Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘Big Government’


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 7, 2010

When ObamaCare became the law of the land in February, the majority of Americans did not approve.

Not that it mattered.

Obamacrats knew what was best for the citizenry; and if you would have asked any one of them, they’d have told you so.

While conservatives, Republicans, tea-partiers and sane-minded Democrats (few as they were) unceasingly crunched the numbers to expose a sham of a plan that would all but bankrupt the United States – and ensure mediocre health care for practically all Americans – Democrats sidestepped the land mines of reality and transformed the debate from substantive to emotional.

As Republicans were going through the two-thousand page monstrosity to illustrate how destructive the bill would be to both the economy and the medical industry, Dems were ushering out some of America’s uninsured,  presenting sob-story after sob-story, sad-sack tale after sad-sack tale, woe-begotten heartstring-tugger after heartstring-tugger, in an attempt to convince the American people that government-run mandatory health care was an absolute necessity before the bodies started to pile up.

Dems were countering cold-hard facts and analysis with syrup and schmaltz.

Ultimately, thanks to major Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress – and some last-minute vote-buying – two thousand pages of vastly unread government control became law, contrary to the will of the American people.

Welcome to the Obamacratic States of America.

Amazingly, Democrats truly believed that once ObamaCare cleared the final hurdle and officially hit the books, the American people – those cretins, those self-involved, unrefined, God-fixated, gun-loving ninnies – would turn their thinking around, see the wisdom in President Obama’s big-government vision, accept the price tag, and move on.

We didn’t.

More than ever, the American people are opposed to ObamaCare – as well as everything else President Obama and his out-of-touch collection of retro-revolutionaries and college campus theorists have been doing.

Let’s summarize some of the highlights from Obama’s Big Book-O-Accomplishments: A Stimulus Bill that has done absolutely nothing except guarantee that money will be taken out of the pockets of the American people; an unemployment rate hovering at near 10%; a private sector that has all but stagnated while the number of government jobs increase; nonexistent leadership in the face of mounting international challenges (e.g., Iran, North Korea); the inability to do anything except deflect blame for everything wrong to the previous administration; the lack of understanding of the dangers of espousing moral equivalency (e.g, Israel and the Palestinians); the ineptitude and lack of leadership in not having the feds take control of the Gulf oil spill efforts; the capacity to transform the mightiest nation on the face of the Earth – the protector of goodness and liberty – into a bastion of weakness and appeasement; and his refusal to hear anything other than his own out-of-touch, arrogant brand of leftist crapola have all contributed to a Presidency that almost makes Jimmy Carter’s palatable.

Not only is President Obama turning out to be a gravely ineffective and embarrassingly incohesive, Americans now feel the first “post-partisan” President is anything but.

Of course, we all knew that by the Spring of 2008.

Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times writes:

One of the 2007-08 Obama presidential campaign’s changes that Americans believed in by the many millions was his oft-repeated promise to work with all sides no matter what and change the harsh political tone of Washington.

Good luck with that tired professed aspiration. George W. Bush promised the same thing a decade ago. That worked well for several minutes.

Well, Bush is gone and the majority parties have switched places. Now Democrats run the whole D.C. show.
And after almost 17 months of Democrat Obama’s White House administration, it appears Americans have given up on his promised bipartisanship, or even on less partisanship. It’s an impressive squandering of good will from his inaugural glow.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds 61% of likely voters believe the nation’s capitol will see more, not less, partisanship during the next year. Which includes, of course, the unfolding midterm election campaigns leading up to Nov. 2.

Michael Goodwin of the New York Post says that O just isn’t up to the job, writing:

The high point of his presidency came the day he took office. Since then, a majority of Americans has opposed virtually all his major policies and he has prevailed on several only because of large Democratic congressional advantages.

The problems are growing, but he’s not. If he were, we’d see green shoots of improvement.

Instead, the White House is going backwards at home and abroad and shows no ability to adjust. Like a cult, it interprets every reversal as proof of its righteousness and of others’ malignancy.

What started out as a whiff of rookie incompetence has become a suffocating odor. It’s hard to find a single area where Obama’s policies are a convincing success.

To be fair, one thing most Americans will probably be able to agree on is that Barack Obama is magnificent – unbeatable – as a campaigner. Indeed, he has been in campaign mode ever since announcing his candidacy for the Presidency a million years ago.

That’s quite an accomplishment, to be sure.

And with few exceptions, the lamestream media are still eating it up.

But many Americans – even those who rode the original Bam-o-licious disciple train – are growing tired of his baby-carrying, whistlestop schtick. Young girls just aren’t fainting anymore at his mere presence. And with each body of water he trods upon, Obama’s ankles are growing increasingly more wet.

The teleprompters are finally starting to get some recognition.

Still, no one – and this is hardly debatable – can bow to foreign heads of state and dignitaries like our own Bam.

Although Secretary of Defense Robert Gates could give him a run for his money.

Secretary of Defense Gates taking a page from the Obama Appeasement Chronicles.

wordpress statistics


Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Democrats, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, Obama Bonehead, politics, stimulus bill | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 1, 2010

In the absence of being able to piece together a coherent argument opposing Arizona’s new illegal immigration law, liberals have been reminding us that America is a nation of immigrants – that being opposed to immigration is akin to being opposed to America itself. New York Senator Chick Schumer recently recounted the famous words inscribed on the plaque at the Statue of Liberty – from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet “The New Colossus” – about the poor and tired huddled masses.

That’s all well and good, but like most things out of Schumer’s pie hole, it has substantively nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Libs, of course, have cornered the market in both intellectual dishonesty and selective disclosure, so for them, it isn’t necessary to make the distinction between legal immigrants and illegal ones. That would get in the way of a good sound bite. In libspeak, to be opposed to illegal immigration is to be opposed to all immigration – just like being opposed to the redefinition of marriage means hating gays, or being opposed to race-based quotas means hating minorities.

I’m anti-incest, but I don’t hate my sister.

Earlier today, the President of the United States spoke out against those – like me – who have voiced their dissent at the Obama administration and its Big-Government-Is-Better-For-Everything approach to running the country.

From Fox News:

President Obama took aim Saturday at the angry rhetoric of those who denigrate government as “inherently bad” and said their off-base line of attack ignores the fact that in a democracy, “government is us.”

Obama used his commencement speech at the University of Michigan to respond to foes who portray government as oppressive and tyrannical — and to warn that overheated language can signal extremists that “perhaps violence is … justifiable.”

“But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad,” said Obama, who received an honorary doctor of laws degree. “When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us.”

To begin with, no one on the right has ever said – or believes – government is inherently bad. I would invite any lib to point to one prominent Republican or conservative who has ever asserted, implied or hinted at the fact that government is inherently bad. It’s that familiar tactic, that old liberal chestnut – the “all immigration is bad” play – that keeps the Left thinking they’re intellectually up to snuff with the thinking class.

Rather, those of us on the right believe big government is inherently bad.

The Framers’ vision of limited government will suit me – and everyone else – just fine, thank you.

Second, isn’t it funny how opposing Obama somehow equates to a threat of violence? To stand up against Obamacratic policies cannot possibly be the result of liberty-loving Americans legitimately questioning and petitioning the actions of their government. To resist Barack Obama is to summon the demons that dwell in the deep recesses of the conservative soul – those that could be prone to violence, or incite others to it.

There is nothing “overheated” about defending liberty from the encroachment of big government.

Incidentally, by definition, “extremists” – regardless of what side of the aisle they are on – don’t need anything special to act as such.

They are extreme.

They are the ones who go against convention, regardless of tradition or institution. They are the ones who act outside of the mainstream. They are the radicals.

Kind of sounds like the current administration, doesn’t it?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Obama Bonehead, Tea Party, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 23, 2010

Because salt is such a killer, it ought to be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, according to the Institute of Medicine.

After all, life is so delicate and precious.

Yet, destroying an unborn human life is somehow a woman’s absolute right; and her ability to do so, on demand, should be protected.

Salt can lead to strokes, high blood pressure and heart disease and should therefore be subjected to FDA restrictions (i.e., what the federal government says). Abortions, by contrast, are an act of homicide against the innocent … and government has no right to interfere with that choice.

Interesting logic.

So, if I own a food processing plant, or a restaurant, and I want to make my chicken francese to be on the salty side because I, and my customers, enjoy it that way, I won’t be able to prepare it without first checking to see if it passes the government smell test (or should I say “taste” test?). That’s because too much salt kills millions and millions of innocent people each and every day, and unless the government steps in, more will die. 

In fact, everyone will die.

As we’ve come to find out during the first fifteen months of the Messianic Age, government always knows best.

And yet, if I have a sixteen year old daughter who gets pregnant, she should have the right, without my permission, to have that baby scraped out of her uterus on demand. That, I’m told, is an issue of “reproductive rights” and “privacy” and “health care.”

Yeah, okay.

(I know it’s difficult to make heads or tails of these things without a Liberal/English dictionary).

And so, the war against salt moves forward.

From Fox News:

U.S. regulators are planning a push to gradually cut the amount of salt Americans consume, saying less sodium would reduce deaths from hypertension and heart disease, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

The effort would eventually lead to the first legal limits on the amount of salt allowed in processed foods, the newspaper reported. The plan is to be launched this year but officials have not set salt limits.

