Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘stimulus bill’

REVELATION: BAM IS A PARTISAN. BAM NOT UP TO THE TASK.

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 »

WHY NOT A CENSUS EVERY YEAR?

Posted by Andrew Roman on June 4, 2010

And just think … ObamaCare hasn’t even taken effect yet. And the Bush tax don’t expire until after this year.

If the economy continues to improve like this, we ought to reach “sick” by Christmas.  Lucky us, the Messianic Age will be shifting into overdrive soon.

The “good” news, as peddled from the top, is: Unemployment is down (from 9.9% to 9.7%) and over 430,000 new jobs hit the books in May.

But numbers can be very deceptive.

Many Americans have simply given up looking for work all across Obamanation; And of the 431,000 jobs created, a little more than 90% of them were government census jobs.

Only 41,000 private sector jobs were created in May – about 150,000 less than expected.

The President, in Maryland (on his way to Louisiana), spewed optimistic: “This is the fifth month in a row that we’ve seen job gains. And while we recognize that the recovery is still in its early stages, and that there are going to be ups and downs in the months ahead – things never go in a completely smooth line – this report is a sign that our economy is getting stronger by the day.”

If he wants to see a “smooth line,” he ought to look at his poll numbers.

The President believes the economy is getting stronger by the day, but in May, private sector job growth dropped by 81% from the previous month. 

I’d hate to see what “getting worse” looks like.

The sad fact is that the temporary census-taker jobs responsible for Obama’s “stronger economy” were literally unproductive. Nothing was created. The economy was not made stronger by paying temporary government workers to count people. Taking private money out of the economy and (in effect) redistributing it to government employees has stimulated nothing.

The creation of government jobs is never – repeat never – an indication of how well the economy is doing. How can it be? Private businesses haven’t the ability to print money. Private businesses haven’t the ability to expand the tax burden on the rest of us. With each government job created, that’s more private sector money being removed from the economy. While the private sector has the ability to create genuine wealth, the government only has the ability to confiscate and redistribute it.

That’s what the Obama Stimulus Bill was all about: creating government jobs.

Note to the President: Why not have a census every year? We’ll be down to 8.5% unemployment quicker than you can say, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”
wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Unemployment | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

PULLING A BIDEN

Posted by Andrew Roman on March 2, 2010

Language evolves.

The meanings of words change over time. New words find their way into the American lexicon, while others fade away into the recesses of classic literature and old celluloid. Some words that started out as slang can become “normalized” and stick around for a long time. Others have a short shelf life.

For instance, the word “cool” seems to transcend time – “that’s cool” – while others, such as “groovy” and “swell,” are prisoners of their time.

Then there are instances when a word becomes part of the language because of an obvious void. Sometimes specificity is needed.

Let’s look at the word “lie” for a moment.

Knowingly telling a falsehood with the intent to deceive is a lie.  Most everyone knows that.

Most also know that not all lies are equal.

For instance, there are necessary, peace-keeping kind of lies:

-Concerned Wife: Honey, does this shirt make me look fat?

-Harrowed Husband: No, dear. Not at all.

Then there are the more egregious, “Do you really think we’re that dumb” type of lies:

Lying President: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Then there’s the Vice President Joe Biden kind of lie – a special kind of deceit in a category all its own, worthy of its own word. You might call it the “Sky isn’t blue, although it’s obviously blue if you just look at it” lie.

Soon, it will be known as pulling a “biden.”

When one asserts a falsehood that is obviously untrue – provably untrue – and he or she knows it’s not true, but says it is anyway, and does so because there is no other way to make a point that otherwise cannot be made by sane human beings without ingesting fairy dust, and those who are witness to the lie stand there dumbfounded, gaping, wondering why the padded trucks have not yet arrived, and no one is really taking him or her seriously anyway – kind of like that crazy Uncle who only visits at Thanksgiving and wants to talk to you about his mucus buildup – one is said to be pulling a “biden.”

Joe Biden, indeed, pulled a classic “biden” in Orlando, Florida yesterday, talking about what he perceived as the grand successes of President Barack Obama’s year-old Recovery Act – a.k.a, the Stimulus Bill, a.k.a. steaming crap – saying, “There’s no economist now that says the Recovery Act hasn’t created or saved at least two million jobs.”

Not one, says the Vice President.

Anywhere.

Every economist on the face of planet earth says that the Obama Spendulous Bill has created or saved two million jobs.

Every economist.

And the math is simple, according to Joe:

“When you lose eight million jobs in this Great Recession, and you keep it from being ten, that’s no solace to the eight million who don’t have a job, man.”

In other words, if not for Obama, ten million jobs would have been lost, instead of eight … hence, two million saved or created.

Simple.

This is another way of pulling a “biden” – saying something that cannot be disproven because the premise on which the assertion is made is completely made up, but otherwise sounds pretty cool to a crowd full of libs. (Remember, the word “cool” transcends time).

Using the Biden method – or being “bidonian” – I can say, for instance, I “saved” my wife’s job because I didn’t send in a letter to her supervisor threatening his life and signing her name to it. Because of my inaction, she’s still employed. In essence, I saved her job by doing nothing – which is precisely what the Stimulus Bill did … nothing.

It’s all very bidenesque.

But I can’t help but wonder … since the criteria for what constitutes a “saved” or “created” job is so jumbled, ill-defined and convoluted, why didn’t the Veep claim that three million jobs were saved? Or five million? What’s the difference anymore?

I ask the same kind of question when it comes to the minimum wage. Why not make it $15 an hour? Or $25? Or $100?

As far as my original point is concerned, please note that the word “biden” can be used as a noun: He’s pulling a biden.  Did you catch the biden that came out of his mouth yesterday?

It can be used as a verb: She’s gonna biden her Dad about the scratch on the car.

It’ll work as an adjective: That speech was very biden.

It’ll even fly as an adverb:  The governor is bidenly effective.

It’s also a joke – as in, “Joe Biden is ourVice President.”

Incidentally, in the spirit of openness and hospitality, I offer these to Vice President Joe Biden:  Dan Mitchell, J.D. Foster and Lawrence Katz, among many many others.

… three very well-known economists who don’t subscribe to the two million jobs fairy tale.

You’re welcome, Joe.

—————————-

H/T – Hot Air Pundit, via Weasel Zippers.

Posted in Economy, Joe Biden, stimulus bill | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

IT’S BEEN A PORKTABULOUS YEAR

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 18, 2010

However you chose to commemorate the one year anniversary of the passage of Barack Obama’s $787 billion porkulus package yesterday – a dinner party with friends, a bowling night, an appendectomy – my hope is that you were afforded the opportunity to stroll down Stimulus Lane and relive some of the magic of the last twelve months. My wish is that you were able to get a true sense of how your hard-earned tax dollars were appropriated and put to work for the good of the country. My desire is that you were able to see for yourself that not an electron of waste nor a morsel of pork – according to the President – can be attributed to his almost one-trillion dollar spendulous extravaganza.

So, how exactly did you spend your Recovery Act Commemoration Day?

Assuming your festivities began with the President’s reaffirmation of its unparalleled success in rescuing the American economy from the ruinous Bush regime – and saving twenty billion jobs and keeping unemployment below twenty percent – I can only assume that you and yours must have pitched one hell of a wang dang doodle.

Personally, I ate pasta salad and snaked the bathroom sink.

How the President’s approval rating ever dipped below 72% is beyond me.

Of course, Senate Republicans – in their never-ending crusade to discredit the otherwise all-feeling, all-knowing, ever-compassionate Barry-O – continue to stop at nothing to portray the stimulus bill as an abject failure and a colossal waste of taxpayer money.

Bastards.

At the Republican.Senate.Gov blog, a list (complete with links) has been compiled highlighting some of the more “stimulating” aspects of the Obama’s porktabulous spend-a-thon.

Along with such economy-saving initiatives as sending $250 stimulus checks to prisoners, funding the construction of a turtle tunnel in Florida, and putting money aside to study cactus bug sex, these tasty projects made the list:

$219,000 TO STUDY THE SEX LIVES OF FEMALE COLLEGE FRESHMEN:
“Five hundred Syracuse University freshmen will divulge the details of their sex lives as part of a women’s health study called ‘The Women’s Health Project,’ being conducted by Michael Carey, SU professor of psychology and medicine. Carey has found himself the target of nationwide criticism from conservatives since he received $219,000 in stimulus funds for the study, which looks at the sex patterns of college women.”

$15,551 TO STUDY DRUNK MICE:
“The Rodent Study At Florida Atlantic University In Boca Raton Used $15,551 In Stimulus Funds To Pay For Two Summer Researchers To Help Gauge How Alcohol Affects A Mouse’s Motor Functions.”

$1 MILLION TO STUDY ANTS:
“Half A Million Dollars Went To Arizona State University To Study The Genetic Makeup Of Ants To Determine Distinctive Roles In Ant Colonies; $450,000 Went To The University Of Arizona To Study The Division Of Labor In Ant Colonies.”

$500,000 TO STUDY “SOCIAL NETWORKS LIKE FACEBOOK”:
“A $498,000, Three-Year Grant” To Study “Social Networks Like Facebook.” “Millions of Internet users have been enjoying the fun — and free — services provided by advertiser-supported online social networks like Facebook. But Landon Cox, a Duke University assistant professor of computer science, worries about the possible down side — privacy problems. … To delve deeper into these issues and begin the search for alternatives, Cox recently won a $498,000, three-year grant from the National Science Foundation.”

$54 MILLION IN STIMULUS FUNDS USED FOR THE NAPA VALLEY WINE TRAIN:
JONATHAN KARL, ABC News: “The Napa Valley Wine Train, To Tourists A Great Way To See America’s Most Celebrated Wine Region, To Others Exhibit A In What’s Wrong With The Stimulus.” SEN. TOM COBURN: “What that is, is a situation where you see the wealthy or well connected get taken care of and the community suffers.” KARL: “He’s talking about the Napa Valley wine train relocation project, 54 million stimulus dollars to build a new rail bridge, elevate and relocate 3,300 ft of tracks and put flood walls around the train’s main station.”

You can imagine that as a New York Mets fan, I am simply thrilled to know my tax dollars are also helping to pay for a spring training baseball complex for both the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Colorado Rockies.

And a pox upon me for neglecting to mention the removal of cracks and potholes in Montana tennis courts – as pork-free as any recession-busting, economic recovery project can get.

As is the study of honeybees.

Or the study of malt liquor and marijuana consumption.

And just think … not all of the stimulus money has yet been spent.

Just wait until they get to studying the effects of crushed ice on nasal mucus, and the long term ramifications of neglected toe jam.

Happy Birthday, Trillion-Dollar Excrement-Fest!

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, stimulus bill | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

SAY IT ENOUGH TIMES … POOF! IT’S TRUE!

