Letters To Webb And Warner Concerning The Applause Offered To Felipe Calderon By The Democrats

And, here is the latest travel warning from the U.S. State Department regarding fake Mexican Checkpoints:

Travel Warning
U.S. State Department
May 24, 2010

If you were watching the news last week, then you know that when Mexican Presdient Felipe Calderon addressed a joint session of Congress and viciously and hypocritically maligned the United States, the Democrats jumped up and applauded his anti-American diatribe. I have written to both of my Senators, both of whom are Democrats and both of whom jumped up and applauded with their peers.

Feel free to use them as guides in writing your own Senators and Representatives and letting them know that you do not appreciate them applauding a foreign leader coming to America and making hypocritical criticisms.

Any supporters of Jim Webb or Mark Warner are especially encouraged to respond to this post. I would love a public debate about how these two humiliated the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Letter to Webb:

Mr. Webb, I am writing this letter to express my extreme disappointment, not to mention disgust, in the way you and your fellow Democrats applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderon as he hypocritically criticized a sovereign U.S. State, namely Arizona, for enacting a law meant to protect its citizens from a known threat. This display of anti-Americanism is not only inappropriate coming from a foreign leader addressing the National Legislature, but to have watched elected officials of the United States Congress applaud such hypocrisy was completely insulting. A little background is in order here. As you know, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted before a Senate committee that he had not read the Arizona law before he offered criticism of it. He further admitted that he only knew what he heard on TV news shows or read in newspapers. Well, we know that the major networks and major newspapers are more for pushing agendas than they are for reporting real news, thus it is easy to understand why Mr. Holder was so far off base in making his unfounded charges. Had Mr. Holder (and the various Democrat members of Congress, including yourself) done due diligence, he would have discovered that the Arizona law simply mirrors Federal law. According to Michael A. Zuckerman, a lawyer writing for CBS, “tucked away in Title 8 of the U.S. Code is a provision that expressly authorizes federal immigration officers, without a warrant, ‘to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.’ (See 8 U.S.C. 1357). This is eerily similar to the Arizona law.” Enforcement of U.S. immigration law is among the most lenient in the Americas. It is certainly more lenient than the immigration law enforcement in Mexico, and U.S. law enforcement officials are much more humane in the execution of their duties than are their Mexican counter-parts. For example: Amnesty International released a report on Mexico’s treatment of illegal aliens coming through its own southern border. Rupert Knox, Amnesty’s Mexico Researcher reported: “Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses. Persistent failure by the authorities to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants has made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world." These abuses include kidnapping for ransom, robbery and rape. Mexico's National Human Rights Commission reported in 2009 that nearly 10,000 were abducted over a six month period. Half of those victims indicated that public officials were involved in their kidnapping. Estimates are that six out of 10 migrant women and girls experience sexual violence at the hands of Mexican authorities. And yet, the man who oversees all of this saw fit to criticize United States immigration policy in front of a joint session of Congress? How bewildering is that? Even more bewildering is that you and your fellow Democrats gave this man approval of his hypocrisy by applauding him! I cannot think of anything more offensive or disgusting in regards to illegal immigration. I also cannot think of any reason why you Democrats would assume that average Americans like me wouldn’t see through the sham and not feel that our intelligence is being insulted. You claim to be a man who was “Born Fightin’” and yet, you roll over like a submissive puppy when a foreign leader who has no integrity on the issue of illegal immigration maliciously insults the United States and you simply go along with your fellow Democrats because it somehow suits you to see the United States so wrongfully and viciously maligned. If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would be calling out your fellow Democrats and demanding to know why they rendered such honors to a man who oversees one of the worst human rights abuses in the Western Hemisphere while criticizing a much more humane U.S. system. If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would call out Attorney General Eric Holder for offering unjustified criticism on a bill that he hadn’t even read and which only mirrors Federal law which he, as “top cop,” is obligated to uphold. If you were truly “Born Fightin’” you would demand that the Obama administration enforce Federal law rather than unjustly criticize a U.S. State for daring to enforce a law which the Federal government has been overtly failing to enforce. I know that as a Democrat you will not do these things since your record clearly shows that you put party above principle and that the concerns of leftist special interests are more important to you than the concerns of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If I am wrong in this assumption, please prove it by publically stating your own disgust at the way the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress reacted to such a brutal display of anti-Americanism from President Calderon. Personally, I do not believe that you possess the courage or integrity to do any of these things and if you did anything at all, it would be mere lip-service and ultimately inconsequential. You haven’t shown any courage in the past when it comes to standing up to the wrong-doings of your own party and it doesn’t look like you will in the near future. I do not even believe that you will directly address any of the points I made in this letter in your response to me, that is, if you even respond at all. Also, I know that the major talking point of the Democrats is to say that “the Republicans did it.” This is a cop-out. The Democrats are in power now and, after applauding the hypocrite Calderon, own this issue completely. 2012 is little more than two years away and we are watching you. We are taking note of every time you do something to insult our intelligence, humiliate the Commonwealth or put party above the concerns and wishes of the people of Virginia.

Letter to Warner:

