What Do We Know About Obama?

A Few Legitimate Questions By a female Obama supporter who voted for him for president. This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. I voted for Obama. McCain was a Washington insider and we don't need any more of them. I have changed my mind three times, since then. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. I started thinking "where does all the money come from for President Obama"?  I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's history for my own peace of mind. Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California.  He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies.  "Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.  During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan, where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they were in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia ? It's not cheap to say the least.  My girls asked me; where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe it's none of my business? After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000  a year. Why Chicago?  Why not New York?  He was already living in New York. By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery several times in the past and in 2011 Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association".  About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School ? Where did he get the money for Law School ? More student loans? His family has no money that's for sure. After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what I discovered? They represented "Rezar" which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago.  In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race.  In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for this property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire, loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko. Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Am I going nuts or is there a pattern here? On May 10, 2008, The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas," which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iran, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things."  What the heck does that mean? Oh, and by the way, remember Obama's college roommates that were born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from?  The poor and middle class in this country?  Or could it be from the Middle East ? And the final bit of news: on September 7, 2009, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith".  When questioned, "he made a mistake."  Some mistake, huh? All of the above information I got on-line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia: Barack Obama, Tony Rezko, and Valerie Jarrett.  Daily Times: Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008. Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this? As Arsenio Hall would say.----"HUMMMMMMM! Does something stink or is it my imagination?" These are legitimate questions for our president. Rachelle Derrough Provider - M.D., RS - PHYSICIANS FOR WOMEN CoxHealth

The Problem in Europe

Eye of the Hurricane

2012 June 18 - 8:13 ET

Well, that’s a relief. The worst possible outcome from Greece was avoided. Now, it is on to the next crisis. It could be Spain, Italy, France, or even Greece again. The European developments will occur against a backdrop of slowing global economic growth and sluggish earnings.

Reflections on the Greek Election

The market avoided a potentially severe negative event as a result of the Greek elections. It appears as if a coalition government will be formed that seeks to avoid Greece leaving the eurozone – at least for now.

The elimination of a negative, however, is not the same as a positive.  Greece still has a long way to go before it is on the path to sustainable fiscal and economic conditions.

Greece must still:

1. Establish a coalition government. The two parties expected to form a government have just 162 of the 300 seats in parliament. It will be fragile.
2. Develop a credible fiscal plan that accommodates additional bailouts. The deficit is currently projected to run at 5% to 6% of GDP this year.
3. Deal with an economy that is imploding. Real GDP has fallen about 15% total over the past four years. It is expected to decline 5% this year.
4. Prevent capital outflows that were reportedly very high in recent weeks.
5. Deal with the reality that a county can not pay pensions of 80% to retirees at 58 when fertility rates are just 1.52. Birth rates have been below replacement level (2.1) for three decades. The actuarial math is undeniable – it implies fiscal calamity.

None of this will be easy. The unemployment rate is 22%. The risk of civil unrest is high (and understandable).  Life will be very hard in Greece for quite some time.


All that the election did was prevent an immediate crisis of the country leaving the euro-zone and precipitating a credit crisis throughout Europe.

None of Greece’s underlying problems have been solved by the election. Any relief rally in the market will be short-lived.

Spain and Italy and France, Oh My!

Greece is just 3% of the eurozone economy. There are bigger concerns.  Spain is over 13% of the eurozone economy. The problem in Spain is that a massive bubble in the housing market has burst, undermining the stability of the banking system.

The unemployment rate is 24% and the economy is dead in the water.  The announced banking bailout in early June has yet to be finalized, and there are doubts it will do much more than prevent a crisis.

Spain has a massive government fiscal deficit and faces demographic problems similar to Greece. Spanish 10-year bond yields went over 7% this morning. Whether 6% or 7% is ultimately an unsustainable level is arguable, but the reality is that either compounds very quickly, particularly when the economy and government revenues are flat.

Spanish fiscal issues could quickly turn into a market crisis the next few weeks.


France also has major fiscal problems and appears to be in denial.  The election on Sunday of a Socialist parliament in France means that needed reforms won’t even get a look.  France will choose “growth” over “austerity” in that false dichotomy which simply allows the government to spend more money while not addressing the long-term structural problems that are causing deficits.

