National Guard Troops Border Support Role only One year.

FOXNews.com - Timing of National Guard's Deployment to Southwest Border Stirs Confusion, Anger

The 1,200 National Guard troops expected to arrive Sunday on the southwest border for reinforcement won't finish deploying until late September, federal officials say, stirring confusion and anger among Arizona lawmakers who thought the deadline was Aug. 1.

President Obama announced in May he would send National Guard troops amid growing concerns about border violence stemming from illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Many called for a military presence along the U.S-Mexico border to assist border patrol agents as Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a controversial law making illegal immigration a state crime -- a policy that a judge weakened this week in federal court.

Earlier this month, the Department of Homeland Security said the troops would be sent Aug. 1. But now both the National Guard Bureau and the Customs Border Protection says that date was when they were directed to start ramping up their numbers.

Arizona lawmakers shook their heads in disgust.

The National Guard That Can Not Guard our Borders.

Homeland Security and Pentagon officials have been jousting over the possible National Guard deployment for the better part of a year. Pentagon officials worried about perceptions that the U.S. was militarizing the border and did not want Guard troops to perform law enforcement duties.

Obama on Tuesday promised to send 1,200 Guard troops to the border to support efforts to block drug trafficking and temporarily supplement Border Patrol agents until more agents can be trained. 
The  additional 1,200 National Guard troops —providing support for one year as part of the administration’s unprecedented efforts to crack down on transnational smuggling and cartel violence, as CBP continues to recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the Southwest border.
Former President George W. Bush sent thousands of Guard troops to the border in 2006.

Bush said it's crucial to not only increase patrols but to reduce the number of people trying to sneak across the border, saying that employers must be held accountable for the workers they hire. Bush says that although we are a nation of laws, we are also a nation of immigrants. "These are not contradictory goals. America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time," he said. The fact is that millions of illegal immigrants are already in the country, Bush said, but they should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it.  Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully -- and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration."   

"This (Obama) administration seems to promise a lot and then when you get into the fine print, it just doesn't happen," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has called for 6,000 National Guard troops.

Asked whether he had been briefed on what role the troops would play, McCain said, "We have not been briefed, and we have asked for briefing both in writing and verbally, and the answer is,'we'll get back to you.'"

"Troops will be there this Sunday as planned," a Homeland Security spokesman said. "This is the beginning deployment stage. There is a ramp-up time and troops will be trained. Nothing has changed in our world."

"Nothing has changed in our world." That is the problem!

Obama to Send 1200 Troops to US-Mexico Border

More post from Wag This Dog.
Just like President Bush, Obama wants to send unarmed National ...
Immigration President Obama against Arizona Voters.
President Obama wants Israel to open Gaza borders ...


Share this post, Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Technorati Tags: National Guard, Border

Financial Oversight Reform President Obama what is in it?

Congress Passes Financial Oversight Reform - NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — The sweeping expansion of federal financial regulation approved by Congress on Thursday and now headed to President Obama’s desk reflects a renewed mistrust of financial markets after decades in which Washington stood back from Wall Street with wide-eyed admiration.

The bill, heavily promoted by Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats as a response to the 2008 financial crisis, cleared the Senate by a vote of 60 to 39, largely along party lines, after weeks of wrangling that allowed Democrats to pick up the three Republican votes to ensure passage.

The vote was the culmination of nearly two years of fierce lobbying and intense debate over the appropriate response to the financial excesses that dragged the nation into the worst recession since the Great Depression.

The result is a catalog of repairs and additions to the rusted infrastructure of a regulatory system that has failed to keep pace with the expanding scope and complexity of modern finance.

Place to keep your money

The legislation will be carried out mostly by the same federal workers who were on duty as the financial system collapsed. The new consumer bureau, for example, mostly will be staffed with employees transferred from the consumer divisions of the existing banking regulators.

Administration officials said they were confident that placing those employees under new leadership, and granting them new powers, would produce better results.

It creates a council of federal regulators, led by the Treasury secretary, to coordinate the detection of
risks to the financial system, and it provides new powers to constrain and even dismantle troubled companies.

Democrats divided initially over how to pursue that goal. Some pushed to break apart large banks and curtail risky kinds of trading. Others sought a grander overhaul of federal regulation. The administration’s approach, which prevailed, instead is focused on giving existing regulators additional powers in the hope that they will produce better results.

The legislation is painted in broad strokes, so like actors handed a script, those regulators have broad leeway to shape its meaning and its impact.

This reform will foster that innovation, not hamper it,” Mr. Obama said Thursday.

In the hope that they will produce better results. Sounds like a great law?

FinReg: More Harm Than Good?

More post from Wag This Dog.
President Obama Grew Deficit by $181 billion in July.
Barack Obama asked his Cabinet to save $100 million over time.
Taxpayer will pay for Freddie Mac $5 Billion Loss Third Quarter

Share this post, Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to ant post.

75da0d70bdf04c398fedaf68dd7fc395



Technorati Tags: financial reform

Bank of America trying to get Government Obama off it's back.

Bank of America says it's paying back $45 billion in government loans - CharlotteObserver.com

Bank of America said Wednesday evening it is set to repay all of its $45 billion in government aid, a step that helps remove the stigma of being a bailout recipient and dials back government scrutiny of its operations.

The Charlotte bank had been eager to pay back the money for months, but it needed the approval of government regulators. The move allows departing chief executive Ken Lewis to remove a major blot on his legacy, and it potentially makes it easier for the company to find his replacement.

The U.S. Treasury said the repayment means Bank of America will be freed from executive compensation restrictions imposed by pay czar Ken Feinberg, which have made it tougher to attract a new CEO. Feinberg also will have no say on the final total compensation and pension for Lewis.

