Bailout Prize Patrol video – submit and win $27,599!

After finally getting a few minutes to watch this video, I did. It was a pretty good parody. The best line…

Schumer (D-N.Y.): Rudeness won’t get you anywhere guys.

Prize Patrol: Neither will you stealing the taxpayers money sir.

The video is courtesy of Check out their contest as the look for the best 30 second video opposing government bailouts. You could win $27,599,’s calculation of one person’s bailout burden.

Do we have any creative video directors out there?


More bailout funds for Citigroup?

You’ve got to be kidding me? After providing more than $40 billion in “support” funds to Citigroup during the first round of bailouts, they determine that it’s not working out too well.

Welcome Michelle Malkin readers. Thanks for stopping by, why not check out the rest of the site, and remember that Jim’s online and on the radio from 9 a.m. to noon ET weekdays!

Here is the news from an AP business writer on Yahoo News, with my emphasis added.

The U.S. government will exchange up to $25 billion in emergency bailout money it provided Citigroup Inc. for as much as a 36 percent equity stake in the struggling bank.

The deal announced Friday — the third attempt at a rescue plan for Citigroup in the past five months — is contingent on private investors also agreeing to a similar swap.


Malkin rightly refers to this as an EPIC FAIL.

Another day, another multi-billion-dollar bank bailout.

The Treasury Department is back with a half-baked plant to soak up 36 percent of ailing Citigroup. Because the first $45 billion worked so well!

The deal will convert nearly worthless common stock into preferred shares, put the taxpayers’ stake in the company at nearly 40 percent, and continue the borrow-spend-panic-bailout-repeat cycle.

Instant verdict: “Shares of Citi tumbled 56 cents, or 22.7 percent to $1.90 in premarket trading.”


Houston drops idea to pay off personal debt

A proposal to hand out $3,000 to individuals who did not have  good enough credit score to qualify for mortgages has been crossed off the Houston city council agenda this week.

The idea was to use the $3,000 to help individuals improve their credit score by a few points so they would qualify to buy a home.

Of course, it really does not matter that these individuals should not be buying a home in the first place.

The mayor got a bit embarrassed by all of the news coverage on Web sites like Drudge Report and nixed the idea before it got to council. You can bet if liberals were able to do this on the sly, it would have gone through and taxpayers would be paying off credit card debts and car loans for folks with crappy credit scores so they can buy a house that they can not afford.

From the Houston Chronicle

Mayor Bill White this afternoon announced that a plan for the city to pay off some debts for first-time home buyers has been pulled from tomorrow’s City Council agenda.

Council members are now professing their “embarrassment” about the proposal, which has hit the national news circuit, including, which picked up this morning’s Houston Chronicle story about the plan

“This issue has hit a nerve across this country,” said Councilwoman Anne Clutterbuck. “Not just here in the city of Houston. Giving people the ability to increase their credit score artificially because we’re allowing them to pay off their credit cards is exactly what got us into this (national economic) crisis in the first place.”

No kidding?

You Gunna Eat All That?

Sailors call it gulling. When someone picks the food off another person’s plate. Guys do it all the time and mostly it drives women crazy. This time though its a woman, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm on Fox News Sunday.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford makes a good case for not taking the Fed’s stimulus money, because it comes with strings. Listen closely because the strings would likely cost SC dearly. The example he uses is expanding unemployment benefits.

But not Granholm. For her its just quick cash and she wants it and his too.


My guess is because she doesn’t care about the strings and the added financial pressure it might put on her state … she’ll just come back and ask for more. By the way no matter where you live … this is your money.

Good for thee … but not for me

Just remember when you watch this … the political powers in Communist countries always told people what they could and could not do … and then reserved the very best for themselves. I’m not saying we’re headed in that direction, or that Congress reminds me of the Kremlin … I’m just saying that’s what the Commies did, that’s all. Two videos.

First … here’s what Congress told corporations what they could not do if they BORROWED government money.


Now here’s the blockbuster CNN report on how our Congresspeople, the very ones who are driving the country into bankruptcy, treat themselves.


I must admit it takes cashews to pull this off … but these are members of Congress … and it’s not your money anyway.

Reason 72 & 73: Government should not bail out corporations

President Obama is considering limiting executive pay to companies who are part of the TARP program, and GM and Chrysler are still in the courtroom fighting California’s proposed legislation to raise fuel efficiency standards. Again we highlight why government should not get involved with the free market.

First we have Obama’s marketing campaign to limit executive pay for companies getting bailout funds. From Reuters

President Barack Obama kicks off a campaign to rein in corporate compensation on Wednesday with rules limiting executive pay to $500,000 a year for companies getting taxpayer bailout funds in the future.

Sounds great doesn’t it? Boy, would it feel awesome to put the screws to the executives that screwed up! Let’s think about the reality of what will happen if this goes through.

  1. The best executives will move to other companies that are not receiving government help.
  2. The companies who must limit their executive pay will have a difficult time recruiting top talent.

I’m not saying that some of the top executives will stick around and do a good job, I’m just saying that most of the top executives will not. What would you do if you were a manager making $100k per year, but you’re company tells you “sorry, we have to cut your salary to $50k.”

You start looking for another gig, especially if there are other companies able to pay you more money for your talent. Those companies are able and willing to pay you more, since they do not have to deal with Obama regulations.

Courtesy Radio Vice Online commenter KrisT, as reported by the MSN Money Central site.

Earlier this week, Obama instructed the EPA to reconsider the case of California’s existing proposal to raise fuel-efficiency standards. The automakers have been fighting California and other states in court for several years. Last week, they pledged to continue that fight – despite the president’s instructions and, to a larger extent, his consistent and unequivocal insistence on a “green” auto industry. Except, as it stands now, the automakers are basically using their bailout money — from taxpayers — to turn around and sue…the taxpayers themselves.

