February 2009 Archives

THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM. OUTSTANDING.

DIVORCE AGREEMENT

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall

Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration is making plans to roll back another one of President Bush's policies.  The policy in questions is a Bush administration regulation, enacted in December, that cuts off federal funding for thousands of state and local governments, hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities if they do not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to participate in care they feel violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.  Some of the areas that this regulation covers (and will cover in the future) are abortion, birth control, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, etc.  The argument for leaving the law in place is that the individuals requesting the service will be able to go elsewhere to obtain that service.  The employee has one job and a conscience and is trying to respect both.  This could actually be played out as a freedom of religion issue (for the employee). 

Rolling back this law is not a good thing.  It brings to mind what happened in Massachusetts after gay marriage became legal and the Cathollic Church adoption agencies were told they had to grant adoptions to gay parents, regardless of the church's teachings on the subject.  As a result, the Catholic Church no longer runs adoption agencies in Massachusetts--they were simply driven out.  A valuable service they were providing was lost because their freedom to practice their religion was not upheld. 

According to the Washington Times, there are many Democrats and Republicans upset about President Obama's changes to the tax code regarding charitable giving.  The article stated:

Still, the charitable giving deduction reduction, which would limit deductions for couples making $250,000 or individuals making $200,000, provoked the most heat Thursday. Mr. Obama is counting on that provision to raise $179.8 billion over 10 years.

"Some of the reforms and offsets contained or referenced in the budget, such as the limitation on itemized deductions, raise concerns and will require more study as we determine the best policies for getting America back on track," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it's impossible to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall result is clear - less philanthropic giving.

Remember that many of our hospitals and medical research facilities are funded by charitable giving by people who make more than $200,000.  This tax proposal will result in a degrading of our medical care and research.  There is also another provision in this bill we need to be aware of:

"Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that (the change in charitable deductions) by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference. 

"Contained in the recovery act, there's $100 million to support nonprofits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty," he said."

This is just wrong.  Why should we let the government make charitable contributions to ACORN instead of people making private contributions to hospitals and medical research facilities?  Considering the political leanings of this administration, that could easily happen.  This is another example of the government deciding they can spend our money better than we can.

This article is posted at World Net Daily.  It gives me hope for the future.

Americans are saying enough is enough to extravagant government spending and throwing more than 40 tea parties across the nation in protest of the recent bailouts and "stimulus" package.

Kellen Giuda, an architect who was recently laid-off, is organizing

his own New York City tea party. He has invited several prominent guest speakers, including politicians, elected officials, an author, blogger, a bond trader and a former contestant on "America's Next Top Model" to speak out against excessive government spending.

"I saw Rick Santelli's rant, live, and thought it was awesome," he told WND. "All of this fiscal irresponsibility is absurd."

He continued, "Then I started hearing about tea parties, and I decided to do it. It's really exciting. There are a lot of people getting involved now."

As WND reported, CNBC analyst Rick Santelli became a YouTube sensation after he spoke out against President Obama's proposed $275 billion deficit-financed homeowner bailout plan and other massive spending measures with a call for a new "tea party" from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Giuda is working with Alex Zablocki, top staffer for New York State Sen. Andrew Lanza, to coordinate the New York event. Possible speakers include Kathleen Troia McFarland, deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs at the Pentagon from 1982 to 1985 under President Ronald Reagan; Brett Joshpe, conservative author and graduate of Harvard Law School; Sara-Racey Tabrizi, "America's Next Top Model" contestant and professional model and various elected officials.

The tea party will take place Feb. 28, at 2 p.m. in City Hall Park in Manhattan.

Giuda said similar nationwide events are becoming very popular as a growing number of Americans prepare to take to the streets.

"It's time we start fighting back with our own voice," he said. "America has a history of revolting and standing up to unfair taxation. It's really fun and exciting."

Meanwhile, outraged citizens are organizing more than 40 tea party events across the nation. Official sponsors of the events include Top Conservatives on Twitter, Smart Girl Politics, Don'tGo Movement, FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity. Most of the tea parties will take place Feb. 27.

The following are a few scheduled tea parties:

Fayetteville, N.C. - Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at the corner of Bow Street and Hay Street where the Liberty Point Resolves were signed

Washington, D.C. - Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 2 p.m. at the White House on the Lafayette Square Park side

Boston, Mass. - Feb. 27 from 11:50 p.m. to Feb. 28 at 1:50 p.m., location to be determined

Chicago, Ill. - Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 12:20 p.m. at Daley Plaza Civic Center

Atlanta, Ga. - Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Georgia's capitol building in Atlanta

Orlando, Fla. - Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Lake Eola on East Robinson and North Rosalind Ave

Dallas, Texas - Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. at Victory Plaza located at 3090 Olive St.

Fort Worth, Texas - Feb. 27 from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Cowtown Bar & Grill located at 7108 Camp Bowie Blvd.

Houston, Texas - Feb. 27 at 12 p.m. at Fondren Lawn at Discovery Green

San Antonio, Texas - Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the Alamo

Austin, Texas - Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the Texas capitol building

Pittsburgh, Pa. - April 11 at Market Square on Forbes Avenue and Market Street

San Diego, Calif. - Feb. 27 from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. north of the Star of India on San Diego Bay

Tulsa, Okla. - Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Veteran's Park located at 2st Street and Boulder Avenue

Nashville, Tenn. - Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Legislative Plaza located at 6th Avenue and Union Street

St. Louis, Mo. - Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the Steps of Gateway Arch located on Wharf Street

Portland, Ore. - Feb. 27 from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. at Pioneer Courthouse Square at the corner of Broadway and Morrison

Kansas City, Mo. - Feb. 28 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the J.C. Nichols Foundation located at 47th and J.C. Nichols Parkway

Cleveland, Ohio - Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at 1 Public Square

Denver, Colo. - Feb. 27 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. at the east capitol steps

Fort Myers Beach, Fla. - Feb. 27 from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Bowditch Park located at 50 Estero Blvd.

Lansing, Mich. - Feb. 27 from 11:45 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the state capitol building at 100 N. Capitol Ave.

Omaha, Neb. - Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the Douglas County Courthouse located at 16th Street and Farnam Street

Asheville, N.C. - Feb. 27 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. at Pritchard Park in downtown Asheville

Greenville, S.C. - Feb. 27 at 6 p.m. on the Reedy River & Walking Bridge

Nashville, Tenn. - Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.at Legislative Plaza on 6th and Union

Shelby County, Ala. - Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at the entrance to Eagle Point Neighborhood

Seattle, Wash. - Feb. 27 from 12:15 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. at Westlake Park at 410 Pine St.

Philadelphia, Penn. - Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Independence Hall

Los Angeles, Calif. - Feb. 27 from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. at Santa Monica Pier

Sacramento, Calif. - Feb. 27 at 12 p.m. on north steps of state capitol on L Street

Springfield, Mo. - Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Lake Springfield Park

Sarasota, Fla. - Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Island Park and Marina Jacks at 41 Bayfront Drive and Ringling Boulevard

Phoenix, Ariz. - Feb. 27 from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. at the state capitol building at 1700 Washington St.

Tampa, Fla. - Feb 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at the federal courthouse on 801. N. Florida Ave.

Oklahoma City, Okla. - Feb. 27 from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. at the state capitol steps

New York City, N.Y. - Feb. 28 from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. at City Hall Park

Wichita, Kan. - Feb. 27 at 11:30 a.m. outisde Sen. Sam Brownback's office at 245 N. Waco

Davenport, Iowa - Feb. 28 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at Main and Locust Street

Hartford, Conn. - Feb. 27 from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. at the state capitol

Floridians Unite is looking down the road and planning an Orlando Tea Party for March 21.

"This will be a peaceful rally to unite our voices and express the love that we have for our great nation and the principles it was founded on," states the Floridians Unite website. "We want to make our politicians hear loud and clear that we are tired of the bailouts, the wasteful Washington spending and the push towards the socialization of this country! We want less government! We want to decide where our hard-earned money goes instead of the elitist politicians in Washington taking it and using it to buy votes, doling it out to special interest groups and pork barrel projects! We want our constitutional rights preserved and protected, not trampled on!"

At the Pittsburgh, Pa., Tea Party on April 11, organizers are inviting people to help them reenact the Boston Tea Party of Dec. 16, 1773, by bringing one tea bag each to Point State Park with plans of actually tossing the tea into the Alleghany, Monongahela and Ohio rivers.

"Somebody in our government needs to finally pay attention," said Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck on his radio program last week. "It is what I've been talking about that was coming for a very long time, and that is disenfranchisement, which will turn into anger and then turn into God knows what."

CNBC analyst Rick Santelli is hoping those demonstrations will result in real change.

During the televised segment where Santelli revived the term "tea party," CNBC panelist Wilbur Ross, chairman and CEO of WL Ross & Co., interjected, "Rick, I congratulate you on your new incarnation as a revolutionary leader."

"Somebody needs one," Santelli responded. "I'll tell you what, if you read our Founding Fathers, people like Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson, what we're doing in this country now is making them roll over in their graves."

According to WCBS-TV, Hillary Clinton's honeymoon period as Secretary of State has ended with the New York voters.  Senator Clinton is complaining about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza.  (What about the rockets coming into Israel from Gaza every day?  Is anyone complaining about those?)  The New York voters who supported her in her Senate race and as Secretary of State are very unhappy about her statements.  According to the article, one statement was:

"Hillary had Mrs. Arafat here and she invited Mrs. Arafat for lunch when she was the first lady," added Babak Chafe of Great Neck. "She is pro-Palestinian 100 percent, really. Of course, we always knew it."

"The easy way to make a peace agreement is to pressure Israel because you can't pressure the Arabs," said Solomon Loewi of Monsey, N.Y.

The easy way to peace may be to put more pressure on Israel and not on the Arabs, but that will not work long term.  Most of the Arabs have stated openly that their goal is the elimination of the country of Israel.  That will not make for a successful two-state solution.  Supporting the Arabs in their (unstated) goal to eliminate Israel is similar to supporting organized crime in its fight against the FBI.  You may get short term results (your neighborhood may look safe), but eventually your decision is going to come back and bite you. 

According to the International Herald Tribune, a group of liberal bloggers said it is teaming up with organized labor and MoveOn to form a political action committee that will seek to push the Democratic Party farther to the left.  Great.

The new group intends to raise money through its blogs to run more liberal candidates in primaries to oust conservative Democrats.  According to the article:

"Organizers of the new group, to be called Accountability Now, said their intention is to enable Obama to seek more liberal policies without fear of losing support from the more conservative members of his party serving in Congress"

The Left-leaning bloggers recently provided muscle for the movement that helped Ned Lamont defeat Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary in 2006. ( Lieberman went on to retain his seat after running in the general election as an independent.)  This may be an important example--even though the left wing bloggers were successful in the primary, they were not successful in the general election.  I believe that most of the American population is waking up to the consequences of moving further left--higher taxes, more money to people who are being rewarded for acting irresponsibly, moving the war on terror back to the legal system (as it was under Bill Clinton), rather than letting the military be in charge, and socialized medicine.  I'm not sure these will be popular programs.

The political action committee officially begins today.  They have already raised $ 500,000 (which they raised last September).

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a wonderful article on decoding 'Obama speak'.  A few gems from the article:

 "We are not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin." Translation: Blame Republicans, and tax cuts.

 It's time to "make hard choices to bring our deficit down." Translation: Hello, higher taxes.