Mr. Warner, I am writing this letter to express my extreme disappointment, not to mention disgust, in the way you and your fellow Democrats applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderon as he hypocritically criticized a sovereign U.S. State, namely Arizona, for enacting a law meant to protect its citizens from a known threat. This display of anti-Americanism is not only inappropriate coming from a foreign leader addressing the National Legislature, but to have watched elected officials of the United States Congress applaud such hypocrisy was completely insulting. A little background is in order here. As you know, Attorney General Eric Holder admitted before a Senate committee that he had not read the Arizona law before he offered criticism of it. He further admitted that he only knew what he heard on TV news shows or read in newspapers. Well, we know that the major networks and major newspapers are more for pushing agendas than they are for reporting real news, thus it is easy to understand why Mr. Holder was so far off base in making his unfounded charges. Had Mr. Holder (and the various Democrat members of Congress, including yourself) done due diligence, he would have discovered that the Arizona law simply mirrors Federal law. According to Michael A. Zuckerman, a lawyer writing for CBS, “tucked away in Title 8 of the U.S. Code is a provision that expressly authorizes federal immigration officers, without a warrant, ‘to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States.’ (See 8 U.S.C. 1357). This is eerily similar to the Arizona law.” Enforcement of U.S. immigration law is among the most lenient in the Americas. It is certainly more lenient than the immigration law enforcement in Mexico, and U.S. law enforcement officials are much more humane in the execution of their duties than are their Mexican counter-parts. For example: Amnesty International released a report on Mexico’s treatment of illegal aliens coming through its own southern border. Rupert Knox, Amnesty’s Mexico Researcher reported: “Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses. Persistent failure by the authorities to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants has made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world." These abuses include kidnapping for ransom, robbery and rape. Mexico's National Human Rights Commission reported in 2009 that nearly 10,000 were abducted over a six month period. Half of those victims indicated that public officials were involved in their kidnapping. Estimates are that six out of 10 migrant women and girls experience sexual violence at the hands of Mexican authorities. And yet, the man who oversees all of this saw fit to criticize United States immigration policy in front of a joint session of Congress? How bewildering is that? Even more bewildering is that you and your fellow Democrats gave this man approval of his hypocrisy by applauding him! I cannot think of anything more offensive or disgusting in regards to illegal immigration. I also cannot think of any reason why you Democrats would assume that average Americans like me wouldn’t see through the sham and not feel that our intelligence is being insulted. Why do you roll over like a submissive puppy when a foreign leader who has no integrity on the issue of illegal immigration maliciously insults the United States and you simply go along with your fellow Democrats because it somehow suits you to see the United States so wrongfully and viciously maligned? Why have you not called out your fellow Democrats and demanded to know why they rendered such honors to a man who oversees one of the worst human rights abuses in the Western Hemisphere while criticizing a much more humane and lenient U.S. system? Why have you not called out Attorney General Eric Holder for offering unjustified criticism on a bill that he hadn’t even read and which only mirrors Federal law which he, as “top cop,” is obligated to uphold? Why have you not demanded that the Obama administration enforce Federal law rather than unjustly criticize a U.S. State for daring to enforce a law which the Federal government has been overtly failing to enforce? I know that as a Democrat you will not do these things since your record clearly shows that you put party above principle and that the concerns of leftist special interests are more important to you than the concerns of the Commonwealth of Virginia. If I am wrong in this assumption, please prove it by publically stating your own disgust at the way the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress reacted to such a brutal display of anti-Americanism from President Calderon. Personally, I do not believe that you possess the courage or integrity to do any of these things and if you did anything at all, it would be mere lip-service and ultimately inconsequential. You haven’t shown any courage in the past when it comes to standing up to the wrong-doings of your own party and it doesn’t look like you will in the near future. I do not even believe that you will directly address any of the questions I ask in this letter in your response to me, that is, if you even respond at all. Also, I know that the major talking point of the Democrats is to say that “the Republicans did it.” This is a cop-out. The Democrats are in power now and, after applauding the hypocrite Calderon, own this issue completely. 2014 is not far away and we are watching you. We are taking note of every time you do something to insult our intelligence, humiliate the Commonwealth or put party above the concerns and wishes of the people of Virginia.

I'm not holding my breath for any kind of meaningful response from either one of these cowards.

Freedom Dies With Thunderous Applause: Democrats Shove Government Health Care Down Our Throats

The vote on a government takeover of Health Care last night was sickening. What was even more sickening was the fact that when the final tally was in, the Democrats stood up and gave themselves a standing ovation.

It reminded me of what Amadala said in Star Wars: Episode III: "So, this is how freedom dies. With thunderous applause."

If this bill is not killed in the courts for it's unconstitutionality, in addition to higher taxes, here is what we will be looking forward to:

Cruel And Neglectful Care Of One Million British Patients Exposed

Man Collapses With Ruptured Appendix ... Three Weeks After It Was Removed

More Reasons Why We Do Not Want Socialized Medicine

Statement From The American College Of Surgeons Regarding Disinformation Being Spread By Barack Obama

Oregon Woman Denied Medicine, Offered Assisted Suicide Instead

Another Look At Socialized Medicine From A Canadian Doctor

A Look At Socialized Medicine Through The Eyes Of A British Oncologist

Another Example Of The Horrors That Socialized Medicine Will Bring Us

Socialized Medicine: Enforcing Your Duty To Die

Another Example Of What Awaits Us In A Socialized Medicine System: Father Dies In Waiting Room While In Intense Pain

Jim Trautz For Congress (Virginia - 10)

Well, I am certainly going to do my part to get the RINOs out of Congress. Here in Northern Virginia, we haven't had much of a chance to do that with Frank Wolf (R-VA) because there haven't been any true Conservatives to challenge him lately ... until now.

Jim Trautz is a Conservative and I am wholly endorsing him for this November's elections.

From Jim's Platform:

Simply put, our representatives have the responsibility to be good stewards of OUR money. Of course, the Federal Government does have a need for a budget, and funds do need to be allocated, but only on those things that are necessary, legal & ethical, Constitutional, and are the will of the people. That said, I can find no constitutional basis for wealth redistribution, bailouts, TARP bills, stimulus packages, or anything of the sort, and I will aggressively oppose any such legislation as a member of Congress. I believe that no one person or group should benefit more than another. ... Leaders lead people – and true leadership requires more than just “playing it safe.” I believe that true leaders do more than simply support a cause – true leaders will be at the tip of the spear for those causes that are near and dear to the hearts of their constituents. They’ll do so without reservation or regard for their own personal gain, not because it’s a “good political move,” but because it’s the right thing to do, because they believe their cause to be just, and because the people they represent look to them for leadership. Leaders lead people – not just when the cameras are on, not just when there’s a political advantage to be gained, and not just at election time, but whenever and wherever they’re called to do so. ... All too often, our representatives forget the idea of accountability. They work for us, they’re elected by us, and they’re accountable to us. Bottom line, they answer to us. I believe that every person has the right to expect a clear and concise understanding of where their Representative stands on the issues of the day, and that he has a responsibility to report his position on those issues, regardless of party affiliation or political ideology.

Jim Trautz is also a 912 Candidate and believes the following:

• America Is Good.
  
• I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
  
• I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
  
• The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
  
• If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
  
• I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
  
• I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
  
• It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
  
• The government works for the people. The people do not answer to the government, the government answers to the people.
  

You can access more information about Jim Trautz on-line here:

Jim Trautz 2010

I hope the people of Virginia's 10th District will join me in supporting a true Conservative candidate.

