What's The Answer...

...to what will drive an economic recovery? If you listen to President Obama, you'd be confused. There are two sound bytes on here. The first is from January 8th, 2009, and the second is from yesterday, January 28th. Both cannot possibly be correct. Listen:

That second clip might as well be Ronald Reagan - it's actually correct. He's right. Problem is, he doesn't believe it and his track record is the very antithesis of it. And yes, we do know he doesn't believe it - look at his porkapalooza bill and point out anything in there that follows the theory that empowering businesses and individuals rather than the government. You won't find anything. Also, he conveniently said this stuff in front of a bunch of conservative CEOs and businesspeople.

I guess this would be the transparency the Obamessiah promised. I would call it lying or political expediency, but whatever...

There's my two cents.

We Can't Just...Oh, Wait, Yes We Can!

Barack Obama in a campaign speech in Oregon on May 16, 2008:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

Barack Obama in the White House on January 29, 2009:

The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

"He's from Hawaii, O.K.?" said Mr. Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. "He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there."

Can anyone say 'two sets of rules'?

Change!  CHANGE, DAMMIT, CHANGE!

There's my two cents.

Super-Genius President Obama...

...tries to enter the Oval Office through a window:

He thought it was a door:


Obama approaches a window of the Oval Office, instead of the door, shown to the right. (Brack Pool NY Daily News)

So far there is just one media outlet that dared to report this story on Dear Leader compared to the 9,480 articles that reported the "Bush Beijing locked door."

I just thought this might be a fun little release from the tension of the Generational Theft Act/Porkapalooza battle.

There's my two cents.

Generational Theft Act/Porkapalooza Bill Passes House

Well, it's official. Earlier this evening, the House passed the Generational Theft Act/Porkapalooza bill, 244-188.

The first step in dooming the American economy...check!

There is a silver lining, however: not a single Republican voted for it.

This is a tremendously good sign for the resurgence of the Republican party as the party of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. Michelle Malkin says it well:

This crap sandwich is all yours, Dems.

Own it. Embrace it. Swallow it. The House version of the $1.1 trillion Generational Theft Act of 2009 is all the Democrats’ doing now.

[And...]

I’ve been doing a lot of B.O. (Barack Obama/Bend Over) Republican-bashing the past few weeks. Watching the Republicans crumble on the Geithner and Holder nominations, swoon over The One’s congeniality, and display indecision over the stimulus hasn’t been easy on the stomach or the head.

But credit must be given where it is due. Today was a very good day for conservatism — and a good day for the party whose logo I’ve had to run upside-down for too long.

Thank you, GOP.

It’s a sad state of affairs when I can tally the number of notably good days for the Republican Party on one hand over the past two years: the defeat of shamnesty, the (temporary) prevention of massive S-CHIP expansion, last summer’s Drill, Baby, Drill revolt on the House floor. Fortunately, the GOP held the line this evening in a remarkable, powerful way. They may have lost the vote, but they sent a lasting message. They took a stand for principle and posterity. They reclaimed their brand as the party of small government, low taxes, and fiscal responsibility. They restored their damaged credibility.

And guess what? It didn’t take a lot of fancy new slogans or flashy, high-tech tools or slick, high-priced strategists. They simply united and said “NO.” They slammed their foot on the brakes in a Congress full of reckless, panicky drivers. They peeled off 11 Democrats in the process. They forced the Obamedia to cover the excessive pork and dubious stimulative value of this monstrosity. They made conservative values count.

There’s no mystery in how best to rebuild the party and energize the base: Talk like conservatives. Walk like conservatives. Vote like conservatives.

Senate Republicans, take note. Don’t squander this opportunity for redemption. Make no apologies for principled obstructionism. Counter the inevitable liberal overreaching with plain facts and free-market alternatives.

Stop licking boots. Start kicking ass.

Amen! Stop licking boots and start kicking ass. Bingo. There it is...short and simple and oh, so sweet!

So what happens now? Well, basically, there are a couple more steps before this beast becomes reality. First, a similar 'stimulus' bill will have to be debated and voted upon in the Senate. If it passes there, it will go into committee with various House and Senate members who will haggle the House and Senate versions into a single cohesive piece of legislation that will be sent to Obama to sign. After he signs it, it becomes law, and America gets screwed.

So, there are two things on the agenda at this moment. First, call your Republican House reps and thank them gratuitously for holding the line against this piece of crap. We hassle them when they screw up, so we need to praise them when they do it right. Let them hear from you one more time.

Second, begin work on your Senators. Things may be a bit more interesting there, as the Dems lack the 60 votes to ram the bill through regardless of what Reps do. It only takes 51 votes to pass a bill, but it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture, which is basically a rule that says the Senate is ready to vote on the bill (yeah, it's kind of silly, but that's how it works). If you've ever seen Spaceballs, do you recall how Colonel Sanders always issues orders to prepare for something before doing the thing?

"Prepare to fire!"
"Preparing to fire."
"Fire!"
"Firing."

It's like that in the Senate - they have to vote to decide if they're ready to vote on a bill. That's why the 60-vote mark is so critical - if the Dems can't get cloture, the bill dies in the Senate because a vote cannot take place. There are 4-5 Reps, however, who we call RINOs (Republican in name only), meaning they normally vote with the Democrats. If Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is unable to marshall unanimity like Boehner did in the House, America gets screwed. If the GOP holds the line unanimously, we could escape by the skin of our teeth. And, don't forget, there were 11 House Democrats who opposed this beast, so there may be one or two in the Senate who will, too. There's a chance, though it is admittedly slim.

