The Incredible Shrinking Clintons

The Incredible Shrinking Clintons

By Dick Morris
Posted: 05/26/09 05:22 PM [ET]

Asked why he was naming some of his rivals to top administration jobs, President Lyndon B. Johnson said it best: “I’d rather have them inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.” President Obama seems to echo Johnson’s management style in his handling of Bill and Hillary Clinton. By bringing them into his inner circle, he has marginalized them both and sharply reduced their freedom of action.

It may appear odd to describe a secretary of State as marginalized, but Obama has surrounded Hillary with his people and carved up her jurisdiction geographically. Former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine) is in charge of Arab-Israeli relations. Dennis Ross has Iran. Former U.N. Ambassador Dick Holbrooke has Pakistan and Afghanistan. And Hillary has to share her foreign policy role on the National Security Council (NSC) with Vice President Biden, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, CIA chief Leon Panetta, and NSC staffer Samantha Powers (who once called Hillary a “monster”).

With peers who are competitors and subordinates who can deal directly with the president, Hillary is reduced to announcing foreign aid packages for Pakistan while Holbrooke does the heavy lifting.

Part of Hillary’s problem is the institutional shrinking of the State Department. During the Bush years, while war raged, the Defense Department became more relevant to the conduct of foreign policy. And, under Obama, the financial crisis has propelled the Treasury into the forefront. State, with its emphasis on traditional diplomacy, has been forced to take a back seat. Even though Obama appointed Hillary, he clearly has not been willing to make her a co-president and confines her to the diminished role of her department.

For his part, Bill Clinton has been asked to be a special envoy to Haiti. Yes, Haiti. Obama’s predecessor asked the former president to orchestrate the response to the Asian tsunami and then to Hurricane Katrina. Obama gives him Haiti.

Meanwhile, both Clintons are effectively muzzled and cannot criticize Obama even as he reverses President Clinton’s free market proclivities and budget balancing discipline. Hillary, the supposed friend of Israel, must sit by quietly and watch Iran get the bomb while trying all the while to stop Israel from preventing it.

Bill can’t even make money. Denied the ability to accept speeches from foreign governments or their organs and fenced out of continuing his profitable relationship with the Emir of Dubai, he and his wife must accept the loss of the $13 million they spent on her campaign and sit by passively, unable to earn the money to replace it.

Just as Lincoln buried his rivals Seward, Chase and Stanton in the Cabinet and then on the Supreme Court, and Wilson buried Bryan at the State Department, so Obama has hidden his predecessor and his rival in plain sight at the upper reaches of the government.

How long will Hillary subject herself to this discipline? Likely as long as Obama is popular. Should his ratings fade, she might move away from the president and could even consider a primary contest against him in 2012. But while he is on top of his game, she’ll stay loyal.

But she is shrinking by the day. Once Obama’s equal — and before that his superior — she now looks tiny compared to the president. She doesn’t look like a president in waiting; she’s more like a senior staff member hoping to rise in the bureaucracy. No longer at the head of a movement or the symbol of rising women all over the world, she has faded into the State Department woodwork. She is much less visible than her predecessors Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, James Baker, Madeleine Albright or Condi Rice. She is even less in the public eye than was Al Haig during his one-year tenure. One has to go back to the likes of Warren Christopher or William Rogers to find a secretary of State as far down the totem poll. This diminished status has got to grate on her and on him. But they are trapped in Obama’s web and cannot easily escape.



Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their new best-selling book, Fleeced, go to dickmorris.com.

American capitalism gone with a whimper

American capitalism gone with a whimper

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin

The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina

27.04.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru

Barack Obama's rich supporters fear his tax plans show he's a class warrior

For being a bunch of smart rich people, they sure can be stupid sometimes. I knew this was going to be a class war. If we wait long enough, I'm sure that we'll see EVERYONES taxes go up to a base 40% with the wealthiest rivaling Great Britain at roughly 60%.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Barack Obama's rich supporters fear his tax plans show he's a class warrior
Some of Barack Obama's richest supporters fear they have elected a "class warrior" to the White House, who will turn America's freewheeling capitalism into a more regulated European system.

By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Last Updated: 7:33PM BST 09 May 2009



Wealthy Wall Street financiers and other business figures provided crucial support for Mr Obama during the election, backing him over the Republican candidate John McCain as the right leader to rescue the collapsing US economy.

But it is now dawning on many among them that Mr Obama was serious about his campaign trail promises to bring root and branch reform to corporate America - and that they were more than just election rhetoric.

A top Obama fundraiser and hedge fund manager said: "I'm appalled at the anti-Wall Street rhetoric. It was OK on the campaign but now it's the real world. I'm surprised that Obama is turning out to be so left-wing. He's a real class warrior."

Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute, a free enterprise think tank, said Democrats in Congress were unnerved by the president's latest plan to raise $210 billion over 10 years from multinational corporations.

The money is needed to pay for a national debt that will double over the next five years; and triple over the next 10 years to $17.3 trillion. But the crackdown already faces fierce Democratic resistance.

"These big companies are based in New York Boston, Seattle and Silicon Valley, where Democrats dominate," Mr Edwards said. "Obama's tax plan is already cleaving him from his big corporate supporters," he said.

Mr Obama made no secret of his plans to raise taxes on the "working rich" (individuals earning more than $200,000) by imposing a top income tax rate of almost 40 per cent, and there is little surprise that those plans remain on track, even during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

But Democratic opposition is building in Congress to many of the President's proposals. A plan to reduce tax deductions for charitable gifts by richer people may have to be scrapped, because the charitable sector - which includes hospitals, museums and voluntary service groups - depends heavily on tax-deducted donations.

Charles Rangel, the New York chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which drafts tax legislation, raised a red flag about the proposal last week. "I would never want to adversely affect anything that is charitable or good," he said.

Mr Obama also wants to "cap and trade" carbon emissions - seen by business as effectively yet another tax - to tackle global warming.

The president's plans are direct repudiation of the model of light touch regulation credited with creating economic growth and wealth in America in recent decades.

Setting out his thoughts on the economy, Mr Obama told the New York Times magazine last week: "There was always an unsustainable feel about what had happened on Wall Street over the last 10, 15 years, and it's not that different from the unsustainable nature of what was happening during the dot-com boom - where people in Silicon Valley could make enormous sums of money, even though what they were peddling never really had any signs it would ever make a profit."