Another perception problem for GM and Chrysler as they continue to fight proposed California efficiency standards for cars sold in the state.

In essence, the people are going to see this as GM and Chrysler spending our money in court fighting the government.

Reason 67: Government should not bail out corporations

When you are a large corporation that is having difficulty, one of the things you must considered is marketing. There is a time you need to spend money to make money.

You could cut your entire marketing budget, cancel all of the advertising, lay off the graphics staff that make the pretty brochures, and hope. Then pray. But that tactic could easily lead potential customers to think you are out of business.

When the government finances the rebirth of a company on the verge of bankruptcy with cash grants, favorable loan terms or guaranteed financing, corporations soon deal with the wrath of the people. The people who have funded your rebirth expect you not to mess up.

Perception is reality for companies like Citigroup, who kept plans in place to buy a new jet (since canceled I think) and Bank of America, who sponsored a large event at this year’s Super Bowl in Tampa. Brian Ross from ABC News investigates.

The event – known as the NFL Experience – was 850,000 square feet of sports games and interactive entertainment attractions for football fans and was blanketed in Bank of America logos and marketing calls to sign up for football-themed banking products.

The bank staunchly defended its sponsorship, saying it was a “business proposition” and part of its “growth strategy.”

Critics blasted the spending as a serious abuse of taxpayer money.

Here is the problem. What if buying the jet was the right thing to do? What if selling the two smaller jets and buying the new jet reduced costs for Citigroup by $5 million per year?

What if sponsoring the NFL Experience (at an undetermined cost) brought Bank of America more business and, in turn, BOA got a solid return on the investment? Good for the company. Good for the shareholders. Good for the government since they would get paid back quicker.

Hence we discover another problem with government funded bailouts. The perception of the people who see this type of “frivolous” spending could ensure the companies don’t move forward with decisions that could be the right move.

Outrage? Really?

President Obama expresses sudden outrage at bonuses paid to Wall Street executives during what is arguably one of the worst years evah on the Street. Here’s the outrage bite.


But wait … his Treasury Secretary …. well he got a nice little bonus even though he presided over the banking collapse.

Newly minted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s finances got a recent boost, thanks to a plump $435,000 severance payment from his old employer – the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

In addition, Geithner last year earned $411,000 as president of the New York Fed and got another $50,000 to $100,000 for unused vacation and comp time, according to a mandatory financial disclosure statement released by the Office of Government Ethics.

Oops. Then there’s Robert Rubin … Clinton’s Treasury Secretary.

He received more than $126 million in cash and stock during his eight years at Citigroup.[4] In January 2009, Rubin was named by Marketwatch as one of the “10 most unethical people in business”[5]

The outrage is deserved and it can’t be spun. Wall Street execs are out of touch. But the hypocrisy is thick. And may I say to you Wall Street folk … the minute you turn to the government for help … expect the government to cuff you.

Citigroup buys new corporate jet

With your money! I completely get the fact that for some large companies it makes sense to have one – or even a fleet – of aircraft in their stable, but this was not the time for Citigroup to place an order for a new corporate jet.

photo-falcon-jetThe Falcon 7X business jet is a pretty sweet ride, but if they really needed to buy a jet, couldn’t they have purchased a Gulfstream, an American based manufacture?

Going forward with the purchase of this new jet – and selling two jets that are only 10 years old – can only be described as a stupid marketing decision. Even if they say the purchase would save them a million dollars a year, the public will not be happy at all.

Have they ever heard of video conferencing?

From the New York Post

Beleaguered Citigroup is upgrading its mile-high club with a brand-new $50 million corporate jet – only this time, it’s the taxpayers who are getting screwed.

Even though the bank’s stock is as cheap as a gallon of gas and it’s burning through a $45 billion taxpayer-funded rescue, the airhead execs pushed through the purchase of a new Dassault Falcon 7X, according to a source familiar with the deal. …

Citigroup decided to get its new wings two years ago, when the financial-services giant was flush with cash, but it still intends to take possession of the jet this year despite its current woes, the source said.

“Why should I help you when what you write will be used to the detriment of our company?” replied Bill McNamee, head of CitiFlight Inc., the subsidiary that manages Citigroup’s corporate fleet, when asked to comment about the new 7X.

“What relevance does it have but to hurt my company?”

It’s not uncommon for large companies to pay a deposit on a new plane then cancel the order before delivery, according to a source in the corporate aviation business.

Citigroup execs are also quietly trying to unload two of their older Dassault 900EXs.

Those jets, nearly 10 years old, are worth an estimated $27 million each. They were still listed for sale yesterday on the Web site of Citigroup’s aviation broker, Aviation Professionals.

A company representative said she would not comment on “brokering both sides of the deal” when asked about the incoming Falcon 7X.

The Dassaults are part of CitiFlight’s Gulf Sierra fleet, which includes the two Falcon 900EXs, tail numbers N399GS and N588GS, currently for sale. FAA records show Citigroup reserved a new tail number, N488GS, possibly for the incoming 7X on Nov. 10 last year.

Gateway Pundit also has the story.

The weed of socialism…

…bears bitter fruit.  From the UK TIMES, by Iain Martin:

They don’t know what they’re doing, do they? With every step taken by the Government as it tries frantically to prop up the British banking system, this central truth becomes ever more obvious.

The country stands on the precipice. We are at risk of utter humiliation, of London becoming a Reykjavik on Thames and Britain going under. Thanks to the arrogance, hubristic strutting and serial incompetence of the Government and a group of bankers, the possibility of national bankruptcy is not unrealistic.

Ironically, this is the sort of government some folks we ought to have…