Liberals in Congress, frantic to show some improvement in our nation's job picture before the 2010 mid-term elections, have decided that we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a jobs-creation bill. Again.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117273
This raises an interesting question: If the liberals think that a new jobs-creation bill is needed, does that mean that the previous one (the so-called stimulus bill) has failed? Congressional Democrats and the White House both loudly declare the stimulus program a success, and trumpet the number of jobs supposedly "saved or created" (even though those numbers are suspect at best). In other words, they think it was a success.
But if it was such a success, why all the impetus to do it again?
In my opinion, we simply cannot afford to keep spending money whenever Congressmen decide they need to score a victory for their party so they can get re-elected.
In case you're interested, this author makes the case that we cannot afford to massively increase the deficit at this time.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511243712388988.html
And THIS author makes the case that we cannot afford NOT to engage in massive deficit spending at this time.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091207/greider2
Which author you believe is correct depends on your underlying beliefs. If you think big government is good and huge government is better; if you believe that our national debt doesn't matter; if you believe in Keynesian economic theories that most economists recognize are worthless... well, then, you will agree with the second author.
Personally, I think massive new spending at this time is probably the worst idea this Congress has had all year long. And that's saying a lot. From a fiscal standpoint, our government cannot AFFORD to spend so much on ObamaCare, cap & trade, and more pork spending under the guise of "jobs creation."
But keep in mind the question I asked initially, and make sure to pose it to your Congressman if he shows the slightest sign of supporting a new "jobs bill." Does that mean the FIRST jobs bill was a failure? Why should we continue to spend far too much money on bills that don't work?
Read the rest...
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Thanksgiving: The First Libertarian Holiday
Thanksgiving is here once again, and with it come visions of children's plays with Indians and Pilgrims, complete with little Pilgrim hats made of construction paper. The story told in these plays and learned by public school students at every grade level is a simple one.
The Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock late in 1620. The first winter was harsh, but the colonists worked hard and applied themselves industriously to their own survival. They had help from the local Indian tribes, who helped them learn how to survive. The result was a plentiful harvest in fall 1621, not to mention the first celebration of Thanksgiving.
It's a wonderful story. There's only one problem with it: It isn't true. Oh, it does contain elements of truth. For example, the first winter was harsh, and the local Indian tribes did help the colonists learn how to survive, what to plant and how to prepare the food. But the 1621 harvest was not bountiful. In fact, famine haunted the fledgling colony.
When the colonists first landed, they signed something called the Mayflower Compact. Most of us have heard this document praised as an early social contract helping different people to live together. What most of us never learned was that it was also an experiment in socialism.
The Mayflower Compact required that "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing or any other means" were placed in the common stock of the colony. Further, it required that "all such persons as are of this colony are to have their meat, drink, apparel and all provisions out of this common stock." People were required to put into the common stock everything they could, and take out only what they needed.
William Bradford, governor of the colony at the time, wrote the "History of Plymouth Plantation." In it, he wrote that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Since "the strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak," the strong men simply refused to work, and the amount of food produced was never adequate.
In fact, the colony went hungry for years as strong men refused to work hard, and theft of crops still in the ground ran rampant. Bradford wrote that the colony was riddled with "corruption and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."
The harvests of 1621 and 1622 were adequate enough so that "all had their hungry bellies filled," but that did not last. Deaths from malnutrition continued into the next year.
But in 1623, something changed. Bradford reported, "Instead of famine now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." By 1624, the colony was producing so much food that it began exporting corn.
What caused this change?
After the poor harvest of 1622, the colony brainstormed for a way to raise more corn and obtain a better crop. The solution, like the Thanksgiving story told today, was simple. In 1623, Bradford "gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit."
The socialistic experiment that had failed them was abandoned and replaced with capitalism. That turned the colonists away from failure and forward into success and growth. And this move away from socialism, along with the resulting prosperity, is what we truly celebrate today. It is easy to see why I call Thanksgiving the first Libertarian holiday.
Thanksgiving, far from being the simple and uninspiring story of a group of people learning how to farm, is actually a celebration of what has made America itself great. It is the story of people working together by working for themselves first, and in so doing, improving the standard of living for everyone. These are the American ideas we hold dear.
As you sit down to your table laden with turkey, dressing and pumpkin pie, remember the true story of Thanksgiving, and what it means to all.
