Suggestions for additions to the President-Elect’s Economic Stimulus plan

I'm not an expert on economics and I don't claim or pretend to be. That being said I have come up with a few things that I think would help the economy and that should be implemented by the President-Elect when he takes office. I believe, from what I have read, heard, and what I know that could greatly help although the effects would take time to be visible.

1) Executive Orders that would be retro active (once signed they are immediately applicable)
a) Require ALL lending institutions to allow anyone with an adjustable rate mortgage to refinance to a 1.5-2% fixed rate mortgage. Fee free
b) Require that all management yearly salaries in any company that has received government assistance be capped at a maximum of $300,000. With all bonuses, perks, corporate jets, corporate cars, etc banned and immediately discontinued. All overseen by either the IRS or similar agency.
c) All credit card companies restricted to a maximum chargeable interest rate of 10% on ALL credit cards.
d) Interest rates on all personal loans, student loans, and home equity loans dropped to a maximum of 3%
2) Congress immediately passes legislation that gives tax breaks/incentives to companies who operate entirely within the U.S. Meaning that a company would greatly benefit by moving its manufacturing, headquarters, etc back to the U.S.

The Scar of America

This is a bit old in terms of news but I wasn't quite sure how to fully argue my point on it until now. The President-Elect has stated in the past that he would look at and consider closing the prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. I truly believe that prison should be closed and closed as soon as possible. Here's why:

First off, let me point out that ANY and ALL U.S. military bases are considered U.S. territory. Which means that they fall under U.S. law and anyone born on a base is an automatic U.S. citizen. That being said, I believe that Guantanamo Bay is in direct violation of the 5th, 6th, and perhaps even the 8th amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America. Now, for those who say the suspected terrorists are not U.S. citizens, therefore they don't receive any protection from the Constitution; I say you are dead wrong. It does not matter if they are citizens or not, they are in U.S. custody and are therefore under the protection of U.S. law. Want proof? Have you ever heard of an "illegal alien" committing a crime (murder, drugs, etc), being booked, taken to a prison, and promptly being shot by prison officials without justification (attacking the officer, attacking another inmate, etc)? I don't think so because it would be ILLEGAL for them to do that despite the fact the perpetrator is not a citizen of the United States.

This country was founded on fairness and equality and to me Guantanamo Bay flies in the the very face of this country. When you look back at the history of this country, the only difference between the Japanese Internment camps of WWII and Guantanamo Bay is numbers of people being held. The fact that the prison there even exists and operates the way it does, causes the same image problems as torture. If the U.S. can do it, then why shouldn't we? It is extremely difficult to try and be a "moral beacon" for the rest of the world when you are at the same time being blatantly immoral. If we are willing to throw parts of the Constitution away that we don't agree with because they "complicate things", then we are no better than the people who we are fighting against! The United States that I love FOLLOWS its Constitution even at the hardest of times.



Amendment 5: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
-Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment 6: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and fair trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
-Constitution of the United States of America

Amendment 8: "Excessive bail shall not be required, not excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
-Constitution of the United States of America

Corruption

I find it interesting that this corruption case in Illinois is getting so much heated attention. People constantly say that politicians are corrupt and yet they act SURPRISED when there is a scandal.

I mean lets be honest people, EVERY elected or appointed official in government is corrupt in one way or another. Anyone who thinks that his/her representative, senator, councilmember, president, etc is NOT corrupt is extremely naive. If they truly were not corrupt then every "special interest", from religions to war-profiteers, would have ZERO power to influence policy. The simple existence of organized "special interests" that "petition" the government and contribute to campaigns PROVE corruption is everywhere.

Illinois's governor was wrong in what he did, should be removed, and is a total idiot. The stupid corrupt people are the ones who always get caught but they aren't always the worst or most influential. The politicians that really affect things are the ones who are smart enough to know how to hide it, get reelected, and as a result often have enormous influence on policy.

Corruption is one of those things that is good and bad, depending entirely on opinion. It all depends on who benefits and who gets shafted in the end. Yes, when laws are violated by politicians doing corrupt acts, it is illegal. But you have to remember who investigates corruption allegations in the government; the Judicial Branch of the GOVERNMENT. If you know the "right" people in the "right" places its possible to have things "overlooked". Again, good or bad, corruption comes down to the opinions of those who win, versus those who lose. Realistically, the only way to come close to preventing it, is the constant changing of the people in power, and never reelecting the incumbent, but even then it will still exist in some form.

Can we have an early inauguration?

Once again, the lame duck that is President Bush has repealed a law that should not have been repealed...