So, it is all the more important to hammer your Senators (Rep or Dem) with your opinions about this non-stimulus 'stimulus'. Always be polite and courteous, but also be confident and forceful. Point out specific examples of things that have nothing to do with the economy. Suggest things that have worked every time they've been tried throughout history, like real tax cuts. And keep calling or e-mailing them daily from now until the vote.

I'll keep you posted on when that happens, but it sounds like it'll be in a week or two.

For today...good work! A crucial step was taken by the Republican party today, reclaiming its moral high ground as the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government. This is what Reagan did, and this is what the GOP did in 1994, and it worked brilliantly both times. If this crap sandwich goes as badly as we fear, there will be no one to blame but the Democrats, and even the media won't be able to hide that fact.

Well done, and keep up the good work!

There's my two cents.

Generational Theft Act (Porkapalooza Bill) Update #5

The debate on the Democrat bill is over, and I think the debate over some proposed amendments is, too.  Now they're debating the Republican alternative plan:

They're debating the Republican alternative to the stimulus package. Republicans bill their version as costing half as much and creating twice as many jobs. It's anyone's guess how many jobs either version would create, but the Republicans base their claim a method of calculation once used by economist Christina Romer, Obama's Chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisors.

 

Complaints about the Democratic bill abound. Rep. Paul Ryan's (R., Wisc.) comments a few minutes ago were the most pointed. My quick transcription: "The most favorable way to look at this package is that 12 percent of this package goes for creating or keeping jobs. All the rest of it is spending—just plain old spending—most of which takes place two or three years from now."

I know, this is the first I've heard of a viable Republican alternative bill, too.  Thanks, media, for doing your job.

By the way, there's more evidence of yet another bailout for banks:

The House of Representatives will today pass President Obama's $900 billion stimulus bill, despite the beliefs of many economists that it will do nothing to help the economy, and despite concerns that it's nothing more than an aggregate of the spending wish lists of Washington Democrats, saved up for decades.

And while Congressional leaders are going full steam ahead, some House Democrats are starting say publicly what others have been saying privately for weeks: this debt spending package is not going to solve the problem, and it may actually work against needed legislation in the future. Pete DeFazio told the Washington Post that additional legislation will likely be needed, and worried that "after this initial rush . . . a lot of people are going to begin to wonder about whether we're pushing the limits of our borrowing capacity here." Paul Kanjorski says he'll probably vote against the bill, and that more bailouts will be necessary.

To what is Kanjorski referring? Perhaps to the growing interest of Democrats in a TARP II, which seems necessary if there is going to be a new 'Bad Bank':

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair is pushing to run the operation, which would buy the toxic assets clogging banks' balance sheets, one of the people said. Bair is arguing that her agency has expertise and could help finance the effort by issuing bonds guaranteed by the FDIC, a second person said. President Barack Obama's team may announce the outlines of its financial-rescue plan as early as next week, an administration official said...

Obama is under increasing pressure to drastically revamp the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program for the ailing industry. While setting up a bank to buy underwater assets is emerging as a favored approach, it could drive up the cost of the rescue in excess of $1 trillion.

Frank told reporters that he would be open to expanding the size of the bailout if the Obama administration "can demonstrate the need for it."

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said yesterday he wants to hear more about the bad-bank idea when he meets in coming days with newly installed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

At his confirmation hearing, Geithner talked about a need for $3-$4 trillion in order to take all the 'toxic assets' off the books of America's banks. We'll soon learn how much additional money the Obama administration believes is necessary to do this -- trillions of dollars, or something less. However, whenever the announcement comes it is likely to dramatically change the current stimulus debate.

Question: when will the madness stop?

Answer: when the country collapses into economic chaos, or when Democrats no longer run the government.

Cheery options, don't you think?

There's my two cents.

Generational Theft Act (Porkapalooza Bill) Update #4

From Byron York at NRO:

Just talked to a very clued-in Republican on the Hill.  This person wouldn't predict a unanimous Republican vote against the Democratic stimulus package, but said there would be "minimal" GOP support of the bill. "I don't know if it will be unanimous, but Democrats are not going to have the kind of bipartisan support the president was trying to get," he told me.  An "overwhelming" number of Republicans will vote no, he predicted.

House Republicans are very happy with recent coverage of the bill, not just Drudge's "$335,000,000 for STD Prevention" headline, but also articles (like this and this) in the New York Times pointing out the enormous amount of social, non-stimulative spending in the proposal, and in the Washington Post, highlighting some Democratic qualms about the bill.  "This is finally penetrating all those headlines that said this is necessary for the economy and that it's all infrastructure and tax relief," my source told me.  "It finally gets the idea out that this is just a really, really big omnibus spending bill."

It's also clear that Republicans, battered after big losses in 2006 and even bigger losses in 2008, are finding their feet on this issue.  The House leadership is running hard on this, trying to make sure every Republican knows what is in the 647-page bill, and handing out individual analyses to each GOP member of what the bill, if passed, would cost his or her particular congressional district.  At the same time, Republicans are looking for any signs of Democratic nervousness about the proposal.  They see a few, but there's no doubt that Democrats, with 256 members (to 178 Republicans) are going to push the bill through.  They have to; anything other than the passage of the bill as currently written would be an enormous defeat for the new president, and Democrats simply will not allow that to happen.  They won the election, they've got the numbers, and they're going to get their bill.  And Republicans, finally, have something to be united about.