A senior Wall Street executive who remains an admirer of Mr Obama, told The Sunday Telegraph that the reforms were necessary after years of excess. "I think its refreshing that he has the chutzpah to deal with the previously untouchable abuses of the system like tax dodging and excessive executive pay," he said.

"We badly need some European style social democracy, and Obama might as well start with health care reform."

That Mr Obama should have radical views on the shortcomings of the US economy is hardly surprising. As a young man he turned down a high paying career in the corporate sector to work as a community organiser in Chicago.

"I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told myself that I want to be," he wrote in his memoir Dreams from My Father.

With the Republican in deep trouble, the Obama administration is trying to capitalise on the problems in the economy to drive through far-reaching reforms that might otherwise be impossible.

Rahm Emanuel, the president's tough-as-nails chief of staff, has coined a phrase which has become a mantra for the administration. "Rule one," he declared, "Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things."

Warren Buffet, the wealthy investor regarded by Americans as an economic seer, is among high profile Obama supporters worried that he is attempting too much by pressing ahead with other controversial reforms such as healthcare.

"Job one is to win the war, the economic war, job two is to win the economic war, and job three," he said recently. "You can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat."

Mr Obama has so far pushed back against strong protectionist pressures in Congress seeking to force US companies to keep jobs at home. But the business community is alarmed by plans confirmed last week to close down the tax loophole which allows American multinationals to park hundreds of billions of dollars beyond the US tax man's reach in their overseas subsidiaries.

Under one of his tax reforms, companies based in the US would be required to pay US taxes on all their overseas earnings.

Among those affected by such changes would be some of Mr Obama's most powerful supporters in the election, such as Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, and other "Silicon Valley" executives whose profits are mostly made abroad. They were taken aback when the President blasting companies for "shirking" their responsibilities by avoiding tax.

The plan to end tax breaks for US multinational companies has also drawn the ire of Democrats . Max Baucus, the powerful Montana Democrat who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, declared that "further study" was needed within minutes of the president announcing his proposals.

New York Democratic congressman Joseph Crowley said closing the loophole would hurt Citigroup Inc., his New York district's largest employer.

It has also dawned on wealthy Americans who flocked to the Obama campaign of "Hope" and "Change" that the president opposes the "trickle down" theories that have guided US economics since President Ronald Reagan was elected with a mandate to slash taxes.

Mr Obama said last week that it was "an aberration" that profits in the financial sector had grown so large over the last decade. It was ridiculous he suggested, that "25-year-olds (were) getting million-dollar bonuses, (and) they were willing to pay $100 for a steak dinner and the waiter was getting the kinds of tips that would make a college professor envious."

He warned that by the time he was done with them, Silicon Valley and Wall Street would remain large parts of the US economy, but not "half of our economy".

Mr Obama has also focused his sights on wealthy individuals who use offshore tax havens to evade tax and is hiring 800 inspectors to track them down.

Mr Obama needs to find a way to pay for the $750 billion spending spree Congress authorised after he took office to get the stalled economy going again.

Obama Bans the Commonfolk from Normandy

Amazing. The level of pompousness is stunning. What a self-righteous arrogant jerk!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama Bans the Commonfolk from Normandy

By John Romano

A lot of the difference, the change if you will, between Obama and Bush has much to do with the word humility.

George Bush is and was a humble man. Obama thinks the world counts on him and him alone to lead us. Bush went to church and prayed often. Obama puts out press releases about his supposed piety. The left sold a great bill of goods to the American people claiming that Bush, et al. were arrogant while insisting that Obama was a “man of the people.”



The 65th Anniversary of D-Day is fast approaching. Barack Obama will attend the events on June 6th as George Bush did in 2004 for the sixtieth memorial service. Here is the rub, as of now Obama’s State Department has asked (read demanded) the French government not allow tour guide services to operate that day. It is a big day for Normandy tourism. Yet, the king will not allow those not connected with government to enjoy the day. Obama is very important you know. This is an unprecedented request. I hope the French come to their senses and deny it.

Compare that with 2004. Security was tight as President Bush and other world leaders were in attendance, but the event was still open to all. A friend relayed the story of waiting in line to use a port-a-potty (a French port-a-potty no doubt, yuck, believe me.) She looks to her left and who he is in the next line waiting patiently? President Bush. Sure he had Secret Service nearby, but he waited like everyone else.

Contrast that with Team Obama not even allowing regular people near Colleville-Sur-Mer that day. A shame indeed. Especially as the last of our WW II vets are expiring.

As the Bamsters unemployment rate pushes 10% (double the Bush average) and his 3.5 trillion dollar budget breaks the USA (the press of course focuses on his 17 billion in “savings.” Way to go 4th Estate.), Obama has more to worry about then denying people the right to attend a memorial service on June 6th.

It’s as if Obama has to let it be known that he is more important than honoring the events and the 9,387 mostly young Americans who died invading Normandy 65 years ago. Will Obama apologize for American actions during WW II at the event?

I think the following quote from Obama himself sums it all up: “a light will shine down from somewhere…. You will experience an epiphany. And you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’” Watch for yourself:



The guy can’t even bring himself to say “shine down from heaven.” Do you really expect him to line up to use the can with the commoners at a Normandy celebration? Americans may start to miss the guy with the humility.

Universal Healthcare, unchecked unions, government run banks, government run autos, cap and trade, turning the 20 million undocumented Democrats into voters: That isn’t America and it surely isn’t what those young boys died at Normandy for.

We elected a fairy tale. We can start the road back to reality in 2010 with the mid-term elections.

Quick!!! While He’s Outta the Country, Let’s Change it Back to ‘America’!!!!!!!

No kidding! 7 Days left!


Quick!!! While He’s Outta the Country, Let’s Change it Back to ‘America’!!!!!!!

by Gary Graham

The Prez has flown to England and there’s only one thing to do while he’s gone: Let’s get our country back. Okay, it’s not going to be easy, there are a lot of hurdles. I’m pretty sure I can take Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and that puffball press secretary Gibbs. Multiple adversary bash-a-thon!!! Hai-Yah!!