"The only way to fully restore America's economic strength is to make the long-term investments that will lead to new jobs, new industries, and a renewed ability to compete with the rest of the world." Translation: Big government. President Obama loves the word "invest." (He used a form of it 11 times in his congressional address on Tuesday.) It sounds so modern and free market, and, most important, not like what it really is -- "spending." The administration is aware that the deficit is now the story. Thus Mr. Obama's suggestion that blowing out hundreds of billions for health care, energy and education somehow isn't Washington as usual -- but will instead yield American riches down the road.

"We need to make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy." Translation: Your utility bills are going up.

"If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime." Translation: For now.

The president's budget proves he intends to tax the top 2% of earners at effective rates much higher than under Bill Clinton. Still, even if he taxed 100% of this group's income, it wouldn't come close to covering his budget costs. Nor will winding down Iraq. If Mr. Obama is committed to his agenda, much less his deficit reduction, the middle class will have to give it up.

We need to watch the actions of this administration--not listen to their words.

Power Line Blog has some of the numbers on the budget President Obama submitted to Congress.  According to their research:

"Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%." Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.) These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts. The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income."

This budget is not workable, but I don't believe it can be stopped.  The current income tax system is not fair, and what President Obama plans to do will only make it more unfair.  At some point, the people generating wealth are going to resent giving it to people who are not working, and we will have another Boston Tea Party.

For further viewing see Power Line Blog.

According to the Washington Times, one of the consequences of having a Democrat Congress and a Democrat President is the rush to undo anything that the Democrats didn't like about the George Bush administration.  According to the article:

"From including language to "consider" government health care benefits for same-sex domestic partners of federal workers to eliminating D.C. school vouchers, which they consider an affront to the public school system, Democrats say there are plenty of wrongs to right in Mr. Bush's wake."

The school voucher program in Washington, D. C. has been extremely successful.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the program was started in 2004 by Republicans (with the help of Diane Feinstein).  According to the article:

"A 2008 Department of Education evaluation found that participants had higher reading scores than their peers who didn't receive a scholarship, and there are four applicants for each voucher.

Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee is working to reform all D.C. public schools, which in 2007 ranked last in math and second-to-last in reading among all U.S. urban school systems on the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress. Without the vouchers, more than 80% of the 1,700 kids would have to attend public schools that haven't made "adequate yearly progress" under No Child Left Behind. Remember all of those Members of Congress standing and applauding on Tuesday as Mr. Obama called for every American child to get some education beyond high school? These are the same Members who protect and defend a D.C. system in which about half of all students fail even to graduate from high school."

How many of our Senators and Representatives actually live in Washington, D. C. (the city they are charged with governing)?  Of these, how many send their children to public school?  If the Democrat party is dedicated to helping the poor and 'working poor', why are they denying them the chance to get a good education?

According to CNS News, Barney Frank (Democrat Congressman from Massachusetts) told a reporter after the President's speech, "I don't think we found any Republican minds today. They shut their minds down. They are so afraid of being yelled at by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity they won't even clap for him [Obama], even when they agree with him.  They are literally afraid to deal with him," said Frank. "Outside of Arlen Specter and the Maine senators, and a handful of others, they are all terrified of the iron discipline of the radio talk show hosts.  I think they are frustrated by how effective he [Obama] is that they are not open to him," said Frank. 

What world is this man living in?  Has he totally discounted the possibility that everyone may not agree with what President Obama is doing with our money?  I watched the speech Tuesday night--there was Republican applause in areas where there was agreement.  Most of us agree that children should finish high school.  Republicans also expressed support for the idea of rebuilding our economy--they just disagreed on how to do it! 

According to Thomas.gov (the Library of Congress Website), one of the things our House of Representatives discussed yesterday was House Congressional Resolution 63.  This resolution states that the United States government should provide, on an annual basis, an amount equal to at least 1 percent of United States gross domestic product (GDP) for nonmilitary foreign assistance programs.   The measure has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

As our spending reels out of control and we have deficits are far as the eye can see, Congress decides that we should be legally required to give money away to foreign countries.  The 'war on poverty' in this country has not worked, why are we exporting it?

According to the Tennessean.com website, the Democrat governor of Tennessee may not accept part of the government stimulus package.  The stimulus would raise the amount of money that each unemployed person could collect and it would make some previously ineligible people eligible to collect unemployment.  Governor Phil Bredesen is considering rejecting some of the unemployment money because of some of the stipulations that come with it.  According to the article:

"Critics say the conditions will saddle states with a host of people who are newly eligible for unemployment benefits, an obligation legislatures will have to fund long after money from the stimulus package has been doled out.

"We're looking at adding new benefits that don't fall under the scope of unemployment," said Jim Brown, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business. "There's real mission drift."

The stimulus package allocates $7 billion to states for unemployment trust funds, but to get the money, they must meet two sets of requirements:

>> One-third of the payout is contingent on states' changing the formulas used to calculate whether people qualify for unemployment payments. The change is meant to make more people eligible for benefits."

>> Two-thirds of the payout is contingent on states' taking two actions on a menu of four options. These options are: adding a $15 allowance for dependents, lengthening benefits for people who are training for a new job, extending benefits to people looking for part-time work or letting people claim unemployment if they leave work for some family reasons, such as a sick relative or domestic violence.

The state of Tennessee is planning to raise taxes on businesses in the state to keep the unemployment fund solvent in the future.  This will slow down the job growth of those businesses.  Adding to the number of people collecting unemployment is counterproductive to balancing the fund.  The long term negative effect of accepting the unemployment money from the stimulus outweighs the temporary gain from taking the money.

In evaluating the changes the stimulus package makes to collecting unemployment benefits, we need to remember that when the government subsidizes any behavior, that behavior increases.  By lengthening the time a person can collect unemployment, you actually tend to slow down that person's job search--they're in no hurry--they have months more or benefits!  This sets us up for higher government expenditures in the future. 

President Obama pledged to go through the federal budget and end wasteful spending by eliminating all items that were wasteful.  Sounds like a great idea--but it's unconstitutional--the President does not have the power of line-item veto.  Budget matters are supposed to be left to Congress.  This is a promise that cannot be legally kept. 

If President Obama went through the budget and elimiated all 'pork', the stimulus bill would have been about $300,000--not $800,000!

President Obama submits his first budget proposal on Thursday; he has vowed to halve the $1 trillion-plus annual deficit he inherited from Bush by the end of his term.  He has inherited a $1 trillion annual deficit, but he just doubled it last week, and there is more to come.

President Obama has promised to let the Bush tax cuts expire and to raise taxes on only the top 2 per cent of Americans.  I have a few problems with this concept.  First, the Bush tax cuts were what kept the economy growning during the majority of the Bush administration.  If you remember, the tech bubble burst and 911 happened early in the Bush Presidency.  Either one of these events had the potential to wreck the economy--the tax cuts prevented that from happening.  Second, the tax increases will only apply to people making more than $250,000 a year.  Who are those people?  For the most part they are small businees owners (the people who create the majority of new jobs) who report their company earnings as their income--it's not real personal income.  The people who have inherited money and put it in tax shelters--the Kennedys, the Kerrys, etc.--will not be effected by this.  Only the people who actually work for their income will be effected.  That is a tax increase that has a direct negative effect on job growth, and actually does not increase tax revenue.  Please check out the Laffer Curve at Heritage.org to see the impact of raising taxes on tax revenue.

According to , AP News Bobby Jindal stated in his response to Obama's speech:

"The way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who gave the Republican Party's official response, said in excerpts released early. The massive economic stimulus bill recently enacted by Obama and congressional Democrats, Jindal said, will expand the government, "increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt."

It is not possible to grow government, cut taxes, and grow the economy at the same time.  Putting more money in government is taking more money out of the private sector.  This limits the ability of the economy to grow.  This may (or may not) work in the short term, but our children will wonder why their employment and business opportunities are not what they were for their parents.  The Obama fiscal policies are designed to appeal to the selfishness of those people who expect the government to take care of them at the expense of those of us who choose to work for a living and live responsibly. 

I received this in my email this morning; I thought I'd pass it on.

Fear Mongering

The stimulus bill must contain some really important stuff if it's critical to the survival of our country!  Here is just some of the massive spending proposed in the bill:

Byron York points out in today's D C Examiner, that in 2006 Nancy Pelosi called the Republican budget "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic" because it increased the amount of U.S. debt held by foreign countries.  Sen. Harry Reid accused Republicans of going on "an unprecedented and dangerous borrowing spree" and declared GOP leadership "the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of our country ... no other president or Congress even comes close."

According to the article:

"a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.

The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he's adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in 2013, the last year of Obama's first term."

The consequences of the rabid spending going on in Washington today are high interest payments and an increasing number of foreign debt-holders.  This is dangerous to the future of our country.  Hopefully someone in Washington will have the wisdom and intestinal fortitude to stand up against this fiscal tidal wave.  If not, we need to make serious changes to our Congressional delegations in 2010. 

According to Yahoo News, the United States plans to offer more than $900 million to help rebuild Gaza.  The goal is to strengthen the Western-backed Palestinian Authority.  The expenditure requires U.S. congressional approval.  I strongly suggest that we all begin to call our Congressmen and tell them to turn down the proposal. 

The money will be disributed through the UN and not through Hamas.  Remember that the UN suspended aid to Gaza on February 5th after Hamas stole all of the food and supplies the UN had shipped in.  The UN resumed aid shortly thereafter, but there are obviously some problems with getting aid to the people of Gaza.  Since America is the major funder of the UN and we are already sending aid, why are we spending $900 million more at a time when our own economy is failing?

In the past, when money has been given to the people of Gaza, it has been spent on guns and bombs.  The west has given the Palestinians billions of dollars over the years and very little of it has found its way into projects that provide work for the people of Gaza or into infrastructure.  The infrastructure that was there when the Israel's left Gaza has been destroyed. 

The people of Gaza need to face the consequences of their actions.  For example, on December 22, 2008, approximately 60 rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel (according to the Washington Post), how much money was spent to do that?  We have enabled the creation of a terrorist state, why should be have to support it financially?

The Boston Globe has a story today about the upside of being unemployed.  Well. ok, there actually is an upside--family time, personal time, etc., but wait a minute.  The people in the article state that they know they will eventually have to go back to work, but they don't seem to be in a hurry.  Oh, so we are paying for their little mini interludes.  It used to be that you had to check in with unemployment weekly and tell them about your job search.  Have we lost that requirement somewhere (as we are extending unemployment benefits)?  Where is common sense--when unemployment benefits are extended, people wait longer to find a new job--it's called human nature. 

The other interesting part of this story is its spin on unemployment.  When George Bush was President, 6 per cent unemployment was the end of the world.  People didn't have enough money to feed their dogs and cats.  Now with Barack Obama as President and the unemployment rate climbing (it's still not near what it was under Jimmy Carter), there are joys of unemployment.  I'm definitely feeling manipulated.

I believe I have posted this chart before, but it's a good idea to keep remembering what is going on with our tax dollars.  The chart is from The Heritage Foundation.

As we go through the next year or so and wonder why the private sector of our economy is not growing, we need to remember this chart.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Congress is getting ready to give Washington, D. C., full voting rights in the House of Representatives.

