March 26th 2009

More Obamarxism In Stimulus Plan

T

ucked away in the pages of Porkasaurus are provisions requiring that workers on projects receiving federal stimulus funding be paid the prevailing wage – which in a curious bit of wordsmithing, given that “prevailing” means most frequent or most common, is typically higher than the average wage in any given area.

For example, the Labor Dept. says that bricklayers in Madison WI would get $30.61 per hour under the prevailing wage, nearly $5 an hour more than the average wage for bricklayers in the area.  That’s fine for a president who’s trying to suck up to unionized labor by gifting them while vilifying professional success, but to you and me, it just means stimulus dollars will not go as far, so fewer benefits will accrue to those of us not on the job site.

Put another way, taxpayers are funding Obama’s campaigning.

More details here.

Share

1 Comment »

March 10th 2009

Quote Of The Day: Amendment 10

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” – U.S. Constitution, 10th Amendment

T

he 10th Amendment, A.W.R. Hawkins reminds us at Texas Insider, is the linchpin that holds the Bill of Rights together.  Hawkins used “was the linchpin,” but “is” is the proper tense to use, since the point is as valid today as it was when it was first made in the 1780s.

The poor 10th.  With the exception of the 3rd – quartering troops – all the other amendments are part of our everyday life, granting us freedom of speech, the right to keep guns, the expectation of due process and trials by jury, but the 10th stands out there at the end, largely unthought about … until events happen like President Obama’s efforts to force the federal government down the throats of the states.

In response to the stimulus bill’s federal demands on states receiving stimulus money, 11 states have applied the 10th amendment and stood up to Obama:  Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas.  All 11 have have  introduced bills and resolutions schooling the prez on the 10th Amendment, telling him it protects their rights and the peoples’ rights by limiting his power.  Says Hawkins:

These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.

He cites the South Carolina resolution as typical:

“The General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, claims for the State of South Carolina sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution…

“Be it…resolved that this resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as South Carolina’s agent, to cease and desist immediately all mandates…beyond the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally delegated powers.”

What a wonderful Constitution our founders gave us!  The majesty of those words from South Carolina’s resolution are powerful enough to strike wonder into the hearts of people unfortunate enough to live under lesser rules of law.

Those who would treat the Constitution as a mere assemblage of words ready for editing – the same people who would back Obama’s plans to vastly expand federal power – should think twice.  Once the underpinning strength of this document is weakened by changes to make it contemporary to the moment, its power and beauty cannot easily be regained.

Share

No Comments yet »

March 5th 2009

LA (LA!) Rejecting Solar Initiative

P

resident Obama’s kowtow to the green lobby – tens of billions of dollars in green tech incentives and tens of billions of dollars in old energy penalties – was on the ballot in LA yesterday. That’s LA, as in Hollyweird and Dem strongholds, as in Ed Begley and abounding Greenie fanatics.

Measure B would give LA’s Dept. of Water & Power authority to install 400 megawatts-worth of solar power on rooftops throughout the city, an action which curiously would increase, not decrease, the cost of power by two or three percent. It was backed by the mayor, the labor unions, the environmentalists and (natch) the LA Times, who all said it would help clean the air by speeding the demise of coal fired power plants. High-fives all around!

Well, the morning after has hit and Measure B is losing in a squeaker, 50.3% to 49.7%. It might still win, but even if it does, voters in LA have sent a couple signals by their vote.

First, they are not in a spending mood. Another two or three percent on their utility bills does not make them happy. Imagine what they’ll think when they hear about the impact Obama’s carbon cap and trade will have on all their bills.

And second, they don’t like dirty green. Opponents to B successfully positioned the vote as all about power – political power – that was rushed onto the ballot without due process. They pointed out that DWP is free to install solar without a vote of the people, so the ballot measure was a way for the city council and its union buddies to lock organized labor into all future municipal energy projects.

If LA can’t pass (or can just barely pass) a measure like this, why should the rest of America agree to the costly green energy measures crammed into Obama’s stimulus bill, which was crammed through Congress so quickly no one had time to read it?

Share

No Comments yet »

February 14th 2009

The Opaque “Transparency” Of Obama

I

ncredible Wife (my Valentine) just asked me if I could find the Porkasaurus Socialistum stimulus spending bill so she could print it out and read it.  (There go my plans for Valentines Day evening ….)

I thought, why not take Obama up on his transparency pledge and check out whitehouse.gov, where I’m sure he’s posted up a quick link to the bill? After all, he said we would be able to read and comment on legislation well before Congress voted on it.