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 3, 2010

Rosie O’Donnell is America’s favorite pinup girl. Al Sharpton really does care about justice for all. Nancy Pelosi is the nation’s most trusted politician. Barack Obama doesn’t believe in big government.

How many times would you have to read those lines before you started believing they were true? Most of you would sooner shove a serrated ice pick into your retina.

Still, there comes a point – for some – when sheer repetition trumps reality. There is a time when repeating something over and over becomes so familiar to those within earshot that it is simply accepted or believed.

Take our President, for example.

Whatever land he is living in must currently be cracking down, because the rational are being detained at the border.

Once again, Bammy is talking up the success of his stimulus bill, going on about how many jobs have been “saved” or “created.” Once again, the President is repeating something that is, at the very least, impossible to substantiate, and at most, a catastrophic fraud.

In his case, reality has already been trumped.

Jake Tapper from ABC News writes:

President Obama veered off script – and away from the facts – when he spoke about the stimulus bill today in Nashua, NH.

“Now, if you hear some of the critics, they’ll say, well, the Recovery Act, I don’t know if that’s really worked, because we still have high unemployment,” the president said. “But what they fail to understand is that every economist, from the left and the right, has said, because of the Recovery Act, what we’ve started to see is at least a couple of million jobs that have either been created or would have been lost. The problem is, 7 million jobs were lost during the course of this recession.”

Um, it’s not true that “every economist” has said the Recovery Act has saved or created two million jobs.

What have some of them said?

The chair of his Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer wrote last month that “The CEA estimates that as of the fourth quarter of 2009, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by 1½ to 2 million.”

In her blog she wrote “approximately 2 million people are employed who otherwise would not be, because of the Act.”

At the end of November, Congressional Budget office Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote that because of the stimulus bill “in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States..”

But clearly other economists are much more skeptical, including Dan Mitchell at the libertarian Cato Institute, and J.D. Foster at The Heritage Foundation.

Some economists say the whole notion of counting “saved or created” jobs is impossible. Harvard University labor economist Lawrence Katz told ProPublica that trying to count how many jobs have been saved or created is “a silly exercise.”

And in fact, in December the Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag issued a directive scrapping the whole “saved or created” construct.

So, there are no economists anywhere who have not bought into this hogwash?

None?

Just like there are no scientists who refute the perils of man-made global warming?

The same thinking that has me wondering why anyone would trust the government to handle health care reform when they couldn’t handle already existing government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, also has me asking why anyone in their right mind would trust anything the administration is saying about jobs being “saved” when they had such a perplexing time making sure that the districts receiving stimulus cash actually existed.

The entire stimulus recovery angle is a myth – much like the “climate change” hoax, or the “most transparent administration in history” garbage.

There are endless stories out there on how the “saved” and “created” criteria were painfully flawed.

Recall that entire zip codes didn’t exist, yet jobs were miraculously created or saved there.

Also keep in mind that the vast majority of these “saved jobs” were government jobs, so the entire premise, even if true, is misleading.

And yet, the President and his chums will keep saying “two million jobs” over and over again until it morphs into conventional wisdom. With bed fellows like the mainstream media, it’s only a matter of time before two million becomes two-and-a-half million. Then, it’ll be rounded up to three million. Before July 4th, the President will have saved or created twenty-eight million new jobs. The only reason there will be any unemployed at that point will be the fault of George W. Bush.

It’ll be repeated so often, it will become “true.”

Well, not here.

It’s all a crock of boiling excrement.

Period.

wordpress statistics

Posted in stimulus bill | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

PUBLIC-SECTOR JOBS … IT’S GETTING BETTER ALL THE TIME!

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 Forbes.com, 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. 

Congratulations! 

Under President Obama, we’ve made it

wordpress statistics 

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

BUT 87258 DOESN’T EXIST … OR 86705 …

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 4, 2010

Children make up imaginary friends. Students make up stories of how their homework somehow didn’t make it to class with them. Husbands make up excuses why they stayed out late. Democrats make up zip codes.

Zip codes.

Just when you thought the limits of Obamacratic creativity may have been reached – after all, how is it possible to top midnight Senate votes on an unread two-thousand page piece of health care legislation – the federal government once again raises the bar. Without question, there is nothing quite so cutting-edge as making up congressional districts out of whole cloth for the sake of proving how wildly successful the Obama stimulus bill is. It is the height of innovation in manipulation and deceit.

But making up entire zip codes is beyond ingenious.

This is better than a B+.

Sometimes, you simply have to step back and bow to the masters. (Just pretend they’re the King of Saudi Arabia or the Emperor of Japan).

Jim Scarantino from New Mexico Watchdog writes:

Closer examination of the latest recovery.gov report for New Mexico shows hundreds of thousands of dollars sent to and credited with creating jobs in zip codes that do not exist in New Mexico or anywhere else. Moreover, funds reported as being spent in New Mexico were given zip codes corresponding to areas in Washington and Oregon.

The recovery.gov site reports that $373,874 was spent in zip code 97052. Unfortunately, this expenditure created zip jobs. But $36,218 was credited with creating 5 jobs in zip code 87258. A cool hundred grand went into zip code 86705, but didn’t result in even one person finding work.

None of these zip codes exist in New Mexico, or anywhere else, for that matter.

The recovery.gov report also credits New Mexico with $131,139, though the zip codes receiving these funds (but creating no jobs) are in fact located in DuPont, Washington, Richland, Washington, and Gales Creek, Oregon.

Sure, the President can make up new definitions for the word “earmark,” and Vice President Joe Biden can make up little universes where his cognitions make sense, but banging out new zip codes is something that must be savored to be fully appreciated.

And just think … these are the people that want to control your health care.

All together now … especially the libs in the back …

Hope and change is what I see!
Hope and change, transparency!
Hope and change, aren’t you glad?
Hope and change, we’ve all been had.

Some of you aren’t singing.

wordpress statistics

Posted in stimulus bill | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

JOBS ARE A SIDE ISSUE – THAT’S WHY OBAMA IS FOCUSING ON JOBS

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 19, 2009

For sheer incoherence, this may very well be on par with “I was for it before I was against it,” although not nearly as quotable. However, for the unrivaled capacity to redefine things at will, the award has to go to Barack H. Obama, Chief Executive.

No one else is even in his league.

He may certainly be the best sounding fertilizer peddler since Barney Frank on peanut butter, but there isn’t a soul – not even William Jefferson Clinton himself – with the hypnotizing ability to change the rules of the game on a dime as Barack Obama can.

The purpose of Obama’s Stimulus Bill, you recall, was to revitalize the economy and put Americans to work. It all sounded so divinely FDR. It is all anyone heard from clucking Obamacrats leading up to the bill’s who-did-it-and-ran passage in February – that the $787 billion dollar spending spectacular would create somewhere around 4 million jobs, and the unemployment rate would top off at around 8%, and America would finally live up to its promise because only government can save.

Blah, blah, blah.

The reality is the unemployment rate has been steadily rising and currently stands at over 10%. The confidence of the American people is plummeting. And although the President continues to sing the praises of his illusory “job recovery,” there aren’t too many people buying it.

Job recoveries are hard to wrap your arms around when less people are working.

Besides, if there are any jobs being “created” or “saved” by Obama’s Spendulous Bill, the bulk of them are government sector jobs, which means taxpayer dollars are being sucked out of the economy so that they can be redistributed to others as salary.

FDR, indeed.

To top it off, the government’s assessment of the Stimulus Bill’s success has been embarrassingly incorrect. There has been job creation in non-existent districts; there have been more “jobs saved” than actually exist at given places of employment; and no one seems to be sure what the criteria is for any of it.

This is where Obama’s sheer incoherence will score him some “ah-ha” points with the mainstream media (who have been a bit worried that their savior is losing some credibility even among hardcore Obamacrats).

It turns out that all along, according to Obama, the number of jobs created wasn’t particularly relevant – a mere “side issue,” as he calls it.  Rather, job growth was his real number one priority.

See? Problem solved.

From Fox News

“I think this is an inexact science. We’re talking about a multitrillion-dollar economy that went through the worst economic crisis since 1933. The first measure of success of the economic recovery is, did we pull ourselves back from the brink? We did,” Obama said. “The question now is, can we make sure we’re accelerating job growth? That’s my No. 1 job. Nobody’s been more disappointed than I have to see how high the unemployment rate has gotten. And I spend every waking hour, when I’m talking to my economic team, about how we are going to put people back to work.”

How exactly does one track job growth without counting jobs?

Recall that last week Obama credited the Stimulus Bill for putting a million people back to work. Or for keeping them at work. Or whatever it was supposed to do. Why would the President make it a point to mention how many jobs the Stimulus Bill was responsible for if it was only a “side issue?”

What about the “multi-trillion” dollar debt poised to be left as an “Obama Was Here” calling card for countless future generations?

And I love the line about accounting being “an inexact science.”

How bleeping convenient.

Is projecting how “cost effective” and “efficient” government-run healthcare will be an inexact science too?

wordpress statistics

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

BUT WHAT IF THERE’S NO 9TH DISTRICT?

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 17, 2009

There are myths, misconceptions and fallacies peppering the American landscape that linger like holiday-season in-laws. Contrary to popular belief, Charles Manson did not audition for the Monkees television show in the 1960s; Channel “One” was not left off of VHS television set dials because it was reserved for military use; and marking “Jedi” as your religion on a census form will not force the federal government to grant it official status.

Another fable being spun regularly these days relates to the enormous, unprecedented success of Barack Obama’s all-rescuing, all envigorating Stimulus Bill, which, as of last count, has created somewhere between nine and eighteen billion new jobs in the United States.

So efficacious has the Stimulus Bill been in creating jobs that people have been actually been put to work in districts that don’t even exist.

Talk about “community organizing.”

From Rob at the great Say Anything Blog:

Here’s a stimulus success story: In Arizona’s 9th Congressional District, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that’s what the website set up by the Obama Administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.

There’s one problem, though: There is no 9th Congressional District in Arizona; the state has only eight Congressional Districts.

There’s no 86th Congressional District in Arizona either, but the government’s recovery.gov Web site says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent there.

In fact, Recovery.gov lists hundreds of millions spent and hundreds of jobs created in Congressional districts that don’t exist.

Oh yeah, and Mikey from the Life cereal commercials of the early 1970s did not die from ingesting a deadly combination of pop rocks and soda.

However, it is absolutely true that the theme from the original Star Trek TV series did have lyrics.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Economy, stimulus bill | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

THE OBAMA MILLION-JOB-FARCE

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 13, 2009

obama jobs savedLet’s say, for instance, you brought your car to a local mechanic and ultimately wound up getting horrible service. Aside from the aggravation and frustration, you’d probably feel as if you’ve been swindled out of your hard earned money.

Now for the sake of this discussion, let’s say that a year later, despite your better judgment, you decide to give that mechanic one more try, only to have a similarly negative experience. In both instances, the customer service was dreadful and you were made to feel like an inconvenience. To top it off, you were overcharged and made to wait far longer than you should have.

