Showing posts with label $787 billion economic stimulus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label $787 billion economic stimulus. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

GOP Uses Jindal Speech to Attack Obama's Stimulus Plan

PART1 Jindal's Response to Obama's "State of the Union Address"


PART2 Jindal's Response to Obama's "State of the Union Address"


Transcript of Jindal's Response to Obama's "State of the Union Address"


Prior to last night's "State of the Union Speech" by President Obama; Professor Jeffrey Sadow, a political scientist at Louisiana State University, predicted that after having observed Bobby Jindal for the last several years, said of Jindal: "He will have a lot of positives and not many negatives ... He has a tendency to talk rapidly so, as long as he doesn't get too excited, he'll do fine."

As it turned out Jindal gave a horrible showing for himself.

Long seen as a front runner for the Republican nomination for president in 2010, Jindal has come to represent a Republican Party that is truly in the process of remaking itself in order to present a stiffer challenge to the extremely popular President Obama and his large majority of democratic cohorts in the Congress.

"Jindal grabbed US media attention over the weekend by vowing that he would not take part of Obama's $787bn stimulus package destined to go to Louisiana.

"The amount, to increase unemployment benefit, is relatively small but it allows Jindal to stake out an ideological position against Obama on the biggest issue facing the US today; the White House plan to buy its way out of recession."

Although he is always quick to deny it; Jindal "... has been criss-crossing the country since late last year to build up support for a presidential race, and has included a visit for the first time to Iowa, where the race will formally begin. He is also touring to show he is capable of raising the millions needed to fight for the presidency."

So last nights performance had a great deal riding on it for the 37 year old Governor from the state of Louisiana. In other words, a stellar performance would have boosted Jindal popularity as well as his ability to raise huge sums of cash from GOP donors.

Jindal was born of parents "... from the Punjab but Jindal, whose given name was Piyush but which he switched to Bobby, was brought up in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He was educated in the US and at Oxford university. He was a member of the US House of Representatives before becoming governor of Louisiana, the first person from a non-European background to do so in the southern state.

"He was born and raised a Hindu, but converted to Catholicism and also has links to Protestant churches. Unusually for a Rhodes scholar, he believes in creationism, a viewpoint that increases his appeal to Christian evangelicals.

"Jindal's politics are firmly on the Republican right: he is opposed to abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage and the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling.

"One of the most controversial incidents from his past was a claim to have witnessed an exorcism, though he has since partly rowed back on that."

So the pressure on Jindal, to come across to the public as a Republican version of Barack Obama, was intense as his rise has been carefully choreographed by a "... Republican party, (that) for so long (was) dominated by wealthy, old white men, is taking seriously its efforts at a makeover. The party that last month chose an African American, Michael Steele, as its first party chairman has come to regard Jindal, who is of Indian descent, as one of the front-runners for the party nomination."

But less than twenty four hours after his huge chance to gain fame and fortune as the GOP front runner for 2010; criticism is freely flowing in Jindal's direction.

“A lot of Republicans I am speaking with were expecting this would be like Obama’s moment in 2004” when he spoke at the Democratic National Convention and gained immediate national fame, said David Johnson, a Republican strategist who advised Bob Dole in 1988. “He bombed out.”

Philip Klein of the “American Spectator” added his own biting criticism when he said of Jindal, he “seemed more like a high school student giving a valedictory speech than a potential future leader of the party.”

Fox News curmudgeon, Brit Hume said: “The speech read a lot better than it sounded. This was not Bobby Jindal’s greatest oratorical moment.”

All of the reviews Jindal received were less critical. One time RNC Communications Director, Carl Forti sought to tamp down the criticism by saying Jindal must still be looked at as a viable candidate. “People are watching him right after they watched Obama, and Obama may be better than Reagan,” said Forti. “I’m sure that affected people’s opinion.”

Republican strategist, Terry Holt, who worked as a spokesman for George W. Bush; said: “I am very cautious to take away too much from a single performance. My sense is it’s a difficult position to be in” appearing after Obama gave such an effective speech.

Those comments pretty much summarized the execution of the speech by Jindal.

The other important aspect to consider about Jindal's party-backed response to President Obama and the Democrats was Jindal's use of sharp criticism against Obama and his stimulus plan that the offered to the American people much of the same old same old, the GOP is famous for.

Jindal praised the merits of small government that Republicans stand for; except those who sat in the Whitehouse for the last eight years: "Instead of trusting us to make decisions with our own money, they passed the largest government spending bill in history with a price tag of more than $1 trillion with interest," he said of Democrats. "Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line and saddle future generations with debt."

Taking a direct swipe at Obama, Jindal complained: "we appreciate his message of hope, but sometimes it seems like we look for hope in different places. Democratic leaders in Washington, they place their hope in the federal government. We place our hope in you, the American people."

Jindal's best Reagan impression came off as tired and flat when he referred to President Obama's warning that the country must take quick and decisive action on the economy or "our nation will sink into a crisis that, at some point, we may be unable to reverse." That's where Jindal weakly exorcised the GOP's Reaganesque spirit to weakly say: "A few weeks ago, the president warned that our country is facing a crisis that he said we may not be able to reverse," Jindal said. "Our troubles are real, to be sure. But don't let anyone tell you that we cannot recover. Don't let anyone tell you that America 's best days are behind her."

Jindal's criticisms deviated very little from those overused and tired phrasings and decades old rhetoric used by congressional Republicans who have failed to live up to their pledges of bipartisanship.