By what I’m sure is just an innocent oversight by the Obama admin, there is no link on the home page of whitehouse.gov that takes me to the bill; there’s just a link to Obama’s comments about the bill.  Well, no matter; there’s that little search window up there, so I type in “stimulus bill.”

What do I get?

A window asking for my email address and ZIP code before whitehouse.gov will run my search!  Where is the ACLU when you need them?!  The federal government wants to know how to track me down before it will give me information?

My friends, what is happening to our country?

Share

2 Comments »

February 13th 2009

Quote Of The Day: A Transparent Lie

“[The stimulus bill is] the most transparent piece of legislation in American history.” – Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz

T

he frizzy-haired Ms. Wasserman Schultz is subscribing to the time-tested spin formula of boldly stating a lie, apparently without knowing that the time-tested formula has tested time and again as a failed communications theory. But she was on Chris Matthews’ Hardball when she said it, so she probably got away with it.

Also from this source (The New Editor), more confirmation that the lobbyists had Porkasaurus in hand before the House GOP leadership did, and this spark of bipartisanship:

… we have Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) saying that not one senator has read the bill in its entirety, along with Minority leader John Boehner (R-OH) saying the same thing today on the House floor.

Why the rush?  Stimulus One has had months to work and accomplished nothing.  Could it be that Dems, like cockroaches, are happier when we’re scurrying around in the dark?

Hat-tip: Michelle Malkin

Share

No Comments yet »

January 29th 2009

Stuck In Obamaland, What’s The GOP To Do?

S

usan Estrich, who beautifully transformed a miserable attempt to get Michael Dukakis elected into a lucrative career as the graveliest voice in punditry, lays out the options for Congressional Republicans in a point-counterpoint with Hugh Hewitt in today’s LA Times:

Republicans, technically, have more choices [than Democrats]. They can play a constructive role in the recovery effort, understanding that if it succeeds, they may individually hold onto their seats but they’ll still be stuck in the small offices with the small staffs; and that if the recovery fails, they’ll have a harder time saying it’s all the Democrats’ fault, although that is precisely what they’ll say.

Or they can do what they did Wednesday: Just say no. Be irrelevant. Lose.

That’s it?  Go along “constructively” with a monumentally nonconstructive and failure-bound stimulus package that goes against everything the GOP should have learned from their recent shellacking in the polls, or say no, be irrelevant and lose?

Of course, she’s almost right since the U.S. House doesn’t allow “present” votes, but the word that’s sticking in my craw is “irrelevant.”  Would she say the same about pre-2006 Dem Reps who voted against GOP measures on the war or social issues?  Certainly not – because they weren’t irrelevant.  They were marking their territory, waiting for the boundaries of public opinion to change so the folks that were against the president were suddenly the right folks for Congress.

When the voters soured on Bush and the war, there were all those “irrelevant” Dems, just waiting to get re-elected and build their majority.

Besides, irrelevance is far superior to moral and political bankruptcy – so much so that it makes irrelevance relevant.  A crushing defeat for a good cause beats feeling bad about voting wrong any day.  Hugh says as much in his counterpoint:

For the time being the GOP in Congress only has repartee, but it needs to use it to build a new majority. There is no sense or purpose in me-tooing the Democrats. There is incredible purpose in doing what the House GOP did Wednesday: standing united, though defeated, against a gigantic porkapalooza that will not help in any appreciable way to reignite private-sector growth. Rep. John Boehner did more in the past 72 hours to rekindle conservative thinking on domestic policy than any House leader had done since Gingrich was in opposition to Bill Clinton in 1993 and 1994.

Bravo. More please. In the Senate as well.

Amen.

Share

1 Comment »

December 17th 2008

Tasered, Not Stimulated

G

overnment has been throwing all we’ve got at the economy – a stimulus package, mortgage relief programs, $700 billion bailouts, plans afoot for an auto industry bailout and another big stimulus, this one Obama’s own credit card-purchased gift to the American people.

Were government rational, driven by economic instead of political realities, Congress and the prez-elect would realize that everything they’ve tried so far has not accomplished the desired goals and would fix what’s broken before buying more broken stuff. But government’s not rational.

“An economic recovery plan will be the first thing out of the box,” Obama said shortly after his election. Since then he’s talked about infrastructure programs (as if the government isn’t already spending tens or hundreds of billions on infrastructure with no discernible effect on the economy), and $150 billion on renewable energy, as oil prices continue to drop. (Idiot alert: Yes, I know oil prices will go up again. Our focus during a crisis needs to be on the short term, however; the long term is a costly luxury we can fund once the economy is back to its fundamentals.)

I don’t know about you, but I feel like someone on Obama’s email list – hit again and again with pleas for more money, more money, more money, before I’ve had a chance to assess what he’s done with the money he’s got.  Or, like the headline says, I feel more like I’ve been tasered than stimulated.

