HAPLESS FEDERAL CONTROL WON'T WORK

The story that follows might actually be considered farcical were it not so un-American, anti free market and socialist if not communist leaning in its reach.

Let's start at the beginning. Can anyone, anywhere name anything that the wrong headed legislator for life Barney Frank has ever created or run that, in the end, was a success? Short answer: not! So why should anyone of good judgment pay the least bit of attention to some hair brained scheme he devises to put government in charge of the private sector?

Also consider the Congress. These folks have trouble getting anything straight. They will vehemently oppose a war they voted to initiate. They will grant bonuses to government funded private companies within the language of their own legislation and later raise the roof because that language was applied and those bonus payments were made. They build walls between American intelligence agencies only to tear them down at a later date. They will authorize billions of dollars in lobby driven spending while decrying those same earmarks to all the news cameras. The Keystone Cops had their act together to a much higher degree than the Congress ever has. Are these the clowns that any rational person would want in control of what every employee in a corporation is allowed to earn?

Than there is the federal government itself. How well does it do when put in charge of important activities? Wasn't our own intelligence community that got the WMD information exactly wrong? How did our federal agencies initially do with the Katrina disaster? How well does the IRS police the tax cheats among our elites? Has our government been doing what could be considered an even adequate job of policing our southern border? How goes our Social Security system? What about medicare? We all know the answers to these and an endless list of similar questions.

Given such realities, this Barney Frank proposal is truly a brain dead idea for anyone outside of government. More bureaucracy is not the solution, it has been and always will be the ever growing problem. Waste, fraud and abuse are what government grows. Special interests and identity groups, not regular working American families, tend to be the greatest benefactors of this kind of federal interference into the private sector.

Government control smacks of socialism and history has repeatedly shown that socialism and it's cousin communism have never succeeded. It never will.


Beyond AIG: A Bill to let Big Government Set Your Salary
By Byron York Chief Political Correspondent

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., left, talks with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, right, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, on Capitol Hill Tuesday, March 24,2009. Frank's committee has passed a bill giving Geithner extensive control over salaries of employees working at companies receiving government bailout funds. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.
But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.
The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.
In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."
The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)
The legislation is expected to come before the full House for a vote this week, and, just like the AIG bill, its scope and retroactivity trouble a number of Republicans. "It's just a bad reaction to what has been going on with AIG," Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, a committee member, told me. Garrett is particularly concerned with the new powers that would be given to the Treasury Secretary, who just last week proposed giving the government extensive new regulatory authority. "This is a growing concern, that the powers of the Treasury in this area, along with what Geithner was looking for last week, are mind boggling," Garrett said.
Rep. Alan Grayson, the Florida Democrat who wrote the bill, told me its basic message is "you should not get rich off public money, and you should not get rich off of abject failure." Grayson expects the bill to pass the House, and as we talked, he framed the issue in a way to suggest that virtuous lawmakers will vote for it, while corrupt lawmakers will vote against it.
"This bill will show which Republicans are so much on the take from the financial services industry that they're willing to actually bless compensation that has no bearing on performance and is excessive and unreasonable," Grayson said. "We'll find out who are the people who understand that the public's money needs to be protected, and who are the people who simply want to suck up to their patrons on Wall Street."
After the AIG bonus tax bill was passed, some members of the House privately expressed regret for having supported it and were quietly relieved when the White House and Senate leadership sent it to an unceremonious death. But populist rage did not die with it, and now the House is preparing to do it all again.

Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts can be read daily at ExaminerPolitics.com.

Sphere: Related Content

CONFLICTING LIBERAL FEELINGS

What happens when the liberal scatter shot approach to heartfelt causes runs into the reality of conflicting outcomes? Time to call in the trial lawyers, possibly the largest contributors to Democrat liberal politicians. Dems can find ways to keep their attorney buddies in business even when they are waging civil war within their pantheon of movements.

As illustrated above, denial of reality is one of the five pillars of the liberal left. So in the problem described by the article below, the species protection left finds itself in conflict with the alternative energy left. This is typical liberal behavior.

Common sense, logic and reality have virtually nothing to do with liberal activities. Instead, almost everything is based in feel good emotional outcomes. Getting off of fossil fuels makes a leftist feel good. Saving the desert tortoise gives them a warm tingle inside. When the one feeling leads to direct conflict with the other feeling, the liberal gets stuck in emotional limbo.

This predicament is one hundred percent predictable. A liberal never, emphasis on never, thinks long term or bottom line. That would require an intellectual process that is a higher priority in life than the self-serving point of simply feeling good about oneself. Which in the end is what the liberal left is all about. It is selfish, personally rewarding, feel good about oneself behavior. Reason and logic have no place in that world.

So saving the planet from the ultimate destruction of petroleum based pollution gets put on hold because a tortoise might, emphasis on the not very likely might, have to tolerate a bit of ecosystem readjustment. You know of course that the tortoise has survived millenia and individuals often live to be over one hundred years old. Does that sound like a species that has had trouble adapting? Do you think the tortoise could find a way to live with a bunch of stationary mirrors? Gee, I wonder.

But this is the liberal way of life. Speak to the critical importance of one cause and thereafter completely disrupt it with litigation regarding another cause. It is contradictory and hypocritical. Not to mention just plain silly as well as intellectually dishonest. In the end, the liberal disrupts his own goals.

That is the pathological profile of liberal "thought". And the American people put these folks in charge of government.


Dianne Feinstein: I Brake for Turtles
California's energy-independence movement, held up by the desert tortoise.

By JOHN FUND
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, thinks he has a partial solution to America's dependence on foreign oil. But he says liberals and environmentalists are rejecting his plan to make it easier to build solar and wind power stations. California's Mohave Desert is an inhospitable place, he notes, but 19 companies think it's perfect for siting solar or wind facilities on 500,000 acres owned by the federal government there.
But Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who used to be San Francisco's mayor, is having none of it. She is pushing legislation to turn the land into a national monument, which would prevent such development.
Mr. Rohrabacher -- who notes 130 pending applications for solar power projects on federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management -- is appalled that environmentalists are blocking such plants by demanding time-consuming environmental-impact studies. He tells me that though the BLM has lifted a moratorium on new solar projects on public land that it imposed in 2005, applications are still being clogged up in a bureaucratic pipeline and no new permits have been issued to date. "We need solutions on many levels, and freeing up bottlenecks to alternative energy is one of them," he says.
But Senator Feinstein says the Mojave land was purchased by the government a decade ago at a discount from the former Santa Fe and Southern Pacific Railroad with the expectation the land would remain pristine. David Myers, executive director of the Wildlife Conservancy, says putting solar projects on it would be threatening to local desert tortoises. "It would destroy the entire Mojave Desert ecosystem," he told the Associated Press.
Senator Feinstein concurs. In a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, she called the proposed solar projects "unacceptable" and urged him "to suspend any further consideration of leases to develop former railroad lands for renewable energy or for any other purpose."
Even Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a noted environmentalist, has had enough of such arguments. "If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it," he told students at Yale University last year.

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sphere: Related Content

NEVER SUFFER THE FOOLS

Foreign fools like the one featured in the accompanying article deserve little to no attention from responsible governments, ours included. Hugo Chavez is a petty tyrant who is not worthy of the attention of the international community generally and the Obama administration in particular.

Chavez is quoted as calling Obama an "ignoramus", a term only slightly less insulting than the names he used as labels for George Bush. Further, he now attempts to ally himself with the Russians, an association that will eventually turn around and bite him. On the Russian priority list, Chavez is nothing more than a currently convenient useful idiot. The Kremlin seeks access to Venezuelan resources, a presence here in the Western hemisphere and an opportunity to check Chinese associations is the region. Nothing more.

Going forward, the key for the United States is this: do not allow this dictator any face time with those on the highest levels of our government. No individual meetings with Obama or the Vice President. Leave Chavez to deal only with emissaries, not players. Give him no status, grant him no honors, treat him like the tin horn pretender that he consistently proves to be.

This world has real crisis and threatening forces with which we must deal and leaving this fool at the bottom of the priority list is wholly appropriate. As he continually works to draw attention to himself, give him none

Chavez is a thug, not a leader. We should give him his just deserts.


Venezuela's Chavez calls Obama "ignoramus"

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama was at best an "ignoramus" for saying the socialist leader exported terrorism and obstructed progress in Latin America.
"He goes and accuses me of exporting terrorism: the least I can say is that he's a poor ignoramus; he should read and study a little to understand reality," said Chavez, who heads a group of left-wing Latin American leaders opposed to the U.S. influence in the region.
Chavez said Obama's comments had made him change his mind about sending a new ambassador to Washington, after he withdrew the previous envoy in a dispute last year with the Bush administration in which he also expelled the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela.
"When I saw Obama saying what he said, I put the decision back in the drawer; let's wait and see," Chavez said on his weekly television show, adding he had wanted to send a new ambassador to improve relations with the United States after the departure of George W. Bush as president.
In a January interview with Spanish-language U.S. network Univision, Obama said Chavez had hindered progress in Latin America, accusing him of exporting terrorist activities and supporting Colombian guerrillas.
"My, what ignorance; the real obstacle to development in Latin America has been the empire that you today preside over," said Chavez, who is a fierce critic of U.S. foreign policy.
In the 20th century the United States supported several armed movements and coups in Latin America. Chavez says Washington had a hand in a short-lived putsch against him in 2002, which was initially welcomed by U.S. officials.
Chavez and Obama will both attend the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago next month. It is not known whether they will meet.
Most of OPEC nation Venezuela's export income comes from oil it sells to the United States, but Chavez has built stronger ties with countries like China in an attempt to reduce dependence on his northern neighbor.
Chavez expelled its U.S. ambassador in September in a dispute over U.S. activities in his ally Bolivia, which also expelled its U.S. ambassador. Ecuador's left-wing President Rafael Correa this year kicked out a mid-ranking U.S. diplomat.

(Reporting by Frank Jack Daniel; Editing by Eric Walsh)

Sphere: Related Content

MARK TWAIN ON SOCIALISM

Leave it to the great Mark Twain to capture the essence of the concept of socialism in what would, in our modern world, be considered a perfect sound bite. For anyone out there who does not grasp the essence of government by and for the state, this explains the outcome in a nutshell. Spread it around as the more who get the idea, the less likely it is to happen.



And if words alone are not enough to explain socialism, the following cartoon presents the proverbial picture worth a thousand words.

This nation was not founded with such outcomes in mind. Enough said!

Sphere: Related Content

BETRAYING OUR ALLIES?

Will the West once again sell out Poland? Will the United States abandon an important ally? Will the Obama led administration join Neville Chamberlain in historical infamy?

These are tough questions that deserve straight answers. The judgment of history awaits, as does the future of millions of Poles. Will the Obama led left shame America in their drive to be admired by others in Europe or to gain favor with the tyranny-in-fact in the Kremlin?

Appeasement in the face of threats is cowardice. And it does not work. Even worse, abandoning those who stand with us, at great peril to themselves, is despicable.

Millions of Poles died, most unnecessarily, because the false hope of "Peace in our time" peddled by Chamberlain. The Poles remained under the steel toed boot heel of the Soviet Union for decades following World War II. They finally achieved their freedom in large part due to the bravery of Polish shipyard workers willing to risk their lives to be free along with a Polish Pope who helped rally the world to their cause.

Are we going to put such brave and faithful allies at risk? Will Obama sacrifice their security to curry favor with the Russians? It would seem that no one in their right mind would even remotely consider such options. Yet that is the reality at hand.

To betray the Polish people a second time is unthinkable. To undo freedom is lunacy. To court the KGB led Kremlin is suicidal. To travel this path would be immoral.

Only the left in America would play this losing hand. God help us if they do.


Poland Fears Betrayal
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Alliances: The U.S. has expressed a willingness to barter away missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. Now the Polish foreign minister says he hopes his country doesn't regret trusting the United States.
The Brussels Forum is a privately organized high-level meeting of the most influential North American and European political, corporate and intellectual leaders to address pressing challenges currently facing both sides of the Atlantic.
One of the pressing issues discussed at this year's conference was whether the U.S. is serious about bartering away plans for missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic in exchange for vague Russian promises of using its influence on Iran regarding its move toward developing nuclear warheads to put on its long-range missiles.
On Sunday, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski noted that Poland had taken "something of a political risk" in agreeing to the deployment of 10 ground-based interceptors on its territory. "When we started discussing this with the United States," he said, "the U.S. assured us they would persuade the Russians that it was purely defensive and it would be a noncontroversial decision."
Now we are wishing the Iranians, whose missiles our ground-based interceptors are designed to intercept, a Happy New Year and suggesting to the Russians that if they can do something about Iran's nuclear and missile programs, we would reconsider our missile defense plans and saw off the limb our Czech and Polish allies have climbed out on.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates did not ease our allies' fears when he said at a NATO meeting in Krakow, Poland, on Feb. 20, "I told the Russians a year ago that if there were no Iranian missile program, there would be no need for the missile sites."
This comment came not long after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threatened to deploy SS-26 Iskander missiles in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, situated between our NATO allies Poland and Lithuania, targeting the Polish site.
The Poles and the Czechs, who have known true freedom for only a short time after enduring both Nazi and Communist oppression, have experienced the consequences of diplomatic betrayal — first at Munich and later at Yalta.
They sense another betrayal coming in a deal with a belligerent Russian aggressor willing to wage war with the former Soviet state of Georgia, as well as threaten the Ukraine and use the Ukrainian pipeline to starve energy-dependent Europeans of natural gas.
"We hope we don't regret our trust in the United States," Sikorski said to an audience of senior world politicians and other leaders.
At the same event, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, who is expected to be named the new U.S. undersecretary for arms control and international security, repeated the administration line that a missile system would not be deployed until it was "proven" to work. It is easier to give away an "unproven" system.
Missile defense has already proved to be eminently workable and successful. According to the Missile Defense Agency, since 2001 there have been 37 successful hit-to-kill intercepts out of 47 attempts, an astounding 80% success rate. We've even shot a decaying and dangerous spy satellite out of the sky.
Former Missile Defense Agency Chief Gen. Trey Obering III has said that after dozens of successful missile intercepts, "Our testing has shown not only can we hit a bullet with a bullet, we can hit a spot on a bullet with a bullet."
Unilaterally scrapping European missile defense could shatter the NATO alliance as we retreat to a Fortress America behind our own ground-based interceptors and Aegis-equipped missile defense destroyers and cruisers.
The basis of NATO's purpose and existence — collective security — would be shredded as we showed a willingness to sacrifice allies for diplomatic convenience. Either we all hang together or we all hang separately.
Our Polish and Czech friends have to wonder: Are we the next Georgia? Are we about to trade away the trust of our allies and our collective security for another empty promise of peace in our time?

Sphere: Related Content

MEDIA LOST IN THE WILDERNESS

There is now a bill before Congress to allow newspapers to legally become nonprofits. That is a clear case of the law trying to catch up with reality. Most large newspapers are failed businesses that have not earned a profit for some time. Allowing them to become an actual not for profit will match their operating status with their real performance.

There are a host of reasons why the print media in America has become the failed fourth estate. Certainly cable news, talk radio, blogs and the Internet in general have rendered the traditional newspaper basically useless.

The proverbial 800 pound gorilla in that room however is the bias practiced by the dominant negative print media for what seems like forever. It is the primary reason why subscribers have abandoned that ship in massive numbers for some time.

The accompanying piece is just another in the never ending line of daily examples of how the media portrays an agenda rather than reports the news. The reality has long been that if the story does not support doctrine, it does not get reported. On the other hand, if a story supports the preferred political agenda or embarrasses the opposing agenda, it receives top billing and repeat follow ups.

Most Americans have long since seen through this smoke screen to the point where, now, media outlets barely make even a cursory effort to mask their bias. At this point, they play to their specific audience and leave the general public out of their "news reporting" formula.

People have turned in massive numbers to the aforementioned alternative media. Those who seek accuracy in news now consult multiple sources in order to get as close to the truth as possible under the circumstances. Others have simply given up on getting reliable news.

So giving newspapers the opportunity to be officially a nonprofit entity might just make some sense. If nothing else, it would at least match performance with the truth.


Tea Parties And Thugs
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Media Bias: The press need not support every protest it covers. But when it ignores a grass fire movement against government spending while its favored politician watches closely, then there's dereliction of duty.

Five more "tea parties" took place last weekend to protest runaway congressional spending. Showing up with hand-lettered signs were people not often seen at protests.
Inspired by CNBC reporter Rick Santelli's rant over excessive bailouts, these demonstrations started small but now draw thousands. The weekend protests were held in Orlando, Fla.; Raleigh, N.C.; Solomon's Island, Md.; Lexington, Ky., and Ridgefield, Conn. Another 150 tea parties are set for tax day April 15.
Bloggers and local press do cover these events, and to give credit due, so did Investor's Business Daily in a front-page story Feb. 28. But the national TV and print media are conspicuous by their absence. Some big news outlets see these events as atomized and unlikely to lead the nightly news. Others aren't interested because they're well outside media centers.
But the real reason the major media aren't interested in these protests is that they don't agree with them. In the final analysis, these affairs are really taking issue with the political party they helped elect without hiding bias in the last election.
That's why a small scrum of Acorn-financed wackos on a bus tour to intimidate AIG execs last weekend made the news while the tea parties didn't.
But unlike the staged, sparsely attended Acorn event, the tea parties are national, growing and indicative of a shift of public sentiment. If proof is needed, one need look no further than the attention the protests are getting from the Obama administration.
One of the biggest protests so far drew 15,000 on March 8 in Fullerton, Calif. But a Los Angeles Times blogger dismissed the event as "a radio stunt" because it was organized by local radio deejays. There was no explanation why the Times and other media were all over a 2006 immigration protest that was also called by deejays.
It wasn't far from Fullerton that President Obama chose to make a series of Southern California town hall visits in the wake of Santelli's criticism to sway the locals to reverse course and back his pro-spending agenda.
The media may have been dismissing the protests as insignificant, but Obama's political sharpies knew a challenge when they saw one.
The mainstream media only hurt themselves by ignoring news. If the Obama camp takes tea parties seriously, so should its toadies in the press.

Sphere: Related Content

HOW DOES BEING NICE TO TERRORISTS MAKE SENSE?

When has being nice to a predator ever worked? Did anyone in the Obama administration read the history of the period between the two great world wars or watch the Grizzly Bear Chronicles on PBS?

What don't they get about the unambiguous statements from our enemies who hate us and all we represent? What part of wiping us off the face of the earth don't they comprehend?

The IBD piece that follows speaks to the difference between lovely sentiments and hard, cold reality. The mullahs in Iran do not care who is POTUS. They will proceed upon their stated course regardless of how many nice things Obama says about their civilization. His is a foolish exercise.

The truth is Iran is in pursuit of nuclear weapons. Nothing we, or anyone else for that matter, say will deter them from their goal. Only action will end their thirst for power and, in all likelihood, only the Israelis will take the necessary action, maybe. As the Iranians seek to destabilize the free world and eliminate the State of Israel, Obama whistles past the graveyard.

His administration is worse than Jimmy Carter light. At least Carter tried to take action to end the hostage crisis although he failed miserably. Do not anticipate that Obama will even consider, let alone do, anything that will dissuade Iran from her stated goal.

Making nice may cause the left to feel better but it will only serve to make the world a much more dangerous place for America. Some amongst us will ultimately pay with their lives, most likely innocent civilian families, because of this misguided and wrongheaded Obama policy. When all is said and done, if this path continues to be pursued, the resulting blood will be on the hands of an administration led by Barack Obama.

In closing, the question is asked once again. When, in the course of human events, has being nice to those who dedicate their lives and the lives of succeeding generations to your death and destruction ever worked?

Given the nature of the human animal, it never has and it never will.



An Olive Branch For A Terrorist State
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
War On Terror: Is there some grand strategy behind President Obama's "Happy Persian New Year" video message to Iran? Or is America embracing the naive notion that we can get the Islamofascists to like us?

As Mark Finkelstein's "FinkelBlog" noted, there were no American flags visible in the background to ruffle the mullahs' turbans in Obama's Friday midnight video message. A wide shot featured on the White House Web site has the president sitting before Old Glory, but it turns out there is more than one edition of the video.
The version with Farsi subtitles — presumably the one pegged for Iranian consumption — was closely cropped, with no sign of the U.S. flag (although you can see the tiniest edge of the red and white stripes for a time during the second half of the message). Even the president's lapel pin of the flag is cropped out during much of the address.
While bereft of anything to offend Iranians who make a practice of burning the stars and stripes, the video's "tough diplomacy" consisted mainly of palavering the Islamic nation.
Extending his "very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world," the president called the occasion "both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal" and "just one part of your great and celebrated culture."
The president told Iran how "over many centuries your art, your music, literature and innovation have made the world a better and more beautiful place," adding that "here in the United States, our own communities have been enhanced by the contributions of Iranian Americans."
"We know," he said, "that you are a great civilization, and your accomplishments have earned the respect of the United States and the world."
He also made a point of referring to the country by what became its official name after the Ayatollah Khomeini's Carter-era revolution turned it into an anti-American theocratic state — "the Islamic Republic of Iran."
In closing, Obama recited a verse from the medieval Dervish poet Saadi, which is prominently featured within the United Nations building in New York City:
"The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence."
Lovely sentiments all around. But who really thinks Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the other leaders of revolutionary Islamist Iran see all the children of Adam — particularly those living in Tel Aviv and the world's free industrialized nations — as equal in the eyes of God? Whoever does is too naive to be involved in U.S. foreign policy.
Ahmadinejad spokesman Ali Akbar Javanfekr immediately responded to Obama's message by calling on the U.S. to end its support for Israel and apologize for: siding with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s; accidentally shooting down an Iranian airliner in 1988 (for which the U.S. has already paid Iran $132 million); and the CIA's role in the shah's 1953 coup.
The Tehran regime has been in a de facto state of war with the U.S. for 30 years. It has provided bombs that have killed our soldiers in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. It spends millions supplying and training Lebanon's Hezbollah terrorists, and funds Hamas' rocket and suicide attacks against Israel.
Under the autocratic rule of this Islamic "republic," Iran has hosted pseudo-scholars to compare notes on denying the Nazi genocide of the Jews. Its leaders have referred to the state of Israel as a disease, calling for the Jewish state's destruction by force. They believe the 12th imam will return to lead an apocalyptic jihad against Jews and other purported enemies of Islam.
And, most importantly, these dangerous fanatics are spending a billion dollars a year — 2% of its annual oil revenues — in pursuit of nuclear weapons. Clearly, the regime has already produced enough fuel for one atomic bomb, and last month Iran's nuclear chief said its 6,000 operating uranium enrichment centrifuges at Natanz would be expanded to 50,000 over the next five years.
Franklin Roosevelt's strategy against Hitler was not to send a Christmas card noting the artistic achievements of Goethe and Wagner. Does this Democratic president, like his great 20th century predecessors, recognize evil when he sees it?

Sphere: Related Content

LIBERAL THINKING: A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS

This chart is a good illustration of the mindset of the typical liberal. The article that follows is a real world example of the practical application of the liberal line of thinking. It highlights another case of how liberals, when put in charge of government, have wrecked havoc on the governed. Illinois happens to be just one of several examples on the state level across the nation.

It is nothing short of amazing that liberals repeatedly demonstrate a total inability to think things through to the obvious outcome. They tend to be the masters of unintended consequences.

Part of that problem stems from what appears to be a complete lack of understanding of human nature. In most cases, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how people are going to react to laws, policies and procedures, especially when they are punitive. If one has even the slightest handle on people, the outcomes of given actions can be fully anticipated.

The larger part of that problem is that liberals are self-deceiving. They believe that their ideas help people. Often, the opposite is true. They are repeatedly caught in this trap primarily because what they do mostly tends to be unintentionally self-serving. When they think they are helping others, it makes them feel better about themselves. That is where their analysis of the facts ends.

Thus liberals do not pursue the logic of their actions any further than their own feelings. And so, most of what they put in place fails. The Illini piece is a case in point.

Another example is cigarette smoking. Here is how it works in the liberal mind:
1. Smoking is bad and thus must be stopped;
2. Campaigns to inform others of the dangers have not worked well;
3. People must be forced to quit;
4. Action: raise the cost of cigarettes, through taxation, to such a high level that most everyone will not be able to buy them any longer;
5. This is good because it raises revenue, often dedicated to better health care, and it forces people to stop smoking.
Case closed. Now move on to the next campaign for good.

Now consider the real world outcome of such action: the unintended consequences, if you will, that are entirely predictable:
1. Some smokers quit;
2. Some smokers cut back on other discretionary spending to continue to buy cigarettes. Often times those cut backs are unhealthy or degrade quality of life;
3. Some smokers travel long distances to buy their smokes at Indian smoke shops where they are not subject to taxes;
4. Some smokers buy their cigarettes from tax free foreign sources via the Internet;
5. Some smokers get their cigs from black marketeers who buy them from lower tax states and sell them in higher tax states. That black market is booming;
6. Some smokers get counterfeit smokes from Chinese sources.
The bottom line: most smokers keep smoking and the planned tax revenue goes up in smoke as those same smokers find low tax or no tax resources. The revenue set aside for health care never happens. Remember prohibition? That's human nature.

But liberals just cannot get to the logical conclusion in their thought process. They stop at feel good, which is blatantly selfish, and thereafter move on to the next feel good cause.

The rest of us are left behind to clean up the mess.


The Taxin' Illini

As if Illinois voters didn't have enough to be angry about, this week their new Governor announced plans to raise state income taxes by 50%. Pat Quinn, the man who replaced Rod Blagojevich, is proposing to raise the personal income tax rate to 4.5% from 3% and the business tax to 7.2% from 4.8%. At least Blago's outrages were entertaining.
Mr. Quinn ran as Mr. Blagojevich's Lieutenant Governor on a platform of no new taxes. But now he defends his huge tax increase by saying this will only hit those who have the "ability to pay." Of course, employers and the wealthy also have the ability to leave -- which they have been doing. In the last decade 736,000 more Americans have left Illinois than have entered, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.
Over the last six years, Illinois has ranked 45th out of 50 states in job creation, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council. In 2008, 175,000 jobs vanished -- a medium-sized city of lost jobs. Mr. Quinn's tax increase will mean 50% higher taxes for nearly every small business, subchapter S company and corporation in the state.
This is a state that does almost everything wrong economically. It is not a right-to-work state and is thus heavily unionized, repelling new business investment. It has the fifth highest minimum wage among the states, the fifth most trial-lawyer friendly legal code, the sixth highest workers' compensation costs, and the 11th highest property taxes. It has one of the highest inheritance taxes, at 16%, so retirees flee to states with no death tax, such as Florida and Arizona. A rare Illinois advantage has been its relatively low income-tax rate, but that will shrink or vanish under Mr. Quinn's increase.
Over the last six years the state's revenues climbed by $7 billion, but the flush times led to flush spending. Per capita state expenditures after inflation have climbed to $4,700 in 2008 from $3,200 in 1998. The state now spends roughly $13,000 per public-school student in Chicago, but the money has done little to reverse a dismal high school graduation rate of 51%. The charter schools in Chicago take a demographically similar group of students and achieve 77% graduation rates, but Democrats have put a cap on more charters.
One of the articles of impeachment against Mr. Blagojevich was that he illegally, and without legislative approval, expanded Medicaid eligibility to 400% of poverty from 185%. So now families with incomes of up to $80,000 can get taxpayer-supported health care, and the state's Medicaid rolls have exploded to 2.7 million today from 1.7 million in 2000. The unfunded liabilities for its pension program have nearly doubled over the past decade to $70 billion in part because the state has routinely robbed the pension fund to finance current programs.
As to Mr. Quinn's claims that only the wealthy will pay more, a new analysis by the Illinois Policy Institute finds that the tax hike would hit single people with an income of more than $14,000 and couples of more than $28,000 if they have no kids. His plan increases the per person exemption to $6,000 from $2,000, but for low-income workers or families with only one child or less the more generous exemption doesn't offset the higher tax rate.
For six years, Democrats have held virtually every statewide elected office in Illinois and they control both chambers of the legislature; in the Senate they have a veto-proof majority. They can raise taxes as they please, and they probably will pass Mr. Quinn's plan to repudiate his campaign promises. We'd like to think Illinois voters deserve better, but then again they keep re-electing this crowd. Hello, Vero Beach.

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sphere: Related Content

IGNORING THE TRUTH ABOUT IRAQ

What you see above are Western tourists in Iraq without guards or military escorts. Most certainly most people are not quite ready to sign up for the deluxe tour of Baghdad, but the fact is tourism is returning to what used to be very dangerous "kill zones". No more.

What follows below is a lengthy, well documented piece about the spirit of optimism sweeping the people of Iraq regarding their future outlook (including lots of good links). Thank you very much George W. Bush.

While the dominant negative media here at home trumpets the anti-Iraq war protests in a number of American cities this past weekend, little mention is paid to the aforementioned important news out of Iraq. As the left in American continues to brood and fret about a war that is, for all intents and purposes over, those people who gained the most, that would be Iraqis, celebrate their future in spite of the horrific past, both recent and longer term, that they have suffered.

The left, which always represent itself as the savior of the poor and downtrodden, would much prefer that the Iraqi people have continued to suffer the rape rooms, torture, mass murder, subjugation of women and ongoing war against neighboring nations that was the reality of life under Saddam. The left sees Hussein as legitimate and Bush as evil. Why? Because Bush is not a man of the left. Had he been of that bent, it would have been a different and much more nuanced story.

Whether one agrees with the timing of the Bush policy to remove the dictator Hussein or not, if one is intellectually honest than the long term positive outcome of that policy, as expressed by Iraqis, is certainly preferable to life as it was before. The war will long remain a controversy, the suffering has been awful and the costs extremely high. In the end, history will determine the wisdom and value of this conflict. But for now it is safe to say that the result included some notable benefits.

More significantly, if Iraq continues forward with some workable form of democratic governance, the impact on the most volatile region on planet earth will prove beneficial to almost all nations around the world. The prospect of increased stability in the Middle East creates a better chance for peace in the region that used to be the case.

But don't expect the left to celebrate the good news. Their options are to ignore it or to find fault with it one way or another. As Jack Nicholson might say of the left relative to the progress in Iraq, 'They can't handle the truth'.


Dramatic Advances Sweep Iraq, Boosting Support for Democracy
ABC News/BBC/NHK National Survey of Iraq
ANALYSIS by GARY LANGER

Dramatic advances in public attitudes are sweeping Iraq, with declining violence, rising economic well-being and improved services lifting optimism, fueling confidence in public institutions and bolstering support for democracy.
The gains in the latest ABC News/BBC/NHK poll represent a stunning reversal of the spiral of despair caused by Iraq's sectarian violence in 2006 and 2007. The sweeping rebound, extending initial improvements first seen a year ago, marks no less than the opportunity for a new future for Iraq and its people.
Click here for PDF of analysis with charts and full questionnaire.
Click here for charts on the results.
Click here for photos from the field.
While deep difficulties remain, the advances are remarkable. Eighty-four percent of Iraqis now rate security in their own area positively, nearly double its August 2007 level. Seventy-eight percent say their protection from crime is good, more than double its low. Three-quarters say they can go where they want safely  triple what it's been.
Few credit the United States, still widely unpopular given the post-invasion violence, and eight in 10 favor its withdrawal on schedule by 2011  or sooner. But at the same time a new high, 64 percent of Iraqis, now call democracy their preferred form of government.
Remaining challenges are serious. Many views have not recovered to their pre-2006 levels. Violence continues, even if much abated. Basic services such as medical care and clean water, though better, are still in short supply. Even with their confidence vastly improved, Sunni Arabs remain far more vulnerable personally and skeptical politically. Sunni/Shiite segregation has increased sharply. Kurdish-Arab relations are tense. And issues from corruption to suspected vote fraud and political gridlock cloud the horizon.
Still, the number of Iraqis who call security the single biggest problem in their own lives has dropped from 48 percent in March 2007 to 20 percent now. Two years ago 56 percent called it the single biggest problem for the country as a whole; that's down to 35 percent now, including a 15-point drop in the last year alone. Fifty-nine percent now feel "very" safe in their communities, up 22 points from last year and more than double its lowest. Recent local fighting among sectarian forces is reported by 6 percent, compared with 22 percent a year ago.
Optimism and confidence have followed. Sixty-five percent of Iraqis say things are going well in their own lives, up from 39 percent in 2007 (albeit still a bit below its 2005 peak). Fifty-eight percent say things are going well for Iraq  a new high, up from only 22 percent in 2007. Expectations for the year ahead, at the national and personal levels, also have soared, after crashing in 2007. And the sharpest advances have come among Sunni Arabs, the favored group under Saddam Hussein, deeply alienated by his overthrow, now re-engaging in Iraq's national life.
Confidence in the national government, local governments, the army and police all are at new highs. And the growth in support for democracy, bolstered by successful provincial elections in January, is critical  a 21-point gain from March 2007 to a new high in polls since 2004. As Sunni Arabs have stepped back from their preference for strongman rule, so have many Shiites dropped their preference for an Islamic state.
Among the many other telling results in this poll: A majority of Iraqis, 57 percent, now say it's time for the millions who fled the country during the height of its violence to return to Iraq. A year ago fewer than half, 45 percent, held that view.
This survey, based on random, in-person interviews with 2,228 Iraqi adults across the country, is the sixth in Iraq since 2004 sponsored by ABC News and media partners. Together their tracking of Iraqis' attitudes over time tells a story of initial optimism, crushed hopes in waves of violence, nascent improvement and now a robust recovery. They mark a notably different path from Afghanistan, where ABC's fourth national poll in January found sharp declines in public attitudes, amidst broad strife and struggling development.
AND THE U.S.  For all the gains in Iraq, the toll of the invasion and ensuing years of violence continues to weigh heavily on Iraqis' views of the United States. Most, 56 percent, say it was wrong for the United States and its coalition allies to invade six years ago this week. Never in these polls has a majority of Iraqis supported the U.S.-led war.
Other views of the U.S. presence remain weak as well. Just 27 percent are confident in U.S. forces (albeit nearly double its low). Just 30 percent say U.S. and coalition forces have done a good job carrying out their responsibilities in Iraq. Still fewer, 18 percent, have a positive opinion of the United States overall. Barely over a third think the election of Barack Obama will help their country.
The improvements in Iraq have followed the surge of U.S. forces there in 2007 and the successful U.S.-led efforts to bring Sunni groups into security arrangements. But what that apparently has not done is to mitigate Iraqis' anger at the widespread violence that came before. In March 2007, one in six Iraqis said someone in their own household had been hurt or killed; more than half reported an immediate relative or close friend harmed.
Today, the transfer of power is a work in progress; 53 percent of Iraqis think the United States still "controls things in our country." Nonetheless 59 percent think Iraqi forces are ready now to take up security without U.S. and other coalition forces present, and most of the rest think they'll become ready in the next year or two.
Thus 81 percent either support the current timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces by 2011 (35 percent)  or say it should be speeded up (a plurality, 46 percent).
Some doubts and sectarian divisions underlie these views. Confidence that Iraqi forces are now capable of taking up security soars among Shiite Arabs, whose leaders control most of the security apparatus. But from 75 percent among Shiites this confidence drops to 45 percent among Kurds (long protected by the United States) and 38 percent among Sunni Arabs (still fearful of Shiite domination).
Also, a substantial number of Iraqis, 42 percent, are concerned that security may in fact worsen after U.S. forces leave. But few are "very" concerned. Most Iraqis appear eager to move ahead under their own steam.
COMMERCE, CONFIDENCE and CONCILIATION  For Iraq itself, where security has led, other conditions have improved. Sixty percent of Iraqis now rate their personal finances positively, up from a low of 36 percent in March 2007; six in 10 can obtain basic household goods, steady from last year and well up from the dark days of 2007. While jobs, medical care and clean water remain problematic, the availability of electricity  a perennial problem  and, especially, of fuel supplies, has soared.
Iraqi elections, ethnic relations and Sunni improvements
Critically, given past violence, Sunni-Shiite tensions have eased. Sixty-seven percent say the participation of Sunnis in the Jan. 31 provincial elections was a positive factor (most Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds alike say so). Nearly six in 10 rate relations between Sunnis and Shiites positively, up from 48 percent a year ago. And 79 percent expect reconciliation and cooperation between them in the future.
There is, however, greater separation between these groups, raising the question of the true level of rapprochement. Last year 27 percent of Iraqis lived in completely Shiite neighborhoods, 27 percent in completely Sunni neighborhoods; now it's 36 percent apiece  more than seven in 10 now living apart. And nearly six in 10 Iraqis say they only have friends of the same doctrine as their own, up 8 points. The meaning of that increased separation is a profound one for Iraq's future.
There are tensions in Kurdish-Arab relations, too. Just 44 percent of Iraqis rate these relations positively, dropping to 22 percent of Sunnis. A tepid 53 percent of Iraqis expect reconciliation between Kurds and Arabs, and 59 percent expect the Kurdish provinces to try formally to separate from Iraq  something nearly nine in 10 non-Kurds oppose, two-thirds of them, "strongly."
Nonetheless, along with personal and national optimism, trust in national institutions has jumped. As noted, confidence in the Iraqi army and police are at new highs, 73 and 74 percent respectively, including majorities of Sunni Arabs for the first time (as well as most Kurds and Shiites alike). Sixty-seven percent of Iraqis think the country's security forces are loyal to the nation, not to individual factions; Shiites especially say so, but more than half of Sunni Arabs and Kurds agree.
While views on the fairness of the provincial elections in January are mixed, with sharp sectarian differences, they do seem to have helped boost confidence. The number of Iraqis who rate their local government positively  39 percent in August 2007  has jumped to 59 percent now, a new high. That's up 16 points among Shiites, to 63 percent. But most notable is the gain among Sunnis, who participated in these elections after previous boycotts. In March 2007 just 9 percent of Sunnis rated their local government positively. Last year it was 23 percent. Today, 51 percent.
Confidence in the national government likewise is at a new high, 61 percent, up 22 points from its August 2007 low. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has a 55 percent approval rating, up 15 points from last year  including a 23-point gain among Sunnis, albeit again from a very low base; in the past they've been almost unanimously critical of the Shiite-dominated Maliki government.
In a less positive sign for Maliki, four in 10 Iraqis  across sectarian lines  think he's concentrating too much power in his office; even 42 percent of Shiites say so.
However, more fundamentally, 70 percent of Iraqis support a unified Iraq with its central government in Baghdad, up 12 points from its low in March 2007. Kurds, though, are more apt to favor either a regional federation or outright separation.
SUNNIS: A SEA CHANGE  Differences on Maliki are instructive in terms of the fault lines in Iraqi politics. He now enjoys a 70 percent approval rating among Shiites, up 18 points from last year. His approval from Kurds, 51 percent, is down by 17 points  indicating the rising wariness in that group, in part over oil wealth. And while Maliki's approval from Sunnis is way up, that's just to 31 percent, from a mere 8 percent last year.
In another measure, 73 percent of Shiites and 63 percent of Kurds are confident in the national government; among Sunni Arabs this drops to 39 percent. But that's up among Sunnis from just 10 percent a year ago and 4 percent in August 2007.
Personal views add to the story. There's been an astonishing advance in the number of Shiites who feel "very safe" in their own community  from 38 percent a year ago to 67 percent now. Among Kurds, whose three northern provinces escaped most of the country's recent violence, feelings of safety have been high and are now even higher, 85 percent. Sunni Arabs are another story: Even today just 33 percent feel very safe. But that's up from 13 percent last year and a mere 3 percent in March 2007.
Other metrics are similar. Seven in 10 Shiites and Kurds alike say things are going well in their own lives; that drops to 49 percent of Sunnis  far lower, but at the same time up from a dismal 7 percent in 2007. And among Iraqis who report security gains in the last six months, Sunnis are far less likely than Shiites or Kurds to be confident they'll continue in the future.
Sunnis also are much less likely than Shiites to say they have access to medical care, clean water or electricity; they're 21 points less apt than Shiites to say the national government is providing services in their area (41 percent vs. 62 percent)  elements that could encourage resentment in the future.
In a result related to Sunni/Shiite separation, just 43 percent of Iraqis feel free to live where they want without persecution. But that is up from a low of 23 percent in 2007, especially among Sunnis. In August 2007 a mere 2 percent of Sunnis felt they could live where they chose without persecution; a year ago, 19 percent; today, 31 percent.
Indeed advances in confidence among Sunnis are some of the most striking changes in this poll  including a 30-point gain just since last year in the number of Sunnis who say things are going well for the country as a whole, and likewise a 29-point advance in expectations among Sunnis that things will get better for Iraq in the year ahead.
Equally remarkable is the rise in confidence among Sunnis in the Iraqi army  up from a low of 25 percent in March 2007 to 55 percent today  and even more so, in the Iraqi police. In March 2007 just 24 percent of Sunnis were confident in the police; by last year, 40 percent  and today, 67 percent, a key change reflecting greater Sunni participation in these forces.
Still, assessing the loyalty of security forces overall, Sunnis and Kurds alike are more apt than Shiites to express some skepticism. Seventy-nine percent of Shiites think these forces are loyal to the country as a whole rather than to individual factions; far fewer Sunnis and Kurds, 54 percent, share that view. Among those who do see factional loyalties, the one most often mentioned is the Shiite-led Badr organization and its leaders.
Shiites account for 51 percent of Iraq's population in this poll, Sunni Arabs 29 percent, Kurds 16 percent  essentially steady across the four latest ABC News-sponsored polls in Iraq. See separate methodology statement for details.
Democracy in Iraq, independence for Kurdistan and violence
GOVERNANCE  Basic views on governance also mark the sea change in Sunni views: In March 2007 58 percent of Sunnis said the country needed a "strong leader  a government headed by one man for life" (presumably a throwback to their one-time protector, Saddam), while just 38 percent preferred a democracy. Today that's more than flipped: Sixty-five percent of Sunnis want a democracy; just 20 percent, a strong leader.
Critically, there's been a complementary change among Shiites  in their case a drop in preference for an Islamic state from 40 percent in 2007 to 26 percent now, and a concomitant 21-point rise in favor of democracy. Kurds, for their part, have been and remain broadly pro-democracy.
Sunni support for democracy, though, is tentative. Nearly seven in 10 Kurds and nearly eight in 10 Shiites say they're "confident" that a system of freely electing leaders can work successfully in Iraq; many fewer Sunnis, 45 percent, are ready to say so.
Some concerns over governance reflect frustration with the current legislative system. Iraqis divide about evenly on whether members of the Council of Representatives in Baghdad are willing to make necessary compromises on sharing the country's oil wealth and promoting reconciliation, with Sunnis especially skeptical. And more Iraqis, 61 percent overall, don't see progress on official corruption.
Iraqis as a whole are more apt to say the provincial elections last month increased rather than decreased their confidence that democracy can work in Iraq, 43 percent vs. 18 percent. But that's a far more robust result among Shiites (54 vs. 12 percent) than among either Sunnis (36 vs. 20 percent), or, especially, Kurds (26 vs. 32 percent).
Indeed, there's skepticism among non-Shiites that the elections in fact were free and fair, with an honest vote count. While 62 percent of Shiites think so, that dives to 32 percent of Kurds and 30 percent of Sunnis. Iraq's democracy remains a fragile thing.
KURDS  For Kurds, pinned as ever in a difficult geopolitical situation, there are some hotspots. One focus is oil-rich Kirkuk, center of a dispute on whether it should or should not become part of the Kurdish Autonomous Region. Nearly all Kurds (93 percent) say yes; nearly all Sunni and Shiite Arabs say no.
That dispute boils into the broader issue of whether the Kurdish areas are receiving (or should receive) a fair share of Iraq's oil revenue. Kurds have grown more sour on the subject: A year ago 60 percent thought the Iraqi legislature was willing to make compromises on oil wealth; today many fewer Kurds, 44 percent, still think so. It's this kind of view that's contributed to the 17-point drop in approval for Maliki among Kurds.
Part of the division may be inescapable; Kurds, brutally repressed under Saddam, never have fully embraced Iraqi nationalism. While 91 percent of Sunni Arabs and 74 percent of Shiites favor a unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad, that plummets to 18 percent of Kurds. (It was even lower during the strife.) Kurds instead divide evenly between a federated system and outright independence, with 39 percent support for each.
That's actually a 13-point drop in preference for independence among Kurds themselves in just the past year, perhaps informed by their geopolitical situation (especially, hostility with Turkey to the north). But while 39 percent of Kurds prefer independence, more, 56 percent, think it's at least somewhat likely the Kurdish provinces will try to obtain it. And if it happened, 86 percent of Kurds say they'd support it.
It's a recipe for trouble if Iraq's Kurds did seek independence. But given their location between Turkey and Iran, that option may be unattractive anyway. Indeed, Kurds are in fact more apt than Iraqi Arabs to expect ultimate reconciliation  70 percent of Kurds expect Kurdish-Arab rapprochement, vs. about half of Shiites and Sunnis.
Kurds, largely separated from the Sunni-Shiite conflicts to their south, long have enjoyed better security and thus better local development than other Iraqis. For the most part that remains so  but Kurds' ratings of local conditions have trended down in this poll, while others' are steady or improved. Most notably, for the first time more Shiites than Kurds rate their families' economic situation positively, 66 percent vs. 58 percent, with a 10-point drop among Kurds from last year.
There's also been a 13-point drop in Kurds' positive ratings of their local government, and 9- to 11-point declines in their ratings of the availability of jobs, clean water, medical care and the quality of local schools. As conditions to the south have improved, the Kurdish north, in contrast, has experienced a bit of a setback.
VIOLENCE  The shift in views of security is vast. In addition to its overall positive ratings, 52 percent of Iraqis say security has improved in the country as a whole in the past six months; far fewer, 36 percent, said so a year ago, and fewer still, just 11 percent, in August 2007, six months into the U.S. surge. Just 8 percent say security's worsened lately; in August 2007, 61 percent said so.
But a reduction in violence is not its elimination, and it continues at troubling levels, as demonstrated by back-to-back suicide bombings this month that killed 28 and 33, respectively, in Baghdad. Sixteen percent of Iraqis  one in six  report car bombs or suicide attacks in their area in the past six months; 17 percent, kidnappings for ransom; 12 percent, political assassinations.
Those rise in particular areas and among particular groups. Three in 10 Sunnis report car bombs; so do 31 percent in the mixed city of Baghdad, home to a fifth of Iraq's population, and 22 percent in Sunni Anbar province. Three in 10 Sunnis also report kidnappings for ransom in the last six months, and this rises to 47 percent in Mosul, a northern city where remnants of al Qaeda in Iraq rebased after losing Anbar. Indeed 51 percent in Mosul still cite security as their biggest personal problem, compared with 20 percent across Iraq as a whole.
One way to assess violence is with an index showing how many Iraqis report any of a list of violent occurrences in their area. In August 2007, 71 percent reported at least one such incident in the previous six months. Last February it was about the same, 68 percent. Today fewer, 54 percent, report at least one such incident in the last six months. (And this does not take into account the frequency with which these incidents occur  even more sharply down, per Iraqi and U.S. government reports.)
Iraqi living conditions, foreign relations and the shoe thrower
LIVING CONDITIONS  Beyond violence, some living conditions, even if improved, are far from ideal. Just 40 percent of Iraqis say they have good access to medical care  up just 9 points from its worst, and far below its peak, 62 percent in pre-strife 2005. Access to medical care is reported by 59 percent of Kurds and 46 percent of Shiites, but that plummets to 19 percent among Sunni Arabs.
The availability of jobs is a complaint across groups; only about a third of Iraqis, 34 percent, rate this positively, almost unchanged in the last year (with a 10-point gain among Shiites, but an 11-point drop among Kurds). In another measure, more than twice as many say the availability of jobs has worsened in the last six months as say it's improved, 35 percent vs. 14 percent.
On other basics, just 38 percent rate their access to clean water positively, up 13 points from its low but still far below its best, 58 percent, in 2005. Just 38 percent also say they have a good supply of electricity  but that's up, remarkably, from just 12 percent last year. The number of Iraqis who say they have no electricity whatsoever from power lines (as opposed to generators) has been cut in half since March 2007. While six in 10 still lack reliable power, there have been real gains.
The advance in positive ratings of electric supply has occurred very disproportionately among Shiites, notably in Basra, but also in the provinces of Babil and Dhi Qar.
But the single biggest advance is in the supply of fuel for cooking and driving: A year ago just 19 percent rated theirs positively; today that's stormed to 68 percent. Factors could include lower prices on the export market and a more concerted government effort in domestic fuel distribution.
Among other conditions, local schools are well-rated (65 percent say theirs are good), as is local government (dramatically improved, as per above) and the availability of basic household goods, steady after improving sharply last year. Security, crime protection and freedom of movement, as noted, are vastly better, leading the way to broader improvements. And despite the shortage of jobs, 60 percent nonetheless rate their economic situation positively, steady from last year and well up from 2007, albeit 10 points below its peak in 2005.
Results throughout this poll show strong relationships between security, development and positive public attitudes. Where security is rated better, so are current conditions and expectations, both personally and nationally. And an index of development (see table on page 14 of PDF) shows how basic attitudes improve sharply along with ratings of local conditions. Security is essential, but development no less so.
Income also is playing a role in Iraqis' views, with consistently more positive ratings among those who are better-off financially, and particularly difficult conditions for very low-income Iraqis. For example, among the one in 10 who report monthly household incomes under 200,000 dinars (about $175), 84 percent say they lack access to clean water or medical care.
Income is playing more of a direct role in these ratings now than when security was a bigger concern; and indeed the economy for the first time has surpassed security as the top mention when Iraqis are asked the biggest problem in their personal lives.
FOREIGN RELATIONS  There's a trend for the better in Iraqis' views of many of their neighbors. This poll finds sharp declines in negative assessments of Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey alike, led by much less criticism among Shiites.
The changes, like so many, are dramatic. In March 2007, 52 percent said Saudi Arabia was playing a negative role in Iraq; it's 32 percent now, including a huge 50-point drop among Shiites (Saudi Arabia is predominantly Sunni). Negative ratings of Syria have gone from 63 percent then to 38 percent now, with a 38-point drop among Shiites; and of Turkey, from 46 percent to 30 percent negative, including a 36-point drop among Shiites.
There's likewise been a 16-point drop in negative ratings of the United Kingdom, from 75 percent in March 2007 to 59 percent now, again led by Shiites. Russia's role is seen as negative by far fewer, 22 percent, but that's gained 9 points. And there's the United States: Sixty-four percent of Iraqis say it's playing a negative role in their country. But that's down from 77 percent in March 2007.
One thing that's not changed, though, is views of Iran, the mainly Shiite nation with which Iraq fought a ruinous war in the 1980s. Sixty-eight percent say Iran is playing a negative role in Iraq, unchanged since 2007.
SHOE GUY  Finally, that still-negative view of the United States is reinforced by attitudes about Muntadhar al-Zeidi, the journalist who threw a shoe at then-President Bush during his visit to Baghdad in December. Twenty-four percent see him as a criminal, for assaulting a visiting foreign head of state. But 62 percent of Iraqis view al-Zeidi as a hero, for expressing the views held by many Iraqi people.
METHODOLOGY  This poll for ABC News, the BBC and NHK was conducted Feb. 17-25, 2009, through in-person interviews with a random national sample of 2,228 Iraqi adults, including oversamples in Anbar province, Basra city, Mosul, Kirkuk and the Sadr City section of Baghdad. The results have a 2.5-point error margin. Field work by D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., and KA Research Ltd. of Istanbul.
Click here for methodological details and additional reports.
Click here for PDF of analysis with charts and full questionnaire.

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

Sphere: Related Content

POLITICIANS ARE TO OFTEN LIKE DIAPERS

Mark Twain is oft quoted, obviously because he accurately hit the nail on the head regarding our professional politicians. As we all tend to learn on a daily basis, his point is regularly illustrated by those fine folks we have in the Congress, especially the House of Reprehensibles.

The short article that follows is another story in the never ending line of examples that clearly exposes the quality of ne'er-do-wells that occupy seats in the House.

What never seems to fail is the inverse relationship between the level of ethics and integrity demonstrated by these politicians and the length of time they are in office. The longer that we inattentive voters send these losers back to Washington, the more likely it is that they will find ways, rarely legal, to rip off the nation.

Although this phenomenon has nothing to do with political party, gender, race or geographical region, we certainly get more than our fair share of such turds here on the left coast. While these sorry excuses for leaders strut their stuff in front of the cameras in Washington, all righteous in their paid off causes, they proceed to tread upon the trust and good will of those they supposedly represent. As they continually demonstrate, the ugly truth is that they could care less about the honor of their position compared to serving their own selfish and self-serving ends.

Twain is right of course. If we the people had good common sense, we would in fact change this disgusting diaper filling regularly. Like many others, I tire of these phonies. Representatives and Senators should be elected to serve one term and one term only. Should they do such an unbelievable job as to run again, let them do so only after someone else has served the term right after theirs.

We do not need professional career politicians. Our system of governance was not intended for them and they historically prove the wisdom of our founders when those wise men put forth the idea of citizen legislators. That would be people who lead a life in the real world who are willing to take their turn at public service and thereafter go back and pick up their regular lives again. The hunger for power and celebrity so openly on display among our career legislators directly leads to the greed and corruption so regularly on display.

The time has come to flush the steaming pile of Congressional excrement.


Congress's Own Liechtenstein

On the same day the House whooped through a 90% surtax on some bonuses, Bloomberg News reported that Democratic Rep. Pete Stark, a House eminento from California, may have been improperly claiming residency in Maryland to get a tax break. As you might guess, Maryland's tax bite isn't as deep as wonderful California's. This follows on news reports last week that Democratic New York Congressman Eliot Engel has been told by Maryland authorities he too may not claim his suburban Maryland home as his primary residence for tax purposes. The AP noted, "Engel isn't the only politician who's been found to be improperly receiving the credit. Another Congressman, some U.S. Senators and several Maryland legislators have also been tripped up by the requirements."
Oh my. If New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank are going to try to make public the names of bonus recipients to help mobs demonstrate in front of individuals' homes, perhaps Maryland's tax authorities could do the same for out-of-state politicians who've turned the state into their personal Liechtenstein. No doubt millions of average Joes living in such tax hells as New York and California would love to work on the taxpayers' dime in Washington and live in a low-tax jurisdiction nearby.

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sphere: Related Content

LEADERSHIP: COACH K GOT IT RIGHT

Coach K is one hundred percent correct. The President needs to focus on what is important to the nation and stop screwing around. Obama's job is to protect the United States of America, not act like a frat boy on spring break.

Leadership carries with it responsibilities. That is something Coach K would have learned early on as a cadet at West Point. It is most certainly something he has repeatedly demonstrated in the highly competitive arena of intercollegiate athletics. Not to mention the Olympic level of international competition where winning is everything and the only thing.

Being trained as an attorney, as Obama was, as well as serving as a collaborative community organizer provides him with a background that is unrelated to being the decision maker. Serving in the United States Senate, where you are one among one hundred equals, dictated that he learn to accommodate to get along. Again, that is not preparation to lead. It is why he is one of only three people ever elected to the presidency from the Senate. Hopefully he will be the last.

As President, Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that leading is not his forte. This example is one among many and it was bound to raise the hackles of someone like Coach K who well knows the requirements of leadership and, at the same time, is active in the NCAA tournament mix. Coach K does not spend his time finding a fix for our broken economy. The President should not spend one second of his time on March Madness. Leaders focus. They know the jack of all trades is the master of none.

But we also see this in other manifestations. The gaffe about Special Olympics. The comments about the stock market. A Presidential appearance on a TV late night talk show. Preaching belt tightening to the public while hosting lavish White House parties. Talking out of both sides of his mouth about the fundamentals of the economy. And that list goes on. All in less than 60 days in office.

Like Coach K, more Americans of note should publicly call the President on his leadership failures. It really is well past time for Obama to grow into the office. It is not about him any longer, it is about the nation. That is always difficult for those on the hard left to grasp since, in their warped world, the ends always justify the means and the ends are always self-serving. While Obama basks in the bright light of celebrity, the country founders.

As Coach K demonstrated in this instance, leaders have the courage of their convictions. They will stand up for what they believe is right and what benefits the greater good. The President could learn something valuable here but the likely reaction, if this White House stays in character, will be to belittle and attack the critic. That is not what leadership is about but it is the track record of this administration to date.

If all is right in the universe, Coach K's Duke Blue Devils will win the NCAA title (not likely) and thereafter be invited to the White House. At the end of the day, Coach K is a teacher. Rookie Obama would demonstrate wisdom to listen and learn. Is he smart enough to understand that truth? It would be a real treat to be a fly on the wall for that meeting.


Duke Coach to Obama: Worry About the Economy, Not NCAA Picks
Reacting to news Obama picked North Carolina to win the NCAA Championship, Mike Krzyzewski says, "the economy is something that [the president] should focus on, probably more than the brackets."
AP

Barack Obama picked North Carolina to defeat Louisville for the NCAA championship, a relatively safe selection for a trailblazing president.
Obama spent part of Tuesday making his tournament picks for ESPN, which posted his completed bracket online Wednesday and showed the First Fan filling it out with Andy Katz on the noon edition of "Sportscenter."
Of course, the president's choice drew a reaction from the Tar Heels' most intense rival.
"Somebody said that we're not in President Obama's Final Four, and as much as I respect what he's doing, really, the economy is something that he should focus on, probably more than the brackets," Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski said from the Blue Devils' first-round site in Greensboro, N.C.
The president had top-seeded Pittsburgh join the No. 1-seeded Tar Heels and Cardinals in the Final Four, but chose second-seeded Memphis to beat Connecticut in the West Regional.
"I think Memphis has got a very athletic team," Obama told Katz, an ESPN college basketball analyst. "I think they've got a good shot."
Perhaps showing some indecision, Obama initially had the Panthers playing Louisville for the national title in the file posted online. Pitt was scratched out of the title game in favor of North Carolina, which in turn replaced Louisville in the "champion" box.
"Here's what I like about Carolina: experience and balance," Obama said.
Familiarity, too. Obama played a pickup game with Tyler Hansbrough and the Tar Heels while campaigning in North Carolina last April.
"Now, for all the Tar Heels who are watching, I picked you last year -- you let me down," Obama said. "This year, don't embarrass me in front of the nation, all right? I'm counting on you. I still got those sneakers you guys gave me."
Katz interviewed Obama last October for a story about the president's brother-in-law, Oregon State basketball coach Craig Robinson. After the interview, Obama invited Katz to play in a pickup basketball game on Election Day in Chicago, and he did.
Katz extracted a promise from Obama that if elected, the new president would reveal his NCAA picks to ESPN when the pairings were announced in March.
"They stayed true to their word and didn't hesitate to get it done," Katz said.
Obama was brutally honest in assessing many of the teams, including Blake Griffin and second-seeded Oklahoma, which he has losing to Syracuse for a spot in the final eight.
"The problem with Oklahoma, they have the player of the year, but they play like, seven guys," Obama said. "I think you start getting worn down."
Among the other notable selections, Obama picked 10th-seeded Maryland to beat No. 7 seed California in the West Regional, fifth-seeded Florida State to make the round of 16, and No. 11 seed Virginia Commonwealth to beat UCLA.
Any chance the president slips away for a few minutes to see how his picks are doing when the tournament begins in earnest Thursday?
"I think the chances are pretty high," he said

Sphere: Related Content

DEMOCRAT WAR: WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?

Where is the leftist anti-war outrage that the nation has had to endure over the past eight years? As the accompanying article attests, four American soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb in what has been, from it's inception, the Democrat war in Afghanistan. Such an event, had it occurred under the Bush administration, would have drawn the ire of the press, the left and the Dems in Congress. But now, not a word.

We used to get a regular update of the body count, ongoing protests in the streets of America's cities and media focus on grieving families who lost loved ones in a war on terrorism if, and only if, they opposed that fight. Not to mention self-righteous speeches by pontificating pols in Congress.

But with Obama in office, a blind eye has been turned on the fighting overseas.

Given that the "Bush war" in Iraq has mostly wound down to a successful conclusion, it has become vogue to ignore what goes on there as well as the current hot fighting in Afghanistan. Democrat politicians, in their never ending effort to punish Bush about Iraq, have pointed to the Afghan fight as the "right" war all along. As President, Obama has sent more troops into that battle and has repeatedly violated the sovereign territory of Pakistan to bomb suspected terrorist havens, even if it meant that some innocent civilians might be killed. Does anyone remember when such actions by any non-Democrat were loudly and even violently protested? What changed?

Only the brain dead don't know the answer to that question. The left purportedly hates war: unless it is one of their own doing the fighting. Under those conditions, there are any number of nuanced and sophisticated reasons to cross international borders and take out civilians in the process. Should that happen under Bush, it would be the illegal action of a unilateralist cowboy. But if it is Obama approving such aggressive military activity, it is only done with the best interests of the international community in mind.

Not to mention there is the collateral advantage of accruing the support of those believing that the Bush strategy of taking the fight to the enemy makes sense. The left ignores the truth when it is not convenient, sort of the inconvenient truth if you will. Those who are intellectually honest support what the President is doing in Afghanistan because it is an extension of the, to date, successful policy of being on the offensive in the war on terrorism.

In this instance, the left once again proves how self-serving they are relative to the greater good. When protest and outrage serves their selfish ends, they practice both to the extreme. Hate war when it serves, ignore it when it does not.

On the left, the ends always justifies the means and the ends are always self-serving. The greater good be damned.


Bomb kills 4 US soldiers in Afghanistan's east
By FISNIK ABRASHI, Associated Press Writer

KABUL – A roadside bomb killed four American soldiers in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday — new evidence of rising violence in a region where clashes and attacks in the first two months of 2009 more than doubled from the same period a year ago.
The spike in violence along the border is an early indication that roadside bombs and other ambushes are likely to surge as thousands of new U.S. forces arrive in Afghanistan this year.
Brig. Gen. Richard Blanchette, a spokesman for the NATO-led force here, confirmed that a roadside bomb killed four U.S. troops in eastern Afghanistan. A U.S. statement indicated the troops were based in Jalalabad.
A suicide bomber, meanwhile, attacked a NATO convoy in Kabul on Sunday but instead killed two passers-by — among 18 people killed Sunday, officials said.
Clashes and attacks in the eastern province of Kunar surged 131 percent in January and February from the same period in 2008, said Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, a U.S. spokeswoman.
Bomb and gunfire attacks are up in part because 700 10th Mountain Division soldiers were deployed to Kunar in early January, putting more soldiers in harm's way.
Kunar's rise in violence is likely indicative of what the 17,000 U.S. troops that President Barack Obama has ordered to Afghanistan will face later this year. Hoping to reverse Taliban gains, the troops will move into areas of the country where few other foreign or Afghan soldiers have held a long-term presence.
Many of those areas are likely to have conditions similar to Kunar, where "the enemy that has a traditional hold in the area are deeply entrenched with the population," Nielson-Green said.
"The population is also very xenophobic and are largely 'fence sitters,'" Afghans who have not pledged allegiance to either the government or the militants, she said.
The 10th Mountain troops moved into Kunar, near the porous Pakistan border, while the Pakistani military was conducting a six-month offensive against militants in its Bajur tribal area, which has been an important safe-haven for insurgents.
Bajur is a rumored hiding place for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, and Pakistan's offensive there earned praise from American officials concerned that militants were using the area as a base from which to plan attacks in Afghanistan.
Last week, Pakistan signed a peace deal with the Mamund tribe after claiming victory in its fight. The tribe controls a large swath of Bajur and its ranks have yielded many Taliban leaders. The tribe, whose members straddle the Afghan-Pakistan border, has agreed to stop sheltering foreign fighters and hand over local Taliban leaders there.
But while Pakistan has seen success in Bajur, violence has more than doubled in Kunar across the border in Afghanistan.
Nielson-Green acknowledged that violence is rising in part because more fighters crossed the border to escape Pakistan's military offensive. But the main reason, she said, was the influx of U.S. troops.
Many of the recent attacks, she said, have been relatively ineffective mortar, rocket or machine gun assaults.
While Pakistan's operation in Bajur was successful, militants still "enjoy safe haven and support," in other tribal areas in Pakistan, Nielson-Green said.
Gen. Abdul Jalal Jalal, the Kunar provincial police chief, said he is concerned that ongoing peace talks between Pakistani Taliban and Pakistan's government may be used by the militants as a chance to cross the border and increase their attacks in Afghanistan.
The Taliban regularly use roadside bombs against Afghan and foreign troops. Last year the number of such attacks rose by 30 percent, according to NATO figures.
In the latest Afghan violence, a roadside bomb in eastern Afghanistan killed four American troops Sunday, NATO said. The U.S. Central Command confirmed that one of the four was a U.S. airman assigned to the 755th Air Expeditionary Group.
In another bomb attack, the mayor of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan survived a roadside bomb blast Sunday that killed a civilian and wounded two others, said Najibullah Khan, a police spokesman.
In the capital, a suicide bomber on foot targeted a NATO patrol but killed two Afghan civilians, said Kabul police chief Lt. Gen. Abdul Rahman Rahman.
The bomber also wounded 14 civilians, the Interior Ministry said. No foreign troops were injured.
Separately, U.S. coalition and Afghan special forces conducting a raid in Kandahar's Maywand district killed five militants, a U.S. statement said.
In eastern Afghanistan, a French soldier and five Afghan troops were killed during a clash with militants in Kapisa province, officials said.

Associated Press reporters Amir Shah in Kabul and Noor Khan in Kandahar contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

Sphere: Related Content

BIG FAT FAILED FANNIE

Just plain wrong!

That's what the story that follows describes relative to executive pay bonuses at the government owned and controlled Fannie Mae and, it appears, Freddie Mac as well. Make sure to consult the private section chart above while noting what this story is all about.

Both failed in 2008 and had to be rescued by billions of taxpayer dollars. Both remain in precarious financial straights today. Neither is making any money, both are seriously upside down in terms of profit and loss.

As we all know, the economy remains in recession and the government continues to throw billions of dollars in every direction imaginable, especially towards Democrat party constituencies that are the recipients of huge taxpayer financed paybacks for the outcome of the election last fall. We do not have the money we are spending and there is little chance that we will ever get out from under our exploding national debt, which reached eleven trillion dollars just this week.

Under such circumstances, what do the geniuses overseeing Fannie Mae decide is appropriate? Pay out large executive bonuses to the folks who have, to date, failed to turn that big fat Fannie around.

What is the underlying reason to provide taxpayer bonus cash to executives who continue to fail? It is part of their "retention program".

What? This is nothing more than blatant ignorance in action. Not to mention the usual greed among those who feed at the public trough. Consider the following:

1. There is no need to retain the people who have not, and apparently can not, fix the problems that plague Fannie Mae. There is an army of highly qualified executives out there looking for work. There is no need to retain these same folks. That is simply a canard.

2. Fannie Mae is a failed organization, kept on life support by taxpayer largess. The economy is in recession. No one at Fannie Mae, in light of those two realities, should get a bonus. Giving bonus cash to anyone at Fannie is clearly wrong.

3. Exactly where are those ever so valuable Fannie executives going to go if they decide to leave Fannie? Who is hiring leaders that have driven their organization into the abyss of failure? Where are there a large number of unfilled jobs crying out for Fannie execs? Earth to Fannie: there is no where for those who need a "retention program" to go. If they leave, they will be hurting for employment and that is a fact. In truth, they should be fired.

This announcement is not about retaining executives. It is about a self-serving payoff for a small group of people who, by any reasonable measure, have not earned it. But this is government work after all, so why would results be important.

Taxpayers: we are all looking at the model of the future under our current "leadership" in Washington DC. What a nightmare.


Fannie plans bonuses of $1M for 4 execs
Fannie Mae plans bonuses of $1M for top executives; Freddie Mac has similar plans
Alan Zibel, AP Real Estate Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Fannie Mae plans to pay retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four key executives as part of a plan to keep hundreds of employees from leaving the government-controlled company.
Rival mortgage finance company Freddie Mac is planning similar awards, but has not yet reported on which executives will benefit.
The two companies, which together own or back more than half of the home mortgages in the country, have been hobbled by skyrocketing loan defaults. Fannie recently requested $15 billion in federal aid, while Freddie has sought a total of almost $45 billion.
Fannie Mae disclosed its "broad-based" retention program in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company was only required to disclose the amounts for the top-paid executives, who will pocket at least $470,000 on top of their base salaries.
The bonuses are more than double last year's, which ranged from $200,000 to $260,000. Another round of bonuses ranging from $330,000 to $429,000 are planned for next February.
A company spokesman declined further comment.
Fannie Mae said regulators determined that the bonuses were needed because keeping key employees "was essential to ensure our viability through 2010, which would allow Congress, the administration and other parties involved time to determine what the form and function of the company will be in future years."
The bonuses were authorized last year by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which seized control of Fannie and Freddie in September and ousted the companies' former CEOs
"It was critical to retain their most important asset -- their employees -- who are being asked to play a vital role in the nation's economic recovery," James Lockhart, the agency's director, said in a statement. "As the previous senior management teams left, it would have been catastrophic to lose the next layers down and other highly experienced employees."
But the generous paychecks could prove politically touchy amid outrage over roughly $165 million in bonuses paid out over the weekend by bailed-out insurance giant AIG.
Michael Williams, Washington-based Fannie Mae's executive vice president and chief operating officer, is due to receive a $611,000 retention award this year on top of his $676,000 base salary.
Williams received a $260,000 retention bonus last year and is in line for another $429,000 next February, for an expected total of $1.3 million, according to the SEC filing.
David Hisey, the company's deputy chief financial offer, is expected to receive a $517,000 retention award this year in addition to his $385,000 salary and $160,000 cash bonus. He received a $220,000 retention award last year and is due to receive $363,000 next February, for a total of $1.1 million.
The other two executives receiving the bonuses are Thomas Lund, who oversees the company's single-family mortgage business and Kenneth Bacon, who heads up housing and community development. Both are receiving about $1 million.
The company's two top executives, Chief Executive Officer Herbert Allison and Chief Financial Officer David Johnson, did not receive the awards because they were new to the company last year. Allison is taking no salary, while Johnson is receiving a base salary of $625,000 and no bonus.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

Sphere: Related Content