Monday, March 30, 2009
Last updated: 3:37 am
March 27, 2009
Posted: 2:40 am
March 27, 2009
FOR a guy who talks so much about wanting a new era of responsibility, President Obama spends an awful lot of time blaming Republicans for all the wild and reckless spending he crammed into his own budget.
After running a campaign against the $1 trillion deficit he "inherited" from President Bush and the Republicans, Obama quickly matched it. During his first 50 days in office, he and his Democratic-controlled Congress spent $1 billion an hour.
Under Obama's proposed budget, the overall national debt doubles in five years and triples in 10.
Not exactly "moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest," as he promised.
How does Mr. Responsibility explain the disconnect between this reality and his absurd claims? By insisting that Republicans were worse.
"To a bunch of the critics out there, I've already said, show me your budget!" he told a gathering of wealthy Democratic donors this week. "I'm happy to have that debate."
Or, another time: "I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them."
In other words, Obama cannot defend his decision to double down on deficit spending. So, he simply trashes Republicans.
As if voters right now are looking for somebody just not as bad as the GOP. As if his campaign slogan wasn't "Change You Can Believe In," but rather "Vote for Me. I'm Not as Bad as Republicans."
Anyway, Republicans tried this out-of-control spending derby -- and just look where that got them. In a few short years, they lost control of every single lever of power exactly because of this kind of behavior.
Yet in even less time, Obama has put away his promises of Hope and Change and tossed aside the idealism of his campaign about remaking politics in Washington.
Surveying the political landscape here today, Obama is thinking of that adage cherished by cutthroats everywhere.
If you and a buddy are walking through the woods and encounter a hungry, angry bear, you don't have to outrun the bear. You simply have to outrun your buddy.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
state of the Union (this week)
My friends and family were aghast when I pointed to the horrid choice we had between non-conservative & only right 50% of the time John McCain and Quasi-Marxist not nearly as smart as everyone says Barrack Obama for the US Presidency.
This was after I pointed to a photo of Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards as the pathetic last remaining DEM possibilities. 1. The fact a Clinton is still politically viable is shocking and sad to me. 2. Edwards made his millions on junk science regarding now medically disproven theories (not to mention is an immoral scoundrel who cheats on the very cancer stricken wife he held up to promote his campaign and had another man claim to be the father of his illegitimate child). 3. Obama has proven all those who warned Americans of his past and true governing intentions totally and completely RIGHT.
Back to our choice for President. To my friends who remain on the Obama bandwagon please consider what you would have said to me if I suggested any one of these realities. You would have said I was nuts and a “crazy right-winger.” Ha! You can roll your eyes or keep your head in the sand when you read this list, references and links are below.
Can you imagine if I had said three months ago that:
The President will recommend our US Veterans pay for their combat injuries out of their own private health insurance? (1)
The President will advocate empowering the Federal Government to cap salaries and allowable profits of private companies even those not specifically “bailed out” by TARP, Stimulus plan, etc. (2)
The President would attempt to limit charitable deductions for certain charities, while having Govt bureaucrats choose which charities should be available for tax free donations (HR1388) (3)
The President would QUADRUPLE our Federal Deficit, then claim he would “cut the deficit in half” over the next 7 years. The very deficit that his budget created.
The President will give his first television interview to al Arabiya.
The President’s Director of Homeland Security will not use the term “Terrorism” and instead refer to “Man Caused Disasters.” (4)
The President’s Chief of Staff would claim "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," (5)
"Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."
The President would do a 180 and appoint scores of lobbyists to his cabinet, and propose nearly 9,000 earmarks in his budget.
The President would redefine “rich” as families making over 250K annually. (Under Clinton it was 500K and Bush Sr. 1 million). He would declare intentions to raise the tax rate on these Americans. (It is proven time and again that tax receipts actually increase when rates are lowered, as the overall economy grows).
The President would accept a 500K book advance (taking advantage of the Bush tax cut rates before they expire). (6)
The President would appear on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno and poke fun at the participants in the Special Olympics. (and face no scrutiny by our ever-vigilant watchdog media) (7)
“You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt.”
Daniel Hannan (South East England)
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
(if a Republican spoke like this in the USA he would be elected President)!
Initial AIG Bailout wasn't even necessary!
Lloyd Blankfein, CEO, Goldman Sachs: “I don’t necessarily think it was necessary at the time, but — and this was said at the time — they were looking ahead at an emerging recession that was going to get worse, and for prudential reasons, it was necessary for the systemic safety and soundness. And as subsequent events have borne out, I think it has provided safety and soundness, and taken some of the risk away from the system.”