The government plans to work with the food industry and health experts to reduce sodium gradually over a period of years to ratchet down sodium consumption, the newspaper said, citing U.S. Food and Drug Administration sources.

U.S. researchers said in a recent study that working with the food industry to cut salt intake by nearly 10 percent could prevent hundreds of thousands of heart attacks and strokes over several decades and save the U.S. government $32 billion in healthcare costs.

… and banning automobiles will prevent 45,000 deaths on America’s roadways. And regulating Twinkies, Ring Dings and other packaged snack cakes will contribute to slimming down America’s waistlines. And restricting loud music through headphones will cut back on the number of people who wind up hearing impaired. And banning sex for people with arrhythmias will help cut back the number of people who come and go at the same time. And banning swimming pools will dramatically cut down on the number of accidental drownings. And placing an embargo on stepladders will keep the number of cranium-crunching spills to a minimum. And restricting sleep will significantly reduce the number of sleep-apnea deaths. And doing away with electricity will prevent an incalculable number of bathtub electrocutions.

The beat goes on …

And while this may not be the time to go debunking long-held beliefs, there are credible studies that suggest salt is not the killer it is cracked up to be.

In 2008, the Journal of General Internal Medicine published a study called “Sodium Intake and Mortality Follow-Up in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.”

As summarized at Scientific Blogging:

High-salt diets may not increase the risk of death, contrary to long-held medical beliefs, according to investigators from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University.

They reached their conclusion after examining dietary intake among a nationally representative sample of adults in the U.S. The Einstein researchers actually observed a significantly increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with lower sodium diets.

“Our findings suggest that for the general adult population, higher sodium is very unlikely to be independently associated with higher risk of death from CVD or all other causes of death,” says Dr. Hillel W. Cohen, associate professor of epidemiology and population health at Einstein.

The ultimate goal of nanny-staters, big-government meddlers and thwarters of liberty, presumably, is to do away with death altogether.

For many human beings, “life” isn’t simply the act of being physically alive. The ability for one to choose how to live their own life – to make decisions for themselves, to enjoy their own little pleasures, such as eating what they want – is “life.” Indeed, there are big-government nanny-staters who prize their own versions of “life” so much – free of risk, free of salt, free of fat, free of God, free of smoke, whatever – that they feel their choices should be everyone’s choices. Sure, they insist that the freedom to choose is a good thing … as long as the all-knowing, all-feeling, all-sensing federal government sets the parameters.

That isn’t life.

My father-in-law, as an example, dropped dead at the age of 61 of a heart attack. He was hard-working farmer who called himself an unabashed steak and potatoes man. He enjoyed “real” food. He was not a pâté and crackers kind of guy. He didn’t do salads and fruit cups. He liked meat. And if given the option of living another twenty years on a diet of low-sodium baked salmon, spinach salads and sugar-free lemon jello, he’d have taken the steak and the 61 years without blinking an eye. To him, life wasn’t life if he couldn’t enjoy the little things that gave him pleasure – like food. He made his choices. For him, eighty unhappy years would not have been more desirable than sixty happy ones.

We are all free to make such choices … or we should be.

Besides, knowing that smokers generally don’t live as long as non-smokers, and taking into account that obese people generally live shorter lives than thinner people, and understanding that the overwhelming vast majority of human beings who do live long lives – including the most healthy among us – will eventually require health care and medications toward the end of their days (and will collect more social security than those who die younger), what exactly is the real benefit of having the heavy hand of government telling people how much salt they can use in their pasta sauces?

Why is all this necessary? And what is next? Does anyone honestly believe that government will stop with salt?

Remember, the loss of liberty is incremental .. and getting it back once it’s gone is a bitch.

Informing the public is one thing – and I’m all for that.

Controlling it is another.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Nanny State | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 20, 2010

“Disgust” isn’t even the right word anymore. I feel almost inadequate to the task of maintaining this blog because the appropriate words escape me. How many different ways can one express contempt at the way this administration does things? How many variations of a single theme can one articulate before it loses its effectiveness? How often can one say that he or she weeps for the future of this most magnificent nation before its impact becomes meaningless?

If Ronald Reagan saw America as the shining city on the hill, Barack Obama is erecting iron gates around that city.

If Ronald Reagan reminded us how splendid this nation of liberty is, Barack Obama is reinventing America as a nation of equality – the left’s most important value.

If Ronald Reagan believed in the power of the individual, Barack Obama believes in the power of government.

These days, a mere fifteen months into the Messianic Age, one cannot swing a dead beaver without smacking into yet another Barack Obama initiative meant to extend the reach of government into the private sector. With every turn, with every step, this President pushes for some new transformation – he uses the word “reform” – some new way for the heavy hand of government to involve itself in our lives.

Obamacrats hate the free market system, carry disdain for the Constitution, look down on Americans who voice dissent, believe they have a mandate to reshape this country into their Marxist-light soft tyranny, and operate with a degree of arrogance and detachment that is almost beyond comprehension.

Sure, I can use the word “disgust,” but it is utterly insufficient. Even armed with a thesaurus and a respectable way with words, it is difficult to accurately convey my repulsion at what this President is doing to the United States.

In two days, the Messiah-In-Chief will arrive in New York to deliver what will essentially be a verbal beat-down to Wall Street. His so-called “financial overhaul package” proposal will be yet another cavalcade of regulations and restrictions placed on the private sector – more government say-so in areas they have no business being involved in.

It is absolutely sickening.

During the Bush years, all we heard from the left is how totalitarian “W” was – that he was the anti-freedom President. All we heard was how he and his right-wing cronies wanted to run everything and control our lives. Swastikas accompanied Bush’s face on protest posters. Comparisons to Adolf Hitler were commonplace. And despite today’s round of phony righteousness from the left at how some people dare refer to the Obama administration as a “regime,” back in the day, mainstream media tongue-flappers used that word to describe the Bush administration, including MSNBC’s own beacon of saliva-projection, Chris Matthews.

Yet, what seems to elude leftocrats is the fact that, by definition, conservatism means less government, less involvement, less control. It is Barack Obama and his bureaucrat fat cats – and that is precisely what they are – who want to dip their stinky little fingers in everyone’s cup cake.

Where are the Bush-era freedom lovers now?

The answer: Barack Obama is on the bridge. Therefore, the narrative needed to change.

Under George W. Bush, the encroachment of conservative oppression and fascism needed to be fought off by freedom-conscious dissenters. Under Barack Obama, Bush-era cowboy-style, money-hungry, out-of-control capitalism needs to be tamed by the soothing and nurturing hands of government.

The “financial overhaul package” will hit the Senate floor this week.

Democrats, of course, say these “reforms” are essential.

Republicans, thus far, are unanimously opposed.

And just for kicks, here’s a tasty little wrinkle to the story: No one in the White House bothered to inform the Mayor of New York that the President was coming to his city on Thursday to essentially beat New York’s bread and butter into government-controlled submission.

Arrogance, thy name is Obama.

Maggie Haberman of the New York Post writes:

Mayor Bloomberg learned from reading about — not from the White House — that President Obama is heading to the Big Apple on Thursday to talk about Wall Street reform at Cooper Union.

“I just saw on the blogs this morning he was coming, so I haven’t talked to anyone in the White House,” Bloomberg told reporters.

As it happens, Bloomberg has an Earth Day event scheduled at the same time as Obama’s speech.

The whole thing suggests that City Hall wasn’t given a heads-up about the visit.

Bloomberg has been less than warm and fuzzy about the proposed Wall Street crackdown by the Obama administration — saying it could hurt the city disproportionately.

“There’s no [government] regulation that will ever match self-regulation if it’s done correctly,” Bloomberg told reporters. “Just because the government can never keep up with everything. These are complex worlds we live in. That’s not true only of finance. That’s true of everything the government regulates.”

I assure you, I am no fan of Mike “Screw The Term Limits” Bloomberg, but he is right in opposing Barack Obama on this one. The result of the Obama iron boot to the throat of America’s financial center will be a whole lot of corporations – whose tax dollars are essential to New York City’s, and ultimately America’s, well-being – saying “bye-bye” and finding other places to operate … perhaps outside of America.

And what perfect timing.

Just as it was announced that there has been fraud at big bad Goldman Sachs – one of those evil corporations hell-bent on crushing average Americans like me – the President coincidentally announced he would be going to the epicenter of Western capitalism, New York City, to tell them how badly Wall Street needs reform.

There are no coincidences in politics.

When it comes to the Goldman Sachs investigation, Bloomberg said, “My concern is for all the people who work on Wall Street. My concern is for our police officers and firefighters and teachers and everybody else. They get paid by the taxes the financial industry and many others, but to a great extent the financial industry, generates in this city.”

The next Obama “shovel-ready” project may be the burying of Wall Street.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Dumb Liberals, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, Wall Street | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 16, 2010

Can we end this hallucinatory delusion that President Obama wants Democrats and Republicans to “come together” on anything? Can we toss that enchanted notion into the same receptacle as the “Pro-Life Democrat” and “post-partisan America”? When a big league leftist like Barack Obama says he wants people to “come together,” what he really means is that he wants Republicans to give in and come over to the Democrat side. The word “unity,” in Obama-speak, means everyone should think as he does.