Would you ever go back?

How about an accounting firm charged with balancing the books for your small business? Let’s say for three years running, the firm had so mismanaged your ledgers – and ultimately your tax returns – that the IRS decided to audit you.

Do you stick with them, figuring the fourth year to be the one where everything will finally be set right?

Or do you kick them to the curb (which you probably should have done two years ago)?

And what about the federal government?

Let’s say they passed into law a $787 billion Stimulus bill that was supposed to, by definition, “stimulate” economic growth by creating as many as 3.7 million new jobs across the country. And let’s say after nine months or so, with only a percentage of the money “infused” into the economy, the federal government started claiming that their hyper-spending was working – that the money they “invested” in America was saving or creating a whole lot of jobs, just as promised.

And let’s say not too long after the federal government made such a claim, news reports started coming out refuting those government assertions as being “wildly exaggerated.”

Not “marginally incorrect.”

Not “inappreciably erroneous.”

Not “slightly off.”

But “wildly exaggerated.”

And let’s say that during this time period, unemployment figures were still on the rise.

And let’s say those miscalculations by the federal government were only one in a long line of grossly inaccurate claims made by them, ultimately costing the taxpayers trillions of dollars, creating an endless labyrinth of government bureaucracy, and rewarding inefficiency with more of the people’s hard earned money.

Would you then feel confident enough to trust them to run your health care delivery system?

(Keep in mind that the current government-run health delivery systems – Medicare and Medicaid – have been disgustingly mismanaged by the same federal government).

On one hand, President Barack Obama is now claiming that his Spendulous Bill has saved or created one million jobs. One million jobs. All the while, the unemployment rate is as high as it’s been in one-quarter century … and rising.

On the other, the Boston Globe – not exactly a buttress of conservatism – says that the messianic claims being peddled by Bammy, at least in Massachusetts, are “wildly exaggerated.”

While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.

One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was “almost nothing.’’

In other cases, federal money that recipients already receive annually – subsidies for affordable housing, for example – was reclassified this year as stimulus spending, and the existing jobs already supported by those programs were credited to stimulus spending.

“There were no jobs created. It was just shuffling around of the funds,’’ said Susan Kelly, director of property management for Boston Land Co., which reported retaining 26 jobs with $2.7 million in rental subsidies for its affordable housing developments in Waltham. “It’s hard to figure out if you did the paperwork right. We never asked for this.”

Other examples from across the country illustrating the fairy-tale that is the Obama Million-Job-Farce include two Colorado child development centers that reported saving or creating 292 jobs. In actuality, the vast majority of the money was used to give cost-of-living raises. In all, only three new jobs were created.

Stimulus Package VermontIn Washington, 34,500 jobs were supposedly saved or created – 24,000 of which were teaching positions. Stimulus money was used to cover paychecks, hence the claim of having “saved” the jobs. Unfortunately for the Bammy-Number-Crunching Machine, none of those jobs were in danger of going away because the money needed to cover those salaries would have come out of the state general fund. Those teachers were already contracted to finish the school year.

In Danville, Virginia, $35,000 is said to have created or saved 50 jobs. That’s quite a claim. In truth, the money didn’t create a single job – nor did it save any – but it did improve fifty already existing jobs. It went for raises, training, and playground repair.

In the Columbus, Ohio School District, where 36 school administrators were supposedly on the brink of being laid off, it turns out that no one was on the brink of being let go. There were only two options for officials to choose from on the form they were required to fill out for receiving stimulus money: “created” or “saved.” Since the jobs already existed, the only choice left was “saved.”

Stimulus money is said to have saved the jobs of 473 teachers in North Chicago. Unfortunately, the district only employs 290 teachers.

As talk show host Mark Levin said on his radio program yesterday, if Barack Obama were on the witness stand and made the million jobs claim under oath, he’d be a perjurer.

And yet, the federal government will somehow suddenly get it right and be trusted to manage the health care needs of Americans.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Obama Bonehead, politics, stimulus bill | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

OBAMACRATIC MATH

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 4, 2009

obama calculatorPresident Barack Obama and his party may have taken it on the chin last evening, but when it comes to defying the laws of science (i.e., walking on the water), and defying the tenets of reason (i.e., health care costs will not go up despite adding tens of millions to the insurance rolls), no one can touch him.

Add to that list, his ability to defy the laws of mathematics.

I admit to not knowing much about the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council. It doesn’t come up in conversation much here in New York City’s forgotten borough, Staten Island – although my Big Apple tax dollars are being funneled that way, so perhaps I should pay better attention.

A quick look at their website reveals that they are an “advocate for the poor since 1965.” Their mission statement says, in part, that they are “making the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 a reality in Southwest Georgia by helping socially and economically disadvantaged persons help themselves through a variety of programs.”

Good for them.

For those keeping score at home, there are a total of 508 people employed by the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council

That’s 508 total jobs.

But thanks to President Obama’s magical, all-healing, all-curing, all-saving $787 Stimulus Package, a total of 935 jobs were saved there.

That’s 935 jobs.

Yes, President Obama somehow saved 427 more jobs than actually exist at the Southwest Georgia Community Action Council.

Now that is success.

I know there is no Nobel Prize for Mathematics, but there needs to be one.

Brett J. Blackledge and Matt Apuzzo of the Associated Press write:

The Georgia nonprofit’s inflated job count is among persisting errors in the government’s latest effort to measure the effect of the $787 billion stimulus plan despite White House promises last week that the new data would undergo an “extensive review” to root out errors discovered in an earlier report.

About two-thirds of the 14,506 jobs claimed to be saved under one federal office, the Administration for Children and Families at Health and Human Services, actually weren’t saved at all, according to a review of the latest data by The Associated Press. Instead, that figure includes more than 9,300 existing employees in hundreds of local agencies who received pay raises and benefits and whose jobs weren’t saved.

That type of accounting was found in an earlier AP review of stimulus jobs, which the Obama administration said was misleading because most of the government’s job-counting errors were being fixed in the new data.

The administration now acknowledges overcounting in the new numbers for the HHS program. Elizabeth Oxhorn, a spokeswoman for the White House recovery office, said the Obama administration was reviewing the Head Start data “to determine how and if it will be counted.”

But officials defended the practice of counting raises as saved jobs.

“If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job,” HHS spokesman Luis Rosero said.

Huh?

I didn’t realize that giving someone a raise qualifies as having saved that job. Is that the same accounting technique that counts someone who may have been out of work for even one day as being included among the millions who have no health care insurance? Or those who smoked cigarettes for even six months as a teenager as being included among those who died from cigarettes?

And what does a “portion of your job” mean?

I’m confused.

Did the Stimulus Plan only save fractions of jobs? And if so, wouldn’t that mean that there were actually more than 935 jobs to begin with that enabled a total of 953 jobs to be saved in a place that really only employs 508?

And what if someone didn’t get a raise, but remained employed. That doesn’t count as a “saved job”?

We should ask President Obama. He’ll know what to do.
wordpress statistics

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

STIMULUS CRAP

Posted by Andrew Roman on October 29, 2009

stimulus package hatHow about that?

The economy grew by 3.5% during the third quarter. Needless to say, it was unexpected by “experts.”

Yahoo News went so far as to say that the recession was over.

Happy days must be here again.

I would advise, however, that before anyone starts wetting their inseams with glee, a little perspective is in order.

Think of a restless boy on a dose of Ritalin. As the drugged child settles down and begins his excursion into the cognitive abyss, the doctor walks by to see the “out of control” lad pacified at last. He’s quiet now – in that just-recently-lobotomized sort of way. He still needs tending to, but things are finally calm. The doctor also sees a frazzled parent slumped back in the chair, relieved to finally find a few moments peace. The “Leave It to Beaver” theme plays in the parent’s head.

As heart rates decrease and tensions abate, both doctor and parent arrive at the same conclusions: Ritalin, good. Peace, good. Rambunctious boy, bad.

And the long term effects of the dope-instead-of-parenting approach?

Who cares?

As long as it’s quiet.

This, my dear readers, in a nutshell, is a good place to start when trying to understand the Obama economy – drugged and artificial.

Here’s the bottom line … despite the orgasmic reports of an economic third quarter that has put to bed the worst recession in seventy-years (which only a few days ago, according to Joe Biden, was a full-fledged depression), the reality is, this is no recovery. This is not the beginning of a long term trend based on investment and genuine growth. Rather, it is the temporary result of an infusion of the drug known as government intervention. Take away the Cash-for-Clunkers program and the Homebuyer Tax Credit – fleeting “fixes” that spurred temporary consumer activity – and all that’s left is an absolute failure of a stimulus program that increases nothing except the tax burden for generations to come. In other words, when the Ritalin wears off, the child will be out of control again.

These moronic lefty contrivances are not genuine economic stimulators. Obama’s gargantuan deficits will not encourage private-sector investment. The President’s “there-isn’t-a-tax-I don’t-love” approach will not promote economic growth. His “to-hell-with-the-free-market” modus operandi will never stimulate a damn thing.

And exactly what proof is there that Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package – which, incidentally, has only been 20% implemented, and most of that in non-stimulating capacities – had anything to do with the so-called recovery? Because Joe Biden said so? (Remember, this was a depression not too long ago) Because the state-level recipients, who wouldn’t dare levy a negative word at the money-givers, said so?

This morning, on her nationally syndicated radio program, Laura Ingraham spoke with former Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin:

Ingraham: (The Stimulus) has been, without a doubt, exposed as a farce … We have lost jobs. They predicted three million. We now see an exodus, when you add it all up, of six-and-a-half million jobs from the United States.

Holtz-Eakin: And remember, when it became obvious that this was not going to work, they invented a new term – “jobs saved” – something that has, literally, no foundation in fact, and (can) never be verified, in order to sell (the success of the Stimulus).

“Jobs saved” is just as easy to verify as “souls saved.” I mean, there is just no way to do this.

And then there’s this …

According to the Associated Press, the Obama administration’s “economic recovery plan overstates by thousands the number of jobs created or saved through the stimulus program, a mistake that White House officials promise will be corrected in future reports.”

The government’s first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.

The AP review found some counts were more than 10 times as high as the actual number of jobs; some jobs credited to the stimulus program were counted two and sometimes more than four times; and other jobs were credited to stimulus spending when none was produced.

It is interesting to note that the CBO let out its economic soothsayers back in February, predicting that by the end of this year, we’d see some kind of economic recovery even if Obama and the Cats did absolutely nothing. They also pointed out that all the debt that will result from Obama’s astronomical spending spree could trigger a re-recession – or a double-dip recession – when the bills come due.

It’s pretty easy to grasp.

Government spending does not create economic growth. It would seem to be self-evident seeing as the government gets its money from the private sector through taxation. This is so basic that “one-plus-one-is-two” is labyrinthine in comparison.