Czar Ken Feinberg puts ball and chain on business CEO's

No one wants the banks CEO's job with czar Ken Feinberg restrictions on the CEO's pay. With Lewis leaving at year's end, and why should he stay with the little CEO's pay, Bank of America needs to remove those restrictions. The bank received approval to return the TARP money after negotiations with regulators heated up in recent weeks. Chief risk officer Greg Curl, who is considered an internal CEO candidate, spearheaded the talks.

Kenneth Feinberg, the U.S. paymaster for rescued companies, will exempt some executives at American
International Group Inc. from a $500,000 salary cap after at least five employees threatened to quit because of the limits, people familiar with the matter said.

Feinberg may issue a ruling as early as next week on pay limits for 75 of the bailed-out insurer’s executives, the people said. Last week, five executives said they were prepared to resign if their compensation was significantly cut.

The compensation ruling could mean that some AIG executives among the 75 may earn bigger salaries than those in a group that Feinberg ruled on six weeks ago, who were previously the highest-paid employees. The $500,000 limit has so far applied to everyone at New York-based AIG except Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche, who has a $7 million salary.

American International Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Robert Benmosche told the company’s
board that he is considering resigning from the job he’s held for three months, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the situation.

The CEO is chafing under constraints imposed by AIG’s government overseers, in particular a recent compensation review by Kenneth Feinberg, the special master on pay in U.S. PresidentBarack Obama’s administration, according to the people.

Benmosche, who started in August after his predecessor Edward Liddy quit in May, is seeking to halt the departure of customers and employees so he can build up units to sell in order to repay loans included in AIG’s $182.3 billion bailout. New York-based AIG is among firms Feinberg ordered to slash pay.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration will destroy our banking business!

More post from Wag This Dog.
Taxpayer will pay for Freddie Mac $5 billion loss third quarter.
Barack Obama knew AIG could pay bonuses before Executives took them.
Polls show public wary of deficit and Obama's economic intervention.

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Technorati Tags: Bank of America

FOX News Interview - Exec. Pay, Pay Czar

Chocolate firms raided, accused of price fixing.

If you feel your Valentine's Day chocolates are not such a sweet deal this year, you're not alone. Regulators are investigating alleged price fixing among candy makers in at least (2) different countries. In the last week, the German Federal Cartel Office raided the offices of seven of the leading chocolate companies including Mars Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and Nestle searching for documents. Three months ago, Canada's Competition Bureau searched (raided) the offices of several companies, many of the same ones as in Germany. The Canadian investigation sparked several American lawsuits accusing the world's biggest chocolate companies of violating antitrust laws. The U.S. Department of Justice declined to confirm it is investigating, yet several companies confirmed receiving inquiries. By Janet Frankston Lorin, Associated Press.

Can you believe this? It all started in Canada when a Ontario court granted search warrants based on the evidence that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a number of suppliers in the chocolate industry have engaged in price fixing. Then Germany raids seven companies searching for documents looking for criminal acts. These are not people who sell drugs but chocolate. German officials said the companies raided this week had agreed, among themselves, at the beginning of the year to raise prices. This is not price fixing food that we need to live but chocolate which we can do without. It's a pleasure of life to enjoy.

But there is price fixing going on in the chocolate industry. First the union workers negotiate a contract that sets out the terms, fixed price, and conditions of employment. Second the government set a fixed price on licenses', permits and taxes. Third, the power companies price fix the cost of electricity. And last, the shippers have a fixed price to ship the chocolate.

Why are the Canadian and German governments doing this? The same reason that there are now several American lawsuits, for the money. The companies in Canada could face up to $10 million in Canadian dollars, seven companies could be $70 million dollars. In Germany the companies face possible fines of up to 10 percent of their annual income, which could be close to a billion dollars. Even if they have done nothing wrong, it costs these companies thousands of dollars to defend themselves and could last 5 to 10 years. This is the reason most companies settle out of court and the consumer ends up paying the bill in higher insurance prices and employee lay offs.

This is one of the main reasons companies are pulling their factories out of these countries and setting up shop in Mexico, China and India. This is also the same reason companies are not building new factories in these countries. South America, where the cocoa bean is harvested, would be more than happy for those companies to move there. I don't think they will try to take their money with fines. I think these countries should look into the gum industry. It seems like all the packs of gum are the same price.


Technorati Tags: Price Fixing

France's president Nicolas Sarkozy weds supermodel Carla Bruni.

They had a glitzy, jet setting courtship, but when it came time for the wedding, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and former supermodel Carla Bruni opted for a simple, classic ceremony. Sarkozy, 53 and Bruni, 40, were married Saturday in a small private ceremony at the presidential Elysee Palace, less than three months after they reportedly first met, and less than four months after his divorce. The newlyweds said in a statement that they tied the knot "in the presence of their families in the strictest privacy." The mayor who performed the ceremony filled in the details. Under French law, couples must marry before a mayor to make their union official. Usually weddings take place at a city hall, with an official wedding announcement published before hand, but Sarkozy and Bruni apparently were given a dispensation, to maintain their privacy. Compiled from wire reports.

Under French law you must be married by a mayor? What happened to be married by a priest, minister or rabbi? What happen to being married in a church in the eyes of God? Now their getting married, in France, in the eyes of Government? The wedding must take place in a city hall by the mayor of that city. I just wonder how much the city is making off of the weddings? Is there a wedding tax in France or is it free to use city hall? Do you stand just with your bride or is this a mass wedding with everyone raising their right hand saying "I do." And under law it must be published in the newspaper beforehand. The President of the country had to obtain a dispensation to maintain their privacy. I will say, when the government becomes God, the government is too big. I guess in France they don't put their trust in the people or God , they put their trust in government. I pray and hope we never see this in the United States.


Technorati Tags: French Law

Powered by ScribeFire.