For instance, a large portion of Americans are either part of, or sympathetic to, the Tea Party movement. These people have, without any national organization or leader, “unified” all across the country to speak out in opposition of Obama’s out of control growth of government – folks from all walks of life.

I’ve been to these rallies.

I’ve seen it first hand.

In the not so distant past, when dissent was as American as taking Betty Sue to the prom, Obamacrats would have applauded such a movement – provided the words “Bush lied” and “people died” were squeezed in somewhere. In those days, libs would have been the first to say that there is nothing more American than a wide-spread, coast-to-coast, non-violent grass roots movement by citizens with genuine concerns. Had it been a liberal movement, it would have been dubbed “a revolution.”

The President, however, doesn’t approve of that kind of unity. It’s not Obamacratic unity. And because it isn’t all about him, it isn’t real unity.

The man who is President of all these United States has cornered the market in a new kind of dismissive arrogance. In that head-tilting, superior-than-the-rest-of-us way of his – with a disapproval rating growing like caffeinated cancer cells – the Chief Executive has declared that the Tea Partiers should be thanking him.


Because he cut taxes, of course.

Erica Werner of the Associated Press writes:

President Barack Obama said Thursday he’s amused by the anti-tax tea party protests that have been taking place around Tax Day. Obama told a fundraiser in Miami that he’s cut taxes, contrary to the claims of protesters.

“You would think they’d be saying thank you,” he said.

At that, many in the crowd at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts stood and yelled, “Thank you!”

How dare the President of the United States ridicule average Americans with genuine grievances. It is the Constitutional right of every American to assemble and peacefully protest against the actions of their government, whether those petitioners be dope-smoking, insect-infested, anti-war hippie-types or flag-waving defenders of liberty.

Unfortunately, the reality is abundantly clear: When liberals do it, it’s an act of patriotism, but when conservatives do so, it’s right-wing hate-mongering.

This “unifier” has gone out of his way to openly deride those who have the nerve to oppose him. It’s his version of a hissy fit. It may not be technically unconstitutional for him to do so, but it is embarrassingly and incalculably inappropriate for the President to exercise such contempt for the citizenry of his own country by unabashedly scoffing at them for opposing his policies. It is tremendously unpresidential, immeasurably childish and divisive beyond words.

How dare the President look down his nose at those Americans who took part in yesterday’s Tax Day protests. The ObamaCare bill that just passed – without a single Republican vote – is a veritable smorgasbord of tax increases, is it not? At some point, that bill we be coming due.

“Thank you?”

For what, pray tell?

For alienating and insulting fellow Americans? For implementing a plan that will cost Americans – both living and yet-to-be-born – unheard of amounts of money? For increasing government spending to unsustainable levels? For peddling the largest chunk of political excrement anyone’s ever heard by telling Americans that adding thirty million people to the insurance rolls will not increase costs? For letting the Bush tax cuts expire – which, by definition, is a tax increase? For quadrupling the deficit in a year?

There’s just so much to choose from.

That sound you hear is Barack Obama’s far left base high-fiving each other.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama Bonehead, Taxes, Tea Party | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 9, 2010


(Actually, quite believable).

There is ostensibly nothing – absolutely nothing – the current administration will not endeavor to involve itself in (except competent national security). Perhaps a better way to state it is that this administration believes nothing should be beyond the reach (and direct influence) of government.


With an audacity remeniscent of a chorus of crunching jackboots slowly approaching from just over the hill, Obamacrats – the same folks that recently turned over the student loan system to the federal government simply because they felt like it – is on a no-holds-barred course of seizing and controlling as much of the private sector as it possibly can.

I am well aware of how that sounds, but I assure you, this is not paranoia.

These are not radical right-wing talking points.

If you want radicals, just look to the White House and Capitol Hill.

America has never seen anything quite like the way this administration operates. The will of the people be damned, and to hell with the Constitution, never has a President ever attempted, in such a short amount of time and in such a brazenly agenda-driven anti-American way (yes, anti-American), to imbue the heavy hand of government in everything possible. Not like this. The President, in fact, seems to have made it his central focus to thrash whatever maxims of American liberty repulse him (which, being a disciple of Saul Alinsky, means just about everything). He’s doing so with a deaf ear and an iron mallet of relentless leftism – the master overseer of the largest, most intrusive and controlling government monster ever to occupy this part of the North American continent.

This is just the latest episode of “Power To the State!”

It seems that Bammy and Crew have decided that they are not happy with the concept of the unpaid internship. In fact, the Labor Department is now looking into the legality of having someone serve as an intern, without pay, at any for-profit enterprise in the United States; and if the President gets his way, these private sector unpaid internships – meaning free-market, free-enterprise agreements made between private business owners and willing individuals (almost always college students looking to gain critical experience as well as college credits) – will go the way of betamax machines, rotary telephones and (eventually) American liberty itself.

From Fox Nation:

“If you’re a for-profit employer or you want to pursue an internship with a for-profit employer, there aren’t going to be many circumstances where you can have an internship and not be paid and still be in compliance with the law,” said Nancy Leppink, deputy administrator of the department’s wage and hour division, according to a story in the New York Times.

It’s easy to view the action as the inevitable mischief of Democrats, irritating but not fatal. Such an attitude, however, overlooks what a blow this policy can represent to young people trying to establish careers.

Back in our parents’ or grandparents’ days, interns were mostly thought of as physicians-in-training. Eventually, an internship came to mean an initial training experience, perhaps unpaid, for people on the cusp of entering the workforce. This stepping stone to a hoped-for paid job became commonplace in many industries and a rite of passage for the college set, especially Ivy Leaguers.

These temporary positions became popular partly due to prosperity. During the past half century, many U.S. college students enjoyed the luxury of trying out different fields whereas previous generations had to make career choices quickly.

In other words, the Chief Executive of the United States is telling (nay, dictating to) this nation’s young people – America’s future, I’ve heard the President call them – that they will no longer have the option (the right to choose, you might say) of volunteering his or her time with a privately-owned, free market enterprise. The point of such internships, of course, is to afford prospective interns the opportunity to gain vital experience that will, in turn, make them productive and valuable assets in the work force. Yet, the President of the United States has decided, by whim and whisper, that he will put the kibosh on a system of learning, training and invaluable networking that has helped sustain the very existence of America’s free-market system by literally helping to provide for its future in the best and most efficient way possible.

Not that Barack Obama is particularly enamored with free enterprise.

Incidentally, one needn’t receive money to be “paid.” Experience is often a more valuable commodity in the work force at that early stage of a person’s professional life. Unpaid internships are wonderfully important resume fillers. Bosses look for things like that.

The real question is: How in the world is doing away with unpaid internships good for America? How does eliminating such a thing benefit this country’s young people looking to prepare for their futures?

This is simply unbelievable.

(I keep saying that. Actually, it’s very believable).

Mr. President, these are individual choices made by free Americans! Stay the hell out of it!

Erick Erickson at Red State points out, if Obama gets his way, young people will still have the option to volunteer with the government.


If you want to work as a Congressional or White House intern, for Organizing for America, or any other non-profit, they’ll let you do it. But if you want to actually work for a business that produces goods and services in the free market? You’re screwed as is the business. And guess what? Existing workers will be spread more thinly and college kids will wait longer and longer for jobs.

My next question (in a long list of thousands) would be to ask whether or not this policy applies to non-profit organizations as well. Would these new anti-intern laws pertain to left-wing “community organizing” groups, too? Or will some enterprising Capitol Hill Democrat try to devise a workaround of some sort to allow the likes of ACORN (or whatever it’s called now) to indoctrinate – er, take on interns?

Or is this just a blatant, in-your-face, no-need-to-cloak-it assault on the free-market system?

Honestly, there can be no other purpose here than to intentionally hamstring free enterprise.

The President of the United States does not – repeat, does not – have the authority to curtail rights guaranteed to the people of the United States in the Constitution – namely, the freedom of assembly (and, by extension and definition, the freedom of association). How is it possible for the Chief Executive to say that it will be against the law for me, or anyone, to volunteer my time anywhere I damn well please (assuming that institution is not engaging in illegal activity)?  Do I not have the right to charge an individual or company for my services, if I so choose? And if I decide to charge nothing for those services, do I not have that right as well?

These are choices that I make, as an individual.

This has nothing to do with the President, Congress, the government, the cleaning lady or anyone other than the privately owned enterprise that wants to have an intern, and the individual who wishes to be an intern.

No one is being taken advantage of, no one is being cheated, no deception of any kind is taking place.

We leave that to the government.


wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Constitution, Dumb Liberals, leftism, Liberalism, Nanny State | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 7, 2010

If the American economy were personified, it would be a kidnap victim, huddled in the corner, frightened and scarred from the constant abuse it had to withstand from its captors, begging for mercy, screaming, “Stop! Stop!”

The kidnappers, of course, would have to be the Obamacrats in charge, relentless, careless, sadistic.

What better way to characterize an administration engaged in a kind of brutality that can only lead one to believe that the crippling of the American economy must be the goal?

Why is it that the solution to all liberal economic woes is to tax its citizenry more?

Paul Volcker, adviser to the President, said yesterday that instituting more taxes on the American people – in the European style – is a very real possibility.