Perhaps someone ought to slip some Ritalin into the Congressional water cooler.

Incidentally, isn’t it a delicous coincidence that the “worst recession since the Great Depression” would come to an end on the 80th anniversary of the event that is considered to have triggered the Great Dpression itself – the Stock Market crash of 1929?
wordpress statistics

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

JOEY B THE ANECDOTE MACHINE

Posted by Andrew Roman on May 14, 2009

yo joe

yo joe

That Vice President Joe Biden can bend reality into shapes that have yet to be defined – with seemingly no effort whatsoever – is something many of us should watch closely and appreciate. It truly is fascinating to watch. He compels us to pay attention to him – like a car wreck or a streaker. Even the Clintons, at their best, take the place and show positions behind Joe when he’s being Joe.

The Associated Press – no bastion of conservative pom-pom pumpers – is reporting that The Vice President’s assessment of how President Obama’s spendulous package is working isn’t exactly accurate.

Shocked?

Biden released his first quarterly report on the Obamacratic spending extravaganza earlier this week, and rather than compile actual data to formulate an accurate assessment, Joe went selectively anecdotal.

How adorable.

AP’s Matt Apuzzo writes:

It is not disputed that Washington is spending historic amounts of money at a rate far faster than normal. Workers are getting tax breaks, Washington is picking up a greater share of state Medicaid costs and road construction projects are beginning.

Even Recovery.gov, the Web site that has yet to live up to its billing as a one-stop way to track every penny, offers more information than typical government programs, and faster.

But the effect of that spending is less clear. Many of the claims the White House is making are based on anecdotes selected to fit the Obama administration’s message. For instance, the report cites a newspaper article about workers being rehired at a factory in Chicago. That account is true, but is no more an accurate snapshot of the nation’s economy than a story, not cited in the report, about a Roanoke, Va., railcar factory closing.

Biden, for instance, claimed that first-time home buyers are “driving increased activity in the home sales market.” More people are being hired in the mortgage industry, according to Biden, because of the first-time home buyers tax credit in the stimulus bill.

On the surface, it sounds promising, of course … but let us not forget that this is Joe Biden. An automatic suspension of reality is in order when he is involved.

The Vice President is getting his information from anecdotes included in a New Orleans business journal, according to Matt Apuzzo. The facts show that not only have home sales gone down since February, the number of jobs in the real estate industry has dipped as well.

Big Joe also claims that employment agencies are putting more people to work since February. Again, he’s tapping into the same New Orleans business journal that supplied him with his first set of “facts.”

Apuzzo writes:

The anecdote may be true, but it’s impossible to extrapolate that any further, even just to New Orleans. The city has lost more than 200 jobs since February. Overall, Louisiana lost 16,085 jobs over the same span, according to the Department of Labor.

And the kicker – the one that employs the most obvious slight of hand (or words) – is something I’ve written about several times since the Obama annointment, namely the claim that jobs are being “saved” by the stimulus package. Specifically, the White House claims that 150,000 jobs have been saved or created since Obama’s craptacular bill became law.

Oh really?

“Saved?”

Exactly how does one measure a “saved” job? What are the criteria? Is this born of the same school of thought that says that someone who has been out of work for one day is to be counted among America’s uninsured – even if that worker gets a new job the next day with comprehensive health coverage?

I digress.

Apuzzo writes:

Since February, the nation has lost more than 1.3 million jobs, according to the Department of Labor. To make the case that the country created jobs over that same stretch, the White House has put forward a benchmark of jobs created “or saved.” The argument is that the job numbers would have been even worse had it not been for the stimulus, and the difference between those numbers is a net positive.

Recall the Obama administration’s projected “deficit cuts” over the next several years were actually calculated by first including trillions of dollars of projected war spending into each fiscal year’s budget ahead of time and then “cutting” back on that. That would be akin to my wife and I budgeting for a one million dollar car every year for the next eight years, then cutting it out of the budget and claiming that we are suddenly saving $8 million.

There are few hard numbers when it comes to tracking stimulus jobs. The Obama administration numbers are based on estimates by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, based largely on a formula Obama’s transition team put forward. It estimates the effect of tax breaks, government spending and social programs on job growth.

Spending money will put people to work. But spending has a cost. At some point, Washington will have to pay for this program, either by raising taxes or interest rates, and those policies typically hurt job growth. The Obama administration’s job data do not take into consideration this back-end cost, an omission some economists, particularly conservative economists, say is a flaw in the analysis.

Intellectual honesty from the Associated Press.

Take an “attaboy” out of petty cash.

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

SUICIDE BRIDGE STIMULATED

Posted by Andrew Roman on March 28, 2009

y-bridge

For a while, I was concerned that some of the tax dollars being yanked from my paycheck to help fund the $787 billion stimulus pig-meat package were going to frivolous projects. In the run up to its passage, I spent a substantial amount of time (and space) on this blog hurling invectives at the plan. I chastised, criticized, denounced, excoriated and otherwise condemned the Obama pork-o-rama stimulus bill up one side and down the other.

My mantra was “waste.”

I sang it from the rooftops.

Like so many on my side of the aisle, I pointed out and enumerated, in abundance, just how much of the Big Bam Pig Meat Plan had absolutely nothing to do with stimulus. I felt it was my duty, and I served the conservative movement well.

Sure, I scoffed as much as the next blogger at some of the things located therein.

But when I found earlier today that some of my hard-earned tax dollars would be going to help curtail suicides in Akron, Ohio, I knew I had been out of line.

After all, if I can assist in making suicidal bridge leaping that much more difficult by simply electing an over-spending, Marxist-like, pork barrel Big Cheese, I can sleep easier at night. It would bring the same kind of satisfaction as knowing that my bucks are helping to make some housing project somewhere more environmentally friendly.

Now that’s stimulus.

Priorities.

From the Ohio.com website:

One man jumped to his death off the All-America Bridge this year.

Two more used the Akron bridge — more commonly known as the Y-Bridge — to commit suicide in 2008.

Akron hopes to curtail future deaths on what has been dubbed ”Suicide Bridge” by installing a fence.

The controversial fencing — some have been pushing for it, while others think it’s a waste of money — was among the local projects the state approved Thursday for federal stimulus funds.

”It just makes a safer Akron for everybody,” said Robert Conley, who has been urging the fencing since his son, Kevin, jumped off the bridge to his death in 2006.

I don’t wish what Mr. Conley has gone through on anyone.

But let’s be serious for a moment.

Building a fence makes Akron safer for everybody? Since the beginning of 2008, three people have ended their lives by jumping off this bridge.  Indeed, I was (and still am) opposed to the Obama spendulous package. But were there no other projects that warranted more attention than this? Something that would be a benefit to more people in Akron?

I can see the e-mails now:

Roman, you cold-hearted bastard! How can you be so flip about suicide?

-You son of a bitch! Only a heartless right-wing Nazi would equate suicide with windmill powered door buzzers.

Before the Connecticut Working Families Party sends out their bus-filled harassment squads to my house, like they did to the AIG executives, let me be clear.

This is not about suicide. To be opposed to using so-called federal “stimulus” money to build a fence on a bridge where people have leapt to their deaths does not, by default, mean that one is in favor of people killing themselves. It does not mean the act is any less tragic or hurtful. It is a non sequitir. It is an intellectually dishonest argument.

What about those who take their own lives by overdosing on pills? Do we outlaw medications?

How about those who hang themselves? Do we regulate the sale of rope or other potentially neck-breaking materials?

And those who slit their wrists? Should the federal government enforce strict razor blade legislation?

Why not just close down the bridge?

As one blogger at Ohio.com put it:

WASTE OF MONEY!!!

A fence will only stop people from jumping off that bridge! What about the two others that you can see from the Y bridge???

A fence doesn’t save suicidal people….their family/friends do.

This is only about wasteful spending – and atrociously wasteful spending, at that.

This is not a federal issue.

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

TALE OF TWO QUOTES – REDEFINING “CATASTROPHE”

Posted by Andrew Roman on March 13, 2009

“A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future.”           -Barack Obama, February 4, 2009

“I’ve never bought into these Malthusian, woe, Chicken Little, the earth is falling. I tend to be pretty optimistic … I don’t think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say. Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They’re not as bad as we think they are now.”        -Barack Obama, March 12, 2009

______________________

Three quick points …

First, didn’t the President also say that a failure to act on passing the stimulus bill could mean the economy might never recover?

Second, didn’t Chicken Little say the sky was falling?

Third, if the economy turns around on the Obama watch, will he then acknowledge things just aren’t as good as they seem?

______________________

 

From the Liberal/English Dictionary entry catastrophe: 

Main Entry:

ca·tas·tro·phe

Pronunciation:

\kə-ˈtas-trə-(ˌ)fē\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Greek katastrophē, from katastrephein to overturn, from kata- + strephein to turn – confiscated by American Democrat Party for political scare mongering

Date:

1540 original, February 2009 Democrat redefine

1: no biggie <failure to act will be a catastrophe>

2: false scare <this crisis will turn into a catastrophe if left alone>

3: as expected <my Presidency is a catastrophe>

 

cat·a·stroph·ic \ˌka-tə-ˈsträ-fik\ adjective

cat·a·stroph·i·cal·ly \-fi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy, Obama's first 100 days, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BAM’S BILL HAS (SLIM) MAJORITY SUPPORT … 37% SUFFER FROM DO-SOMETHING DISEASE

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 19, 2009

pork_steaksIn a Fox News poll released today, a slim majority of Americans – 51% – support Barack Obama’s $787 billion pig meat bonanza, signed into law on Tuesday (four days after it had to be passed by Congress, lest the nation disintegrate into oblivion). The poll also says that 40% of Americans oppose it.

But here’s the kicker.

As Dana Blanton writes:

For those supporting the stimulus bill, the top reason is because it was seen as the best option and we “have to do something” (37 percent). Other main reasons include the spending included in the bill (17 percent), belief in Barack Obama and the Democrats (14 percent), and simple belief the plan will work (11 percent).

That should be astonishing to me, but it isn’t. (After watching the salivation and bootlicking adulation at Obama’s Fort Myers townhall meeting last week, nothing surprises me). 37% of Americans say that Obama’s craptacular spending bill was the best option because something – anything – had to be done. It didn’t matter what it was, apparently, just as long as something got done. The Obamacrats could have allocated billions of dollars to the study of Appalachian toe jam, or the nasal mucus eating habits of Berkeley, California city council members, and it wouldn’t have mattered, as long as something was done.

Yes, the dreaded “do something” virus, fabled in story and song.

Please note this actual e-mail exchange between myself and a liberal friend whom I will call “Dexter,” (because he doesn’t want me to use his real name, Len). My assertion in the e-mail is untrue, by the way. I was only having some fun.