Barney Frank I ain’t touchin’… I’m not a homophobe; I simply suffer from an irrational childhood fear of Elmer Fudd.



And Nancy Pelosi? I’m sending my friend Andrew Breitbart in to cross-check her hard into the glass. (I know he’s been dyin’ to get the go-ahead.) I am certain that if I confronted her, she would hit me with that death ray from those Neutronium eyeballs of hers…the same ones that hypnotize the Washington press corps into not busting up every time she opens her mouth.

But seriously, folks. I don’t know why anyone’s surprised. Obama for two years told us what he’s all about. Made it clear as day. And everyone just sort of…looked the other way. ”Oh, he’s not a socialist! He’s just saying those things to keep the far left loonies happy. You watch, he’ll govern from the center.”

Oh really? Well, it’s been only two months and let’s take a look at what he’s done. (Everybody follow along, and please feel free to add anything I’m missing.)

Mr. Obama took Mr. Bush’s bad idea of hundred-billion dollar bailouts and ran with it - on steroids. When Bush’s bailout did nothing to revive the ailing economy, did our new president say, “Wait, that doesn’t work - let’s try something else.”

Uh…no. Instead he figured that because having taxpayers borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from Communist China and handing it over to banks, insurance companies and auto giants to ‘stimulate’ economic activity didn’t do any of that…why he should just go ahead and quadruple the amount and try again! That outta do it!

Then, more than half of his cabinet appointees turn out to be either tax cheats or plagued with scandal. (The same people who are hell-bent to raise our taxes and ‘keep us honest’.)

Obama goes on You Tube and does a touchy-feely Neville Chamberlain appeasement stance with Iran’s Ahmadinejad, a man from a culture who views such behavior as weak and womanly (sorry - it’s actually an insult to women to call Barry womanly; my wife could kick his ass), doing a pathetic Rodney King “C-c-can we…can we just get along?” with the Iranian psychopath.

Then, his choice for Treasury Secretary, the one man, apparently, uniquely suited to fix the ailing economy, Tim Geithner, lays out plans to regulate all of American business; and in effect, give the Obama administration carte blanche power to inject it’s will directly into any private business it deems necessary, and for any reason whatsoever.

So…let’s get this into perspective. The guys from government, the people who can’t make the post office run well, the folks who have never owned a business themselves…are now going to oversee, regulate, and in essence meddle with the mainspring of American progress - private businesses.

Just yesterday, Mr. Obama took that little power adjustment for a spin - and promptly fired the head of General Motors. Did he consult with the stockholders in a hastily constructed shareholders’ meeting? Take a vote? Ask for comments? Show of hands?

No.

Too bad the phrase “a confederacy of dunces” is already taken, or I’d be tempted to use it here.

But …we’re told by the press there’s a “crisis of unprecedented proportion”, one that “the markets can’t fix.” And my fav… “only the Federal government can fix this crisis.” Reminds me of Ronald Reagan’s nine most terrifying words in the English language, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” (Also - Jackie Chan getting his ass kicked in Shanghi Noon, and Owen Wilson, trying to help, making it worse, and Chan shouts, “Stop helping me!!”) That’s what the American taxpayer is feeling like screaming right now - “Stop helping me!!!!!!”

Obama is a typical Big Government Goon. The typical BGG has a standard way of dealing with problems. (And make no mistake, any sort of problem, once it can be stretched and twisted into the concept of being a ‘crisis’, represents one thing, and one thing only: An opportunity to control, for the ultimate goal to gain personal Power.)

Yes, we underestimated his ambition. We didn’t think he’d really do all the things he said he was going to do. (well…in our defense, nothing he said he was going to do was very specific. Mostly generalities about hope and ‘change’…yeah, close Gitmo…get us out of Iraq…no time limits, but yeah, that was specific.) But he really meant it that he was going to change this country. Just… no one actually believed he meant he was going to change this country into something completely unrecognizable from anything we’ve ever known. (At least those of us who have never lived behind the Iron Curtain, or known the horrors of a despotic dictatorship.)

But look at who Obama’s mentors have been all his life - A Black liberation theologist, Reverend Wright… two avowed Marxists, Saul Alinsky and Noam Chomsky… and an unrepentant terrorist bomber, Bill Ayers. Obama came up through the ranks of the Chicago political system, the most corrupt group of hacks, con artists and extortionists in the country. And rather than learning the American dream in the business community, Obama learned how to intimidate, manipulate, and scam the system as a ‘Community Organizer’. (This term, for reasons unclear to this columnist, seems to hold some sort of nobility, carrying with it a misplaced virtue that is the substance of…smoke. And mirrors.)

So, the good B. Hussein Obama organized within the communities. But, organized them…to do what exactly? Find funds. Get money. Guilt various businesses and branches of government to yield to white guilt and cough up some dough. And thus, noble and honorable organizations such as ACORN come into existence. Strong-arming and intimidation raised to an art form.

But I think Barry is not content. As arrogant and audacious as he’s already proven to be, I believe we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet, sports fans. No…just as we underestimated the amount of damage he wished to inflict (I’m sorry - social engineering and progress) upon our Constitution, our traditions, our entire American way of life…there’s more to come.

And it’s not going to be pretty.

We apparently are in the most catastrophic economic crisis ever in the history of mankind. But ya know? I drove on the freeway this morning and it was pretty full. People driving their clean, shiny cars off to work. Dressed nicely, smiling, going about their day. I saw people shopping in the stores. They’re going out to dinner. They’re ordering online. Commerce is happening. I do not see hundreds of people begging in the streets. I have not heard about a single food riot. No cardboard box cities sprouting up. Door-to-door begging? Lawlessness in the streets? Okay, so it’s a little harder to borrow money, a little harder to refinance your house, or get a loan to buy a new car.

So what??

Does this ‘crisis’ justify transforming the most successful nation in the history of mankind into some socialist Euro-trash model of twisted central-authority collectivist oligarchy??

My fellow Americans…all I can say now is…

Quick! Before he gets back. Let’s do it! We’ve only got eight days. He’s going on a five-country Apology Tour, meeting with countries upset over 1) the Iraq War, and 2) treatment of enemy combatants at Gitmo. He’s got a lot of groveling and appeasing to do, but he’s coming back in just over a week, so we’ve got to act fast! He’s already screwed this nation up almost beyond recognition, and it won’t be easy. We’ve got to restore our country so that Liberty, not government is the predominant force. We must re-institute Capitalism as the primary engine of Freedom, and put government back into its proper role - an institution that works for us, not against us.

