Has anyone else noticed that American casualties in Iraq experienced a significant upswing in the month of February?
The overall number of deaths is the same, but the number of soldiers killed by hostile fire almost doubled. Obviously we need a larger sample to arrive at any serious conclusions, but I'm really nervous about the possibillity that the insurgents spent the last few months lying in wait hoping for an Obama Presidency whose relative pacifism they could challenge.
Man I really hope I'm wrong. I have a lot of friends in harm's way.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
REMINDER: We were promised a net spending cut
Will this be another broken promise? Certainly looking that way out of the gate.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Only one comment on Obama's speech last night...
I've been conditioned by 30 years of movies from FOOTLOOSE to V FOR VENDETTA to expect that when oppressive confiscatory Government came, it would come from the Right...
Imagine my surprise to be here in 2009 listening to THAT speech.
Bad times coming my friends.
Imagine my surprise to be here in 2009 listening to THAT speech.
Bad times coming my friends.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
On this week's episode, Obama learns a lesson
Preach doom and gloom and you get swooning marktes and the lowest Dow since 1997. Talk in hopeful terms about a possible near-term recovery, and what do you get?
Happy markets!
Fancy that. Another lesson learned (I hope) by the rookie.
Happy markets!
Fancy that. Another lesson learned (I hope) by the rookie.
Cuz I'm a silver lining kind of guy...
What's the upside of a nasty recession? Well for one thing it could wind up being a stake in the heart to the self-destructive con that is the global climate change panic.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Party Like It's 1997
The Dow dropped to 7115 today, it's lowest level since 1997. While that in and of itself is scary, this is the line from the AP story that really put it in perspective.
It's as if the decade's dot-com surge, collapse and subsequent recovery never occurred.
Woah. That's heavy man.
I suppose if President Bush were still in power, the MSM would be blaming him. Actually, they're still blaming him even though he's no longer president.
At what point will the MSM wake up and realize that this is President Obama's problem and that he's only making it worse between his pessimistic prognostications about the economy and his economic policies.
Maybe it's unfair to declare someone a failure this early into their administration but geez, this is really starting to look like amateur hour at the Improv.
It's as if the decade's dot-com surge, collapse and subsequent recovery never occurred.
Woah. That's heavy man.
I suppose if President Bush were still in power, the MSM would be blaming him. Actually, they're still blaming him even though he's no longer president.
At what point will the MSM wake up and realize that this is President Obama's problem and that he's only making it worse between his pessimistic prognostications about the economy and his economic policies.
Maybe it's unfair to declare someone a failure this early into their administration but geez, this is really starting to look like amateur hour at the Improv.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
When idealism crashes head-on into reality
Every now and then a story comes along that perfectly crystalizes the gap between what some of the idealists on the far Left believe about reality, and actual reality.
Let me introduce you to the story of Kirsten Brydum.
Kirsten was a utopian radical from where else but California. And Kirsten got it into her head that she would travel the country in search of other like-minded radicals who would use their passion and idealism to literally change the world.
Ultimately, her quest took her to New Orleans.
Before I tell you what happened to Kirsten take a minute to look at a photograph of the place in New Orleans where she decided she would stay.
For those of you who don't know New Orleans, that's the infamous Lower Ninth Ward, which despite the amazing comeback much of the city has experienced, remains a ghost town. There is still no power or water, many of the residents have not returned and may never return. And the only folks you're likely to run into are, shall we say, extremely dangerous.
But Kirsten wasn't concerned. Why should she be? She was here to bring down the very Capitalist system that was oppressing these people. She held the poor and downtrodden in her heart and mind. She only wanted to show them the way to a better world. Surely anyone she ran into in this awful place would be able to tell that there was something different and special about her. Why should she fear them? And so she rode a bicycle into the Lower Ninth at 1:30 in the morning wearing a bright sundress and flip flops.
Her body was found a week later. Despite all her idealism and her belief that he passion and willpower could change reality... someone shot her in the face four times.
So why am I posting this story here? Because it makes me think about Obama's foreign policy team. Remember the guy who got eaten by the Grizzly Bears he was studying? Or Tim McCanlies... the back-to-nature minimalist memorialzed in Jon Krakauer's book INTO THE WILD? All these people refused to acknowledge fundamental realities about the world they lived in... and all of them were killed because of it.