The Heritage Foundation has also weighed in on this issue.  They point out that:

"The Constitution's District Clause, in Article I, Section 8, declares the District of Columbia to be subject directly to the federal legislature. "The Congress shall have power," it reads,

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States....

Contemporary constitutional analysis upholds Congress's exclusive authority over the District. As a federal court stated in a 2004 opinion, "the District and its residents are the subjects of Congress's unique powers, exercised to address the unique circumstances of our nation's capital.""

It seems that there are a few interesting issues here.  Washington, D. C., is an example of the governing ability of Congress--Congress is in charge of administering the city.  The city has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country (most Democrats love restrictive gun laws) and one of the highest murder rates in the country.  The city schools are among the worst in the nation.  Washington, D. C., does not have a reputation of being a well-governed city.  How would having a vote in the House of Representatives help solve this problem?

Aside from being unconstitutional, this is simply a bad idea.  It accomplishes nothing except to provide one more Democrat vote in the House of Representatives.  (Washington, D. C., tends to be liberal--it was the only 'state' other than Massachusetts to vote for George McGovern.)  This is attempt by President Obama and the Democrat Congress to make sure they stay in power, regardless of any Constitutional issues that may be involved.

Michael Barone has posted an article at Townhall.com regarding the 2010 Census.  Michael Barone points out that the President takes an oath to defend the Constitution and according to the Constitution, the Census has to be taken every ten years (Congress passed a law putting it under the Department of Commerce.).

The Census determines how many representatives each state sends to Congress and how many electoral votes every state has in the Presidential election.  We depend on an accurate census to allow our government to function fairly.  The Census also determines the amount of federal aid going to each state.

We do have a Census Bureau.  The ideal plan here is to let the people at the Census Bureau handle the Census.  They have the experience and the knowledge--they know what they are doing.

Power Line Blog posted an article today by Dan Diker of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs concerning the recent trip to the Middle East by John Kerry.  Senator John Kerry's visit to Gaza and Syria was well received in Tehran--Israel was immediately attacked by rockets fired from southern Lebanon and Gaza.  The American outreach is actually strengthening Hamas and undermining PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas on the Palestinian Street.

This sort of outreach will have exactly the opposite effect intended.  We need to realize that the goal of Syria and Iran is the destruction of Israel.  When we strengthen our ties with Syria and Iran, we imperil Israel's existence.  The sort of outreach that John Kerry is doing will not bring peace--it will only hasten the next war.

I haven't written much about the budget battle in California because I don't really understand it.  But I did find a relatively coherent article in the Los Angeles Times that I think covers the highlights.

The bottom line is--it is going to cost more to live in California.  According to the article:

"According to a legislative analysis of those four tax increases, an average family of four with an annual income of $75,000 would pay $963 more a year in taxes."

As I have said, I really don't know a lot about California, but from what I have heard, $75,000 a year in that state is not a lot of money. 

The voters will get a chance to vote on some of the provisions of the tax bill.  I'm not sure what the consequences of their voting will be.

The real shame in this is that it is totally unnecessary.  California has enought offshore oil to totally fund their budget.  You have to wonder why they are so afraid of the environmentalists that they have not tapped it.  Just for the record, it can be tapped in an environmentally safe way.

According to Power Line Blog and the Washington Post, the Pentagon has completed its review of conditions at the Guantanamo Bay terrorist prison.  The report did criticize the force feeding of inmates on hunger strike and stated that high security prisoners should be allowed more interaction, but stated that generally the prison is operated within the guides of the Geneva Convention.  That's nice--how many civilians have lost their heads while being in the custody of friends of the people held at Guantanamo?

The bottom line on this story is that Guantanamo is not a horrible place.  It is a prison that houses people who want to kill innocent civilians--terrorists--not prisoners of war.  Very few countries other than America would have kept these people alive--they would have been shot on the battlelfield.  I don't approve of that, but the alternative is to keep them locked up for life.  When we have released the prisoners in the past, many of them have been killed on the battlefield after their release.  How many Americans did they kill in the interim? 

Guantanamo has become a political issue.  The facts are irrelevant, and unfortunately American lives will be put at risk because of the politics involved.

According to an article in today's Washington Times, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated that  that she would not let thorny issues such as human rights and Tibet prevent the United States and China from making progress on climate change, security and economic matters.   She explained to the reporters with her that human-rights issues can't interfere with the issues of global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and security crises.

I am so stunned by this statement, I am (almost) speechless.  Why was the United States of America founded?  Is freedom only for the people fortunate enough to be born here or to come here?  Why is there a segment of our population who is still talking about reparations for slavery (a common, although inexcusable, practice at the time), when we are happily making friends with a country that enslaves political prisoners?  To say that global warming and economics are more important than liberty is to lose any moral clarity we might still have.  Define security if it does not include human rights?  Are there only some rights that are secure?

Have we become so selfish as a nation that we have no intention of at least standing up for the concept of freedom--we have it, why should we care about anyone else?  How can we criticize the UN for not upholding human rights when we are not even willing to put those rights at the forefront in negotiations with China?

According to Yahoo news, President Obama will not ok a plan to charge people a tax on the mileage they drive rather than a gasoline tax.  Washington may decide that, but it sounds like some of the states have other ideas.  

Idaho, North Carolina, and Massachuchuetts are looking at the idea of a mileage tax.  Rhode Island's governor is on the record as being opposed to the idea.  The premise of a mileage tax is that it would better support our crumbling infrastructure as Congress puts pressure on car manufacturers to make cars that get better gas mileage. 

OK, so as the consumer gets a product that theoretically costs less to operate, the state governments step in to eat up the savings.  Nevermind that many of the fuel efficient cars won't hold your family, your luggage, and anything you choose to take on a trip.  Americans seem to like big cars, but as gasoline became more expensive, we downsized a little (or at least some of us did).  I predict that as Congress takes over the auto industry, they will pressure Detroit into making even more smaller cars that Americans will not buy.  At some point, as our cars wear out, we will buy them, consume less gas, and the government will be right there to take any savings we may see!

I have two further comments on this ridiculousness.  Number one, where in the Constitution does it allow the government to track my mileage (has anyone in government read the Constitution?)?  Number two, does this mean there is no point in selling my Mustang for something fuel efficient?

According to Michael Barone at U. S. News & World Report, the statistics on foreclosure rates from December 2007 to January 2009 are very revealing.  Only nine states have foreclosure rates above the national average, and only four states have extremely high foreclosure rates--number of foreclosures per 5,000 housing units--Nevada, 66, California, 29, Arizona, 27, and Florida 23.

According to the article:

"Just over half of national foreclosures were in the four Sand States. Another one-fifth were in the mixed bag of fast-growth/industrial-distress/high-Hispanic states which approximate the national average. The other 38 states, with 60 percent of the nations population, have only 25 percent of the nation's foreclosures."

It seems to me that all the fuss made over foreclosure is a little disingenuous.  Why do sixty percent of the nations population have to shoulder the burden of the 40 percent who were involved in speculation or bought houses they simply couldn't afford?  The recession was caused to some extent by greed--but it was also caused by government pressure placed on banks to make loans that were risky.  We need to let the market stabilize itself, and pouring more money into the mortgage market and renegotiating mortgages will not do that.

Congratulations, the government is now going to officially subsidize bad behavior!  I thought the 'nanny state' was at least supposed to be a good nanny!

According to Larry Kudlow at National Review Online, President Obama's mortgage bailout program is exactly what we don't need.  The program only effects Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Only their products are eligible for mortgage relief. Jumbo mortgages and private-label mortgages created by various non-bank lenders are not eligible for relief.  Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac already run 48 percent of the mortgage market. Obama's proposal would greatly enlarge that and move the mortgage system toward government nationalization.

The program will allow the courts to renegotiate interest rates and loan principal. This would overturn private contracts and throw out the rule of law. Do we think future investors will put up mortgage capital if they fear judges will overturn the terms of contracts? Home-loan supplies will fall and mortgage rates will rise.

The free market is already helping to take care of the mortgage crisis--the unsold-inventory index for existing single-family detached homes in December 2008 was 5.6 months, compared with 13.4 months for the year-ago period. And the median number of days it took to sell a single-family home dropped to 46.1 in December 2008, compared with 66.7 in December 2007. So inventories are dropping, the number of days to sell a home are falling, and sales are rising in the wake of lower prices.

According to the article:

"President Obama's massive mortgage-bailout plan is nothing more than a thinly disguised entitlement program that redistributes income from the responsible 92 percent of home-owning mortgage holders who pay their bills on time to the irresponsible defaulters who bought more than they could ever afford. This is Obama's spread-the-wealth program in action.

Team Obama is rewarding bad behavior. It is enlarging moral hazard. It is expanding its welfarist approach to economic policy. And with a huge expansion of government-owned zombie lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Team Obama is taking a giant step toward nationalizing the mortgage market."

This program does not move in a direction that is good for our country.

Randall Hoven at the American Thinker has written a very informative article on government spending over the past two presidential administrations.  Please read the article, as it has charts and visuals that make it very easy to understand what he is saying.  According to the article:

If we weight the price tags of the two packages by party vote, the Democrats are responsible for $1,315B and the Republicans are responsible for $322B, or a bit more than what actually went to rescue troubled financial assets.

Today's New York Post has a commentary by John Crudele concerning the coming President Obama housing industry bailout.  I have a question.  If the mortgage problems in the housing industry are what caused this recession, why didn't we start with a housing industry bailout?  If we had given every family in America the approximately $7000 the stimulus bill is going to add to their debt, wouldn't we have solved the mortgage program?

The problem with the housing industry bailout is that there is no way it can be done in a truly fair way.  It will end up with the same topsy-turviness that has occurred in the college grant programs.  The people who have mortgaged their homes to the hilt and taken on large debt will get grants, the people who actually scrimp and save to put their children through college will get loans they have to pay back!

The article reminds us:

"Obama's plan will create a fund - paid for by you and me - that will reduce the monthly payments of 4 million to 5 million so-called "responsible homeowners" to no more than 31 percent of their income.

First off, who gets to decide who is "responsible"? The definition certainly shouldn't be written by a government that has for decades proven itself to be fiscally irresponsible and is getting more so by the day."

We are not in the process of creating a healthy society.  We are rewarding irresponsibility, and Congress is setting an example of fiscal irresponsibility that is totally destructive. 

Just a few notes on global warming--nationally and internationally.  Internationally, according to wattsupwiththat.com, in an article by  Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch, it was noted that less than 20 per cent of the people at the UN working on issues that involve global warming have any training in climate science or related fields.  Most of the members of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are not scientists at all--the president of the group is an economist.

During a recent global warming debate, William Schlesinger was asked about the credentials of the IPCC members.  According to the article at wattsupwiththat, this was his answer:

"First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had "some dealing with the climate." His complete answer was that he thought, "something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate." In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies."

You and I are as qualified to make judgments on climate change as the IPCC!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Environment Protection Agency is getting ready for the UN climate change talks schedules for December in Copenhagen.  According to an article in yesterday's New York Times, the EPA is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.  The article goes on to state:

"Potentially, it's a huge mess, not only for E.P.A. but for state regulatory agencies, because the Clean Air Act is second only to the Internal Revenue Code in terms of complexity," said Mr. Holmstead, now director of environmental strategies at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani.

He said that under the clean air law any source emitting more than 250 tons of a declared pollutant would be subject to regulation, potentially including schools, hospitals, shopping centers, even bakeries, which has prompted some critics to call it the "Dunkin' Donuts rule."

This has the potential to totally destroy the American economy.  If carbon dioxide can be regulated (and eventually taxed--because the money part always shows up eventually), our economy can be totally crippled.  This move would assure that Barack Obama would be a one-term President--assuming a fair election in four years and assuming a country where people would actually be able to get to the polling places! 

Politico ran an article yesterday concerning the actions taken by the Barack Obama White House that have not been reported.  According to the article:

"In his first weeks in office, President Barack Obama shut down his predecessor's system for reviewing regulations, realigned and expanded two key White House policymaking bodies and extended economic sanctions against parties to the conflict in the African nation of Cote D'Ivoire."

The changes made were never announced by the White House press office or placed on the official website.  They only reason the changes were discovered is that they were sent to the Federal Register, a daily list of certain presidential activities prepared by the National Archives.  After Politico called the omission to the attention of the White House, the changes made were reported on the White House web site.

There is nothing sinister here, but we do need to pay attention to changes made by any President that impact the way our country is governed. 

According to CBS News, Governor Jindal of Louisiana is not in a hurry to take any of the stimulus money.  Governor Jindal is quoted as saying, "We'll have to review each program, each new dollar to make sure that we understand what are the conditions, what are the strings and see whether it's beneficial for Louisiana to use those dollars,"

Keeping in character, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has said he'll take any money that Louisiana turns down.  Why doesn't that surprise me?

We need to step back and take a look at what we are doing.  We have mortgaged our futures, our children's futures, and our grandchildren's futures, and now everyone feels justified in putting their hand out reaching for the money that really isn't there.  There are so many better ways we could recovered from this recession.  I don't think this one will actually work.

The most painless way to come out of this recession would have been to open up the energy sources inside our country and offshore.  This would have generated jobs, income, and tax revenue plus providing a long term solution.  Offshore drilling would have been a simple solution to the problems California is now having.  Their offshore wells could be up and running (and providing income for the state and its residents) within a year.  What we have done instead is mortgage our future and set the stage for major inflation in about two years.

According to The Voice Of Warriors website, a news report that has recently aired on CBS News about U. S. Military equipment supposedly looted in Afghanistan from our troops is factually inaccurate.  The Voice of Warriors is a website which suppports our troops and corrects errant reporting when it occurs.  The article at The Voice Of Warriors explains why the equipment is not what CBS claims it is.  According to the article:

Please read the entire article, it is fascinating.  All of us need to question anything we see on the news concerning our troops.

The New York Post ran a story yesterday about the confusion concerning the safety of childhood vaccinations.  According to the article:

"The Sunday Times in London reported last week on confidential medical documents and interviews establishing that British researcher Andrew Wakefield had manipulated his data linking vaccines to episodes of autism. His original research on this issue was already controversial - 10 of the 13 authors retracted some of the findings in 2004, but Wakefield, its lead author, has not. The Times reported that he allegedly altered clinical findings on eight of 12 children in the study - a charge he denies.

Why do concerns about vaccines persist despite so much scientific evidence to the contrary? We seem to harbor a cultural bent toward believing random theories on how science - and medicine - will somehow be the source of our own unraveling. Witness all the movies of recent years that blame science (and vaccines especially) for everything from ending the human race ("I Am Legend") to curtailing our ability to reproduce ("Children of Men").

As for Wakefield's alleged fraud, the damage is already done. After the publication of his research, rates of inoculation in Britain fell from 92 percent to below 80 percent."

The effectiveness of a vaccine is ralated to the percentage of the population that receives it--the more people who are vaccinated, the less chance a disease has to spread.  Even small numbers of people refusing a vaccine can have severe negative consequences.  For example, in 1998, there were 56 cases of measles in England and Wales.  Because of increased fear over the measles vaccines, last year there were 1,348 confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales - and two deaths.  That's two children we didn't need to lose.

We need to get back to scientists doing science, politicians doing politics, and celebrities simply being celebrities. 

According to the Catholic News Agency, Nancy Pelosi will have an audience with the Pope.  I just don't understand.  The Catholic Church and Nancy Pelosi have been on opposite sides of the abortion issue for a long time and both have been very vocal about it.  I suppose it's good when people of opposing views meet, but I can't even remotely imagine either side giving an inch in this case.

If you remember, in August of last year (as reported in the Catholic News Agency at the time), the archbishops of Denver, New York, Philadelphia and Washington D.C., along with Bishop William Lori have all publicly criticized the Speaker of the House for her erroneous comments on the Church's abortion teaching.  According to that article:

"In a Meet the Press interview on August 24, Pelosi responded to a question from Tom Brokaw about when human life begins, saying "as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.  And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition . . . St. Augustine said at three months.  We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose."

Cardinal Edward Egan of New York became the latest prelate to denounce Ms. Pelosi's comments when he said on Tuesday, "Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008."

Not only was Cardinal Egan shocked, but he went on to say that, "What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age."

The crystal-clear photographs and films that give people the ability to see babies in their pregnant mothers' wombs make it impossible for anyone with "the slightest measure of integrity or honor" to fail to know what these "marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb," Cardinal Egan asserted."

As you might guess from the name of this website, I am pro-life.  If a mother's life is truly in danger, I would be comfortable with a doctor doing anything he needed to do to save it, but a baby is a human being and should be protected as such.  Under the Nancy Pelosi leadership as Speaker of the House, it is safer to be a terrorist than a baby in the womb.  That's scary.

This is not a religious issue, despite the role the Catholic Church has played in fighting abortion.  It is a 'value of life' issue, and all our lives have less value when a baby's life has no value at all.

According to the Boston Herald, former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, has stated that he doesn't believe that humans are causing global warming.  Schmitt is scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York. 

Schmitt has a science degree from the California Institute of Technology. He also studied geology at the University of Oslo in Norway and took a doctorate in geology from Harvard University in 1964.

According to the article:

"Dan Williams, publisher with the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which is hosting the climate change conference, said he invited Schmitt after reading about his resignation from The Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space exploration.

Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued that the "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."

Schmitt said he's heartened that the upcoming conference is made up of scientists who haven't been manipulated by politics."

It is encouraging to me that there are enough skeptics out there (70 scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York) to have this conference.  I wish the media would give this conference the coverage that Al Gore always gets when he speaks on global warming (always on the coldest day of the year--the "Al Gore Effect").

Remember the UN Conference in Durban, South Africa, in September of 2001?  The conference turned into such a malicious attack on Israel that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell ordered the U.S. delegation to walk out.

Well, according to Pajamas Media, we are headed for round two.  This UN gathering is planned for April 20-24 in Geneva.  According to the article:

"Since 2007, the UN has been preparing for Durban II. Operating under the umbrella of the UN's Human Rights Council (a deeply compromised body that spends most of its time condemning Israel), the 20-member preparatory committee has been stacked from the start: It is chaired by Libya, and includes Iran (which hosted one of the preparatory meetings for Durban I), Cuba, Russia and (speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference) Pakistan."

The Obama administration has said that this week the State Department is sending a delegation to "engage" in preparatory negotiations from Feb. 16-19 for Durban II.  The State Department has released a statement saying that sending this delegation does not mean that we will participate in the conference--that decision will be made later depending on the results of the negotiating process this week.

It would be nice to see the Obama Administration stand up against the bigotry and hatred that was spewed out at the Durban Conference and refuse to attend this one.  Any human rights commission chaired by Libya and including Cuba and Russia is not about anything this country should accept as human rights.

Sweetness & Light has the following post:

7 Broken Promises in Record Time

1. Make government open and transparent.

2. Make it "impossible" for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.

3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)

4. No more secrecy.

5. Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.

6. You'll know what's in it.

7. We will put every pork barrel project online.

Funny, but not one of Mr. Obama's promises were met with the most expensive spending bill in our nation's history.

The website also has the video of the President making those promises.  We have put the politics of Chicago in the White House.  I hope we survive the next four years economically and as a democracy.

According to The Washington Times, the battle over the 2010 Census is just beginning.  According to the U. S. Constitution:

"Representation and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ... . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."

-- Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States

Michael Barone points out in U. S. News & World Report that:

"Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for an "actual enumeration" and a statute passed by Congress provides that the duties under this clause are to be performed by the secretary of commerce. Article I (as Joseph Biden didn't know in debate) is about the legislative, not the executive branch. Hence, it is argued, the president can't substitute a sampling for the enumeration required to be done by the secretary."

According to the Washington Times article:

"The Obama administration is downplaying how closely the White House would oversee the Census Bureau. The White House on Wednesday said Mr. Obama is committed to a "complete and accurate count through a process that is free from politicization." But Thursday, Mr. LaBolt added: "As they have in the past, White House senior management will work closely with the census director given the number of decisions that will need to reach the president's desk."

Rep. Lamar Smith, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said not so.

"We checked with the Congressional Research Service, and there is no precedent for this, despite what the administration might say," he asserted."

The Republicans are threatening to go to the Courts if President Obama moves the oversight of the 2010 Census to the White House.  The following is a statement from the U. S. Census Bureau on the importance of the Census:

"Still, apportionment of Congress is only half the process of distributing political power. Virtually all states rely on the census numbers for redistricting, the redrawing of political districts within the states after apportionment. However, innovations were needed to make sure every state that wanted to use census data had access to the information it needed. After the 1970 census, state officials complained that the results did not include summary data for local areas such as election precincts and wards. These areas are the essential building blocks for creating new districts and meeting the "one-person-one-vote" requirements of the Supreme Court."

Manipulating the Census numbers would do serious harm to the principle of "one man, one vote".  For the sake of the health of our democracy (actually we are a representative republic), the Census should be as accurate as possible. 

Last Thursday, according to the Buffalo News, Muzzammil Hassan reported the death of his wife to authorities.

His wife, Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, is pictured above with her husband. Detectives have charged her husband, 44, with second-degree murder.

Muzzammil Hassan is the founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV, which he launched in 2004, amid hopes that it would help portray Muslims in a more positive light.

Orchard Park Police Chief Andrew Benz said that she had an order of protection that had him out of the home as of Friday, February 6th.

It usually makes the newspaper when a man murders his wife (Scott Peterson, etc.), but there are a few things the Buffalo News fails to mention--she was beheaded.

Mark Steyn at the Corner in National Review Online notes that most of the mainline press has been very quiet about this incident.  The New York Post ran a short story and the hometown press (Buffalo News) ran it, but that's about it.  Contrast that with what happened when Mr. Hassan launched his TV network.  According to Mark Steyn:

"When poor Mrs Hassan's husband launched his TV network to counter negative stereotypes of Muslims, he had no difficulty generating column inches, as far afield as The Columbus Dispatch, The Detroit Free Press, The San Jose Mercury News, Variety, NBC News, the Voice of America and the Canadian Press. The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle put the couple on the front page under the headline "Infant TV Network Unveils The Face Of Muslim News"."

"The media's lack of curiosity is in marked contrast to their willingness to propagandize for the launch of Mr Hassan's station. It also helps explain why the US newspaper business is dying."

According to the National Review article:

"He was worried about the station's future," said Dr. Khalid Qazi, a friend of the couple and president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, who last spoke to the Hassans a week ago...

"Domestic violence is despicable, and Islam condones it in no way whatever," he said.

"Murders are being committed in the US every day by people of all faiths."

