Showing posts with label Main Street. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Main Street. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Expert: Stimulus Fraud May Hit $50 Billion

dollar-sign-money Any large government endeavor is susceptible to fraud, and that’s certainly the case with the $787 billion fiscal stimulus package.

Up to $50 billion of that total could be siphoned off by fraudsters in current months, says David Williams, who runs Deloitte Financial Services Advisory.

He estimates that $500 billion of the package will flow through the traditional government procurement network.

"The rule of thumb typically is that of the… money that's going to run through the procurement process, somewhere between 5 percent and 10 percent… usually finds its way into potential problems," Williams tells MarketWatch.

"That's sort of the benchmark that I use."

The fact that the money flows electronically puts companies even more at risk of being ripped off, Williams points out.

"We're telling our clients to be very careful and to make sure their firms are resilient in terms of dealing with the potential opportunities for fraud and waste," he says.

"It becomes ever more important that firms remain diligent about their data."

FBI Director Robert Mueller also warns of fraud stemming from the stimulus package.

“These funds are inherently vulnerable to bribery, fraud, conflicts of interest, and collusion,” he said last month.

Many experts oppose the stimulus for issues far removed from fraud and corruption.

“It’s just a grab bag of every spending proposal that’s been banging around Congress for years,” publisher Steve Forbes told Bloomberg TV.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:54 AM
By: Dan Weil – Newsmax

Next stop… Nationalized Medicine… If we don’t stop government run healthcare, this fraud will look like a ‘walk in the park’… while medical services become more and more restricted, the number of doctors and nurses diminish and government decides who qualifies for what services… or that you don’t qualify at all because you are too old etc etc, the fraud will be rampant!

Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Adopt-A-Stimulus-Project

Adopt-A-Stimulus-Project

We need your help in watching stimulus projects nationwide
We need your help in watching stimulus projects nationwide

It is never too early to start watchdogging one of the largest spending bills in U.S. history – the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It includes $27 billion to repair America’s roads and bridges.

Monitoring thousands of construction sites around the country is an impossible task for a single reporter. Or a handful of reporters. That’s why we need your help.

Search for stimulus projects in your state below, then pick one to monitor over the next few months. We’ll send you suggestions and tips on how to watchdog your project. Use this form to send us reports (we'll also send you a link to it by email when you sign up).

Email Amanda Michel at amanda@propublica.org for more information. If you don’t see a project in your area join ProPublica’s Reporting Network; we’ll notify you when projects get started in your county.

Your State: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

88 results were found for Wisconsin check out your state.   Click on the column heads to sort at:  http://www.propublica.org/special/adopt-a-stimulus-project

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Conservatism 101

A blog that Scott Edwards and I had created back in September. One of my posts. I am ready to write again..

Posted – 04.18.09 at 12:03pm

Written: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2008 - Conservatism 101

I was talking to one of my dear friends the other night who is attending Columbia for his second Masters. He is an Obama supporter and a life-long Democrat. He understands that I am a Conservative and a McCain/Palin supporter. We are friends and we have had long debates over what is "right" and what is "left."

At the end of our friendly phone call, he made a point to tell me, "You know, liberals are the smartest and most educated in our country." To which I replied, "Well, I consider myself smart and educated, and I am not a liberal." And this is the impetus for my writing this blog.

It is a wonder to me that someone, who believes to know--because they have had the luxury of an Ivy league education--what is best for the average American. It is a wonder to me that one thinks that he has a better understanding of "Joe the Plumber's" needs, because he hires a guy like Joe to fix his plumbing. (Hey, I hire a plumber too. They are what makes things "run"). And, it is a wonder to me that this person thinks that he or his colleagues are "smarter" because of their Ivy league education.

Elitism? At its' finest. Please do not tell me that I am not the "most" smart or educated because I am not a Ivy League Intellectual. Ivy league education is a privilege. Hard knocks are not, but they can be an advantage.

As an American, I hope to have the freedom and the choices to know what is best for me, my family, my community and my country.