What better way to deal with out of control, runaway government spending?

Yes indeed … more taxes.

Increase government’s claim on private property. That’ll work.

From Reuters:

The United States should consider raising taxes to help bring deficits under control and may need to consider a European-style value-added tax, White House adviser Paul Volcker said on Tuesday.

Volcker, answering a question from the audience at a New York Historical Society event, said the value-added tax “was not as toxic an idea” as it has been in the past and also said a carbon or other energy-related tax may become necessary.

Though he acknowledged that both were still unpopular ideas, he said getting entitlement costs and the U.S. budget deficit under control may require such moves. “If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes,” he said.

How refreshing it would be to hear an elected official, regardless of what side of the aisle he or she is on, say: “If at the end of the day we need to cut spending, we should cut spending.”

There’s no “if” about it.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 25, 2010

For the thinking person, it is akin to trying to lay out the pieces of a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle on a small bridge table without stacking or overlapping any of the pieces.

No matter how he or she may try – or even wish it – it simply cannot be done.

For the utopian, however, it doesn’t matter if the table top is too small. It doesn’t matter if common sense dictates that it is a physical impossibility to lay out that many puzzle pieces on a table of that size. There will always be time to figure it all out later. Right now, the imperative is to dump all the pieces out, regardless of consequence, for the sake of getting them on the table.

Eventually, when the utopian realizes, much to his or her chagrin, that the pieces actually will not fit on the table top – or even better, that a plan to figure out how best to do it has not yet been formulated by a czar of some sort – desperate (and deceitful) action will inevitably follow. He or she will manipulate data and swindle observers to create the illusion that all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, indeed, fit.

It’s something Democrats actually do all the time by putting out only those pieces that are the most colorful – the ones that suggest to the observer that a gorgeous final product waits. They are the puzzle pieces that are the most pleasing to look at, the most suggestive. So while the utopian is able to fit maybe 200 or 300 on the table at best, it doesn’t matter. It’s all about appearances. No one will know that the rest of the puzzle is stashed away, out of sight. And if someone does, it will be too late. To the casual observer, there exists the promise of a beautiful finished puzzle based on what he or she is allowed to see by the utopian. The reality, however, is that the puzzle will never be completed.

It doesn’t need to be.

Wrapping my brain around the passage of ObamaCare is much like that.

The pieces don’t fit.

Not for the thinking person.

And what makes it all the worse is that those who forced this nation into adopting this horrifically catostrophic transformation don’t even know what they’ve passed. They’ve not read the thing. They have no idea how many pieces to the puzzle there really are, nor what the final picture is going to look like.

On one hand, it thoroughly befuddles the mind to think that the road to American mediocrity set in motion with the passage of this bill last Sunday – the latest move by leftists to transform this nation into Europe West – is something anyone with properly firing synapses could champion; especially when it comes to what was the greatest health care delivery system in the entire world.

On the other hand, the very notion of American exceptionalism repulses the Left.

The toxicity of what Democrats did on Sunday evening by passing what is the first step toward an inevitable single-payer health system (i.e., government-run health care) won’t be obvious in a week or a month. But make mistake no about it, there is no way that the passage of ObamaCare will not lead to a single-payer system. It’s as inevitable as saying that if one fires a shotgun into a pumpkin at point-blank range, there is no way that pumpkin seeds will not scatter everywhere.

That’s because liberals are not interested in excellence.

To them, there is no value more important than equality.

And if they can create a nation – once the envy of the entire world in terms of its medical delivery system – where everyone, regardless of who they are, can be put on waiting lists for mediocre medical care, they will feel good about themselves. They will feel as if they’ve accomplished something.

Literally, Sunday’s vote was the most dramatic transformation this country has undergone in my lifetime – and we are (and will be) all the worse for it. The United States was changed (i.e., tansformed) forever, based on a radical ideology that is embarrassingly hinged on false statistics and fairy-tale premises. A system that was largely favorable to the American people has been wiped out by the hunger pains of tyranny – and it didn’t have to be.

A last minute sell-out to a weasel of a man – congressman Bart Stupak – that all but tossed the term “pro-life democrat” onto the history’s compost pile forever did in the world’s greatest health care delivery system.

My Lord, what have they done?

That rickety old bridge table gets smaller every time I walk past it.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, health care, socialism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 4, 2010

It was embarrassing enough for Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to uninvitedly get up in front of the nation and tell owners of recalled Toyota vehicles to stop driving their cars, only to come back later and recant. Indeed, it was beyond moronic for him to advise the owners of eight recalled Toyota models to take their cars off the road until their accelerator pedals could be looked at, only to reappear hours later and explain that he really didn’t mean what he said. LaHood’s big mouth did nothing more than throw a monkey wrench into an already troubling situation.

But that’s okay. He’s from the government, and he was only here to help.

Of course, opening his mouth and letting out a whole lot of jackass is not the real issue here.

The issue – as always – is the demonstrable inability of Obama-style, big government to stay out of the way of its citizenry.

This Toyota recall is a private sector issue being handled by the company itself – as it ought to be. The company will adhere to the rules of the free market system by making its corrections, withstanding any financially losses that will inevitably come (if they can), and winning the trust of the public by coming back with a better product. It’s how free enterprise works.

This is not a government problem.

Besides, who in hell is Ray LaHood to open up his pie hole about a situation he clearly knows nothing about and confuse the hell out of everybody?

Because he’s the Transportation Secretary?

So what? Who gives a raccoon’s nipple?

All Mr. LaHood did was create a serious uproar and send a whole bunch of Toyota owners into a state of befuddlement and frustration before realizing that the taste of feet on his tongue is rather unpleasant.

Was it necessary for the Secretary of the Transportation Department – which serves “the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future” – to come out publicly and tell drivers what to do with their own cars? Is there a “grease monkey” clause in the DOT mission satement I missed? Without LaHood, would American Toyota drivers have neglected following up on their recall notices? Would they not have known to be careful but for the grace of the federal government telling them to?

This nanny-state mentality does no one any good.

It is a perfect illustration of how government intervention into private sector matters causes more problems than it solves.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Nanny State | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 2, 2010

Hypothetically speaking … 

As a small business owner, if the federal government was offering me “stimulus money” for the purpose of keeping an employee or hiring someone new, I’d have no choice – economically or morally – but to give it back.  There is simply no way on God’s green earth that I, or any other small business owner, would (or could) actually use so-called stimulus cash to put someone to work or keep someone on the payroll.

It doesn’t even make sense, does it?

I run a business out here in the private sector – or as I refer to it, Obama’s toilet. How am I  – or anyone else in the trenches – supposed to benefit from such a moronic, ill-conceived handout program?

To me, the idea of expanding government by hiring people is bad enough. But the thought of having my neighbors relinquish more of their hard-earned money so that I could temporarily “save” an employee’s job in my private sector business, assuming such a dumb thing would ever work, is inconceivable to me. 

And if, in some alternate universe, I could retain an employee based on a government handout, how in the world would that be a good thing? 

How does taking from the earners make for a healthy economy? 

Honestly, listening to liberals speak is sometimes like having someone run a  cheese grater along the back of your leg. 

It hurts. 

Assuming the economy is limping along – which it would have to be to warrant a stimulus money infusion – how does paying someone with other people’s money to keep someone else employed help my business? How does it generate capital? How does it keep me a viable competitor in the market place? In other words, if I am not seeing any real-world increase in business – if the only boost in income is artificial – what happens when the handout dries up? Do I then fire the person whose job I was supposedly “saving?” Do I keep that person on and raise prices during an economic downturn? 

Do liberals ever think ahead? 

Of course, the vast majority of jobs supposedly “saved” or “created” by President Obama’s stimulus bill were government jobs. 

Thus, what President Obama really accomplished was sucking money out of the economy – always a bad move during tough economic times – and redistributing it in the form of paychecks. 

Sounds like a winning plan, doesn’t it? 

Well, brace yourselves. The future looks very bright ahead … for high-paying, non-private sector jobs, that is. 

Susan Adams from, writing for ABC News

While companies large and small continue to shrink their workforces, the federal government remains on a steady hiring course across the country. 

Uncle Sam will hire 600,000 people over the next four years, a 50% increase over the previous four, reports Max Stier of the Washington-based Partnership for Public Service, a group that promotes government jobs. 

Six-hundred thousand over four years? 

Despite popular notions to the contrary, an increase in the number of public-sector jobs is not something to be tripping the light fantastic over. It is no indicator of recovery. I’m not sure why this concept eludes leftists. It’s unclear to those who tend toward rational thought why such monumental wastes of taxpayer dollars, like the construction of light rail systems where they aren’t needed, are seen as positive, productive endeavors.

In what universe? How exactly?

(Those leftists love their light rail systems, don’t they?)

Next to President Obama’s policies, I don’t know that there is anything quite as empty as the cars in Seattle’s never-used, taxpayer raping trains.

There’s nothing like confiscating money from private citizens to pay the salaries of people who hold jobs that would never exist in the private sector.

Please don’t misunderstand me.

I’m not talking about jobs that almost everyone agrees are best handled by government – military, police, fire protection, etc. Yes, there are legitimate functions of government.

Rather, I’m talking about useless government expansion for the purpose of “putting people to work.” 