The silence is amazing.  The people who constantly talk about women's rights should be screaming very loudly about this incident.  America does have a problem with domestic violence--that's what restraining orders are for, but beheadings in America are not particularly common among our population. 

Our relationship with Pakistan is tenuous at best.  It is believed that the government of that country has large numbers of Al Qaeda people working in its military and government.  The current government is in an awkward posiiton if it wants to stay in power.  Pakistan has thus been very quiet about helping us in the war on terror.

According to a story in the Chicago Tribune, Diane Feinstein's statement Thursday that unmanned CIA Predator Drones operating in Pakistan are flown from an airbase inside that country is likely to embarrass the Pakistani government and complicate its counterterrorism collaboration with the United States.

According to the article:

"Phil LaVelle, a spokesman for Feinstein, said her comment was based solely on previous news reports that Predators were operated from bases near Islamabad.

"We strongly object to Sen. Feinstein's remarks being characterized as anything other than a reference" to a article that appeared last March in the Washington Post, LaVelle said. Feinstein did not refer to newspaper accounts during the hearing."

The Predator strikes have been very successful in dealing with Al Qaeda leadership, and I hope Senator Feinstein's statements do not force us to tie our hands behind our backs in the fight with Al Qaeda.  All of our Senators need to realize that the war on terror is not a conventional war and it is very easy to give our enemies information that can be used against us either through propaganda or on the battlefield.

According to Hot Air, the Anti-Defamation League (an organization founded to stop the defamation of Jewish people and secure justice and fair treatment to all) did a poll of Europe and found that nearly a third of Europeans blame the Jews for the global financial meltdown and that more Europeans than that think the Jews have too much power in the business world.

The survey concluded that in Spain, 74 percent of those asked say they feel it is "probably true" that Jews hold too much sway over the global financial markets. That is the highest percentage in the survey. 

According to the article:

"When Germany collapsed in World War I, no one wanted to take responsibility for conducting an utterly destructive war that bankrupted their nation and killed millions.  It was a lot easier to blame the Jews for their own failures -- and it led to disastrous consequences."

The worldwide financial crisis had its roots in America, with some very unJewish people.  Jimmy Carter expanded the Fair Housing Act in 1988 and Bill Clinton further strengthened it.  I am certainly not opposed to the end of descrimination in housing, but after Clinton strengthened the Law, groups like ACORN began to put pressure on banks to grant loans to people who couldn't repay them in areas with little or no resale value.  At that point the writing was on the wall.  Add Chris Dodd (sweetheart mortgage deal with Countrywide) and Barney Frank (conflict of interest due to relationship) and Congress' refusal to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddit Mac.  The banks found a way to sell bad paper (mixed in with good paper so noone could tell which was which) and we were heading for disaster.

Scapegoating Jews is stupid, unconstructive, and does not help solve the problem, but we need to remember that the Jewish race is 'the canary in the coal mine'.  When the Jews are mistreated or maligned, bad things begin to happen.  We need to clean our own houses before we start labeling any one group of people as guilty of anything.

Power Line Blog has the following message from Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona, one of the leading conservatives in the House of Representatives:

"In a truly rare event, the House has passed its so-called stimulus in the face of bipartisan opposition and without a single Republican vote - for the second time. That is because Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat-led Congress put their interests before those of the American people.

This bill is nothing more than a sordid wish list of paybacks, kickbacks and pork spending for special interests. Bernie Madoff himself would blush at this scheme. But it is not too late to end this Friday the 13th horror. Still standing between the American people and passage of this monstrosity is a Senate vote scheduled for 7 or 8pm EST tonight - and three Republican Senators who have supported this package and who have the power to stop it.

I hope Power Line readers will make your voices heard at this crucial hour by contacting these three Senators and urging them to vote against the so-called stimulus bill.

Sen. Arlen Specter: 202-224-4254
Sen. Olympia Snowe: 202-224-5344
Sen. Susan Collins: 202-224-2523

Thank you!
Congressman John Shadegg"

This is our last chance to prevent a really bad bill from becoming law. 

According to the Wall Street Journal, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers's has introduced a bill that would allow bankruptcy judges to modify home mortgages by reducing both the interest rate and principal amount on the loan.  This is a really bad idea.  A mortgage is a contract between the lender and the borrower.  The cost of the loan is based on the amount of risk and the value of the asset mortgaged.  If the risk increases (which it would if banks could not be sure the terms of the original mortgage would be met), the cost of borrowing money for any reason would increase.

This has proven to be the case historically.  According to the article:

"in 2005, Congress eliminated the power of bankruptcy judges to modify auto loans. A recent staff report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York estimated a 265 basis-point reduction on average in auto loan terms as a result of the reform."

Part of the cause of the problem we now face with mortgage foreclosures is people buying homes they could not afford and banks making risky loans.  All of us need to step back and take a big breath and realize that we all need to be responsible for our spending.  Allowing people to stay in homes they can't afford is not an answer.

According to U. S. News & World Report, there have been some real challenges for congressmen who actually wanted to read the stimulus bill before they voted on it.  The congressmen got their copies of the 999 page bill at eleven o'clock last night.  According to the article:

"What's more, staffers are complaining about who does have a copy: K Street lobbyists. E-mails one key Democratic staffer: "K Street has the bill, or chunks of it, already, and the congressional offices don't. So, the Hill is getting calls from the press (because it's leaking out) asking us to confirm or talk about what we know--but we can't do that because we haven't seen the bill. Anyway, peeps up here are sort of a combo of confused and like, 'Is this really happening?'" Reporters pressing for details, meanwhile, are getting different numbers from different offices, especially when seeking the details of specific programs."

I guess my question is, "Why did the bill go to lobbyists before it went to Senate staffers?"  This bill is such a nightmare that I don't think any of us have a clue as to how much damage it will do to America and the American economy.  Where is the transparency we were promised?  And where is a congressman's sense of responsibility if he is willing to vote on a bill he hasn't read?

According to Power Line Blog (and various other internet sources), Senator Judd Gregg has withdrawn his name from consideration as Secretary of Commerce.  He explained that he had irrecononcilable philosophical differences on many critical policies of the Obama administration--including the stimulus and the relocation of the 2010 Census to the executive branch. 

Senator Judd is much more valuable for the Republicans in the Senate than he would have been as Secretary of Commerce.  He is a principled fiscal conservative who did not feel that he could totally support the spending habits of this administration. 

There will be a problem with the 2010 Census--the White House controlling it is important because of the methods that will be used to tabulate population.  This is something to keep an eye on because the U. S. Constitution is involved.

According to Pajamas Media, the UN 's highest internal judicial body has decided to pay legal fees to former Oil-for-Food chief is Benon Sevan.  Acording to the article, Benpm Sevan is:

"charged with bribery and conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with the same UN Oil-for-Food food program that he ran from 1997-2003. Sevan was also accused in an August, 2005 report from the UN-authorized Oil-for-Food inquiry, run by former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, of having profited "corruptly" -- to the tune of some $147,000 in cash - from oil deals obtained via the UN program. Months before that, Norm Coleman's Senate subcommittee investigation into Oil-for-Food had made similar allegations, with Coleman stating at a Feb. 14, 2005 hearing: "As a former prosecutor, I believe that clear and direct evidence establishes probable casue that Benon Sevan broke the law." "

Sevan left New York before the Volcker Committee gave its final report and is living peacefully on Cyprus.  According to the Associated Press, Sevan and his lawyers are seeking  $880,300, plus interest.

Just a note.  The US remains the single largest financial supporter of the UN.  In 2005, the US contributed about 4.3 billion to the UN.  These numbers came from the CRS Report for Congress--United Nations System Funding:  Congressional Issues.  I guess my real question is, "Why in the world are we still supporting these people?"

According to the National Review Online, the major welfare reform of the Clinton administration (thanks to Newt Gingrich) will be undone in the stimulus bill currently making its way through Congress.  Before the welfare reform on the 1990's, the amount of welfare money a state received from the federal government was based on the number of welfare cases in that state.  Therefore, the states had no incentive to decrease their welfare rolls--it wasn't their money!   The reforms of the 1990's gave the states a fixed amount of money based on the population of the state--so that if a state reduced its welfare rolls, it still got the money, and had more money to spend on other things.  The system worked well--both the number of families on welfare and the poverty rate decreased.

According to the article, under the new stimulus bill:

"states will once again be paid a bounty for expanding their welfare rolls. As reported by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, the federal government will now pay states 80 percent of the cost for each new family they sign up for welfare. That means that states will get $4 for every $1 they spend. This will leave the main welfare program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), with a funding mechanism similar to the one that supports Medicaid. As Brian Blase argues here, Medicaid's funding ratio, which gives states $1 to $3 for every dollar they spend, has caused state Medicaid spending to skyrocket. If Medicaid's dollar-for-dollar model has proved ruinous, Obama's new $4-to-$1 ratio for welfare will prove, in all likelihood, four times so."

There is also talk of eventually removing the work requirements that were also put in the welfare system in the 1990's.  Remember, when the government subsidizes something, you get more of it.  If you are a working American, prepare to have your wallet (and your children's and grandchildren's wallets) raided.

The stimulus bill is legislative blight.  Unless the three Republicans who have decided to support it vote against it, there is no way to stop it.  What it will do, if the Republicans can put together a conservative coalition, is give us a Republican Congress in 2010 (assuming the census figures are not rigged--see prior stories).  The fact that the phone calls on Capital Hill are running strongly against this bill does not seem to matter--many of our current representatives are not representing us!

Louisiana's Governor Jindal is an upcoming star in the Republican Party.  According to WAFB Channel 9, Baton Rouge, Governor Jindal will be giving the Republican address following the president's first address to Congress on February 24, 2009.  The Governor will be speaking from Baton Rouge.

Acccording to the article, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) said the governor personified reform and recovery, saying he was a strong choice to offer the Republican address:

"Gov. Jindal's leadership during a time of recovery in Louisiana, his commitment to real government reform, and his protection of hardworking American families make him an excellent choice to offer Republican solutions for the challenges which lay ahead."

Governor Jindal has done a fantastic job of making the government of Louisiana transparent and dealing with political corruption in the state of Louisiana.  He is a brilliant man, and a man of integrity.  He will easily be the future of the Republican Party.  That is the reason all of us need to be aware that there is a media target on his back.  He is a very definite threat to the status quo, and the Democrats will move to destroy him in the press as soon as they think they can get away with it.  Think of the 'politics of personal destruction' used on Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin.  Any member of the media with a sense of fairness (are there any?) needs to avoid buying into what is to come, and we as consumers of the media need to be aware of what will be tried.

According to Gateway Pundit, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has put on hold the George Bush plan to open up offshore drilling off the coast of the United States.  This is the picture at Gateway Pundit of the zones that the Democrats have declared off limits. 

According to the article:

"Over the past 30 years:

Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
Democrats have blocked building oil refineries.
Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
Democrats have blocked clean coal production."

According to the website Energy Tomorrow (which is run by America's oil and natural gas industries):

"Several recent national polls show that most Americans support more energy exploration here at home. But what will expanded access to energy resources do for America?

A new study finds that more access to domestic energy resources could generate $1.7 trillion in government revenue, create thousands of new jobs and enhance America's energy security by significantly boosting energy production here in the United States.

It seems to me that rather than spend a trillion dollars in pork, let's earn a trillion dollars and use it for the worthwhile projects (yes, there are some) in the stimulus package.  That way everyone wins.

