Obama Offers Prime Posts to Top Campaign Contributors (Update1)

Louis Susman has one thing in common with many of his predecessors nominated to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom: money.

Susman, 71, a retired Citigroup Inc. senior investment banker, raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and another $300,000 for his inauguration. On Wednesday, Obama nominated Susman to the post formally known as the Court of St. James.

Like Andrew Mellon, Joseph Kennedy and Walter Annenberg before him, Susman’s credentials stem more from involvement in financing party politics than foreign policy experience.

Even with his pledges to change government, Obama is following the tradition of his predecessors by offering some ambassadorships to top campaign backers, including four of the 12 nominations this week. The president acknowledged in a news conference in January that donors might get plum postings.

“The practice of rewarding donors is a remnant of the spoils system that we abolished in the civil service,” said career diplomat Ronald Neumann, president of the American Academy of Diplomacy and a former ambassador to Afghanistan. “It is a dismal testimony to the importance of money in our electoral system.”

“That said, the republic will survive the president selling a few embassies.”

Reagan Appointment

Susman is a former vice chairman of corporate and investment banking at Citigroup. He was finance chairman for John Kerry’s 2004 Democratic presidential campaign and raised money for the presidential runs of Senators Edward Kennedy and Bill Bradley.

Besides Susman, those nominated on May 27 include:
-- John Roos, chief executive officer of the Palo Alto, California-based law firm Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, to Japan. He raised more than $500,000 for Obama.

-- Charles Rivkin, chief executive officer of Wildbrain Inc., to France. Rivkin collected more than $500,000 for Obama’s campaign and $300,000 for his inauguration.

-- Laurie Fulton, a partner with Williams & Connolly LLP, to Denmark. Fulton, 59, raised $100,000 to $200,000.

Susman said he was “excited by the opportunity to serve our country.” A call to Fulton was referred to the White House. Roos, 54, and Rivkin, 47, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Rewarding Rooney

Two other nominees -- Vilma Martinez, 65, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP in California, to Argentina, and Miguel Diaz, 46, a theology professor at St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota, to the Vatican -- gave to Obama.

Diaz, who earned his doctorate in theology from the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana, contributed $1,000 to Obama’s campaign last year. Fluent in Spanish and Italian, he was also a member of the Obama campaign’s Catholic advisory board.

On St. Patrick’s Day, Obama named Dan Rooney, owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers football team, as ambassador to Ireland. Rooney, 76, a Republican, endorsed Obama last year.

“The system, despite any desires, is not basically going to change in this administration or any other,” said former ambassador Mort Abramowitz, who spent more than 30 years in the State Department.

On Jan. 9, when Obama conceded he wouldn’t abandon the practice, he said, “It would be disingenuous for me to suggest that there are not going to be some excellent public servants but who haven’t come through the ranks of the civil service.”

‘Committed Individuals’

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, called the nominees “a group of committed individuals and proven professionals that are eager to serve their country.”
Since John F. Kennedy became president in 1961, about one- third of ambassadorships have gone to campaign donors or other politically connected individuals, according to the American Academy of Diplomacy.

“It’s very prestigious being the ambassador and living in a large residence,” said John Naland, president of the American Foreign Service Association.

Wealthy ambassadors have paid to help refurbish their residences abroad or to throw parties. Annenberg, U.S. ambassador under President Richard Nixon, spent almost $1 million renovating his quarters, according to the New York Times.

Between January 2001 and January 2007, President George W. Bush named 124 people to foreign posts. Fifty-three had raised at least $100,000 for his presidential campaigns, according to the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based watchdog group.

Ameriquest

One was Roland Arnall, the founder of Ameriquest Mortgage Co., a subprime lender, who served as ambassador to the Netherlands. Ameriquest and its subsidiaries gave $1 million to Bush’s 2005 inaugural committee.

Former President Bill Clinton named M. Larry Lawrence, owner of the landmark Hotel del Coronado near San Diego and a campaign donor, as ambassador to Switzerland. Lawrence’s body was later exhumed from Arlington National Cemetery amid allegations that his claims of Merchant Marine service were fraudulent.

Some career diplomats are trying to change the practice. Neumann and Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador, wrote letters to both major presidential nominees last year asking them to limit political appointees to 10 percent of ambassadorships.

“Too often ambassadorships have served as political rewards for unqualified candidates,” they wrote.

Some Obama appointments have drawn praise. Abramowitz cited former U.S. Representative Tim Roemer of Indiana as ambassador to India and Jon Huntsman, the Republican governor of Utah, as ambassador to China. “It’s largely better than previous administrations,” he said.
Abramowitz said there will always be appointments that are naturally suited toward non-career officials.

“People aren’t going to worry about who goes to Trinidad and Tobago,” he said.

How Socialism Works in the Real World

by Terry Easton

David Kamerschen is a professor of Economics at the University of Georgia who has fun teaching economics to new students fresh to the field. Lots of people who teach economics, including yours truly, have used a variation of David's illustration over the years. It never fails to hit the mark -- if not Marx.

