A World Bank economist is trying to shame the U.S. for being home to one half of the world’s richest people, the so-called 1%. In reality, it’s the world that should be red-faced for not creating wealth as America does.

Bank chief economist Branko Milanovic has come out with a book called “The Haves and the Have Nots,” whose purpose seems to be to argue there’s something wrong about America having an outsized concentration of the world’s wealth.

Implied in the argument is that America’s wealth comes at someone else’s expense, and the solution is to have a bureaucracy redistribute it more to his liking.

Milanovic writes of wealth as a “one-way street” and calls America a “wealth ghetto.”

Subtext: The world’s poor countries can’t win.

Frankly, that’s about as dim and pernicious a conclusion as that of an teacher who refuses to distinguish winners from losers based on performance.

Read the entire article here:  Wealth Creation Comes From Having Free Markets, Not From Luck Or Plunder – Investors.com.

** I have to point out some delicious irony –  this World Bank Economist should be the happiest person ever, since he gets paid to figure out how to redistribute the World’s wealth.  However, I am willing to go out on a limb and say that Branko is not a happy person.  One can not be happy when one’s life is solely dedicated to a philosophical construct based on envy and materialism..

It is quite obvious that the premise of this book, and likely Branko’s entire existence is rooted in Marxism and thus fundamentally flawed (due to the failure of Marxism to account for human nature).  This fundamental flaw is at the heart of why Socialism and Communism fail to be successful economic models (unless they have a Capitalist system to feed off of.

The new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wasted little time getting to work, using the agency’s new powers to start supervising payday lenders and other firms outside the conventional banking system.

The bureau’s main goal will be ensuring that consumer loans, mortgages and other financial products are easier to understand, but the new director, Richard Cordray, warned companies that “transparency alone is not enough.”

“The consumer bureau will make clear that there are real consequences to breaking the law,” Cordray said in a speech Thursday at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

It will be a few weeks before the agency has supervisors ready to go into companies to examine their practices. But the preparations began Thursday, amid cheers from consumer advocates and others who have pushed for mortgage brokers, debt collectors and others to face the same federal oversight as banks.

“There’s a new sheriff in town,” said Bill Bartmann, chief executive of CFS II, a debt-collection company in Tulsa, Okla.

read the rest here Consumer bureau chief begins supervision of payday lenders – chicagotribune.com.

via The Daily Beast

Obama Embraces Signing Statements After Knocking Bush for Using Them

Candidate Barack Obama criticized President Bush for using ‘signing statements’ to ignore the will of Congress. But Obama’s done the same thing 20 times since taking office, and his latest effort is rankling lawmakers

As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama promised that if he was elected president he would not issue obscure declarations known as signing statements that thwart the intent of laws passed by Congress. But as the president now seeking reelection in 2012, on at least 20 occasions Obama has embraced the same tactic he criticized George W. Bush for using, raising allegations of double-dealing in Congress and questions of constitutionality from the American Bar Association.

The signing statement essentially declares Obama’s intention to ignore requirements in the law, including restrictions on data transfers to Russia, new authorities to detain suspected members of al Qaeda, and sanctions against the central bank of Iran. The move has alienated members of Congress who claim the White House reneged on promises it made during backroom negotiations to get the long-stalled legislation passed just before lawmakers left for the holidays.

<snip>

In the Dec. 31 signing statement, Obama says the section of the defense authorization bill that requires the president to notify Congress 60 days prior to any decision to share the missile defense data “could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers.” Obama also says the section of the bill instructing the United States to sanction any banks that do business with Iran’s central bank, a provision championed by Kirk, also would interfere with the president’s ability to make foreign policy.

The assertion by Obama does follow a long-standing tradition for Democratic and Republican presidents. President Monroe was the first to issue a signing statement, and the practice later became more widespread during the Reagan administration. Although Obama has issued 20 signing statements, President George W. Bush had issued 87 such statements by the fourth year of his first term.

“Presidents have long used signing statements to signal concerns about legislation, and in particular, with respect to provisions he believes inappropriately encroach on his duties as commander in chief,” said Mark Paoletta, a former assistant counsel to President George H.W. Bush.

“However, during the 2008 campaign, Obama trashed President Bush 43 for using signing statements but now seems to be using them vigorously to object to many provisions of laws,” he added.

At a campaign stop in Grand Junction, Colo., in May 2008, Obama responded to a question from the audience by promising not use the signing statements.   (video below)

Drawing a contrast with President George W. Bush, whom Obama characterized as changing “what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying ‘I don’t agree with this part’ or ‘I don’t agree with that part,’” Obama asserted, “Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it.”