Bottom line: $0.12 of every dollar in this bill is debatably marked for economic 'stimulus'.  Debatably.

Once again, let's sum up what the Generational Theft Act/Porkapalooza Bill is really all about: the expansion of government and the cementing of Democrat power for the foreseeable future.  If you have seen all the garbage in this bill as noted on this blog and many others, you know beyond doubt that this is NOT an economic stimulus bill.

And let's look to history, too - the last two times we've seen a substantial Democrat majority in Congress as well as a Democrat in the White House, we got stuck with massive increases of government (the Great Society and the New Deal).  As I mentioned earlier, many of these programs are still around today and have had dramatic impacts on our lives (i.e. Fannie Mae).  The only thing we can expect to be different this time around is that this particular expansion of government will be so massive and far-reaching that it will make the previous ones just a couple of tiny blips on the screen.  Remember this illustration of the amount of money borrowed against the federal government from 1919 to 2007:

And this is what the same chart looks like if you include 2008 (the bailouts that have already gone through):

And Obama is proposing to increase this by double or triple.

You want a Great Depression?  Here's your roadmap.

And even the Democrats know it.  They're grumbling, too:

Even though most House Democrats say they will back the plan, many reject the administration's argument, saying that infrastructure projects could easily be expedited, that the economy will need additional infusions for years to come and that the real reason for shunning infrastructure was to make room for tax cuts. Obama, with a public mandate to do something big, is missing a rare opportunity to rebuild the country, they say.

"Every penny of the $825 billion is borrowed against the future of our kids and grandkids, and so the question is: What benefit are we providing them? What are we doing for the country? It's the difference between real investment that will serve the nation for 30, 50 years and tax cuts, and that's a very poor tradeoff," said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.).

Of course, they're not about to let their Obamessiah fail in his first major legislative initiative, so they'll support it even if it requires the sacrifice of their own children.  Obama is planning to make up those future infusions with 'normal' appropriations bills, but Hot Air voices the big problem with that:

The White House counters that they can pick up the slack later with regular appropriations bills but Obama's got the same problem there as he does with TARP II: Once voters gag on this trillion-dollar pill, good luck asking them to swallow much more.

Fortunately, it sounds like most Republicans are starting to act like Republicans for a change.  Ideally, we'd pick off enough Dems through public pressure to actually kill the bill, but let's be real...it's not going to happen.  Even if every single Republican and a handful of Dems oppose this bill, Obama will get it passed.  The point of this battle is the future - this bill cannot possibly work and will only make the American economy worse.  Remember, even Obama has been saying that things would get worse before they get better - he just wants to solidify the Dem power base before actually trying to address the economic mess he's made for himself (i.e. 'a crisis is a terrible thing to waste').  If that's the case, then why is Obama even bothering with trying to get GOP support?

It's purely for political cover.

If this porkapalooza bill tanks the economy as badly as we are predicting, Americans will be justifiably outraged, and looking for political blood in the 2010 elections (maybe real blood, too...).  If Obama and the Democrats can point to this vote and say, 'hey, look, it was a bipartisan bill that the Republicans supported, too', they could emerge largely unscathed from the public ire.  On the other hand, if the GOP holds the line against this -- even in a losing effort -- there is a tremendously stark contrast between the two parties, and that could spell a major electoral disaster for the Democrats in 2010.

That's what's at stake on this vote.

We know we're screwed for at least two years by this, and so we can only hope to minimize the damage in those two years as much as possible.  The thing that will guarantee the economic death of America is if the Democrats retain their supermajority and stretch this madness even longer.

There is precedent to this - this is almost exactly what happened with Bill Clinton in 1993.  He passed tax increases without Republican support, the American people got angry, and the Republicans swept the House in 1994 (and the Senate soon after).  But we have to stand firm NOW, and continue to stand firm no matter what.

There's my two cents.

Generational Theft Act (Porkapalooza Bill) Update #3

By the way, despite the Generational Theft Act (Porkapalooza Bill) being the biggest partisan bill in American history -- or, as the Wall Street Journal called it, a 40-year wish list for Democrats -- our glorious post-partisan President said the following:

President Barack Obama met face-to-face Tuesday with congressional Republicans who have been chafing over parts of a $825 billion plan to pull the country out of recession, and he urged lawmakers to "keep politics to a minimum" and quickly approve the measure.

On a related note...

Obama [told House Republicans]: "Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part [tax cuts]," according to two sources in the room.

One conservative House Republican who attended the hour-long closed door session was asked if Obama was winning any votes: "Nope. He said he won't compromise on more tax cuts. All form - not substance."

Keeping politics to a minimum, huh?  You say bipartisanship is what you want?  Translation: Republicans had better just bend over and do whatever I want.

Ironically, the reason he refused to give in on more tax cuts: the deficit is too big.

?!@#$!@#%@#%!

He's proposing the biggest spending increase in the history of the planet, and yet he doesn't want you to keep more of your paycheck because we're too far in debt?!

*sigh*

Classic liberal 'logic'.

There's my two cents.

Generational Theft Act (Porkapalooza Bill) Update #2

By the way, if you think that everyone believes this economy-buster is a good idea (aside from all the other sources I've posted over the past few weeks), here's another nail in the coffin of that misconception:

Via Cato Institute: Here are 200 economists, including Nobel Laureates, who oppose the Generational Theft Act of 2009. The open letter is running as an ad in the NY Times, Washington Post and Roll Call this week.

