The White House claims that President Obama's administration will be "the most open and transparent in history," and announced on Friday it will convene a conference on March 12 to ensure "transparency" in the way money from last month's massive spending bill is distributed.
This would be a change from the secretive way that bill rocketed into law. As a candidate for office, Mr. Obama promised he would "not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."
That didn't happen. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the stimulus bill, was approved by the Senate on a Thursday. Mr. Obama signed it on a Monday, just three days later.
Mr. Obama also signed the CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization) bill and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act without waiting the promised five days.
Were those all "emergency" bills? Probably not. Even the Democrat-controlled Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 8 percent of the "stimulus" spending comes in budget year 2009. If setting government spending levels in 2010, 2011, and 2012 qualifies as an emergency, it's hard to imagine what doesn't.
This came after Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders rushed the 1,027-page stimulus conference report to a vote and gave their colleagues only hours to read it. (A few days earlier, the House had unanimously approved a non-binding, pro-transparency measure that assured members they would have 48 hours to read the bill.)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) told CNSNews.com that none of his Senate colleagues would "have the chance" to read the final version before the vote. A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted at the time found that only 24 percent of respondents believed Congress will understand what they're voting on.
For an administration that promised to be the most "transparent in history," and for a House speaker who promised the "most open" Congress in history, this may not be the most auspicious beginning.
Before taking office, Mr. Obama promised new openness in the presidential transition, saying "you can track these meetings" his transition staff had with groups seeking to influence policy. A "Your Seat At The Table" memo said: "This scope is a floor, not a ceiling, and all staff are strongly encouraged to include additional materials."
That never happened. Although Mr. Obama did disclose documents submitted to the transition staff, his Web site never provided a list of meetings with the names of groups and identities of participants.
Instead, only a list of documents submitted was made public -- meaning that if a meeting took place between the transition team and outside groups and no documents were exchanged, it remains secret. (On the other hand, Obama did disclose donors to the inauguration, and posting the list of documents was more than his predecessors did.)
An article about transparency posted on the Web site of the Columbia Journalism Review in January argued: "During the campaign, reporters' access to Obama was severely limited. On-the-record conversations with the candidate were even more so. Indeed, Obama's overall treatment of the press—not just in his general rejection of the day-to-day news cycle, but also in his tendency to shun his national traveling press corps... created the impression that its members were, to him, a buzzing nuisance. Instead of the voice of the people." And Politico.com noted that the president agreed to disclose contacts between his staff and then-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's office, but stopped short of releasing e-mails or other details about those contacts.
It has been left to the Republicans to reshape themselves as the pro-transparency front. During last month's debate over the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act bill, an alliance of largely conservative groups including the Heritage Foundation, Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Freform, and Dick Armey's FreedomWorks created a Web site called ReadTheStimulus.org.
That represents something of a turnabout for many of these groups, which were not uniformly outspoken advocates of government openness under President George W. Bush (whose administration has been accused of being the most secretive since President Nixon's).
The month after Mr. Obama was elected, the Heritage Foundation was already repositioning itself as pro-transparency. But it was less enthusiastic about the topic when the Patriot Act was being debated in 2001; Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said at the time that "what we have today is an outrageous procedure: A bill, drafted by a handful of people in secret, comes to us without a committee review and immune to amendment." (Heritage remains an ardent supporter of the 2001 law.)
In fairness to Mr. Obama's White House, it said in a blog post last month that a five-days-before-signing policy will "be implemented in full soon." In the meantime, another pro-transparency option might be to support the Read the Bills Act, which would require both chambers of Congress to read aloud the complete text of proposed laws and post the text on the Internet a week before the vote. - CBS News
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
"Obama Lied; the Economy Died" - Rasmussen Reports
I am trying to capture the spirit of bipartisanship as practiced by the Democratic Party over the past eight years. Thus, I have chosen as my lead this proposition: Obama lied; the economy died. Obviously, I am borrowing this from the Democratic theme of 2003-08: "Bush lied, people died." There are, of course, two differences between the slogans.
Most importantly, I chose to separate the two clauses with a semicolon rather than a comma because the rule of grammar is that a semicolon (rather than a comma) should be used between closely related independent clauses not conjoined with a coordinating conjunction. In the age of Obama, there is little more important than maintaining the integrity of our language against the onslaught of Orwellian language abuse that is already a babbling brook and soon will be a cataract of verbal deception.
The other difference is that Bush didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He merely was mistaken. Whereas Obama told a whopper when he claimed that he is not for bigger government. As he said last week: "As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by Presidents Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets, not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't."
This he asserted despite the fact that the budget he proposed the next day asks for federal spending as 28 percent of gross domestic product, higher by at least 6 percent than any time since World War II. Moreover, after 10 years, Obama's proposed spending as a percentage of GDP still would be 22.6 percent, nearly 2 percentage points higher than any year during the Bush administration despite the full costs of Sept. 11, the Iraq and Afghan wars and the rebuilding of New Orleans after Katrina.
Consider also this assertion in his not-quite-State of the Union address: "My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs. As you can imagine, this is a process that will take some time. But we're starting with the biggest lines. We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."
But lamentably, a few days later, The Washington Post reported: "A senior administration official acknowledged yesterday that the budget does not contain $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. Instead, the figure represents Obama's total efforts at deficit reduction, including tax hikes (of more than $1 trillion) on families making over $250,000 a year. It also includes hundreds of billions of dollars 'saved' by not continuing to spend $170 billion a year in Iraq."
Only a big-government man would think of calling a trillion-dollar tax increase a spending cut or "saving." Technically, of course, it is true. A trillion-dollar tax increase would reduce spending by $1 trillion for those private citizens who were taxed. And from the perspective of the federal government, a trillion dollars taxed is a trillion dollars saved from the greed of the taxpayers who produced the wealth and might well want to spend or invest it in nongovernmental activities.
But the foregoing merely are pettifogging numbers compared with Obama's bigger ideas about energy and health care (regarding health care, more in future columns). Our president shares a fascinating idea about energy with most of what used to be known as the "small is beautiful" crowd. It is a curious phenomenon that one needs a very big government to enforce the beauty of small.
Obama's secretary of energy, Steven Chu, said last year that the price of electricity in America is "anomalously low." You see how much smarter that Nobel Prize winner is than you? You probably thought you already were spending enough on electricity and fuel.
And sure enough, Obama explained last week that in order to make alternative energy sources -- wind, solar, perhaps eventually human muscle power -- economically competitive, he intends to raise the price of carbon-based energy until it is so expensive that even solar power would be such a deal.
This level of destructive irrationality cannot be accomplished in the private sector. It would take a very big government indeed to bring such inanities into being. (Disclosure: Being rational, I give professional advice to carbon-based energy producers.)
If President Obama were to try to misrepresent his positions for the next four years, there would be nothing he could say that would approach the inaccuracy of his claim last week that he is not for big government. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. He doesn't like America the way it has been since its founding, and it would take an abusively big government to realize his dreams of converting America into something quite different. If you don't know that, you don't yet know Obama. - Rasmussen
States Fight Back on Stimulus
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican lawmakers from more than 20 states across the country are willing to take federal funding, but only on their terms.
Some state lawmakers are pushing for sovereignty from the federal government.
From Montana to South Carolina, lawmakers in mostly red states have pushed ahead with measures calling for state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, saying the federal government has overstepped its bounds with the stimulus package. The states are calling for the right to ignore laws they deem unconstitutional.
Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon, a Republican and the first to introduce this type of legislation last year, originally pursued it because he thought then-President Bush and Congress exceeded their authority with the Real ID Act, which required states to include certain information on driver's licenses.
He called the stimulus package "immoral and unconscionable" and said it was "the final straw that broke the financial back of America."
Brogdon's bill passed the state Senate on Wednesday and the state House approved a similar measure. The office of lead House sponsor Republican Rep. Charles Key said it is confident a joint resolution will get through.
The legislation would be binding. So, if the governor signs it, it theoreticallly would allow Oklahoma to ignore laws that are not "enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution," as stated in the Tenth Amendment.
"I'm sick and tired of Congress overreaching and underachieving," Brogdon said. He added, "If we have an opportunity to salvage freedom and protect sovereignty, it has to be done at the state level."
Similar legislation is moving along in South Carolina. The bill already passed in the state House and a state Senate panel approved it on Tuesday.
Republican state Rep. Lee Bright said he chose to sponsor the South Carolina measure because he thinks the stimulus package grants the federal government more power than the Constitution allows.
"The federal government is living beyond the scope that the Constitution grants it and states should put it on notice," Bright said. "I haven't been pleased for some time with what the federal government gets involved in, but it came to a head with the stimulus bill."