UPDATE: I realize I didn't post any links supporting this one; mainly that's because these facts are buried in history tomes and scholarly works... and I don't mean school books. About all I can online find is different opinion pieces based upon this information, so I offer one of those to you. This one deals with the same subject in passing as it makes a different point.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/26/pilgrims_planted_the_seeds_of_americas_abundance_99321.html
UPDATE: I located a site containing excerpts from William Bradford's "History of Plymouth Plantation", assuming you're interested.
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/14-bra.html
UPDATE: And if you really WANT the full text of Bradford's "History of Plymouth Plantation", try here. I warn you, it's long, mostly boring, and the relevant portions are buried between unrelated entries.
http://www.mith2.umd.edu/eada/html/display.php?docs=bradford_history.xml
Read the rest...
The Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock late in 1620. The first winter was harsh, but the colonists worked hard and applied themselves industriously to their own survival. They had help from the local Indian tribes, who helped them learn how to survive. The result was a plentiful harvest in fall 1621, not to mention the first celebration of Thanksgiving.
It's a wonderful story. There's only one problem with it: It isn't true. Oh, it does contain elements of truth. For example, the first winter was harsh, and the local Indian tribes did help the colonists learn how to survive, what to plant and how to prepare the food. But the 1621 harvest was not bountiful. In fact, famine haunted the fledgling colony.
When the colonists first landed, they signed something called the Mayflower Compact. Most of us have heard this document praised as an early social contract helping different people to live together. What most of us never learned was that it was also an experiment in socialism.
The Mayflower Compact required that "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing or any other means" were placed in the common stock of the colony. Further, it required that "all such persons as are of this colony are to have their meat, drink, apparel and all provisions out of this common stock." People were required to put into the common stock everything they could, and take out only what they needed.
William Bradford, governor of the colony at the time, wrote the "History of Plymouth Plantation." In it, he wrote that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Since "the strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak," the strong men simply refused to work, and the amount of food produced was never adequate.
In fact, the colony went hungry for years as strong men refused to work hard, and theft of crops still in the ground ran rampant. Bradford wrote that the colony was riddled with "corruption and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."
The harvests of 1621 and 1622 were adequate enough so that "all had their hungry bellies filled," but that did not last. Deaths from malnutrition continued into the next year.
But in 1623, something changed. Bradford reported, "Instead of famine now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." By 1624, the colony was producing so much food that it began exporting corn.
What caused this change?
After the poor harvest of 1622, the colony brainstormed for a way to raise more corn and obtain a better crop. The solution, like the Thanksgiving story told today, was simple. In 1623, Bradford "gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit."
The socialistic experiment that had failed them was abandoned and replaced with capitalism. That turned the colonists away from failure and forward into success and growth. And this move away from socialism, along with the resulting prosperity, is what we truly celebrate today. It is easy to see why I call Thanksgiving the first Libertarian holiday.
Thanksgiving, far from being the simple and uninspiring story of a group of people learning how to farm, is actually a celebration of what has made America itself great. It is the story of people working together by working for themselves first, and in so doing, improving the standard of living for everyone. These are the American ideas we hold dear.
As you sit down to your table laden with turkey, dressing and pumpkin pie, remember the true story of Thanksgiving, and what it means to all.
UPDATE: I realize I didn't post any links supporting this one; mainly that's because these facts are buried in history tomes and scholarly works... and I don't mean school books. About all I can online find is different opinion pieces based upon this information, so I offer one of those to you. This one deals with the same subject in passing as it makes a different point.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/26/pilgrims_planted_the_seeds_of_americas_abundance_99321.html
Early on, the Pilgrims grasped a basic point about economic motivation. In 1623, they rejected their initial system of collectivism; each family got its own plot of land. Bradford called it "a very good success, for it makes all hands very industrious." They had learned "the vanity of that conceit of Plato's . . . that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing."
UPDATE: I located a site containing excerpts from William Bradford's "History of Plymouth Plantation", assuming you're interested.
http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/14-bra.html
All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Gov[erno]r (with the advise of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance), and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other ways would have been by any means the Gov[erno]r or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now wente willingly., into the field, and tooke their little-ones with them to set corne, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.'