And here, via Hans Bader at Open Market, are more skeptics.

And here's another stimulus goodie that has absolutely nothing to do with stimulating the economy:

GOP Members of Congress are objecting to the Democratic stimulus plan that gives millions of dollars to ACORN-- the largest radical Leftist group in America today.

This radical group worked closely with the Obama campaign during the election although the community organizing group was not open about this. The photo below was scrubbed from the ACORN website before the election:

One of Barack Obama's first big "community organizer" jobs involved ACORN in 1992. Obama also trained ACORN employees. He represented ACORN in court. Obama worked with and protested with ACORN. His campaign donated $800,000 to ACORN this year for voter registration efforts.
And, ACORN even canvassed for Obama this year.

Democrats hoped to reward the Far Left radical group for their efforts in the porked out "stimulus bill."

Yes, this is the same ACORN that is being investigated for voter fraud in over a dozen states.  The number I saw was actually $4.2 billion to ACORN, by the way.  Sen. David Vitter, R-La., told FOX News Tuesday that the money could be seen as "payoff" for groups' political activities in the last election.

Need some more reasons to oppose this beast?  How about these:

5. The plan establishes at least 32 new government programs at a cost of over $136 billion. That means more than a third of this plan's spending provisions are dedicated to creating new government programs.

7. Even though the legislation contains at least 152 separate spending proposals, the authors of the plan can only say that 34 have any chance at keeping or growing jobs.

10. The House Democrats' bill will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.

11. The bill provides enough spending – $825 billion – to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700. $825 billion is enough to give every person in Ohio $72,000.

12. $825 billion is enough to give every person living in poverty in the United States $22,000.

13. Although the House Democrats' proposal has been billed as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, in actuality only $30 billion of the bill – or three percent – is for road and highway spending. A recent study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that only 25 percent of infrastructure dollars can be spent in the first year, making the one year total less than $7 billion.

14. Much of the funding within the House Democrats' proposal will go to programs that already have large, unexpended balances. For example, the bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) – a program that already has $16 billion on hand. States also are sitting on some $9 billion in unused highway funds – funds that Congress is prepared to rescind later this year.

Good stuff, thanks Democrats!  But how about those supposed tax cuts and things that were actually beneficial?

16. A scant 2.7 percent, or $22.3 billion of the overall package, is dedicated to small business tax relief.

18. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit at the center of the plan amounts to $1.37 a day, or about the price of a cup of coffee.

19. Almost one-third of the so-called "tax relief" in the House Democrats' bill is spending in disguise, meaning that true tax relief makes up only 24 percent of the total package – not the 40 percent that President Obama had requested.

And, of course, this is another stimulant in the porkapalooza bill:

Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!

The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Oh, and one last thing...

Major U.S. banks are still hemorrhaging red ink, despite massive taxpayer aid, and President Barack Obama is under pressure to take a high-stakes political gamble -- asking for another bailout.

So, the first bailout failed, and now those banks 'need' another one.  Great.

Call.  E-mail (House here, Senate here).  Repeat.

There's my two cents.



Sources:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/its-nuts-gop-objects-to-stimulus.html
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/27/president-obama-you-cant-stifle-this-dissent/
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/196066.php
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/20-points-on-democrats-11-trillion.html
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashsb.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE50Q71520090127
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/26/acorn-watch-left-wing-fraudsters-could-get-billions-in-stimulus-money/

The Most Ethical? Really?

From The Weekly Standard:

On January 21, President Obama signed an Executive Order requiring ethics commitments for officials of his administration. As has been covered here, that commitment has already been compromised.

Interestingly however, the 'Ethics' section of the White House website went down that day, ostensibly to be updated to reflect the president's initiative. Six days later, that page is still down. Go there today and you find this message:

The ethics section is currently being revised to reflect President Obama's Executive Order concerning Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel, issued on January 21, 2009. Please check back soon.

Six days later and the website still hasn't been updated? This EO has been in the works for months. Furthermore, none of the other 'agenda' pages has been pulled down. According to Roll Call, this is what you found on the page before it went dark:

...the new White House Web site — launched just after President Barack Obama was inaugurated Tuesday — included a list of ethics reform proposals that would apply to Congress, including new earmark disclosure guidelines, requirements for public mark-ups of legislation and a call for a new Senate office to investigate ethics complaints. The last idea had been voted down in the Senate during the 110th Congress.

I wonder why it's down for such a long time -- at least in Internet terms -- and what will (or won't) be there when it goes back up.

Let's all be shocked.

Ethics are something that Democrats rarely address, unless it's to accuse Republicans of violating them.



There's my two cents.

It Doesn't Get Any More Appropriate Than This!

From Patriot Post today:

"Beware the greedy hand of government, thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry."
-- Thomas Paine --

Beware, indeed.  And call them.

There's my two cents.

Generational Theft Act (Porkapalooza Bill) Update

The Democrats' Generational Theft Act/Porkapalooza Bill is stuffed with goodies, just one of the reasons it should not be passed:

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."

The Wall Street Journal calls this bill a 40-year wish list of Democrat agenda issues.  Want to know what some more of them are?  Take a look:

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.

Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.

But, don't stop there...this bill is several hundred pages long, so there is much, much more...

