It’s Friday, November 18th, 2011….but before we begin, a brief public service announcement.  We know many of you prefer the convenience of receiving a direct email containing each current offering.  We know you’re busy and appreciate your time is valuable.

However, as our goal is to eventually take The Gouge to the next level, we would appreciate everyone taking the time to visit our website (www.thedailygouge.com) at least once a day.  Visits translate into exposure, and exposure means advertising, and advertising leads to….get the picture?  If you appreciate and enjoy the product, we’re hardly expecting too much by asking you to frequent the website on a regular basis.  We’re trying to do our part to preserve the Founding Father’s vision of America….and we’d appreciate your help.

FLASH!  THIS JUST IN:

GE’s 2010 Tax Return: 57,000 Pages of Nothing

 

General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn’t pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and stacked.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2011/11/17/ges_2010_tax_return_57,000_pages_of_nothing

No wonder Jeffrey Immelt is….

….laughing!

Now, here’s the Gouge!

Leading off the last Gouge of the week, two items that capture the inescapable inexperience, insincerity and ill-preparedness of Team Tick-Tock; first, the WSJ‘s Kimberly Strassel tells the tale of….

Steven Chu, Energy CEO

On Thursday, Americans got a clear a view of the Obama philosophy of government.

 

The House Energy and Commerce Committee Thursday held another hearing on the bankruptcy of taxpayer-backed Solyndra and, fortunately for the mere politicians present, the panel this time had access to the wisdom of a rock star energy CEO.

To a packed hearing room, their star witness rattled off his business insights with the fluidity of a green Gordon Gekko. He flew through explanations about Solyndra’s “B+ bond rating” and “temporary liquidity problem,” but also its “cash flow” situation and ability to get its “fab constructed on time, on budget.” He explained that in his experience with start-up companies, there tended to be a “business plan” that required a “cash burn rate” so as to “build up sales.”

He dipped into loan “subordination,” touched on “contractual agreement,” remarked on “equity investors.” He warned about what happens when the “bottom of a market falls out” and prices “plummet” because of “softening of the market in Europe.” Along the way he parried queries about due diligence, fiduciary duties, credit subsidies, probabilities of default, board seats and commodity prices.

Who was this investing genius? Why, just who you’d expect: Steven Chu, aka Secretary of Energy, aka President Obama’s CEO, chairman and entire board of America’s energy industry.

Mr. Chu came to Congress to get grilled on the circumstances that led to $535 million in taxpayer money getting thrown down (to use a high-concept business term) a rat hole. Republicans were particularly interested in plumbing whether undue political influence played a role in the later terms of this loan to Solyndra, whose investors include an Obama donor.

But perhaps the greater merit of the testimony was to provide Americans the clearest view yet of the Obama philosophy of government in action. To watch Mr. Chu was to glimpse a day in the life of a political appointee destined for so much more than dusty energy policy. Boring! In Obamaland, department secretaries run the economy, baby! They swim in a pile of balance sheets—creating, funding and managing America’s future, one company at a time. As Gordon might say, Mr. Chu “makes the rules, pal!”

Physicist-Turned-Venture Socialist Steven “Ah” Chu giving His Best “My Head’s So Up and Locked I Can Count My Teeth” Look

 

If the committee members had hearts, they might have had sympathy. After all, it isn’t easy going from 30-odd years as a nuclear physicist to the job of world’s largest green investor. Mr. Chu used his opening testimony to remind the committee that his department is backing, with billions, no fewer than 38 stupendously large renewable projects (which are in addition to the 5,000 awards, totaling $34 billion, it has made via its stimulus grant program, and dozens of other corporate handouts via its regular budget).

Those projects all require monitoring, financial updates, the constant assessing of market conditions. Who has time for nuclear safety or waste disposal or basic research? Mr. Chu noted that he’d had to hire a McKinsey consultant merely to “manage this huge portfolio.” His job, understand, was to spend Mr. Obama’s tens of billions in green energy dollars “wisely, but also quickly.”

The hearing was peppered with references to the outside law firms and consultants now on the government payroll, toiling to facilitate all the deal-making. Mr. Chu said he’d hired Wall Street firm Lazard (cost: $1 million) just to analyze the refinancing options for Solyndra. The Department of Energy’s grant spreadsheet references tens of millions of dollars more that have flowed to professional firms for “department administration” and “management and oversight.” You know, it takes money to make money. Or rather, to lose it.

