implies enforcement – or non-enforcement – of laws is really subject to his own opinion, depending on the day and the crowd he’s speaking in front of.

This seems to be a topic he keeps bringing up. I’d like to do this for you, but unfortunately, we have to work with Congress to get things done … you know, those elected officials you sent to Washington…

The foundation of our country is crumbling.

As the following graph shows (courtesy of Wikipedia), it isn’t the control of the White House so much as it is control of the House and Senate:

Notice that when purple (split control) the graph generally increases or flattens, when blue (Democrat controlled) it generally increases, sometimes sharply, and when red (Republican controlled) the curve tends to flatten or decrease.   This trend persists, even today, as the latest purple region is starting to flatten, although the jury is still out on the effect that the TEA party influence will have after 2012.  I suspect that their influence will make the purple curve look more like the trends for the full Republican (red) control, but Øbama’s possible reelection might offset that.

Some things never change…

It’s the same stupid playbook they used during the summer of 2008 when Democrat lawmakers openly suggested the federal government should just take over the oil industry.

Why does the media continue to group all of the big oil companies together when they report profits? Tell me … for what other industry does the media do this? When they report on the fast food industry profits, do they combine the earnings of Burger King, McDonalds, KFC, Chick-Fil-A and Taco Bell?

I think not. It’s pathetic journalism simply designed to push an agenda. Oil is bad.

The oil company profits are at about 6 percent. The top non-alcoholic beverage industry stocks average more than a 14 percent net profit margin. Pharmaceuticals are near 17 percent. Apple’s net profit margin is more than 20 percent.

Democrats and the media continue to use dollars when they should be using profit percentages. There is no excuse to not doing this unless they want to sensationalize a story.

Democrats have pulled these stunts in the past, and today – if you actually took the time to review what was said in the hearings – they stood their ground and made the Congress-critters look like fools.

Good for them.

Update: Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit points out it’s not about the price of gasoline, since just about every Democrat agrees the proposed legislation to take away the ability for US oil companies to write off expenses would not lower the price at all.

The government just wants more money … that money certainly does not belong to the stockholders of the companies …

From RepublicanSenate.gov…

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “You know, this is not going to change the price at the gasoline pump. That’s not the issue.  I don’t see that as an issue at all. The issue I see is who shares.” (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Hearing, 5/12/11)

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): “It will not reduce gasoline prices by one penny.” “I would just like to add my strong voice to urging my colleagues to read this bill, to look at it and understand the inherent unfairness in it, the lack of significant deficit reduction, and the fact that it will not, although it is being touted as, it will not reduce gasoline prices by one penny.” (Sen. Landrieu, Floor Remarks, 5/11/11)

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-AK): “It won’t decrease prices at the pump.” “There is a lot of talk right now about ending tax incentives for oil and gas industry, but the high profits right now of these companies are easy targets. But one thing Alaskans know, just because you have an easy target doesn’t mean it is the right thing to shoot. It won’t decrease prices at the pump for our families and small businesses. It will discourage companies, especially the independents, from domestic investment and job creation.” (Sen. Begich, Floor Remarks, 5/11/11)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “This was never intended to talk about lowering prices.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 5/11/11)

SEN. ROBERT MENENDEZ (D-NJ): “Nobody has made the claim that this bill is about reducing gas prices.” (“McCaskill: Savings From Cutting Oil Tax Breaks Should Be For Deficit Reduction,” The Hill’s E2 Wire Blog, 5/10/11)

Not waiting for that mess to “play out”, the House, in the first week of April, voted 240 to 179 (who are those 179) to tell the FCC that it couldn’t to that.  So far, Harry Reid’s (D. Nv.) Senate has done nothing.

Then we had the NLRB’s decision to file a complaint against Boeing because Boeing had the temerity to build a new plant, not in “unionized” Washington State, but in South Carolina, a “right to work state”.  In other words, if you work in South Carolina, unlike Washington State, you can join a union if you want, but, are not required to do so.

This week, Senator Lamar Alexander (R.Tn.) is introducing a bill in the Senate to “rein in” the NLRB’s attempt to hijack business decisions, unless, of course, those decisions are favorable to unions.

This is an administration run amok.  Fortunately, some in Congress are beginning to realize that.

From the Wall Street Journal, with a hat tip to Big Government.

A report from the nonpartisan GAO, to be released Tuesday, compiles a list of redundant and potentially ineffective federal programs, and it could serve as a template for lawmakers in both parties as they move to cut federal spending and consolidate programs to reduce the deficit. Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), who pushed for the report, estimated it identifies between $100 billion and $200 billion in duplicative spending. The GAO didn’t put a specific figure on the spending overlap. …

The agency found 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality; 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation; 47 for job training and employment; and 56 to help people understand finances, according to a draft of the report reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Eighty-two programs to improve teacher quality? That does not include the state, regional and local programs.