The Socialists have promised to hire more government workers and are not expected to increase the retirement age. Spending more money in the short-term may boost the Keynesian math of GDP, but spending money in ways which do not increase productivity won’t help make France more competitive long term.

Italy deserves respect in that its primary government deficit (excluding interest payments) is in surplus. Interest payments have to be made, however, and Italy’s economy is also stagnant with the same demographic problems plaguing Greece. Italy can not be ruled out as a potential crisis instigator in the months ahead.

Global Economic Growth

The potential for a credit contagion from Europe remains serious. Unfortunately, these concerns will persist in a worsening global economic environment.

The problems are well known. Growth in China is slowing, though the degree is hard to quantify.  China's real GDP has grown over 8% per year since 2002, but is expected to grow “only” 7.0% to 7.5% in 2012. Second quarter growth is expected below 7.0% so a second half rebound is optimistically forecast to get total growth back above 7.0%.

European economic growth will be near zero this year, and could well be in recession.  US second quarter growth is on track for about a 2% real annual rate. That follows an average of about 2.3% over the past four quarters. That is below long-term trends. 

Sluggish economic growth around the world will make the task of fiscal reform extremely difficult for Europe. It will not be possible for countries to rely on revenue growth to pull them out of their downward fiscal spirals.

What It All Means

Last week’s column was about the Spanish bank bailout and how it only partly addresses the issues in that country.

This week’s column is about how the Greek election simply eliminates a downside risk for the market but offers no positive developments.

Next week’s column will be on the sluggish trend in US real GDP and second quarter earnings expectations (barring some major development from Europe). Unfortunately, earnings estimates have been coming down. The earnings outlook is not worrisome, but it isn't exciting either.

The litany of negative trends and risks isn’t about to stop just because it appears that Greece may form a coalition government that will attempt to stay in the eurozone.

US equities represent tremendous relative value. They are extremely cheap by almost any measure. At this time, however, the focus is correctly on the risk associated with equities rather than the potential long-term rewards. It may stay that way through the summer.

Long-term investing will prove worthwhile, but there are plenty of short-term problems to overcome first. The Greek elections this weekend simply present a lull before the next storm from Europe hits.

Dick Green

Founder and Chairman, Briefing.com 

Absurd U.S. Tax Policy

U.S. Tax Law Pushes American Businesses Overseas

By GARY SHAPIRO

Posted 06/14/2012

Should American businesses invest and hire overseas? The answer you get depends on whom you ask. Many Americans think businesses should only invest in America. Businesses investing abroad are called everything from "greedy" to "immoral" to "unpatriotic."

Yet, all of the American business leaders I know would rather keep most, if not all, of their operations in the United States. So why do they shift overseas?

Sometimes it's just good business. Being near customers helps sales. As U.S. economic growth has slowed and Asian economies have grown, it makes sense to invest in other, faster-growing markets.

It is also often cheaper to manufacture abroad. The time, cost and drudgery of foreign trips, and the added expense and delay of overseas shipping, are offset by lower labor and input costs. But cost savings are rarely the only reason.

Fencing Out Workers

A big factor is that U.S. laws encourage overseas investment. The United States taxes overseas income if a company attempts to invest it back in America, so businesses are incentivized to leave their foreign earnings abroad. Every company with overseas revenue faces this perverse incentive.

In addition, the U.S. not only has the world's highest corporate tax rate, but it is also one of the few nations to tax the global earnings of multinational companies based here.

Democrats often accuse American businesses of acting selfishly with regard to their overseas profits, but how are they supposed to act? Should they willingly hand over millions of dollars in taxes on income that — in their view — has already been taxed?

It's a flight of fancy to expect companies to go against their interests and the demands of their investors. Instead, the U.S. should lower the penalties and encourage companies to reinvest their earnings right here in America.

Our immigration laws also encourage investment in overseas jobs. Absurd visa limits, rules and quotas restrict U.S. companies from hiring and bringing to our nation the world's best and brightest employees. This means that much of the talent companies need to innovate and grow is living outside the U.S.

If those highly skilled workers cannot come here, then U.S. companies will go to them. So with the money companies have parked abroad, they buy or build overseas facilities and hire whoever they want.