Me: Have you read this thing at all? Be honest. You haven’t. Look on Page 822, Dexter. There is almost $700 million dollars being directed toward the study of “Pityriasis capitis prevention” – dandruff! Are you kidding?

Dexter: You’re a one-trick pony, my friend. Gripe, gripe. Deal with it. It’s the law. And when the economy comes around, it’ll be interesting to hear your complaints then.

Verbatim.

The idea that nearly a billion was being spent on dandruff seemed not to phase him. Only after four or five more exchanges did he realize that I was making it up, to which he wrote, “But do you disagree that medical research is a good thing at least?”

Libs.

Note that, according to the poll, less than one-fifth of Americans cited actually having any faith in the Obamacrats as their main reason for supporting the bill, while just over ten percent said they supported the measure because they actually believe it will work.

Lord, help us.

Also interesting to note is that while 58% of Americans believe some sort of legislation was necessary, almost one-fourth of them were against the plan that Obama signed into law. And better than one-half of Americans say the bill is best characterized as a “spending bill” instead of a “stimulus” bill.

Blanton also writes:

Another word about pork — or specifically “porky amendments” as New York Sen. Chuck Schumer called them when he said recently Americans “really don’t care” if the stimulus bill included earmarks and pork spending. The poll finds Americans disagree with Schumer, as a large 79 percent majority says they do care, including most Democrats (76 percent), Republicans (84 percent) and independents (78 percent).

Charles Schumer misspoke?

You don’t say.

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

THE DEMOCRAT EIGHT-DOLLAR-A-WEEK DELUSION

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 17, 2009

how can New Yorkers not be proud?

how can New Yorkers not be proud?

Spread it out, and they will spend … that’s what Democrats say.

Okay then.

I’m ready to do my part by giving this economy a good swift kick in the pants.

Let’s see … Eight dollars will almost get me a pack of cigarettes in New York City – and at some places in town, a full one. Eight bucks, however, will not be enough to get me across the Verrazano Bridge into Staten Island by car (that’s $10.00), but I would be able to take four subway rides. It’ll also score me a McDonalds double quarter-pounder value meal in Manhattan, or a week-and-a-half of New York Times home delivery at fifty percent off the regular subscription rate. For that kind of money, I can take home about a third of a pot roast, or just under two jars of Manischewitz Premium Gold Gefilte Fish.

In other words, I’d better start reworking my budget now … the Obama “tax cut” is coming to town.

To be fair, the Obama “tax cut” plan – similar to George W. Bush’s “stimulus rebate” check dispersal in 2008 (but only spread out over time) – is slated to afford taxpayers about $13 a week in extra spending cash beginning in June, but then fall back to about $8 at the beginning of next year. That means for the second half of this year, people like me will be able to afford an extra box of Bubba Burgers and a roll of Viva paper towels … or three heads of lettuce and a couple of gallons of diesel fuel … or almost fifteen boxes of chicklets.

Look out, economy … here we come.

And how do we know this will work? 

Because the illustrious and never-interesting Charles Schumer, Senator from New York, gave his ringing endorsement to the plan. Drawing eloquently from his bag of crippled cognition, he said, “Instead of giving one paycheck at once…” (as opposed to giving one paycheck twice, I suppose) “… which George Bush did, and it really didn’t stimulate the economy, the economists said ‘stretch it out and people are more likely to put it into economy and get our economy going.’ ”

Whether or not America’s retailers are bracing for a stampede of eight-dollar power shoppers is unclear.

What is clear is that Democrats simply don’t get it.

Schumer is right in that George Bush’s ridiculous stimulus debacle did nothing to jumpstart the economy … but being a Democrat, Schumer lives and operates by the credo “If something fails, do it again!”

While it is true that people will tend to spend more if they see more money in their paychecks on a regular basis, insignificant rebates such as these over a limited stretch of time is hardly the way to get people digging into their wallets. Remember, the entirety of each Obama “cut” is a mere $400 for each individual and $800 for each couple.

I hate to be the one to sneeze on someone’s Pop Tart, but this is sheer idiocy. The impact of such “cuts” will be barely perceptible, if at all.

Not only is this $13 a week nonsense not a “tax cut,” but the fact that these “cuts” are not permanent will dissuade people from the kind of purchases needed to get the economy rolling again.

From Fox News:

Some worry the cut is not enough to encourage consumers to go out and spend. And since two-thirds of the economy is consumer spending, the effectiveness of the tax cut in spurring workers to open their wallets is key to an economic revival.

“The average person will get $8 per week in their paycheck and they will pass on to their grandkids $1.1 trillion in debt,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C. “We created more new government than we did jobs and the substance and process cannot repeat itself.”

Moody’s economist Mark Zandi also says the nature of the tax cut could reduce the number of jobs created by the $787 billion stimulus package.

“With regard to how much of the tax cut’s going to spent for individuals, the White House, I think, is assuming that people are going to behave as if that tax cut is permanent, and I doubt that will be the case,” he said.

Precisely.

The ability of people to buy an extra box of Swiffers on a weekly basis thanks to distributed rebates that will total far less to each working person than what George Bush offered in his failed attempt at stimulus will do positively nothing for the economy.

Compare someone who is given a genuine tax cut – that is, an actual reduction in the percentage of the tax being paid resulting in the ability to keep (and spend) more of one’s own money – with someone getting miniscule rebates for a limited period of time. People are less likely to spend when they know the boost in take home money – in this case, a whopping $13 a week through the end of the year – is temporary.  However, if a genuine cut in taxes is made permanent, then people can more reliably count on that extra money being there and budget accordingly. People are more likely to spend when they have more of their own money.

I’m wondering if Chuck Schumer is openly advocating for struggling taxpayers to take on additional monthly payments for items such as washing machines and big screen televisions using “stimulus money” knowing that it will run out long before the items have been paid off.

Then what?

More outstanding debt on top of growing debt?

I guess if it’s okay for the government, it’s okay for Johnny Lunch Bucket.

_____________________________________________

Update: February 17, 2009 – 5:35 PM

A blogger at FREE REPUBLIC.COM called theDentist commented on my observation that the $8.00 a week “tax cut” wouldn’t even be enough money to get across the Verrazano Bridge, from Brooklyn to Staten Island, seeing as the toll is $10.00.

He wrote:  “Well, that’ll get you 80% across. From there, you jump like the rest of us.”

Too funny.

 

the fact that it costs $10.00 to cross the Verrazano Bridge from Brooklyn into Staten island

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

QUICK THOUGHTS ON SLIMY DEMOCRATS THE DAY AFTER

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 14, 2009

obama_liarI cannot even imagine the magnitude of the cacophonous outcry all of us would be hearing right now from every seedy nook and cranny of the main-stream media had Republicans been in control of both the White House and Congress while an unread, unscrutinized, unvetted, who-did-it-and-ran spending bill passed both houses before anyone could as much as inhale.

Democrats orchestrated a legislative drive-by shooting for the ages, with the fleetness of a goose suffering from dysentery, sending to the President’s desk a hunk of burning pig-meat over a thousand pages long that no one outside of speed readers and time travelers could possibly find the time to go through before it was put up for a vote. As quickly as it appeared from the joint committee, it was shoved through the House, and by Friday evening, it was in and out of the Senate.

Just like that.

Done.

Thanks for coming.

And now, Nancy Pelosi and company are gone, scattered about – off to Rome, or wherever.

Had such a thing occurred under the watch of, say, George W. Bush, the scale of outrage and disdain that would be emanating from every Democrat able to gurgle into a live microphone would be literally unimaginable.

And because the mainstream media share a bunk and toothbrush with Obamacrats, we the people would never hear the end of it.

Just think of how many blood vessels Senator Chuck Schumer would explode carrying on about fascist Republicans. Nancy Pelosi would spring a leak yelling about right-wing tyranny and a culture of corruption unlike this nation has ever seen. Barney Frank would be speed-bitching about totalitarianism to the point that he would actually be pronouncing his “r”s and “w”s correctly. Talk would begin in earnest about impeachment. Television talking-skulls would be whining about checks and balances and dictatorships and the death of democracy. Hitlerian references and Stalinist comparisons would be running rampant. There’d be Christiane Amanpour documentaries on CNN.

But this hijacking was not a GOP affair. It was, rather, a study in expedience conducted by the party of change – or “fundamental transformation,” as it were.

With endless promises of unprecedented transparency and openness with the American people as their hallmark, the Democrats have set the gold standard for scare tactics, using the so-called impending collapse of the entire American financial system as leverage, running the most expensive spending bill the world has ever seen, stuffed and puffed with billions upon billions of non-stimulating pet projects, through the United States Congress at breakneck speed without affording politician or civilian alike the opportunity to read the damn thing.

And why?

Because it was necessary to save the country from certain ruin.

They said so, despite example after example proving that government interference of this nature is detrimental to the American economy. Something had to be done, they said, despite the fact that this recession does not even compare to the one that Ronald Reagan faced in the early 1980s. “Catastrophe” they cried if this pig-meat was not passed. “Irreversible” they screamed if Congress did not act … immediately.

And with a precision of a crack commando unit, the Democrats rammed over a thousand pages of undeciphered, irresponsible gobs of back-breaking pork through both houses of Congress without a scintilla of the lucidity and honesty they promised this country.

This little exercise of trickery and deceit will never have the word “tyranny” attached to it … although it should. Rest assured that if Republicans had conducted themselves in such an underhanded and dishonest way, “tyranny” would be among the more docile terms being hurled at them.

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

WHITE HOUSE/CONGRESSIONAL AGREEMENT – BUT NO REPUBLICANS ALLOWED

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009

no-gop

It’s good to be left out sometimes. A couple of weeks ago, Republicans unanimously pulled themselves out of the fun of passing Obama’s stimulus bill in the House – and they took eleven Dems with them. Yesterday, save for three legislative wastes of space, Republicans said “no” to the Senate version. Now, comes the word that Republicans are being left out of the House-Senate negotiations on finalizing the bill by the all-inclusive, unity-happy, postpartisan Democrats.

Politically, I say “good.” Let them have it. All of the credit for a bill that everyone with at least a few working synapses knew would pass know matter what Republicans did can stay with the Obamacrats.

Republicans shouldn’t want any credit for this disaster. I comment on this only because its fun to point out all of the “change” and “bi-partisanship” Democrats have showered upon Washington during in their eventful first three weeks in complete power.

From the Great Human Events website, Connie Hair writes:

Republicans have caught the Democrats in a midnight “stimulus” power play that seeks to cut Republican conferees out of the House-Senate negotiations to resolve a final version of the Obama “stimulus” package. Staff members from the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) met last night to put together the “stimulus” conference report.

They intend to attempt to shove this $1.3 trillion spending bill through in the dead of the night without Republican input so floor action can take place in both chambers on Thursday.

Fox News is reporting that a tentative $790 Billion stimulus bill deal between Congress and the White House has been reached:

Congressional leaders and the White House have crossed a first hurdle, tentatively agreeing to a $790 billion price tag on President Obama’s economic stimulus bill. The new price tag reflects a cut of nearly $50 billion from the Senate version.