UPDATE: And if you really WANT the full text of Bradford's "History of Plymouth Plantation", try here. I warn you, it's long, mostly boring, and the relevant portions are buried between unrelated entries.
http://www.mith2.umd.edu/eada/html/display.php?docs=bradford_history.xml
Read the rest...
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Where Is The Lie On Global Warming?
Global warming is something I’ve been watching for years… not the so-called “fact” that man is causing our world to heat up and explode, but rather the political circus that has replaced true scientific inquiry.
For those of you tuning in late, apparently politicians have decided that the science on man-caused global warming is “settled,” and therefore there is a consensus that global warming is a fact that must be corrected by draconian laws passed by government. Against you, me, and our freedoms… all in the name of saving the planet, of course.
Forget that thousands of scientists disagree… we have a politically-mandated consensus.
But what do we do with inconvenient facts that aren’t in line with global warming theory? For example, what about the fact that global temperature has NOT increased over the past ten years? None of the global-warming models predicted this, and none of the global warming scientists know why it happened… but they assure us it’s just a temporary aberration that will be followed by massive temperature increases… etc, etc.
And meanwhile, most scientists who author a study contradicting global warming orthodoxy are ignored, ridiculed, and refused the right to publish in the best journals. This sounds a lot like the old “scientific tribunals” rejecting new theories and persecuting the scientist who dared to be unorthodox.
Yes, Galileo, the earth does revolve around the sun and not vice versa, no matter what the Roman Catholic Church said. And the scientists who doubt the whole man-caused global warming theory are still correct, no matter what the political orthodoxy says.
And now some new evidence has been produced, and it has little to do with science. It appears as if a hacker broke into the computer system over at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia and downloaded a TON of documents on global warming over the years. Little of the information concerns itself very much with science, though some DOES detail the tricks and hoaxes they’ve perpetrated to support their theory.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
They just can’t explain why the earth isn’t warming…
They have used statistical tricks to show temperature increases that never really occurred.
They tried hard to keep their data secret so they wouldn’t be exposed.
And they tried to gimmick the peer-review system to keep dissenting reports from being published and considered legitimate.
This behavior should be criminal, seeing as how many governments are attempting to pass laws and set policies based upon this fraudulent data. One thing it certainly is NOT is scientific… because science WELCOMES dissent in order to arrive at the truth. Global warming supporters seem to want to hide the truth to protect their phony-baloney jobs.
That’s the current global warming scandal. If you’d like to read a little more about it, you can find a good article over at the Telegraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
The whole global warming movement is a scam, and laws such as PresBo’s Cap & Trade are not only unnecessary, they’re ineffective and actually will be harmful to our country. And they know it… otherwise, why lie about it and try so hard to keep the truth from getting out?
So, where IS the lie on global warming… that it DOES exist or that it doesn’t?
You be the judge.
Read the rest...
For those of you tuning in late, apparently politicians have decided that the science on man-caused global warming is “settled,” and therefore there is a consensus that global warming is a fact that must be corrected by draconian laws passed by government. Against you, me, and our freedoms… all in the name of saving the planet, of course.
Forget that thousands of scientists disagree… we have a politically-mandated consensus.
But what do we do with inconvenient facts that aren’t in line with global warming theory? For example, what about the fact that global temperature has NOT increased over the past ten years? None of the global-warming models predicted this, and none of the global warming scientists know why it happened… but they assure us it’s just a temporary aberration that will be followed by massive temperature increases… etc, etc.
And meanwhile, most scientists who author a study contradicting global warming orthodoxy are ignored, ridiculed, and refused the right to publish in the best journals. This sounds a lot like the old “scientific tribunals” rejecting new theories and persecuting the scientist who dared to be unorthodox.
Yes, Galileo, the earth does revolve around the sun and not vice versa, no matter what the Roman Catholic Church said. And the scientists who doubt the whole man-caused global warming theory are still correct, no matter what the political orthodoxy says.
And now some new evidence has been produced, and it has little to do with science. It appears as if a hacker broke into the computer system over at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia and downloaded a TON of documents on global warming over the years. Little of the information concerns itself very much with science, though some DOES detail the tricks and hoaxes they’ve perpetrated to support their theory.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
They just can’t explain why the earth isn’t warming…
These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.
They have used statistical tricks to show temperature increases that never really occurred.
More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.
They tried hard to keep their data secret so they wouldn’t be exposed.
Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused.
And they tried to gimmick the peer-review system to keep dissenting reports from being published and considered legitimate.
But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.
And that is precisely what we find.
In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.
Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."
This behavior should be criminal, seeing as how many governments are attempting to pass laws and set policies based upon this fraudulent data. One thing it certainly is NOT is scientific… because science WELCOMES dissent in order to arrive at the truth. Global warming supporters seem to want to hide the truth to protect their phony-baloney jobs.
That’s the current global warming scandal. If you’d like to read a little more about it, you can find a good article over at the Telegraph.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
The whole global warming movement is a scam, and laws such as PresBo’s Cap & Trade are not only unnecessary, they’re ineffective and actually will be harmful to our country. And they know it… otherwise, why lie about it and try so hard to keep the truth from getting out?
So, where IS the lie on global warming… that it DOES exist or that it doesn’t?
You be the judge.
Read the rest...
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Admin: Thanksgiving Week
I want to apologize for not doing much in the way of blogging over the past few days. We have relatives in for the holiday week, and I'm not able to spend much time in front of the computer right now. I will definitely post a Thanksgiving entry, and will try harder to post something at least once a day.
Once again, I apologize... and I wish you all a happy Thanksgiving Day.
Read the rest...
Once again, I apologize... and I wish you all a happy Thanksgiving Day.
Read the rest...
Monday, November 23, 2009
Can Senate Pass ObamaCare?
That's the big question on everybody's mind, isn't it... Is it possible for the Dems to pass their ObamaCare bill in the Senate? Liberals will reply heatedly that of course it is, and assert we're just being silly, engaging in wishful thinking, or maybe even cast aspersions upon our character for daring to think otherwise. Depending on the individual, of course.
But when we look at what happened Saturday, we find that things aren't so rosy after all. After all the debating and amending is over, liberals need 60 votes to pass their ObamaCare bill, and they have... precisely 60 votes in their caucus. Assuming the Republicans remain unanimously opposed, liberals need ALL of the Democrat Senators to vote "yea."
On the Republican side, Olympia Snowe is still a wild card. She voted against opening debate, that's true, but she may still vote in favor of closing debate at a future time.
On the Democrat side, let's look at the swing votes.
Joe Leiberman is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. He voted to begin debate, but said that he is opposed to the so-called "public option" and will vote "nay" on any plan that includes one.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1109/Lieberman_holds_fast_on_public_option.html?showall
Blanche Lincoln has stated that she also opposes the "public option," and added that she would not vote in favor of the bill as currently written. Mary Landrieu said much pretty much the same thing.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29795.html
The fourth swing vote belongs to Ben Nelson, who said that he also would vote no on the bill as it currently is written. He doesn't like the "opt-out" plan but might support an "opt-in" version. Also, he thinks that the bill doesn't do enough to control costs.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1109/Nelson_would_vote_no_on_bill_as_is.html?showall
So there you have it, four Democrats who basically oppose a public option and say they won't vote for it. And the extreme-liberal wing has already signaled they'll vote against any bill WITHOUT a public option.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29798.html
So, what to do? Is it possible for the centrist Democrats and the rabid left-wing Democrats to reach a single plan they can all support?
Personally, I think that it is more than possible for a bill to pass, I think it is likely. And it has little to do with what Senators can "support." It all comes down to the carrot and the stick.
In the House, several representatives were essentially bribed to vote yes, and what they were offered had little to do with healthcare. Basically, the party in power has a great ability to offer funding for unrelated pet projects in order to convince a realcitrant Congressman to vote "yea"... and they're not shy about doing it.
On the "stick" side of the equation, anybody caucusing with the Democrats who opposes this bill could see choice committee memberships pass them by... punishment for not toeing the party line. And Blanche Lincoln is facing a strong Democrat challenger in next year's election... one whom the party has said they may well endorse INSTEAD of Lincoln if she votes "nay."
I think the combination of rewards for conformity and punishments for opposition will prove too powerful for most, if not all, of the Democrats now in opposition to the bill. They'll end up voting in favor of closure, giving the liberals their 60 votes.
I also think that many of the Democrats who DO vote "yea" will face angry voters next year and end up back in civilian life. But that's beside the point.
Don't pin your hopes on those four Democrats who are opposed... they may not have the stomach for this fight.