Obama and his foreign policy team seem set to make the same mistake. They seem to genuinely believe that the only reason why we are at war with radical Islam, or in an oil-related tiff with the Russians, or battling the space and nuclear ambitions of the Chinese and North Koreans is because those enemies have not been approached with a big enough smile, or pure enough intentions, or a long enough list of concessions, or a big enough Harvard-educated vocabulary.
What I fear is that they are going to learn the same lesson Kirsten learned. That when you roll into a dangerous neighborhood with nothing but flip-flops, a smile, and a heightened sense of your own importance... reality sometimes punches you in the neck.
And the problem is, if Obama does turn out to be a Presidental version of Kirsten Brydum, it's not Obama who will wind up paying the price... it's us.
Let me introduce you to the story of Kirsten Brydum.
Kirsten was a utopian radical from where else but California. And Kirsten got it into her head that she would travel the country in search of other like-minded radicals who would use their passion and idealism to literally change the world.
Ultimately, her quest took her to New Orleans.
Before I tell you what happened to Kirsten take a minute to look at a photograph of the place in New Orleans where she decided she would stay.
For those of you who don't know New Orleans, that's the infamous Lower Ninth Ward, which despite the amazing comeback much of the city has experienced, remains a ghost town. There is still no power or water, many of the residents have not returned and may never return. And the only folks you're likely to run into are, shall we say, extremely dangerous.
But Kirsten wasn't concerned. Why should she be? She was here to bring down the very Capitalist system that was oppressing these people. She held the poor and downtrodden in her heart and mind. She only wanted to show them the way to a better world. Surely anyone she ran into in this awful place would be able to tell that there was something different and special about her. Why should she fear them? And so she rode a bicycle into the Lower Ninth at 1:30 in the morning wearing a bright sundress and flip flops.
Her body was found a week later. Despite all her idealism and her belief that he passion and willpower could change reality... someone shot her in the face four times.
So why am I posting this story here? Because it makes me think about Obama's foreign policy team. Remember the guy who got eaten by the Grizzly Bears he was studying? Or Tim McCanlies... the back-to-nature minimalist memorialzed in Jon Krakauer's book INTO THE WILD? All these people refused to acknowledge fundamental realities about the world they lived in... and all of them were killed because of it.
Obama and his foreign policy team seem set to make the same mistake. They seem to genuinely believe that the only reason why we are at war with radical Islam, or in an oil-related tiff with the Russians, or battling the space and nuclear ambitions of the Chinese and North Koreans is because those enemies have not been approached with a big enough smile, or pure enough intentions, or a long enough list of concessions, or a big enough Harvard-educated vocabulary.
What I fear is that they are going to learn the same lesson Kirsten learned. That when you roll into a dangerous neighborhood with nothing but flip-flops, a smile, and a heightened sense of your own importance... reality sometimes punches you in the neck.
And the problem is, if Obama does turn out to be a Presidental version of Kirsten Brydum, it's not Obama who will wind up paying the price... it's us.
Dukes of Moral Hazzard
A reader comment from the Wall Street Journal in response to the Op-Ed "Dukes of Moral Hazzard."
I made a mistake. I got a mortgage that didn't overextend me and probably bought the right piece of property so it's not going upside down. As a reward I get to pay for TARP I, TARP II, the stimulus plan, mortgage nationalizations, bank nationalizations, and the AIG nationalization. What all else Obama will think up to punish me?
I couldn't have said it better myself.
President Obama is rewarding bad behavior while he engages in reckless spending and a doubling of the fiscal year debt in only 4 weeks on the job. I don't think that's the hope and change people were expecting.
I made a mistake. I got a mortgage that didn't overextend me and probably bought the right piece of property so it's not going upside down. As a reward I get to pay for TARP I, TARP II, the stimulus plan, mortgage nationalizations, bank nationalizations, and the AIG nationalization. What all else Obama will think up to punish me?
I couldn't have said it better myself.
President Obama is rewarding bad behavior while he engages in reckless spending and a doubling of the fiscal year debt in only 4 weeks on the job. I don't think that's the hope and change people were expecting.
Friday, February 20, 2009
No better reason to vote Republican in 2010
Remember how we were all laughing about the fact that a significant portion of the Spendulus Bill won't be spent for several years? Remember how we tried to point out that if the expenditure is so urgently needed, why is so much of it pushed off two, three, or six years into the future?