No matter what Vice President Al Gore did, or Vice President Joe Biden did in their attempts to “reform” government … this report is proof that the federal government is the best at creating redundant programs that sound really good and keep thousands of federal employees on the payroll.

Read all of Damian Paletta’s article over at WSJ and we’ll see if the main stream media picks up on this or if President Obama responds. Unlikely?

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) calls out the Muppet Lobby in his blog post yesterday.

Last year, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was allocated $420 million by Congress. And, President Obama is asking Congress to give a whopping $451 million to CPB in his new budget, even though the nation is more than $14 trillion in debt.

For those without a calculator, President Obama’s budget increases funding for this well-loved side-show by more than 7.1 percent.

The fuzzy characters have also been used by government departments to promote Democrat legislation.

Elmo has been particularly busy. Elmo has testified before Congress about the need for more funding for the arts and participated in other press conferences to increase spending on public broadcasting. Elmo even went on the lecture circuit last year with Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genochowski to promote government-funded broadband Internet.

At this rate, Americans can expect Big Bird to start filming commercials to hype ObamaCare.  If the FCC can borrow Elmo from PBS to build support for their plans, what’s to stop the Department of Health and Human Services from feeding Big Bird some lines?

When people – like say members of the TEA Party – suggest public broadcasting should be de-funded by the government, public broadcasting officials scoff at the idea, correctly stating the government’s contribution to their overall budget is not all that much as a percentage. They collect most of their funding through private sources and business sponsors.

Then when reality hits – after Republicans take control of the US House – they bring out the fuzzy guys and the tears.

Private broadcasters need to make enough money to pay all of their expenses, salaries and production costs and make a few more dollars for the investors. That profit is important, as if there were no investors, there would be no productions or jobs.

Public broadcasting only needs to meet their expenses, salaries - the Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received almost $1 million dollars in compensation in 2008 – and production costs without the concern to make a profit for investors.

Let’s say a really good year for a media giant would be a 10 to 15 percent profit. Curiously, the federal government provides public broadcasting about 15 percent of their funding.

Check out this story by William Douglas from McClatchy Newspapers. When it comes to Big Bird, I guess the “more sensitive tone” is out. My emphasis in bold, angry, bright red for effect.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have set their sights on CPB as part of their effort to slash $61 billion from a government spending bill being debated this week. They would end CPB’s funding, which totals $445 million for fiscal 2012 – or 0.01 percent [ROTFLMAO]of President Barack Obama’s proposed $3.73 trillion budget.

Many conservatives want to kill CPB – which subsidizes the Public Broadcasting Service, National Public Radio and 1,300 locally owned and operated radio and TV stations nationwide – because they don’t believe in taxpayer-subsidized news media, and because many think the organizations lean left.

Lean left? Have you seen a muppet out promoting the Appleseed Project?

With the House speaker’s gavel again in their hands, conservative anger still fresh over NPR’s firing of commentator Juan Williams, and public opinion calling loudly for a less debt-ridden government, House Republicans are expected to vote this week to gut CPB.

Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin’s site:

Someday far into the future, people might look back at the fact that a country suffocating beneath a $14 trillion debt continued to entertain pleas for cash from cartoon characters, muppets and public trough lampreys in Congress (pardon the redundancy) and chuckle, but for me that day is not today.

Graphic courtesy CreativeMinorityReport.com

Remember all the czars? Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit notes legislation by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) introduced on Jan. 5 (H.R. 59) would “define advisors often characterized as Czars and to provide that appropriated funds may not be used to pay for any salaries and expenses associated with such advisors”. The full text of the legislation is not yet available, and I’m not sure it will go anywhere, but I really do think it would be a good idea for the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches to clearly define the “power” positions in the Executive Branch.

President Obama seems to have come up with an official department of well – everything – during the first year of his administration. The power grab was real, and the former Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.) complained about it. Previous administrations including Bush 43 expanded the reach of the Executive Branch as well, but not to the extent of Obama. (Bush had about 32 compared to Obama’s 39 and Clinton’s eight.)

A Malkin post from 2009 has some background, and her book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies, highlights the shenanigans of some of the Obama czars.

Malkin concludes…

It’s time for the rest of the Democrat minority to “reach across the aisle” and rein in out-of-control bureaucrats’ power with a “new spirit of cooperation.”

Common ground!

We’ll see Michelle, we’ll see…