For instance, Google maintains offices in Britain, Brazil and Canada for employees who cannot get visas in the U.S. In an in-depth 2009 New York Times article on the problem, these employees expressed that they would prefer to set down roots in the U.S., and certainly companies like Google would prefer to have them here. But our absurd visa restrictions ensure that they don't.

Lawsuits Fly

The United States also has one of the highest concentrations of lawyers among developed nations — with twice as many lawyers as in the European Union — a litigious environment, tough and growing anti-discrimination laws, a heavy pro-union atmosphere, plaintiff-favorable tort laws and an increasingly regulatory federal government. All of these factors encourage U.S. companies to invest abroad.

Despite all of this, if a U.S. company with global sales keeps the bulk of its employees in America, our laws sadly encourage a foreign company to buy it. Since non-U.S. earnings are not subject to the world's highest corporate tax rates, transferring ownership overseas saves a company's owners huge amounts in taxes.

It's crazy that our laws encourage businesses to be sold to foreign owners, but it's true.

However, all of these disadvantages to U.S. companies are fixable. Congress just has to decide that if it wants more U.S. investment and jobs, then it must start seeing business as the source rather than the greedy "one percent." This shift in rhetoric and policy requires leadership over politics and a focus on business for America rather than business as usual.

• Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association, the U.S. trade association representing more than 2,000 consumer electronics companies, and author of the book, "The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore the American Dream."

Market Medicine NOT ObamaCare

No Need For ObamaCare If Providers Are Liberated

By CHARLES J. WILLEY
Posted 06/13/2012

We continue to read with dismay about the adverse effects of ObamaCare ... the crafty way it was passed, the 2,700-page bill no one read, the "Cornhusker Kickback" and other secret deals, the hidden regulation and costs. Now our fears about the bill are reality.

The Department of Health and Human Services has generated thousands of more pages of regulation. Even the government admits ObamaCare will cost at least twice its estimates and will increase health care costs by $2,000 annually per family. Many will not keep their current insurance and doctors.

Practicing doctors, who know best how to care for patients most cost effectively, are still today left out of the health care debate . .. a small voice among powerful lobbyists, politicians and regulators. Doctors are particularly skeptical about ObamaCare: 90% say premiums will go up; 70% say it will drive the best and brightest out of the profession; 65% say quality of care for their patients will decline. I am one of those doctors who fears for my patients' future care.

Real health care reform is possible and necessary. But it won't come from government regulation dictating methods of practice and health insurance purchase requirements. Over-reaching regulation depersonalizes patients and dissociates them from its demoralized doctors, favors hospitals that can manipulate the system, guarantees profit for giant insurance companies without regard to health outcome, and disenfranchises patients from authority over, and responsibility for, their own health and its costs.

Real health care reform comes from eliminating the misguided rules and incentives created by government and other interlopers into the patient-doctor covenant.

The high cost and limited access in our current system is caused by government. Here are a few examples:

Medicare currently pays hospitals two to four times more than a nonhospital vendor for the exact same stress test or MRI.

Government bans physician-owned specialty hospitals, such as orthopedic surgery centers, forever relegating joint replacement to be performed in the same high-cost operating suites as those used for cases involving puss, risking devastating prosthesis infection.

Doctors and nurses spend more time on regulatory paperwork than patient care. There is no patient-centered rationale for this regulation. In fact, these policies deny choices, diminish care, and increase costs.

The effect on my profession has been catastrophic. Doctors now need to function like lawyers if they care for Medicare patients, complying with thousands of regulations that no one understands, under threat of criminal penalties.

Many run for cover to hospital employment, whose expertise has sadly evolved to managing regulation to advantage every next government incentive. The results: soaring costs while individualized patient care suffers.

Real health care reform should encourage practice models (and their coordinated financing plans) that combine clinical and economic responsibility with our long-term patient relationship. We know this practice model works.

For 30 years, I've led physician groups who care for populations of seniors — with higher than average illness burden — at much lower than average total cost of care, with better outcomes.

I presently care for a regular Medicare population with quality rankings above 90% on six of seven measures. For an 11% higher illness burden, my total cost of care is 72% lower than average (CMS Quality and Resource Use Report, March 2, 2012).