One of the reasons for the choice of Tom Daschle as Secretary of Health and Human Services was his 2008 book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis."  In this book, former Senator Daschle states that health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.  I have a question.  Senator Daschle is 61 years old.  Will these rules apply to him and to other former and current congressmen (and congresswomen)?  Somehow I doubt it. 

There is an article written at a site called Suite101.com which details the health care members of Congress receive.  There is no waiting period, and 75 per cent of their premiums are paid by the taxpayer.  You can look up the details of their plan at the Office of Personnel Management.  I guess in order for me to be impressed with this whole idea of universal health care, I would have to see Congress sign up for it for themselves.  Somehow, considering the age of most congressmen, I don't see that happening.

Just a note on this.  One of the areas that American is a world leader in is medical research.  We find the drugs that solve the problems.  We fund research around the world to solve problems for other countries.  We are able to do that because of the way the free enterprise system effects our drug companies and the medical profession.  Admittedly, we do have to find a way to make health care more affordable and available, but not at the expense of research and availability.  Part of our problem is the number of people who chose not to be insured (many of whom are between the ages of 18 and 25 and are convinced they will never need medical attention).  Another part of our problem is people who are here illegally and need medical attention (the number of hospitals closing in areas close the the Mexican border is alarming--but those hospitals cannot continue to provide free care in their emergency rooms for people who are here illegally and have no way to pay for any medical care).  Massachusetts (under Mitt Romney) has addressed that problem--not perfectly, but at least somewhat.  Hopefully, we can tweak the program, get it working better, and share it with the nation.

According to the South Florida Sun Sentinel, nine representatives have  introduced a bill calling for an end to the 46-year-old ban on travel to Cuba.  The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on  February 4, and is called The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act.  The bill would allow Americans and Cuban exiles living in America unrestricted travel to Cuba.  The bill is sponsored by Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass. and eight co-sponsors.  The co-sponsors include representatives Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., Sam Farr, D-Calif., and Ron Paul, R- Texas, Rep James McGovern, D-MA, Donna Edwards, D-MD, Jerry Moran, R-KS, Jeff Flake, R-AZ, and Jo Ann Emerson, R-MO.

It's interesting to me that none of the sponsors of the bill are from the Florida area where most of the Cuban exiles live.  According to the article, the Cubans in Florida do not support this bill--they want the freedom to visit their relatives, but they do not want American tourist dollars pouring money into the failing Castro regime.  The article also mentions that fact that the resorts that the American tourists would be visiting are closed to Cubans.  The legislation being introduced during the beginning of President Obama's administration does not seem to be moving toward the preservation or expansion of freedom, in fact, it seems to be going the other way.

There is an article at Bloomberg.com regarding the health care provisions in the current stimulus bill.  The article is written by Betsy McCaughey.  Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version.  These are the problem areas:

The wording is that the new rules apply to "every individual in the United States" (445, 454, 479).  A federal system will be set up to electronically track all medical treatment you receive.  That's not a totally awful idea because it would probably save a lot of time in emergency situations.

There will be a new federal bureau, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, that will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective.  The goal of this entity is to reduce costs and "guide" your doctor's decisions (442, 446). 

According to the article:

"Hospitals and doctors that are not "meaningful users" of the new system will face penalties.  "Meaningful user" isn't defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose "more stringent measures of meaningful use over time" (511, 518, 540-541)"

The article further points out:

"Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464)."

No person over the age of 45 should support this bill.  See previous stories on this website about the suffering of people under nationalized health care. 

Yesterday in U S News & World Report, Michael Barone had an article about the moving of the 2010 Census from the control of the Commerce Department to the control of the White House.  John Fund had a similar article in today's Wall Street Journal.  I first saw the fact that oversight of the Census was going to change last Friday, but I wasn't sure what it meant.  Details are starting to emerge. 

According to the Michael Barone article:

"Here's an argument that it's unconstitutional for the president to take over the Census from the secretary of commerce. It goes like this: Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for an "actual enumeration" and a statute passed by Congress provides that the duties under this clause are to be performed by the secretary of commerce. Article I (as Joseph Biden didn't know in debate) is about the legislative, not the executive branch. Hence, it is argued, the president can't substitute a sampling for the enumeration required to be done by the secretary."

The John Fund article explains the dangers of politicizing the census:

""The real issue is who directs the Census, the pros or the pols," says Mr. Chapman. "You would think an administration that's thumping its chest about respecting science would show a little respect for scientists in the statistical field." He worries that a Census director reporting to a hyperpartisan such as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel increases the chances of a presidential order that would override the consensus of statisticians.

The Obama administration is downplaying how closely the White House will oversee the Census Bureau. But Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insists there is "historical precedent" for the Census director to be "working closely with the White House."

It would be nice to know what Sen. Gregg thinks about all this, but he's refusing comment. And that, says Mr. Chapman, the former Census director, is damaging his credibility. "He will look neutered with oversight of the most important function of his department over the next two years shipped over to the West Wing," he says. "If I were him, I wouldn't take the job unless I had that changed.""

Why is all this important?  The census determines the electoral college, the number of congressional representatives a state send to Washington, federal aid to states, and other federal program allowances.  An inaccurate census would do considerable damage to the rule of one vote for one person.

Please check out this YouTube video about the car of the future.  It was done by Iowahawk.

The following link is to a site I had never even heard of until it showed up in an email.  The article in TPM Muckraker is important because of what it says about our values.  The name of the article is "How Theresa Hatt Caused The Financial Crisis".  It is one man's account of his interaction with Bank of America after his 52-year-old mother died of cancer.  Theresa Hatt (his mother) had a small balance on her credit card with Bank of America (her credit limit was $1000, so it had to be small).  The bank used deceptive practices in order to convince him that he should pay his mother's bill.  One of the last paragraphs in the story is as follows:

"What's the larger point here? Well, here's one: When the automakers were asking Washington for a bailout recently, there was a lot of talk about insisting on conditions -- like requiring that they build more fuel-efficient cars -- that would be in the national interest. Bank of America and its competitors have already taken billions in taxpayer dollars. So it seems logical to insist on a similar set of public interest conditions -- and the industry's range of deceptive and rapacious lending practices would be a natural place to start."

If the taxpayers are pouring money into a business, we should at least be able to hold the business to a reasonable ethical standard.

The more I hear about this bill, the less I like it.  According to Townhall.com:

"page 96 of the massive 778-page bill. Go ahead and look it up. Here is what it says:

ENERGY-EFFICIENT FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE FLEET PROCUREMENT: For capital expenditures and necessary expenses of acquiring motor vehicles with higher fuel economy, including: hybrid vehicles; neighborhood electric vehicles; electric vehicles; and commercially-available, plug-in hybrid vehicles, $300,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011."

This is what they are talking about.  Most people call them golf carts!

Can you see yourself driving to work in this?  This is the reason we should never let Congress have any more money than is absolutely necessary!

According to the Business and Media Institute, the New Deal was not the answer to the Great Depression.  This is an excerpt from an article written by Donald J. Boudreaux last November:

"No less an authority than FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!""

We are now in a position where we can choose to make the same mistake again (and saddle our children and grandchildren with enormous debt) or we can try the solutions that have worked in the past (tax cuts in the sixties, eighties, and after 9/11 revived the economy).  To point to the failed economic policies of the Bush administration is uninformed at best and dishonest at worst.  The Bush administration spent too much money, that is true, but the basis of this crisis is the mortgage market.  If you would like to look at the Congressional hearings where Barney Frank said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in great shape, I suggest you watch the Burning Down The House video on YouTube.  You will also see the Bush Administration trying to convince Congress to put some rules on Fannie and Freddie.  The people (Congress) who brought us this problem will only make it worse with the stimulus package.

This chart is from the American Spectator

It seems to me form looking at the chart that although you can temporarily decrease unemployment with government spending, but it is a temporary fix.  It worked to some degree in the late 1960's, but the lowest unemployment on the chart was in 2000 when government spending was low.  As government spending increased, so did unemployment.  Government spending is not the answer to the problems we face now.

The Wall Street Journal has an article this morning about the success of Canadian Health Care.  Canada is a relatively wealthy county similar to the United States in many ways, so we should be able to learn from their experiences with nationalized health care.  Here are a few from the article:

"In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor.

Ontario's government system still refused to provide timely treatment, offering instead a months-long wait for surgery. In the end, Mr. McCreith returned to Buffalo and paid for surgery that may have saved his life.

Shona Holmes, another Ontario court challenger, endured a similarly harrowing struggle. In March of 2005, Ms. Holmes began losing her vision and experienced headaches, anxiety attacks, extreme fatigue and weight gain. Despite an MRI scan showing a brain tumor, Ms. Holmes was told she would have to wait months to see a specialist. In June, her vision deteriorating rapidly, Ms. Holmes went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she found that immediate surgery was required to prevent permanent vision loss and potentially death. Again, the government system in Ontario required more appointments and more tests along with more wait times. Ms. Holmes returned to the Mayo Clinic and paid for her surgery.

On the other side of the country in Alberta, Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a "Birmingham" hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was "too old" to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no. In the end, he was also denied the opportunity to pay for the procedure himself in Alberta."

Read the entire article to see how routine doctor's visits are handled.  It's not a good system.  Nationalized health care may give us cheaper health care, but the above examples are not rules I want to live with.  Any senior citizen who supports nationalized health care needs to realize that it will be rationed and a senior citizen's chances of getting the care he needs will diminish as he gets older.  The system we have now is far from perfect, but the Canadian (and British) systems are even worse.

According to the Washington Times, a rancher in Arizona is being sued by a group of illegals for stopping them (on his property) and turning them over to the Border Patrol.  The sixteen Mexican nationals are accusing him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.  According to the article:

"Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running."

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF).  If you read the whole article, you find that Mr. Barnett was not particularly nice to these sixteen people, but on the other hand, they were illegally on his property.  How nice are you required (by law) to be to someone who is trespassing on your property?  I hope Mr. Barnett wins his case and makes MALDEF pay for court costs. 

According to the Washington Times, the Congressional Budget Office stated on Wednesday that President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing.  According to the article:

"CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary."

This is a bad bill and needs to be stopped.  Please contact you Senator, because if it is stopped, it will be in the Senate. 

There is a pdf file of the adjusted stimulus bill at 

http://senateconservatives.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/nelson-collins-stimulus-final1.pdf

The pdf is only seven pages long and shows the original amounts and the adjustments.  If you take the time to look at it closely, you can see where the money goes.

This is a quick summary from Michelle Malkin's website:

[figures in the thousands]
Agriculture: $5,109,430
Commerce: $21,513,000
Defense: $3,746,000
Energy & Water: $53,843,000
Financial & Gen. Govt: $10,762,000
Homeland Security: $5,076,700
Interior: $11,643,600
Labor, HHS, Education: $169,184,000
Military & VA: $7,428,295
THUD: $60,580,500
Appropriations: $365,629,525 (of course, this one isn't broken out)

Bottom line: Global Warming, Government Healthcare, Teachers Unions, School Building Contractors, Subsidized Housing, and MASSIVE Pork.

According to the New York Post, the Herbert C. Hoover Building will be getting $34 million from the stimulus package for renovation.  The Department of Commerce has already received more than $7 million for the ongoing renovations for this year.  According to the article:

"The project is expected to cost $893 million by the scheduled completion date in 2021.