Before Congress and the prez (the waning Bush or the waxing Obama) fritter away any more, they need to assess how government’s done. Two stories this morning underline this.  First, WaPo on earlier mortgage bailout programs:

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Steve Preston said the centerpiece of the federal government’s effort to help struggling homeowners has been a failure and he’s blaming Congress.

The three-year program was supposed to help 400,000 borrowers avoid foreclosure. But it has attracted only 312 applications since its October launch because it is too expensive and onerous for lenders and borrowers alike, Preston said in an interview.

“What most people don’t understand is that this program was designed to the detail by Congress,” Preston said. “Congress dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s for us, and unfortunately it has made this program tough to use.”

That Barney Frank – chief i-dotter and t-crosser – is quoted in the piece placing the blame firmly on the administration shows how utterly inept and incapable of mature management government is.  Steve Carell runs a better operation in The Office.

Whoever’s at fault, the numbers tell the tale:  400,000 customers anticipated; 312 customers in the door. In the real world, the program would be out of business, most of those working on it would be laid off, and no replacement programs would be underway until there was an understanding of what went wrong.

Part of that “what went wrong” scenario presupposes that government will be able to manage its operations, oversee its domain and fulfill its responsibilities.  That’s pretty much a baseline expectation of an organization you’re going to give a few hundred billion bucks to, as we have, and as it appears we will again, and that brings me to today’s WSJ story on government’s shoddy performance in this regard:

The Securities and Exchange Commission will examine the relationship between a former official at the agency and a niece of financier Bernard L. Madoff, after the SEC’s chief admitted “apparent multiple failures” to oversee the firm at the center of an alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

In an extraordinary admission that the SEC was aware of numerous red flags raised about Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, but failed to take them seriously enough, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox ordered a review of the agency’s oversight of the New York securities-trading and investment-management firm. The review will include whether relationships between SEC officials and Mr. Madoff or his family members had any impact on the agency’s oversight.

“I am gravely concerned” by the agency’s regulation of the firm, Mr. Cox said.

Mr. Madoff’s niece, Shana Madoff, married a former SEC attorney named Eric Swanson last year. Mr. Swanson worked at the SEC for 10 years, including as a senior inspections and examination official, before leaving in 2006. Ms. Madoff is a compliance lawyer at the securities firm. …

Mr. Cox said an initial review of SEC oversight of Mr. Madoff’s firm found that “credible and specific allegations” made as far back as 1999 “were repeatedly brought to the attention of SEC staff, but were never recommended to the Commission for action.”

Mr. Cox wasn’t specific about the past claims that were inadequately investigated. But around 2000, Harry Markopolos, at the time an executive at a rival firm to Mr. Madoff’s, contacted the SEC with suspicions about Mr. Madoff’s business. “Madoff Securities is the world’s largest Ponzi scheme,” Mr. Markopolos wrote in a letter to the agency. Mr. Markopolos pursued his accusations for years, dealing with the SEC’s regional offices in New York and Boston, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

Holy. Moley. That’s eight years of Madoff scamming that might have been stopped if the SEC functioned as it’s supposed to function.  And we’ve just handed over a few hundred billion to tihs same government to handle as it sees fit, with minimal oversight.

And worse, seeing no benefit from the first round of tasering, we’re prepping to re-charge the batteries and toss in another few hundred billion of bailout money, $20 billion of auto bailout, and another few hundred billion of Obama stimulus.

Don’t tase me, Bro!  I’ve had quite enough stimulation already … quite enough:

The United States of America is bankrupt. Don’t believe it? Consider this: Federal obligations now exceed the collective net worth of all Americans, according to the New York-based Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Washington politicians and bureaucrats have essentially mortgaged everything We the People own so they can keep spending our tax dollars like there’s no tomorrow.

The foundation’s grim calculations are based on Sept. 30 consolidated federal statements, which showed that Americans’ total household net worth, diminished by falling stock prices and home equity, is $56.5 trillion. But rising costs for unfunded social programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security increased to $56.4 trillion – and that was before the more recent stock market crash, $700 billion bank bailout, and monster federal deficits chalked up in October and November.

“Given more recent developments, it’s clear that America now owes more than its citizens are worth,” said Foundation president David M. Walker, the former Comptroller-General of the United States who has been trying to warn Americans of the coming financial tsunami for years, to no avail. So, after Uncle Sam bails out bankers, Wall Street gamblers, carmakers and over-their-head homeowners, who’ll bail out Uncle Sam? (DC Examiner)

Share

No Comments yet »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here