I also provide superior care for 1,000 Medicare Advantage members, whose illness burden, quality and satisfaction scores are even higher, under a richer benefit plan than Medicare, at a cost of care which is 50% less than average.

If all Medicare beneficiaries were cared for under this model, Medicare could be administered for $290 billion annually instead of its current $580 billion, saving $2.9 trillion in 10 years, without any cuts, serving healthier, happier seniors.

Our practice model lowers cost by achieving lasting population health that finances a rich benefit plan so patients can afford recommended care, resulting in high patient satisfaction. We intervene early and often, minimizing the misery and costs of catastrophic illness.

We transfer a manageable portion of the risk for cost-of-care to the patients in the form of copayments, creating a meaningful short-term economic incentive to be healthy and respect their fiduciary duty to the health risk transfer pool.

We schedule fewer patients for longer well-placed visits, treat more patient situations ourselves, and work closely to lead specialists and hospitals to high quality, efficient care of patients. We use information technology to anticipate population care needs, rather than waiting for patients to become sick, avoiding the 'systems failure' of an emergency room visit.

We aggressively promote wellness through leadership and coaching, even paying YMCA membership fees helping seniors exercise and socialize. Many other medical groups use this model with similar quality, access, and low cost.

We don't need to reduce quality and access to care or create a massive government-mandated system to improve our health care. These do not benefit patient care, access, or cost. Medical groups know that we just need an environment that is free of ObamaCare and liberated from the pre-ObamaCare regulations that exist only to protect well-entrenched fiefdoms currently controlling health care.

Historically, we know that free markets provide free societies with competitive pricing, improved access for all, and greater innovation. They can do the same for health care. Restoring free markets with the advantages of information technology can redefine the existing strained patient-doctor covenant for the best result: high quality, low cost, long-term health for all.

The new scrutiny of the patient (the customer) armed with the bright light of information technology will greatly diminish the need for government regulation. We must liberate health care providers to innovate, compete and be rewarded not only on quality care for patients, but also on their performance and costs in achieving long-term population health.

Doing so will improve long-term citizen health and access to care, and reverse rising health care costs. The solution hides in strategically reducing government's role in health care.

This modest model solution already exists; it just needs room to breathe.

• Willey, an internist, is the founding CEO of several medical groups and a Medicare Advantage health plan, currently practicing with six physicians and five nurse practitioners as Innovare Health Advocates in St. Louis.

Government: Rotten to the Core!

Where are Jim, Tim, and Franklin now?


Just in case you might have wondered how their ineptitude affected their lives after they ruined so many dreams and lives.  Where are Jim, Tim and Franklin now?

Here's a quick look into the three former Fannie Mae executives who brought down Wall Street.


Franklin Raines - was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting activities. Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 million in benefits." The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear.


Tim Howard - was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie.  Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 million!


Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 million.

***************************

WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

FRANKLIN RAINES?

Raines works for the Obama Campaign as his Chief Economic Advisor.

TIM HOWARD?

Howard is a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama under Franklin Raines.

JIM JOHNSON?

Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.


Read Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Created the Worst Financial Crisis of Our Time by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner for all of the painful details.


Our government is rotten to the core! Vote in 2012 ... it is the most important election of our lives ... and our children's lives!

Congress Can Learn From JP Morgan

Congress Shows Real Chutzpah Questioning Dimon's $2 Bil Loss

Posted 06/13/2012 06:40 PM ET

Banks: The forced appearance of JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon before Congress to defend his company's $2 billion loss was steeped in irony. Congress, after all, is the biggest money loser of all time.

In the first of two planned appearances, Dimon was appropriately contrite, admitting his firm's trading strategy was "poorly conceived and vetted" and adding: "We have let a lot of people down, and we are sorry for it."

Fair enough. But let's put it into perspective, shall we?

JPMorgan lost the money while hedging its own portfolio with its own money. Those who've claimed that stricter application of the so-called Volcker Rule would have prevented this are wrong. The law does not apply to hedges, only to a bank's proprietary trading.

So the loss really shouldn't be a matter for Congress.