Well the joke's on Obama.
By not spending all the money right away, he's given the Republicans their rallying cry for 2010!
Vote for us and 60% of the pork money in that bill you hate will never be spent!
I smell a landslide.
Well the joke's on Obama.
By not spending all the money right away, he's given the Republicans their rallying cry for 2010!
Vote for us and 60% of the pork money in that bill you hate will never be spent!
I smell a landslide.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Abject Failure
So how is President Obama's new style of "We'll Lend a Hand if You'll Unclench Your Fist" foreign policy going towards Iran?
Iran now holds enough uranium for a nuclear bomb.
Gee, wasn't Iran supposed to love us now that George W. Bush is out of office?
I'm still waiting to feel the love.
It's clear to me that this guy, our current President, just doesn't get it. You can't apologize to Iran. President Clinton already tried it and they laughed in his face.
And the problem with Iran gaining a nuclear bomb isn't that it will set off an arms race in the Middle East, which is what Obama thinks is the worst case scenario (which basically proves he just doesn't get it). No, the problem with Iran gaining a nuclear bomb is that Iran will now have a nuclear bomb! This is a country whose leaders have said that Israel is a stinking corpse and needs to be wiped off the map.
Do these sound like people you can negotiate with? Good Lord man, wake up!
Iran now holds enough uranium for a nuclear bomb.
Gee, wasn't Iran supposed to love us now that George W. Bush is out of office?
I'm still waiting to feel the love.
It's clear to me that this guy, our current President, just doesn't get it. You can't apologize to Iran. President Clinton already tried it and they laughed in his face.
And the problem with Iran gaining a nuclear bomb isn't that it will set off an arms race in the Middle East, which is what Obama thinks is the worst case scenario (which basically proves he just doesn't get it). No, the problem with Iran gaining a nuclear bomb is that Iran will now have a nuclear bomb! This is a country whose leaders have said that Israel is a stinking corpse and needs to be wiped off the map.
Do these sound like people you can negotiate with? Good Lord man, wake up!
Another 300 Billion!?!?!?
OK so now Obama is going to write a 300 billion dollar check to keep people from losing homes they can no longer afford.
Let's forget for a moment whether or not a significant portion of those who would receieve assistance from this program are irresponsible or not. All I'd like to see is a little consistency from our President.
If he's going to rail against irresponsible CEOs and place government restrictions on how much executives can make if they work for a company that receives Federal bailout money... shouldn't there be some sort of similar punishment for homeowners who receieve a taxpayer bailout?
I'm thinking something like a ding on the credit rating and being banned from applying for or receiving a home loan for five years.
That seems fair to me... and more importantly... it's consistent with the President's previous stand on regulating bailout receivers.
UPDATE: Oh and after 6-plus bailouts, going all the way back to the very end of the Bush administration, I'm still waiting for a bailout to come along that I actually benefit from... as opposed to, say, just get to pay for. This is the curse of being a responsible guy in Obama's America.
Let's forget for a moment whether or not a significant portion of those who would receieve assistance from this program are irresponsible or not. All I'd like to see is a little consistency from our President.
If he's going to rail against irresponsible CEOs and place government restrictions on how much executives can make if they work for a company that receives Federal bailout money... shouldn't there be some sort of similar punishment for homeowners who receieve a taxpayer bailout?
I'm thinking something like a ding on the credit rating and being banned from applying for or receiving a home loan for five years.
That seems fair to me... and more importantly... it's consistent with the President's previous stand on regulating bailout receivers.
UPDATE: Oh and after 6-plus bailouts, going all the way back to the very end of the Bush administration, I'm still waiting for a bailout to come along that I actually benefit from... as opposed to, say, just get to pay for. This is the curse of being a responsible guy in Obama's America.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Too awesome for words....
Only been 24 hours and Chuck Schumer... CHUCK SCHUMER of all people, has already found something in the stimulus bill that he doesn't like.
I think it goes without saying that if we hadn't been in such a rush to pass this, he could have read the bill and fixed this before it was signed into law by the President.
I think it goes without saying that if we hadn't been in such a rush to pass this, he could have read the bill and fixed this before it was signed into law by the President.