Breitbart — Hit Pelosi high, she’ll go down like bag of used condoms. And don’t worry about Barney Frank…I think Lou Ferrigno is going to go have a little ‘chat’ with him.

Chris Huntoon

Uncle Chris was one of the dearest, sweetest, most wonderful men I've had the honor of knowing, and will miss him dearly. I was blessed and proud to have him as a godfather. Aunt Louise, Lindsey, Anne & Emily, you have my deepest sypathies and all my love. Sending you great huge hugs! XOXOXO Caroline

Christopher L. Huntoon

HUNTOON, Christopher L. Of Durham, NH, March 27, formerly of Wenham, MA, A CPA, 60. A graduate of Groton School, Harvard University and the Harvard Business School. He served as a Navy Lieutenant during the Vietnam War and was a member of the Lodge of St. Andrew, Manchester Yacht Club, Somerset Club, The Union Boat Club and was a 20 year veteran of the Wenham Fire Department. Mr. Huntoon is survived by his former wife Louise W. Huntoon, three daughters, Lindsey, Anne and Emily Huntoon, a brother Daniel, sister in law Mary and four nephews, Tom, Jonathan, Andrew and Will Huntoon. A Memorial Service will be held on Friday April 3 in St. John's Episcopal Church, 705 Hale Street, Beverly Farms at 2:00 P.M. Relatives and friends are invited to attend. In lieu of flowers memorial contributions may be made to Crotched Mountain Rehabilitation Center, 1 Verney Drive, Greenfield, NH 03047 or to the Masonic Angel Foundation, P.O. Box 189, Orleans, MA 02653. Arrangements by Campbell - Lee, Moody, Russell Funeral Home of BEVERLY.

Heroic Hollywood: Something We Can Believe In – Again

Heroic Hollywood: Something We Can Believe In – Again
by Russ Dvonch



There’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth writing about.

I’m going to take the boss at his word that the modest objective of Big Hollywood is “to change the entertainment industry. To make Hollywood something we can believe in – again. In order to give millions of Americans hope.” And further: “Until conservatives, libertarians and Republicans…recognize that (pop) culture is the big prize and that politics is secondary, there will be no victory in this important battle.”

But what is it, culturally, that Hollywood can do that will make us believe in it again and give millions of Americans hope? What is it we can do win the battle for pop culture?

It’s nothing Hollywood hasn’t done before. The only problem is, it’s doing far too little of it lately. Which is a shame, because it’s something that Hollywood does better than anyplace on earth.

Hollywood’s gift to America – and the world – is the Hollywood Hero.

Cue laughter from the Left: “How quaint! How primitive! How typical of lowbrow, right-wing culture! We give our Best Picture awards to nihilist movies like No Country for Old Men and Best Actor awards to anti-heroes like Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood. No hope for millions of Americans there!”

And yet, when good films come along with good heroic stars, the box-office goes through the roof – The Dark Night, Ironman and Spider-Man trilogy are obvious examples…and conspicuous shutouts for Best Picture.

There is a thirst for heroic characters in America and throughout the world, yet today’s Hollywood elites only seems comfortable with the idea of heroism in a comic book setting. Screenwriters need to relearn the appeal and necessity of the Hollywood hero in every setting imaginable.

If you are a screenwriter or someone who would like to become a screenwriter, you can be the tip of the spear for changing the leftist culture that Hollywood promotes by writing heroic characters that embody traditional American values.

This post, and I hope several more, is addressed to you. I hope to inspire you to write the kind of heroic characters that will push back against the leftist cultural tide that is the reason for Big Hollywood’s existence.

Many of you have probably taken courses in screenwriting and read several of books on the subject. You know about character arcs, emotional beats, and mid-point reversals. Yet, when it comes to putting words to paper, you falter and don’t know where to begin…or how to finish. The trouble is, you may have been taught how to write screenplays, but you’ve never been taught why.

Believe me – once you understand why, you’ll do everything in your power to figure out how.

So let’s begin. But be warned: you’re about to take writing advice from a screenwriter who’s been kicked out of Hollywood.

Screenwriting is an art. Although an artist can use his work to express any idea or feeling he wishes, there are several key ideas that artists throughout human history have returned to again and again. These ideas are philosophical in nature; that is, they are the fundamental questions of human existence that every culture – and every thinking individual – asks:

What is there?

What am I?

What should I do?

All of these are central issues of human existence, which is why they keep popping up time and time again in the arts.


The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, where the artist Michelangelo attempted to answer all three questions – What is there? What am I? What should I do? – in a single work.

Although artworks such as painting, sculpture and music used to answer each of these questions, screenwriting is especially suited to answering the third question; What should I do?

That’s because screenwriting is a dramatic art. A drama is a composition that uses characters to tell a story – usually involving conflicts and emotions – through action and dialogue.

The author of the story uses the elements of drama as his way of answering the question What should I do? for his audience. He uses them to show by example what people should – or shouldn’t – do.

Storytelling that attempts to answer the question What should I do? will necessarily have to deal with ethics or morality , which is defined as the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group.

When human beings are confronted with a moral choice, i.e., What should I do?, they act in accordance with their values. A value is something we seek to achieve or hold on to. Each man determines for himself what his values are and how to achieve them, leading to his own principles of conduct, often called a code of ethics or a moral code.

Just as every human being has a set of values and a moral code which guides his actions, the screenwriter creates a cast of characters for his story that are also guided by their values and moral code. For the most part, the clash of competing values and different moral codes between the principal characters is what creates the story.



It’s no accident that these two John Travolta posters share a similar image of face-to-face confrontation between the main characters. The advertising agencies know what the public is looking for. The graphics of these posters promise the audience a clash of competing values and different moral codes of the principal characters. In other words…a story!

By showing how his characters deal with moral decisions and their consequences, the author of a story says to his audience, “This is what you should do” or, in a cautionary tale (such as The Godfather), “This is what you should not do.”

At their heart, screenplays are all about the choices that the charters face.