When the government outpaces the private sector in both job growth and pay – which it has been, and will continue to do under President Obama – the word unsustainable comes to mind. 

And with projected record deficits of well over a trillion dollars ahead – that’s just the deficit, not the total debt – it won’t be long before those making over $150,000 … then a $100,000 … then $75,000 … will all become America’s wealthy class –  and subject accordingly to Obamacrat tax increases. 


Under President Obama, we’ve made it

wordpress statistics 

Posted in Big Government, Economy, stimulus bill | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 12, 2009

The epoch of earmarks had seen its last days, the American people were told. Government waste was a thing of the past, Americans were advised. Fresh sounding, twenty-first century words like “transparency” and “post-partisan” were peppered into the national dialogue from a guy with great dulcet tones. Things were going to be different. Even people on the right were excited about the dawning of the new age.

Remember what the new guy told us: We were the people we were waiting for.

He was going to be everyone’s president, we were assured. He was going to hear our voices too, he promised. The Transformation Express was boarding on Track Forty-Four, and everyone was invited to grab their slice of the American pie.

But quicker than someone could say TARP, the new guy in charge – The One, we called him in the early days – started doing things that didn’t seem quite right. He spent three-quarters of a trillion dollars on door knobs, hiking trails, the study of rabbit feces, and new computers for government offices, all in the name of stimulating the economy. Not particularly stimulating. Without batting a lash, he mortgaged the future of those yet to be born, burdening them with epic costs so that their predecessors could avoid having to tough it out. He commanded government to take over segments of the private sector – like the auto industry – and made it his primary task to annex 16% of the American economy. He said earmarks were a thing of the past, then redefined the word so that he could let himself off the hook. He said over three million jobs would be created on his watch, only to see at least that many lost.

And now, the most fiscally irresponsible administration in this nation’s history is officially back in the earmark business to the tune of nearly $4 billion. That may not sound like much in today’s trillions-happy environment, but four thousand million is four thousand million … and that’s our money.

Richard Simon from the Los Angeles Times writes:

Reporting from Washington – Getting into the holiday spirit, the House of Representatives on Thursday approved a spending bill loaded with goodies for the folks back home.

Trails for Monterey Bay. An arts pavilion for Mississippi. Bus shelters for Bellflower.

In all, the bill contains 5,224 earmarks costing about $3.9 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group.

Though Democrats say they have cracked down on pork-barrel spending, critics attacked the bill as excessive.

“Clearly, the earmark culture has not been swept away,” Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, blogged Thursday.

The $447-billion bill, which passed the Democratic-controlled House with no Republican votes and moved to the Senate, combines six spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

The measure brings total earmarks in this year’s spending bills to 7,577 at a cost of about $6 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. The Pentagon spending bill, the last of the annual appropriations bills, is expected to contain more earmarks than the omnibus bill, said Steve Ellis of the taxpayer group.

In the event you are keeping a score card at home, some of the other pet projects in the bill include a half-million dollars to help build a trench, thirteen-and-a-half million for the creation of a bus lane, a quarter-million for textile research, and almost two-hundred thousand for weather forecaster training.

Oh yeah … I almost forgot two-hundred thousand for the Aquatic Adventures Science Education Foundation in San Diego.

Thank God for that.

“When are we going to say, ‘Enough is enough?’ ” asked House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who does not seek earmarks. “I don’t know how worthy any of these projects are, but I do have to ask a question: Are they more important than our kids and grandkids who are going to have to pay the debt?”

It is the very essence of modern liberalism – to act without regard for what happens next. It is what the great Thomas Sowell calls being stuck in “stage one” thinking – failing to consider the ramifications of a policy decision that, for the moment, serves to make the boo-boo feel better.

It is closely related to “Do Something” Disease, which is a mutated strand of “Change For The Sake of Change” Syndrome.

It is a weakness of liberalism best exemplified in how Barack Obama has approached the economic crisis from the outset. To him, Americans aren’t capable of handling tough economic times. We aren’t resilient enough to brave a recession. We cannot face whatever hardships might lie ahead. We need the government to step in and make things better. We need him to tell us everything will eventually be all right. It is imperative that we make our kids and grandkids pay for it tomorrow so that we might live more comfortably today.

Mr. President, that is not America. It never has been.

Not only can Americans handle the most difficult of times, we do so with the understanding that it is our charge – our purpose – to make things better for the next generation. We weather the toughest of storms because there is no other alternative. We roll with the best life has to offer and we bear the brunt of the worst,  aware of the immorality in mortgaging the future of our children, our civilization.

For example, what would we think of a parent who secured credit cards in his or her child’s name only to max them out?

I resent the fact that this president has engendered that sense of weakness in a nation built on rugged individualism. That he is willing to make things more difficult for yet unborn generations so that today can feel better may be the most disgraceful thing yet to come from the Messianic Age.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Democrats, Economy, Ethics, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 4, 2009

Our Vice President

Our Vice President

In terms of the news cycle, there is very little I look forward to as much as hearing anything the Vice President of the United States has to say. Call it a guilty pleasure – or a grievous mental defect – but knowing Joe Biden has spoken publicly somewhere – and that there could very well be sound bites from his visit – is a source of great excitement for me. It’s reminiscent of those anticipatory tinglings I would get as boy knowing a new album by a favorite musical group was about to be released, or a new movie was set to hit the theaters. When “Crazy Uncle Joe” opens his mouth, I am not only assured of having something to write about on the blog, I know that the bulk of what he says will be based on everything other than reality.

That’s what makes it so much fun.

Take Biden’s harebrained, la-la-land assertion that the Obama $787 billion stimulus bill passed in February is proving to be a success. Next to Elvis sightings and the Sports Illustrated prediction that the New York Mets would win the World Series this year, it’s hard to pinpoint anything more epically mythical.

He’s so adorable when he’s just being Joe, isn’t he?

Ben Feller of the Associated Press writes:

Defending a costly plan to revitalize the economy, Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday said the government’s sweeping stimulus effort “is in fact working” despite steady Republican criticism and public skepticism.

“The recovery act has played a significant role in changing the trajectory of our economy, and changing the conversation in this country,” Biden said. “Instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we are talking about the end of a recession.”

Nearly 200 days into the effort, Biden delivered an upbeat report card about the $787 billion rescue effort that President Barack Obama pushed through Congress. He quoted estimates by private analysts that the plan has created or saved 500,000 to 750,000 jobs so far. But many million people remain out of work.

The effectiveness of the two-year program is a matter of sharp political debate, and Biden sought to counter critics with a listing of tangible results.

Of course, Joe is a little light on some of the actualities of the spendulous recovery farce, but that never kept him from filling his pie hole with one or more of his own feet.

As of Monday, a little less than 15% of the stimulus bill has been spent – a total of about $85 billion. And the vast majority of it, up to this point, has not been spent on anything remotely stimulating.

Recall how the bill was sold to the American people back in February – as being the necessary life preserver for a nation on the brink of financial ruin. It was the only way to save the United States from destruction – and it had to be done quicker than immediately. There was no time to waste. America’s very existence depended on it.

Seven months later, with some economic indicators suggesting the recession may be slowing (stabilizing housing prices, a vibrant stock market, etc.), in a nation that was only a few short months ago flirting with elimination, the question is … how much has actually been spent on bona fide “stimulus?”

Arkady Kamenetsky (of the great Indy Mind blog), writing at the website breaks it down:

Let us examine some of the major recipients of taxpayer moneys for brevity we will examine those departments receiving more than 20% of allocated funds.

Railroad Retirement Board: Small chunk of change and unclear where the funds are going.

Social Security Administration: 13 billion spent upgrading computers and one time payments. Not stimulating as there is no direct impact to job creation.

Veterans Affairs: .5 billion spent on upgrading facilities, payments, state grants and benefits to veterans. While not stimulating, entirely justifiable given the neglected veterans in this country.

Department of Labor: 18 billion spent on providing education and worker training to workers and “easing the burden of the recession” by assisting and expanding access to health care. Not stimulating, no direct impact on job creation or tax benefits. Providing education to workers is not the responsibility of the federal government and easing the burden of the recession can create a dangerous precedent of reliance.

Department of Justice: 1 billion spent on providing training, equipment and support for crime prevention including the hiring of additional police offers. Stimulating as it provides jobs to those seeking employment as police officers, however police are the responsibility of municipal governments. In other words we here in Boston should be not be paying for cops in Wichita, Kansas.

Health and Human Services: 28 billion spent on upgrading hospital’s IT programs, research and state grants, Medicare payouts. The biggest recipient of taxpayer moneys has also the most vague and hard to navigate web-page, giving no clear answer as to what the money is being spent on. According to the information there, it appears that the money is being used to advance Obama’s theory regarding electronic record keeping and the health industry. Whether or not upgrading our hospitals will impact us beneficially is to be determined, but this appears to be non stimulating spending and egregious spending at that.

It is also worth mentioning the Department of Education which has spent 14 Billion on state grants, school modernization, Pell grant funding and possibly preserving education jobs in states where funding is critical. Largely not stimulating as most of the money is being used on things that simply have no impact on our economy what so ever and do not belong in a federal stimulus package.