If you had any doubt that Bobby Jindall plans to run for President...
You may now put them to rest.
Jindall has signalled that his state may not accept Stimulus funds. This will be an important difference between Governor Jindall and Governor Palin come primary time as it appears, as of now, that Palin WILL accept stimulus money.
Should be interesting.
Smart move if you ask me.
Meanwhile... you can't start talking about big money cash handouts without the whores trying to get their cut...
"As WWLTV notes, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has said he’ll take any money that Louisiana turns down. "
Jindall has signalled that his state may not accept Stimulus funds. This will be an important difference between Governor Jindall and Governor Palin come primary time as it appears, as of now, that Palin WILL accept stimulus money.
Should be interesting.
Smart move if you ask me.
Meanwhile... you can't start talking about big money cash handouts without the whores trying to get their cut...
"As WWLTV notes, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has said he’ll take any money that Louisiana turns down. "
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Are We All Swedes Now?
Last week, Rep. Barney Frank (who helped get us into this financial mess by insisting that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were financially sound up until the day they failed) and his cronies on the House Banking Committee spent time beating up on the bank CEO’s and wondering what they are doing with the money given to them by Congress. Why aren’t they lending more of it? Is Barney Frank really that dumb? Wait, don’t answer that.
Why wouldn’t banks lend money? Let’s look at some possible reasons.
a) The banks are all run by greedy bastards who want to take taxpayer money and do whatever they want with it
b) The banks are discriminating against good people who qualify for loans
c) The banks are holding the money they received from Congress in reserve because they are actually broke and can’t make loans
Clearly, judging from the questions that Rep Frank and his colleagues asked the bank CEO’s, they’re operating from the viewpoints of choice “a” and “b.”
I think the answer is “c” and I don’t even think it’s close.
We’ll know for sure in April when they have to release first quarter earning statements. I’m betting that some of those banks are going to be worth less than what Congress loaned them.
At which point, you will have to seriously talk about nationalizing some of those banks or simply letting them fail. Matthew Richardson and Nouriel Roubini, professors at New York University's Stern School of Business, make a good case for Nationalization of the banks in a Washington Post article “Nationalize the Banks. We’re all Swedes Now.”
My biggest concern is how would you stop a bank run once you declare a big bank insolvent? You’ll have to guarantee deposits but shareholders will be all but wiped out. And if shareholders know that the bank is going to be declared insolvent, what’s to stop them from taking all of their money out before that happens? Even just the hint of insolvency could start a bank run. Citigroup and Bank of America are large institutions that would affect the whole system if they went down. Last year, Senator Chuck Schumer hinted that there might be a problem with Indy Mac and before you knew it, that bank was dead as customers rushed to take their money out. Washington Mutual suffered a bank run from May through July of last year and ended up being bought by Chase.
My other concern is that once government gets its hands on something, it doesn’t like to let it go. Bank nationalization, combined with a high corporate tax rate, and whatever other stringent regulations a Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is likely to push through, might also leave investors sitting on the sidelines or fleeing for other countries.
I’m not saying that bank nationalization couldn’t work if it’s done right. But given the administration’s behavior so far – the $787 billion stimulus bill, Secretary of the Treasury Geithner’s lack of a coherent plan to spend the rest of the TARP funds, the apologists in the foreign policy arena - I have very little faith in the current administration to pull it off.
Why wouldn’t banks lend money? Let’s look at some possible reasons.
a) The banks are all run by greedy bastards who want to take taxpayer money and do whatever they want with it
b) The banks are discriminating against good people who qualify for loans
c) The banks are holding the money they received from Congress in reserve because they are actually broke and can’t make loans
Clearly, judging from the questions that Rep Frank and his colleagues asked the bank CEO’s, they’re operating from the viewpoints of choice “a” and “b.”
I think the answer is “c” and I don’t even think it’s close.
We’ll know for sure in April when they have to release first quarter earning statements. I’m betting that some of those banks are going to be worth less than what Congress loaned them.
At which point, you will have to seriously talk about nationalizing some of those banks or simply letting them fail. Matthew Richardson and Nouriel Roubini, professors at New York University's Stern School of Business, make a good case for Nationalization of the banks in a Washington Post article “Nationalize the Banks. We’re all Swedes Now.”