From the Star Wars saga…

“Join me and we can rule the galaxy as father and son.”

…to The Mask of Zorro…

“Now if you want to kill this man, I can help you. I can teach you how… how to move, how to think, how to take your revenge with honor and live to celebrate it.”

…to The Matrix…

“This is your last chance. After this there is no turning back. You take the blue pill,the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes….”

…the characters of drama are faced with important choices. Making a choice is the essence of drama because it is the essence of human life. Gandalf said it best in The Fellowship of the Ring:

All we have to decide is what to do with the time we are given.

Nothing is more important in our lives than deciding what to do with the time we are given, and then acting on our decisions. Our choices are shaped by our values, and our most important choices are shaped by our deepest values.

Yes, we go to the movies for the pretty girl, the big explosion and the booming soundtrack. But the films that we love – the ones we see over and over again – are movies with storylines that touch our deepest values. We know that we need to make the right choices in our lives, and the best movies inspire us to do just that.

Human beings are not born knowing “what to do with the time we are given.” Each man must discover for himself what his moral choices should be. The dramatic arts are a great aid in this most important task because they crystallize abstract moral concepts into a vivid and compelling form - so vivid and compelling that we hold it in our hearts and spirits, not just in our minds. Films like Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, and Casablanca enter our souls because they not only move our emotions intensely, but they move our emotions on the subject that is most important to us…what should I do?

In short, our favorite Hollywood movies inspire us. And they inspire us towards heroic values.

The word “inspire” has several meanings. Inspire means to make someone have a particular strong feeling or reaction. In this sense, the best movies are inspirational because they always provoke strong feelings in us. But inspire also has the meaning of to make someone feel that they want to do something…and can do it.

The best movies are inspiring in both meanings of the word. They not only provoke a strong emotional reaction in us, but this emotion makes us want to do something and believe that we can do it.

If the main character is courageous and determined, then we walk out of the theater feeling courageous and determined, too. If the main character finds love, we believe that we can find love, as well. If struggle and sacrifice achieve a happy ending, then we resolve to struggle and sacrifice to achieve our own happy endings.

In this sense, movies that inspire us make us want to emulate the main character of the story, that is, to strive to equal or match what the character accomplishes.

But more than that, there is an underlying moral theme to most Hollywood movies that accounts for their ability to inspire and emotionally connect with audiences world-wide.

When it comes to the question What should I do?, Hollywood says there are a thousand-and-one ways to answer that question. But, no matter what…

Doing the right thing is worth the struggle.

Life is a struggle. Acting morally can often make the struggle harder for you. But in the end, if you want the good to prevail and receive its blessings for yourself, your family and your nation, you have to do the right thing.

The struggles of life can be discouraging. Art is an antidote to discouragement. People need the encouragement that art offers, in particular, the encouragement that drama offers. We need to know that our choices have meaning, that our choices can make a difference in our lives. We need to know that acting morally is worth the struggle. And that’s what Hollywood movies do. That is the inspiration they give to the audience.

Nowhere are these ideas better expressed than in an amazingly audacious yet moving scene in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.

It’s the scene near the end of the movie where, at the ruins of Osgiliath, Faramir and the Hobbits escape from the clutches of a Ringwraith and his fell beast. Under the spell of the Ring, Frodo attacks Sam, nearly plunging his sword into Sam’s neck before coming to his senses. Totally dispirited, Frodo’s resolve weakens. (In the following, I speak of Tolkien as the author, but the filmmakers altered the material and context.)

FRODO: (slowly and with despair) I can’t do this, Sam.

SAM: (getting up slowly) I know. It’s all wrong. By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are.

Here, I think Tolkien, through Sam, is summing up the basic problem of human existence: none of us asked to be born into this world, and yet here we are. For good or bad, fair or not, all of us must confront this basic fact of reality…we’re here in this world, and only for the time we are given. And as Gandalf says, while we are here we must decide what to do. There is no escaping our need to make choices.

We can choose to do what we know is wrong, or we can choose to do what we know is right. And our decision to do the right thing can demand a great struggle that may lead us to lose heart and give up the fight to do the right thing. In this scene, Frodo is at the point of giving up…his decision to do the right thing by casting the Ring back into the fire has caused him great hardship and he is losing heart. He wants to stop struggling.

What is Sam’s response to Frodo’s loss of spirit? Sam could answer Frodo is any number of ways, but look at how Tolkien chooses to have Sam reply:

Sam stands and leans against a wall, looking out into the distance.

SAM: It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened?

Out of all the possible things Sam could say at this moment in the story, Tolkien has him speak about…stories.

That Tolkien chooses this moment in the story to speak about…well, stories themselves…indicates the importance he places on the subject at this critical point of the plot, where Frodo says he can’t go on. This is something Tolkien wants us to pay attention to. Stories have something to do with Frodo and his struggle.

Tolkien has Sam look out into the distance as he speaks…not at Frodo. That’s because Sam is not thinking about the present moment. He’s thinking about the past. His own past. He’s remembering the stories he heard in his youth. The “great” stories…”the ones that really mattered.”

The stories that mattered were about darkness and danger. The great stories were about struggles so intense – against forces so strong – that it seemed impossible that the hero would win. How is it possible for the good to win when evil seems so powerful? And even if victory is achieved, was it really worth all the suffering? When listening to the story, the outcome is in doubt…and a happy, Hollywood ending seems impossible. This is what Frodo is thinking now. And those are the stories that Sam is remembering now. He continues:

SAM: But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why.

Tolkien is making several points here. First, that Sam has learned from the stories that the darkness can be overcome, no matter how bleak it looks. There can be a happy, Hollywood ending. In Sam’s childhood stories, the heroes won, and the darkness passed. And when the light returned, it illuminated life making it dearer. The stories where the hero prevailed – where light overcame the darkness – are the ones that mattered to Sam. They “meant something.” These are the stories that he remembers now in a time of crisis, not stories where men failed and heroic struggle was useless against the darkness .