Arkady also points out that in February the Congressional Budget Office predicted a slow down of the recession by the end of this year without the benefit of any messianic intervention. And while there is obviously no way of knowing how accurate that prediction would have been, free market economies are funny things. They’re cyclical – not unlike the climate. They have a strange way a straightening – or correcting – themselves with minimal government meddling. (See the Recession of 1921). Because panic (like the one that swept across this country last fall) often spawns the dreaded and quick-to-metastasize “do something” disease – even among conservatives – governments tend to grow, liberties tend to erode, and problems tend to be prolonged (See the Great Depression).

Commenting on Biden’s remarks that the “wasteful spending” dog didn’t bite, Christopher Flavelle and Amanda Michel at ProPublica write:

wasteful spendingThe government did allocate millions of stimulus dollars for tiger and lion cages at the National Zoo, as we reported in May. And the Florida Department of Transportation got $3.4 million to build tunnels for migrating turtles—a project praised by local residents but held up by Republicans as just the kind of wasteful-spending story the vice president wanted to avoid.

In July, we reported that more than $100 million in stimulus dollars were being spent on airports with fewer than one flight an hour, while many of the country’s busiest airports were getting nothing at all. Last month, the watchdog for the Department of Transportation did indeed bite, calling for a full audit of stimulus airport grants.

Last week, The Associated Press reported that some of the country’s busiest border checkpoints were getting no stimulus money while small checkpoints had been allocated millions of dollars. Among the checkpoints getting money – $199 million, or five times more than any other station – is one at Nogales, Ariz., the home state of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the AP said.

And regarding Biden’s assertion that the spendulous money was to “bring relief to those hardest hit by the recession,” Flavelle and Michel write:

As ProPublica reported last month, a county-by-county breakdown of contracts, grants and loans showed no relationship between where the stimulus money is going and either unemployment or poverty.

The stimulus bill specifically calls for infrastructure funds to be directed at “economically distressed areas.” So far, at least, the numbers suggest that isn’t happening. States with higher unemployment are also spending and completing transportation projects more slowly, according to a stimulus spot check conducted by the ProPublica Reporting Network.

Imagine that.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Joe Biden, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009


When anyone on the payroll of the Associated Press actually bothers to veer away from Interstate Obama and earn their pay by doing some genuine reporting, i.e., legitimately questioning some of the claims put forth by the Messiah himself, it is definitely worth acknowledging. (It happens so rarely). AP reporter Calvin Woodward has actually done a fairly nice job fact checking some of The One’s assertions made in Elkhart, Indiana on Monday, while the President was attempting to build up support for his pig-meat spectacular, ultimately passed by the Senate yesterday. . The problem is, while doing a respectable job checking some of the President’s spending ishkabibble, Woodward falls into the “earmarks” trap Obama himself created – something I have been writing about a lot in recent days.

First off … the fact checking.

Said Obama:

“I’ve appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration, in terms of their taxes. … I made a mistake … I don’t want to send the signal that there are two sets of rules. Everybody will acknowledge that we have set up the highest standard ever for lobbyists not working in the administration.”

As we know, two Obama appointees, Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer, dropped out when it came to light that both had failed to pay taxes. (Obama’s vetting machine needs vetting). There is also Timothy Geithner, the new Secretary of the Treasury, who decided not to drop out when it was revealed that he had some IRS difficulties of his own – that is, until he paid his $34,000 IRS bill.

As far as lobbyists go, Woodward writes:

Obama has in fact established tough new rules barring them from working for his administration. But the ban is not absolute. William J. Lynn III, tapped to be the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. William Corr, chosen as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, has lobbied as an anti-tobacco advocate. And Geithner’s choice for chief of staff, Mark Patterson, is an ex-lobbyist from Goldman Sachs.

Then there’s Obama’s stimulus-bill promise of creating (or saving) millions of new jobs.

Note the word “save.

Said The One:

“The plan that we’ve put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years.”

Woodward counters:

THE FACTS: Job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers. Beyond that, it’s unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it’s clear when jobs are abolished, there’s no economic gauge that tracks job preservation.

Clever Democrat-speak, to be sure. The President has spent the better part of the last two weeks talking about the impending “catastrophe” of allowing his spending bill to die. That didn’t happen, of course, but had the bill not passed, job losses across the country would have been massive, he told us. Naturally, Obama never actually defined just how massive “massive” really is. Thus, no matter how many jobs are lost over the next two years, Democrats will assure the public that the total is not nearly what it would have been had the recovery bill not passed.

Viola! Saved jobs.

Then there’s the “earmark” thing.

Said Obama:

“I know that there are a lot of folks out there who’ve been saying, ‘Oh, this is pork, and this is money that’s going to be wasted,’ and et cetera, et cetera. Understand, this bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for a bill of this size. … There aren’t individual pork projects that members of Congress are putting into this bill.”

Here is where Woodward forgets how to be a reporter:

THE FACTS: There are no “earmarks,” as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork – tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects. For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill., $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other “priority procurements” by the Coast Guard. Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on “roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on.” He added: “And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart.”

U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state.

President Obama is playing a dishonest game, and Mr. Woodward did not do his homework.

First off, as I have said repeatedly – and will continue to do when facts are deceitfully manipulated – “earmarks” are not a process – as Obama suggested on January 6th, when he said, “We will ban all earmarks in the recovery package. And I describe earmarks as the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review. So what I’m saying is, we’re not having earmarks in the recovery package, period.”

The President seems to think – or wants us to think – that because “pet projects” were not inserted into the bill individually by members of Congress after the fact, as is often the case, they are not earmarks. In my article “President Liar and Company – Confirmed,” I used this analogy:

Let’s say, for instance, I declared to the world that there will be no profanity used in this article. After that, I went on to say that I describe profanity as the process by which an offensive word is inserted it into this piece. The guidelines I lay out speficially state that a profanity is only such if I type the word myself, using my keyboard. Then, with that newly created criterion in mind, instead of physically typing a four-letter-word into this article, I simply browsed the internet until I found the desired curse word on someone else’s website and cut-and-pasted it into my article. I could then claim that based on how I defined it, there is no profanity in this piece because I didn’t type it myself. Using the Obama method, I defined profanity based on the process by which it found its way into my piece – not the word itself.

pinocchiobamaOf course, the President contradicted his own assertion on Friday of last week when he said, “Then there’s the argument, well, this is full of pet projects. When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one.

The fact of the matter is there are earmarks in the bill, no matter how many times the President looks America square in the eye and says otherwise. There can be no doubt about it. Americans are not stupid – at least many of us aren’t.

The definition of “earmark” according to the Federal Office of Management and Budget is money provided by Congress for projects where the destination of that money, whether in bill form or in legislative reports, is specified or managed by Congress (as opposed to the Executive Branch).

Where Woodward stumbles is in neglecting to point out that there are two types of “earmarks” – hard earmarks and soft earmarks. Hard earmarks are those that are actually written into the bill (like those in Obama’s crapulous package), while soft earmarks – the most common and the kind Woodward is referring to – are written into reports that “suggest” where spending bill money should go.

If I can do the research to find such things out, certainly a professional like Mr. Woodward can.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 10, 2009


Think of the free market as a fire hydrant and President Obama as the dog about to shower it with contempt. The President told America – and the world – last evening that only government is capable of fixing the economic problems this country faces. The very concepts that help to define America itself – rugged individualism, personal responsibility, liberty, entrepreneurialism – all found themselves thrown under the Obama magical misery bus during his first prime time press conference as President.

The leader of the free world sent the message that it isn’t the individual who can make things right. It isn’t the free market that can set things straight. It is government – big, bumbling, inefficient, unaccountable, tyrannical, fingers-in-everybody’s pie government – that can save this country. With his ringing endorsement of an all-powerful, all-intrusive Washington as problem-solver and healer, the President of the United States made it clear that he possesses no confidence in the American people.

Such inspiration. Such leadership.

Contrast these two quotes:

Ronald Reagan:Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.”

Barack Obama: “It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs.”

If that doesn’t serve as the quintessential distinction between right and left, then nothing does.

What Bam also did last night was add to his ever-growing list of contradictions, inconsistencies, half-truths and downright lies. He said during his less-than-impressive performance that he found it difficult to accept criticism of his porktabulous spending bill from the people (Republicans) who helped double the size of the deficit during the previous administration. Yet, with his $800 billion-plus pig-meat bill, he wants to propel to deficit into uncharted territory with a spending spree that would put Bush’s recklessness to instant shame.

I’m not sure if his handlers and preparers are this obtuse, or if he is just the worst out of the box thinker America has seen since John Kerry, but he embarrasses himself when he is away from the nestling warmth of his teleprompter.

No one likes to give a hard time to those who have come down off the cross to save humanity, but how about some honest analysis?

This works part and parcel with the President’s fractured view of his own country – his misguided, university-constructed, leftist take on the greatest country the world has ever known.

It is frightening, but no one should be surprised now. The tone for the Obama-Nation was set on January 20, 2009 in what was an otherwise sleepy and forgettable inaugural address.

Recall The One said:

“Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”

How many of you, when you heard those words, took pause to say to yourselves, “Wow, the Bush years really are over.”