My biggest concern is how would you stop a bank run once you declare a big bank insolvent? You’ll have to guarantee deposits but shareholders will be all but wiped out. And if shareholders know that the bank is going to be declared insolvent, what’s to stop them from taking all of their money out before that happens? Even just the hint of insolvency could start a bank run. Citigroup and Bank of America are large institutions that would affect the whole system if they went down. Last year, Senator Chuck Schumer hinted that there might be a problem with Indy Mac and before you knew it, that bank was dead as customers rushed to take their money out. Washington Mutual suffered a bank run from May through July of last year and ended up being bought by Chase.
My other concern is that once government gets its hands on something, it doesn’t like to let it go. Bank nationalization, combined with a high corporate tax rate, and whatever other stringent regulations a Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is likely to push through, might also leave investors sitting on the sidelines or fleeing for other countries.
I’m not saying that bank nationalization couldn’t work if it’s done right. But given the administration’s behavior so far – the $787 billion stimulus bill, Secretary of the Treasury Geithner’s lack of a coherent plan to spend the rest of the TARP funds, the apologists in the foreign policy arena - I have very little faith in the current administration to pull it off.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
What the hell's goin' on down in Mexico!?
OK first, let me stipulate the following...
I believe that allowing large numbers of illegals to cross the border from Mexico into the Untied States is fundamentally bad for our nation. I believe that it increases crime rates and exacerbates our already overwhelming gang problem. I also believe that illegals knock the poorest Americans off the bottom rung of the ladder to success, they are a drain on public services, and do not pay a significant portion of the taxes they owe (how many folks do you know who actually pay the Federally required payroll taxes on their Mexican gardener or nanny?).
But let's forget about all that for a moment. Let's assume that I'm dead wrong...
Can you think of another reason why it might be a good idea to build a substantial security fence along our southern border with Mexico?
Hmmm... let's think real hard...
How about this?
A brigadier General in the Mexican Army was lured away from the military to fight the drug war... and after only a week on the job, was kidnapped, tortured and murdered.
A Brigadier General!? That's comparable to someone kidnapping and mudering General Petraeus!
And if you don't think the bastards who committed this horrible crime regularly cross back and forth across our border in pursuit of the MILLIONS of dollars Americans are looking to spend on the drugs these guys make, then you aren't just crazy... you are suicidal.
UPDATE: To quote the Sundance Kid... "don't you get sick of being right all the time?"
I believe that allowing large numbers of illegals to cross the border from Mexico into the Untied States is fundamentally bad for our nation. I believe that it increases crime rates and exacerbates our already overwhelming gang problem. I also believe that illegals knock the poorest Americans off the bottom rung of the ladder to success, they are a drain on public services, and do not pay a significant portion of the taxes they owe (how many folks do you know who actually pay the Federally required payroll taxes on their Mexican gardener or nanny?).
But let's forget about all that for a moment. Let's assume that I'm dead wrong...
Can you think of another reason why it might be a good idea to build a substantial security fence along our southern border with Mexico?
Hmmm... let's think real hard...
How about this?
A brigadier General in the Mexican Army was lured away from the military to fight the drug war... and after only a week on the job, was kidnapped, tortured and murdered.
A Brigadier General!? That's comparable to someone kidnapping and mudering General Petraeus!
And if you don't think the bastards who committed this horrible crime regularly cross back and forth across our border in pursuit of the MILLIONS of dollars Americans are looking to spend on the drugs these guys make, then you aren't just crazy... you are suicidal.
UPDATE: To quote the Sundance Kid... "don't you get sick of being right all the time?"
Friday, February 13, 2009
Patting myself on the back
I never stopped believing victory in Iraq was possible... and here in 2009, despite what seems to be an intense and studied lack of interest from the White House's current occupant, the little Middle Eastern miracle continues apace.
Post-racial ObamAmerica?
Big test coming up that will give us an idea of whether or not we are truly living in a post-racial era where the racial victimology that has dominated American politics over the last 20 years (thanks to Sharpton, Jackson et al) is really on its way out.
If it is, then Elgin Baylor will be laughed out of court.
Is he really planning to walk into a courtoom with a straight face to argue that after 22 years... as the General Manager... of a professional basketball team... he was fired because he was black!?
If it is, then Elgin Baylor will be laughed out of court.