A Commerce press aide declined to let a Post photographer take pictures of the lobby's marble floor, gold-tinted eagles and other ornaments.

"The renovation is needed," the aide said, "because the [building] has not been renovated since it was built in the 1930s. Furthermore, it's the third-largest building in the federal government." It's also the last in its neighborhood to be rehabbed, he said.""

I wonder how much the building cost when it was built.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal's opinion page carried an analysis of the stimulus package.  Please keep in mind that this article was written before the so-called-compromise.  Also, please keep in mind that the 'compromises' worked out may not stand when the House and Senate bills are reconciled.  According to the article:

"Mr. Obama chose to let House Democrats write the bill, and they did what comes naturally: They cleaned out their intellectual cupboards and wrote a bill that is 90% social policy, and 10% economic policy. (See here for a case study.) It is designed to support incomes with transfer payments, rather than grow incomes through job creation."

The article further states:

"We should add how different this is from the 1980s or even the 1960s. Democrats added business tax cuts to the Reagan package of 1981, while Jack Kennedy's chief economist (Walter Heller) promoted marginal rate tax cuts on stimulus grounds in the 1960s. Yet Mr. Obama, on Thursday, dismissed any such tax cuts as "the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis." That's rhetoric for a campaign, not for a President hoping to rally bipartisan support."

This bill is not good for us, it's not good for our children, and it's not good for our grandchildren.  The whole thing needs to be scrapped, and they need to start over with some ideas that will actually stimulate the economy--not just pay back political favors.

According to the National Public Radio website yesterday, there is a serious quesiton about accountability in the stumulus package now making its way through Congress.  According to the article:

"As it stands now, says David Walker, a former U.S. comptroller general, the bill appears to have no mechanism for directing spending. It's left up to those state and local officials, who may or may not have the ideas or the means to spend it appropriately. And that will lead to "a series of disappointments that it's too late to do anything about," Walker says.

The bill does make it possible for lawmakers and the public to track the money -- but only after it's spent. And that, he says, will lead to bad surprises."

The article further states (bold lettering is not in original article):

"Leaving out the earmarks does mean Congress will have less control over how the money is spent. But, Obey says, "So what? This is an emergency. We've got to simply find a way to get this done as fast as possible and as well as possible, and that's what we're doing."

That doesn't mean Congress will be responsible if the money is spent badly, he says."

This is unbelievable.  Congress wants approximately $ 800,000,000 of our money, but doesn't want to be held responsible for how it is spent! 

This chart is from Ask Heritage, a website of the Heritage Foundation.

I suspect these are the numbers from the bill that was passed by the House of Representatives, but please understand, the bill that will come out of the final committee will be substantially the same as the bill that passed th House of Representatives.  What you saw yesterday was political theatre on the the part of Democrats aided and abetted by some liberal Republicans.  Generally speaking, a Northeast Republican (if you can find one) tends to be more liberal (more tax and spend) than a Southeast Democrat.

Just a note on all the 'sky is falling' reporting on the unemployment figures for January and February.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate in January was 7.6 percent.  That is equal to the unemployment rate in 1981.  In 1982, the unemployment rate was 9.7.  If you are reading this and have lost your job, I know these are just numbers and they don't solve your immediate crisis--but neither does the stimulus plan.  If you look at when the spending happens, it has more to do with the fact that a Congressional election happens in 2010 than what the situation is now.  It also places a drag on the economy (where is the money going to come from?) and a debt on each of our children and grandchildren.  Congress has now revealed that they can't account for a sizeable amount of the original 'bailout' money and how it was spent.  Why in the world do we want to give them more money? 

It's not news to anyone who reads this blog regularly that I am thoroughly disgusted that a deal has been reached on the stimulus package (on various radio shows called 'spendulus', 'porkulus' and 'porkapalooza').  Even at $780 billion (a cut of approximately $200 billion), this bill is a tribute to pork-barrel spending.  I am sorry to see that any Republicans were talked into going along with it.  According to Power Line Blog, the process still has some distance to go; House Democrats are already talking about restoring whatever spending was cut by the Senate in conference (not the tax cuts, though).  The only prayer this country has is for everyone to call their congressman (or any Republican leaders they know) and scream as loud as they can against this bill (remember the immigration bill?).

I presonally like "John Thune's proposal to scrub the entire pork bill and:

...replace it with a $936 billion across-the-board-middle-class tax rebate for 182 million Americans. The amendment would result in a tax rebate of $5,143 for single filers and $10,286 for married couples who file jointly."

It really is a shame that the Republicans do not have the intestinal fortitude to oppose this bill as a voting bloc.  The bill is not good for the country, and the Republicans do not need to share the blame when it fails.  Supporting this type of legislation is what caused them to be voted out of office in 2008.  Do they have a death wish as a party?

According to Fox News website: 

"Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Susan Collins of Maine appeared to be the critical Republicans to sign onto the bill, giving Democrats the 60 votes needed to advance to a final vote."

Remember the criticism of the executives who took bailout money and headed off to a spa for the weekend?  How dare they!  Well, what about the Democrats who took taxpayer money and headed off to a spa for the weekend?  Is that ok?

The Washington Times has an editorial today about Barack Obama's plans for the weekend.  A stategy session with fellow Democrats is probably not a bad idea at this point, but why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill?  According to the article:

"Mr. Obama will head to Kingsmill Resort and Spa in the historical Virginia city to start a three-day planning session. The resort boasts multiple championship golf courses, a full-service spa and six restaurants, noted the Hill newspaper, which broke the story about the Democratic retreats.

Democrats will ride together to the resort on a chartered Amtrak train at a cost to taxpayers of about $70,000, the Hill reported. Taxpayers will also foot the bill for security helicopters to fly above the train. The caucus will spend thousands: In 2003, for example, they spent $11,200 on food and $6,900 on entertainment, the paper said."

Because this trip is seen as a meeting of the Democratic caucus, taxpayers will fund a major portion of it.  That just seems to fly in the face of the economic crisis and the suffering that is continuing in Kentucky due to an ice storm.

A poster at the American Thinker blog has just come up with the best idea I have heard in a long time--a new law which applies the principles of Sarbanes-Oxley to Congress.  The post further states:

On the other hand, Congress regularly passes budgets and legislation of increasing depth and complexity, often prepared in haste at the eleventh hour -- obviously without even reading what they are voting on.

We want legislation requiring each solon under penalty of perjury to swear that he/she has read every word of any Bill before casting a vote on it.

Of course, it's not a perfect solution. The Speaker of the House just announced that each month of delay in passage of the stimulus porkapalooza cost 500 million US  jobs, and in the face of such patent innumeracy it might be argued that an acknowledgement that she read the Bill is no assurance that she can understand it; but nevertheless it's a start."

According to today's Washington Times, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., testified before Congress yesterday that he thinks hog farmers are a greater threat to Americans than Osama bin Laden.  Robert Kennedy (son of the late Robert F. Kennedy) is an environmental law attorney who was testifying before a House Judiciary subcommittee yesterday when he was asked about a quote attributed to him.  He replied that he wasn't sure if the quote was accurate,but that he agreed with it.

Evidently, Mr. Kennedy has been involved in various legal efforts against the meat industry over the years.  According to the article:

"Mr. Kennedy has said that he plans to go after all large farms in the country, not just pork producers. He has also said that the "right" lawsuit against livestock producers can bring damage awards of up to $13 billion."

Why is this man attacking farmers?  I don't know if Mr. Kennedy is a vegetarian or not, but it seems odd to go after the people who supply America's food.  I'm really not into tofu (although I realize it is very healthy), and I don't want my government cutting off my food supply for my own good.  There seems to be no end to the idea of the nanny state! 

While we were all focused on the tax woes of Tom Daschle and the stumus bill (called in various places 'the porkulus bill', or 'the spendulus bill'), President Obama raised our taxes.  Well, he only raised them on a percentage of the population, so if you are not in that percentage, it's not really important, right?  He's been in office less than two weeks and someone's taxes have already gone up--not a good sign for the future.  What I am talking about?  Yesterday the S-Chip bill was signed by the President.  According to Townhall.com, this is roughly what is in it:

"Provides an additional $32.8 billion through Sept. 30, 2013, by increasing federal excise taxes on tobacco products. The tax on cigarettes will go up 62 cents to $1.01 a pack.

"Allows states to offer SCHIP dental coverage to children whose private medical insurance does not cover dentist visits

""Allows states to extend SCHIP and Medicaid to newly arrived legal immigrant children and pregnant women."

Stay tuned for further details.  I have not yet been able to find income guidelines, etc.  Has it occurred to anyone that the government makes more on a package of cigarettes than the tobacco companies do?  And they don't have to do anything!

John at Power Line Blog has a slightly different approach to President Obama's idea of controlling salaries of executives of government bailed-out companies.  First of all, he restates his disagreement with the concept that taxpayer money shouldn't be sucked up by bonuses for executives in failing companies. He also restates the idea that he doesn't think the government should be investing money in failing companies in the first place.

It hasn't been mentioned a lot, but some of the banks involved in the bailout were forced by the federal government to accept the money.  It's not really fair to force someone to take money then use that money as means of control.  That idea is totally contrary to what democracy is supposed to be.

The article points out:

"A $500,000 cap on salaries? By all means...and let's extend this...to PBS for starters...no employee of any contractor to PBS or NPR...which are "substantially" subsidized by the taxpayers....is allowed compensation of more than $500,000....

And let's audit them all...they have a cozy arrangement where Bill Moyers, say, as big a left-wing hypocrite as you'll ever find, charges his production company scads of money, literally millions, and the production company simply has a contract with PBS....so, sure, no salaries....just "production costs" for PBS....Jim Lehrer does the same....the practice is widespread...

In fact, let's have some hearings to determine WHERE there are such unconscionable contracts underwritten by government subsidies.

So by all means....ANY government subsidized enterprise should have the SAME restrictions as the banks....and let's include vendors who are so dependent on government contracts ("substantial") that it amounts to a de facto subsidy....THAT will get some attention...

Or else let the banks do EXACTLY what PBS/NPR does....all the employees will go into several separate "operating companies"...think of them like Bill Moyers...and the banks, which will now be "portfolio companies" will contract with them for management and operations...what the operating and management companies pay their employees is their business....the banks, like PBS/NPR would just have contract expenses for management and operations."

We seem to have morphed into a "do as I say, not as I do" government.  We need to change that.  Term limits looks better all the time.

Somehow, free money is never free.  According to the Taiwan News, President Obama plans to annouce $ 500,000 salary caps on executives of financial institutions who took bailout money.  According to the article:

"The pay cap would lay the ground for next week's unveiling of a new framework for spending the money that remains in the $700 billion financial rescue fund, established late last year by the former Bush administration to prevent the collapse of the country's financial underpinnings."

The important part of this idea is that the administration also intends to limit the executive pay of companies that were not bailed.  This is not what America is about.  Salaries of public held companies are overseen by stockholders--not by the government.  This is an area that the government has no business meddling in.  If legislation to enforce salary caps is passed, we will see a mass exodus of American companies relocating to other countries and a significant loss of jobs.  This is not a wise move.

America has the highest corporate taxes in the world.  Cut those taxes in half, leave the executive pay packages alone, and you will see America rebound.  Look at what has happened to the economy of Ireland since they have cut corporate taxes.  The Irish are now the most successful country economically in the European Union.