Second, even as a young boy, when Sam really didn’t understand intellectually the full meaning of the stories, there was something in them that touched his spirit. This may be Tolkien’s way of expressing the idea that sometimes we understand things emotionally before we understand them intellectually. Dramatic stories can teach us their lessons by our emotional reaction to them. Even at an early age, human beings can understand the necessity for light to overcome the dark, even if they are not intellectually capable of explaining why. That’s why it’s important for the young to be exposed to heroic stories, even though they may not have a clear idea of why it is necessary to struggle against the darkness. They will feel it in their spirit all the same, as Sam did. Now, as an adult who has experienced light and darkness first hand, Sam at last understands the importance of the stories of his youth.

SAM: But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back only they didn’t. They kept going because they were holding on to something.

These stories of Sam’s youth were all about one thing: what should I do? And the answer was: struggle to do the right thing. Struggle forward, even when it is tempting to turn back, as Frodo is tempted now. Struggle forward, because there is something you hold on to that that makes it worth the struggle.

FRODO: What are we holding on to, Sam?

SAM: That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for.

Or as another not-so-famous writer once said: doing the right thing is worth the struggle, because it will restore the good.

The purpose of those stories from Sam’s past are for just this moment – when Frodo and Sam are tempted to turn back, they find the strength to continue because of what the stories promise. These stories provide the inspiration necessary to continue. It is an inspiration carried not only in their minds, but in their hearts. Tolkien was confident enough to be able to say to his readers, “Just as it was critical for Sam and Frodo to be inspired by stories, it is critical that you find inspiration in theirs.”

Tolkien knew that men need inspiration. We need to know – in our hearts and minds – that, no matter what the difficulty we face, doing the right thing is worth the struggle.

This is the message of Hollywood movies and this is why we love them. But what, specifically, is the right thing to do?

That’s the message of the Hollywood Hero.

I’ll write about the Hollywood Hero next, if you want. Let me know in the comments below!


(Click on title for link to the page with all the comments)

Obama’s War on English

Obama’s War on English

by Riley Hunter

In an age when a waiter is a server, an actresses is a female actor, and a dubiously-competent socialist cult leader is an American president, it was only a matter of time before the “Global War on Terror” became an “Overseas Contingency Operation” (OCO). Thus Spoke Zarathustra this week via a memo sent to the Pentagon and select speech writers, officially establishing Team Obama’s redesigned terminology. The War is over, long live the Operation! This should show the road-side bombers, suicide bombers, bombers-in-burqas, snipers-for-Allah, and other assorted, blood-thirsty, Jihadist savages that the US really means business now. Victory through euphemism!

The unveiling of OCO capped-off a terror euphemism trifecta for the administration. Previously, the Justice Department scrapped the ghastly “enemy combatant” to describe war prisoners in favor of the much more uplifting, “detainee.” Additionally, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano─who may be the only member of the administration more intellectually troubled than Tim Geitner─rebranded terrorism as “man-caused disaster.” (To review: mail carrier; police officer; business person; but man-caused disaster… maybe the errant sexism has something to do with Ms. Napolitano’s romantic leanings.)

Ever sensitive to the plight of our illegally invading friends from the south, Ms. Napolitano also refuses to use the term “illegal immigrant.” In an administration where the Secretary of Treasury is a tax cheat, it’s only fitting that the Security of Homeland Security does not wish to tarnish the image of people who illegally raid our country and pillage our resources.

Words are very important to B. Hussein Obama─they don’t describe the narrative, they structure it. In college, he transformed himself from Barry—a hackneyed disgrace of a name befitting lounge singers and kid actors—to Barack, instantly making him exotic and interesting (a Barry snorting coke is a hapless junkie, but a Barack snorting coke is a conflicted soul seeking to open his mind, especially if he’s wearing a kente kufi hat while snorting). During the campaign, two little, but very important, bumper-sticker and t-shirt friendly words helped solidify his candidacy. Thanks to Hope and Change, Barry didn’t have to leak anyone’s kinky, sealed divorce papers to the media to get elected this time.

When more than one word has to be produced, Barry defers to his teleprompter to ensure rigid semantic integrity and to minimize his brain’s default proclivity of generating “uhhhhhs” and “ummmms.” In a recent speech before a requisitely awed group of business leaders, the teleprompter displayed the following gem, which The Father of the $1.2 trillion stimulus package voiced with contemplative gravitas: “I don’t like the idea of spending more government money, nor am I interested in expanding government’s role.” The statement wasn’t followed by a “NOT!” or a “PSYCH!” or even a “FACE!” Just more contemplative gravitas.

In Barry’s bizzaro world, reality in and of itself doesn’t matter. Words make the reality. Words matter. Teleprompters matter. The biggest spending bill in American history never happened if Barry calls it a “stimulus.” But if it did happen, Barry never agreed to the bonuses. But if he did agree to the bonuses, he did so unknowingly.

In the first half of the 20th century, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf cobbled together a theory of linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity which would eventually become the unwitting foundation of the PC movement. In a nutshell, Sapir-Whorf believed that language determines thought, not vice versa. So call a prison a “correctional facility,” and the inmates should be so overcome by the warm fuzzies that they wouldn’t rape each other as much as when they thought they were stuck in a mere “prison.” Likewise, call welfare expansion a “tax cut” and more people will vote for you. I doubt Barry read much Sapir/Whorf, but many of the same ideas are discussed in different terms by his favorite community organizer, Saul Alinsky, and his favorite unicorn wrangler, Karl Marx.

Marx believed words may be used to confuse and control the dolts, rubes and twits who constitute the governed. An effective leader could introduce new words─or alternative definitions and combinations of old words─into the lexicon, and thereby induce the unlearning of old belief systems and the learning of new ones. Change the culture through words─one of the planks of the Cultural Marxist platform. As Fred Barnes points out, BHO has already redefined “fleeting”: the quarter century of unprecedented economic growth which began in the first term of the Reagan presidency was “fleeting prosperity” according to our noble leader. “The Reagan Recovery is urban legend, my children, now don your purple Nikes and listen unto me…”

Moreover, the War on Terror was that dummy Bush. General Secretary of the Central Committee President Obama doesn’t deal with wars or terror, he deals with contingencies and operations. You say, “potato,” I say, “potato.” You say, “that sleeveless dress really shows off Michelle’s toned arms,” I say, “pre-menopausal hot flash relief.” You say, “sensitive language soothes the people,” I say, “social engineering through verbal eugenics.”