Is he really planning to walk into a courtoom with a straight face to argue that after 22 years... as the General Manager... of a professional basketball team... he was fired because he was black!?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
USS Cole Families Press Obama for Answers
So I guess President Obama thought he could close Guantanamo Bay prison and everyone would cheer.
Well, the families of the sailors killed on the USS Cole aren't cheering.
They are demanding that Obama create a 9/11 style commission to investigate the bombing and they want assurances that those responsible will be punished. They are currently being held in Guantanamo.
According to the article, President Obama told them that he was willing to consider a 9/11 style commission to investigate the bombing. Of course, that would mean that this commission would be reviewing policies of the Clinton Administration.
Want to bet that there is no commission ever formed?
Well, the families of the sailors killed on the USS Cole aren't cheering.
They are demanding that Obama create a 9/11 style commission to investigate the bombing and they want assurances that those responsible will be punished. They are currently being held in Guantanamo.
According to the article, President Obama told them that he was willing to consider a 9/11 style commission to investigate the bombing. Of course, that would mean that this commission would be reviewing policies of the Clinton Administration.
Want to bet that there is no commission ever formed?
Is anyone even paying attention anymore?
Candidate Obama: "Bush's deficit spending has destroyed the economy"
President Obama: "Deficit spending will save the economy."
President Obama: "Deficit spending will save the economy."
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Obama really IS stimulating the economy...
... well one specific part of it, at least.
Today I performed a sacred duty as an American and helped birth a brand new gun owner into the world.
While in the gun shop, I noticed quite a crowd for the middle of the day on a Wednesday, so I started chatting up the owner. Seems our young Mr. Obama has been quite good for business. They're almost completely out of amunition, and do not have a single weapon for sale in the most popular categories. Glocks, Springfield Rifles and the two best pump guns for my money (made by Mossberg and Remington) are completely out of stock.
And according to the owner this is not a local problem. They have great relationships with Glock and Springfield and the word from corporate is that the guns simply do not exist. They cannot keep up with demand.
So there you go... economic stimulus from our new President.
Today I performed a sacred duty as an American and helped birth a brand new gun owner into the world.
While in the gun shop, I noticed quite a crowd for the middle of the day on a Wednesday, so I started chatting up the owner. Seems our young Mr. Obama has been quite good for business. They're almost completely out of amunition, and do not have a single weapon for sale in the most popular categories. Glocks, Springfield Rifles and the two best pump guns for my money (made by Mossberg and Remington) are completely out of stock.
And according to the owner this is not a local problem. They have great relationships with Glock and Springfield and the word from corporate is that the guns simply do not exist. They cannot keep up with demand.
So there you go... economic stimulus from our new President.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
My Question for President Obama
Your party, the Democratic Party controls both houses of Congress.
If you think this stimulus bill is, to borrow a phrase, all that and a bag of chips, why not just pass the thing along a party line vote?
What purpose is served by going on television and whining about Republican opposition?
You'll get all the credit when the economy recovers and be able to blame the Republicans for standing in your way and it could lead to a bigger congressional majority in 2010.
Or do you not think this bill will work and you're really doing what you do best - give speeches in campaign mode? While you're in campaign mode, you might want to check Nancy Pelosi's approval numbers. They were lower that President Bush's. That's pretty hard to do.
My advice to you? Scrap the bill and start over.
If you think this stimulus bill is, to borrow a phrase, all that and a bag of chips, why not just pass the thing along a party line vote?
What purpose is served by going on television and whining about Republican opposition?
You'll get all the credit when the economy recovers and be able to blame the Republicans for standing in your way and it could lead to a bigger congressional majority in 2010.
Or do you not think this bill will work and you're really doing what you do best - give speeches in campaign mode? While you're in campaign mode, you might want to check Nancy Pelosi's approval numbers. They were lower that President Bush's. That's pretty hard to do.
My advice to you? Scrap the bill and start over.
Fun Facts About The Stimulus Bill
Fun Facts About the Stimulus Bill: What we’re getting for our $827 billion
-It will actually cost $1.2 trillion when you factor in the interest payments
-The interest costs on the stimulus will run $95 million per day for the next 10 years
-It will grow the national debt to $11 trillion
-Interest payments on the national debt will now run $700 billion a year
- A Congressional Budget Office analysis found that most of the approximately $355 billion in proposed discretionary spending on “shovel ready projects” - highways, renewable energy and other initiatives - wouldn’t be spent before 2011
When you say these things out loud, does it still sound like a good idea to rush this through Congress?