Congress Voting To Defund ACORN

Man! When Glenn Beck and a team of two undercover journalists prove to be more effective than all of the big Media outlets combined, you know that the story had to be a big one!

Here are two more stories concerning ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) that isn't getting much notice from NBC, ABC, CBS or CNN.

Senate Votes To Deny Funds To ACORN
Andrew Taylor
Associated Press via Breitbart
September 14, 2009

That motion, the Johanns Amendment to HR2355, passed 83-7 with the 7 "nay" votes all coming from Dems.

House GOP To Call For Total Cutoff Of Federal Funds To ACORN
Byron York
Washington Examiner
September 15, 2009

Two things to note here. One: Congress thinks that this is a big enough story to vote on removing funding to ACORN. Two: It is the GOP calling for a House vote to defund ACORN, not the Dems.

(BTW, I'll bet that the incompetent Charlie Gibson didn't know about these stories either!)

Whatever happened to Nancy Pelosi's promise to get rid of the Culture of Corruption in Washington? From what I saw in those videos, ACORN is certainly a good place to begin the cleaning process!

But defunding a vile and corrupt organization isn't enough. There needs to be a thorough investigation of ACORN and any other organization that worked with ACORN so that we can see exactly how far the corruption extends.

Hypocrisy From The Dems Over Presidential Heckler. Surprised?

I recall during the 2005 State of the Union Address, President Bush was booed by the Democrats. I also recall during the Presidential Inauguration this past January how Democrats in the audience were chanting "Na-na-na-na. Na-na-na-na. Hey! Hey! Goodbye!" in a very derisive manner towards President Bush.

Flashback: Democrats Boo Bush At 2005 State Of The Union
Real Clear Politics
Spetember 10, 2009

So, why are these same people so indignant about what Rep. Joe Wilson said last night during Obama's pitch for socialized medicine?

President Barack Obama’s address to Congress this evening was moving along fairly smoothly until he pledged that there was nothing in the legislation that would provide health care to the millions of illegal immigrants residing in the nation. A cry of “You lie!” was audible from the Republican side of the aisle. That heckler was South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson. (Watch the video HERE.) “It’s not true,” the president responded to the outburst, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, seated behind the president, offered her mother-of-five glare towards the Republican side of the chamber. First Lady Michelle Obama was seen shaking her head from side to side.

Then truth is that if you walk into any hospital emergency room here in the U.S. there is a big sign that says you cannot be turned away for any reason. Most illegal immigrants here in the U.S. are using our emergency rooms as their family doctors' offices. There is nothing in any of the socialized medicine bills floating around Congress that changes this.

I don't think Rep. Wilson should have made any kind of apology until the Democrats clean their own house and offer apologies for all the insults they have been sending towards President Bush and towards Americans in general (i.e. calling us "Nazis," "un-American," etc.).

You can access the complete article on-line here:

GOP Rep. Joe Wilson: Presidential Heckler
Wall Street Journal
September 9, 2009

Congress Waxes Hypocritical About Private Jets

Remember when members of Congress were raking the CEOs of the Big Three automakers over the coals for traveling to Washington D.C. in private jets for the Detroit bailout hearings?

Well, Congress is so hot about saving money and not looking eccentric that they ... guess what? ... bought not one, not two but three Gulfstream 550 luxury private jets. From Roll Call:

Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies. But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.

Now, this is not a Democrat-Republican thing. It is a "do as I say, not as I do" elitist thing.

Here's why:

The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet (price tag: about $65 million) as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service. But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials. Because the Appropriations Committee viewed the additional aircraft as an expansion of an existing Defense Department program, it did not treat the money for two more planes as an earmark, and the legislation does not disclose which Member had requested the additional money.

The only thing we know is the Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) submitted an earmark request for one Gulfstream.

It would be nice if our government practiced what it preached.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

House Orders Up Three Elite Jets
Paul Singer
Roll Call
August 5, 2009

Congressional Democrats 'Baffled' By Obamacare

This is a major reason why we must oppose Obamacare. Nobody knows what's in the plan!

From CNN:

As the prospects for passing health reform by the time Congress leaves for its August recess look bleaker, Democratic grumbling about President Obama is growing louder. One Democratic senator tells CNN congressional Democrats are “baffled,” and another senior Democratic source tells CNN members of the president’s own party are still “frustrated” that they’re not getting more specific direction from him on health care. “We appreciate the rhetoric and his willingness to ratchet up the pressure but what most Democrats on the Hill are looking for is for the president to weigh in and make decisions on outstanding issues. Instead of sending out his people and saying the president isn’t ruling anything out, members would like a little bit of clarity on what he would support – especially on how to pay for his health reform bill,” a senior Democratic congressional source tells CNN. The Democratic leadership had hoped the work going on behind closed doors for months could bear fruit in time for the president’s news conference Wednesday night. But multiple Democratic sources tell CNN that’s looking very unlikely, and one senior Democratic source tells CNN there is some frustration among Democratic leaders that Senate negotiators have, "repeatedly missed deadlines."

No member of Congress should ever be voting for any bill if they have not read it all the way through and completely understand what is in it.

We should also hold the Democrats to their promise of openess and transparency and demand that they stop negotiating behind closed doors.

You can access the original entry on-line here:

Senator: Democrats 'Baffled' By President's Health Care Stance
Dana Bash
CNN Blogs
July 21, 2009

New State Sovereignty Movement Mobilizing

The tea parties were only the beginning, it seems. Now, state governments are stepping up and showing that they can hear the voices of the people, especially the voices of the Forgotten Man.

Consider the following:

"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."

If you went to elementary school back in the 1970's, like I did, then you will recognize from your 4th grade history lessons the words of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States of America.

Apparently, not everyone learned that lesson or their teachers failed to teach it. Whichever it is, several states are forcing that lesson back to the national forefront.

Henry Lamb wrote the following for Right Side News:

Nowhere among the enumerated powers is there authority for the federal government to be in the mortgage loan business - as in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nowhere is there authority for the federal government to be in the banking, or insurance business - as in Citibank, and AIG. Nowhere is there authority for the federal government to be in the health care business, or the animal identification business, or in the energy business, or in most of the places where the federal government is now flexing its regulatory muscles.

Many states are trying to remind the Democrat-controlled Congress and President Obama (a lawyer who should understand the Constitution) of this very thing.