He later tempered his pledge after entering office, issuing a memorandum in March 2009 saying he would issue the signing statements “to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities.”

For the American Bar Association, the main lawyers’ lobby, Obama’s use of the tactic is as problematic as that of the presidents before him.

“The Constitution gives the president the power of veto, and if the president is not going to abide by a part of any given legislation provided by Congress, then he needs to veto that legislation and let the Congress decide whether to override that veto,” said Bill Robinson III, the president of the American Bar Association.

<snip>

If you want to see for yourself, you can compare Bush’s signing statements with Obama’s signing statements.

As a Conservative, I am not a fan of Executive Orders or Signing Statements, no matter who is issuing them.  The trend in the last 2 administrations is clear that they are used mainly to circumvent congress and vest more power in the President and the Executive Branch.  It wasn’t cool when Bush did it – he set a terrible precedent that Obama has been more than eager to follow.

I believe that Bush’s overuse of the Executive Pen played a major role in Obama’s election in 2008.  Many Republicans and Conservatives became so disillusioned with Bush that they crossed party lines and pulled the lever for Obama.

At this point, Obama would be wise to understand that 2 wrongs do not make a right.  After spending the better part of the last 3 years blaming Bush for his own failure to turn the economy around, does President Obama really think he can excuse his own hypocrisy just because “Bush did it, too”??  Mr. Hope and Change was elected in 2008 because Americans wanted someone who was different than Bush.  Now with his first term nearing an end, it is clear that Obama was not really the “Change” he had advertised – in many ways he is just like Bush…ONLY WORSE.

Obama decided yesterday that he was going to make a series of “recess” appointments, despite the fact that the Senate has been holding Pro Forma sessions and IS STILL IN SESSION.  Still worse is that one of the positions filled with this unconstitutional recess appointment will be heading up the extremely powerful new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – an agency born of the controversial Dodd-Frank FinReg Legislation.  Senate Republicans put a hold on the nominee because they disagree that one person who is a political appointee should wield that much power over our financial system while at the same time answering only to the Treasury Department, The Federal Reserve, and to some extent, the President.  The CFPB is not subject to congressional oversight…that’s right… ZERO accountability to congress.

It is clear that the Senate GOP were not “obstructing” the confirmation to be mean or partisan – there are genuine concerns with the power and structure of this new Bureaucracy that has the potential to effect the lives of each and every American.

Then there is THIS from Jim Pethokoukis at AEI that suggests that the recess appointment is not an end in itself -

Obama may very well be laying the groundwork for a MASSIVE (as in multiple TRILLION dollars)  home mortgage refi program to be administered by the bankrupt-but-too-big-to-fail entities  - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Hey – wasn’t it Fannie and Freddie’s government backed guarantees of subprime loans (that went bad) that jump started the “Worst recession since the great depression”???

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?!?!?

BACKGROUNDER: In The Past, What Democrats Have Said

About Obama’s Unprecedented Recess Appointment Today

Obama’s Recess Appointment Would Break 20 Years Of Precedent And Contradict A Brief Issued By The Clinton Justice Department Which “Obama’s Own Deputy Solictor General Cited Last Year.” “

President Obama is under strong pressure from liberals to use his recess-appointment power during the congressional break, but doing so would break 20 years of precedent, putting him in a tough position. Using this recess to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as liberals have urged, would also contradict a brief issued by the Clinton Justice Department in 1993, which Obama’s own deputy solicitor general cited last year.” (Alexander Bolton, “Obama Under Strong Pressure To Break Precedent On Recess Appointments,” The Hill, 1/4/12)

APPOINTMENT CONTRADICTS STATED POSITIONS OF HIS OWN VP, DEMOCRAT CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS AND FORMER COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE

In 2005, Then-Senator Joe Biden Said President Not Entitled To Appointment Of Any Nominee. “As I said, we don’t work for the president. And no president is entitled to the appointment of anyone he nominates. No president is entitled by the mere fact he has nominated someone. That’s why they wrote the Constitution the way they did: It says ‘advice and consent.’” (Sen. Joe Biden, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearing, 5/12/05)

In 2005, Pelosi Said That Recess Appointments “Subvert The Confirmation Process” And “Will Harm The United States’ Reputation In The Eyes Of The International Community”: “The President’s decision to circumvent the Senate and use a recess appointment naming John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations is a mistake….For President Bush to use a recess appointment for such a controversial nominee – not because there was a compelling case that Mr. Bolton was the best person for the job, but merely because the President had the power to do it – subverts the confirmation process in ways that will further harm the United States’ reputation in the eyes of the international community. The American people deserve better.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “President’s Recess Appointment Of John Bolton Is A ‘Mistake,’” Press Release, 08/01/05)