So it was not unexpected that Jindal called the stimulus “irresponsible.” He continued the attacks he started a few days ago when he said Obama's plan is a tax inflater and deficit creator. Jindal complained that the stimulus was "... no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs, or build a prosperous future for our children.”

“The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens,” Jindal said in arguing that the stimulus plan and other proposals by Obama to revive the nation’s economy rely too much on government spending and taxes.

Jindal turned again to Reagan when he repeated that government does not bear all the answers to all of the problems facing the nation. Jindal argued: “It comes down to an honest and fundamental disagreement about the proper role of government,” he said. “We oppose the national Democrats’ view that says the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government. We believe the way to strengthen our country is to restrain spending in Washington, to empower individuals and small businesses to grow our economy and create jobs.”

Once again demonstrating the Republican's lack of new ideas Jindal said: “Washington must lead. But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and not to put more money and power in the hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you -- the American people.”

Bloomberg News reported that Jindal "... said Republicans have put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income-tax rates, cutting taxes for small businesses, strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers, and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for homebuyers."

Jindal followed up by saying: “These plans would cost less and create more jobs” than Obama's plans.

On the topic of bipartisanship, Jindal said: “You are looking to your elected leaders in Washington for solutions,” he said. “Republicans are ready to work with the new president to provide those solutions.

“Where we agree, Republicans must be the president’s strongest partners. And where we disagree, Republicans have a responsibility to be candid and offer better ideas for a path forward,”Jindal said.

Finally, Jindal admitted that Republicans became careless with their fiscal responsibility to the federal budget: “You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility,” Jindal said. “Republicans lost your trust -- and rightly so.”

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Economic Stimulus Bill Toughened by Senator Dodd Signed into Law by President Obama Severely Limits Wall Street CEO Bonuses

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs stealthily slipped an amendment into the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that will set severe restrictions on bonuses and other types of compensation for executives at financial institutions receiving taxpayer bailout monies.

The significance of Mr. Dodd's amendment is that it imposes considerably more "wide-ranging restrictions on how — and by how much — top executives at companies receiving federal bailout money can be compensated," than the Obama Treasury Department had requested just a few days earlier.

In taking this action, Senator Dodd's amendment "imposes new limits on executive compensation that could significantly curb multimillion dollar pay packages on Wall Street."

CNN explains: "The (Dodd) measure would cap bonuses — often far more lucrative than base salaries for top executives — and could require executives at companies that have already received bailout money to pay back some of their compensation if it exceeded certain limits.

CNN summarizes four salient aspects of the Dodd amendment: "Firms taking more than $500 million from TARP would be required to restrict compensation paid to the 20 top-earning employees as well as to key executives. For companies getting $250 million to $500 million from TARP, it would be senior executives and the top 10 earning employees, and the number of affected employees would go down from there for companies taking less than $250 million from TARP.

"Golden parachutes" for senior executive officers or the next five most highly-compensated employees would be banned at companies receiving TARP funds, ending those often-sizeable severance payments for departing executives.

"Top executives at TARP-funded firms would be barred from receiving bonuses exceeding one-third of their annual salary. For many top executives that would mean a dramatic reduction. The Wall Street Journal cited as an example the 2007 compensation of Bank of America Corp. CEO Kenneth D. Lewis, who was paid a salary of $1.5 million that year but who actually earned a total of $16.4 million including a bonus, stock-option awards and restricted stock. At the same salary level, Lewis' 2009 compensation would be restricted to about $2.25 million under the Dodd provisions, the Journal said.

In a statement released by Senator Chris Dodd's office concerning the amendment he attached to the economic stimulus bill that is intended to end huge bonuses for executives at firms that received funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP):

“I’m delighted that my amendment to impose tough new limits on huge bonuses for executives working in firms that receive taxpayer funds will be included in the final economic recovery bill. The decisions of certain Wall Street executives to enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers have seriously undermined public confidence in efforts to stabilize the economy. American taxpayers deserve better. With vigorous oversight by the Treasury Department and by Congress, these tough new rules will help ensure that taxpayer dollars no longer effectively subsidize lavish Wall Street bonuses.”


For a written transcript of the president's remarks in Denver at the signing click

Now, the stimulus bill, which "President Obama signed today "in Denver, Colorado" at a signing ceremony; "limits bonuses for executives at all financial institutions receiving government funds to no more than a third of their annual compensation. The bonuses must be paid in company stock that can be redeemed only when the government investment has been repaid. With the measure, lawmakers seek to address public outrage over extravagant Wall Street paydays even as taxpayers bail out the industry." Reported the Washington Post. Furthermore, The Post adds Senator Dodd's "limits in the stimulus bill would apply to top executives and the highest-paid employees at all 359 banks that have already received government aid.

In commenting on the more rigid restrictions on CEO bonuses, Scott Talbot, who is employed by several of the nation's most significantly sized financial businesses, said: "This is a big deal. This is a problem,... It undermines the current incentive structure."

The Washington Post explained: "Bonuses make up much of financial executives' take-home pay, so the new rules could significantly diminish their compensation. For example, Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein made $68.5 million in 2007 -- a Wall Street record -- but $67.9 million of that was in bonus and other incentive pay that analysts said would be subject to the new rules." The Post cited another example: "Citigroup's top executive, Vikram Pandit, has voluntarily agreed to a $1 salary until his company returns to profitability. In theory, this means that Pandit would be allowed an annual bonus of pennies."