Thursday, March 5, 2009

Bankruptcy we needed

I've been reading the stories in the news today about the stock market, Citibank, AIG, GM and Chrysler. I'm not at all surprised to find that Citibank is trading at less than the cost of an ATM fee, AIG and Chrysler are barely above water and GM's auditors are saying that bankruptcy may be the only thing that can save them.

Is anyone surprised? I know I'm not. I've said all along that this would not work. I know that I and others have said that getting the government (which has yet to be able to get out of its own way) involved was only going to make the situation worse. So, here we are with the major recipients of bailout money on the verge of bankruptcy. A bankruptcy said that a great many of us said needed to happen some five months ago when we set out down this path.

However, we did achieve change. Things are decidedly changed. The difference between then and now? The difference is that now, instead of just having these businesses on the verge of bankruptcy, we and future generations are also on the hook for over a trillion dollars. The only question is, was that the change we needed?

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Say it ain't so...

I've seen something that I thought wasn't supposed to happen not once, but twice in the news this week...
The first time was on my local ABC station here in Toledo. According to the story, there were concerns of flooding again in Findlay, Ohio, and so the sandbagging started. The problem was that the city quite simply didn't have the money to pay for sand or bags. Then the most amazing thing happened. It seems an evil business stepped up. According to 13abc, National Lime and Stone Company stepped forward and donated not only 2,500 bags, they gave 50 tons of sand to fill them.
Then, this morning on Good Morning America, they had this story, which came, out of all places, from California! A couple who was starting a restaurant ran out of money before they could finish building it and open. As a last resort, they put an ad in the paper asking for help finishing and opening their restaurant. They said that they couldn't pay - at least not right away. They said that they would pay whoever helped in the future - if the restaurant succeeded. Then the most amazing thing happened. People stepped up. They helped out, and the restaurant opened. In the interview, the couple said that they were amazed by the response that they got. The restaurant has only been open for a couple of weeks, but they said that they have a good response from the community so far.
So, what is it that amazes me about these two stories? It wasn't what was in the stories, but what wasn't - the government. If I didn't know better... if I didn't know that people can't possibly succeed at anything without Washington there to help them... I would swear that these were people who stepped up and managed to come up with a way to solve their problems without any help from Congress or the President. It's all just so confusing. Please say it ain't so.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Stylin'

I watched Obama's speech, as well as Jindal's response, and I find a few things interesting...

First would be the response to Jindal's speech. People are saying that the speech wasn't good, but I think it was very good. Admittedly, the delivery wasn't as exciting as Obama's, but giving the speech to a camera in an otherwise empty room as opposed to a room full of fawning, applauding members of Congress is going to change the appearance. I think that a lot of this criticism is put forward by people who are worried about the strength of someone like Jindal.
The thing that Jindal did do was make people think. One of interesting the articles I read was about the sudden spike in online searches for the term volcano monitoring during his speech. That, among other things, would be one of the items that we couldn't do without in the Spendulus bill that Obama pushed.
So, did Jindal have the style that Obama had? No, but he had the substance that Obama didn't have. For example,

1) Obama talked about the deficit that they "inherited" which drew laughter and applause from the Democrats in the room. Really? Who was that running congress for the past few years? I'm not going to try to exonerate Bush, because the man did spend like a drunken sailor in a nudie bar. However, for members of congress to act like they just arrived in Washington to find a budget deficit left behind by someone else is preposterous.

2) He also talked about how we need to be more fiscally responsible and cut the deficit in half. Again, really? Being that the moves he and his cohorts in congress made in his first month in office more than doubled the deficit, to cut it in half still leaves us with a deficit larger than when he started in office.

3) He cited $2 trillion in savings "over the next decade." A nice thought, but the fact is he can only be sure he has a say in how money is spent over the next four years. He might be able to pull off eight years, but he won't be there for 10. It is common political speak to make projections beyond when you will be in office. That way if you want, you can put off things like huge program cuts or tax hikes until someone else is in office. You still get to make the grand statement, but you don't have to do the heavy lifting that comes with it.

4) Obama referred to the United States as the country where the automobile was invented. The fact is that while Henry Ford did invent the assembly line, which made it easier for everyone to get a car, historians generally agree that the car was invented by a man named Benz in Germany.