If ever something more provably untrue were uttered by a President, it’s not immediately popping into my head. How exactly is the safety of the United States enhanced in any way because of how just our cause is? Where in all of human history has a cause served to strengthen the security of a people? That such a statement can be made without any serious scrutiny or backlash (outside of conservatives who pay attention) is utterly astounding. No country’s security ever emanates from the justness of a cause.

Security emanates from a strong military. Period.

Were the Jews of Nazi Germany more secure because of the justness of their cause?

Can I now keep my doors unlocked at night because I am a just man?

What poppycock.

The security of the United States emanates from the men and women who serve in the armed forces.

Then, there was this little ditty, extracted directly from the multiculturalist’s songbook:

“We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.”

This country may be comprised of people from every corner of the world, but it is patently false – and in no way defensible to assert that this country has been shaped by every language and culture.

How exactly?

Undoubtedly, one could probably find just about every one of world’s languages spoken somewhere in the United States, but the influence of Hindi and Latvian on the United States is nil. The role of Farsi and Burmese in forming the cultural landscape of America is nonexistant. Even the effect of Zulu on American life is negligible.

And as deplorable as it is for anti-religious revisionists to have to admit any prevailing Christian influence, this country has not been shaped by Hindus or Muslims, despite ongoing attempts to reconstruct American history into an all-inclusive, everybody-influenced-everything fairy-tale.

Culturally, this country exists in the English tradition, shaped by its Judeo-Christian value system. Period.

This is not a matter of opinion.

But worry not … just a little while ago, the Obama spendulous bill passed in the Senate, 61-37. America is well on the way to a “fundamentally transformed” future filled with big government band-aids,  astronomical deficits and encroaching tyranny.

Yippee, eh?

Piece by piece, America is going away.

America is falling down and going Bam.

Posted in American culture, Big Government, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 9, 2009

paying for the S-Chip bill all by himself

Paying for the S-Chip bill all by himself

Being a Democrat can mean several things – possessing the ability to emote as a means of creating policy, having the facility to substitute feelings for wisdom, or the innate instinct to never think what happens next. It’s a cushy intellectual life, to be sure.

Take the President’s signing of the so-called S-CHIP bill into law last week – a measure which expands (fancy that) the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by roughly $35 billion over the next five years.

President Obama may not have asked anyone to read his lips, but you’ll recall he did promise no new taxes of any kind to those making under $250,000 a year.

Well, feel free to add another tick into the Obama-lama-ding-dong column of Lies and Redefinitions.

Back on September 12, 2008 – when the word “trillions” was still more freely associated with how many reality shows were on television than with bailouts and stimulus – the President said:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

One fourth of all smokers are below the poverty line.

Respectfully, the President can take his ” firm pledge” and put it in the same place his “no earmarks in the stimulus bill” promise rightly belongs.

The only thing “firm” is the grip America has had on its ankles since January 20, 2009.

To pay for this idiocy, the federal excise tax on tobacco will increase 62 cents per pack of cigarettes. In short, Obama is taxing smokers to pay for the healthcare of children – many of whom have absolutely no business being covered by this nonsensical piece of … legislation.

But Democrats are so cute.  They do everything in their power to make cigarette smoking as morally deplorable as possible, systematically legislating it from American life “for our own good,” yet rely on it to save the children.

Taxing cigarettes, as we’ve been told, is a genuine deterrent to purchasing them. Once the price gets too high, it stands to reason that less people will smoke. Yet without those who do smoke, many of America’s children will apparently be deprived of the healthcare they deserve or can afford. Without these yellow-fingered, second-hand smoke producing, nicotine fiends feeding their disgusting addictions, innocent kids across the map will be shut out of the medicine supply line and forced to exist (somehow) on antiquated home remedies and penicillin derivatives made from household bread mold.

Is the risk of what would essentially amount to the government having to support some cigarette smoking – and thus condoning the infliction of second-hand (and third-hand) smoke on an innocent population, which we’ve been told kills tens of thousands annually – worth funding health care for those children who would otherwise be forced to rummage through garbage cans for Robitussin residue and half-sucked Halls cough drops?

What a predicament to be in.

Maybe what the government should do is raise the excise tax by twenty-thousand percent on each pack of cigarettes and buy up all the smokes needed to fund the S-CHIP bill themselves.

Viola! Instant funding!

That’ll keep the mint busy.

(And it’ll take only forty-two generations of Americans to pay it back).

Then, perhaps the government can sell their newly acquired smokes back to the public at a discounted price, thus generating even more revenue – or to China.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 4, 2009

Today’s Washington Post headline may say that Democrats don’t have the votes to pass the Obama “stimulus” package as it is currently written, but what does that really mean? That instead of a $900 billion monstrosity, it’ll be worked and re-worked so that it is transformed into a lean mean $800 billion nightmare?

rino_bigThe bottom line is – Republicans tick me off. And it’s catching.

If this were a petition to that effect, there’d also be a ton of enraged environmentalists, because a whole lot of trees would lose their lives to create the paper needed to accommodate the signatures.

Republicans have been remarkably consistent at incompetence and vacillation in recent times – impressively steady in how they have continued to disappoint the conservative base, almost effortlessly. Dating back at least to the less-than-inspiring presidential campaign season, complete with a less-than-motivating squishy-in-the-middle candidate, the GOP has stirred more stomach acid than emotion.

Admittedly, for a brief shining stitch in time last week, Republicans didn’t aggravate me so much, voting in unanimity against the Obama craptacular spending bonanza in the House of Representatives.

Conservatism had a pulse.

And then, as quick as it arrived, it became faint and irregular again.

I wrote the original article “Conservatism – Great While It Lasted” last week after reading about Republican governors who were actually soliciting GOP Senators to get Bam’s enormous spending bill passed so they could get much needed money to balance their state budgets. Even the great Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, said that while he would have voted against the bill if he were still in Congress, he’d accept the money for his state.

Riding high off the “all-for-one” Republican stand against the Obamacratic spending disaster in the House, my idealism got the better of me. Foolishly – even if only for the briefest of moments – I was hoping to see a tiny tidal wave of principled conservative resistance break out like shingles across the neck of America. I wanted more Republican governors to either speak out against it (as both South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour did, blasting the “stimulus” package as certifiable pig meat, going as far as saying that they weren’t sure they’d even accept the money) … or keep quiet about the whole thing and let Democrats grab the limelight, knowing the bill, in some bloated incarnation, would pass the Senate anyway.

After all, in political terms, what the hell was there to lose? This dreaded spending atrocity was clearly going to pass both houses. All credit needed to go to the Democrats on this one.

Unfortunately, some on our side were quite public and very active in pursuing their chunks of the stimulus pie.

Politics trumps all, I know. I get that. That governors of states, regardless of whether those states are red or blue, accept money from the Feds doesn’t quite carry the same political ramifications as a congressman casting a vote for a disgustingly wasteful spending bill.

I understand that.

My “great while it lasted” exasperation was based more on how GOP Senators would cast their vote – because that’s really where the “bipartisanship” Obama has been clamoring for will come from when this bill fails.

But knowing that so-called Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins dangle big “R”s after their names didn’t exactly give me a whole hell of a lot of faith that another unanimous statement was in the works.

In fact, after Senator Mitch McConnell said that the Senate bill might not even pass – and conservatives were tickled and teased with the possibility of conservatism’s continued revival – details started coming out as to just what kind of “reworking” he had in mind.

At the great Indy Mind blog, Arkady calls McConnell’s proposed amendment to the “Porkulus Package” horrible. He breaks it down wonderfully:

His latest proposal to amend the stimulass package is astonishing. He proposes that the government offers millions of fixed rate mortgages at 4 to 4.5 percent!

As a free market loving, small government wanting fiscally conservative soul I am stunned that this could come out of the GOP. To think that this is what would make McConnell approve this porkulus package is equally saddening.

Some of the possible consequences that could arise:

Free market violations: By infusing the market with fabricated rates that do not correspond to the actual bond market is will disrupt an already weakened mortgage market. This is similar to price fixing and something that was done during the Great Depression.

House values: Values will drop even further, despite what Mitch thinks. This might temporarily slow down foreclosures, but it will have the awful long term effect of entrenching owners in their homes.

Rent control: People will refuse to sell their homes if they are enjoying these kind of rates. In situations where people are ready to move out (ie retirees) to a smaller condo, they will simply rent the home out. With such a small rate in a matter of years renting the home will become extremely lucrative. Nice homes in affluent areas will get run down as houses turn into rental properties.

New construction: New homes sales are already slumping in record ways, because people will be tempted to stay in their existing homes to maintain their attractive rates, sales of new homes will not pick up.

This is just an awful plan, through and through. Minority leader should be ashamed of proposing something as short sighted as this.

As the Senate version of the bill exists right now, the price tag is near $900 billion – more expensive than the House version passed last week.

And if that wasn’t enough, President Obama said something that was actually spot-on correct.

On Monday, he said, “There are still some differences between Democrats and Republicans, but what we can’t do is let very modest differences get in the way of the overall package moving forward swiftly.”

Sad, but true.

These days, the differences between Democrats and Republicans are, at best, modest.


Update: February 4, 2009 9:18 AM

When this piece was first posted, I originally wrote :

If this were a petition to that effect, there’d also be a ton of enraged environmentalists, because a whole lot of trees would lose their lives to create the parchment needed to accommodate the signatures.