Econ 101 or its equivalent is usually a required course for most college students, most of whom groan when they are forced to take a class in the "dismal science". That's because they never were exposed to real-world lessons in economics when they were in grade school. If we begin to teach our children the facts about how things really work when they are 8 instead of 18, we'd get much smarter voters at 18 -- and far less mushy-thinking socialist "progressives".

Bar Stool Economics:

Let's suppose that a group of 10 graduate students regularly go out to a pub for beer, and the tab for the 10 comes to $100 total. If they pay for their bill the way Americans pay for our taxes (based on our so-called "progressive" tax system), the breakout would be like this:

The first 4 people (the poorest) pay nothing. They get to drink for free.
The fifth pays $1
The sixth pays $3
The seventh pays $7
The eighth pays $12
The ninth pays $18
The tenth person (the richest) pays $59.

Being good friends and liberal progressives, that's what they all agree to do. It seems only fair that each person should pay what they can afford to pay, remembering the old adage they learned in school: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" (Karl Marx).

Every few days, the 10 good friends would meet up in the pub and would pay up as agreed upon.

Then one day, the proprietor gave them a deal. "Since you are such good customers, from now on", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your tab by $20. You can just pay me $80"

Everyone wanted to continue to pay their bill just the same way as they had before. So the first four people (the poorest) are unaffected. They continue to get to drink for free.

But what about the remaining 6 people? How should they split up the unexpected $20 savings "windfall" so that everyone would get "his fair share"? They figured that $20 shared by 6 comes out to $3.33 each. But if they simply subtracted that amount from each of the 6 paying friends, then person #5 and person #6 would actually be paid to have their beers since person #5 only paid $1 anyway and person #6 only paid $3!

What to do?

The pub owner came to their rescue. He suggested that each person's bill should be reduced by roughly the same amount, and he used his calculator to work out what that should be:

Persons 1-4 continue to get to drink for free
The fifth person, like the first four, now pays nothing and drinks for free (100% savings!)
The sixth pays just $2 instead of the original $3 (33% savings!)
The seventh pays just $5 instead of the original $7 (28% savings!)
The eighth pays just $9 instead of the original $12 (25% savings!)
The ninth pays just $15 instead of the original $18 (17% savings!)
The tenth pays just $49 instead of the original $59 (16% savings!)

All 6 friends were better off then before. And their first four buddies continued to drink for free, because they didn't have a lot of money.

They all felt pretty good about it.

After they thanked the pub owner and left to walk back to campus, they began to compare their savings under this new deal.

The sixth person was very quiet, though. Finally he blurted out. "You know, splitting up the bill that way wasn't fair! I only got a dollar out of that $20 we all saved, and yet (he pointed to the tenth person) he got $10!"

"Hey, you're right", shouted the seventh person. "I got cheated too. I only saved 2 dollars. It's unfair that he got back 5 times more than me!"

"Damn it! I've been ripped off too", yelled the eighth. "Why should he get back $10 when I got back only $3. The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute", screamed friends one through four. "We didn't get anything at all! The system exploits the poor!"

The first nine people surrounded the tenth person and beat him up.

The next day, tempers had cooled down and the nine friends showed back up at the pub.

They were sorry for what they had done and they wanted to apologize to their tenth friend.

But the tenth person didn't show up for drinks. So the nine proceeded to drink without him.

When it came time to pay the tab, they discovered that they had a problem. They didn't have enough money among all nine of them to pay for even half of the bill!"

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works", says Professor Kamershen. "The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

President Obama and the Democratically-controlled congress, good wannabe socialists all, should remember this lessen before all of the rich people (mostly Democrats, by the way, but that's the topic of another article) stop going to the pub with all their other good friends. Raising taxes using a "progressive" tax system penalizes the productive, wealthiest members of our society much more than the average taxpayer. And I'm against that even though it would hurt the many Democrat billionaires far more.

And once we tip over the edge where 50% of the population don't pay income tax at all (the first five "good friends"), we create an us-and-them mentality where the first five vote in the politicians they want to continue to get their beers for free.

But there's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays. Until they can't or don't anymore.

John Galt couldn't have said it plainer.

Mother Nature Has A Kick-Ass Sense of Humor

The Fleur crew were rescued by the Overseas Yellowstone in strong winds
An expedition team which set sail from Plymouth on a 5,000-mile carbon emission-free trip to Greenland have been rescued by an oil tanker.
Raoul Surcouf, Richard Spink and skipper Ben Stoddart sent a mayday because they feared for their safety amid winds of 68mph (109km/h).
All three are reportedly exhausted but safe on board the Overseas Yellowstone.
Mr Surcouf, 40, from Jersey, Mr Spink, 31, and Mr Stoddart, 43, from Bristol, are due to arrive in the USA on 8 May.
'Heartfelt thanks'
The team, which left Mount Batten Marina in Plymouth on 19 April in a boat named the Fleur, aimed to rely on sail, solar and man power on a 580-mile (933km/h) journey to and from the highest point of the Greenland ice cap.
The expedition was followed by up to 40 schools across the UK to promote climate change awareness.
But atrocious weather dogged their journey after 27 April, culminating with the rescue on 1 May after the boat was temporarily capsized three times by the wind.
In one incident Mr Stoddart hit his head and the wind generator and solar panels were ripped from the yacht.