In 2007, Reid Called Recess Appointments “An End Run Around The Senate And The Constitution.” “I will keep the Senate in pro forma session to block the President from doing an end run around the Senate and the Constitution with his controversial nominations.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, S.15980, 12/19/07)

• 
  
• And Reid Thinks Recess Appointments “Are Mischievous.” “Also, understand this: We have had a difficult problem with the President now for some time. We don’t let him have recess appointments because they are mischievous, and unless we have an agreement before the recess, there will be no recess. We will meet every third day pro forma, as we have done during the last series of breaks.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.7558, 7/28/08)

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Says Recess Appointments “Ignore The Will Of The Senate.” “When you have an appointment that is this critical and this sensitive, and the president basically says he’s going to ignore the will of the senate and push someone through, it really is troubling.” (Bernard Schoenburg, “Bush Sends Bolton To U.N.; Durbin, Obama Criticize Move,” The State Journal-Register, 8/2/05)

• 
  
• Durbin Says Recess Appointments “Unconstitutional” And “Confrontational.” “I agree with Senator Kennedy that Mr. Pryor’s recess appointment, which occurred during a brief recess of Congress, could easily be unconstitutional. It was certainly confrontational. Recess appointments lack the permanence and independence contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution.” (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6253, 6/9/05)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Called Recess Appointments “Abuse [Of] The Power Of The Presidency.” “‘It’s sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate,’ Kerry said in a statement …”  (Al Kamen, “Recess Appointments Granted to ‘Swift Boat’ Donor, 2 Other Nominees,” The Washington Post, 04/05/07)

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) Questioned Legality Of Recess Appointments, Called Them “Abuse Of Executive Authority.” “Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said yesterday that he will ask the Government Accountability Office for a ruling on the legality of the unusual appointment, which he called ‘an abuse of executive authority …’” (Al Kamen, “Recess Appointments Granted to ‘Swift Boat’ Donor, 2 Other Nominees,” The Washington Post, 04/05/07)

• 
  
• Dodd Called Recess Appointments “Deceptive” And “Illegal”. “Dodd said Thursday that Fox’s appointment was ‘deceptive at best and illegal at worst,’ and he asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate.” (David Jackson, “Many Presidents Have Used The Recess Option,” USA Today, 04/05/07)

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) Said Recess Appointment “Shows Disrespect” To Senate. “Committee spokeswoman Leslie Phillips issued a statement on Lieberman’s behalf yesterday, saying that the ‘decision to recess appoint Susan Dudley shows disrespect’ for the Senate’s authority to advise and consent on nominations.” (Al Kamen, “Recess Appointments Granted to ‘Swift Boat’ Donor, 2 Other Nominees,” The Washington Post, 04/05/07)

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) Called Recess Appointments “Slap” To Institute Of The Senate. “Judge Pickering was never confirmed by the Senate, but in a further slap to this institution, the President put him on the court through a recess appointment.” (Sen. Feingold, Congressional Record, S.13289, 10/24/07)

• 
  
• Feingold Feared Recess Appointments Place “Most Egregious And Political Leadership” In Major Executive Positions. “Is that what we want? It means most likely there will be recess appointments this winter for the 10 major leadership positions in the Department. And what does that mean? Simply stated: The administration could put in place the most egregious and political leadership, and we–the Senate–could do nothing about it. We would have reduced transparency and reduced congressional oversight.” (Sen. Feingold, Congressional Record, S.14158, 11/8/07)

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Said Recess Appointments “Bend The Rules And Circumvents The Will Of Congress.” “[E]ven while the president preaches democracy around the world, he bends the rules and circumvents the will of Congress’ at home.” (“President Sends Bolton to U.N.; Bypasses Senate,” The New York Times, 8/02/05)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) Said Recess Appointments “Blindside” Senators. “People Are Concerned. With that in mind, Senate Democrats said they have little faith that Bush will play nice and refrain from making the controversial appointments. Democrats have been blindsided by Bush before, particularly in April when the president tapped three controversial nominees for executive branch slots…..’I think every time there’s a recess, people are concerned that the president might use that’ option, echoed Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the Democratic Conference secretary.” (“Reid Mulls Pro Forma Sessions,” Roll Call, 11/15/07)

via What Democrats Have Said About Obama’s Unprecedented Recess Appointment | RNC: Republican National Committee | GOP.

Article One, section Five of the Constitution states:

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days…

This presents a problem for President Obama, who claims to have just made a recess appointment when the Senate is not actually in recess. The Constitution says the Senate cannot recess for more than three days without the House’s permission. The House has not granted permission, and as a result both houses have been holding pro forma sessions out of constitutional necessity.

read the rest here:  Is the Senate in recess? The Constitution says no. | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner.

via GOP blasts Obama for ‘unprecedented power grab’ with appointment – The Hill’s On The Money.