Ken Lewis, CEO, Bank of America: “I actually agree. I know at the time we did not feel like we needed the 15 billion. But I think in light of the severity of the recession, and in light of the speed at which the economy deteriorated, I think we have lent more money because we had the TARP funds and that level of capital.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Resigned [Mark Steyn]
This resignation letter from an AIG exec is worth reading:
I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down...
The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press...
I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”
I wonder if Senator Grassley (Republican, of course) is pleased that AIG honchos are now doing as instructed and falling on their swords. As I said a few days ago, if you own even modest assets (a small house, a savings account) and you think that in a battle between the political class and the business class it's in your interest for the latter to lose, you're a fool who entirely deserves the vaporization of his wealth on which Barney Frank & Co have embarked.
Likewise, watching a couple of dozen ACORN activists pretending to be indignant citizens leading a ton of news reporters willingly colluding in the fraud around suburban avenues in Connecticut, a talented executive would have to be completely desperate to offer his services to any entity bailed out by the government.
We have a president who shows no instinct for economic issues; a Treasury Department that, in a supposed crisis, is just one designated fall guy rattling around an all but empty building for whose senior positions no one has even been nominated; and thug legislators-for-life who bear far more direct responsibility for this mess posing as champions of da liddle guy in order to extend their already disastrous "oversight" ever deeper into the private sector. Things are going to get a lot worse.
But don't worry: If AIG throws their departing exec a leaving party, Congress will pass a bill deeming any such event a 97 percent taxable benefit.
Monday, March 23, 2009
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN’s Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.
On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision.
Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening
Temperatures dropping, fewer hurricanes, arctic ice growing, polar bear population up
Posted: March 22, 2009
9:56 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – This may come as bad news for Al Gore.
The modest global warming trend has stopped – maybe even reversed itself.
And it's not just the record low temperatures experienced in much of the world this winter.
For at least the last five years, global temperatures have been falling, according to tracking performed by Roy Spencer, the climatologist formerly of NASA.
"Global warming" was going to bring more and more horrific hurricanes, climate change scientists and the politicians who subscribed to their theories said. But since 2005, only one major hurricane has struck North America.
Two more studies – one by the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology in Germany and another by the University of Wisconsin – predict a slowing, or even a reversal of warming, for at least the next 10 to 20 years.
The Arctic sea ice has grown more on a percentage basis this winter than it has since 1979.
The number of polar bears has risen 25 percent in the past decade. There are 15,000 of them in the Arctic now, where 10 years ago there were 12,000.
"The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling," says Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, confidently. He maintains a switch in Pacific Ocean currents "assures about three decades of global cooling. New solar data showing unusual absence of sun spots and changes in the sun’s magnetic field suggest ... the present episode of global cooling may be more severe than the cooling of 1945 to 1977."
Climatologist Joe D’Aleo of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise."
"The data suggest cooling not warming in Earth's future," he says.
By ANDREW TAYLOR – 3 days ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to the latest congressional estimates, significantly worse than predicted by the White House just last month.
The Congressional Budget Office figures, obtained by The Associated Press Friday, predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget.
Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.
The latest figures, even worse than expected by top Democrats, throw a major monkey wrench into efforts to enact Obama's budget, which promises universal health care for all and higher spending for domestic programs like education and research into renewable energy.
The dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, inevitably raise the prospect that Obama and his allies controlling Congress would have to consider raising taxes after the recession ends or paring back his agenda.
But without referencing the figures, Obama insisted on Friday that his agenda is still on track.
"What we will not cut are investments that will lead to real growth and prosperity over the long term," Obama said. "That's why our budget makes a historic commitment to comprehensive health care reform. That's why it enhances America's competitiveness by reducing our dependence on foreign oil and building a clean energy economy."
Many Democrats were already uncomfortable with Obama's budget, which promises to cut the deficit to $533 billion in five years. The CBO says the red ink for that year will total $672 billion.
The worsening economy is responsible for the even deeper fiscal mess inherited by Obama. As an illustration, CBO says that the deficit for the current budget year, which began Oct. 1, will top $1.8 trillion, $93 billion more than foreseen by the White House.
The 2009 deficit, fueled by the $700 billion Wall Street bailout and diving tax revenues stemming from the worsening recession, is four times the previous $459 billion record set just last year.
The CBO's estimate for 2010 is worse as well, with a deficit of almost $1.4 trillion expected under administration policies, about $200 billion more than predicted by Obama.