UPDATE: It seems as if the Washington Post agrees with the majority of my analysis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202229.html
Read the rest...
But when we look at what happened Saturday, we find that things aren't so rosy after all. After all the debating and amending is over, liberals need 60 votes to pass their ObamaCare bill, and they have... precisely 60 votes in their caucus. Assuming the Republicans remain unanimously opposed, liberals need ALL of the Democrat Senators to vote "yea."
On the Republican side, Olympia Snowe is still a wild card. She voted against opening debate, that's true, but she may still vote in favor of closing debate at a future time.
On the Democrat side, let's look at the swing votes.
Joe Leiberman is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. He voted to begin debate, but said that he is opposed to the so-called "public option" and will vote "nay" on any plan that includes one.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1109/Lieberman_holds_fast_on_public_option.html?showall
Blanche Lincoln has stated that she also opposes the "public option," and added that she would not vote in favor of the bill as currently written. Mary Landrieu said much pretty much the same thing.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29795.html
The fourth swing vote belongs to Ben Nelson, who said that he also would vote no on the bill as it currently is written. He doesn't like the "opt-out" plan but might support an "opt-in" version. Also, he thinks that the bill doesn't do enough to control costs.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1109/Nelson_would_vote_no_on_bill_as_is.html?showall
So there you have it, four Democrats who basically oppose a public option and say they won't vote for it. And the extreme-liberal wing has already signaled they'll vote against any bill WITHOUT a public option.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29798.html
So, what to do? Is it possible for the centrist Democrats and the rabid left-wing Democrats to reach a single plan they can all support?
Personally, I think that it is more than possible for a bill to pass, I think it is likely. And it has little to do with what Senators can "support." It all comes down to the carrot and the stick.
In the House, several representatives were essentially bribed to vote yes, and what they were offered had little to do with healthcare. Basically, the party in power has a great ability to offer funding for unrelated pet projects in order to convince a realcitrant Congressman to vote "yea"... and they're not shy about doing it.
On the "stick" side of the equation, anybody caucusing with the Democrats who opposes this bill could see choice committee memberships pass them by... punishment for not toeing the party line. And Blanche Lincoln is facing a strong Democrat challenger in next year's election... one whom the party has said they may well endorse INSTEAD of Lincoln if she votes "nay."
I think the combination of rewards for conformity and punishments for opposition will prove too powerful for most, if not all, of the Democrats now in opposition to the bill. They'll end up voting in favor of closure, giving the liberals their 60 votes.
I also think that many of the Democrats who DO vote "yea" will face angry voters next year and end up back in civilian life. But that's beside the point.
Don't pin your hopes on those four Democrats who are opposed... they may not have the stomach for this fight.
UPDATE: It seems as if the Washington Post agrees with the majority of my analysis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/22/AR2009112202229.html
Read the rest...
Friday, November 20, 2009
Dems Drooling To Spend Bailout Funds
Let's assume, for the purposes of discussion, that there are approximately $200 billion from the TARP fund that won't be used. PresBo wants to "pay down" the deficit. The GOP wants to "give it back" to the taxpayers. So, what do Congressional Democrats want to do with it? Spend it on various and sundry pet projects.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29749.html
Amazing. Is it any wonder that people are perceiving Democrats as being far too willing to spend money? With record high deficits, Dems have been PRETENDING to be fiscally prudent... remember the whole fiction of "paying for" the cost of ObamaCare with spending cuts and tax increases? But like a heroin addict... they respond predictably when you wave a little of the stuff they crave under their noses.
Thanks but no thanks, Dems. Do something right for once, okay?
Read the rest...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29749.html
But Democrats are salivating over the possibility of $200 billion in unspent money.
House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut wants dough to fund job-creation legislation. Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, the powerful chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, wants to direct $2 billion of repaid Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to loans for unemployed homeowners so they can avoid foreclosure. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California admits that “there’s a good bit of interest” in spreading the money around to various economic projects.
And Senate Democrats want to put a big chunk — say, $40 billion — toward loans to small businesses.
Amazing. Is it any wonder that people are perceiving Democrats as being far too willing to spend money? With record high deficits, Dems have been PRETENDING to be fiscally prudent... remember the whole fiction of "paying for" the cost of ObamaCare with spending cuts and tax increases? But like a heroin addict... they respond predictably when you wave a little of the stuff they crave under their noses.