-It will actually cost $1.2 trillion when you factor in the interest payments
-The interest costs on the stimulus will run $95 million per day for the next 10 years
-It will grow the national debt to $11 trillion
-Interest payments on the national debt will now run $700 billion a year
- A Congressional Budget Office analysis found that most of the approximately $355 billion in proposed discretionary spending on “shovel ready projects” - highways, renewable energy and other initiatives - wouldn’t be spent before 2011
When you say these things out loud, does it still sound like a good idea to rush this through Congress?
Monday, February 9, 2009
Here's some change for ya...
2009... now featuring the return of the Jihadi beheading video... it's certainly been a while, hasn't it? Can't say I'd missed them.
Combine this with the first serious Iraqi IED attack of the young new year (4 dead soldiers) and it occurs to me that, contrary to what we were promised, The One does not seem to be bringing out the best in our enemies.
Combine this with the first serious Iraqi IED attack of the young new year (4 dead soldiers) and it occurs to me that, contrary to what we were promised, The One does not seem to be bringing out the best in our enemies.
This Should Give You Pause
This is the current headline on Drudge and boy, did it get my attention.
Taxpayers risk $9.7 Trillion on bailouts as Senate votes
Yikes!
Taxpayers risk $9.7 Trillion on bailouts as Senate votes
Yikes!
Sunday, February 8, 2009
This is worth passing along
Apparently the doctor who first suggested a link between vaccinations and autism in children faked his data.
Just about everyone I know believes this link exists.
Bad juju.
Just about everyone I know believes this link exists.
Bad juju.
I thought we voted for change
Obama on the trememdous waste in the stimulus bill...
"When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one."
OK, well, if you managed to make this the first one ever... wouldn't that constitute a change? Or was the old way of doing things just fine as long as it suits your personal agenda Mr. President?
"When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one."
OK, well, if you managed to make this the first one ever... wouldn't that constitute a change? Or was the old way of doing things just fine as long as it suits your personal agenda Mr. President?
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Gotta love the AP
Here's how they describe the stimulus compromise...
"President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan is on track to pass the Senate after a handful of moderate Republicans and Democrats forced more than $100 billion in cuts in programs that wouldn't create many jobs right away."
Uh, OK... That's one way of putting it, I guess. Another way would be to say they "forced cuts in programs that won't create ANY jobs, EVER."
And by the way, look at the final buget number up on Drudge right now... doesn't look to me like they cut much of anything.
"President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan is on track to pass the Senate after a handful of moderate Republicans and Democrats forced more than $100 billion in cuts in programs that wouldn't create many jobs right away."
Uh, OK... That's one way of putting it, I guess. Another way would be to say they "forced cuts in programs that won't create ANY jobs, EVER."
And by the way, look at the final buget number up on Drudge right now... doesn't look to me like they cut much of anything.
Friday, February 6, 2009
My Immediate Stimulus
My big problem with the stimulus bill is that it's filled with more pork that a package of Farmer John bacon. Rather than detail all of it here, I'll let some people who've actually gone through it do it for me.
There are a lot of things in the bill that people can make an argument for funding. However, this is supposed to be an economic stimulus bill, not an appropriations bill. This bill's cost is up to $900 billion. Shouldn't we be asking how are we going to pay for all this? And with Congressional Budget forecasting that some of this money won't be spent until 2010 and 2011, how is that going to help the economy in the short term?
My proposal is simple.
1) Extend unemployment benefits for the next year. This will immediately help people who have been laid off.
2) Suspend the payroll tax for the next six months. This will immediately put money back in the hands of working people and their employers.
3) Cut every tax bracket by 5% and make it retroactive to last year. This will give everybody bigger rebate checks.
4) Cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%. Make that permanent. Encourage more businesses to do business in America by bringing our corporate tax rate more in line with (and in some places lower than) the rest of the world.
Once those things are done, then we can look at spending government money on infrastructure building - like updating the national power grid, which really should be done. Currently, there is $4.5 billion alloted in the bill to update the grid. The problem is that a 2004 study estimated that is would take at least $165 billion to actually do it right. Who's paying attention to these figures?