Page 41: The Coast Guard wants more than $572 million for "Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements" They claim these funds will create 1,235 new jobs. Crunch the numbers and this brings the cost of "creating" each job to a staggering $460,000+

Page 23: $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.

Page 32: $1.5 billion (with a "B") for a "carbon-capturing contest"

Page 64: $3.5 billion for higher education facilities. This is ridiculous as I know in Georgia the Board of Regents has imposed a "temporary" (yea right!) $75 fee per student during this economic crisis. The funds from this per-student fee stays at the school and is used to offset current budget shortfalls.

We at AASU are starting construction on our new student center, all paid for by student fees. No tax money has been used during any process of this planning. How about asking other higher education institutions to do the same, or hold off on any renovations, additions, etc.?

And more...

Tom Jones notes another $200 million for DoD plug-in car stations and crunches the numbers: 53,526 plug-in cars = >$3700/car.

And check these out:

P. 45: "$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration." ATV owners, rejoice.

P. 60: $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.

Last night: Stimulus stupidity alert: $75 million for smoking cessation

On the timeliness of this 'stimulus', David Freddoso sums it up nicely:

When members of Congress vote on this bill today, they will be voting to jolt the economy with deficit spending around the time of the next Super Bowl.

And what about the promised accountability?

Remember when Barack Obama promised to end ineffective government programs in his inaugural speech?  That was just eight days ago.  Apparently, we've hit the expiration date:

As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.

This is insanity and irresponsibility at its most naked and aggressive worst.  Melt the phone lines in Washington!!!

Don't wait - the House is expected to vote on this TODAY.  Our economic future depends on it.

There's my two cents.



Sources:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/28/the-democratic-porkfest-bill-of-2009/
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/28/stimulus-stupidity-alert-460000coast-guard-job-15-bil-carbon-capturing-contest-more/
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTA1YzU2ZmQxYWY5YThlOTdkMWI5NjBiNzM5YzMyNGM=
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

What's That About Paying Taxes?

Joe Biden (Obama's VP):

Timothy Geithner (Obama's Treasury Secretary):

So...according to Biden, Geithner must be unpatriotic, right? Not the greatest character trait for a guy who may soon control a couple trillion dollars of our tax money, hmmm?

There's my two cents.

Link Roundup

There's too much information out there to properly highlight it, so take some time with these links - there's a TON of good stuff below.

In the USofA:

• The Dems want S-CHIP for illegals, too.
  
• Virtual fence doesn't work.
  
• A boss who tells it like it is.
  
• Being alive isn't good enough.
  
• Kristol vs. Damon?
• Some won't forget 9/20/2001.
  
• The epitome of class: Bush daughters send message to Obama daughters.
  
• Ridiculous: coach fired for winning (aka when 'fairness' takes a back seat to achievement).
  

Obamessiah news:

• When will the transparent Obama administration post the Generational Theft Act of 2009's text??
  
• Yet another Obama nominee neglects to understand the Constitution.
  
• Obama's folly.
  
• The Vatican: Obama is arrogant.
• Holder's conflict of interest.
  
• Obama air raids villages and kills civilians...precisely what he accused Bush of doing!
  

Economic news:

• Pelosi's secret $350 billion program buried inside the Generational Theft Act of 2009 (the porkapalooza bill).
  
• Now online: searchable version of porkapalooza, confirmation that it's actually over $1.1 trillion!!!
  
• How much the porkapalooza bill will cost per family.
  
• Most Americans fear too much government spending.
• Racism in the porkapalooza bill.
  
• What's in the porkapalooza?
  

Global warming news:

• Your weekly global warming update.
  
• Snow in the UAE.
  
• Change you can't believe in.
• Melting arctic not all it's cracked up to be.
  
• The age of anti-carbonism.
• Hockey stick hoax.
• Global warming expert: most 'green' stuff is a scam.
  

Around the world:

• Iran to get nuke in 2009 (here, here, here).
  
• Inside Operation Cast Lead.
  
• U.S. embassy in Yemen attacked.
• The U.N.'s Orwellian language on Israel.
  

Stay tuned for more big news!

It's Not Stimulus If It Doesn't Stimulate

There is no doubt anymore that the so-called 'stimulus' plan being shoved down the throats of Americans is not so much an actual plan to stimulate the economy as it is a plan to permanently cement Democrat power in America through socialist policies.

Let's take a look.

For this beast to stimulate the economy, it would have to happen fast, right?  And, it would have to prompt legitimate long-term growth and job creation, right?  It does neither of those.

From Rep. Mark Kirk on the House Appropriations Committee:

Here are some things you should know about the bill before our Committee today:

A. Large Taxpayer Cost Per Job Saved

Combined with the provisions of the Ways & Means Committee, this legislation will cost taxpayers $825 billion and claims to save "3.7 million" jobs. That means the government will save each job at an average cost of $222,972. Combined with the previous $700 billion bailout bill, the cost per job saved by recent congressional spending is $412,162 per job saved. On average, the private sector created 2007 jobs at a cost of $50,283 per job.

B. Most Items Are Unrelated to Economic Stimulus

The legislation contains 152 separate appropriations. Only 34 line items have estimates in the committee report estimating jobs saved. 117 appropriations have no job saving estimate at all.