To distance the current administration from the words of the former administration is predictable, to do so from the words of the Founding Fathers is creepy. Whether conscious or not, the end game of the current administration is to redefine the US Constitution in its own socialist, state-must-save-the-proles image. Now hopechange means abhorrent stimulus and bailout packages. Soon it may mean government-run health care or restrictions on how much gas and electricity citizens can use. The more Barry’s Obonics seep out of the teleprompter and into pop culture, the easier the administration’s task to remake America becomes.

Maybe Barry was stoned the day the English teacher pointed out that George Orwell was a warning, not a blueprint.

Bachmann bill would ban global currency

Bachmann bill would ban global currency

Posted using ShareThis

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22366be8-157c-11de-b9a9-0000779fd2ac.html

Rage at AIG bonus pay-out is no excuse
Published: March 20 2009 20:22 | Last updated: March 20 2009 20:22

Politicians acting in haste rarely act wisely, least of all when guided by rage. In response to outrage over retention bonuses paid to employees of AIG – the failed insurer, now mostly owned by the government, which has received tens of billions in public support – the US House of Representatives rushed to pass a punitive tax aiming to claw the bonuses back. It would apply to all groups receiving help under the government’s financial stability plan, not just AIG. A similar measure is before the Senate.

The outcry over these bonuses is entirely understandable, though less than fully thought through. Understandable or otherwise, the response smacks more of banana republic than good government.

The country is furious at the idea of rewarding the very people, in AIG’s now notorious financial products arm, who helped sink both their company and the wider economy. Yet these bonuses were paid not as a reward for past performance, which would indeed be absurd, but to retain people deemed necessary to the unwinding of its mistakes. That reasoning offends against the principle of fairness, but if one is more interested in stabilising the economy than striking back at supposed culprits, it should not be dismissed out of hand.

In AIG’s case, the US government is now the de facto owner. As such it has rights and responsibilities, and it should attend more conscientiously to both. The Treasury should decide whether the bonuses are necessary to retain people essential to the success of its stabilisation plan. If they are, much as one may recoil at the idea, the bonuses should be paid: the cost pales in comparison to the vastly larger sums at stake. If not, the people who received them – those who have not already left, that is – should be told to return them or be fired. The government is within its rights as a new owner to set new terms for its employees.

The legislative blunderbuss about to be discharged by Congress, on the other hand, is likely to blow up in taxpayers’ faces. It forbids the case-by-case judgments on pay which are necessary to ensure that the stabilisation plan succeeds. And it expresses the tyrannical principle that Congress can use the tax code to void contracts that the executive branch has consented to, after the fact and with retrospective force. The measure is constitutionally dubious, as Congress well knows. All these considerations have been set aside for the purpose of venting the country’s anger. It is an abdication of responsibility.

Barack Obama, asked whether he approves of this law, has declined to answer. It would have been better if things had not come to this pass, he says. Quite so, and indeed there are lessons here about the conditions that must be attached to future assistance. But things have come to this pass – and the administration must resist this bad new law.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

Tax Wall Street bankers in haste, repent at leisure

Tax Wall Street bankers in haste, repent at leisure
March 20, 2009 1:12am

Beware any financial legislation that passes the House of Representatives rapidly when both the Democrats and Republicans are angry. It will cause a heap of unintended consequences.

That was true of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and it may be even more true of the House’s bill to impose a 90 per cent tax on bonuses earned by employees of large banks that have taken US government capital. It is an ill-conceived and over-hasty piece of populism.
The mistake has been to broaden a bill prompted by employees of AIG Financial Products to the entire set of large Tarp recipients.

I have been very critical of Wall Street pay practices, including in my column this week about AIG’s retention bonuses, and I backed Mr Obama’s curbs on compensation for senior executives. I think the big Wall Street firms have been dismally slow to wake up to the implications of having the government as a significant shareholder.

But there are several reasons why the House bill, if it is followed in the Senate and signed by Barack Obama (neither of which is certain) would make bad law.

First, it is retroactive. The banks that took government capital injections under the Troubled Assets Relief last year did so at the urging of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. Many of them clearly needed the capital but others, such as Goldman Sachs, might have got by without it.

Imposing strict conditions on pay on banks that took a public investment of $5bn or more - Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, AIG, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Goldman, PNC and US Bancorp - will undermine trust in the Treasury when it is badly needed.

Second, it is arbitrary. The House, unsurprisingly, has set a lower limit that excludes many banks based in House districts across the country. What is the logic, for example, in leaving out SunTrust, which gained $4.9bn in government capital and escapes the provision entirely?

It is also arbitrary in applying only to US citizens or people employed either in the US or by US entities. This may well have the bizarre result of making it less painful for AIG Financial Products - the original target - than for the Wall Street banks.

Many of the AIG Financial Products employees are London-based and I assume that quite a few of them are not US citizens. If the unit is a UK entity, which it appears to be, then the Internal Revenue Service will be unable to withhold tax on what are UK-sourced earnings.

Then there is the fact that it applies only to bonuses paid from January 1 onwards. This arbitrarily favours banks that paid 2008 bonuses before the end of the year - Merrill Lynch, for example - and penalises the others. It makes John Thain look far-sighted for bringing the Merrill bonuses forward.

Third, and most importantly, it creates a set of bad incentives. Goldman has already talked about wanting to return the $10bn in Tarp funding as quickly as possible, as has Ken Lewis of Bank of America and others. If I read the bill correctly, Goldman could escape this trap now by paying the Treasury $5.1bn.

Those institutions that can escape the 90 per cent bonus tax will now want to do so quickly, which will mean raising capital simply to return money to the government. But that goes against the whole point of the Tarp scheme, which is to ensure they have sufficient capital to keep lending.

Another incentive problem is that it could cause an employee rush for the exits at these institutions. An orderly reduction of risk-taking and excessive compensation on Wall Street is desirable, as I have said elsewhere. This bill threatens to make the process chaotic.

The best thing for the US economy is to have a steady adjustment of over-leverage and financial excess, not to have these banks struggling to escape the government’s embrace before they lose employees not only to hedge funds and private equity but any company that can pay more than $250,000 a year.

The best solution for the Senate and the administration is to curtail the scope of the House bill and refocus it on AIG Financial Products, which was what the fuss was originally about. A populist measure feels great at the time but the hangover tends to be painful.

