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? 

According the Special Report on Fox News, the 2010 Census has been taken out of the Commerce Department and put under White House authority.  The 2010 Census determines congressional representation in Washington.  This is one of those under-the-radar stories that bears watching in the next year or so.  It’s interesting that Commerce is one of the Departments that Obama has chosen a Republican to head.

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.”