C. Major Job Producing Items Cost $65 Billion

Just 11 appropriations out of the 152 in the bill generate over 1,846,800 jobs at a total cost of $65 billion. These programs that have the highest payoff are some of the lower cost items:

1. Highway Infrastructure Investment (835,000 jobs, $35,928 each) $30B

2. Clean Water State Revolving Fund (282,000 jobs, $21,276 each) $6B

3. Transit Capital Assistance (165,000 jobs, $36,363 each) $6B

4. Child Care Development Block Grant (125,000 jobs, $16,000 each) $2B

5. Weatherization Assistance (104,000 jobs, $59,615 each) $6.2B

6. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (94,000 jobs, $21,276 each) $2B

7. Grants-in-Aid for Airports (75,000 jobs, $40,000 each) $3B

8. Head Start (50,000 jobs, $42,000 each) $2.1B

9. State Energy Program (41,000 jobs, $82,926 each) $3.4B

10. Energy Efficiency & Conservation Grants (40,800 jobs, $85,784 each) $3.5B

11. Capital Investment Grants (35,000 jobs, $28,571 each) $1B

D. Bill Language Requires Extremely Fast Spending

Under Title I of the bill, all formula grants must be allocated within 30 days and all discretionary grants must be allocated within 90 days. This will require unprecedented speeds in federal spending.

E. Few and Friendly Economists Cited in Report, CBO Ignored

CBO reported that of the $550 billion in spending approved by this bill, only $26 billion will be spent in FY09. Of the $30 billion appropriated for highways, only $3 billion will be spent in FY09 and $4.2 billion in FY10. Over $60 billion of spending in the bill will not be spent during President Obama's first term. CBO's comment on the bill is not mentioned in the committee report.

The Committee report does cite the work of only three economists supporting this legislation: President Obama's Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer, Vice President Biden's economic advisor, Jared Bernstein, and Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com. Zandi is a political contributor to Sen. John McCain and Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA). Zandi is quoted no less than six times.

F. Despite $550B in Spending, No Funds for Troops in Field

Despite spending $550 billion, no funds are provided for troops in Afghanistan or Iraq. The Defense Department estimates they will need $60-$80 billion soon to support immediate combat operations.

G. Funds Specifically Prohibited for Casinos, Aquariums and Pools, Not Bars

The text of the bill specifically prohibits funding from this bill to support "casinos, gaming institutions, aquariums, zoos, golf courses or swimming pools." The prohibition does not mention bars or the pornography industry.

H. No Bipartisan Oversight

The bill creates an Accountability and Transparency Board. All board members are appointees of the President.

I. No Analysis of Unprecedented Trillion Borrowing Triggered by the Bill

There is no mention of the borrowing needed to finance this bill. CBO projects that if this legislation is passed, the federal government will need to borrow over $2 Trillion in the coming months. This will increase the public debt from $6 Trillion to $8 Trillion in a matter of weeks. No bond market has ever handled so much debt sold so quickly.

J. Very High Cost Broadband Provided at Taxpayer Expense

The bill creates a rural broadband program at a cost of $2.8 billion to serve 3.6 million people. Under these terms, the bill will provide broadband to rural (but not urban or suburban Americans) at a taxpayer cost of $784 each.

K. Funding Provided for Programs About to be Out-of-Date

The bill appropriates $650 million for digital-to-analog converter boxes despite the impending deadline of the program, announced two years ago of February 17, 2009.

If you look at this, it's a MASSIVE amount of taxpayer money thrown at very few things that will actually help the economy, and most of those are marginal help at best.  Obama and the Democrats will be in complete control of the 'oversight' that will manage this money, and most of it will go to help liberal agenda items and vague projects that won't happen soon.

Not much of a stimulus, huh?

But that's not all.  The Heritage Foundation has renamed this the Pelosi-Reid-Obama Debt Plan, for good reason:

With countless news stories, papers, editorials and experts giving their view of why Congress should or shouldn't enact the Pelosi-Reid-Obama Debt Plan, we thought it would be helpful to give you a short index of why spending does not equal stimulus.

HIGH COST TO AMERICAN TAXPAYERS

- After Congress appropriates the FY'09 omnibus bill, they may have spent over $1.4 Trillion in less than one month!
- The current "stimulus bill" will be the LARGEST SPENDING BILL EVER enacted by Congress, making the New Deal look small, accounting for inflation.
- The "Stimulus" Bills Your Family – $825 Billion is equivalent to borrowing $10,520 from EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA. This money has to be paid back.
- If all families were asked to equally shoulder the burden of $825 Billon, this debt would be equivalent to what they roughly spend on food, clothing, and health care in an entire year.
- If Government Spending solved recessions, we would never have recessions.

BAD IDEAS – "THE DEVIL IN DISGUISE"
The hidden liberal policy agenda inside the 'stimulus bill'…

Over $142 Billion in Federal education funds: Nearly double the total outlays for the Dept. of Education in 2007 – making good on Reid-Pelosi-Obama education promises to the NEA.
$87 Billion Medicaid bailout: Medicaid is funded by a formula that matches state spending levels with federal dollars. If we keep bailing states out, they will have every incentive to continue irresponsible spending. Fiscally responsible taxpayers in Indiana are now paying for fiscally irresponsible bureaucrats in Illinois.
Expanded Medicaid coverage and SCHIP: Reid-Pelosi-Obama are enacting a nationalized health care policy with no debate. The government will soon be responsible for more health care spending than the private sector, i.e. socialized medicine.
Green Jobs?: The myth of 'green jobs' merely means replacing one job lost, with a new job that fits the left's agenda. It is a zero sum game. More than doubling spending, the stimulus also has over $35 billion for the Dept. of Energy. DOE's current budget is $23.8 billion.
Family Planning and birth control for children, immigrants and the wealthy, which could also be used as a backdoor to allow federal funding of abortions. How is this stimulus?
Redistribution: Refundable Tax Credits for people who don't pay taxes.
Pork Spending: Digital TV Coupons ($650 Million), Gov't Cars ($600 Million), Nat'l Endowment for the Arts ($50 Million), Repairs to National Mall ($200 Million, including $21m for sod).