Look, most of us, in our own way, contribute to this country--whether it be through time, work, taxes or charity. We all have a common interest in doing what is best for ourselves and for our community. But, we all have a different opinion on how our contributions are allocated and recognized. The difference, the sheer difference, between a liberal and a conservative is this: A liberal will tell you how they will spend your money. A conservative will let you spend it how you see fit. If you don't have any money? Well, FDR put in place the first of many programs that have been abused by the federal government and welfare opportunists. I am not saying that these programs are not needed, but these programs were developed on assistance, NOT on dependence.

Now come the Taxes! Social Security. AMT. Local Taxes. Federal Taxes. State Taxes. Gas Taxes. Food Taxes. Retail Taxes. Property Taxes. Death taxes. Marriage Taxes. Capital Gains Taxes. Property Taxes. Liquor/Tobacco Taxes. User Taxes. And the list goes on and on and on and on.

Now, imagine my surprise when I hear that Obama/Biden want to just tax more. Instead of creating opportunity, they choose to inhibit it by giving handouts. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had forced banks to lend to anyone and everyone. No docs? No problem! The list of government programs and opportunities for the "needy" go on and on and on. WHERE DOES ALL THE MONEY GO? HOW HAVE THESE PROGRAMS, IN THE LAST 30 YEARS, LIFTED THE POOR OUT OF POVERTY? Oh, and by the way, if you ever want to pay more taxes because you feel like you haven't paid enough, there is a form for that. Talk to your accountant.

You see, most of use working, middle class, Americans DO NOT have an Ivy League education. Most of us working Americans do pay taxes. Most of us working American's have never wanted kids to go without education, elderly to go without healthcare, and the environment to go without consideration and conservation. Yet, as a conservative, I am constantly accused of wanting destruction of these very issues. This is simply not the case.

Us conservatives are constantly being accused as a party of the "wealthy." What is most ironic about this statement? Many conservatives do not have an Ivy league education. Many conservatives are not wealthy. We are hard working and educated and eager to lessen government intervention. We are eager to spur entrepreneurship, job creation, smart funding for those who truly, truly need it, with hopes of creating opportunity for those that are able to achieve and want a piece of the American dream.

All of these aforementioned programs have not solved the poverty crisis. Democrats, for the past 30 plus years, have expanded these programs, through excessive taxation, in order to make their constituents reliant on their party. Entrepreneurs and small business take on huge amounts of risk. Liberals do not reward risk--they tax it.

Conservatives have a fundamental belief that government has gotten too large and too complicated. We recognize need and are, therefore, the most charitable of the parties. It is a fact.

So I close in asking this: If liberals are so smart and the most educated, why am I even writing this blog? They have had numerous opportunities and years to right the wrongs. They say they are the champions of the middle class--I guess Joe the Plumber doesn't fit their middle class profile.

The next four years will prove whether entrepreneurship and risk thrive, or if we have created a larger dependency on government. If conservatism has a chance, we will not forget where we came from and what led us to losing our direction in this election.

I am Miss Tory, and I approve of this message.

By Megan Barth – Megan’s Note

Posted:  Daily Thought Pad

Related Articles:

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Whooh... Garofalo and Olbermann Indulge In Name Calling

Quote - It's your Friday night recappers open thread! And to make the concept of Keith "Man on Fan" Olbermann a bit more tolerable, we have a delightful clip of Lou Dobbs as an appetizer. Listen as he goes after Krazy Keith, Goofy Garofalo, and that cesspool known as A-Mess-NBC. Then do your recapping of tonight's Hour of Spin. 

Lou Dobbs Rips Keith Olbermann, Garofalo, and MSNBC!

Red Eye Reams Olbermann, Garafalo for Racist Comments!
It is Garofalo who has no idea what she is talking about or American history and rights!! I guess name calling is okay if you are on the left...

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Bankruptcy, Not Bailout

Newt Gingrich

by Newt Gingrich

"Outrage" is the word on everyone's lips to describe the fat bonuses being paid with taxpayer funds to the failed executives at AIG - and it is an outrage.

It's an outrage that the American people are being asked to pay for the bad behavior of people who should have known better, be they reckless traders on Wall Street or reckless borrowers on Main Street.