Thanks but no thanks, Dems. Do something right for once, okay?
Read the rest...
NY Terror Trials Are Bad Idea
I haven't said anything yet about the terrorists being tried in civilian courts, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion.
Trying the terrorist suspects in civilian court is an extremely bad idea for a variety of reasons. Let's look at the most obvious first: Miranda.
It is a fact that cases get tossed every day because the suspect wasn't properly mirandized and allowed access to an attorney. These defendants... weren't. Personally, I wouldn't expect soldiers on a battlefield to have to do that, but maybe that's just me. One scenario would be that the judge involved tosses the confessions and a bunch more stuff because they weren't mirandized and provided access to a lawyer. An even worse scenario would be that the cases are tossed entirely because the defendants were DENIED ACCESS to lawyers during their multi-year incarceration... and the defndants walk.
The big danger here is that the civilian courts will essentialy set free guilty terrorists... all because the soldiers who caught and interrogated them didn't operate by criminal court guidelines.
Now don't get me wrong, I have long maintained that depriving suspects of representation increases the likelihood that someone wrongly accused would spend years in jail... but that's not the issue today.
In the first sign that the fears of myself and MANY others aren't just paranoid ravings... the defense attorneys are already salivating over change of venue motions. And they are using the words of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to make their case.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/expert_bigmouth_prez_helps_defense_ZtW0f2CxjGnJ3b5bnK4oUO#ixzz0XKfzoB8z
So far, we're seeing presumptions of guilt, implications that the trial results are fixed, and claims that the trial venue was chosen for political reasons DETRIMENTAL to the welfare of the defendants. Yeah, any defense attorney would love to have these kinds of things on record.
And this is just the precursor, people. These trials are going to be circuses... thanks to PreBo's bone-headed decision to try terrorists in criminal courts.
I will talk more about this in the future, I'm sure, but right now let's just say that PresBo's actions are questionable at best, and extremely damaging to the US at worst.
Thanks, PB... is THIS what you meant by "Change We Can Believe In?"
Read the rest...
Trying the terrorist suspects in civilian court is an extremely bad idea for a variety of reasons. Let's look at the most obvious first: Miranda.
It is a fact that cases get tossed every day because the suspect wasn't properly mirandized and allowed access to an attorney. These defendants... weren't. Personally, I wouldn't expect soldiers on a battlefield to have to do that, but maybe that's just me. One scenario would be that the judge involved tosses the confessions and a bunch more stuff because they weren't mirandized and provided access to a lawyer. An even worse scenario would be that the cases are tossed entirely because the defendants were DENIED ACCESS to lawyers during their multi-year incarceration... and the defndants walk.
The big danger here is that the civilian courts will essentialy set free guilty terrorists... all because the soldiers who caught and interrogated them didn't operate by criminal court guidelines.
Now don't get me wrong, I have long maintained that depriving suspects of representation increases the likelihood that someone wrongly accused would spend years in jail... but that's not the issue today.
In the first sign that the fears of myself and MANY others aren't just paranoid ravings... the defense attorneys are already salivating over change of venue motions. And they are using the words of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to make their case.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/expert_bigmouth_prez_helps_defense_ZtW0f2CxjGnJ3b5bnK4oUO#ixzz0XKfzoB8z
Obama put his foot in his mouth, legally if not politically, speaking about 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, when he told NBC: "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."
Even more damaging, prominent legal scholar Jonathan Turley says, was Holder's statement indicating the trial was being held in New York for symbolic reasons.
"Those are highly prejudicial statements and they further show a motivation in locating the trial in this particular venue," said Turley, who has worked on terror cases.
"I would be surprised if the trial could be held there. Holder has made it much more difficult with his press conference."
So far, we're seeing presumptions of guilt, implications that the trial results are fixed, and claims that the trial venue was chosen for political reasons DETRIMENTAL to the welfare of the defendants. Yeah, any defense attorney would love to have these kinds of things on record.
And this is just the precursor, people. These trials are going to be circuses... thanks to PreBo's bone-headed decision to try terrorists in criminal courts.
I will talk more about this in the future, I'm sure, but right now let's just say that PresBo's actions are questionable at best, and extremely damaging to the US at worst.
Thanks, PB... is THIS what you meant by "Change We Can Believe In?"
Read the rest...
"Jobs Saved Or Created" Has NO Credibility Left
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116576It's official... the number of jobs "saved or created" that is being trumpeted by the White House has NO credibility at all. It's all a giant guessing game designed so that PresBo can claim a political victory where one doesn't exist.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about the massive problems, overstatements, and outright fabrications in their data. The latest example comes from a GAO report obtained by ABC news. According to this government report, many jobs were reported saved by agencies who spent no money, and thousands of projects spent hundreds of millions yet created no jobs.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gao-50000-jobs-stimulus-projects-spent-money/story?id=9117506
The GAO report comes on the heels of weeks of reports, including some by ABC News, that question the validity of the job creation numbers the administration's economic recovery board says were generated by the stimulus plan.
- The new GAO report finds that 58,386 of the more than 640,000 "saved or created" jobs listed on recovery.gov are from stimulus projects where no money has yet been spent.
- On the flip side, the report finds nearly 10,000 projects that report spending a total of $965 million without creating any jobs at all.
The report also raises questions about how closely the contracts are being monitored. Twenty-five percent of the more than 130,000 primary contracts listed were not marked as having been reviewed by any government agency, and less than 1 percent of subcontracts were reviewed.
And the GAO says that estimating the impact of the stimulus is impossible... no matter what Obama tells you.
On Thursday, the GAO's Gene Dodaro will testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
"Neither the recipients nor analysts can identify with certainty the impact of the Recovery Act because of the inability to compare the observed outcome with the unobserved, counterfactual scenario in which the stimulus does not take place," Dodaro says in draft testimony prepared for the hearing that was obtained Wednesday by ABC News.
Oh... and the guy responsible for tracking the effects of the stimulus package admits they can't verify the accuracy of the numbers.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29674.html
The chief federal oversight official for the stimulus program said in a letter Wednesday that he can’t certify whether the number of jobs “created or saved” by stimulus funds is accurate.
Recovery Board Chairman Earl Devaney was responding to a request for information by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. In a letter to Issa dated Nov. 17, Devaney wrote, “Your letter specifically asks if I am able to certify that the number of jobs reported as created/saved on Recovery.gov is accurate and auditable. No, I am not able to make this certification.”
The Obama administration claimed that it saved or created at least 1 million jobs this year. But errors in the stimulus job creation data have become a political hot potato, as the administration has been hit by news reports revealing that data it posted on recovery.gov includes jobs allegedly created in congressional districts that don’t exist.
As I've been saying for a while, now, White House claims of how many jobs were "created or saved" ARE MEANINGLESS... just numbers designed to make PresBo look good.
Politically motivated to make PresBo look good... that sounds like most of his Presidency so far, doesn't it?
UPDATE: Oh, and after proudly proclaiming 640,000 jobs "created or saved" and using that to shore up his political creds on the stimulus, what does he say now about all the errors in the numbers he used to MAKE this claim of success? They're a "side-issue."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-calls-stimulus-data-errors-issue-says-focus-job-growth/
Read the rest...
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Interest On US Debt = $4.8 Trillion
Remember when PresBo projected the budget deficits for the next decade based upon his profligate spending habits? According to those projections, the national debt will increase by $9 trillion over the next decade. And more than half of that debt we accumulate, $4.8 trillion to be precise, will be interest payments on our existing debt.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/19/news/economy/debt_interest/index.htm
Ask any debt counselor... when you have to borrow money so you can make payments on existing debt, this is a bad sign of impending financial doom. And that's precisely what we're doing. And as bad as it looks now, it will probably get worse.
PresBo has been talking a bit recently about having to reduce deficits, though it's clear from his spending habits that he doesn't really mean it. The problem is that the yearly deficits aren't the whole problem. Sure, reducing the deficits would help, but I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a "sustainable deficit" anymore. We are so far in debt that interest on that debt is consuming an ever-larger portion of our budget... and it will only get worse as the debt increases.
We need to do more than just "reduce the deficit"... our government needs to start spending LESS than it collects in tax revenue and start PAYING DOWN THE DEBT! We can't keep going deeper and deeper into debt forever... even a little rational thought should be sufficient to realize that!
It's time and past time to make the hard decisions to start reducing the size and cost of government to the point where we can start paying down the debt. We're not at the danger point yet, but it would be a REALLY good idea to act BEFORE that danger point is reached.