By the end of the decade, the deficit under Obama's blueprint would go back up to $1.2 trillion.
Long-term deficit predictions have proven notoriously fickle — George W. Bush inherited flawed projections of a 10-year, $5.6 trillion surplus and instead produced record deficits — and if the economy outperforms CBO's expectations, the deficits could prove significantly smaller
Democrats in Congress are readying Obama's budget for preliminary votes next week, and they promise to cut the deficit in half within five years.
Democrats are likely to curb somewhat Obama's request for a 9 percent increase in non-defense agency budgets.
Obama's $3.6 trillion budget for the 2010 fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 contains ambitious programs to overhaul the U.S. health care system and initiate new "cap-and-trade" rules to combat global warming.
Both initiatives involve raising federal revenues sharply higher, but those dollars wouldn't be used to defray the burgeoning deficit.
Republicans say Obama's budget plan taxes, spends and borrows too much, and they've been sharply critical of his $787 billion economic stimulus measure and a just-passed $410 billion omnibus spending bill that awarded big increases to domestic agency budgets.
The administration says it inherited deficits totaling $9 trillion over the next decade and that its budget plan cuts $2 trillion from those deficits. But most of those spending reductions come from reducing costs for the war in Iraq.
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
I'm stupefied to find that some people are defending the constitutionality of Nancy Pelosi's discriminatory, confiscatory and retroactive tax on people who receive bonus income from companies that got TARP money. I would have considered it a bright line rule that the government can't identify a class of unpopular people and impose a special tax on them. What's next? A 100% income tax on registered Republicans, retroactive to last year? If Pelosi's bill passes muster, why not?
One theory, presumably, is that since the government is contributing TARP money it can put whatever strings it wants on that money. (Including, I guess, strings imposed after the fact that would deprive employees of agreed-upon consideration for work they've already performed.) But that theory has been rejected in a variety of contexts. The government cannot condition its spending on a relinquishment of constitutional rights. Here's a thought experiment: how about putting a condition (retroactively, of course) on TARP money that says no employee of any bank that receives such money (or his spouse) can get an abortion? Would Nancy Pelosi think that's constitutional?
Wells Fargo didn't want any TARP money, but the government forced it to take more than $5 billion worth, so Wells Fargo employees who receive bonuses would be subject to Pelosi's proposed tax. Say you're a teller at a Wells Fargo branch in Minnesota and you're married to a lawyer who makes $250,000 this year. You get a $10,000 bonus for your good work during 2008. The government steals it all (90 percent federal plus 8.5 percent state plus, unless it's included in the 90 percent, 3 percent Medicare). That is simply insane.
If the Pelosi bill is actually enacted into law (which I still think is doubtful) and upheld by the courts, there is no limit to the arbitrary power of Congress. In that event, we have no property rights and there is no Constitution--no equal protection clause, no due process clause, no impairment of contracts clause, no bill of attainder/ex post facto law clause. Instead, we are living in a majoritarian tyranny. As I explained here, there is nothing wrong with the AIG bonuses and no reason why they should be repaid. But even if you think it was wrong for AIG to pay them, Pelosi's proposed confiscatory tax--total taxes would exceed 100 percent in some jurisdictions--is an outrage. If Congress can appease a howling mob of demagogues by enacting discriminatory tax legislation against a group of people who are, for the moment, politically unpopular, even though the vast majority of them have nothing to do with the supposed problems that have given rise to popular outcry--imagine, say, Congress enacting a surtax on the incomes of all homosexuals in response to a notorious case of homosexual molestation--then the idea that the Constitution affords us any sort of protection against arbitrary government power is an illusion.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
How can American Servicemen and Veterans ever, ever vote DEM again?
Don't treat the old say NHS doctors:
Doctors are calling fortreatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
"If you think health care is expensive now wait until it's free."
There is no better quote. People actually use the All Men are Created Equal premise in the Constitution to argue for Universal health care. Wonderful. We are all Socialists now!!
"I felt a little misled personally," said Flint senior Detrone Turner, who said he thought the speech was going to be about increasing diversity.
Obama apologizes for remark
President Barack Obama made his difficult week worse Thursday by saying his poor bowling skills are “like Special Olympics or something,” an athletic competition for people with disabilities. His spokesman quickly said Obama hadn’t intended any offense.
Jeez!! Thanks for the apology Barrack. Can you imagine if a Republican had made this insensitive remark?? Unreal.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Our Mission Statement
By William F. Buckley Jr.
November 19, 1955
Among our convictions:
- It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government(the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side.