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11148763

The President has decided to eliminate the rule that bans all firearms in national parks. People who have conceal/carry permits for firearms can now legally take them, loaded, into any national park as long as the state that the park is in has no law banning them, which is all but two. This is just ASKING for trouble in my mind.

First off, why in the hell do you need, or even feel the need, to have a firearm in a national park in the first place??? If you feel THAT unsafe, then go lock yourself in your basement and keep to yourself. I can already see that one day some idiot is going to get pissed off at someone else for something stupid, pull out his gun, and thats all she wrote. It also opens the door for people to go "Oh, I like that bird" or whatever "I'm going to shoot it and mount it on my wall at home."

Orin Hatch was quoted in the Trib article saying that he believe that the second amendment should not stop at national park boundaries. Well Senator Hatch guess what, if you think that then you are implying that ALL of the monuments AND buildings in Washington, DC that fall under the park service should have the change in law apply to them as well. Which would make security pointless.

Look, I have no problem with people owning guns BUT I don't think they need to be carried EVERYWHERE by who ever wants to. Or that people should be allowed to have assault weapons like an AK-47. If EVERYONE was 100% responsible with their guns then I would say get rid of all gun laws, but since they aren't we need these type of laws to prevent people from being stupid.

Ugh Mr President...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27812209/

So this is a fairly new news story so for those who haven't heard, the President wants to rush in new changes to the Endangered Species Act before tomorrow so that President-elect Obama can't reverse them when he takes office on Jan 20.

The President is basically once again trying very hard to pull the teeth out of the Endangered Species Act by changing the rules when it comes to environmental studies for new highways, dams, etc. Right now federal wildlife scientists and others need to examine proposed developments to see how they will influence wildlife. What Bush wants to do is "eliminate the input of federal wildlife scientists in some endangered species cases, allowing the federal agency in charge of building, authorizing or funding a project to determine for itself it is likely to harm endangered wildlife and plants," or in other words it makes it a lot easier to turn a blind eye to endangered species.

This is simply disgusting. That law was passed with the regulations it has FOR A REASON! It has actually worked to help endangered species! Look at the bald eagle and gray wolf for example. Was it not a REPUBLICAN who founded the National Park system which is basically a large scale and very obvious version of protecting all species and areas? I mean T.R. probably knew enough that if you over hunt, eliminate habitat, etc you WILL lose that species.

Bailout Bull

So anyone wondering why Congress wanted oversight for the $700 billion now? The Treasury Department is completely dropping what it said they bailout would be used for, buying up mortgage debt so it would come off banks' books, and is now saying they are going to use it to buy stocks in banks to try and prop them up that way. Ummm hello! Buying up stocks will do jack shit if these companies don't change their practices! So what happens if the stocks drop again after the government has bought them?? Oh nothing more than just tax payer money down the drain!

So now the Big 3 auto makers; Ford, GM, Chrysler, are wanting the government to bail them out. Well its sounding like a lost cause in Congress because some like John Boehner say "Spending billions of additional federal tax dollars with no promises to reform the root causes crippling automakers' competitiveness around the world is neither fair to taxpayers nor sound fiscal policy." Well lets see here now.....did the $700 billion bailout force companies to "promise to reform"in order to get their aid? HELL NO IT DIDN'T!!!!! In fact is anyone going to tell AIG to give ALL of its bailout money back because they are spending some of it to conduct "trainings" at 5 star resorts??? I think not because that might mean less campaign funds next time around...I mean come on, if anything the auto makers should have been one of the first group to benefit because they are tied far more closely to Main Street. If an auto company is forced to close down its plant(s) in a town, it could KILL the town. In some places the relationship between and auto factory and the population of a town is the exact same as a coal mine to a town. If the plant or mine goes, the town dies. If the Big 3 go under then its gonna hurt EVERYTHING tied to them, including any city/town that has a steel plant, tire factory, etc. Sure those products get used elswhere too and the Big 3 have reduced influence on US auto manufacturing BUT they still have a big part in it!

I was not a fan of the $700 Billion bailout and I'm not a fan of bailing out the auto industry either. But the precedent has now been set and if you are gonna bailout banks to help the economy then you have to do it for the Big 3 auto makers too given their overall value and influence to the economy. Even in terms of sybolism you have to do it for them. Ford, GM, and Chrysler are so well known worldwide, part of the image of the US is tied to them, and if they go down how will that affect the world view of the US economy?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27686318

Cal Prop 8

I hate California's proposition 8 that bans gay marriage. This is Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on it and I couldn't have said it any better.