BAD RESULTS

No Jobs: While they have not been able to support these claims, Pelosi/Obama promise between 3 & 4 million jobs, yet House Tax Committee staff can't estimate even ONE job will be created.
Ineffective: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 52% of the spending in the 'stimulus bill' can even be spent by the end of FY'10.  Well short of the 75% benchmark set by President Obama.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." – FDR's Treasury Sec. Henry Morgenthau Jr., architect of the New Deal.

BETTER IDEAS AND RESULTS

1. Make the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts permanent, instead of raising taxes in 2011; Reduce Marginal Tax Rates for  Individuals and Businesses by 10% creating new jobs. Adopting just this one proposal would create between 500,000 and 1 million jobs in one year.
2. Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax & reduce the Death Tax to 15% ($5 mil. individual exclusion) Enact long-term reforms and budgets for entitlement spending., putting long-term obligations from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, front and center in the budget process.
3. Assess and enforce long term spending rules in Congress. Get us out of debt!
4. Go to Heritage.org for more ideas and ways to avoid giving Americans a debt they didn't create.

A lot of people fear doing nothing, and that's understandable.  But doing something isn't the same as doing the right thing.  What Obama and the Democrats are trying to do is the absolute wrong thing for America.

Thomas Sowell has the absolute best column up at Investor's Business Daily to explain what's going on in simple terms (emphasis mine):

Everyone is talking about how much money the government is spending, but very little attention is being paid to where they are spending it or what they are buying with it.

The government is putting money into banks, even when the banks don't want it, in hopes that the banks will put it into circulation.

But the latest statistics show that banks are lending even less money now than they were before the government dumped all that cash on them.

Even if it had worked, putting cash into banks, in hopes that they would put it into circulation, seems a rather roundabout way of doing things, especially when the staggering sums of money involved are being justified as an "emergency" measure.

Spending money for infrastructure is another time-consuming way of dealing with what is called an immediate crisis. Infrastructure takes forever to plan, debate and go through all sorts of hearings and adjudications before getting approval to build from all the regulatory agencies involved.

Out of $355 billion newly appropriated, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only $26 billion will be spent this fiscal year and only $110 billion by the end of 2010.

Using long, drawn-out processes to put money into circulation to meet an emergency is like mailing a letter to the fire department to tell it that your house is on fire.

If you cut taxes tomorrow, people would have more money in their next paycheck, and it would probably be spent by the time they got that paycheck, through increased credit card purchases beforehand.

If all this sound and fury in Washington was about getting an economic crisis behind us, tax cuts could do that a lot faster.

None of this is rocket science. And Washington politicians are not all crazy, even if sometimes it looks that way. Often, what they say makes no sense because what they claim to be doing is not what they are actually doing.

No matter how many times President Obama tells us that these "extraordinary times" call for "swift action," the kind of economic policies he is promoting take effect very slowly, no matter how quickly the legislation is rushed through Congress. It is the old Army game of hurry up and wait.

If the Beltway politicians aren't really trying to solve this crisis as quickly as they could, what are they trying to do?

One important clue may be a recent statement by the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, that "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste."

This is the kind of cynical revelation that sometimes slips out, despite all the political pieties and spin.

Crises have long been seen as great opportunities to expand the federal government's power while the people are too scared to object and before any opposition can get organized.

That is why there is such haste to do things that will take effect slowly.

What are the Beltway politicians buying with all the hundreds of billions of dollars they are spending?

They are buying what politicians are most interested in — power.

In the name of protecting the taxpayers' investment, they are buying the power to tell General Motors how to make cars, banks how to bank and, before it is all over with, all sorts of other people how to do the work they specialize in, and for which members of Congress have no competence, much less expertise.

This administration and Congress are in a position to do what Franklin Roosevelt did during the Great Depression of the 1930s — use a crisis of the times to create new institutions that will last for generations.

To this day, we are still subsidizing millionaires in agriculture because farmers were having a tough time in the 1930s.

We have the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) taking reckless chances in the housing market that have blown up in our faces today, because FDR decided to create a new federal housing agency in 1938.

Who knows what bright ideas this administration will turn into permanent institutions for our children and grandchildren to try to cope with?

Bottom line: Obama and the Democrats are sinking the American ship, knowingly destroying the economy simply to put themselves in a position of permanent power.  They apparently believe that once they have absolute control they'll be able to fix things up enough to keep Americans happy (or, at least, just short of outright revolt).  The scam is that, once they have absolute power, they will not have much of a country left to fix, nor will they have any incentive to fix things for any of us peons who aren't rich elites.  Even if they did, and even if they wanted to, their core principles prevent them from ever enacting any of the things that would bring about a meaningful recovery, anyway.

I cannot stress enough to you how critically important it is for our future and for the future of our children and grandchildren to STOP THIS NOW.  Send this information to everyone you know, and encourage them to read it and think about it.  Then call and e-mail your Senators and Representative (Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter) and tell them this is a pork bill rather than a 'stimulus' plan and should be killed immediately.  Then keep calling, day after day.

Those of you who know me know that I am rarely given to exaggeration, but I truly believe that we are at a tipping point.  America as we know it -- free, prosperous, and filled with opportunity -- is hanging by a thin thread, and if Obama and the Democrats get their way, they will shove us off the cliff into an economic abyss of epic proportions.

The only thing that can stop them is sustained, informed outrage on the part of the American people.  That means YOU.  And it means everyone you know.  An informed and outraged public stopped amnesty just two years ago, so don't think that we can't have a similar cumulative effect on our spineless politicians with this, too.  But make no mistake, it will take effort.

Just ask yourself this: how much is is a free and prosperous America worth to you?  To your children?  To your grandchildren?

There's my two cents.

The Limbaugh-Obama Stimulus Plan

Rush Limbaugh proposed a serious piece of legislation on his radio program earlier this week.  Here are the details:

It's our money.  It is not Washington's.  Now, the Rasmussen people have a new poll out, and notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, Rasmussen finds, are skeptical.  Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much in the next year or two.  Only 17% worry that they will cut taxes too much.  The American people, in polling, are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, despite what you're hearing from the Drive-By Media.

So it seems to me that there may be an opportunity here and now for genuine compromise and to establish at the same time as this genuine compromise, evidence for how to deal with future recession so that this no longer becomes a matter of partisan debate each time it happens, because recessions are going to happen.  My proposal is designed to illustrate once and for all how to deal with them. 

Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $1 trillion, $1 trillion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector.  Congress wants to spend -- think of this now -- $1 trillion that they don't have until you and I go to work and pay taxes.  They want to spend this on a stimulus plan. They want to take it out of our pockets and redistribute this money in their way to their constituents and to their make-work projects like schools, roads, bridges, blah, blah, blah.

This does not have to be a divisive issue. It does not have to be in any way, shape, manner, or form a divisive issue.  So I have a proposal.  As has been noted, elections have consequences. President Obama in the meeting on Friday with House and Senate Republican leaders, Eric Cantor from Virginia in the House proposed a moderate tax cut plan. Obama said, Well, you know, "I won." I'm going to trump you on that.  We're not going to do that.

Well, where's the bipartisanship, President Obama?  There is no bipartisanship in President Obama's plan.  President Obama's definition of bipartisanship is when Republicans cave and agree with his plan so he can then claim it's bipartisan.  But he's not compromising on anything here.

Mine is a genuine compromise.  So let's look at how the vote came out, shall we?  Fifty-three percent of voters in this country -- we'll say, for the sake of this proposal, 53% of Americans -- voted for Obama.  Forty-six percent voted for Senator McCain, and 1% voted for wackos.  Let's give the remaining 1% to President Obama, so let's say that 54% voted for President Obama and 46% voted for Senator McCain.  As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009, $540 billion of the one trillion will be spent on infrastructure as defined by President Obama and the Democrats.  The remaining $460 billion, or 46% that voted for Senator McCain, will be directed towards tax cuts, as determined by me.

These tax cuts will consist primarily of capital gains tax cuts and corporate tax rate cuts.  So Obama gets $540 billion to spend his way.  The other people of this country who did not vote for his way get $460 billion spent the way they would like it spent.  This is bipartisanship!  This is how bipartisanship really works.  Okay, Obama wins by a 54-46 majority, so he gets 54% of the trillion bucks.  Spend it his way.  We get 46% of the trillion bucks to spend our way, and then we compare. Then we see which stimulus actually works and works the fastest, and I will guarantee you that if this plan is adopted, just the announcement that $460 billion will go toward paying for tax cuts, capital gains, and corporate tax rates -- we could throw in some personal income tax rate reduction in order to make sure that the voters don't think it's all about helping the big guys.  But we need jobs, do we not? 

Who hires people?  Businesses!  Businesses need tax cuts.  The US corporate tax rate is obscene.  It is the highest of all industrialized nations.  It's 35%.  Cut it.  Cut it in half.  Make the capital gains rate go away for three months, and then get out of the way to see what happens on Wall Street.  And once Wall Street starts ticking up 500 points a day, you watch what happens to the rest of the private sector.  It will follow right along.  This would ensure a bipartisan compromise bill, as Democrats have said that they're always about. It would satisfy the American people's wishes, as polls currently note; and it would also serve as a test, going forward, as to which approach best stimulates the growth of jobs -- and it can be measured side by side.  It could be determined where the new jobs are coming from.

And if President Obama would merely say -- if he would merely say -- that he will take this proposal under serious consideration, we would then see the reaction from the financial markets, which tend to be a barometer of the economy going forward.  That is, if President Obama said that he thought this compromise proposal was worth his time to look at, the markets could react to that, just the way they did when President Clinton announced that he had reached agreement in principle with Republicans to balance the budget in the nineties.  The market reacted positively to that news.  Not to a formal bill signing, but to the news.  If we have learned anything in recent months, the financial markets more than ever look to Washington for direction.

It's an interesting thought.  I'm not thrilled about throwing away half a trillion dollars in taxpayer dollars, but it just might be worth it if it would lay bare for all to see the difference in the conservative solution and the liberal solution.  Of course, it'll never happen precisely because it would lay bare for all to see the difference in the conservative solution and the liberal solution.

There's my two cents.