Various Microbursts

At the end of the week, here are some microbursts of stories that I wanted to comment on, but not quite enough to do a full post.

70% say government and big business on the same side
In my opinion, they probably are more often than not because big business funds re-election campaigns on both sides.  The thing I find odd about this is that one party quite obviously wants to do damage to big business in the form of higher taxes, more regulation, and (now) direct takeovers.  So why does big business continue to support Democrats?  You got me on that one.

53% say the next President will be a Republican
This poll question included both 2012 and 2016, so it's not necessarily a mandate on the next election.  The key in any real election would be independents, which in this poll lean to Republican 47%-33%.  If nothing else, I think it's interesting to note how the pendulum swings back and forth.  Look at recent history:

Obama - Dem
Bush - Rep
Clinton - Dem
Bush - Rep
Reagan - Rep
Carter - Dem
Ford/Nixon - Rep
JFK/LBJ - Dem
Eisenhower - Rep
Truman - Dem
FDR - Dem

Aside from the after-effects of the immensely popular Reagan helping Bush Sr., you have to go back to FDR/Truman in the 1950s to find an unbroken string of more than two terms in the same party.  The message?  This country doesn't trust the consolidation of power in either party for very long.  That's the beauty of checks and balances, and that's exactly what we lack right now.  I would guess this means we're in for a pretty violent swerve back to the Right in the near future unless the Left can shore up so much power that it becomes invulnerable in the meantime.

Narcissist-in-Chief asks for more airtime during sweeps week
Well of course he did.  And of course they'll give it to him.  Oh, they'll deliberate and make it look like they're actually thinking about it, but you know good and well they're going to give him the biggest Obamagasm they can.  It probably won't be worth turning on network TV the entire week.

Some actual cooperation in Washingon??

Since October Heritage has been writing about the need for an Independent Financial Markets Commission to look into causes and remedies of the market crisis. Now, thanks to Senator Johnny Isakson, the idea has been approved by the U.S. Senate in a remarkable 92-4 vote.

This is the first time I can recall in this administration that something has been done with vast support from both parties (hint: look at Barney Frank).  The real test, however, will be whether or not Pelosi allows such a measure to come up in the House.  If she does, something might actually get done.  Wouldn't that be a nice change?

House Minority Leader John Boehner on...

...released intelligence information.
...GAO report confirming massive stimulus waste.
...a real economic alternative, and Democrat obstruction to even give it a fair hearing.
...CIA memos and terrorism.
...Obama's rhetoric on reckless spending and waste doesn't reconcile with actions.

I'm not 100% sold on Boehner because of his failure to adequately stand up to TARP last fall, but since then he has been right on the money.  A politician who comes home quickly is almost as good as one who never left.  Almost.

TARP + ACORN = $$$

One of the problems of TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) is the complete lack of accountability in how the funds are spent. A lending institution or other entity could be billions of dollars in debt, come to the federal government for a bailout, and then waste it on parties or trips. In addition, these companies could also use the money to fund left-wing fringe groups, and we have no say whatsoever.

If a company requests taxpayer money, then the taxpayers need to know how that money is being spent. More importantly, since the entire program is designed to help "troubled" companies, the money should be focused on restoring the company to "good health," not funding groups like ACORN whose sole job is to promote a left-wing agenda.

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe is addressing this problem with an amendment to S.386 -- the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (FERA). Inhofe's amendment (announced with Sens. DeMint, Vitter, and Ensign, "would require TARP recipients to fully disclose any expenditures that are not essential to restoring their solvency."

As Inhofe notes in his press release, "Some of these companies have donated to ACORN, Friends of the Earth, Planned Parenthood ... to name just a few. The vast majority of Americans do not support the agendas of these fringe groups, whose excesses have been well-documented over the years."

Inhofe's objective is simple: "If they're not focused on increasing their solvency or liquidity, if they're not working on lending to small businesses and individuals, if they're not helping get this economy back on track, and are instead financing extremist organizations, then the American people need to know about it."

Amen to that.

The more the American people pay attention, the more pressure comes to bear on these yahoos in Washington to clean up their act.  I think most of them are beyond redemption and should be sent home at the next possible opportunity, but absolutely nothing will change until the American people start forcing accountability.  Being informed is step one.

There's my two cents.