Within a few minutes, I changed the word “parchment” to “paper” when it was pointed out by a blogger at Free called Durus that paper comes from trees. Parchment is obviously created from animal skin.

I’m admittedly obtuse at times, but not that obtuse.

Here’s what happened.

Before actually publishing this article, I had written

” … there’d be a ton of enraged PETA members, because a whole lot of goats would lose their lives to create the parchment needed to accommodate the signatures.”

I decided to replace “goats” with “trees” and “PETA” with “environmentalists.” I neglected, however, to replace the word “parchment” with “paper.”

So be it.

Posted in Big Government, Conservatism, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 31, 2009

There’s more?

If this country had a dollar for every “new” financial plan President Obama has proposed, we’d be talking about the national debt in the past tense. The latest and greatest messianic initiative, announced today by the President, will somehow lower American mortgage costs and get America’s credit juices flowing again, blah, blah, blah.

There is, however, one little problem with it.

It doesn’t exist yet.

There was no actual plan released today … just a plan to announce the official plan sometime soon.

At least that’s the plan.

Said the President in today’s weekly radio address:

Soon my Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, will announce a new strategy for reviving our financial system that gets credit flowing to businesses and families. We’ll help lower mortgage costs and extend loans to small businesses so they can create jobs.

There is no official timetable for the plan’s release, but according to a Reuters story, “His chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said on Friday that the White House would hold meetings next week about financial industry regulation.”

Who’d have guessed. More government intrusion.

The President also made this remarkable statement:

“Americans know that our economic recovery will take years — not months, but they will have little patience if we allow politics to get in the way of action, and our economy continues to slide.”

That the recovery will take time is no surprise to anyone. That it will take longer – far longer than it needs to – because of government meddling is something nugatory to Obamacrats across the board.

But to possess the chutzpah to suggest that his administration is not going to allow politics to get in the way of action is like saying the United States is committed to winning the War on Terror, as long as we don’t make the enemy too mad and  don’t use too many guns and bombs and stuff (because they’re destructive).

Who exactly is the President kidding?

Was it not President Obama who said “I Won” as a response to Republican Jon Kyl who questioned the contents of the Obama-Nation Abomination stimulus package?

Was it not Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who said “Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election.”

And exactly how is telling American citizens that they need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh a non-partisan act?

Just asking.

And as long as I’m there, what, pray tell, is this rabid obsession with doing away with partisanship? (Perhaps the better question is: Am I surprised that Democrats want to do away with anti-Obama dissention?) Why exactly is standing up for core principals a negative thing? When, on matters of finance, foreign policy and social programs has “divisiveness” not existed? Why is it so difficult for Dems to admit that they, like their Republican counterparts, politicize?

So what?

I expect nothing less from politicians.

Remember, that when anyone, on any side of the aisle, speaks of fostering unity, it simply means that they wish for everyone to think as they do.

Again, so what?

I am a firm, unabashed conservative. I’d love it if more people thought as I do. I admit it.

Being one doesn’t render me – or anyone else – incapable of thinking clearly or ascertaining the “other side” of any argument. 

To the contrary, conservatives in America are bombarded constantly with liberal positions and viewpoints far more than liberals are made to face and confront conservative positions. We are exposed to far more liberal ideas and concepts on an everyday basis then the other way around. Indeed, it is almost reflexive – inborn, if you will – for today’s conservative to have to develop the ability to define and debate their positions on demand. Liberals, after all, believe their positions are in the American mainstream. 


As soon as conservatives get any kind of foothold in academia, motion pictures, popular music, television, newspapers and advertising, drop me a line. We’ll talk about it.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 30, 2009

yes we canThe only thing I might have done differently during President Obama’s campaign drive for the White House is expand the campaign slogan to include three additional words: “…Screw Up America.”

They’re ahead of schedule.

Change has, indeed, descended upon Washington – just like the new President of the United States promised. In that sense, he has been true to his word. Otherwise, with all due respect, the President – only ten days into his “Yes We Can” makeover of the country – has lied to the United States.

I assure you, I do not use that word lightly. This is not “Bush Lied, People Died” bumper sticker twaddle. (More on this in a moment).

If George W. Bush’s anti-conservative approach to spending could be characterized as a nagging cough, Barack Obama’s spendulous plan is Stage Three Pancreatic Cancer.

And now, as Charles Hurt’s Inside Washington column explains, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is about to rest in pieces – blown apart by this Obamacratic spending disaster.

Deep within the language of the spending bill – on Page 354, Section 2101 – is an interesting choice of phrasing – five little words, as Mr. Hurt points out – that “could drastically undo two decades of welfare reforms.”

Those words?

Such sums as are necessary” … as in: “Out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated such sums as are necessary for payment to the Emergency Fund.

In short, from the Treasury, there will be unlimited money available to the “Emergency Fund.”

The “Emergency Fund” is the well from which welfare payments are distributed to the states.

I’ve got to hand it the President. That is what you call change.

As Mr. Hurt writes:

The very heart of the widely applauded Welfare Reform Act of 1996 is a cap on the amount of federal cash that can be sent to states each year for welfare payments.

But, thanks to the simple phrase slipped into the legislation, the new “stimulus” bill abolishes the limits on the amount of federal money for the so-called Emergency Fund, which ships welfare cash to states.

“This re-establishes the welfare state and creates dependency all over the place,” said one startled budget analyst after reading the line.

In addition to reopening the floodgates of dependency on federal welfare programs, the change once again deepens the dependency of state governments on the federal government.

President Obama won on promises of changing the way Washington works.

Which brings me to my charge – and a serious one – about the President lying.

Back on January 6th, a full two-weeks before he took a botched Oath of Office – when he was still Secretary of the Office of President-Elect – Obama told reporters that his recovery plan and stimulus package would set a “new higher standard of accountability, transparency and oversight. We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert projects without review. We’re not having earmarks in the recovery package. Period.”

That, my fellow Americans, is a bold-face, empirically provable, substantively verifiable lie.

An earmark is not defined by the process by which individual pet projects are inserted into a spending bill. (Clever attempt there, Bam). It is, rather, defined as the provision itself that “directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.” The process of creating this catostrophically bloated spending bill may have been void of individual insertions, as Obama alluded to, but by any measure it is loaded – by definition – with earmarks.

At the great “Indy Mind” website, Arkady writes:

Only if you were to consider billions of dollars going to non-profit groups like ACORN, hundreds of millions to buy new government vehicles, millions for global warming research, millions for digital tv conversion subsidies, billions to upgrade federal buildings, millions for clearing out water pollution and a slew of other items as NON-pork. Technically speaking individual members did not insert projects without review, so yeah, I guess there are no earmarks.

How exactly does sending out analogue-to-digital TV converters stimulate anything?

President Bush was raked over the coals – and rightly so – for his reckless spending. Now it makes more sense why Obama wants to do away with coal.

So, yes … change is in the air. Without question, the differences between this administration and the previous one are glaring – just as Obama said it would be.

Obama is different from Bush.

For one, Obama is a liar.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2009

money_treeI wish conservatism would have been shaken from its sleep when  it counted. I wish we would have seen more of it throughout 2008.

Because we didn’t, we now have a brand new reality to contend with.

Yes, Obama’s stimulus package passed the House of Representatives, but Republicans proved – finally – that they are capable of locating and listening to the little conservative voices that have been (for quite a while) bound and gagged within them. They showed the world – at least for now – that they have the capacity to take inventory of their spines and stand up for something other than the collective o-gasm that has blanketed the country since The One won.

Each and every House Republican who voted yesterday – along with eleven Democrats – voted against President Obama’s $819 Billion stimulus package – The Pork Salad Bammy Government Expansion and Spending Bonanza.

Good for them.

The final vote was 244 to 188.

Why is this so important?

Because Democrats, who easily have the numbers needed to float this bill through both houses of Congress, know that they’ll need Republican votes to help absorb some of the blame if (when) this massive spending bill hits the fan as a bona-fide failure – which it will. Obmacrats know that with bi-partisan cover, the political sting of a disastrous “stimulus” washout will be easier to take.

Why else cuddle up to and tickle toes with Republicans?

After all, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reminded the world, they won and they wrote the bill. There wasn’t a damned thing “bi-partisan” about it.

Perfect. I invite them to take full responsibility for it.

Michelle Malkin writes at her blog that it was great day for conservatism.

Thank you, GOP.

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

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

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

That the bill passed the House is a defeat for this country. Let’s not forget that. The staggering amount of irresponsible, unnecessary, pork-barrel crap shoved into this thing is beyond disgusting. This is expressly one of those moments – and there so many of them lately – that I wanted – nay, prayed for – the President to fail.

He didn’t.

When this financial monstrosity passes the Senate – and it will – the only thing to salvage will be conservatism itself.  Anything less than a repeat of what Republicans did in the House will be unacceptable.

Can there be any doubt that given the situation, with Democrats in full control of everything, that the best thing Republicans can do is allow the entire weight of this spending frenzy to rest on the shoulders of the Savior and his minions?

Players must play the hand they’re dealt, and even with a guaranteed losing hand in this particular game, this is still the Republicans’ power play.

Make it count.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Conservatism, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »