This is incredibly scary.

It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."

Make sure you read the whole thing. How many of your banks took TARP Funds? Mine did . (If you want to find out if your bank took TARP Funds, click here.) It will only be a matter of time before regular hardworking Americans start getting screwed even more by this latest trampling of Constitutional Rights by the Obama Administration. I spoke with my accountant (while going over taxes)last week about TARP. When banks accept TARP funds, they have to adopt the regulations that come with it, including higher interest rates. She has a number of customers whose mortgage interest jumped by two full percentage points because their bank accepted TARP Funds. Anyone with a mortgage knows what even the slightest change in interest does to a 30 year mortgage. (For those of you who don't, its a difference of thousands of dollars.) So tell me Obama, how is screwing over responsible, bill paying Americans going to help us in the middle of a housing crisis? By the way, the special inspector general appointed to oversee the bailout package, the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), said that the $700 billion does not include the additional financing and associated programs run by the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Once it is all added together, the $700 billion sum balloons to $2.9 trillion in taxpayer commitments. Oops! I guess they forgot to carry the 1.

This comes only days after Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told Congress the administration will seek unprecedented power to seize non-bank financial companies whose collapse could jeopardize the economy.

The government at present has the authority to seize only banks.

Allowing the Treasury Department to take over a broader range of companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation, which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. The Treasury secretary, a member of the president's Cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve and other regulators.

"Our system permitted a scale of risk taking that has caused grave damage to the fortunes of all Americans," Geithner said in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee. " . . . We must create a new resolution authority so that the federal government has the tools it needs to unwind an institution of the size and complexity of AIG."

Folks, in the history of the United States there has never before been such a blatant disregard for individual property rights and utter disrespect for businesses. Look at AIG. Politicians whipped up such a furor over AIG bonuses (that THEY (Chris Dodd et al) wrote into previous legislation to allow) that employee's innocent spouses and children were getting open death threats. By the way, ringleader Chris Dodd accepted over $160,000 in political contributions from AIG in 2008. (Old news my ass Dodd, you're a crook who should be Bubba's cellmate in prison.)

And of course now we have government run Chrysler and General Motors. Yesterday Obama told GM CEO Wagner to step down, which he unfortunately did. Now less than 24 hours later, the new CEO is already saying "bankruptcy is the best option". Republicans said this and initially blocked bailout attempts on this months ago! So we just spent $14 billion to bail out a company that's going bankrupt anyway? We should have let them fail. That is why we have bankruptcy laws. The Detroit auto industry has been crippled for years by poor management, disposable gas-guzzling cars, and bloated union contracts that have been skimming money out of the company coffers for decades. Don't believe me on the unions? How many unions own a $6 million golf course, a $33 million lakeside retreat (that has lost $23 million in the past five years alone), and hold over $1.25 billion in assets? United Auto Workers, like many unions in our modern times is nothing more than a giant leech on our economy. And people wonder why jobs go overseas and Americans are left jobless.

We are entering very scary times. Sure most of these companies are large, and may or may not affect you directly. Politicians are doing everything they can to whip people up into class envy to try and convince everyone that these "rich, evil corporations" deserve to be punished for making "too much" money. That's right, its the GM CEOs fault you live in a trailer, drive a rusted out Geo Metro, and spend every dollar you have (that doesn't go to child support) at the bar. (Please pardon the Wisconsin trailer-park rant.)

Let's put things in perspective. The Obama administration is seizing businesses. They are seeking the power to seize even more. They are passing new legislation that grants them the power to RETROACTIVELY change wage contracts. With that type of power, Timothy Geithner could easily say "You've been getting paid too much money to do this job. You need to pay it back now or face wage garnishment." If they are doing this to your friendly neighborhood bank (like mine, Associated Bank), how long until they move on to other businesses within your community? How long until the government comes after your business? What if you try to file for bankruptcy and instead the government says "we are seizing your business"? That is essentially what they are doing right now, and nothing is stopping them from coming after yours.

For all you middle-of-the-road Obama voters now having buyer's remorse. We tried to warn you of this months ago. We told you he was radical. We told you he was a socialist. We told you he wanted to nationalize American businesses and financial institutions. We told you you wanted to take away individual freedoms and property. We told you he wanted to punish people for making money, by taking it away from hard-working Americans and giving it to people who do not work, pay taxes, or contribute ANYTHING to society. We are now facing a national debt the likes of which the world has never seen. (And no, Bush Derangement Syndrome hatemongers, Bush didn't cause this. Obama has already surpassed his national debt in only 2 months in office). You didn't listen. So I have to ask.

Is this is the hope and change you were looking for?

I'm obviously supportive of almost anything that will help people with disabilities accomplish normal, everyday tasks, but this is a little ridiculous.

Tabitha Darling is not just a horse trainer, however; she is also legally blind. Though her vision is better than Finefrock's, Darling relies on the service and friendship of her pony.

Carolyn Finefrock wonders whether the definition of "service animals" is too broad. On this day, Trixie is carrying Darling six miles to downtown Fort Worth. The horse has the route memorized, including a stop at the drive-thru.

"She gives me the independence in getting out there that I need," Darling said. "Because of that, my life is happier."

The use of service animals in public is protected under law. But as the variety of service animals has expanded, the federal government is considering limiting use to dogs only, as originally intended.

"It is a very touchy situation," said Charlotte Steward, an advocate for the rights of the disabled. She is opposed to any changes. "If you need that to feel comfortable or secure in yourself, or to deal with your disability, why shouldn't you be able to?

"It's just like using a walker or a cane, in my opinion, to get around in the community," Steward said.

It's one thing to debate what should and should not be a service animal while it is working outside. But what happens when a disabled person brings an animal inside a business — and it's not a dog?

That's what many folks wonder when Darling rides Trixie inside a Fort Worth Target store.

My question is what happens when her horse has to go #2 in aisle #3?

Obama needs to hear this speech. Too bad this guy (Daniel Hannan, MEP for South East England) likes Obama. Apparently news of the identical havoc he is reeking here hasn't quite reached across the Atlantic yet.

As proof that the last post wasn't a joke, I offer the latest news out of the American Legion.

WASHINGTON, DC (March 16, 2009) – The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, “This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ‘… to care for him who shall have borne the battle…’ given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America’s veterans!”

Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group’s early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, “ There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran’s personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable.”

Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran’s condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.

“I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted,” said Commander Rehbein, “is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President’s financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.

“I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining,” concluded the Commander.

Hey Obama, you want to find a way to save $540 million? Here, I'll save you the time:

• How about the 8570 earmarks worth $7.7 billion in the 2009 omnibus bill passed last week? Thats enough to cover the cost more than 14 times.
• Instead of flying around Queen Pelosi in her own private Air Force Jet at the cost of millions to US taxpayers, make her fly on a commerical airline. Not only will it help an ailing industry and in turn insure Americans jobs, but it will free up military resources for far more important issues.
• They're all up in arms over the 165 million in bonuses for AIG execs, but what about the $630,000 AIG employees gave to politicians in 2008? Obama collected a total of $130,000 from AIG in 2008, while McCain accepted a total of $59,499. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., the guy chairing today's AIG hearing, received $12,000 in AIG contributions during the 2008 political cycle. Want the list? Here you go.
  • 1. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., $103,100
  • 2. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., $101,332
  • 3. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., $59,499
  • 4. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., $35,965
  • 5. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., $24,750
  • 6. Former Gov. Mitt Romney, (R) Pres $20,850
  • 7. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., $19,975
  • 8. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn, $19,750
  • 9. Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., $18,500
  • 10. Former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R) Pres $13,200
  • 11. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., $12,000
  • 12. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., $11,000
  
  
  Imagine how many Veterans that money could help.

Hate is a very strong word, and I really do not like using it. But I'll be honest, I am really, REALLY starting to hate Obama. What next? Back billing me for the medical care I received at Walter Reed? The surgeries in Germany? The medivac in Baghdad?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

Lawmakers say they'd reject a proposal to make veterans pay for treatment of war wounds with private insurance.

But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.

The groups also cited an increase in "third-party collections" estimated in the 2010 budget proposal -- something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries.

Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under "consideration."

"A final decision hasn't been made yet," he said.

Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.

Charging for service-related injuries would violate "a sacred trust," Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis said. Davis said the move would risk private health care for veterans and their families by potentially maxing out benefits paying for costly war injury treatments.

If you are one of the Kool-Aid drinking Obama lovers, and think what he is trying to do is the right thing, please come over to my house. I'll even give you my address. I would like to have a word with you out behind the barn.

Hot Air sums it all up.

Biden predicted that world leaders would challenge Obama and his inexperience within the first few months of the adminstration, but they’ve already started to line up in the first few days. Iran launched a satellite on an ICBM to show they could go ballistic once they have nuclear weapons. North Korea reportedly has set up another ICBM for a test to threaten Seoul. Now Russia has flipped an ally in the war on terror — and all of this in the first 14 days of Obama’s presidency.

He left out the part where Obama cuts defense spending by 10%. I'd like to thank the 52% of Americans who voted for him. Is this the change you were looking for?