5) Obama said that regulations on the banking industry were taken apart and that people bought houses they couldn't afford and unscrupulous banks pushed the loans, "And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day." He implied that it was the Republicans who were responsible for this. That flies in the face of the fact that it was the Clinton administration that pushed for the changes in the banking laws and, in recent years, while the Republicans (like John McCain) were calling for more oversight, it was Obama's friends like Frank, Dodd, Reid and Pelosi who were saying that everything was fine and stifling the GOP's efforts to change the course of this problem.

6) He, once again, touted his plan to "create or save 3 million jobs." This is an excellent thing to say, but it's just that - something to say. First of all, the only way that the government could guarantee 3 million jobs is to hire 3 million people for government work. Either that or conscript them into the military. I don't know, maybe he's planning on bringing back the draft, but I doubt it. The fact is that his own economists said in a report last month that, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error." How many jobs are in a significant? Five, 10, a million, a couple of million? Who knows? There's really no way we'll ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. We know when people lose their jobs, but the estimates of jobs saved are based on predictions of how many jobs would be lost without the stimulus. So, basically, if we lose 10 million jobs, he can say that he figured we would lose 13 million and therefore he saved 3 million. Also, there's no way to figure how many jobs would have been created whether or not he put a giant spending bill out there.

These are just a few of the notable problems with Obama's substance. There were many more that have been noted by a number of outlets, but lest we forget, he did have style and that's what this is about, right?

Monday, February 23, 2009

Whiplash

Yesterday, President Obama announced that he intends to cut the deficit in half by the middle of his term. This statement leaves me somewhat dumbfounded. Being that just last week with a quick stroke of his pen, he doubled the deficit, doesn't that mean he's going to put the deficit right back where he found it? Which also begs the question, couldn't he have saved a step and not spent a trillion dollars we don't have?

In the presentation, one of his advisers said that the first step to get to entitlement reform is basically to spend billions on socialized medicine. The contradiction is enough to give you whiplash. The only way to get spending under control is to spend billions more?

Obama himself said that we cannot continue to pile debt onto future generations. Again the whiplash hits me. He and his party push through a trillion dollars in spending that heaps debt onto future generations without letting the people who are supposed to represent us read it, and he says we can't heap debt onto future generations. I'm at a complete loss.

Meanwhile, the Democrat-run congress is set to pass a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that Mike Pence, R-Ind. termed, "the largest increase in discretionary spending since the Carter administration."

Republicans have called for a spending freeze, which the Democrats seem to have already rejected.

Charlie Melancon, D-La., Blue Dog co-chairman for communications said, "The Blue Dogs will be President Obama's allies in Congress as he moves to re-institute tough budget enforcement mechanisms, such as pay-as-you-go rules, that have the force of law."

So, while they pass the largest spending increase in decades, they call for tough budget enforcement and pay-as-you go laws? In the wake of spending that makes the Bush administration's drunken sailor attitude toward money look frugal, all I can say is it's time to get a neck brace.

And we wonder why...

We've all been hearing the stories about the administration and apparently thinking that their own policies don't apply to them. The tax cheats, the orchid-growing temperature in the Oval Office, the list goes on.

Now, I read this story about the President's auto team. If a person set out to pick posts to give people a laugh because of the contradictions, he couldn't do much better than Obama.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Insight

It's been interesting to watch some creeping disillusion regarding the President and all of these grand bailout plans.
Some Republican governors, like Jindal and Palin are talking about not taking bailout money for their states, saying that it comes with too many strings. Among other things, it would require the complete repeal of welfare reform that was passed by the Clinton administration, which would then only be funded for the first couple of years. I have to say good for them. I wish more people would stand strong like this instead of caving and doing like Granholm, Schwarzenegger, and Crist and begging for whatever is left by those governors who aren't taking.
More interesting is a couple my Democrat friends who are looking at the latest incarnation of the bailout, specifically the $75 billion to save 9 million homes from foreclosure. It seems that they are wondering why the government is spending our money to bail out people who shouldn't have been buying homes in the first place. They are thinking that it isn't fair to the people who are doing things right, bought within their means, pay their bills and are sacrificing in this economy to realize "The American Dream" of owning a home.
While I like that they are seeing what the problem is, I have to wonder where they've been all along. I saw things like this coming, and so did many other people like me. It's not like Obama made a great secret out of wanting to do things like this. I guess I should just say, "Welcome aboard, glad to have you here."
It would also seem that they are not alone in their creeping disillusion, as I watch the President's approval rating start to dwindle. Hopefully, when that clock on the left column of this blog reaches zero, there will be enough people who have gone down this path to vote people into Congress who will slow plans like this down.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

The audacity of importance....

It's official. The President has signed the Porkulus bill, aka the Generational Theft Act of 2009. Passed on Friday, the President signed it today in Denver.
And so, in one single maneuver, to complete his first month in office, President Obama added nearly as much to the deficit as Bush did during his whole Presidency.
Does it seem odd to anyone but me that while this was so important that it couldn't wait for the Congress to read it, it wasn't so important that President Obama had to interrupt his long weekend to put his signature on it?
You would think that if this was so important and that the future of the country depended on it passing without delay, that the President would be standing outside the doors of congress with his pen in his hand. Of course, it was Friday and he had date night with his wife.
Michelle Malkin has an excellent story with pictures about a group who held a protest and pig roast in Denver for the signing. Check it out.

Friday, February 13, 2009

It passed

It comes as no surprise, but the stimulus bill passed. There are so many things to say (starting with an apology to the children and grandchildren that were just enslaved), but I can't find a way to improve on what John Boehner said...

Are you kidding?????

I see that the Democrats are following through with their promise of transparency, bipartisanship and accountability. As the Porkulus bill finishes at roughly $790 billion and the text balloons to over 1000 pages, reports are that Nancy Pelosi is asking for commitments of support without letting people read the bill. Even members of her own party say that they don't expect to have a chance to read it before the vote. Of course the Republicans aren't getting to see it, the logic being that they didn't vote for it in the first place, so why should the get a chance to read it? Although, Pelosi did say that since the Republicans weren't voting for it, the Democrats would be accountable for it. Right.
As my wife, who is a teacher, has pointed out, it goes against one of the first things they teach you in Kindergarten - read the directions before you pick up your pencil.

Way to go guys. You have become what you always said the Bush administration was.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Bailout, Stimulus $$$$$$$$$$$$

I heard in several places yesterday that if we were to take all the money the government is putting into TARP 1, TARP 2, the Porkulus package, and all the rest, the government could pay off 90 percent of the mortgages in the United States. If we have to spend this much money (which, much like this list of economists, I still think we don't), mortgage payoff is not a bad idea, but I have a modification to satisfy my friend who pointed out it wasn't fair to people who rent.

So, here's the theory...

You take the money and pay off 50 percent of every mortgage in America. If you want, I'll even use President Obama's income breakpoint of $250,000. Pay off 50 percent of every mortgage on a primary residence for everyone making under $250,000, and take their interest rate down to 4 percent.

Consider what that would do:

Using an online mortgage calculator, I figured, assuming a $100,000 house for which $90,000 is financed on a 6.25 percent 30-year fixed loan, the monthly payment would be $554.15 before my buyout plan.
After my buyout plan, that same person would be financing $45,000 at 4 percent on a 30 year fixed, making his monthly payment $214.84. That would be an additional $339.31 per month in the pocket of the homeowner, which will most likely get spent, causing a demand for goods and services, which would mean we would need to put people back to work to provide them.
In addition, there would be an influx of money into the banking industry, at least part of which would be made available for lending again, which should unfreeze the credit market.
Now, because my friend says that would be unfair to the renters, my plan is that each renter can apply for a one-time payment of half their annual rent.
Now, I know that there are those who are going to say that it isn't fair because some people get a bigger payment than others, etc. etc. etc. My answer is simple, no plan, no matter how well thought out it may be, is going to be absolutely fair to everyone. I wish it could, but it can't. This will put the most money in the pockets of the people who we are told need it most in the shortest amount of time.

Some renters, with a large lump of cash in their pocket, may even choose to use the money as a down payment on a house, thereby starting the housing market again.

This plan should also mitigate a fair amount of the inflation that should come with a flood of money in the market, because there won't be a giant influx. With the exception of the renters who would receive a large lump-sum payment, homeowners will see a few hundred dollars of extra cash each month, which should hold demand down to an extent.

Truth be told, though, I really think that we could do this and restart everything for significantly less. Buy down the interest rate on all the mortgages to 4 percent, and pay half the payments for each mortgage in the above plan for a year, maybe two. For one or two years, they will have a significant amount of extra money each month, and at the end of that two years, they would still have a lower payment than when they went in. Renters would, once again, get a payment for 1/2 their rent for the same number of years that homeowners. It should start the economy just like before, but it would cost significantly less.

It's just a suggestion, although I doubt that Congress would ever go for it. If they passed this as it stands, it would only be stimulating the economy, helping the housing market and creating jobs. However would they implement their socialist agenda?

Monday, February 9, 2009

Lost in the shuffle

One of the things that seems to be lost in the shuffle of the trillions of dollars of imaginary money being thrown about is this country's southern border.
I ran across this article about an Arizona rancher who is being sued for $32 million dollars by 16 illegal aliens. They say he violated their civil rights by holding them at gunpoint when he found them trying to enter the country illegally by crossing his ranch.
According to the story, he turned them over to the Border Patrol, but he allegedly yelled at them and kicked one of them while he was detaining them.
There are three things that amaze me out of this story. First would be that the article says he has turned over 12,ooo illegals to Border Patrol since he started patrolling his ranch in 1998. Second is that these people who are not citizens in this country believe they are entitled to the same civil rights that citizens here are. Finally is that a judge seems to agree with them. The judge actually denied a motion to dismiss from the rancher, saying that there was enough evidence to send the matter to trial.
Absolutely amazing. These people who are not citizens here trespass on this man's land and then sue him in courts that they should not be entitled to for protecting himself and his property.
I'm thinking that if the Obama administration wants to build things to stimulate the economy, how about that border fence?

Friday, February 6, 2009

Partisanship

President Obama went off his teleprompter and lashed out at those who are opposing the European Socialist Bill of 2009 according to a Politico article. In that lashing, he let more of his true color show.
At one point in the speech, he openly mocked the GOP for not following through on promises of bipartisanship. This would be the man who answered all of the Republicans' suggestions for the bill with "Hey, I won," right before ignoring them. This would also prove once again that Obama's definition of bipartisan is the Republicans rolling over, abandoning their values and doing what he tells them to.
“When you start hearing arguments, on the cable chatter, just understand a couple of things,” he said. “No. 1, when they say, ‘Well, why are we spending $800 billion [when] we’ve got this huge deficit?’ – first of all, I found this deficit when I showed up, No. 1."
Yes, you did, Mr. President and your answer to finding this deficit was to go out, first thing and try to borrow more money in one month than this country did in its first 200 years of existence. In other words, Mr. President, your answer was to go out and increase that $10 trillion deficit by nearly 10 percent in your first month.
“We were complimented by Republicans saying, ‘This is a balanced package . . . we’re pleasantly surprised,’” he said. “Suddenly, what was a ‘balanced package’ is suddenly out of balance.”
Could it be, Mr. President that the Republicans are listening to what the people are saying? According to Gallup, while 75 percent of Americans think there should be some sort of plan passed, almost 8 out of 10 Americans are concerned the plan would not stimulate the economy quickly enough. Yes, Mr. President, 80 percent of Americans are concerned that this is not the right plan. Perhaps the GOP was listening to the people - a phenomenon most of you in Washington are not familiar with.
And, under the heading of bipartisan, Mr. President, you have members of your own party who are saying that this isn't the right bill.
Once again, if you want to pass a stimulus bill, then pass a stimulus bill. Not a bunch of pork barrel spending. Don't spend the money to catapult us down the road to the European Socialism that even European countries are turning away from. Put the money where it needs to go. Put it toward helping the housing market, put it toward something that would pave the way for jobs outside of government - like tax cuts for the folks who, as you put it when you were trying to sound like Reagan last week, "make things and hire people." You know, those guys who were appearing with you, the business owners.
Mr. President, I know you're unhappy that you may not get all of your socialist policies set up in one fell swoop, but maybe it's time for you to put your partisanship aside and work for the best interest of the people of this country, instead of the best interest of your huge government programs.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

We may not survive

President Obama announced today that we have to pass this stimulus bill or we may not survive. Is it just me who's flashing back to 1987 when Oral Roberts locked himself in a tower and told his followers that they had to send in $8 Million or God would call him home?
I recognize that the going is fairly rough right now, but if we don't pass this we may not survive? Really?!?!?
If they want to have a stimulus, that's fine, but read the damn bill! There's more "pet project" spending in this than you can shake a stick at. Here's a few of the items...

● $9.0 billion for grants to extend broadband Internet services;
● $2.6 billion for grants to improve the criminal justice system;
● $1.5 billion for grants and programs to fund science and technology research;
● $1.5 billion for NASA programs;
● $1.2 billion for programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration;
● $1.0 billion for periodic censuses and programs;
● $1.0 billion for the Community Oriented Policing Services program; and
● $3.7 billion for other activities.
● $7.8 billion for environmental remediation and various other activities.
●$5.6 billion would fund various programs, including capital improvements and maintenance for the Forest Service and National Park Service, the Superfund program, and wildland fire management.
●$6.0 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
● $26.5 billion for grants to elementary and secondary schools, including funding for special education and Title I;
● $17.1 billion to renovate elementary and secondary schools, fund educational technology, and support homeless students;
● $13.9 billion for Pell grants and other student financial assistance.
● $4.2 billion for other education programs, including $3.5 billion to renovate facilities at post-secondary institutions
● $3.0 billion in 2009 budget authority for military construction and family housing projects of the Department of Defense
● $12.9 billion for housing assistance programs administered by HUD
● $79.0 billion to the Department of Education to create a fiscal stabilization fund to provide grants-inaid to states

Using the latest CBO report available, I found those items, totalling nearly $200 billion, in about 10 minutes of skimming. National Review has a list of 50. We won't survive without these things, or they won't get these things moved through appropriations if it's not done in a panic under the cover of economic stimulus?
Susan Collins, the senator from Maine, had it right. Many of these may very well be worthy projects, but they need to go through the normal appropriations process.
If they want to stimulate the economy, put the money where it will do the most good. In the hands of the people and small businesses. This thing started with housing, so maybe housing would be a good place to start fixing this, and yet it isn't mentioned anywhere.
Instead of doing the right thing, and sending these programs through the normal appropriations process, Obama is pushing the "we're all gonna die" button to try to panic everyone into passing a huge spending bill that will do very little to help the people who need it most.
Then again, why not do it that way? In 1987, Oral Roberts managed to get $1 Million beyond his request.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Apologies

Have you, like me, been feeling a bit disenfranchised? I know I'm feeling a bit like a second class citizen and here's why...
First would be the dope smoking medal winner Michael Phelps. You're a public figure and you go out and smoke pot at a party? Have you taken all leave of your senses? Bad pun, but good question. In this age of cell phone cameras and all kinds of "got'chas" going on, why would you do something like that? The smallest amount of common sense should have screamed no at you. Yet, it appears that he won't lose his endorsement contracts. Well, after all, he did apologize - it was just a youthful mistake.
Then there's Tom Daschle. A small $120 thousand "mistake" on his taxes. He didn't know that a car and driver gift should be reported as income. The tax code can be complicated, but this is something that everyone with a company car that they can use for personal business knows. He was the one who said, "Tax cheats cheat us all and the IRS should prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law." Who knew that the fullest extent of the law would be a promotion to the President's Cabinet? It does seem funny that, in spite of finding out about the problem last summer, he waited until just last week to pay. It couldn't be that he waited to see if Obama got elected and if he'd need to pay it back to get a post? Nah.
So, he'll probably get his Cabinet post. Oh, and don't forget that in spite of the fact that IRS penalties should run somewhere in the neighborhood of doubling the entire bill, he paid - none. After all, he did deeply apologize.
It makes sense though, we've already seen the precedent in Tim Geithner. Taxes.. don't pay 'em. Then, when you get caught, apologize. Sure, you'll still have to pay them back, but the apology should get you a waiver of interest and penalties and a Cabinet post.
Is it any wonder that polling shows that people feel disenfranchised? Look at the last three tales. If you were caught smoking dope, would you have endorsements or a jail cell. Do you think that an apology would save you? I know people personally who have the IRS nearly destroy their lives over a couple hundred dollars of unpaid taxes. Yet, tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes doesn't get anyone a jail cell. It gets them a cabinet post - of course, they did apologize.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

An ember?

And so the President's spending (I refuse to call it a stimulus any more) bill passed the House today. Yet in the midst of defeat, I see a spark - an ember - maybe. House Republicans held firm. To a person, they all voted against this bill, and in that vote, I see hope - maybe. Could it be that the Republicans saw the light? Could it be that they started to grow a spine? Could it be that they decided to stand on the principles that got them elected instead of just jumping onto the Obama bandwagon? Could it be that they've realized that being "Democrat light" doesn't work and that they need to go back to being the party that stands for fiscal responsibility? Could it be?

Maybe.

It's a good start, but this is just the first of a long road that we'll have to travel as we wait the remaining 650 days until the midterm elections, and I'll be watching to see what happens as we head down that road, but I have hope. Remember, it was a Clinton budget bill that was rammed through Congress with no Republican support that helped to set up the Contract with America. Could this be the ember that starts a bonfire like that?

Maybe.

See the vote total and how your Represntative voted.

A quick question

I listened on the radio this morning as President Obama appeared with a number of CEO's and business owners, trying to make a case for his stimulus package. These were people who, in the President's own words, "make things and hire people."

I'd be willing to bet my next six paychecks that most, if not all, of these people make over $250,000. So, my question is if these are the folks who make things and hire people, why do you want to raise their taxes and take away more of the money that they would use to make things and hire people?

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Looking for cover

I just read an article saying that Obama is meeting with members of the GOP and telling them to keep politics to a minimum and quickly pass the stimulus bill. Proving once again that his definition of bipartisan is "everyone thinking like me."

The question here is why is he even bothering with the GOP. As he has already told them, he won in November so he trumps them. Obama and his Democrat buddies have all the votes they need for the stimulus bill without getting a single Republican vote. So why not just push it through? Then, if it's as good for the economy as he claims it's going to be, he can use the fact that the GOP didn't support it to drive the final nail in their coffin.

Could it be that this pork-laden mess isn't going to stimulate the economy and he knows it? We saw this during the Clinton administration when the Democrats had congress. They pushed budget measures through and when they fell flat, the Contract With America was born.

This is why he's looking for GOP support. When this $825 Billion barrel of pork fails to bring back jobs and in some cases, potentially puts more people out of work, he wants to be able to point at the GOP and say, "They voted for it, blame them."

Take a look at the bill and you can easily see my point on its potential for stimulating the economy...



According to the Congressional Budget Office, only $26 billion — just over 3 percent — will be spent this year. Another $110 billion — or 13 percent — will be spent next year. By the time President Obama's term is halfway through, only 16 percent of the money will have been spent, and if you read deeper into it, you come to realize that, assuming Obama wins in 2012, some of the money still won't be spent when his second term is over.

Then, look at the infrastructure projects that Obama touts as being the key to new jobs. A total of $90 Billion is slated for infrastructure - that's about 10 percent. Only a third of that is tagged for transportation projects like roads and bridges (he touted the rebuilding of roads and bridges through the campaign). Of that $30 Billion, only $5 Billion is due to be spent in 2009-10. That's a nationwide figure, which works out to $100 Million per state. Which means that you will maybe see an improvement on one road or bridge per state in 09-10.

That's just a quick look. Then add on the fact that there are all kinds of other spending such as $20 million for sod in Washington, another $20 billion for the program formerly known as food stamps, $1.0 billion for programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
$11.1 billion for housing assistance programs administered by HUD... the list goes on and on.

Finally, as a result of this stimulus package, the country's interest payments will increase by nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars this year and over 2009-2019 the interest cost will be $347 billion. Also, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would increase budget deficits by $526 billion over the 2009-2010 period (about 19 months) and by a total of $816 billion over the 2009-2019 period.

The Representative for my district is Marcy Kaptur. On her website, she says that we don't need a fast stimulus, we need the right stimulus. This is neither of those. I contacted her office who told me that they are not authorized to tell her constituents her positions until after she votes, but I'm pretty sure she'll fall right in line behind Obama.

Hopefully, the GOP will continue to stand strong against this pork-laden non-stimulus, and not give the Democrats cover for when it blows up.

Inauspicious start

So, the first week of the Obama administration has ended and I have to say he's off to a pretty inauspicious start.

He began the week with a public signing of executive orders which made him look like he has no idea what's going on, referring to the White House Council for explanation on everything except how to spell his name. I'll be the first to admit that a President can't know every detail all the time - the job is just too big. He has to depend on his people to keep track of things for him. However, one would expect that he would be better prepped for a public event like this.

Included in the executive orders was the order to close Gitmo. An act that, according to the latest Gallup poll, 45 percent of people think shouldn't be done, 35 percent think should, and the remaining 20 percent don't care. Even though the closure is ordered, there is no mention of what is to be done with the occupants, and indications are that we're finding people released from Gitmo on the battlefield. In fact, a couple of them have even made videos to that effect.

Then, there was the trip down to the White House Pressroom "for a visit." It played out almost like a scene in MASH where a general said, "This is a press conference, the last thing I want to do is answer a bunch of questions!"

I listened to the audio of the exchange, and, by his own words, President Obama walked into the pressroom just for a friendly visit. He was then upset because the reporters started asking him questions. I would hope that someone who is smart enough to be President of the United States would be smart enough to realize that when the leader of the free world walks into a room full of reporters, whether it's to visit or to have a press conference, he's going to get asked questions.

Then there is the appointment of Timothy Geithner. I suppose the theory is that if you're going to have someone whose job includes being in charge of the IRS, he should know what tax evasion looks like.

Let's not forget his meeting with Republicans where he spent the time reminding them that he won in November and he'll be trumping them on their proposals. Apparently, he has the standard Democratic view of bipartisanship. "Everyone cave and come over to my point of view."

Then, we round out the week with the "stimulus package," which is anything but that. According to the Congressional Business office, the government is going to spend $26 billion of the $825 billion this year, $110 billion of it the next year and $103 billion will be spent in 2011, $53 billion will be spent in 2012 and $63 billion between 2013 and 2019. If this crisis is so great that we must do something right now, this minute, why is it that the majority of the money won't be spent for years?

Then of course, there are the specific places where the money is going. Space and time don't allow for listing it all here. You can read it all for yourself here. I'll just leave it that it appears this "stimulus" has more pork than my last barbecue.

All in all, a pretty unimpressive start.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Continuing the double standard

This morning, AP has a story about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's statement that the media and the bloggers need to leave her kids alone. In it, they say that political observers say she can't have it both ways, bringing them out to showcase her family values and then saying that they're off limits. Once again, the liberal media and bloggers illustrate the double standard that they hold for liberals and conservatives.
They come at conservative candidates from any direction possible. Even if it means making up stories. Palin's son Trigg is the perfect example. During the campaign, the bloggers decided that he was not actually her son, but rather Bristol's son from a secret pregnancy. So much of the media bought into that story, citing that the blogosphere reported this in a number of stories. It's not true, but that doesn't seem to matter. They go at Bristol Palin for her pregnancy.
In their defense, they cite Palin's family values platform, and say that if she takes her family on the campaign trail, they are fair game.
Obama and Biden both took family members on the campaign trail, and in one speech that I am aware of, the children having a sleepover together was cited by Biden in order to make themselves look more middle class. Then, as observations were made about Obama's wife and some of the things that she was saying on behalf of the campaign while on the trail, the message came down, "Back off my family."
Did the media and the bloggers note that the family is in play because they were out on the campaign trail and, in the case of Michelle making statements on behalf of the campaign? No, they simply fell in line and stopped with the stories.
When Chelsea Clinton was making independent campaign appearances and speeches on behalf of her mother and less than flattering things were said about her in the media, Hillary sent out the word, "Back off my daughter." If ever there was a time to say that a family member was in play, this was the one, and yet the message came back, "Yes, ma'am."
When Joe the Plumber asked Obama a question that caused him to cite his socialist tendencies out loud, the media went after Joe with a vengeance that the most stringent of IRS audits wouldn't have been able to achieve. Child support was investigated, the fact that he didn't have a plumbing license was checked, his tax records were pulled, the list goes on and on. Yet, when stories started to surface about the tax records of the head of Obama's economic advisers, that was deemed off limits.
In an interview recently, Brokaw said that we don't really know who Barack Obama is, we don't really know the universe of his beliefs. That's because such things as his associations over the years with people like Wright and Ayers have been declared off limits. We now have a President who has entire sections of his life and the structure of his beliefs off limits - the the media honor that. However, when Sarah Palin tries to declare her children off limits, the media say she can't have it both ways. Seems that they want it both ways. Why shouldn't Palin?

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Hate

I keep getting this feeling today that I'm angry. I don't want to be angry, but I keep feeling that way.

We live in the greatest country on earth. This is a great day. It's absolutely fabulous that every four years we install a new leader without a coup. It's absolutely fabulous that Barack Obama has managed to rise to the point of moving into the White House - a building built by slaves. For this reason, I don't want to be angry today, but somehow I feel that way.

I feel angry because today former President Bush was booed when he arrived at the inauguration. He was booed when he left Washington and people were chanting, "Na na na na hey hey hey goodbye."

I'm angry because I'm told that Obama is our President, that he's everyone's President and that I should give him a chance and that his election would change things. Yet, here we are with the same vitriol coming from the same people who were chanting, "Not my President," some eight years ago. The same people who called Bush a Nazi. The same people who called him a crook.

I'm angry because the same people who vowed never to give Bush the first chance are telling me that I need to give Obama a chance.

I'm angry because I have to be the bigger person. I have to be the adult. I'm angry because I can't be the guy who says, "He's not my President."

It just makes me wonder what the last eight years would have been like if back then, those people would have been the people that they say the conservatives need to be now.

And the thing is, I'm going to be the bigger person. I'm going to give this guy a chance. I'm going to wait and see what he does. I want him to be successful because I want my country to succeed. In short, I'm going to be the grownup. I'm going to stand behind President Obama because he is my President. He's everyone's President.

And, four years from now, should another person be elected, I won't be booing Obama out of Washington. Let's see if those people who booed Bush out of Washington today can take a lesson from the right in how to act like a grownup.

First impressions

The time is here. The deed is done. The One is President.
I watched today as he took his oath of office and then listened to his speech and I have to say, given all the buildup, I was largely underwhelmed. As good of a speechmaker as he was during the campaign, I just expected more. One of the things that I am still looking for is some specifics. I keep hearing these broad generalizations, but I haven't heard much in the way of specifics.

The initial polling data is also quite telling. Obama enjoys a 79 percent positive rating, yet people still don't seem to know what he's going to do, other than bring change and fix the United States. One of the articles I read on the polls said that Bush only had a 60 percent positive rating when he first took office. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I wonder how things would have gone over the last 8 years had anyone from the left given Bush even the slightest of chances before they started in with the demonization. In this time of strife, Obama should count himself lucky that the majority of the people on the right are willing to be the bigger people and give him a chance. As I have said, I'm not happy with his election, and his policies worry me, but I'm willing to see what happens over the next few months. I'll be watching closely.

I did like some of the things he said. When he talked about people being responsible for themselves and doing for themselves, I was very impressed, and I hope he'll follow through on that. However, I did notice that it got almost no reaction at all from the crowd. I have others, but I want to read the text of the speech and parse a little before I go there.

So, it begins. Obama is our President. Now that his words must become actions I'll be interested to see how long he holds onto that 79 percent.

The last last

Today is the day that Barack Obama will step into history as the first black President of the United States. It is also the day that President Bush will complete his tour of lasts and step out of the White House. I know that I have not agreed with everything that President Bush has done, but I do believe that he is an honorable man who had the country's best interest at heart. I would have to agree with what he said over the past week, that there have been mistakes. Certainly more attention could have been paid to the economy. Certainly this whole bailout thing could have been handled better. I believe he made the right decision to go to war, but it could have been prosecuted better. Having said that, I have to thank Mr. Bush for his good work on keeping us safe. After 9/11, I like many other people, was sure that there would be more attacks inside the U.S. Yet, in spite of that, we have had none since that day. For that alone, I say, Mr. President, on this last day of your administration, I thank you and I salute you. Job well done, sir.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Enjoy the final week...

I listened to a part of an interview with Senator Christopher Dodd last night. He was talking about the fact that in spite of receiving bailout money, the banks aren't lending. He said that it was all because of mismanagement and lack of oversight on the part of the Bush Administration.
Lest we forget, the legislation calling for the bailout money and the application thereof was written by Congress, and from what I can see of the situation, there was as much oversight as was called for in the legislation.
I have a pretty good feeling, Mr. Dodd, that had there been any kind of oversight mandated by the legislation that called for the bailout, that's what would have happened.
I hope Dodd and his friends are enjoying this final week of the Bush Presidency as next Tuesday, there will be an entirely different climate for them.
For the past few years, there has been an easy mantra. Pass whatever legislation you can and if it goes wrong, blame Bush. The media bought the idea that everything was Bush's fault, so the Democrats had plenty of backup.
Now, to apply a slight change to a phrase that Nixon used, "You won't have George W. Bush to kick around any more."
Come Tuesday, the blame game is over. If things don't go right, Mr. Dodd et. al., you have nobody to blame but yourselves. You have control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency.
The Republicans had that same situation a few years back and it didn't work out so well for them. Now, it's the Democrats' turn. They have two years to make this work, or we'll see a very red congress; and if it doesn't, they'll have nobody to blame but themselves.
Given the past success record of this 9 percent approval Congress, my guess is that they'll be facing problems fairly soon, and they won't be able to point at Obama and blame him.
I figure that there will be a certain amount of blame Bush that will carry over, but that won't last forever, and I don't think the media will put up with saying it was Obama's fault. So Dodd and his friends should enjoy the next few days of their whipping boy, because it's going to get tough from here.