Among the considered cuts to the bill, according to numerous Democratic aides involved in the talks, is a trim to Obama’s tax credit — $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple — with a phase out beginning sooner than originally written: at about $70,000 per individual and $140,000 for couples.

You mean the coveted, much talked-about Obama “tax cuts” are being tossed aside?

No way.

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

WHERE DO THESE PEOPLE COME UP WITH THESE NUMBERS?

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009

government-spendingIt’s not just the colossal amount of waste in the Obama Recovery Kill that has my head trying to make apple juice out of pomegranates, but it’s trying to figure out how the meatheads who created this thing arrived at some of their funding figures. (Whole cloth comes to mind).

For instance, $650 million has been allocated for “abandoned mine sites.” Call me uncreative and void of vision, but how exactly does one spend over a half-billion dollars on abandoned mine sites?

On bigger signs warning people to stay out?

To fill the holes?

To put up a gift shop?

Interestingly enough, the mine money is $150 million dollars more than the funds set aside for state and local fire departments. I may not have supported the Obama spendulous disaster, but at least shoveling money into fire departments makes some sense to me.

There is, of course, the much talked-about $650 million allotment going out to rabbit-eared Americans so they can make the switch from analogue TV to digital TV in June – the same amount of money set aside for those abandoned mine sites. Each converter box is about $50.00, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), as of January 9th, said the waiting list for free converter box coupons totaled a little over a million.

That’s a figure just north of $50 million.

I consider myself fairly bright – in an everyday shlub kind of way – but I must admit to some confusion here.

Even if the list of queued converter box recipients totaled five million, what is the other $400 million for?

Stamps?

Barack Obama scratch-n-sniff fridge magnets?

Maybe if there’s any leftover, it can be allocated for “abandoned rabbit ears.”

Keep in mind, that while well over a billion dollars goes for abandoned mines and TV converter boxes combined, only $10 million is being set aside to combat Mexican gun runners.

Priorities.

Ten times that amount, I’m happy to see, is being directed toward a far worse plague on the American landscape – “lead paint hazard reduction.”

That’s a hundred million dollars.

I might be able to save them some money here, if they’re so inclined. I respectfully submit this cost-effective tactic in lead paint hazard reduction: “Junior, don’t eat the paint!”

See? Didn’t cost a thing.

Something that is finally getting some attention in this craptacular spending bill is the age-old problem of “watershed rehabilitation.” While only $65 million is heading in that direction – because Lord knows there are a whole lot of watersheds that need rehabbing – $10 million is going straight to “urban canals.”

Thank the good Lord for that.

Other than not knowing what the hell that means, it sounds stimulating.

It’s funny, I never got paid for volunteering for anything – hence the name – but the Feds need $160 million for “volunteers at the Corporation for National and Community Service.”

I think they’re missing the concept.

Maybe they should think about throwing some of this money at the Mexican gun running budget.

Then, there’s $300 million going toward hybrid and electric government cars – less than half as much set aside for those abandoned mines – but $25 million more than “flood prevention.”

How on earth does one spend $25 million on preventing floods?

Man, if we could do that, why would we even care about Global Warming? Or Climate Change? Why not then spend $100 million, or $500 million, on preventing tornados? Or humidity?

We’re obviously far more advanced than even I would have imagined.

And explain to me why over a half-billion dollars is needed for “construction on the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” and yet only $300 million is needed for “constructing FBI office buildings?”

Something’s amiss there, I think.

And that’s pretty vague, isn’t it? “FBI office buildings?”

And this one I love most of all … $5.5 billion (with a “b”) for “making federal buildings green.”

What, pray tell, does that mean?

Toilets powered with tiny windmills? Emergency Exits illuminated with those squiggly light bulbs? Organic lap tops?

One things for sure, each and every one of these “pet projects” will cost more than the money being allocated for them.

Many many thanks to Eric the Red at Vocal Minority for inspiring this piece.

 

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

WHERE DO THESE PEOPLE COME UP WITH THESE NUMBERS?

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009

government-spendingIt’s not just the colossal amount of waste in the Obama Recovery Kill that has my head trying to make apple juice out of pomegranates, but it’s trying to figure out how the meatheads who created this thing arrived at some of their funding figures. (Whole cloth comes to mind).

For instance, $650 million has been allocated for “abandoned mine sites.” Call me uncreative and void of vision, but how exactly does one spend over a half-billion dollars on abandoned mine sites?

On bigger signs warning people to stay out?

To fill the holes?

To put up a gift shop?

Interestingly enough, the mine money is $150 million dollars more than the funds set aside for state and local fire departments. I may not have supported the Obama spendulous disaster, but at least shoveling money into fire departments makes some sense to me.

There is, of course, the much talked-about $650 million allotment going out to rabbit-eared Americans so they can make the switch from analogue TV to digital TV in June – the same amount of money set aside for those abandoned mine sites. Each converter box is about $50.00, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), as of January 9th, said the waiting list for free converter box coupons totaled a little over a million.

That’s a figure just north of $50 million.

I consider myself fairly bright – in an everyday shlub kind of way – but I must admit to some confusion here.

Even if the list of queued converter box recipients totaled five million, what is the other $400 million for?

Stamps?

Barack Obama scratch-n-sniff fridge magnets?

Maybe if there’s any leftover, it can be allocated for “abandoned rabbit ears.”

Keep in mind, that while well over a billion dollars goes for abandoned mines and TV converter boxes combined, only $10 million is being set aside to combat Mexican gun runners.

Priorities.

Ten times that amount, I’m happy to see, is being directed toward a far worse plague on the American landscape – “lead paint hazard reduction.”

That’s a hundred million dollars.

I might be able to save them some money here, if they’re so inclined. I respectfully submit this cost-effective tactic in lead paint hazard reduction: “Junior, don’t eat the paint!”

See? Didn’t cost a thing.

Something that is finally getting some attention in this craptacular spending bill is the age-old problem of “watershed rehabilitation.” While only $65 million is heading in that direction – because Lord knows there are a whole lot of watersheds that need rehabbing – $10 million is going straight to “urban canals.”

Thank the good Lord for that.

Other than not knowing what the hell that means, it sounds stimulating.

It’s funny, I never got paid for volunteering for anything – hence the name – but the Feds need $160 million for “volunteers at the Corporation for National and Community Service.”

I think they’re missing the concept.

Maybe they should think about throwing some of this money at the Mexican gun running budget.

Then, there’s $300 million going toward hybrid and electric government cars – less than half as much set aside for those abandoned mines – but $25 million more than “flood prevention.”

How on earth does one spend $25 million on preventing floods?

Man, if we could do that, why would we even care about Global Warming? Or Climate Change? Why not then spend $100 million, or $500 million, on preventing tornados? Or humidity?

We’re obviously far more advanced than even I would have imagined.

And explain to me why over a half-billion dollars is needed for “construction on the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” and yet only $300 million is needed for “constructing FBI office buildings?”

Something’s amiss there, I think.

And that’s pretty vague, isn’t it? “FBI office buildings?”

And this one I love most of all … $5.5 billion (with a “b”) for “making federal buildings green.”

What, pray tell, does that mean?

Toilets powered with tiny windmills? Emergency Exits illuminated with those squiggly light bulbs? Organic lap tops?

One things for sure, each and every one of these “pet projects” will cost more than the money being allocated for them.

Many many thanks to Eric the Red at Vocal Minority for inspiring this piece.

 

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

FACT-CHECKING, EARMARKING, NOSE-GROWING

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009

pork1

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 »

SPECTER EXPLAINS HIMSELF

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 9, 2009

Go away

Go away

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican (by registration), says it is very simple. He is supporting President Obama’s spending bill because the United States cannot afford to sit idly by and do nothing. He said so himself in a column he wrote for the Washington Post, published this morning.

I think it’s simple, too. Senator Arlen Specter is getting too old to let his knees jerk that violently. He could rupture a patella.

With inaction, he warns, it could be too late for the United States. In other words, this crisis – which you’d have to believe is close to being worse than the Great Depression or maybe the worst ever to befall homosapiens anywhere – could potentially destroy almost two-hundred-thirty-three years of existence unless we incur astronomical amounts of additional debt.

Along with some nearly incoherent references about MovieTone news reels, he laid out his reasons why the Obama bill must be implemented to save America. Said the rambling Rino:

The unemployment figures announced Friday, the latest earnings reports and the continuing crisis in banking make it clear that failure to act will leave the United States facing a far deeper crisis in three or six months. By then the cost of action will be much greater — or it may be too late.

This is one of those instances where a clueless, misinformed politician believes that just saying something automatically gives it credence. If given the chance, I would ask directly … what exactly makes it clear that failure to act could bring down the country, Mr. Specter? What do you base that on? That the President dramatically used the word “catastrophe” to describe what might happen if the pork never hits the grill?

Fear mongering, thy name is Specter.

Wave after wave of bad economic news has created its own psychology of fear and lowered expectations. As in the old Movietone News, the eyes and ears of the world are upon the United States. Failure to act would be devastating not just for Wall Street and Main Street but for much of the rest of the world, which is looking to our country for leadership in this crisis.

Our $780 billion bill would save or create up to 4 million jobs, helping to offset the loss of 3.6 million jobs since December 2007. The bill cuts some $110 billion from the $890 billion Senate version, which would actually be $940 billion if floor amendments for tax credits on home and car purchases and money for the National Institutes of Health are retained.

Yes, I feel better now. Thanks Big A.

Why the Republican National Committee is not commissioning the construction of statues to Specter and the Mods for heroically slashing over a hundred billion bucks from the bill (after the price tag went up over a hundred billion) is beyond me.

Please feel free to read the article in its entirety, if you like. My nausea level peeks into the red when I cut and paste his pathetic attempts at rationale.

Interestingly enough, the Congressional Budget Office predicts this nation-crippling recession will end by the start of 2010without passing Obama’s craptacular spending bill.

No kidding.

See the report in PDF format here.

At the Indymind blog, Arkady writes:

Specifically observe that by 2010 Revenues are projected to increase. GDP also jumps after completely flat lining from 2008-2009 and more importantly deficit dramatically drops. Do yourself a favor and peruse the 9 page document.

Indeed.

Mr. Specter, it is time for you to go away now.

Take your patella and go home.

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

PRESIDENT LIAR AND COMPANY – CONFIRMED

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 6, 2009

obama-liar1

That’s a harsh title and a serious accusation, I know.

But if you truly believe that President Obama does not know what an earmark is, then he is only a sensationally irresponsible Chief Executive, and I am nothing but a bomb thrower. Otherwise, he is both profoundly careless and calculatingly dishonest, i.e., a liar.

You choose.

I opt for the latter.