Oklahoma said it very plainly and unambiguously in their resolution of sovereignty:

"...the State of Oklahoma hereby claims 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 Constitution of the United States."

So far, 21 states have passed similar resolutions or are planning to. Among those states are Washington, Minnesota and Michigan, none of which is a Republican stronghold. This indicates that this is not a left vs. right or Democrat vs. Republican issue. It is a people vs. the government issue.

The Federal government would do well to pay attention to what is happening. They ignore this issue and the tea parties at their own peril. Likewise if they continue to ignore the Forgotten Man.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

New State Sovereignty Movement Mobilizing
Henry Lamb
Right Side News
May 9, 2009

Oklahoma Votes To Claim It's Sovereignty

This is no joke! Essentially, Oklahoma just voted to secede from the Union! The Oklahome State House of Representatives voted 73-22 to override Gov. Brad Henry's veto of the resolution and now the State Senate is expected to pass it as well.

From NewsOK:

"We’re going to get it done one way or the other,” said the resolutions’ author, Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City. "I think our governor is out of step.” House Democrats objected, saying the issue already had been taken up and had been vetoed, but House Speaker Pro Tempore Kris Steele, R-Shawnee, ruled the veto is not final action. Key said he expects HCR 1028 will pass in the Senate. HJR 1003 earlier passed the House 83-18 and won approval in the Senate 29-18. Henry vetoed HJR 1003 because he said it suggested, among other things, that Oklahoma should return federal tax dollars. Key said HCR 1028, which, if passed, would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to "get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should "cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.

Will Oklahoma be the only one? Or will Oklahoma simply be the first? This is the first time since 1861 that any state has made any attempt at dissolving the Federal Union.

It will be interesting to see how Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress reacts.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

House Bypasses Governor’s Veto To Claim Oklahoma’s Sovereignty
Michael McNutt
NewsOK.com
May 6, 2009

House Of Representatives Votes Congress A Power It Never Had And Should Not Ever Have

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States may very well be on the chopping block. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to impose a 90% tax on the bonuses given out to AIG employees.

Now, the bonuses are not at issue here. Whether they are right or wrong, good or bad is immaterial to what is really going on.

The House passed a bill that is specifically forbidden by Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. "No Bill of Attainder or Ex Post Facto Law shall be passed." You can pick either one of those and it would cover this 90% bonus tax.

First, a Bill of Attainder, in the context of the Constitution, means a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group. A punitive tax that specifically targets a certain group (i.e. those who were to receive these bonuses) certainly falls under the definition here. That makes this tax unconstitutional.

Second, when Congress passed the stimulus package and Barack Obama put the Presidential signature on that bill, it became the law of the land. Part of that law is an amendment put in by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) that specifically exempted these bonuses from any regulation. Now, Congress is seeking to implement a law that puts such regulation in place and they want to enforce this law retroactively. That is known as an Ex Post Facto law.

Either way you look at it, this 90% tax Congress wants to retroactively impose on bonus payments that had previously been made perfectly legal by Congress and the President, is wholly, completely and absolutely unconstitutional.

If this bill becomes law and is not struck down by the Supreme Court, then it sets a precedent that Congress can legislate retroactive laws and put through Bills of Attainder. For example, if Congress decided that they wanted to raise the income tax rate for 2007 to 50% and collect back taxes from everyone, they can point to this piece of legislation and say that they now have the power to do so and there will be nothing we can do to stop it.

I recommend that you send emails or make phone calls to your Senators and ask them to vote "nay" on this bill and to restore the integrity of the Constitution of the United States.

UPDATE:

Looks like the Wall Street Journal agrees with me:

A Smoot-Hawley Moment?
Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook
March 23, 2009

Congress Porks Out ... Again!

You would think that after the experience with the porkulus/spendulus bill, which enjoyed a favorable rating of over 50% until details of the pork and earmarks attached to it became available after which support fell to barely 37%, that Congress would get the message that we Americans don't want our hard-earned money to be confiscated away and then given to some pet project that doesn't benefit us at all.

But, members of Congress (both Democrat and Republican) seem to never learn. According to the New York Post:

Congress went on a pork-a-palooza yesterday, approving a massive spending bill with big bucks for Hawaiian canoe trips, research into pig smells, and tattoo removal - all while the nation faces an economic crisis.

Clearly, they have not learned. But this isn't all:

The bill also has a whopping 8 percent increase over last year for the numerous federal agencies it funds.

Let's see, the Obama administration has absolutely no clue as to how it is going to provide oversight for the porkulus/spendulus funding towards the Federal Government and Congress is increasing that money already?

And the fact that 40% of this pork came from Republican lawmakers is not good at all. I hope Michael Steele is paying attention so he knows who not to back in the 2010 elections.

More:

The bill, which critics slammed as larded with pork, has big bucks to combat putrid stenches in the heartland, with $1.7 million for "Swine Odor and Manure Management Research." That's on top of $1.9 million in each of the last two years, or nearly $6 million over the last three years. The swine research center, at Iowa State University in Ames, got funds through the Agricultural Research Service, and aims to improve the smell of animals and the lagoons where waste is stored.

Well, God knows we can't live without knowing all there is to know about the smells that come from pigs, now can we?

And this little tidbit, I thought was most telling:

Obama has criticized earmarks and insisted they be kept out of stimulus legislation - a suggestion that drew laughs from Republicans at the president's address to Congress Tuesday night. ... Meanwhile, Obama is set to unveil a proposal today that sets aside $634 billion over the next 10 years for health-care reform. He plans to pay for it, in part, by capping tax deductions for families that earn more than $250,000 a year.

More socialism that we cannot afford, on top of the pork that we cannot afford.

And Obama's comment on earmarks? Whom does he think he is kidding? Why did he bother to say anything about that when it is clear to everyone that he has no intention of ever enforcing such a policy?

Obama and Congress are spending our money like drunken sailors on shore-leave. The only thing they will accomplish is destroy an already fragile economy and bankrupt future generations who will have to pay the bill for all of this fiscal foolishness.

It is time we remembered what Margaret Thatcher said: "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." The way Obama and Congress are spending, that day will be coming much sooner than later.