On that point, it’s true two of the department’s first three loans have gone pop (Solyndra and Beacon), but Mr. Chu hastened to remind everyone that this is a “risky” business. He also sought to reassure that his department was increasing oversight. Why, he’d only recently “recruited” a new guy from the National Academy of Engineering (where else?) who “understands the business very well.”

What happened with Solyndra was “unfortunate,” and also “regrettable,” acknowledged the government CEO. But really, who could blame Energy for betting the taxpayer bank on Solyndra, when it was also backed by a lot of “savvy investors”? He’s got a point there. Those investors were so savvy, they talked the Buffetts at the Energy Department into restructuring the loan so that they’d get paid back before the government.

Midway through the hearing, Texas Republican Michael Burgess dared to point out that the secretary of energy wasn’t really supposed to be a venture capitalist, that there was something profoundly concerning about government taking huge risks in private companies, and doing it with other people’s money. Did Mr. Chu understand people were “uncomfortable” with the “concept”?

The secretary/CEO never answered that question. He did, however, allude to the fact that it wasn’t he who created the loan program he’s now administering. It was Congress. But that’s another one for the investing history books.

Aaaaahhh!  In other words….The blind leading the dumb!

Speaking of….this is far too easy….the blind AND dumb:

VP’s closed-door transparency chat

 

 

Spot the irony in Vice President Biden’s schedule today, from the White House’s daily guidance:

“At 1:00 PM, the Vice President will attend a meeting of the Government Accountability and Transparency Board in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. At 2:30 PM, the Vice President will meet with representatives of the National Sheriffs’ Association in the Roosevelt Room. These meetings are closed press.”

(It was only two months ago that State Department officials briefed reporters on transparency efforts but refused to have their names be printed; and in March, the White House postponed a pooled-press ceremonyfor President Obama to get an openness award — it was later rescheduled and carried out in an undisclosed meeting.)

UPDATE: Amy Dudley, a spokeswoman for Biden, contacted POLITICO to offer this on-the-record statement: “The Government Accountability and Transparency Board has been holding regular meetings since its establishment as part of the Administration’s Campaign to Cut Waste last June. The Vice President was invited to drop by today’s meeting in anticipation of their forthcoming report. As has been the case with every meeting of the board, the minutes of the meeting will be posted online.”

You’ll pardon us, but inquiring minds just might wish to know how we can be certain the minutes posted online accurately reflect what transpired in the meeting?  Why….they’re Team Tick-Tock; and just as with Joe Isuzu, we have….

….their word on it!  And they’re THE MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY….just ask ’em!

Here’s the juice: everything about this Administration (and modern Liberalism in general), from the top down, is a scam….a snow job….a penumbra of some emanation from Karl Marx’s backside.  Check out the Quote of the Day on our home page (www.thedailygouge.com); facts will always be what Liberals fear most.  Half-truths and outright fabrications are as necessary to their existence as blood to a parasite….or perhaps more accurately, a vampire.  For indeed, Progressives’ ultimate effect is to drain the life from the body politic, leaving in their wake the emaciated husk of a once-vibrant society.

Those requiring further proof need look no further than Detroit.

Turning now from the dumb to the inept, the WSJ offers its take on the latest gaffe from John Boner and The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight:

The Balanced-Budget Backfire

House Republicans hand Senate Democrats a political gift.

 

As self-defeating sideshows go, few compare to the Republican obsession with a balanced-budget amendment. And here we go again.

As early as today, the House GOP plans to begin debate on a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, a vote Democrats agreed to as part of the August debt-ceiling deal. But, lo, they will not debate an amendment that would require a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes and cap spending eventually at 18% of GDP. Such a balanced-budget amendment would have no chance of passing, but it would at least draw a clear difference with Democrats.

Instead, House Speaker John Boehner plans to offer a vanilla amendment that merely calls for a balanced budget, with no spending limitation or supermajority tax requirements. The Speaker seems to believe, or at least hope, that this might attract enough Democratic votes to pass the amendment (which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, plus approval in 38 state legislatures).

Democratic second-in-command Steny Hoyer is actively whipping against the bill, so it may not pass the House. But even if it does, it’ll never get 67 votes in Harry Reid’s Senate. And even if it did become the law of the land, the amendment could easily become an engine for tax increases, as it so often has in the 50 states. (Oops!) Under Mr. Boehner’s amendment, spending could rise to 25% or 30% or more of GDP, so long as the budget is balanced. This is a recipe for politicians to tell voters that taxes must go up because the Constitution made them do it.

This phony exercise will also give politically vulnerable Democrats a chance to vote for the amendment while knowing it is sure to fail. Look for Mr. Reid to give free passes to Missouri’s Claire McCaskill and other Senate Democrats running to save their careers in 2012. They’ll then tell voters back home that they voted for a balanced-budget amendment—like those tea party rebels in the House. (Atta boy, Boner!)

Worse for the GOP, the House vanilla amendment will put Senate Republicans who favor a tougher version in a rough political spot. Mr. Reid’s Democrats will claim that even House Republicans have come around to favoring a “reasonable” version of the balanced-budget amendment, while only radicals favor one with tax and spending limitations. Does the House GOP want a Democratic Senate in 2013?

Republicans have walked into this box canyon by putting political symbolism above fiscal substance. They know the balanced-budget amendment is popular because Americans instinctively like the idea that government should live within its means, never mind the details. GOP freshmen in particular have turned the amendment into a political fetish—to the point that they’re now willing to endorse a version that could increase the size of government.

House Republicans got off to a strong fiscal start by passing Paul Ryan’s budget, but they’ve lost their focus as Mr. Boehner misjudged President Obama’s desire for spending reductions and the budget debate has moved to the secret super committee.

They were winning the debate when they were able to show that they want to cut spending while Democrats want to increase it. They lose when they endorse political gestures like constitutional amendments that many Democrats can claim to support but have no chance of reducing taxes or spending.

More importantly, they lose when they elect as Speaker a man who was at the center of the cabal that helped create this crisis in the first place.

Meanwhile, as we learn in the Environmental Moment, pure politics continue to force The Obamao’s hand at every turn:

Re-election Strategy Is Tied to a Shift on Smog

 

The summons from the president came without warning the Thursday before Labor Day. As she was driven the four blocks to the White House, Lisa P. Jackson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, suspected that the news would not be good. What she did not see coming was a rare public rebuke the president was about to deliver by rejecting her proposal to tighten the national standard for smog. (Get thee not betwixt The Obamao and his reelection effort!)

The half-hour meeting in the Oval Office was not a negotiation; the president had decided against ratcheting up the ozone rule because of the cost and the uncertainty it would impose on industry and local governments. He clearly understood the scientific, legal and political implications. He told Ms. Jackson that she would have an opportunity to revisit the Clean Air Act standard in 2013 — if they were still in office. We are just not going to do this now, he said. (See “Keystone, XL”)

The White House announced the decision the next morning, infuriating environmental and public health advocates. They called it a bald surrender to business pressure, an act of political pandering and, most galling, a cold-blooded betrayal of a loyal constituency.

“This was the worst thing a Democratic president had ever done on our issues,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters. “Period.”

Gee….and here we thought Presidents, regardless of party affiliation, were supposed to act in the interest of the NATION, not some miniscule, meaningless constituency.

But since we’re on the subject of politicians available for purchase by special interests, Tim Carney has the latest on Newt, courtesy of the Washington Examiner and Conn Carroll:

Gingrich Made Big Bucks Pushing Corporate Welfare

 

Yo!  Put six zeroes behind that and I’m YOURS!

 

Newt Gingrich spent the last decade being paid by big business to convince conservatives to support big-government policies that would profit his clients. Gingrich’s consulting firm racked up $1.6 million in fees from the government-sponsored enterprise Freddie Mac, we learned this week from Bloomberg News. Gingrich’s job was to help Freddie Mac win over conservatives to this market-distorting, bubble-fueling, housing-subsidy entity, which is now officially owned by the federal government. (But trust him….NOW he’s a Conservative; imperfect but forgiven!)

We also know that Growth Energy, an ethanol lobby, paid $312,500 to the Gingrich Group in 2009, according to the group’s tax filing. Growth Energy lobbies to preserve many ethanol subsidies and create new ones. Gingrich has consistently supported ethanol subsidies, despite his professed allegiance to the free market.

But there may be much more to Gingrich’s advocacy work than has been reported so far. For instance, a former employee of the nation’s biggest drug lobby told me Gingrich was being paid by the drug industry during the 2003 debate over the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

While the Bush White House and the Republican congressional leadership supported a bill creating a new entitlement for all seniors, Washington conservatives mostly opposed the bill. Gingrich went around Washington at the time plumping for the bill to free-market groups and activists. “In the height of the debate,” one conservative opponent of the bill told me, “Newt was calling around” selling the bill as a great conservative measure even though it was a new federal entitlement.

Bob Moffitt of the Heritage Foundation, another veteran of the Medicare drug battle, tells me that early in the debate Gingrich favored a Medicare drug benefit only for the poor. The drug lobby, however, had settled on backing a drug benefit for everyone on Medicare. Gingrich soon changed his tune, and began pushing the universal benefit.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America is one of the largest lobbying organizations in the country, and it was a leading advocate of Bush’s Medicare drug bill, which provides billions of dollars in subsidies for seniors to buy drugs, while prohibiting Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices.

PhRMA support for the bill was key to winning over many Republicans, and right after the bill passed, PhRMA hired one of the bill’s authors, House Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, to be the group’s president.

A source who worked for PhRMA at the time told me that Gingrich was being paid by “someone in the drug industry” — either PhRMA, some other industry group, or a specific drug company — as a consultant during the debate over the drug benefit. My source double-checked this with a former PhRMA colleague, who had the same recollection. The Gingrich Group operates the Center for Health Transformation, through which Gingrich publicizes his health care policy proposals. “He received a monthly retainer,” the former PhRMA employee recalls, saying Gingrich’s price was “at the high end.”

The Gingrich campaign did not respond to multiple phone calls and emails on the matter. When I called PhRMA, a spokesman told me he wasn’t around at the time, and that he wouldn’t help look into whether Gingrich had been paid by PhRMA. A spokeswoman for Gingrich’s CHT said she would not discuss specific contracts, but that the group “has had a variety of clients throughout the years,” including “health care companies, hospitals and drug companies.”

In Congress, Gingrich was famously harsh toward moderate Republicans. He once attacked the more compromise-oriented Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., as “the tax collector for the welfare state.” But with clients ranging from subsidy-suckling ethanol producers to government-created backstops for Realtors and banks, Gingrich cashed in by becoming the house conservative of the corporate-welfare state.

When Gingrich went on the “Laura Ingraham Show” to defend his work for Freddie Mac, the topic turned to the revolving door, which Gingrich has so lucratively mastered. Speaking of one of his favorite targets, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., Gingrich said, “If Barney wants to retire tomorrow morning and get a really big contract with someone, more power to him. It’s called free enterprise.”

This cavalier attitude toward the monetization of public service will likely irritate conservatives who fume at the cronyism and corporatism of the Obama administration, but they will be more disturbed by Gingrich’s abuse of the phrase “free enterprise.”

After all, when Gingrich retired in the middle of his term in 1999 and got huge contracts, he was being paid to promote the opposite of “free enterprise”: subsidies, entitlements, and central planning. Republicans won’t rally behind another politician who confuses “free enterprise” with getting rich.

And we predict, come the end of the day, they won’t rally behind a candidate with more baggage than T.O.

In a related item, indication the Governor of Texas has finally found someone so bereft of intellect….

Rick Perry challenges Nancy Pelosi to a debate

 

The mere thought staggers the imagination; Perry and Pelosi: the political equivalent of….

….Dumb and Dumber.

On the Lighter Side….

Ed Harvey….

Pilot locked in lavatory causes unnecessary terror scare

 

Whew…THAT was close!

Finally, we’ll call it a week with the Health Section, courtesy today of Bill Meisen and Venusians everywhere:

One in four American women take medication for a mental disorder

 

Which, as Bill noted immediately prior to Anne cold-cocking him with a frying pan, is why we so urgently need Obamascare; this tells us 75% of American women remain untreated!

Enjoy the weekend.

Magoo