Read the rest...
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/19/news/economy/debt_interest/index.htm
Here's a new way to think about the U.S. government's epic borrowing: More than half of the $9 trillion in debt that Uncle Sam is expected to build up over the next decade will be interest.
More than half. In fact, $4.8 trillion.
If that's hard to grasp, here's another way to look at why that's a problem.
In 2015 alone, the estimated interest due - $533 billion - is equal to a third of the federal income taxes expected to be paid that year, said Charles Konigsberg, chief budget counsel of the Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group.
Ask any debt counselor... when you have to borrow money so you can make payments on existing debt, this is a bad sign of impending financial doom. And that's precisely what we're doing. And as bad as it looks now, it will probably get worse.
But accumulating any more interest on what the United States owes at this point is like extreme sport: dangerous.
All the more so because interest rates will rise when private sector borrowers return to the debt market and compete with the government for capital. At that point, the country's interest payments could jack up very fast.
"When interest rates rise even a small amount, the interest payments go up a lot because of the size of the debt," Konigsberg said.
The Congressional Budget Office, which made the $4.8 trillion forecast, already baked some increase in rates into the cake. But there is always a chance those estimates may prove too conservative.
PresBo has been talking a bit recently about having to reduce deficits, though it's clear from his spending habits that he doesn't really mean it. The problem is that the yearly deficits aren't the whole problem. Sure, reducing the deficits would help, but I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a "sustainable deficit" anymore. We are so far in debt that interest on that debt is consuming an ever-larger portion of our budget... and it will only get worse as the debt increases.
We need to do more than just "reduce the deficit"... our government needs to start spending LESS than it collects in tax revenue and start PAYING DOWN THE DEBT! We can't keep going deeper and deeper into debt forever... even a little rational thought should be sufficient to realize that!
It's time and past time to make the hard decisions to start reducing the size and cost of government to the point where we can start paying down the debt. We're not at the danger point yet, but it would be a REALLY good idea to act BEFORE that danger point is reached.
Read the rest...
Senate Democrats Finally Unveil A Bill
Well, the Senate Democrats have finally agreed on an ObamaCare bill. They have named it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/health/policy/19health.html?_r=1&hp
You can read the bill itself here:
http://documents.nytimes.com/senate-health-care-bill#p=1
And you can see a comparison of the House and Senate bills here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-differences.html
My central objection to this plan is pretty simple, and applies to both the House and Senate bills. Both bills seek to "solve problems" by forcing every person in the country into a system devised by the party currently in power. They want to assume an unprecedented amount of control over our lives, and this I oppose. Adamantly. There is no justification for government-control of the private sector, and I don't WANT to take part in their program.
But that's the part that they ignore entirely. The half of the country that does NOT want to take part in the new system are out of luck... we will have no choice.
Don't get too comfortable with a government willing to lay down the law, force you to behave as they wish, and give you no choice. Those are bad things, and we need to be concerned what will be next.
So, this "unveiling," though the press is gushing about it, changes little. We've known for a while basically what the Senate plan would look like; it was a massive compromise measure designed to accomplish one thing... win 60 votes. They don't have those votes yet, and the arm-twisting and cajolery has already begun.
Read the rest...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/health/policy/19health.html?_r=1&hp
You can read the bill itself here:
http://documents.nytimes.com/senate-health-care-bill#p=1
And you can see a comparison of the House and Senate bills here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-differences.html
My central objection to this plan is pretty simple, and applies to both the House and Senate bills. Both bills seek to "solve problems" by forcing every person in the country into a system devised by the party currently in power. They want to assume an unprecedented amount of control over our lives, and this I oppose. Adamantly. There is no justification for government-control of the private sector, and I don't WANT to take part in their program.
But that's the part that they ignore entirely. The half of the country that does NOT want to take part in the new system are out of luck... we will have no choice.
Don't get too comfortable with a government willing to lay down the law, force you to behave as they wish, and give you no choice. Those are bad things, and we need to be concerned what will be next.
So, this "unveiling," though the press is gushing about it, changes little. We've known for a while basically what the Senate plan would look like; it was a massive compromise measure designed to accomplish one thing... win 60 votes. They don't have those votes yet, and the arm-twisting and cajolery has already begun.
Read the rest...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)