Dear Leader once again circumvents congressional checks and balances.  The Senate is NOT ON RECESS – they have been holding pro forma sessions every few days and are considered to still be in session.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner have both released statements that mildly show their disapproval of this, but sadly, no one is going to stop him.

In a defiant display of executive power, President Barack Obama on Wednesday will buck GOP opposition and name Richard Cordray as the nation’s chief consumer watchdog. Outraged Republican leaders in Congress suggested that courts would determine the appointment was illegal.

With a director in place, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can start overseeing the mortgage companies, payday lenders, debt collectors and other financial companies often blamed for practices that helped tank the economy.

The president planned to highlight just that point during his announcement later Wednesday in Ohio that he was putting Cordray in the job

(via pnj.com | National News | Pensacola News Journal.)

More on Obama CFPB Recess Appointment:

With Cordray, Obama Bypasses Constitution (Heritage)

Obama to make recess appointment

Obama to appoint Cordray to head CFPB

Breaking: National Journal reports Obama to use recess appointment for Cordray (HotAir)

Obama to recess-appoint Cordray to CFPB (MarketWatch)

Obama Installs Cordray at Consumer Bureau (Bloomberg)

Obama to bypass Senate GOP, recess-appoint key nominee (The Hill)

Richard Cordray to be appointed to lead Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Politico)

Obama to Defy GOP, Pick Cordray (Roll Call)

Obama Nominates Former Ohio AG, a Loyal Democratic Donor, to Lead New Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Open Secrets)

President Obama to flip-flop on recess appointment? (RedState)

Boehner: Richard Cordray appointment ‘unprecedented power grab’ by Obama

What Democrats Have Said About Obama’s Unprecedented Recess Appointment

Obama to make recess appointment

On Tuesday, December 13 a rally was held near the LBJ Library at the University of Texas, Austin to highlight the attack on election reforms launched inside by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder went to Texas to denounce the Lone Star State’s voter ID laws and claimed that simple voter ID laws were somehow discriminatory. Holder ominously claimed that he would use the power of his office to “enforce civil rights protections” during the upcoming 2012 elections.

Outside the LBJ Library nearly 200 citizens gathered to hear a multi-racial panel of six speakers denounce Holder’s partisan attempts to push the administration’s agenda to turn a blind eye to continuing voter fraud that consistently favors candidates from the Democrat Party.

The rally was sponsored by the Houston-based True The Vote, a grass roots voter integrity project staffed by volunteers. True The Vote is a nation-wide organization that has affiliates across the country, every day citizens interested in the integrity of the elections in their home district.

read the rest here:  Austin: Successful Rally to Oppose AG Holder’s Attack on Election Reforms | Right Wing News.

A former MF Global employee accused former president William J. Clinton of collecting $50,000 per month through his Teneo advisory firm in the months before the brokerage careened towards its Halloween filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Teneo was hired by MF Global’s former CEO Jon S. Corzine to improve his image and to enhance his connections with Clinton’s political family, said the employee, who asked that his name be withheld because he feared retribution.

“They were supposed to be helping Corzine improve his image as a CEO—I guess you can tell how that went,” he said. Corzine resigned as CEO and chairman November 4.

Before Corzine joined MF Global in May 2010, the firm was a smart and well-run commodities broker, a culture that was turned upside-down by his leadership style, he said.

“The traders would be shaking their heads,” he said. “They would come back to their desk and say, ‘Well, I thought we were going to do this—but Corzine would come by and do something else all by himself,’” he said.

The Teneo contract with MF Global lasted at least five months, he said. “The board cancelled it after Corzine resigned.”

Read the rest here:  Claim: Clinton Collected $50K Per Month From MF Global – HUMAN EVENTS.

The European Central Bank (ECB) must pump liquidity into the 17-member financial system to stop a run on bonds and even slap a ceiling on yields to avoid a breakup of the currency zone, says billionaire financier George Soros.

Soros writes in a Financial Times column that policymakers should use the European Financial Stability Facility — an emergency assistance fund — to help the European Central Bank flood the economy with liquidity, a move that would aim to curb skyrocketing yields on sovereign bonds issued by indebted southern European nations.

“The financial markets are testing the ECB and want to find out what it is allowed to do. It is imperative that the ECB should not fail that test. The Central Bank must stop the bond run at all costs because it is endangering the stability of the single currency,” Soros says.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Soros: My Plan Could Save Euro
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!