But the cure for our outrage is not merely, as President Obama is demanding, that AIG be prevented from paying its executives. The $165 million in planned bonuses - as manifestly undeserved as it is - is chicken feed compared to the $170 billion in taxpayer funds AIG has received so far.

Nor is it acceptable to ask Americans to keep throwing their tax dollars at failed companies and their leaders.
The answer is an old fashioned one: AIG should choose between receivership or bankruptcy. It should not be allowed to choose more bailouts from the taxpayer.

Restore the Rule of Law: Allow Failing Corporations to go Bankrupt

Under U.S. law, Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows a company to reorganize. Chapter 7 allows a company to dissolve itself.

The choices for AIG, as both an insurance and non-insurance company, are more complicated, but ultimately boil down to the same options. And for other companies either receiving or looking to receive a bailout from the taxpayers, the option should instead be bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy would send a needed message to U.S. investors: Don't assume the government will bail you out when you do something stupid.

And most importantly, bankruptcy would replace the rule of politicians over U.S. financial institutions with the rule of law.

Geithner Didn't Inherit the Policy of Throwing Billions at Failing Companies - He Helped Create It

Because when it comes to Washington's handling of the financial crisis, so far we've had the rule of politicians, not the rule of law.
Most prominent among the politicians in question is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

As Americans' level of outraged has risen, so has the level of finger pointing by Geithner and others for the mess we're in.

But Treasury Secretary Geithner is disingenuous at best and untruthful at worst when he says that he "inherited the worst fiscal situation in American history."

The truth is that Secretary Geithner didn't inherit the policy of throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at failing companies - he helped create it.

Even before he was Treasury Secretary - when he was still head of the New York Federal Reserve - Geithner was so deeply involved in the government's bail out of Bear Stearns, its take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and its bailout of AIG that this was the Washington Post's headline from September 19, 2008:
"In the Crucible of Crisis, Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner Forge a Committee of Three".

The first meeting of the first bailout - of Bear Stearns - was held in Geithner's office. And the first meeting of what has become a $170 billion bailout of AIG was held - where else? In Geithner's New York Fed office.

Why Not Bankruptcy for AIG? Because Wall Street Wouldn't Have Done As Well

From the outset, Geithner was central to the developing policy of having the taxpayers bail out ailing financial institutions like AIG rather then allow them to go bankrupt. And for months now, we've been told that these bailouts were necessary to avoid a wider, cataclysmic, financial meltdown.

But now it's clear that other, less noble, considerations were at play.
As the Wall Street Journal editorialized yesterday, the real outrage over the AIG bailout isn't executive bonuses, it's that billions in taxpayer funds intended for AIG have been passed through to benefit foreign banks and Wall Street behemoths like Goldman Sachs.

And as former AIG CEO Hank Greenburg testified last October, these financial institutions wouldn't have faired as well if AIG had filed for bankruptcy protection rather than do what it did, which was to negotiate a bailout with Timothy Geithner's New York Federal Reserve.

Here's how Greenburg put it:
"Although AIG stockholders could have fared better if the company had filed for bankruptcy protection, other stakeholders - like AIG's Wall Street counterparties in swaps and other transactions - would have fared worse."

For the Cost of Bailing Out AIG, Every American Household Could Have Free Electricity For a Year

So now everyone is outraged, and rightly so. But the lavish executive bonuses being paid with taxpayer funds are just the beginning of the story.

So far, the American taxpayers are on the hook for $170 billion to AIG - that's an astounding $1,224 per taxpayer.

What else could we have done with all this money?

$170 billion would pay for more than doubling the Navy's fleet of aircraft carriers.

$170 billion would pay for a four-year education at a public university for more then two million Americans.

$170 billion would cover the electricity bill of every household in America for an entire year.

When You Reward Failure, All You Get is More Failure

What Washington should learn from all this outrage is to return to the common sense that should have guided it all along: When you reward failure, all you get it more failure.

A company that needs a $170 billion taxpayer bailout is a failed company. The executives that led that company are failed executives. But instead of having to face the consequences of their failure responsibly through bankruptcy or receivership, AIG and its Wall Street "counterparties" are being rewarded for their recklessness - with our money.