Obama and congress seem to have no problem spending our money, but I am sure that they take care of themselves pretty well.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Congress' Porky Pols Pig Out On Fine $wine
Geoff Earle and Daphne Retter
New York Post
February 26, 2009

Excellent Dilbert Cartoon: Sums Up The Democrat Controlled Congress Nicely

Normally, Dilbert wouldn't be a political cartoon, but this particular strip is fantastic:



Priceless.

Time For Americans To Say "NO!"

Laura Hollis began her most recent column with a quote from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Would you like to read it? Here it is:

I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win – and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind … The word [is] ‘No.’” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Why is this so significant? Because we are on our way to a disaster known as socialism, against our wills apprently. And it is looking like the only way we can forstall this transition is to say "No."

How hard is it to say "No?" Pretty hard for most people. Mostly for two reasons: 1) they are not fully informed about what is being done in their name and 2) they rely on the old saying "to get along you have to go along." Wrong. Going along means simply that you have become a sheep and are willing to be led around by the nose, even if it means going in a direction that you don't want to go.

The current economic situation underscores my point. The American taxpayer did not cause any of the current conditions. Government did beginning with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. But, the taxpayer is being made to pay for it with things like the recent $1.3 trillion pork-spending package that more than doubled our deficit. And Obama and his socialist allies in Congress are betting on the "go along to get along" mentality to get away with squandering our children's and grandchildren's futures without being called to account on it.

This is where we say "No!"

Read on:

We are having hundreds of billions of our hard-earned tax dollars taken from us and given to the same organizations that got us in this mess, under the advice and counsel of the same irresponsible and deceitful politicians like Barney Frank and others who ignored warnings about the bad lending practices in the first place. And those same politicians now see fit to lecture us about patriotism and fiscal responsibility? This is a travesty so appalling that it should be prompting protests in the streets. As hardworking, tax-paying Americans have watched this Obamadrama play out, they have become increasingly distressed, saying, “But what do we do?” We start saying NO. Obama’s campaign mantra was “Yes, we can.” Here’s the new mantra for the American taxpayer: “No, we won’t.”

And we keep saying "No" right up to the 2010 elections and beyond. We let our government know that we will not go quietly into the night and we will not allow them to destory the American Dream with socialist policies that have failed every single time they were implemented. They failed in the former Soniet Union, they failed in Eastern Europe, they failed in Western Europe and they will fail here too. History is replete with such lessons and we, the people, must remind the government of such lessons by saying "No."

We also need to let the elitists in Congress know that we see through their hypocrisy:

More:

Where’s the “shared sacrifice” if you’re cutting back to make your mortgage payment, and the government hits you up to pay some stranger’s mortgage as well? And it’s hard to call for belt-tightening when Congress clamors to sign the bill within hours of receiving it so that Nancy Pelosi can jet off to Rome for a private audience with the Pope, and President Obama can ride a taxpayer-funded 747 back to Chicago to take Michelle out for a romantic Valentine’s Day dinner. (What, there aren’t any restaurants in D.C.?)

You see, the elistes like Obama and Pelosi believe that they are entitled to whatever they want and we, the plebian class, must pay for it, even if it means taking resources away from our own families.

But, we shouldn't have to take it, and we won't.

You take a page out of the civil rights playbook. Protest. Picket. Storm your representatives’ offices. Use the legal system. Go straight to your county or federal courthouse and file for a temporary restraining order, and then a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the law or regulation. If you are fined, do not pay it. Make the government defend civil litigation in every city and every state across the country. The government cannot possibly do this, anymore than it can possibly shut down every single Christian, conservative, right-wing, Republican or Libertarian show and/or station in the country. More to the point, they won’t want the country to see them try. If you think Santelli’s rant generated public outrage, imagine how the public would react to footage of government agents coming into your studio or station and forcing you to shut down. Imagine that happening all over the country. When blacks marched peacefully through the streets of the south in the 1960s, and they had the water hoses turned on them, and attack dogs unleashed on them, the rest of America saw those governments for what they were. This government is depending upon our complicity in its takeover. Not anymore. This time, we are saying, “No.”

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Taxpayers' Mantra: No We Won't
Laura Hollis
TownHall.com
February 24, 2009

Stimulus Chicanery: Democrats Suppress The Truth About The Stimulus Package

The current economic stimulus plan being considered by Congressional Democrats was brought under fire last week by the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. This week, the CBO (even though it is controlled by Democrats) has been brought under fire by the Democrats. Apparently, Congressional leaders were hard pressed to explain how monies that weren't to be spent until 2011 would help the economy "now."

From the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed:

According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, a mere $26 billion of the House stimulus bill's $355 billion in new spending would actually be spent in the current fiscal year, and just $110 billion would be spent by the end of 2010. This is highly embarrassing given that Congress's justification for passing this bill so urgently is to help the economy right now, if not sooner. And the red Congressional faces must be very red indeed, because CBO's analysis has since vanished into thin air after having been posted early last week on the Appropriations Committee Web site.

Interesting that as soon as the truths uncovered by this report were published and re-broadcast by certain media, the Democrats shut it down. They didn't want the truth to come out. But what is that truth?

Read on:

The problem is that the money for this spending boom has to come from somewhere, which means it is removed from the private sector as higher taxes or borrowing. For every $1 the government "injects," it must take $1 away from someone else -- either in taxes or by issuing a bond. In either case this leaves $1 less available for private investment or consumption. Mr. Barro wrote about this way back in 1974 in his classic article, "Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?", in the Journal of Political Economy. Larry Summers and Paul Krugman must have missed it.

And taking money away from the private sector means no economic growth. Taking too much money away from the private sector means a shrinking economy.

More:

A similar analysis applies to the tax cuts that are part of President Obama's proposal. In contrast to the spending, at least the tax cuts will take effect immediately. But the problem is that Mr. Obama wants them to be temporary, which means taxpayers realize they will see no permanent increase in their after-tax incomes. Not being fools, Americans may either save or spend the money but they aren't likely to change their behavior in ways that will spur growth. For Exhibit A, consider the failure of last February's tax rebate stimulus, which was a bipartisan production of George W. Bush and Mr. Summers, who is now advising Mr. Obama. To be genuinely stimulating, tax cuts need to be immediate, permanent and on the "margin," meaning that they apply to the next dollar of income that an individual or business earns. This was the principle behind the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964, as well as the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, which finally took full effect on January 1, 1983.