No taxpayer money was put at risk. No bailouts were requested or required. JPMorgan Chase is a massive bank, $2.3 trillion in size at the time of its loss, with $189 billion in net worth, $100 billion in revenue and profits of $19 billion last year.

The $2 billion loss didn't endanger the banking system — or even JPMorgan Chase itself.

Heads rolled, shareholders lost money and the company took a hit. Ina Drew, the chief investment officer, lost her job. That's the appropriate punishment — losses meted out by the market, capitalism at work.

How does that compare to our Democrat-led Congress, which has the worst fiscal record in history?

President Obama and his allies in Congress have racked up over $5 trillion in deficits and debts in just over three years, pushing total U.S. indebtedness to $16 trillion. And, according to our own federal government, future unfunded liabilities exceed $50 trillion.

JP Morgan? How about the Post Office hemorrhaging red ink at the rate of about $12 billion a year?

Heck, the Obama administration wasted billions subsidizing bankrupt solar firms like Solyndra. And it's lost nearly $80 billion in bailing out GM and Chrysler. JPMorgan Chase's losses are nothing compared to that.

Even so, for some, JPMorgan's loss shows we need still more regulation. But regulators, like generals, always fight the last war. Today's regulations were put in place to take care of the last crisis.

Frankly, Congress isn't competent to do the job. We've had financial reform after reform, and yet every decade since the 1960s has featured at least one nasty financial crisis. It's a massive regulatory failure.

Even today, rules are being written to implement the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, with no fewer than five major government agencies involved. The rules will eventually run into the thousands of pages.

So what can be done? Well, a big reason for the U.S.' many financial crises is Congress and regulators deem some banks "too big to fail."

Real reform would start with getting rid of the "too big to fail" doctrine. Tell banks they'll no longer be bailed out, no matter what. Within months, you'll see banks lowering their risk profiles; some may even downsize.

Whatever changes emerge, one thing's for sure: Congress shows real chutzpah lecturing Wall Street on financial responsibility.

Obama: Four More Years!

Obama’s Hope ... And Climate Change

Posted 06/12/2012 06:44 PM ET

Election '12: President Obama plans to make climate change his top priority for his second term. No, that's not from The Onion, a humor publication, but the left-leaning New Yorker. What planet does this president live on?

'Obama has an ambitious second-term agenda," wrote Ryan Lizza in this week's New Yorker. "The President has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change," supposedly to "improve the world."

So forget about the abysmal jobless numbers above 8% for over three years, or the $15 trillion deficit that threatens to turn the U.S. into Greece. No, amid those very real calamities, climate change is more important.

If this isn't a sign of a president out of touch with reality, what is? If climate change is Obama's "most important" policy issue, then neither the Tea-Party-led victories around fiscal discipline — such as the Wisconsin vote, nor the West Virginia primary, here 40% of Democrats chose a jailbird to protest Obama's anti-coal agenda, made a dent on him.

Like a madman doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, it can only mean Obama intends to double-down on his green agenda if re-elected.

Already no president has ever spent money on "climate change" as he has. The Congressional Budget Office reports that since 1998, $99 billion has been spent among 14 agencies on "climate change." Of that, $35 billion was earmarked from the 2009 stimulus.

The top agency charged with enacting the Obama green agenda — the Department of Energy — has seen its budget soar from $24 billion in 2009 to $38 billion in 2012, the Office of Management and Budget estimates.

But the public doesn't share the love.

Poll after poll since 2009 shows the public considers climate change dead last in importance. In 2012, Pew Research Center reported that 86% of the public considered the economy a top priority, and 82% considered jobs in that slot. Global warming ranked dead last at 25% — and that represented a 13% decline from 2007.

The issue failed even among environmentalists, according to a 2011 Gallup poll, who ranked global warming dead last at 51% in a 2011 poll of concerns.

That coincides well with the fact that climate change is rapidly being exposed as junk science — glaciers aren't melting as claimed, but data are being fudged and contradictory findings repressed in multiple incidents.

Has Obama learned nothing? The economy topped the voters' list of concerns in 2009, but Obama bulled ahead with health care reform anyway. Now this.

The one thing that can be concluded from this policy priority is that on the environment, Obama is planning more of the same — and the voters be damned.