Thanks to the Bush-Obama-Geithner policy of bailing out failing companies, we now have the worst of all possible scenarios: A taxpayer subsidized, government supervised private company; an unsustainable public/private hybrid that is too public to make its own decisions and too private to be responsible to the taxpayers that are keeping it alive.

Outrages like the fat cat bonuses currently dominating the headlines will only continue as long as the rule of politicians supplants the rule of law on Wall Street.

Congress should rethink this entire process. The dangers of a domino-like financial meltdown are real. But so, too, is the danger that the outrage of the American people will reach the point that we no longer trust the dire warnings - or the righteous indignation - coming from Washington.

  Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
   Newt Gingrich

P.S. -- Historian William Forstchen and I have collaborated on many different works of historical fiction. I'm proud to announce that Bill has a new novel out, called One Second After. It's a fascinating and disturbing account of what America would be like in the aftermath of an electro magnetic pulse (EMP) attack. Like everything Bill does, One Second After expertly combines human drama and geopolitical reality for a fictional look at what could be an all-too-real future.

Related Articles:  Obama's Attack on Medical Civil Liberties

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Time to Cowboy-up to Main Street

Last week, Main Street received an opportunity to sit in the front seat of the election, thanks to John McCain’s decision to suspend his campaign to go to Washington to help Congress fix the financial meltdown.

Whether that was an admirable decision by a man who once said he “would rather lose an election than a war” or a political stunt to boost his economic muscle, (and I personally think it was an admirable decision) it did accomplish one thing: The rhetoric of both candidates pivoted to Middle America and working families.

Let’s hope it stays there.

Until now, chin-wagging by the political elite and endless e-mails from the campaigns and the national parties have driven the hour’s story.

“Those clowns make it difficult for those elected ultimately to govern, because governing is reality -- it isn't campaigning,” says Purdue University political science professor Bert Rockman.

Rockman says a lot of focus has been on the wrong things -- sort of like looking at the zookeepers, not the animals.

Voters lose ultimately when politics consumes governing, when style overrides substance, when tough -- usually stupid -- words override reflective thought that might prevent you from being painted into a corner.

Politics is gut stuff. Good government and serious policy-making, in contrast, engage the brain.

“We didn't get to the top of the food chain by out-muscling some of the larger mammals,” Rockman points out. “We got there by outwitting them.”

Now that the campaigns have paused (and perhaps realized that they aren’t just preaching to their respective choirs), what should they be saying?

First, the candidates should ask without preconditions why the current economic crisis happened -- and then not respond with stock answers.

They can't just shout “Regulate more!” without knowing what it is they need to regulate, and under what framework and oversight Most Americans understand that you must balance your checkbook. They want to know that the guy they’re electing operates the same way; they want to hear that, under his administration, the Federal Reserve will be more incremental in managing the nation’s money supply.

No ideological themes sung to finger-wagging -- Middle America wants to know what political commitments we can and cannot afford.

For its part, the press should ask much better questions, departing from “gotcha” or silly questions and leaping into reality, such as “What are you actually going to do?” or “What’s the basis for the claim you’re making?”

Federal Reserve historian and Carnegie Mellon professor Allan Meltzer says we have faced serious problems such as this before, most recently the banking problems of the early 1990s.

Meltzer says that because banks lend long-term and borrow short-term, “Crises occur when the market changes.”

What most people want is to understand the problem, how it affects their pocketbook and what each candidate will do to clean up the mess.

University of Arkansas political science professor Rob Maranto says that because the press focuses on such things as intercepted e-mails, pregnant daughters, Obama's slickness or McCain's temper, we all understand the candidates’ personal characteristics and can make some sense of them.

But the larger issue is, who understands today’s financial meltdown?

Only time (short-term time, since we are now just 30-odd days from Election Day) will tell if McCain cowboy-upped during his “suspended” campaign and achieved something worthwhile or if he and Obama simply picked up where they left off -- allowing the chin-waggers to frame the campaign’s final month and leaving Main Street in suspended animation.  I will give McCain that he headed right back to Washington after the debate, while Obama went back to the campaign trail and phoning in to check on the 'real stuff'.

by Salena Zito

Source:  NewsMax