We can point to many examples throughout history where tax cuts allowed for an expansion of the economy. Tax increases lead at best to stagnation, or at worst, depression.

What would tax cuts do for an economic stimulus? This:

The revenue cost of eliminating the corporate tax wouldn't be any more than their proposed $355 billion in new spending, and we guarantee its "multiplier" effects on growth would be far greater. Research by Mr. Obama's own White House chief economist, Christina Romer, has shown that every $1 in tax cuts can increase output by as much as $3.

So why not go with tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

The spending portion of the stimulus, in short, isn't really about the economy. It's about promoting long-time Democratic policy goals, such as subsidizing health care for the middle class and promoting alternative energy. The "stimulus" is merely the mother of all political excuses to pack as much of this spending agenda as possible into a single bill when Mr. Obama is at his political zenith. Apart from the inevitable waste, the Democrats are taking a big political gamble here. Congress and Mr. Obama are promoting this stimulus as the key to economic revival. Americans who know nothing about multipliers or neo-Keynesians expect it to work. The Federal Reserve is pushing trillions of dollars of monetary stimulus into the economy, and perhaps that along with a better bank rescue strategy will make the difference. But if spring and then summer arrive, and the economy is still in recession, Americans are going to start asking what they bought for that $355 billion.

The Democrats have decreed that the CBO re-work the numbers and make them more palatable to the American people. But the original report was based on more honesty than the re-worked report would be.

It amounts to nothing more than political chicanery that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will end up paying for.

Welcome to George Orwell's 1984.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Stimulus Time Machine
Wall Street Journal
January 26, 2009

Should Congress Get A Pay Raise Next Year? I Say: No!!!

Congress should not get a pay raise until we, the people, say it should be so. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, it is an ethical issue.

Right now, the economy is such that workers are not getting very big raises and the cost-of-living has gone up for all of us. As such, Congress, should show some solidarity with the American people and not only refuse a pay raise but should also give up many of the costly perks they take for themselves (taxpayer funded health care, taxpayer funded retirement plan, taxpayer funded travel, etc.) while leaving Joe and Jane Average American to fend for themselves.

The following is a letter penned by Kristina Rasmussen of the National Taxpayer's Union. Please feel free to copy it and send it to everyone you know.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 362,000 members of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), I urge you to cosponsor bipartisan legislation (H.R. 5087 or H.R. 6417) that would prevent an automatic pay increase for Members of Congress in 2009. Rank-and-file Members of Congress currently make an annual salary of $169,300 (more than double the median household income of $78,978 for the Washington, D.C. metro area, including wealthy suburbs). This sum doesn't include taxpayer funds used for lavish pensions, health plans, and generous allowances for travel, staff, and office expenses. In light of mixed economic indicators, Congress should reject an automatic pay hike that would pad a sizeable Congressional compensation package. How did this auto-pilot pay raise system come about? As explained by Pete Sepp in the NTU Foundation Policy Paper "Congressional Perks: How the Trappings of Office Trap Taxpayers," it didn’t start out this way: According to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, compensation paid to Members of Congress "shall be ascertained by law." The Founding Fathers intended Congress to set its own pay through the appropriations process, on the supposition that Members would be guided by their own sense of honor. In fact, lawmakers lived without a yearly salary up until 1854, having contented themselves prior to that time with a per-diem system that paid a flat rate for each day Congress was in session. But thanks to a series of post-war measures, culminating in a 1989 "ethics" law, Members of Congress have sought to avoid accountability for salary hikes. Annual pay raises are now tied to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index: COLAs [Cost of Living Adjustments] now take effect once the TTHUD bill becomes law, although taxpayers would never be able to identify any language in the bill that appears to authorize these pay grabs. Members of Congress would need to specifically vote on, or insert, language blocking the raise if they do not want the increase to occur. Taxpayers are thus condemned to fight a bizarre annual battle over a COLA whose existence is only recognized when Congress opts to block it. Even though Members of Congress received automatic pay increases each year between 2000 and 2006, taxpayers were enthused to see the House reject a pay hike for 2007. Our members strongly believe this action should be repeated in 2008. We're counting on you to make a stand against automatic Congressional pay increases by cosponsoring H.R. 5087 (or H.R. 6417) and directing the resulting savings toward reducing the deficit. Sincerely, Kristina Rasmussen Director of Government Affairs

I know that Congress is going to accept the pay raise even though they don't deserve it. But we need to be aware that they are doing it and that they are screwing us in the process. We need to put pressure on them to act responsibly.

How can they criticize corporate executives for have golden parachutes when Congress has platinum parachutes?

To read more about H.R. 6417, click the following link:

To Prevent Members Of Congress From Receiving The Automatic Pay Adjustment Scheduled To Take Effect In 2009
Washington Watch

The last activity on this bill is that it was referred to committee, most likely to let it die.

You can access the original letter on-line here:

Stop Congress's Automatic Pay Hike
National Taxpayers Union
February 01, 2008

Big Surprise: Unions Want A Bailout Deal For Detroit

And now, the shoe is on the other foot. It should come as no surprise that the UAW is now putting pressure on Congressional Democrats to support a bailout of Detroit. After all, if the Big Three go into Chapter 11, all of those union contracts will be torn up and would have to be renegotiated, assuming whomever comes in to replace the Big Three want to negotiate at all.

Thus, the union bosses like Ron Gettelfinger would lose their large salaries and would have to come up with really good explanations about things like why the new owners have to pay workers for not working.

David Goldman at CNN notes:

The UAW called on Congress to provide a low-interest bridge loan to get the companies through the end of the Bush administration until President-elect Barack Obama can put in place a bigger bailout package that will help restore General Motors, Ford and Chrysler to solvency.

But the UAW is a major reason why Detroit is in such bad shape. The unions have bled so much capital away from the companies that there is no money left for modernizing or improving the productions lines. Further, the union negotiated contracts have artificially inflated the prices of American autos to the point that now foreign carmakers have the majority of the market share.

If the unions are for a bailout of Detroit, then those of us living on Main Street U.S.A. should be against it.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

UAW To Congress: Get A Deal Done
David Goldman
CNN.com
November 20, 2008

Congress Passes Legislation That Hands American Taxpayers The Largest Bill In History

All the scaremongers said that it was necessary to avert a credit crisis.

Credit crisis?

Where? I was still getting credit card offers through the mail. A 20-year-old friend of mine just got approved for a car loan. Student loans are still being approved. Small businesses are still able to get loans. Exactly where is the "credit crisis?"

Only on Wall Street. And Congress has now authorized the President to screw the American Taxpayer with over $805 billion in responsibilities. Maybe our children will be able to pay this off, but those of us living on Main Street just got served notice that the Federal Government cares more about the people who make big campaign donations than they do about the American people.

From the Associated Press:

The final vote, 263-171 in the House, a comfortable margin that was 58 more votes than it garnered on Monday. The vote capped two weeks of tumult in Congress and on Wall Street, punctuated by daily warnings that the country confronted the gravest economic crisis since the Great Depression if lawmakers failed to act. Bush was poised to make a statement on the historic vote. "We all know that we are in the midst of a financial crisis," House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, said shortly before casting his vote for government intervention in private capital markets that was unthinkable only a month ago. "And we know that if we do nothing, this crisis is likely to worsen and to put us into an economic slump like most of us have never seen."

And this bailout is going to put us in a situation like none of us have ever seen!

Here is what I see:

- Wall Street Big Wigs and the Congressional recipients of their donations are stuffing my tax dollars into their pockets.
- Numerous recipients of earmarks and pork stuffing my tax dollars in their pockets.
- My gasoline prices going up because some idiot inserted a carbon tax into the bill my and stupid fool Senators (Webb and Warner) and Representative (Wolf) completely missed it!

Here is what I don't see:

- Accountability from those who caused this mess.
- I don't see Chris Dodd (D-CT) or Barney Frank (D-MA) being hauled before a Congressional committee to give account of how they blocked Republicans from enacting the reform that could averted this whole mess and saved us $805 billion dollars.
- I don't see Franklin Raines being hauled before a Congressional committee to explain how he made $90 million while Fannie was losing money.
- I don't see that the progenitor of this whole thing, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, has been repealed which means that banks and lending institutions are still being forced to make bad loans.

Let's see who the big winners really were:

Sec. 101. Extension of alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable personal credits.
Sec. 102. Extension of increased alternative minimum tax exemption amount.
Sec. 103. Increase of AMT refundable credit amount for individuals with longterm unused credits for prior year minimum tax liability, etc.
Sec. 201. Deduction for State and local sales taxes.
Sec. 202. Deduction of qualified tuition and related expenses.
Sec. 203. Deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers.
Sec. 204. Additional standard deduction for real property taxes for nonitemizers.
Sec. 205. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for charitable purposes.
Sec. 206. Treatment of certain dividends of regulated investment companies.
Sec. 207. Stock in RIC for purposes of determining estates of nonresidents not citizens.
Sec. 208. Qualified investment entities.
Sec. 301. Extension and modification of research credit.
Sec. 302. New markets tax credit.
Sec. 303. Subpart F exception for active financing income.
Sec. 304. Extension of look-thru rule for related controlled foreign corporations.
Sec. 305. Extension of 15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold improvements and qualified restaurant improvements; 15-year straight-line cost recovery for certain improvements to retail space.
Sec. 306. Modification of tax treatment of certain payments to controlling exempt organizations.
Sec. 307. Basis adjustment to stock of S corporations making charitable contributions of property.
Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 310. Extension of mine rescue team training credit.
Sec. 311. Extension of election to expense advanced mine safety equipment.
Sec. 312. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 313. Qualified zone academy bonds.
Sec. 314. Indian employment credit.
Sec. 315. Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian reservations.
Sec. 316. Railroad track maintenance. Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
Sec. 318. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Sec. 319. Extension of work opportunity tax credit for Hurricane Katrina employees.
Sec. 320. Extension of increased rehabilitation credit for structures in the Gulf Opportunity Zone.
Sec. 321. Enhanced deduction for qualified computer contributions.
Sec. 322. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 323. Enhanced charitable deductions for contributions of food inventory.
Sec. 324. Extension of enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book inventory.
Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds.
Sec. 401. Permanent authority for undercover operations. v Sec. 402. Permanent authority for disclosure of information relating to terrorist activities.
Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.
Sec. 502. Provisions related to film and television productions.
Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
Sec. 504. Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation.
Sec. 505. Certain farming business machinery and equipment treated as 5-year property.
Sec. 506. Modification of penalty on understatement of taxpayer's liability by tax return preparer.
Sec. 512. Mental health parity.
Sec. 601. Secure rural schools and community self-determination program.
Sec. 602. Transfer to abandoned mine reclamation fund.
Sec. 702. Temporary tax relief for areas damaged by 2008 Midwestern severe storms, tornados, and flooding.
Sec. 703. Reporting requirements relating to disaster relief contributions.
Sec. 704. Temporary tax-exempt bond financing and low-income housing tax relief for areas damaged by Hurricane Ike.
Sec. 706. Losses attributable to federally declared disasters.
Sec. 707. Expensing of Qualified Disaster Expenses.
Sec. 708. Net operating losses attributable to federally declared disasters.
Sec. 709. Waiver of certain mortgage revenue bond requirements following federally declared disasters.
Sec. 710. Special depreciation allowance for qualified disaster property.
Sec. 711. Increased expensing for qualified disaster assistance property.
Sec. 712. Coordination with Heartland disaster relief.
Sec. 801. Nonqualified deferred compensation from certain tax indifferent parties.

And don't forget Sec. 117. The carbon tax. Now the Feds can royally screw our economy just like the governments in Europe are screwing theirs!

At least I can say one thing that is a bit of a relief. This bailout is going to ultimately fail and the economy is going to crash (we cannot keep the markets artificially inflated like this) and it looks like Barack Obama is going to win this election. The crash will happen on his watch and he will have no one to blame except himself and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Congress OKs Historic Bailout Bill
Julie Hirschfeld and David Espo
Associated Press via Breitbart
October 3, 2008

An Interesting Thought About The Wall Street Bailout Bill: Do Any In Congress Have A Financial Interest?

I'm sure there are websites out there that have this information. Somewhere, there has to be records of whether or not Representatives or Senators own stock or otherwise have any kind of financial interest in the Wall Street institutions that are being bailed out under this bill.

I would be very interested in seeing those records and comparing them to the voting record of the entire Congress, particularly for those who vote "Yes."

If any member of Congress did have any financial interest in any institution that is about to recieve Federal monies, that would be a major conflict-of-interest and said member of Congress should have recused him/herself from voting.

If there are such connections, I wonder if the entire bill can be invalidated or declared unconstitutional?

It would certainly be an interesting exercise to see who has investments in these places.

The Wall Street Bailout: Congress Agrees To Screw The American Taxpayer

Well, they're going to do it. Despite the fact that the vast majority of America is against it, Congress and President Bush have reached an agreement that will bailout the floundering S&L's which got themselves into their own mess and are now holding their hands out to the American taxpayer for relief.

In short, this bailout means that while the taxpayer is getting screwed, the ones who caused this problem will be getting kissed.

Even the members of Congress don't fully understand all the provisions of this legislation. There are so many things that can go wrong with it that no one in their right mind would ever vote for it. Robert J. Samuelson over at NewsWeek made some intitial observations:

Under Paulson's proposal, the Treasury could buy distressed mortgage-backed securities. Consider a batch of hypothetical securities originally worth $100 million and paying an interest rate of 6 percent. They're no longer worth $100 million because half of the homeowners have stopped making their monthly payments. Suppose, then, that the government buys the mortgages for $50 million. It earns 6 percent on its $50 million, and if it borrowed money at 4 percent to buy the securities, it would make a tidy profit. If the government holds the securities until maturity and all the remaining homeowners repay their mortgages, the government would come out ahead.

Read that last sentence very carefully. "If the government holds the securities until maturity and all the remaining homeowners repay their mortgages ..."

How many of you reading this blog believe that all of those homeowners will repay their mortgages? How many of you believe that even half of those homeowners will repay their mortgages? For those homeowners who fail to repay, who do you think is going to pay?

If you said, "The American taxpayer," then you are absolutely correct.

Here are a few more variables that no one in their right mind would predict for the better:

First, we don't know what price the government would pay for the mortgage-backed securities. There are conflicting goals. On the one hand, the government wants to minimize the bailout's costs to taxpayers; that would favor paying the lowest possible price. In my example, the profit would be greater if the government paid only $40 million. On the other hand, the whole idea of the bailout is to help banks and other financial institutions get rid of risky assets and replace them with cash that would encourage a resumption of normal lending and investing. That favors a higher price. If the government paid $80 million instead of $40 million, say, it would lose money. Second, we don't know how a weakening economy will affect future mortgage repayments. The worse the economy gets, the more homeowners will default. At the end of June, about 2.75 percent of home mortgages were in foreclosure, and an additional 6.4 percent were at least 30 days behind in their payments. The unemployment rate was 6.1 percent in August. If it rose to 7 percent or higher, defaults and delinquencies would climb. In my example, if only 25 percent of borrowers repaid their mortgages, the government would lose money.

In short, it is a good bet that this latest attempt at government intervention is going to blow up in our faces somewhere down the road and once again, the American taxpayer is going to be forced into paying that bill too.

This bailout is a bad idea. It needs to be killed pronto.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

What Is It Really Going to Cost?
Robert J. Samuelson
NewsWeek
September 25, 2008

Are You Better Off Than You Were Two Years Ago?

I’ve been away for a bit. I spent an extended weekend in Virginia Beach with my wife. This trip represents our “babymoon” since this will probably be the last time we have a chance to get away before our new baby is born in December.

Anyway, I know there is plenty out there to talk about right now. There is Troopergate and the fact that Todd Palin is refusing to testify. I applaud Todd for this. After all, we have already shown how Troopergate is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. Todd did the right thing in saying "no" to the partisan efforts of Democrats Hollis French and Ken Elton.

Then there is the bailout being considered by Congress. It is becoming known as the “Mother of all Bailouts” and it is a very bad idea. It will allow companies and firms who engaged in bad business practices to survive those bad decisions rather than allowing them to fail as the market dictates and thus allowing companies and firms who practice wiser and sounder business policies to step in and take over. That is what should have happened.

But I think a good place to start this week is by asking the question: “Are you better off than you were two years ago?” I think we can all answer: “No.”

Ever since the Democrats took over Congress, they have done nothing but allow or cause more damage to the American people. How can I say this? Easy. Check out the most recent Mullings column by rich Galen:

Just to review the bidding. On January 5, 2007 (just about the time Nancy Pelosi and her cronies took control of the House): - The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at about 12,400. - The New York-based Conference Board said its consumer confidence index was at 110.3. - The Bureau of Labor Statistics had the unemployment rate at 4.6% - According to CNN gasoline a gallon of gasoline, in January 2007, averaged about $2.20.

That is where we stood. Now, this is where we are:

- Last Thursday at about 1 pm Eastern, the Dow had hit a bottom of about 10,500 before Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke intervened. That is a drop of about 15% in the Dow from two years ago. - The Conference Board's latest take on the pulse of consumer confidence had it at a very thready 56.9 in August - a drop of about 48% - The unemployment rate in August was reported at 6.1% by the BLS an increase of 33%. - Gasoline prices are at about $3.70 a whopping 68% jump.

So, why blame Congress rather than the Bush Administration? Because, Congress is supposed to have oversight power. But rather than use that power to tackle real problems head-on, the Dems instead used it for pushing their own agendas, trying to grab and consolodate power and trying to embarrass the President. All of this happened to the detriment of the American people.

In fact, Congressional hearings were held to determine whether or not Major Laegue Baseball players were using steroids at the same time as a housing and mortgage crisis was brewing. They've held vote after vote of resolutions to surrender in Iraq at the same time that energy prices were going higher and higher.

I don't know very many Americans who are more interested in steroids and surrendering than they are in where they are going to live and how much it will cost to have transportation for their familes. The only ones I can think of at the moment are the Democrats in Congress.

So what changed in 2007 that helped to facilitate all of this? Read on:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Ct) took control of the House and Senate Banking Committees. Rep. George Miller (D-Ca) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Ma) took over their respective Labor Committees. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mi) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) became chairs of the Energy Committees.

If you read that closely, you will notice that all of the above chairmen have D's after their names.

The Democrats have been more interested in wrecking President Bush's foreign policy rather than working on the problems that they are required to work on under the Constitution. As a result, the American people have been suffering and will continue to do so as long as power-hungry Democrats who are willing to do anything, including hurting the American people, in order to gain and maintain power are in office.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Are You Better Off ...
Rich Galen
Mullings.com
September 22, 2008