Ben Stoddart was hauled aboard after falling in during the rescue
Water was also getting into the boat from waves breaking over it and the crew took refuge in the forward cabin.
The crew were 400 miles (644km) off the west coast of Ireland when they sent a mayday to Falmouth coastguards who co-ordinated the rescue with Irish coastguards.
The transfer from the Fleur to Overseas Yellowstone was achieved in 42mph (67km/h) winds.
Mr Spink and Mr Surcouf were able to jump across to a rope ladder. But Mr Stoddart fell into the sea, was thrown a line by the crew and hauled aboard.
Team spokeswoman Jess Tombs said: "They are all overwhelmingly relieved to be safe.
"They would like to give heartfelt thanks to the coastguards for their professionalism as well as to the outstanding captain and crew of the Overseas Yellowstone."

See what happens when you believe in Global Warming !!!

Sunbeams from Cucumbers

By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Gulliver's travels took him to the Academy of Lagado, where "professors contrive new rules and methods" for everything: "One man shall do the work of ten; a palace may be built in a week, of materials so durable as to last forever without repairing. All the fruits of the earth shall come to maturity at whatever season we think fit to choose, and increase a hundredfold more than they do at present." There was, however, the "inconvenience" that "none of these projects" had yet come to fruition and "the whole country lies miserably waste." But "instead of being discouraged," people were "fifty times more violently bent upon prosecuting their schemes," which included "extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers."

At the Academy of Obama, professors and others devise plans for extracting a new and improved automobile industry from a semi-sort-of-bankruptcy arrangement that -- if it survives judicial scrutiny; that is not certain -- will give the United Auto Workers 39 percent of General Motors, with the government owning 50 percent. During future contract negotiations, will the union's adversary be an administration that the union helped to put in power?
The UAW will own 55 percent of Chrysler, so perhaps the union will sit on both sides of the table in negotiations. They should go smoothly, although the UAW may think it has made sufficient concessions, such as the one that says henceforth overtime pay will not begin until the worker has toiled 40 hours in a week.

Many months and many billions of dollars are being wasted by the administration's determination to spare the car companies, and especially the UAW, the rigors of a straightforward bankruptcy. The president's "surgical" bankruptcy plan for Chrysler requires some of the company's lenders, mostly non-banks, to receive less than they would as secured creditors under bankruptcy law.

The law may still make itself heard over the political thunder. Meanwhile, the president faults these "speculators" for not being as cooperative as are most of the banks that have lent to Chrysler. But the banks are compliant because they are mendicants: Having taken the government's money, they are the government's minions.

When the president was recently asked what had "humbled" him in office, he mentioned that "there are a lot of different power centers" in America, so, for example, "I can't just press a button and suddenly have the bankers do exactly what I want." Perhaps not a button, and not exactly what he wants, but in dealing with Detroit he pressed and they were accommodating.
It is Demagoguery 101 to identify an unpopular minority to blame for problems. The president has chosen to blame "speculators" -- aka investors; anyone who buys a share of a company's stock is speculating about the company's future -- for Chrysler's bankruptcy and the dubious legality of his proposal. Yet he simultaneously says he hopes that private investors will begin supplanting government as a source of capital for the companies. Breathes there an investor/speculator with such a stunted sense of risk that he or she would go into business with this capricious government?

Its chief executive says: "If the Japanese can design (an) affordable, well-designed hybrid, then, doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same." Yes they can -- if the American manufacturer can do what Toyota does with the Prius: Sell its hybrid without significant, if any, profit and sustain this practice, as Toyota does, by selling about twice as many of the gas-thirsty pickup trucks that the president thinks are destroying the planet.
Obama overflows with advice for Americans who he thinks need admonitions such as "wash your hands when you shake hands" and "cover your mouth when you cough." He also advises that this is a good time for Americans to put their hygienic hands on the steering wheel of a new car. He hopes buyers will choose American cars. A sensible person might add: Buyers should choose cars made by the Ford Motor Company.

This is so because Ford has, so far, avoided becoming an appendage of the government. And because the national interest will not be served by GM and Chrysler flourishing. It might cost taxpayers more in the short run, but in the long run it will be less costly for the country if the government finds its confident plunge into industrial policy so unpleasant that, sadder but wiser, the incumbent professors and others will flee from such adventures in extracting sunbeams from cucumbers.