Let's take those four steps I outlined above to provide immediate relief. Then Congress and the President can sit down and actually write a good bill rather than rush something through and get it wrong.
There are a lot of things in the bill that people can make an argument for funding. However, this is supposed to be an economic stimulus bill, not an appropriations bill. This bill's cost is up to $900 billion. Shouldn't we be asking how are we going to pay for all this? And with Congressional Budget forecasting that some of this money won't be spent until 2010 and 2011, how is that going to help the economy in the short term?
My proposal is simple.
1) Extend unemployment benefits for the next year. This will immediately help people who have been laid off.
2) Suspend the payroll tax for the next six months. This will immediately put money back in the hands of working people and their employers.
3) Cut every tax bracket by 5% and make it retroactive to last year. This will give everybody bigger rebate checks.
4) Cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%. Make that permanent. Encourage more businesses to do business in America by bringing our corporate tax rate more in line with (and in some places lower than) the rest of the world.
Once those things are done, then we can look at spending government money on infrastructure building - like updating the national power grid, which really should be done. Currently, there is $4.5 billion alloted in the bill to update the grid. The problem is that a 2004 study estimated that is would take at least $165 billion to actually do it right. Who's paying attention to these figures?
Let's take those four steps I outlined above to provide immediate relief. Then Congress and the President can sit down and actually write a good bill rather than rush something through and get it wrong.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Hope and Fear?
At his inaugural address, FDR said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, as he rallied Americans to rise out of the doldrums of the Great Depression. (Never mind that FDR's policies might have made the Great Depression last longer than necessary. That's a post for another date.) The point is that he was an eternal optimist and projected that to the American people.
Well, I guess Barack Obama is no FDR. In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, President Obama says that if Congress doesn't immediately pass his stimulus bill that "Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."
Way to sell hope and change President Obama. Didn't you campaign by saying that President Bush's politics of fear was wrecking our country?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Well, I guess Barack Obama is no FDR. In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, President Obama says that if Congress doesn't immediately pass his stimulus bill that "Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."
Way to sell hope and change President Obama. Didn't you campaign by saying that President Bush's politics of fear was wrecking our country?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Unclench This
Recently, both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on Iran to unclench its fist and accept an open hand from the United States.
After making those statements, President Ahmadinejad replied that basically it just means that they know the Western way of doing things has been a failure and this is why they're trying a new direction. Iran then launched a satellite into orbit and today denied the US Badminton team visas to enter the country.
It seems that Iran has just not gotten the message that the election of Barack Obama means that they should now be nice to us.
I'm sure they'll be apologizing to us any day now.
After making those statements, President Ahmadinejad replied that basically it just means that they know the Western way of doing things has been a failure and this is why they're trying a new direction. Iran then launched a satellite into orbit and today denied the US Badminton team visas to enter the country.
It seems that Iran has just not gotten the message that the election of Barack Obama means that they should now be nice to us.
I'm sure they'll be apologizing to us any day now.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Tom Daschle and Timothy Geithner
There is a scene in the movie QUIZ SHOW near the end where Charles Van Doren (Ralph Fiennes) goes before a Senate Committee and eloquently apologizes for his role in the quiz show scandals. When he is finished, one Senator after another praises him for his courage in making the statement. Then a Senator from New York chimes in and says that while he's happy that he made the statement, he can't praise him for making the statement because he thinks a man of Charles Van Doren's intellect should not be praised for simply telling the truth.
This is kind of how I feel about Tom Daschle withdrawing his name from consideration for Secretary of Health and Human Services. While I'm glad Daschle did the right thing in withdrawing, he could have done the right thing years ago by simply paying his taxes.
However, compared to Timothy Geithner, who is now Secretary of the Treasury despite his failure to report income and pay taxes on it until the vetting process discovered it, Tom Daschle appears principled. Geithner should be ashamed of himself.
This is kind of how I feel about Tom Daschle withdrawing his name from consideration for Secretary of Health and Human Services. While I'm glad Daschle did the right thing in withdrawing, he could have done the right thing years ago by simply paying his taxes.
However, compared to Timothy Geithner, who is now Secretary of the Treasury despite his failure to report income and pay taxes on it until the vetting process discovered it, Tom Daschle appears principled. Geithner should be ashamed of himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)