- The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.
- The century's most blatant force of satanic utopianism is communism. We consider "coexistence" with communism neither desirable nor possible, nor honorable; we find ourselves irrevocably at war with communism and shall oppose any substitute for victory.
- The largest cultural menace in America is the conformity of the intellectual cliques which, in education as well as the arts, are out to impose upon the nation their modish fads and fallacies, and have nearly succeeded in doing so. In this cultural issue, we are, without reservations, on the side of excellence (rather than "newness") and of honest intellectual combat (rather than conformity).
- The most alarming single danger to the American political system lies in the fact that an identifiable team of Fabian operators is bent on controlling both our major political parties(under the sanction of such fatuous and unreasoned slogans as "national unity," "middle-of-the-road," "progressivism," and "bipartisanship.") Clever intriguers are reshaping both parties in the image of Babbitt, gone Social-Democrat. When and where this political issue arises, we are, without reservations, on the side of the traditional two-party system that fights its feuds in public and honestly; and we shall advocate the restoration of the two-party system at all costs.
- The competitive price system is indispensable to liberty and material progress. It is threatened not only by the growth of Big Brother government, but by the pressure of monopolies(including union monopolies. What is more, some labor unions have clearly identified themselves with doctrinaire socialist objectives. The characteristic problems of harassed business have gone unreported for years, with the result that the public has been taught to assume(almost instinctively) that conflicts between labor and management are generally traceable to greed and intransigence on the part of management. Sometimes they are; often they are not. NATIONAL REVIEW will explore and oppose the inroads upon the market economy caused by monopolies in general, and politically oriented unionism in particular; and it will tell the violated businessman's side of the story.
- No superstition has more effectively bewitched America's Liberal elite than the fashionable concepts of world government, the United Nations, internationalism, international atomic pools, etc. Perhaps the most important and readily demonstrable lesson of history is that freedom goes hand in hand with a state of political decentralization, that remote government is irresponsible government. It would make greater sense to grant independence to each of our 50 states than to surrender U.S. sovereignty to a world organization.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Cutting our Defense, Weakining a NationTo members of Keep America Free
At the height of World War II we spent 46% of our GDP on the military. By 1945 that number had dropped to 34.5%. Throughout the Cold War, defense spending averaged 8% of GDP and since 1962 the average spending level has fallen even further to 5.5% of our GDP. Today we spend less than 4% on defense. Our economy has boomed multiple times in the past despite our government devoting much higher levels of our GDP to national security. Currently, there is runaway spending in Washington, but it is coming from President Barack Obama and the left. Congress spent more in just one bill–this year’s “stimulus” bill–than it spent on Afghanistan and Iraq combined since 2001.
Eager to mollify his leftist base while still making it appear he is serious about responsibility, President Barack Obama has recently begun laying the groundwork for deep cuts in defense spending. Last week, he promised to only “invest in technologies that are proven and cost-effective…If a system isn’t ready to be developed, we shouldn’t pour resources into it.” This may sound sensible but it ignores the fact that developing and deploying cutting-edge technologies is far more complex. Many of today’s military programs are a “system of systems” (like the Army’s Future Combat Systems modernization effort and ballistic missile defense) that have integrated components that must be deployed individually before they can be tested together as part of the larger network. Placing undue requirements on these programs will only further generate a risk-averse culture and will inevitably slow the acquisition process and raise costs.
More worrisome, the previous week President Obama said he wanted to “reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use.” It would appear this is a further attempt to lay the groundwork for cutting necessary core-capabilities from America’s military, not just by associating them with the Cold War and a bygone era, but by identifying them as wasteful and a potential area for cost-savings.
Defense contracting is far from perfect. And the Heritage Foundation has been a leader in identifying ways to make it more efficient. But neither is defense spending a burden on our economy, or exploding in size. There has been an explosion in spending that has cratered our national deficit. But Congressman Frank and President Obama must understand that the explosion in entitlement and non-defense discretionary spending are the real culprits.
North Korea warned today that any move to intercept a missile test-firing would result in a counterstrike against the countries trying to stop it.
Experts on both sides of the issue say tens of thousands of jobs created by the economic stimulus law could end up filled by illegal immigrants.
According to Drug Enforcement Administration records, Atlanta has emerged as the preferred gateway to America for Mexican drug cartels.
The Obama Administration will press world governments to boost their deficit spending, despite the fact that the explosion of U.S. deficit spending makes other country’s borrowing more expensive.
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is urging the nation’s schools to spend their stimulus dollars as fast as they possibly can.