According to Ireland Now, in 1997 Ireland had the highest level of job creation in the industrialized world.  During the period of rapid growth, inflation has remained relatively low: the consumer price index has grown, on average, at less than 2% per annum between 1993-1997.

This is what lowering the corporate taxes does for a country.  I would work here also. 

I received this in my email.  As you know, I am not a fan of John McCain, but I respect the fact that he has consistently opposed pork-barrel spending in all his years in the Senate.  He is right on this issue.  If you oppose the stimulus, please follow the link and sign the petition.

WHAT FOLLOWS BELOW IS THE EMAIL I RECEIVED. Yesterday, the Senate began debate on an economic stimulus package that is intended to get our economy back on track and help Americans who are suffering through these difficult times. Unfortunately, the proposal on the table is big on the giveaways for the special interests and corporate high rollers, yet short on help for ordinary working Americans. I cannot and do not support the package on the table from the Democrats and the Obama Administration. Our country does not need just another spending bill, particularly not one that will load future generations with the burden of massive debt. We need a short term stimulus bill that will directly help people, create jobs, and provide a jolt to our economy. I believe we need to evaluate every bit of spending in this stimulus proposal with one important criteria - does it really stimulate the economy and help create jobs - if the answer is no, it does not belong in a so-called stimulus package. Furthermore, the stimulus must include significant direct relief to American workers in the form of payroll tax cuts and programs to help homeowners keep their homes. Finally, we need an end game to this stimulus so that when our economy recovers, these spending programs do not remain permanent and saddle our children with a skyrocketing national debt. I appreciate the discussions President Obama is having with my Republican colleagues, but the time for talking has come to an end and we must now begin some serious negotiation. But as of yet, Republicans have not been given the opportunity to be involved. The House of Representatives passed a stimulus bill without a single Republican supporting it. In the Senate, the Democrat leadership is trying to jam the existing proposal through regardless of reservations from a number of members. With so much at stake, the last thing we need is partisanship driving our attempts to turn the economy around. I have long been a fighter against wasteful spending in Washington and long an advocate for a balanced budget -- that will never change. I realize we face extraordinary challenges with our economy today, but that is not an excuse for more irresponsibly from Washington. I hope you will join me in saying no to this stimulus package as it currently exists by signing this petition. Sincerely, John McCain Chair, Country First PAC

According to the Washington Times, New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg will be named to head the Commerce Department.  This is the position Bill Richardson withdrew his nomination for due to some questions about donations and contracts.

Senator Gregg is someone it will be to Barack Obama's advantage to get out of the Senate.  Senator Gregg is a budget hawk who has consistently opposed excess spending.  There is also the small matter of reelection.  Even if the governor of New Hampshire appoints a Republican to replace Senator Gregg (which evidently is part of the agreement), the chances of that person being able to be reelected in 2010 are much lower than Senator Gregg's chances would have been.  You have to admire Barack Obama for this bit of political stategy--it is brilliant.  I am sorry to hear that the Senator is taking the position.

According to Breitbart.com, Nancy Killefer has withdrawn her candidacy to be the first chief performance officer for the federal government because she failed for a year and a half to pay employment taxes on household help,  She owed $298 in unpaid taxes, $48.69 in interest and $600 in penalties.   On March 7, 2005, the D.C. Department of Employment Services placed a tax lien on her home, alleging that just three years after she left the high-powered Treasury post she began to fail to pay unemployment compensation tax for a household employee. She also failed to make the required quarterly payments for a year and half, whereupon a lien for $946.69 was placed on her home

How come she is withdrawn for a relatively small amount of money and Tom Daschle will probably be confirmed for a much larger amount of tax dodging.  Why the double standard?

Aside from his forays into the entertainment industry, Ben Stein is a repected financial analyst.  He uses those skills in his critique of the stimulus bill.  This critique was posted on the editorial page of Saturday's New York Post.  According to his research:

"Only 10 percent of the "stimulus" to be spent on 2009.

Close to half goes to entities that sponsor or employ (or both) members of the Service Employees International Union, federal, state, and municipal employee unions or other Democrat-controlled unions.

This bill is sent to Congress after President Obama has been in office for seven days. It is 680 pages long. According to my calculations, not one member of Congress read the entire bill before this vote. Obviously, it would have been impossible, given his schedule, for the president to have read the whole thing.

For the amount spent, we could have given every unemployed person in the United States roughly $75,000."

This package is a disgrace--even for pork-sseking politicians.  It needs to die and be rewritten in a way that will actually stimulate the economy.  The passage of this bill will be a nightmare of national debt for my generation, our children, and our grandchildren. 

Hugh Hewitt, on his blog at Townhall.com puts forth a plan for an alternative stimulus package.  It has four main points.  The first point is a tax credit for first time homeowners (with a deadline to close the loan).  The second is investment into nuclear energy (with quick-start provisions).  The third is an increase in the number of navy ships.  As the world is becoming more dangerous, we need to have mobile forces that can deal with major problems around the world.   Also, shipbuilding, because it impacts so many other industries, can be a major boost to the economy.  The fourth suggestion involves allowing the government to purchase land from landowners who have not been able to develop their land due to environmental concerns.

Follow the link to read the whole proposal.  It is unique and interesting.

According to the website Energy Tomorrow (which is run by America's oil and natural gas industries):

"Several recent national polls show that most Americans support more energy exploration here at home. But what will expanded access to energy resources do for America?

A new study finds that more access to domestic energy resources could generate $1.7 trillion in government revenue, create thousands of new jobs and enhance America's energy security by significantly boosting energy production here in the United States.

The ICF International study, commissioned by API, shows that developing offshore areas previously off-limits to exploration, as well as ANWR and a small portion of off-limits land in the Rockies, would increase U.S. crude oil production by as much as two million barrels per day in 2030, offsetting nearly a fifth of the nation's imports."

As Congress debates taking more than a trillion dollars out of the pockets of taxpayers, it seems as if they might take a look at how to revive the economy without killing the taxpayer!

I found this at American Thinker.  It is not original, but it is fun.

Line 1: Are you a Democrat?

Line 2: How much income do you want to declare for this year?

Line 3: How much tax do you feel like paying on that income?

According to Yahoo News, in the last few months US President Barack Obama has already used experts to hold high-level but discreet talks with both Iran and Syria.  President Obama has stated that the United States would offer Iran an extended hand of diplomacy if the Islamic Republic's leaders "unclenched their fist."   According to the article:

According to AP News Mount Redoubt in Alaska is showing signs of preparing to erupt.  A hole in the glacier clinging to the north side of the volcano had doubled in size overnight.  The hole now spans the length of two football fields.  Water is streaming down the glacier, indicating heat from magma is reaching higher elevations of the mountain.

A week ago, the Alaska Volcano Observatory detected a sharp increase in earthquake activity below the volcano and upgraded its alert level to orange, the stage just before full eruption--causing a rush on dust masks and car air filters in Anchorage.

According to the article:

"Alaska's volcanoes typically start with an explosion that can shoot ash 50,000 feet high and into the jet stream, but there are warning signs because magma causes small earthquakes as it moves.

Geologist Jennifer Adleman said the observatory has been recording quakes up to magnitude 2.1 but not at the frequency that preceded the last two eruptions in 1989 and 1990.

"We're looking for an increase of seismicity to match the precursor activity," Wallace said. "We haven't seen that yet.""

"What has this got to do with global warming?" you ask.

According to U S Geological Survey Fact Sheet 113-97:

"Nearly 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide were injected into the stratosphere in Pinatubo's 1991 eruptions, and dispersal of this gas cloud around the world caused global temperatures to drop temporarily (1991 through 1993) by about 1°F (0.5°C). The eruptions have dramatically changed the face of central Luzon, home to about 3 million people. About 20,000 indigenous Aeta highlanders, who had lived on the slopes of the volcano, were completely displaced, and most still wait in resettlement camps for the day when they can return home. About 200,000 people who evacuated from the lowlands surrounding Pinatubo before and during the eruptions have returned home but face continuing threats from lahars (giant mudflows of volcanic materials) that have already buried numerous towns and villages. Rice paddies and sugar-cane fields that have not been buried by lahars have recovered; those buried by lahars will be out of use for years to come."

This is what the government publication Air Now says about sulfur dioxide: 

"What is sulfur dioxide?

Sulfur dioxide (SO₂), a colorless, reactive gas, is produced when sulfur-containing fuels such as coal and oil are burned. Major sources include power plants and industrial boilers. Generally, the highest levels of sulfur dioxide are near large industrial complexes."

What I am trying to say here it that we (as people) are not in charge of global climate.  I believe we have an obligation to be mindful of pollution and do what we can to stop it, but the global warming movement is not about pollution--it's about money.  Just look at the behavior of the people screaming the loudest about global warming.  Would they be traveling to their meetings in their private jets if they were really all that concerned?  How much money has Al Gore made from the scam of carbon credits?  Would Barack Obama have the thermostat set on 'sweat' in the Oval Office?  These are the questions we should be asking.

According to ABC News, it seems as if the best way to deal with people who don't pay their income taxes is to let them know they are being considered for public office at the federal level.  Former Senator Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., nominated to be President Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services, has paid off taxes he 'overlooked' previously.  During the vetting process to become HHS secretary, Daschle corrected his tax violations, voluntarily paying $101,943 in back taxes plus interest, working with his accountant to amend his tax returns for 2005 through 2007.  Those numbers represent a pretty large 'overlook'.  Does he need a new accountant?

This is the same tactic used by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.  After he was nominated for the office of Treasury Secretary, he paid the taxes he owed and apologized for not paying them.  I guess my questions is, "If he had not been nominated for Treasury Secretary, would he have paid his taxes?"  The same question applies to Tom Daschle. 

,

Yesterday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the budget plans for the Obama administration.  In addition to a trillion dollars proposed in new spending to stimulate the economy, President Obama proposes a 10 per cent cut in defense spending.  According to the link in article that goes to Director Blue:

• $83 billion in welfare payments (the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax)
• $81 billion for Medicaid
• $66 billion on "education", more than the entire Department of Education required just ten years ago
• $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
• $20 billion for food stamps
• $8 billion on "renewable energy" projects, which have a low or negative return
• $7 billion for "modernizing federal buildings and facilities"
• $6 billion on urban transit systems, dominated by unions and which, almost universally, lose money
• $2.4 billion for "carbon-capture demonstration projects"
• $2 billion for child-care subsidies
• $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that's run in the red for 40 years
• $650 million for "digital TV conversion coupons" (on top of billions already spent)
• $600 million on new cars for government (added to the $3 billion already spent each year)
• $400 million for "global-warming research"
• $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts

                    BUT NOT A PENNY FOR DEFENSE

This is a disgrace.  We are currently involved in two wars in a world that is anything but safe.  We have countries developing nuclear weapons, and we have countries in our own hemisphere conspiring with our enemies to do us harm.  No amount of diplomacy is going to solve the problems with Russia, Venezuela, or Iran--not to mention Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  To cut the defense budget in favor of giving money to the National Endowment for the Arts or ACORN to just indefensible.

According to Little Green Footballs, Congress just gave itself a $93,000 increase per member in Petty Cash.  Congress, the people who were complaining about the Wall Street executive bonuses.  Congress, the people who are trying to add over $6,000 in debt to every family in the US.  It's time for term limits.

The video of this discussion (on Fox's Bulls and Bears) is on You Tube.