I assure you, it gives me no great pleasure to use the term “liar.” There is more than enough material out there to nail the President and crew on.

The fact is, he has lied. He has willfully deceived.

I’ll explain.

Two days before Christmas, when Joe Biden was still heading the Office of Vice-President-Elect, he stressed that there would be no pet projects in any Barack Obama stimulus bill. He said, “…And we will not tolerate business as usual in Washington. There will be — I will say it again — there will be no earmarks in this economic recovery plan.”

On January 6, 2009, Barack Obama himself 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.”

So far, so bad, right?

Typical lib falsehoods.

But now, the President himself seems to confirm the dishonesty of those assertions.

Yesterday, President Obama said the following:

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.

And he laughed about it, as if to say to those of us who are actually concerned about reckless, irresponsible spending, “What’s the matter with you? You know this kind of stuff goes on all the time.”

So, not only has he effectively admitted that there are earmarks in the stimulus bill, he has conceded that it is business-as-usual in Washington. He said it himself : When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it?”

Let’s be clear …

The President took it upon himself to redefine the term “earmark” so that he could look into the eyes of America and say, in good conscience, that he did not go back on his word. His phrasing was very carefully crafted.

He said, “I describe earmarks as the process …” (blah, blah, blah)

The process.

Again, is there anyone who honestly believes that Bam has no idea what an earmark really is?

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.

That’s Obama-think.

Bam went on to say:

So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point. No, seriously. That’s the point.

My Lord. Where to begin?

How about … Wrong, Mr. President. Wrong!

You have peddled this spendulous monstrosity as a stimulus package. This is not your everyday, off-the-rack, spending bill, sir. “Stimulus” is the word you and all the little Obamacrats have chosen to label this craptacular disaster.

We’re not idiots, Mr. President. We know that literally a stimulus bill is a spending bill. (You’re going to have to do better than that to frame an argument).

The question is … What are you spending $900 billion on?

How is the Phase II design and construction for a Latino Cultural Center in Dallas stimulus?

How is the creation of an African American/Ethnic Heritage Trail along a stretch of St. Catherine Street between the Forks of the Road Slave Market Site in Natchez, Mississippi stimulus?

How are golf course renovations in Arlington, Texas stimulus?

How is building an indoor soccer field in Hempstead, New York stimulus?

How is funding a program for residents to reduce their carbon footprints and training programs to meet new green technologies stimulus?

How is supplying Laurel, Mississippi with new doorbells stimulus?

(Insert your own waste of taxpayer dollars here)

Despite the absolute ludicrous claims by President Obama that the United States economy may never recover if his stimulus bill is not passed as soon as humanly possible (before more Americans really know how much garbage is contained in it), history has shown us that the only thing truly “irreversible” is big government.

Indeed, I did write an article back on January 30, 2009, where I accused the President of lying, called Obama Lied, The Economy’s Fried.

This time, however, both the President and I are saying it.

On that, we can agree.

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

UNIONS: DON’T GIVE LIMBAUGH THE SATISFACTION

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 5, 2009

New York’s largest Public Employee Union is AFSCME (American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees). It is one of the affiliated unions of the AFL/CIO. Today, an e-mail marked “urgent” was sent out to member employees urging them to contact their Senators right away to tell them how imperative it is that they vote “YES” on the Obamacratic spending bill. (I’ll get to the contents of that e-mail in a moment). However, most interesting was a call to action at the AFSCME website, asking members to keep talk show host Rush Limbaugh from basking in the “satisfaction of sinking our economy.”

In fact, for a while today, visitors to the AFSCME website were actually redirected automatically to a page demanding that they “Call the Senate Right Now!” – complete with a great big “URGENT” in white letters across the top, and the ominous headline underneath, imploring in full:

Don’t give Rush Limbaugh the satisfaction of sinking our economy.

As the Senate votes on the Obama jobs and economic recovery plan, Rush Limbaugh and Republican leaders are working overtime to kill the bill because it invests money in vital public services. Instead, they want to continue the same old policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

But you can stop them!

I love how that is worded … “Rush Limbaugh and Republican leaders.”

It almost sounds like a late fifties/early sixties vocal group, doesn’t it?

Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans!

And, naturally, playing up the “fat cat” angle is the textbook modus operandi of the Left.

rush-photoThere is, predictably, a picture of the fat cat talk show host on the AFSCME call-to-arms page – a close up shot of him, sporting a look that only fat cats can get, with a great big cigar in his mouth (because that’s what fat cats do) at a location that looks like some oceanfront vacation spot that only fat cats are permitted to visit. (I happen to like the photo, but that’s me). The caption reads:

“On his January 16 radio show, Rush Limbaugh said he hoped President Obama’s economic recovery plan ‘fails.'”

Lord, help me in small letters this time for our liberal friends …Of course Limbaugh wants these policies to fail. Do we have to go through all over again?

I do too. I’ve said it. I’ve written about it. I’m trying to get it made into t-shirts and magnets … and I don’t shy away from it. I even wrote a column that has brought me more abusive hate-filled e-mail than I have ever gotten – outside of my anti-same sex marriage columns – called “The Obama Manifesto – 25 Reasons to Support Failure.

As far as the AFSCME e-mail that was sent out today … It came from Charles M. Loveless, Director, AFSCME Legislation:

I have been in this business for more than 25 years, and never has there been a more urgent situation for public service jobs—and the entire economy. That’s why I’m writing you for the first time ever.

President Obama’s economic recovery plan—legislation that helps Main Street—is in trouble.

That’s why I’m asking you to make a call right now to Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer.

I’ve heard from AFSCME members across the country who are fighting furloughs, layoffs, and other cutbacks while at the same time dealing with a crushing demand for services. Meanwhile, Wall Street executives have given themselves record bonuses. That’s an outrage.

The Obama legislation will create jobs and jumpstart the economy. It will also save public service jobs by providing billions of dollars in aid to state and local governments for Medicaid, education, law enforcement, transportation, unemployment insurance operations and other vital public services.

Republicans and Democrats alike should support Obama’s bill. Yet not one Republican voted for it when it passed in the House last week. Now there is an organized conservative campaign to stop it in the Senate. Rush Limbaugh has said outright that he hopes Obama “fails.”

In solidarity,

Charles M. Loveless
Director
AFSCME Legislation

“In Solidarity.”

Nice touch.

 

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

CATASTROPHE LOOMS – PASS THIS THING SAYS BAM

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 4, 2009

obama-smiles

The President is warning of an impending “catastrophe” in the event his ever-swelling “stimulus” bill doesn’t pass in the Senate. Yet, only 37% of Americans like the spendulous plan, which has now gone north of the $900 billion line.

Gee, I don’t know why.

Doesn’t the addition of cash for medical research and tax breaks for car purchases make a bad spending bill a little better?

Even support among Democrats for this hideousness has slipped ten percentage points since last week.

And now, a posse of so-called Senate centrists have hop scotched over to the White House to voice their objections to the President’s trillion-dollar disaster by asking for $50 billion in cuts.

How delightful. That ought to make it even better, don’t you think?

My question is … which contingent of the population is more reprehensible – those that serve in Congress, or those of us who put them there?

Fifty billion? Out of over $900 billion? That still leaves this version of the bill more expensive than the one that passed the House last week.

This is compromise??

What is the game here? To bat around the $900 billion figure for a day or two so that when the bill does pass in the Senate – and it will, mark my words – the illusion of responsible budgeting can be peddled to the masses? Is that like jacking up the prices of all inventory at Circuit City (or any store at death’s door) just before the Going Out Of Business sale kicks in so prices can be slashed dramatically?

From Fox News:

Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, as well as Ben Nelson, D-Neb., have tentatively agreed to cutting more than $50 billion from the bill, a Nelson spokesman said, though details weren’t yet available.

Their effort is central to building at least some bipartisan support for the bill, which has come under increasing attack for too much spending unrelated to jolting the economy right away.

Meanwhile, 45% of Americans say they favor some sort of tax cut plan to boost the sagging economy. But I wonder if that means real tax cuts, or Obama-riffic style tax cuts. Remember, in Democrat-speak, Obama tax cuts are just a siphoning of revenues generated by taxing the “rich” and doling them out to the “not so rich.”

The president rejected some criticisms of the plan: that tax cuts alone would solve the problem, or that longer-term goals such as energy independence and health care reform should wait until afterward.

In remarks at the White House, Obama argued that recalcitrant lawmakers need to get behind his approach, saying the American people embraced his ideas when they elected him president in November.

Obama ran for President staying on point, hammering in a conservative concept that sounded nice – tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.

52.7% of Americans bought it.

Unfortunately, not one aspect of anything Obama ran on amounted to a genuine tax cut.

Socialism 101.

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

CATASTROPHE LOOMS – PASS THIS THING SAYS BAM

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 4, 2009

obama-smiles

The President is warning of an impending “catastrophe” in the event his ever-swelling “stimulus” bill doesn’t pass in the Senate. Yet, only 37% of Americans like the spendulous plan, which has now gone north of the $900 billion line.

Gee, I don’t know why.

Doesn’t the addition of cash for medical research and tax breaks for car purchases make a bad spending bill a little better?

Even support among Democrats for this hideousness has slipped ten percentage points since last week.

And now, a posse of so-called Senate centrists have hop scotched over to the White House to voice their objections to the President’s trillion-dollar disaster by asking for $50 billion in cuts.

How delightful. That ought to make it even better, don’t you think?

My question is … which contingent of the population is more reprehensible – those that serve in Congress, or those of us who put them there?

Fifty billion? Out of over $900 billion? That still leaves this version of the bill more expensive than the one that passed the House last week.

This is compromise??

What is the game here? To bat around the $900 billion figure for a day or two so that when the bill does pass in the Senate – and it will, mark my words – the illusion of responsible budgeting can be peddled to the masses? Is that like jacking up the prices of all inventory at Circuit City (or any store at death’s door) just before the Going Out Of Business sale kicks in so prices can be slashed dramatically?

From Fox News:

Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, as well as Ben Nelson, D-Neb., have tentatively agreed to cutting more than $50 billion from the bill, a Nelson spokesman said, though details weren’t yet available.

Their effort is central to building at least some bipartisan support for the bill, which has come under increasing attack for too much spending unrelated to jolting the economy right away.

Meanwhile, 45% of Americans say they favor some sort of tax cut plan to boost the sagging economy. But I wonder if that means real tax cuts, or Obama-riffic style tax cuts. Remember, in Democrat-speak, Obama tax cuts are just a siphoning of revenues generated by taxing the “rich” and doling them out to the “not so rich.”

The president rejected some criticisms of the plan: that tax cuts alone would solve the problem, or that longer-term goals such as energy independence and health care reform should wait until afterward.

In remarks at the White House, Obama argued that recalcitrant lawmakers need to get behind his approach, saying the American people embraced his ideas when they elected him president in November.

Obama ran for President staying on point, hammering in a conservative concept that sounded nice – tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.