March 20, 2009 1:12am in Finance

Senators push for bonus clawback

Senators push for bonus clawback
By Tom Braithwaite and Andrew Ward in Washington

Published: March 20 2009 18:16 | Last updated: March 20 2009 23:28

Senators are preparing a final push next week to impose a punitive tax on bonuses at bailed-out financial institutions such as AIG, the troubled insurance group.

But as Wall Street braces itself for a draconian clampdown on its pay culture, the legislation could yet stall amid criticism that it might undermine the government’s financial rescue programme and even violate the ­constitution.

On Thursday the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill to impose a 90 per cent tax on the bonuses of employees earning more than $250,000 (€184,000, £173,000) at companies that received more than $5bn in bail-out money.

Originally aimed at AIG, which has taken $170bn in taxpayer money and paid $165m in bonuses, the measure would also affect other institutions including Citigroup, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs.

The Senate is working on similar legislation involving a 70 per cent tax on bonuses at a broader range of institutions – half to be paid by employees and half by companies – but it remains uncertain whether it has enough support to force its way through a crowded legislative agenda.

A Democratic aide to the Senate leadership said senators were divided between those wishing to push through fast-track legislation and others backing a slower process, including committee hearings, which could see momentum fade as the initial wave of anger over the AIG bonuses subsidies.

President Barack Obama has voiced broad support for congressional efforts to reign in Wall Street pay but stopped short of endorsing legislation to impose retro­active bonus taxes.

“I understand Congress’s frustrations,” he told Jay Leno, the chat-show host. “But I think that the best way to handle this is to make sure that you’ve closed the door before the horse gets out of the barn.”

Recriminations intensified on Friday over the AIG bonuses as Democrats traded blame for an affair that threatens serious damage to the Obama administration.

The White House was again forced to defend Tim Geithner, the beleaguered Treasury secretary, as fresh doubts emerged over when he first learned of the AIG bonuses and why he did not try to stop them.

Maxine Waters, a Democratic congresswoman, expressed exasperation at the administration’s handling of the controversy, saying: “Maybe the president is not up to speed on what is going on.”

The Treasury department acknowledged that Mr Geithner had been questioned on the bonuses in a congressional hearing a week before the White House had previously said he first learned of them. There was also mounting scrutiny of the administration’s role in watering down a provision in the stimulus bill last month that could have blocked the payouts.

Republicans tried to keep the focus on Democratic infighting to mask their own party’s turmoil over the bonus saga, as they struggled to reach consensus over the tax proposals.

The mooted legislation offends the anti-tax principles of many conservatives but Republicans are reluctant to be seen blocking measures to recoup bonuses that have caused a wave of populist anger.

“At least some Republicans made clear that they are not going to allow this to go ripping through the Senate,” said Tom Mann, a senior fellow in governance issues at Brookings Institution, the think-tank. “At the very least they will use their procedural [tools] to hold off any votes for a period of time and use that as a medium for blaming the Democrats for what they did or failed to do earlier.”

Critics say a retroactive tax on bonuses is unfair and potentially counter-productive if it discourages other institutions from participating in government attempts to rebuild the financial system. Supporters of the committee route argue that such a controversial piece of law should be considered with a cool head after the political passion has died down.

The Democratic leadership in the Senate has a very short window to push through a vote before the Easter recess. Bankers will be hoping that the Senate has not, by then, imposed on them an involuntary Lenten fast by taking away their bonuses.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

Banker fury over tax ‘witch-hunt’

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ff2f77e-1584-11de-b9a9-0000779fd2ac.html

Banker fury over tax ‘witch-hunt’
By FT reporters

Published: March 20 2009 19:39 | Last updated: March 20 2009 23:32

Bankers on Wall Street and in Europe have struck back against moves by US lawmakers to slap punitive taxes on bonuses paid to high earners at bailed-out institutions.

Senior executives on both sides of the Atlantic on Friday warned of an exodus of talent from some of the biggest names in US finance, saying the “anti-American” measures smacked of “a McCarthy witch-hunt” that would send the country “back to the stone age”.

There were fears that the backlash triggered by AIG’s payment of $165m in bonuses to executives responsible for losses that forced a $170bn taxpayer-funded rescue would have devastating consequences for the largest banks.

“Finance is one of America’s great industries, and they’re destroying it,” said one banker at a firm that has accepted public money. “This happened out of haste and anger over AIG, but we’re not like AIG.”

The banker added: “It’s like a McCarthy witch-hunt...This is the most profoundly anti- American thing I’ve ever seen.”

Vikram Pandit, Citigroup’s chief executive, told employees in a memo that some anger about executive compensation was “warranted”. But he hit out against the idea of a special tax. “The work we have all done to try to stabilise the financial system and to get this economy moving again would be significantly set back if we lose our talented people because Congress imposes a special tax on financial services employees,” he wrote.

Some policymakers expressed concern that banks may try to break out of the government’s embrace by paying back public capital even if the price is a more severe credit squeeze.

They also fear that financial institutions may decide not to take part in public-private partnerships to finance credit markets and acquire toxic assets.

The outcry followed Thursday’s approval by the House of Representatives of a bill that would impose 90 per cent tax on bonuses to employees whose gross income exceeded $250,000 at bailed-out firms.

Next week the Senate will also consider a hefty tax on bail-out bonuses amid calls for an investigation into who was responsible for allowing the pay-outs. Some senators are calling for a committee hearing on a bill that would impose a 70 per cent tax at bailed-out institutions, half paid by employees and half by companies, arguing that a delay would help cool political anger.

“There are three big industries where the US has global leadership: financial services, media and technology. Introducing this 90 per cent tax is like taking one of those industries out the back and shooting it,” said a top Wall Street executive.

In Frankfurt one employee at a US investment bank said the new tax measures would “send [the US] back to the stone age”.

“Commodity traders are already moving to companies like BP where they can make as much money as they used to,” said another banker at a US firm.

Bankers at Deutsche Bank said it could benefit from the proposed legislation by poaching its US rivals’ most talented employees.

Reporting by Lina Saigol in London, Julie MacIntosh and Saskia Scholtes in New York, Tom Braithwaite in Washington and James Wilson in Frankfurt
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009