The Republican lead sponsor of the bill in Virginia, state Rep. Christopher Peace, said his state has used only a small portion of the money allocated in the stimulus package. He said local officials are the best managers of Virginia's budget and the federal government shouldn't interfere with how the state chooses to spend its money.
"I'm not saying we don't benefit from some of the money, but it's important to question what are the roles and boundaries, and ask if Congress is exceeding them," Peace said. "Our representatives in the federal government represent the same people we do and they need to work to keep the government small and limited and efficient."
All the bills invoke the Tenth Amendment, which states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Most are symbolic measures and none have passed yet, but local officials are hoping to send a message to Washington to back off.
Many states are criticizing the stimulus package, while others are trying to assert authority over other issues, like abortion in Missouri and exempting firearms from federal regulations in Montana.
Many of the bills include a provision that once the bill is passed, a copy will be sent to President Obama and Congress.
"It's time to send a message to Congress that we're sovereign," said state Rep. Judy Burges, an Arizona Republican. "We have many states doing this and if you have enough sending the same message, they're going to have to step back and take a look at what they're doing." - CNNIt is good to see that Some states have the Balls to take it back at Congress and Obama. This whole "We won" crap is really ridiculous. You can't just cram stuff down the throats of people. There are laws and rules that must be followed.
Pelosi Angry about Spending Bill
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Senate and House Democratic leaders had what two sources describe as an extremely heated meeting Thursday night about the spending bill. Once Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid figured out he did not have the votes to pass it, he and Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin went to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office to propose passing a five day resolution to keep the government running, and come back to the $410 billion spending bill next week.
The two Democratic sources say Pelosi reacted with “anger,” arguing that Democrats should instead adopt a “scorched earth” strategy and simply fund the government at last year’s levels through the end of the year. Her point, according to the sources, was that even though Republicans have been slamming the bill as wasteful spending, many of them really have an interest in seeing it passed. This would call their bluff.
One of the sources says Reid and Durbin pushed back, saying the bill increases funding for a lot of Democratic priorities slashed by President Bush, and that it was worth another try. At the end of the tense meeting, Senate Democrats prevailed. - CNN
What does $1 Trillion Look Like
Have you every sat and wondered what $1 Trillion dollars would really look like.
Check it out! (CLICK HERE)
Check it out! (CLICK HERE)
Government Stopgap Measure Passed
Below are excerpts from a CBS News Story (Click Here) about the Spending bill. I though that they were very noteworthy in these hard economic times.
With a $410 billion catchall spending bill stalled in the Senate and a midnight deadline looming, Congress rushed through stopgap legislation Friday to keep the government running for another five days - CBS News
Republican Sen. John Boehner instead pushed for a long-term spending freeze - CBS News
"We can send a strong signal to the American people by extending this spending freeze through September 30," the Ohio Republican said. "Let's show the American taxpayer that we get it." - CBS News
If the larger spending bill ends up being amended by the Senate, the House would again have to act on that bill, giving Republicans more chances to launch political attacks. In fact, Reid says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has threatened to pull the plug on the measure altogether if it is amended by the Senate. The government would instead run on automatic pilot under legislation keeping agencies operating at current levels. That would deny senators and House members all of their pet projects. "She said, 'We have put our members through a lot over here on this appropriations bill. I am not going to put them through any more,'" Reid recalled on Wednesday. - CBS News
The huge, 1,132-page spending bill awards big increases to domestic programs and is stuffed with pet projects sought by lawmakers in both parties. The measure has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except for Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. The measure was written mostly over the course of last year, before projected deficits quadrupled and Mr. Obama's economic recovery bill left many of the same spending accounts swimming in cash. Initially, the bill attracted bipartisan support, but most Republicans developed sticker shock in the wake of enactment of the $787 billion economic stimulus bill. And, to the embarrassment of Mr. Obama - who promised during last year's campaign to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel ways - the bill contains 7,991 pet projects totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the GOP staff of the House Appropriations Committee. - CBS News
With a $410 billion catchall spending bill stalled in the Senate and a midnight deadline looming, Congress rushed through stopgap legislation Friday to keep the government running for another five days - CBS News
Republican Sen. John Boehner instead pushed for a long-term spending freeze - CBS News
"We can send a strong signal to the American people by extending this spending freeze through September 30," the Ohio Republican said. "Let's show the American taxpayer that we get it." - CBS News
If the larger spending bill ends up being amended by the Senate, the House would again have to act on that bill, giving Republicans more chances to launch political attacks. In fact, Reid says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has threatened to pull the plug on the measure altogether if it is amended by the Senate. The government would instead run on automatic pilot under legislation keeping agencies operating at current levels. That would deny senators and House members all of their pet projects. "She said, 'We have put our members through a lot over here on this appropriations bill. I am not going to put them through any more,'" Reid recalled on Wednesday. - CBS News
The huge, 1,132-page spending bill awards big increases to domestic programs and is stuffed with pet projects sought by lawmakers in both parties. The measure has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except for Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. The measure was written mostly over the course of last year, before projected deficits quadrupled and Mr. Obama's economic recovery bill left many of the same spending accounts swimming in cash. Initially, the bill attracted bipartisan support, but most Republicans developed sticker shock in the wake of enactment of the $787 billion economic stimulus bill. And, to the embarrassment of Mr. Obama - who promised during last year's campaign to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel ways - the bill contains 7,991 pet projects totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the GOP staff of the House Appropriations Committee. - CBS News
$500 Billion More in Loans from Government
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd is moving to allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to temporarily borrow as much as $500 billion from the Treasury Department.
The Connecticut Democrat's effort -- which comes in response to urging from FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner -- would give the FDIC access to more money to rebuild its fund that insures consumers' deposits, which have been hard hit by a string of bank failures.
Last week, the FDIC proposed raising fees on banks in order to build up its deposit insurance fund, which had just $19 billion at the end of 2008. That idea provoked protests from banks, which said such a burden would worsen their already shaken condition. The Dodd bill, if it becomes law, would represent an alternative source of funding.
Mr. Dodd's bill could also give the FDIC more firepower to help address "systemic risks" in the economy, potentially creating another source of bailout funds in addition to the $700 billion already appropriated by Congress.
Mr. Bernanke said in a Feb. 2 letter to Mr. Dodd that such a "mechanism would allow the FDIC to respond expeditiously to emergency situations that may involve substantial risk to the financial system."
The FDIC would be able to borrow as much as $500 billion until the end of 2010 if the FDIC, Fed, Treasury secretary and White House agree such money is warranted. The bill would allow it to borrow $100 billion absent that approval. Currently, its line of credit with the Treasury is $30 billion.
The FDIC's deposit-insurance fund has fallen precipitously with 25 bank failures in 2008 and 16 so far in 2009. Some bank failures have a bigger impact on the fund than others, as IndyMac's failure cost the fund more than $10 billion, while many others cost the fund less than $100 million. - FOX News
Is $1 Trillion the new $1 Billion in Government
Trillion's the new billion.
At least to the Obama administration, which last month unveiled its $3.6 trillion budget for next year -- a number that easily keeps the federal deficit north of $1 trillion dollars.
But a trillion is more than just a 1 followed by 12 zeroes. It's a thousand billions...a million millions...it's BIG.
And, remember, we're talking about a trillion more than three times over! - FOX News
Obama, The DOW Buster
The Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen faster under President Obama than under any new president in at least 90 years, according to a review conducted by Bloomberg.
Bloomberg reports that since Inauguration Day, the Dow has fallen 20 percent, leading at least one investor to dub this the "Obama bear market." The Dow has also dropped 31 percent since Election Day.
Despite a string of government bailout offers and Obama's advice earlier this week that Americans should be buying stock while shares are low, the Dow has continued to freefall.
Bloomberg reported that Obama is at risk of breaking a historical trend -- in which the Dow soars an average of close to 10 percent in the first year after a Democrat wins the presidency. - FOX News
I don't think that you can blame Obama for all of the drops in the DOW, but I do think that the smart investors are seeing the writing on the wall. They are seeing what so many people are trying to ignore, our Government is in real trouble.
We can't continue to spend the way we are and expect to recover strongly. At some point we are going to have to repay all of this money back. Just like running up Credit Card Debt, the payments will consume us. Higher Taxes are on the Horizon.
That and combining the massive expansion of Government that Obama has been planning it is just a matter of time before we find ourselves facing the same Bankruptcy problems that the big Corporations are facing.
Spending Bill Held up in Senate
(AP) Senate Republicans, demanding the right to try to change a huge spending bill, forced Democrats on Thursday night to put off a final vote on the measure until next week.The surprise development will force Congress to pass a stopgap funding bill to avoid a partial shutdown of the government.
Republicans have blasted the $410 billion measure as too costly. But the reason for Republican unity in advance of a key procedural vote was that Democrats had not allowed them enough opportunities to offer amendments.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, canceled the vote, saying he was one vote short of the 60 senators needed to close debate and free the bill for President Obama's signature. - CBS News
With some Democratic Support the Spending Bill is being held up in the Senate. Lets see how long this goes and what effect it has on the bill.
Obama Stimulus puts 25 To Work
Twenty-five down, 3,499,975 to go.
A more than decent number of balls are floating in President Obama’s air, but only one bears watching. (Yes, bears.)
New (bad) job numbers are out, and the president is touting jobs saved by the stimulus package, back in a purple state, again.
From the White House, on the president’s trip Friday: “The President will deliver remarks at the Columbus Police Graduation Exercises. The 25 Columbus police recruits graduating Friday learned in January that instead of being sworn-in as officers, they would be let go. However, Mayor Michael Coleman announced last week that he would use money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to pay the recruits’ salaries so they could keep their jobs.”
Yes, 25 jobs. Just wait until that new Arby’s opens out on Route 50. . . .
On a policy level, how long before the Wall Street tumble and other awful economic news will force a major re-thinking of the Obama economic strategy? (Can you say, “Stimulus: The Sequel”?)
On a political level, how long can the president muster the public support for his prescriptions, without tangible evidence that they’re working? (Can he get there without buy-in from economic commentators?) (And if he can’t stock his Cabinet, can he fix an economy?) - ABC News
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Obama Closes Nuclear Storage Facility with no Were to Store the Waste
(AP) For two decades, a ridge of volcanic rock 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas known as Yucca Mountain has been the sole focus of government plans to store highly radioactive nuclear waste.
Not anymore.
Despite the $13.5 billion that has been spent on the project, the Obama administration says it's going in a different direction.
It slashed funding for Yucca Mountain in its recently announced budget.
And on Thursday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a Senate hearing that the Yucca Mountain site no longer was viewed as an option for storing reactor waste, brushing aside criticism from several Republican lawmakers.
Instead, Chu said the Obama administration believes the nearly 60,000 tons of used reactor fuel can remain at nuclear power plants while a new, comprehensive plan for waste disposal is developed.
Chu's remarks touched off a sometimes testy exchange with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama's rival for the presidency last year, and provided the most definitive signal yet that the government's attempt to address the commercial nuclear waste problem is veering in a dramatically new direction.
At the hearing, McCain and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the decision not to pursue the Yucca Mountain project threatens the expansion of nuclear energy because the government can give no assurance on waste disposal.
"We've spent billions of dollars and many years preparing for Yucca Mountain to be our nation's nuclear waste site," Murkowski said. "Closing Yucca Mountain sends an unmistakable signal to nuclear developers that they might not have a place to store their waste, making them less willing to develop new facilities."
Congress in 1982 declared that the government must assume responsibility for reactor waste from commercial power plants. Courts have upheld what they call a binding contract with the nuclear power industry. With no lawmakers wanting a nuclear waste dump in their state, Congress five years later declared Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the only site to be considered. - CBS News
Obama again making decisions without any answers. They have spent some $13 Billion plus dollars to prepare this area for storage of Nuclear Waste. It has been planned for years. Obama decides it is no longer a good idea. So hey, just store all of that Nuclear waste at these power plants all across the US, we will figure out something. I am sure we can spend Billions more on my plan when I come up with it. Hell, it will help the economy cause I am going to put people to work doing it.
Maybe we can put it at Guantanomo Bay and then move the Prisoners to this facility. It would be nice to hear a solution to these things before he just up and makes decisions like this. They may be valid, but they make no sense when you don't actually have a solution.
Not anymore.
Despite the $13.5 billion that has been spent on the project, the Obama administration says it's going in a different direction.
It slashed funding for Yucca Mountain in its recently announced budget.
And on Thursday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a Senate hearing that the Yucca Mountain site no longer was viewed as an option for storing reactor waste, brushing aside criticism from several Republican lawmakers.
Instead, Chu said the Obama administration believes the nearly 60,000 tons of used reactor fuel can remain at nuclear power plants while a new, comprehensive plan for waste disposal is developed.
Chu's remarks touched off a sometimes testy exchange with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama's rival for the presidency last year, and provided the most definitive signal yet that the government's attempt to address the commercial nuclear waste problem is veering in a dramatically new direction.
At the hearing, McCain and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the decision not to pursue the Yucca Mountain project threatens the expansion of nuclear energy because the government can give no assurance on waste disposal.
"We've spent billions of dollars and many years preparing for Yucca Mountain to be our nation's nuclear waste site," Murkowski said. "Closing Yucca Mountain sends an unmistakable signal to nuclear developers that they might not have a place to store their waste, making them less willing to develop new facilities."
Congress in 1982 declared that the government must assume responsibility for reactor waste from commercial power plants. Courts have upheld what they call a binding contract with the nuclear power industry. With no lawmakers wanting a nuclear waste dump in their state, Congress five years later declared Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the only site to be considered. - CBS News
Obama again making decisions without any answers. They have spent some $13 Billion plus dollars to prepare this area for storage of Nuclear Waste. It has been planned for years. Obama decides it is no longer a good idea. So hey, just store all of that Nuclear waste at these power plants all across the US, we will figure out something. I am sure we can spend Billions more on my plan when I come up with it. Hell, it will help the economy cause I am going to put people to work doing it.
Maybe we can put it at Guantanomo Bay and then move the Prisoners to this facility. It would be nice to hear a solution to these things before he just up and makes decisions like this. They may be valid, but they make no sense when you don't actually have a solution.
Obama/Biden Paying Back the Unions
Vice President Joe Biden gave a warm and well-received speech to the AFL-CIO Executive Council at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida today.“And old joke…you go home with them that brung you to the dance,” the vice president said, according to remarks put out by the White House. “Well, you all brought me to the dance a long time ago. And it's time we start dancing, man. It's time we start dancing.”
Biden noted that the National Labor Relations Act “explicitly says this nation's policy is to encourage -- encourage -- collective bargaining, encourage unions.”
He said he backed so-called card-check legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize. Many business groups oppose the legislation.
The vice president added that “what is news here is you now have an American president and vice president, and the speaker of the House and the majority leader who agree with everything [AFL-CIO President] John Sweeney (left) said.”
Biden said that in the Obama administration “it will not take divine intervention” for union leaders like Sweeney “to get invited to the White House,” arguing that “you can’t have a middle class without a strong labor movement.”
In a separate appearance, the vice president also announced that $8.4 billion from the stimulus package would be made available for public transportation infrastructure. Joined by Secretary Ray LaHood and Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, he noted that the Miami Intermodal Center was an example of a project that received that funding and said it represented “the wave of the future.”
“Investments in public transportation put people to work, but they also get people to work in a way that moves us towards our long term goals of energy security and a better quality of life,” LaHood said in a statement.
The vice president and AFL-CIO have come under criticism from some on the right today for not allowing cameras into the event. AFL-CIO representatives responded by saying that executive council meetings are usually not open to the press at all and that print reporters were allowed in this year, reportedly at the vice president’s insistence.
But that explanation didn’t satisfy Republican critics: The Republican National Committee this morning sent to reporters a CNS News story claiming that the White House ordered no cameras be allowed at the resort hotel.
As that story points out, the Fontainebleau “has 1,504 rooms and suites, 22 oceanfront acres, 11 restaurants and nightclubs including three signature name chef restaurants, a 40,000-square-foot spa, and a ‘sophisticated poolscape’ with private cabanas.” - CBS News
I guess that the President and Vice President haven't learned any lessons about what happens when the Unions get too big and Powerful. Look at your Big 3 Automakers and the financial mess that they are in. They can't afford the labor contracts and the Unions aren't willing to budge to help out. Look at all the issues the Airlines have been going through with the Unions and the Labor Costs that bankrupted many of them. Look at the Sports Unions in this Country and the Ridiculous amounts of money they are forcing to be paid.
Not to worry we have the American Taxpayer to bail everyone out for their own stupidity. Maybe you should be concentrating on Union Reform, that would most definitely help the economy.
By the way, I wonder how much this convention down in Miami cost? This resort just went through a Billion Dollar Makeover. Where do you think the money for this convention came from? Now we know why Unions Rack up such high labor costs, they have to pay to play.
"President Pinocchio" - FOX News Forum
We are one month in to a marathon game of liar’s poker and the American public is playing the losing hand. It’s not as if the Obama folks are stupid. They aren’t. They aren’t even compulsive or pathological. They are simply of a breed apart from ordinary humans — they’re politicians.
And it’s funny because that was the one thing they claimed they weren’t. The one big “change” from previous Washington creatures. But it’s no change at all. They lie about Iraq. They lie about guns. They lie about the economy. They lie about the size of government. Then they lie about lying.
Welcome to the Pinocchio administration : Obama is the only one pulling strings on the media. The rest of us in the audience watch fascinated.
You won’t hear about the lying on ABC, CBS or NBC. Or read it in The Washington Post or New York Times either. Last year, the news media threw considerable influence behind President Pinocchio. Now journalism is in such financial distress, they’d be hard-pressed to fact check his cereal box. Besides it’s a sin of Washington etiquette to call a deliberate political misstatements “lies.” Only the uncouth call them actual lies.
Remember the Barack Obama who proposed pulling our troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008? “The days of our open-ended commitment must come to a close,” he told the Senate, according to a Jan. 31, 2007, Washington Post article. Now, according to the Associated Press, the open-ended commitment has been replaced with “as many as 50,000 troops to remain behind to train Iraqi forces and protect U.S. interests.” Even anti-war lefties think he lied. They are right –- for once.
Remember that guy Obama who supported gun rights? He’s just a faint memory. A year ago, in an interview with Politico, Obama was reminded that supported gun ownership:
“You said recently, ‘I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.’ But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?”
Even then he hemmed and hawed, concluding:
“We can have a reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respects the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.”
“Reasonable, thoughtful” are words unknown to Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder already has tried to link the Mexican narco-wars to U.S. gun sales and go after supposed “assault weapons.”
Obama’s record on government and the economy is actually worse. He and his surrogates keep maintaining that his budget won’t hurt the pockets of 95 percent of Americans who will get a tax cut.
They lie. The lead editorial in the Feb. 27 Wall Street Journal showed by just how much. Using 2006 tax records, The Wall Street Journal showed how a tax hike won’t begin to pay the 2010 budget of the $4 trillion. Even if the government were to confiscate (aka steal) every penny made by those who earn $250,000 and above, it would only meet one-third of the goal.
To pay for that whole $4 trillion budget, the government would have to pilfer “every taxable ‘dime’ of everyone earning more than $75,000.” That would just barely meet the goal, but those are 2006 numbers when the economy was good. In 2010, we’d need to go even lower.
A tax cut for 95 percent? Not hardly. The government will give money with one hand and take it back and loads more with the other –- lying to us the whole time.
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos summed it up well during his March 1 “This Week” show when, with a slip of the tongue, he referred to the omnibus spending bill as “omni-nous spending” –- an appropriate cross between omnibus and ominous spending.
No kidding. It takes accidental phrasing to get honesty from the mainstream press – especially someone like Stephanopoulos who burns his cell phone minutes strategizing with his long-time Democratic buddies like James Carville, Paul Begala and Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
The rest of the time, we get precious little information from the press about how we’ll pay through the nose and every other orifice. Instead, it’s just reheated talking points about 95 percent of us getting tax cuts. To quote Sam, “Wow, that wasn’t even remotely true.” - FOX News Forum
It is pretty amazing that he has the approval ratings he has and the political power that he has considering the actions that he has taken. People seem to forget so very easily.
This reminds me a lot of the Clinton years. I just had this conversation with someone the other day. It is so easy to bash Bush, What did Bush do that was so bad?
Iraq War? Do you remember the battles that Clinton got us into? He had Bin Laden on more than one occasion and let him go. Do you remember Bosnia? Somalia?
Economy? Clinton was the one who pushed for the lending practices that are being called into action today. Bush tried to get Congress to act 2 years ago and was turned away by Pelosi and Barney Frank.
Torture? Would you rather that we coddle these people who are making designs on just how to destroy our way of life? I have a feeling that when all of the facts come out about just how many Terrorist plots were foiled due to this so called "Torture" you will be amazed. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty for the greater good of the Country that you are sworn to protect. I am sure that these Terrorist treat the people that they capture with kid gloves, they don't behead them. Is it Torture to turn two skyscrapers into infernos and then watch them collapse killing thousands? Yet you complain if we in an effort to stop that action don't give the guy a hug and a cigarrette.
It is funny how Obama Campaigned on all of these promises of how America doesn't like Bush Policies. Yet he isn't doing backflips changing them all. We are still planning to be in Iraq for sometime, Afghanistan, won't release information on the Torturing, Iran, North Korea. Maybe Bush had it right. That would just be terrible.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Obama Loses more Democratic Support for Spending
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two Senate Democrats urged President Obama Wednesday to veto a $410 billion spending bill and said they are going to vote against it, criticizing it for its cost and for including too many personal pet projects."I don't think we should pass it [spending bill] this way," Feingold said on CNN's The Situation Room Wednesday. "[I'd like] to have the president veto it and say 'clean it up, do it over.'"
Feingold added: "If that doesn't happen I think he should ... lay down a policy and [say] 'OK, this was stuff from last year ... but from now on don't send me appropriations bills with earmarks or I'll send it back to you.' I would love to see him say that."
The legislation in question is an omnibus bill that would keep the federal government running through the rest of the fiscal year, which ends in September 2009.
The legislation includes $7.7 billion in earmarks, which are unrelated pet projects that members of Congress insert in spending bills.
Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, said those who vote in favor of the bill "jeopardize their credibility."
"But the bloated omnibus requires sacrifice from no one, least of all the government. It only exacerbates the problem and hastens the day of reckoning," Bayh wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial published Wednesday.
"Voters rightly demanded change in November's election, but this approach to spending represents business as usual in Washington, not the voters' mandate."
During the election season, Bayh was considered one of the front-runners to be Obama's vice president. - CNN Story
It appears that more and more people on jumping off the Obama spending train. This is good news for the Citizens of America. Obama can't hide behind the "This is somebody else's mess" defense any longer.
There is also a bipartisan effort to give the President Line Item Veto power. This would put the President right where he wanted to be. He would be the decider of what is wasteful spending. Congress could override it, but by him doing what he said he would do, it would call them out on this ridiculus spending.
Obama's Tax Plan Attacks Charities
President Obama's plan to expand health care coverage by raising taxes on the wealthy is drawing accusations that he wants to do it at the expense of charitable giving.
"I don't understand why the administration would try to create any disincentive that reduced any donations to charity," Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said.
Yet critics say that is exactly what the president's proposed budget will do by limiting the charitable giving tax break for families earning more than $250,000 dollars per year.
The $634 billion down payment on expanding health care coverage would come from a $318 billion increase over 10 years in taxes on the wealthy, defined as couples making more than $250,000 per year and individuals making more than $200,000.
The tax increase would occur in 2011 by reducing the benefit the wealthy get on tax deductions. For example, taxpayers in the current top tax bracket of 35 percent could see their tax deduction for every $1 given to charity drop from 35 cents to 28 cents.
The most recent IRS statistics from 2006 show that families earning more than $250,000, which represents less than 2 percent of all taxpayers, was responsible for about 28 percent of all giving, amounting to more than $81 billion dollars in charitable gifts. - FOX News
Charities have been seeing a downturn in donations over the last few years and with this on the horizon they will see that trend continue. Obama and his team will fill you full of all kinds of excuses, but facts are facts. The reason for the tax breaks was to encourage giving, these charities can not survive without it.
Rush Challenges Obama
ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: Clearly enjoying the attention, radio host Rush Limbaugh today issued a debate challenge to President Obama, pitching the battle as one that will determine who will “own the United States of America.” “You're a very courageous man, Mr. President. I am, after all, just The Last Man Standing. If you take me out, if you can wipe me out in a debate and prove to the rest of America that what I say is senseless and wrong, do you realize you will own the United States of America? You will have no opposition,” El Rushbo said on his program.
No falling back on fiscal hard times, either: “I will cover the cost, Mr. President, so that the taxpayers do not have to pay for it, as they did your Super Bowl party, and as they do your Wednesday afternoon cocktail party. So you have no excuses,” he said.
Egging him one, Rush continued: “I, Mr. President, will send my jet, EIB One, to pick you up and bring you here and take you back to wherever you want to go. You'd love it. It's not as big and luxurious as your jet, but it's got enough seats for your Secret Service detail. . . . I worked for it. I paid for it. Taxpayers pay you for your travel. Nobody pays me for mine. I pay for it. I pay for the airplane. I pay for the travel. I pay for practically everything I do. We can talk about that, too. I could tell you what that's like.”
No response yet from the White House. But after two straight days where Press Secretary Robert Gibbs talked extensively about Rush from the briefing room, challenging Republicans to say whether they, like Limbaugh, are rooting for the president “to fail,” Gibbs was asked about why he’s choosing to engage with Rush and on “cable chatter.”
“It may be counterproductive,” Gibbs admitted, “It's out there. We deal with it. I don't -- I certainly criticize it, and I even occasionally watch it. I don't know if that makes me -- like I said, whether it makes me hypocritical or not, I certainly believe that feeding it -- undoubtedly, I'll plead guilty to counterproductive.” - ABC News
UPDATE: That Gibbs response prompted a statement from Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va.: "Now that the Obama Administration has declared their own distractions, diversions and manipulations strategy to be counterproductive, House Republicans would like to see this Administration join us in our bipartisan national conversation about job creation, stimulating small business and middle class tax relief. They should apologize to the American people for supporting these tactics and get back to work." - ABC NewsThis is great. Lets see how the Obama Team respond. My guess is that they will choose to ignore the whole issue and will turn away from paying attention to Rush, which by all accounts will mean, Rush Wins!
Stocks Climb from 12 Year Low
Buyers have jumped back into stocks after five days of selling on hopes that government aid will help the world's largest economies halt their slide.
Stocks are ending sharply higher Wednesday on word of a possible Chinese economic stimulus package and an Obama administration plan to help struggling homeowners. - ABC News
OK, this journalist is pretty much sucking up to the President here. The Obama housing plan had little or nothing to do with the Stock Market bounce. I could be wrong, it has happened a time or two. Actually the only time I can remember is the last Superbowl. If I am wrong the Stocks will continue there climb, if I am right they will dip again by Monday, Tuesday at the latest.
Obama Will lose Credibility over $410 Billion Spending Bill
t an event this morning, President Obama again demanded that the government he now heads “turn the tide on an era of fiscal irresponsibility.”
But his credibility on the issue is at risk if he goes ahead with plans to sign the $410 billion spending bill now making its way to final passage in Congress.
The measure is rife with earmarks – special spending provisions attached by members of Congress, usually to benefit a home district project. There are 8,570 earmarks on this bill that if enacted will cost taxpayers $7.7 billion.
The White House says the legislation is leftover from last year and that President Obama will work to reduce future wasteful spending.
In other words, the White House says the president will really get tough on spending right after he looks the other way and green lights $410 billion in spending for the current fiscal year.
“We’ll change the rules going forward,” says spokesman Robert Gibbs.
Earlier today, President Obama announced a new push to eliminate cost overruns and other wasteful spending in federal contracting. He said he wants to “enhance accountability and avoid leaving our children a mountain of debt.”
Actually, the mountain taking shape on his watch will give Everest a run for the money.
The budget plan the president issued last week shows the National Debt climbing to record heights of $16.2-trillion by the end of his four-year term. That amounts to an increase of $5.6-trillion on his watch – more than the $4.9 trillion run up by President Bush.
And when it comes to changing congressional rules on earmarks, Mr. Obama is being told to butt out – by none other than a top Democrat.
“I don’t think the White House has the ability to tell us what to do,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, telling reporters, “I hope you all got that down.”
“I saw those remarks,” said Gibbs, who then reiterated the president’s commitment to work with Congress to reduce wasteful spending.
Just none contained in the earmarks of the spending bill headed his way. - CBS News
This guy is one slick character. He makes us all look stupid. The sad part is that many of us must be because we continue to support him. He tells us in one breath that he wants to get rid of earmarks and cut wasteful spending. Then he turns around and says he will sign a bill with over 8500 earmarks. But it is unfinished business from the Bush years. Hello, it is not Bush signing it!
But his credibility on the issue is at risk if he goes ahead with plans to sign the $410 billion spending bill now making its way to final passage in Congress.
The measure is rife with earmarks – special spending provisions attached by members of Congress, usually to benefit a home district project. There are 8,570 earmarks on this bill that if enacted will cost taxpayers $7.7 billion.
The White House says the legislation is leftover from last year and that President Obama will work to reduce future wasteful spending.
In other words, the White House says the president will really get tough on spending right after he looks the other way and green lights $410 billion in spending for the current fiscal year.
“We’ll change the rules going forward,” says spokesman Robert Gibbs.
Earlier today, President Obama announced a new push to eliminate cost overruns and other wasteful spending in federal contracting. He said he wants to “enhance accountability and avoid leaving our children a mountain of debt.”
Actually, the mountain taking shape on his watch will give Everest a run for the money.
The budget plan the president issued last week shows the National Debt climbing to record heights of $16.2-trillion by the end of his four-year term. That amounts to an increase of $5.6-trillion on his watch – more than the $4.9 trillion run up by President Bush.
And when it comes to changing congressional rules on earmarks, Mr. Obama is being told to butt out – by none other than a top Democrat.
“I don’t think the White House has the ability to tell us what to do,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, telling reporters, “I hope you all got that down.”
“I saw those remarks,” said Gibbs, who then reiterated the president’s commitment to work with Congress to reduce wasteful spending.
Just none contained in the earmarks of the spending bill headed his way. - CBS News
This guy is one slick character. He makes us all look stupid. The sad part is that many of us must be because we continue to support him. He tells us in one breath that he wants to get rid of earmarks and cut wasteful spending. Then he turns around and says he will sign a bill with over 8500 earmarks. But it is unfinished business from the Bush years. Hello, it is not Bush signing it!
Some Democrats Concerned about Obama Spending
Moderate and conservative Democrats in the Senate are starting to choke over the massive spending and tax increases in President Barack Obama’s budget plans and have begun plotting to increase their influence over the agenda of a president who is turning out to be much more liberal than they are.
A group of 14 Senate Democrats and one independent huddled behind closed doors on Tuesday, discussing how centrists in that chamber can assert more leverage on the major policy debates that will dominate this Congress.
Afterward, some in attendance made plain that they are getting jitters over the cost and expansive reach of Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget proposal.
Asked when he’d reach his breaking point, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, said: “Right now. I’m concerned about the amount that’s being offered in [Obama’s] budget.”
Another attendee, Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.), said she expected the newly formed caucus to shape Obama’s budget proposal as it moves through Congress.
“We want to give the president a chance, but our concern is going to be on the budget, looking forward,” Landrieu said. She added that she agrees with Obama that there needs to be “fundamental change” in fiscal policy, but she said “we do have to keep our eye on the long term, on intermediate and long-term fiscal responsibility.”
Sen. Evan Bayh, the Indiana Democrat who assembled Tuesday’s skull session, added that he was “very concerned” about Washington’s level of spending, especially in a $410 billion “omnibus” spending bill to fund the government until the start of a new fiscal year in October.
As for the tax increases on high-income earners called for in Obama’s plan, Bayh said, “I do think that before we raise revenue, we first should look to see if there are ways we can cut back on spending.” - Politic Story
These people could come out of this the most powerful in Washington. They had better step up to the plate quickly or it will be too late. It is good to see that some people are coming out from under the spell.
A group of 14 Senate Democrats and one independent huddled behind closed doors on Tuesday, discussing how centrists in that chamber can assert more leverage on the major policy debates that will dominate this Congress.
Afterward, some in attendance made plain that they are getting jitters over the cost and expansive reach of Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget proposal.
Asked when he’d reach his breaking point, Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, said: “Right now. I’m concerned about the amount that’s being offered in [Obama’s] budget.”
Another attendee, Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.), said she expected the newly formed caucus to shape Obama’s budget proposal as it moves through Congress.
“We want to give the president a chance, but our concern is going to be on the budget, looking forward,” Landrieu said. She added that she agrees with Obama that there needs to be “fundamental change” in fiscal policy, but she said “we do have to keep our eye on the long term, on intermediate and long-term fiscal responsibility.”
Sen. Evan Bayh, the Indiana Democrat who assembled Tuesday’s skull session, added that he was “very concerned” about Washington’s level of spending, especially in a $410 billion “omnibus” spending bill to fund the government until the start of a new fiscal year in October.
As for the tax increases on high-income earners called for in Obama’s plan, Bayh said, “I do think that before we raise revenue, we first should look to see if there are ways we can cut back on spending.” - Politic Story
These people could come out of this the most powerful in Washington. They had better step up to the plate quickly or it will be too late. It is good to see that some people are coming out from under the spell.
Line Item Veto for President
Ronald Reagan asked for it in 1986 but never got it. Bill Clinton got it in 1996 but had it taken away by the courts.And now Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold want to grant line item veto power to President Barack Obama.
This debate is a perennial one with government reformers, but the maverick senators behind the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law believe the timing is right again to push line item veto authority — and they plan to limit this power to just earmarks. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has signed on as the House co-sponsor of the legislation. The three lawmakers will unveil their proposal on Wednesday.
The line item veto was declared unconstitutional in 1998, when Clinton was president, but McCain and Feingold have designed their legislation so Congress still has final approval over the presidential line item vetoes, a provision designed to get around the premise that this violates the checks and balances in the Constitution. Politico
This is smart legislation. This puts the power back on the President. He/She can veto earmarks out of a bill and force Congress to override it. This brings these out into the open and takes away the hiding places for Congress. It also will hold the President accountable to the rhetoric they use during campaigns. They will no longer be able to say the want to get rid of earmarks, yet sign away on bills that contain say 8,500 plus earmarks.
Are you better off Now!
Are you better off than you were when Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2007?
Facts about economy since Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. (FYI for all the Obama voters: House and Senate control spending and legislation. The president can only sign or veto their legislation)
1) Stock Market has crashed from 12,157 in November 2006 to below 7,000 today.
2) The night of the Democratic landslide election of 2006, the net worth of the country was roughly $50 trillion. It is now at least $6 trillion lower.
3) The federal budget deficit has soared from $165 billion in fiscal year 2007 to $486 billion in 2008 and could reach $1 trillion in 2009. (Pelosi ran on fiscal responsibility and lowering the budget deficit). If that were not enough, the Democrats are trying as hard as they can to spend another 900 Billion in the name of "Porkulus -er, stimulus"
4) In 2008, the economy lost a net total of 2.9 million jobs. That marks the biggest annual loss in US history.
5) Unemployment when Republicans had control in 2007 was 4.6%. Unemployment since Democrat control for House and Senate is 7.6%
6) The Department of Labor reported in July 2007 that the economy created jobs for 46 consecutive months (almost 4 years straight!). America added 132,000 jobs in June 2007 and the economy added more than 8.2 million new jobs (August 2003 to July 2007).
7) Since Democrat control: Historic job losses. The jobs lost so far since the recession began in December 2007 are the most of any downturn in the post-war period. About half the losses occurred just in the past three months!
8)The Democrats in Congress have been calling the shots for the past two years. Look where that?s gotten us.
9) Remember Nancy Pelosi's pledge to run the most ethical congress ever? More corruption scandals involving Democrats since 2007 than all of Bush's presidency! 3 Tax cheats in Obama's cabinet and more scandals in his first month than most President's have in their entire first term. (Mostly simple "mistakes' and "poor judgment" in Obama's own words)
10) Massive government bailouts of Democrat leaders banking buddies and insurance companies resulting in financial windfalls for Democrat financial friends of "troubled" companies -Corporate CEOs and their investor buddies.
Remember how crucial it was to do? Out entire financial system was going to colapse unless we did something NOW. How is it that we're still alive and a) most of the money hasn't been spent yet and b) of what has, the money hasn't even gone to what they said it would
11) Obama's broken how many of his "promises" already? No lobbyists in administration. Check. All bills to be open to debated on House and Senate floor for at least 5 days. Check. 7 total campaign promises broken already -that's a record!
12) There have been over 40 scandals already in his months long presidency. Here's a list so far http://conservativeamerican.org/dems-libs-socia...
I'm sure none of these facts matter to the Obama nation. Now we're going to see change all right. The Obama motto: We live in the greatest nation in history. Join with me as we try to change it. No, he didn't say it exactly, but it sure is "coming home to roost." - CBS News
I guess you ask and you shall receive. I just commented on how it would be nice to see some serious journalism about all of this and here it is. Fantastic job. I am sure that Obamanation is up in arms. CBS might lose their spot at the Obama table over this. Great job CBS.
Facts about economy since Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. (FYI for all the Obama voters: House and Senate control spending and legislation. The president can only sign or veto their legislation)
1) Stock Market has crashed from 12,157 in November 2006 to below 7,000 today.
2) The night of the Democratic landslide election of 2006, the net worth of the country was roughly $50 trillion. It is now at least $6 trillion lower.
3) The federal budget deficit has soared from $165 billion in fiscal year 2007 to $486 billion in 2008 and could reach $1 trillion in 2009. (Pelosi ran on fiscal responsibility and lowering the budget deficit). If that were not enough, the Democrats are trying as hard as they can to spend another 900 Billion in the name of "Porkulus -er, stimulus"
4) In 2008, the economy lost a net total of 2.9 million jobs. That marks the biggest annual loss in US history.
5) Unemployment when Republicans had control in 2007 was 4.6%. Unemployment since Democrat control for House and Senate is 7.6%
6) The Department of Labor reported in July 2007 that the economy created jobs for 46 consecutive months (almost 4 years straight!). America added 132,000 jobs in June 2007 and the economy added more than 8.2 million new jobs (August 2003 to July 2007).
7) Since Democrat control: Historic job losses. The jobs lost so far since the recession began in December 2007 are the most of any downturn in the post-war period. About half the losses occurred just in the past three months!
8)The Democrats in Congress have been calling the shots for the past two years. Look where that?s gotten us.
9) Remember Nancy Pelosi's pledge to run the most ethical congress ever? More corruption scandals involving Democrats since 2007 than all of Bush's presidency! 3 Tax cheats in Obama's cabinet and more scandals in his first month than most President's have in their entire first term. (Mostly simple "mistakes' and "poor judgment" in Obama's own words)
10) Massive government bailouts of Democrat leaders banking buddies and insurance companies resulting in financial windfalls for Democrat financial friends of "troubled" companies -Corporate CEOs and their investor buddies.
Remember how crucial it was to do? Out entire financial system was going to colapse unless we did something NOW. How is it that we're still alive and a) most of the money hasn't been spent yet and b) of what has, the money hasn't even gone to what they said it would
11) Obama's broken how many of his "promises" already? No lobbyists in administration. Check. All bills to be open to debated on House and Senate floor for at least 5 days. Check. 7 total campaign promises broken already -that's a record!
12) There have been over 40 scandals already in his months long presidency. Here's a list so far http://conservativeamerican.org/dems-libs-socia...
I'm sure none of these facts matter to the Obama nation. Now we're going to see change all right. The Obama motto: We live in the greatest nation in history. Join with me as we try to change it. No, he didn't say it exactly, but it sure is "coming home to roost." - CBS News
I guess you ask and you shall receive. I just commented on how it would be nice to see some serious journalism about all of this and here it is. Fantastic job. I am sure that Obamanation is up in arms. CBS might lose their spot at the Obama table over this. Great job CBS.
CNN Anchor oops on Peanuts
A U.S. airline is now selling "penis" on flights, an anchorwoman has declared.
The slip-up happened on CNN when anchorwoman Zain Verjee was reporting about Northwest Airlines now selling peanuts on flights.
Verjee mentioned the word "penis" three times instead of "peanuts."
"Northwest began serving penis this month as its merger partner Atlanta-based Delta airlines has done for years," Verjee said.
"Georgia is the top penis producing state in the country."
The footage has been uploaded to YouTube in many different versions and has become an internet sensation with more than 700,000 views today.
Perhaps the caption at the bottom of the screen distracted her – it declared "nuts on Northwest flights." - Fox News
I guess in this tough economy you resort to giving away whatever you can to get customers on your flights. Too funny.
Obama's team Using Fuzzy Math?
President Obama's Treasury secretary is defending proposed tax increases on the wealthy, saying they are necessary to limit future budget deficits.
Timothy Geithner responded on Wednesday to Republican criticism that the administration wants to increase taxes during a recession. Geithner noted that tax increases on couples making more than $250,000 per year would not take effect until 2011.
Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion budget deficit that is expected to balloon to $1.75 trillion this year. Obama says his plan would reduce the deficit to $533 billion in four years. - FOX News
These numbers don't quite add up. Obama says that he inherited a $1.3 Trillion budget deficit and it is expected to balloon to $1.75 Trillion this year. How does that work? If he truly had a $1.3 Trillion budget deficit, then the stimulus of $787 Billion, would that alone put it at over $2 Trillion? That doesn't take into account the other spending.
Obama Continues to blame Bush
(CBS/AP) President Barack Obama's top aides have launched the battle to push through his ambitious budget package through Congress during a week that has seen further economic erosion, particularly on the stock market.
White House aides blame the Bush administration for creating a situation that made the massive plan necessary and stress that new measures need time to work.
"It's way too soon to start judging success or failure here," White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said on CBS' The Early Show Wednesday. "We inherited a large mess."
Mr. Obama's proposed budget blueprint for the 2010 fiscal year is a part of a series of efforts to reverse America's harrowing economic slide. But Wall Street remained on edge with both the Dow Jones industrial average and the Standard & Poor's 500 index registering their lowest finishes in more than a decade.
That has prompted economists to question the effectiveness of President Obama's recovery plans, reports CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante.
"The budget doesn't look very promising but why would it? [Office of Management and Budget] and Treasury are doing exactly what we got under Bush, which is more government and more waste," Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute told CBS News. "The stimulus plan doesn't seem to have worked and the bailouts don't seem to have worked based on the stock market." - CBS News Story
It would be very nice if the media would do some serious journalism and lay out the facts of how this crisis came to be. Bush bears some blame there is no doubt. You have to go back and look at also the Clinton years, and you most definitely have to look at the actions of Congresses from all those years as well.
Either way you can't be the leader of the United States and blame everything on someone else. You are the one everyone is looking to for resolution and pointing fingers isn't getting the job done. When all of this spending fails to do the job, who will be to blame? My guess will be that it will be the 3 Republicans who voted for the Stimulus. If they hadn't taken away some very important parts of it we would have succeeded. I can hear the cry already.
White House aides blame the Bush administration for creating a situation that made the massive plan necessary and stress that new measures need time to work.
"It's way too soon to start judging success or failure here," White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said on CBS' The Early Show Wednesday. "We inherited a large mess."
Mr. Obama's proposed budget blueprint for the 2010 fiscal year is a part of a series of efforts to reverse America's harrowing economic slide. But Wall Street remained on edge with both the Dow Jones industrial average and the Standard & Poor's 500 index registering their lowest finishes in more than a decade.
That has prompted economists to question the effectiveness of President Obama's recovery plans, reports CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante.
"The budget doesn't look very promising but why would it? [Office of Management and Budget] and Treasury are doing exactly what we got under Bush, which is more government and more waste," Daniel Mitchell of the Cato Institute told CBS News. "The stimulus plan doesn't seem to have worked and the bailouts don't seem to have worked based on the stock market." - CBS News Story
It would be very nice if the media would do some serious journalism and lay out the facts of how this crisis came to be. Bush bears some blame there is no doubt. You have to go back and look at also the Clinton years, and you most definitely have to look at the actions of Congresses from all those years as well.
Either way you can't be the leader of the United States and blame everything on someone else. You are the one everyone is looking to for resolution and pointing fingers isn't getting the job done. When all of this spending fails to do the job, who will be to blame? My guess will be that it will be the 3 Republicans who voted for the Stimulus. If they hadn't taken away some very important parts of it we would have succeeded. I can hear the cry already.
Is this where America is Headed?
If you're inclined to believe Igor Panarin, and the Kremlin wouldn't mind if you did, then President Barack Obama will order martial law this year, the U.S. will split into six rump-states before 2011, and Russia and China will become the backbones of a new world order.
Panarin might be easy to ignore but for the fact that he is a dean at the Foreign Ministry's school for future diplomats and a regular on Russia's state-guided TV channels. And his predictions fit into the anti-American story line of the Kremlin leadership.
"There is a high probability that the collapse of the United States will occur by 2010," Panarin told dozens of students, professors and diplomats Tuesday at the Diplomatic Academy — a lecture the ministry pointedly invited The Associated Press and other foreign media to attend. - ABC News Story
If you think that this is a totally off the wall thought, you would be wrong. Many points that Igor Panarin makes has been echoed from many around the world. There is great Concern about the amount of debt that the United States is creating and the likelihood that we will tumble with inflation. Many Countries have invested heavily in the US over the last several decades, and now face financial ruin as well if we falter.
I don't think that we are in quite the position that is painted here, but I also don't think that this Spending is going to get us out. There is too much money going to the wrong places.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Obma Riding High in Polls
President Obama is riding high in the most current polls after 6 weeks in the White House.Even with the economic crisis, the massive spending ballooning deficit, the American Public are overwhelmingly supporting the President of Change.
Obama has found an uncanny knack of walking a tight rope with his policies versus his campaign rhetoric.
He has also managed to keep a majority of the Media in his corner.
The strangest part of the poll is that people overwhelmingly approve of the man but not his policies. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it is a tremendous amount of political capital. He will need that capital as he pushes for more deficit spending.
The bad news for Republicans is that their message is getting lost in all of the squabbling between the wannabe leaders of the party and radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. They need to get together on the same page and start putting a plan together for 2010.
Democrats in Congress may also find the President's high numbers a bit troublesome. He is gaining political clout to push his agenda and they will be taking the heat for his policies when things go wrong.
We are only 6 weeks into this and things can change on a dime with the American Public. I would say that within 12 months you will have a solid idea of what the American Public is thinking for 2010. The President needs to be very careful of spending all of his political capital too early and find himself and his party in dire straits going into the election season of 2010.
Obama Team Pays back Supporters
(CNN) – Alaska State Sen. Kim Elton, one of the leading officials to pursue an investigation of Gov. Sarah Palin during the heat of the presidential campaign, has taken a high-level job in the Interior Department. Palin reacted in a short statement Monday, the day Elton announced his move to Washington.
“Senator Elton pledged his allegiance to President Obama last summer,” said the governor. “We wish him well as he moves on and hope that he uses this job for Alaska’s benefit.”
Palin was the target of an official investigation last year over charges she improperly dismissed a public safety commissioner who refused to fire her sister’s ex-husband, a state trooper. Elton led the legislative investigation of the incident.
The report, released in October, said Palin had the authority to fire the public safety commissioner, and the governor said it cleared her of wrongdoing. But the report also said Palin had abused her power as governor, and had violated state ethics law.
Elton will serve as Director of Alaska Affairs at the U.S. Department of the Interior. - CNN
Look's like the Obama team is paying back the people who helped them along the way. All is fair in Love and Politics.
Obama's Making Excuses for Earmarks
During the presidential campaign, earmark reform was a major theme for John McCain, who often highlighted projects of other candidates that he considered wasteful. During the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008, Barack Obama said he had stopped requesting earmarks as a senator and that he shared McCain's desire for earmark reform and the elimination of wasteful projects.
McCain noted that Obama had made $932 million in earmark requests during his first three years as a senator and he criticized Obama for saying earmarks accounted for "only $18 billion" in federal spending.
Obama replied, "John, nobody is denying that $18 billion is important. And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
In his first six weeks as president, Obama has faced two huge spending bills that each gave him a major opportunity to demonstrate that "line by line" approach on earmarks. But there were two very different outcomes:
• The $787 billion economic stimulus bill. Obama prominently called for it to be free of earmarks and repeatedly said he achieved that goal. PolitiFact found a handful of projects in the bill that we consider to be earmarks -- a program to reimburse Filipino veterans of World War II, money for a power plant in Illinois, among others -- but they were small considering the giant size of the bill. Steve Ellis, vice president for Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington group that tracks spending, calls the stimulus bill "largely earmark-free."
• The $410 billion Omnibus bill for 2009. Depending how you count them, there are upwards of 9,000 earmarks in the bill, which is the product of nine appropriations bills that were not passed last fall. The White House says Obama plans to sign the bill later this week after it passes the Senate and Obama aides have downplayed the significance of the earmarks saying they came from a budget process that mostly took place before Obama was elected. But White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said March 2 that Obama will soon be outlining his policy on handling earmarks.
For now, however, as we assess the "line-by-line" promise, we're faced with two very different approaches.
On the economic stimulus, Obama took a strong and vocal stand against them and showed what he could do with the power of the bully pulpit. The bill was not earmark-free as he claimed, but it was close.
The Omnibus, however, is loaded with earmarks. Obama and the White House could have used the bully pulpit to criticize them. But they have not been very critical, nor have they indicated any attempt to go "line by line" through the bill to look for wasteful programs, as Obama pledged during the campaign.
Administration budget chief Peter Orszag said, "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward."
For now, with those sharply different results, we find this promise deserves a Compromise. But we'll be watching this one and will revisit it later. - Politfact.com
Stimulus Save's 60 Jobs so far
(CNN) -- President Obama said Tuesday that the country already is "seeing shovels hit the ground" on the first infrastructure repair project funded through the Transportation Department's share of the $787 billion stimulus bill.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said, "The work begins today in Montgomery County, Maryland, where a work crew is starting on a project to resurface Maryland State Highway 650 -- a very busy road that has not been fully repaired in 17 years."
The resurfacing contract is going to a Pennsylvania-based family-owned company, America Infrastructure, LaHood said.
He said the project will support 60 jobs. "And that's how we're going to get the country back on its feet," LaHood added.
Mark Compton, director of government affairs for American Infrastructure, said his company received $2.1 million in federal funds, by way of the Maryland State Highway Administration.
The money will be used to repave and add safety features to a stretch of the highway.
Compton said the cash infusion is the "catalyst" to create 60 jobs, including bringing back some laid-off employees. - CNN
Can anyone tell me what is wrong with this picture? $2.1 Million Dollars and we put 60 people to work? That is Genius! Obama is on to something here. With this ratio the stimulus could put 22.5 million people to work. This is unbelievable, I don't know what everyone was questioning? Bush didn't put that many people to work.
Now in 3 months or less when the job is done they are back on the unemployment line, but who needs to be greedy? The stimulus works, he didn't say it would be permanent work! Come on people get on board this is serious stuff.
Iraq War Numbers
I thought that some of this was real interesting. All of the Numbers from the Iraq War are referenced from CBS. War is never pretty. It is a down right tragedy and the cost of one human life can not be measured in dollars and cents. However you have to put some perspective on the facts and not the rhetoric that we hear from the talking heads.
Over $601 billion, according to the National Priorities Project. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress has approved more than $657 billion so far for the Iraq war. - CBS News
Wow, that is a lot of money. President Obama wants to end this costly war to quit wasting money. I am pretty sure that we have spend way more bailing out greedy businesses over the past 4 months and much more yet to come. AIG, CITI, GM, Chrysler, etc...
Prewar: 12.9 million people had potable water. Jan. 15, 2009: 21.2 million people have potable water. - CBS News
Wow, you are kidding me. Things are better now than before? I would have never guessed that based on the President, Congress, Media Reports.
Prewar: 6.2 million people served. Dec. 31, 2008: 11.3 million people served. - CBS News
More Good news.
It is amazing that all you hear from the Media, The President, Congress is how we haven't done anything in Iraq except waste money. There has been a lot of good done there by a lot of good people. The whole cost of the war is less than what we spent to bail out the banks. With all of the money we have spent on bailouts and stimulus's we could fight more than 3 Iraq wars.
Over $601 billion, according to the National Priorities Project. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress has approved more than $657 billion so far for the Iraq war. - CBS News
Wow, that is a lot of money. President Obama wants to end this costly war to quit wasting money. I am pretty sure that we have spend way more bailing out greedy businesses over the past 4 months and much more yet to come. AIG, CITI, GM, Chrysler, etc...
Prewar: 12.9 million people had potable water. Jan. 15, 2009: 21.2 million people have potable water. - CBS News
Wow, you are kidding me. Things are better now than before? I would have never guessed that based on the President, Congress, Media Reports.
Prewar: 6.2 million people served. Dec. 31, 2008: 11.3 million people served. - CBS News
More Good news.
It is amazing that all you hear from the Media, The President, Congress is how we haven't done anything in Iraq except waste money. There has been a lot of good done there by a lot of good people. The whole cost of the war is less than what we spent to bail out the banks. With all of the money we have spent on bailouts and stimulus's we could fight more than 3 Iraq wars.
Mexican Drug Cartels becoming Top Security Issue
The U.S. Defense Department thinks Mexico's two most deadly drug cartels together have fielded more than 100,000 foot soldiers - an army that rivals Mexico's armed forces and threatens to turn the country into a narco-state. "It's moving to crisis proportions," a senior U.S. defense official told The Washington Times. The official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named because of the sensitive nature of his work, said the cartels' "foot soldiers" are on a par with Mexico's army of about 130,000.
The disclosure underlines the enormity of the challenge Mexico and the United States face as they struggle to contain what is increasingly looking like a civil war or an insurgency along the U.S.-Mexico border. In the past year, about 7,000 people have died - more than 1,000 in January alone. The conflict has become increasingly brutal, with victims beheaded and bodies dissolved in vats of acid.
The death toll dwarfs that in Afghanistan, where about 200 fatalities, including 29 U.S. troops, were reported in the first two months of 2009. About 400 people, including 31 U.S. military personnel, died in Iraq during the same period.
The biggest and most violent combatants are the Sinaloa cartel, known by U.S. and Mexican federal law enforcement officials as the "Federation" or "Golden Triangle," and its main rival, "Los Zetas" or the Gulf Cartel, whose territory runs along the Laredo,Texas, borderlands. - Washington Times Story
This doesn't seem to be getting as much attention as Iraq and Afghanistan, but this has been coming right onto our own soil. It is going to get worse.
The President of Mexico is making a stand against the Drug Cartels and the US needs to stand beside him. The war is about the Billions of Dollars that flow from the US to Mexico.
Obama's Budget gets Scrutiny
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's proposed tax increases are being met with misgivings by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress as he sends his treasury secretary to Capitol Hill to defend them.
Lawmakers in both parties question Obama's call to reduce high-income earners' tax deductions for the interest on their house payments and for charitable contributions. Also drawing fire is his proposal to start taxing industries on their greenhouse gas pollution -- a move sure to raise consumers' electric rates.
Obama and his top aides have been promoting the budget package since unveiling an outline last week, but Tuesday will provide the lawmakers their first opportunity to publicly question top officials about the details.
Administration officials say the nation's economic crisis requires bold action to right the economy and expand access to health care while providing tax breaks to middle- and low-income families.
The economy took another hit Monday when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged below 7,000 for the first time since 1997.
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was scheduled to appear Tuesday before the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, which also is likely to question him about Obama's declaration last week that he may be asking Congress this year for another $750 billion bailout for troubled banks.
Meanwhile, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag was to testify Tuesday before the House Budget Committee on Obama's spending priorities in the administration's $3.5 trillion budget blueprint for the 2010 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
Obama has been careful throughout the presidential campaign and since being elected to say he would impose higher taxes only on the wealthiest. Republicans, however, say Obama's energy proposal amounts to a tax that would increase energy costs for all Americans.
"This massive hidden energy tax is going to work its way through every aspect of American life," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the Ways and Means Committee. "How we light our homes, heat our homes and pay for the gas in our cars, in every phase of our daily lives, we will be paying higher costs."
Under the energy plan, Obama wants to reduce the emissions blamed for global warming by auctioning off carbon pollution permits. The proposal, known as cap and trade, is projected to raise $646 billion over 10 years.
Most of the money would be used to pay for Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit, which provides up to $400 a year to individuals and $800 a year to couples. The plan also would raise money for clean-fuel technologies, such as solar and wind power.
Orszag has acknowledged that the energy proposal would increase costs for consumers, but he argues that the vast majority of consumers will get tax breaks elsewhere in Obama's budget package. - FOX News
I just got back in the Country late last night and have been out of touch on alot of what is going on. But I am quickly trying to catch up.
After reading some of this budget stuff, what is President Obama trying to do? It appears that he is trying to make this economy issues last long enough to keep it fresh on peoples minds for the mid-term elections.
Cutting back on tax breaks for Charitable donations in a time when Charities are already struggling to get donations is just plain stupid. It is the Wealthy and big Corporations that do most of the donations. They give to charities to improve their tax situations, Obama is trying to take that away from them.
This whole greenhouse gas thing is a bit of idiocy. Everyone, and I do mean everyone agrees that this will increase the cost to consumers. Is now the time to be increasing the cost of living on people in this Country?
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Obama Breaks another Promise because of Bush
WASHINGTON -- The White House on Sunday downplayed massive deficit spending and President Obama's pledge not to sign legislation laden with billions in earmarks amid Republican criticism that he was recanting on a key campaign promise.The administration's top budget official, Peter Orszag, said Obama would sign the $410 billion spending bill despite a campaign pledge that he would reject tailored budget requests that let lawmakers send money to their home states. Orszag said Obama would move ahead and overlook the time-tested tradition that lets officials divert millions at a time to pet projects.
It was the Washington equivalent of officials pinching their nose and swallowing a bitter pill.
"This is last year's business," Orszag said, offering an acknowledgment that Obama would sign a bill that doesn't conform with his campaign vows. "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward."
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel offered mirrored language: "That's last year's business."
The House last week passed the measure that would keep the government open for business through Sept. 30, when the federal budget year ends. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, identified almost 8,600 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion; Democrats say the number is $3.8 billion. - FOX News
So Obama is going to break another promise about not allowing earmarks. I am so tired of hearing that this is last years business. Last years business my rear end. The reason it is last years business is because the awful President Bush refused to sign it due to it's massive spending. Wait, that can't possibly be right.
Obama needs to get a pair between his legs. Quit putting everything off on someone else. You ran for President claiming you would do this, do that, not do this, not do that. So far I have not been impressed at all. You have been pretty much full of it from day one. He made promises and breaks them, then says it is because of Bush!? Come on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)