52.7% of Americans bought it.

Unfortunately, not one aspect of anything Obama ran on amounted to a genuine tax cut.

Socialism 101.

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

CONSERVATISM – GREAT WHILE IT LASTED (THE FOLLOW UP)

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 Republic.com 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 »

MCCONNELL SAYS THE SENATE BILL COULD FAIL … ANYONE BUY THAT?

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 2, 2009

Senator McConnell

Senator McConnell

The Senate edition of President Obama’s porktacular spending package, now dangling a $900 billion price tag, may be the proverbial “mugging” that some liberals need to get them to think more like conservatives – that is, if there is any truth to the reports that support for the bill is eroding a bit.

While I’d love to believe that there are, in fact, Senate Democrats who can’t swallow the prodigious amount of wasteful spending in this bill, I remain, at best, cautious. Nonetheless, in the wake of the House bi-partisan vote against Obama’s wasteland of pig meat and promises (188 Republicans and 11 Democrats said “no” last week, despite the bill’s passage), there are signs that some Dems are not happy.

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell has gone as far to suggest that the bill could even go down to defeat.

I don’t know if I buy that, but it’s nice to say.

Douglass K. Daniel of the Associated Press writes:

McConnell and other Republicans suggested that the bill needed an overhaul because it doesn’t pump enough into the private sector through tax cuts and allows Democrats to go on a spending spree unlikely to jolt the economy. The Republican leader also complained that Democrats had not been as bipartisan in writing the bill as Obama had said he wanted.

“I think it may be time … for the president to kind of get a hold of these Democrats in the Senate and the House, who have rather significant majorities, and shake them a little bit and say, ‘Look, let’s do this the right way,'” McConnell said. “I can’t believe that the president isn’t embarrassed about the products that have been produced so far.”

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said he was seeing an erosion of support for the bill and suggested that lawmakers should consider beginning anew.

McConnell is, of course, correct. In fact, according to Fox News, two Democratic Senators in particular – Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Ben Nelson of Nebraska – appear to be siding with McConnell.

“As it stands it would be very hard for me to vote for this package, because I don’t think it is fully targeted, timely and temporary,” Conrad said. “I think there is widespread dissatisfaction with the package that came over from the House.”

Conrad went on to say that way too little was being done to deal with housing, which he points out is “central to the crisis.”

Of course, before conservatives start embroidering their “V for victory” sweaters just yet, remember that both houses of Congress are ruled by Democrats who have long been famished for the power they now possess. Liberal pouches of fairy dust made up of “post-partisan this” and “bi-partisan that” have thus far, under the Obamacrats, proven to be a thorough hoax. (They’ve told us so). Make no mistake, these benefactors to the Obama Nation are a feisty bunch – with almost the same sense of entitlement that many of their constituents have had for years.

Still, on CBS’s Face The Nation on Sunday, Senator McConnell said, “It’ll need to change if it’ll do any good. I mean, things like $150 million honey bee insurance and $650 million to buy government employees cars is not what the American public had in mind.”

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, on the other hand, said there was no time to waste – that passage of this thing as soon as humanly possible was the only hope to keep the United States free from absolute destruction – or something similarly dishonest. “We cannot delay this,” he said, “We can’t engage in the old political rhetoric of saying, ‘Well, maybe it could be a little bit better here and a little bit better there.’ We’ve got to pull together.”

What an unexpurgated load of pig fat.

Just check your 2009 edition of the Liberal/English dictionary. You’ll find that “pulling together” is Dem-speak for falling in line with the Obamacrats.

Old political rhetoric” is another way of saying “honest debate.”

I like McConnell’s spirit, but I think there’s more of a chance of finding a “Support the Troops” ribbon on the back of Noam Chomsky’s car than seeing this bill go down to defeat in the Senate.

But I’m more than happy to eat crow on that.

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

CONSERVATISM – GREAT WHILE IT LASTED

Posted by Andrew Roman on February 1, 2009

crist and palin - depending on stimulus cash for their states

crist and palin - depending on stimulus cash for their states

For one inspired moment this past week, conservatism’s vital signs looked strong. Stunned Democrats, who almost certainly expected some sort of Republican rollover in the wake of Earthquake Obama and his leftist aftershocks, saw not a single GOPer vote for the Obama spending bill in the House. The long-awaited, oft-promoted, so-called post-partisan age of government, i.e., the age where everyone thinks liberal, ushered in by Obama didn’t quite happen the way it read in all the Dem brochures. Conservative pensmiths from all over praised House Republicans for unanimously finding their lost tomatoes – including myself.

It was great while it lasted.

The principled dissent of House Republicans that so inspired the conservative base last week may be taking a back burner due to the abundance of states who have ledgers running deep in the red. Governors from across the country are urging that the Obama stimulus package pass the Senate so that their states can get their slice of the enormous pie – including a whole host of Republican Governors, like Florida’s Charlie Crist and Alaska’s Sarah Palin. In fact, Palin is set to meet with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell this weekend to talk about Alaska’s share.

From Fox News:

States are coping with severe budget shortfalls and mounting costs for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. So governors, including most Republicans, are counting on the spending to help keep their states afloat.

Clyde Frazier, a professor of political science at Meredith College in North Carolina, said it wasn’t politically inconsistent for Republican governors and members of Congress to part ways on the stimulus plan.

“For governors, it’s free money — they get the benefits and they don’t have to pay the costs of raising the revenues,” Frazier said. “Senators and representatives get only some credit for the expenditures, and they have to pay the bill.”

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is one of the very few who has said that he isn’t sure whether or not he would accept the money that his state would receive from the Obama spending bill – around $3 billion. Even Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a rising star in the Republican Party and a favorite of many conservatives, says that while he would have voted against the bill were he back in Congress, he would still accept the stimulus money for his state.

Meanwhile, South Carolina’s Governor Mark Sanford is not happy.

“It’s incumbent on me as one of the nation’s governors to speak out against what I believe is ultimately incredibly harmful to the economy, to taxpayers and to the worth of the U.S. dollar,” Sanford said in an interview. “This plan is a huge mistake and is going to prolong and deepen this recession.”

Sanford outlined his concerns in December when the then-president-elect met with governors in Philadelphia to discuss the stimulus proposal. Sanford said he had heard nothing from the White House since then.

Associates say Sanford, who recently was elected chairman of the Republican Governors Association, has been disappointed in how few of his GOP colleagues have joined him in speaking out against the size and scope of Obama’s plan.

Like Barbour, Sanford has yet to decide whether or not to accept the money.

Ultimately, however – even with a huge chunk of GOP governors eagerly sticking their hands out for a piece of trillion-dollar cake – for the recently rediscovered pulse of the elephants to remain steady and strong, Senate Republicans must follow the lead of their House counterparts and vote against the Obama spendulous package, lest a bi-partisan tag be placed on the toe of what all conservatives had better believe will be Obama’s economic cadaver.

The problem is … the following United States Senators are Republicans: Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, George Voinovich and Richard Lugar. (Feel free to insert your own RINO here).

Let’s face it, Democrats can sniff spaghetti-spined Republicrats from miles away. (Think starving sharks when blood hits the water).

If not a unanimous vote in the Senate, how about a nice little filibuster for good measure?

Just a thought.

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

OBAMA’S MAD? RIGHT BACK AT YOU, BAM

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 30, 2009

The New York Post’s front page headline on Friday read: “OBAMA TO WALL STREET… BUCK OFF! – Says $18B bonuses ‘shameful’

Yesterday, the President, in no uncertain terms,  blasted  Wall Street corporations who continued to hand out bonuses to executives in the midst of a deepening recession. He called it “shameful” and the “height of irresponsibility.”

Excuse me, Mr. President, please accept this in the spirit is in intended. With all due respect, why don’t you BUCK OFF? And how about doing so eight-hundred nineteen billion times?

If the pot and kettle get any more friendly under your administration, sir, they’re going to have to start going steady.

How is it, Mr. President, that you have the audacity to lambaste Wall Street “fat cats” for doling out billions of dollars worth of bonuses when your spending bill, dressed in stimulus drag, is the most – repeat the most – irresponsible example of government spending in this nation’s history?

There is no doubt now that I exist in an alternate reality.

The President quite literally said, “There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time.”

Is he out of his ever-loving mind? These words were spoken by a President of the United States??

I ask him … When exactly, sir, is the best time to make profits if not during an economic slowdown? When you say it is okay?

Whether or not it is a good idea from a public relations or public image standpoint for corporations to hand out bonuses to their employees in the midst of a recession is a separate issue. If the public is particularly outraged at Citigroup for their planned purchase of a $50 million jet, for example, let them show it by refusing to do business with them. Let the market work.

In fact, if an executive chooses to voluntarily refuse his or her bonus, or if a company elects to retract one, I’m all for it. More power to them.

According the New York Post:

Obama’s no-nonsense message was applauded by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who said he began reviewing bonuses last September.

“No longer will this country stand for wasteful spending of tax dollars on bonuses for executives whose companies have taken huge losses and required taxpayer bailouts,” Cuomo said.

Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate Banking Committee, vowed at a Capitol press conference to seek a return of the bonuses.

“I’m going to be urging – in fact, not urging, demanding – that the Treasury Department figures out some way to get the money back,” Dodd said. “This is unacceptable.”

The pot and kettle have almost certainly consummated their relationship by now.

Wasteful spending, Gracie?

Throwing taxpayer dollars at the National Endowment of the Arts, paying for programs that teach teens all about sexually transmitted diseases, funding NASA to “study” climate change, channeling money into supporting renewable energy projects, spending “stimulus” cash to pretty up the Washington Mall and maintain national park bathrooms (and other public buildings) doesn’t have even a tinge of wastefulness to it?

Recall that on January 7, 2009, newspapers everywhere carried headlines such as this one in the New York Post: OBAMA BANS STIMULUS-PACKAGE PORK:

Take this pork and shove it!

President-elect Barack Obama warned Capitol Hill lawmakers yesterday that he will bar all pork-barrel projects from the massive economic-stimulus package he is asking them to pass.

The proposed plan, which Obama says will cost around $775 billion, will not allow lawmakers to insert pet projects, as they often do on spending bills.

There were no last minute insertions, true to the President’s word. The pig meat in this abomination of Obama-Nation was all prepared ahead of time.

And as far as Mr. Dodd is concerned, how seriously can he be taken since his embarrassing misdiagnosis of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

What is “unacceptable” is the idea that Chris Dodd is even in a position to make such a ludicrous demand of the Treasury Department.

More ludicrous is the fact that there are one thousand, four hundred fifty days left – at least – of this.

The President’s first eleven days have been a joy thus far.

wordpress statistics

 –

 

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

CONSERVATISM, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN? GONNA STICK AROUND?

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 »

YOU ASKED FOR IT, YOU GOT IT – $825 BILLION WELL SPENT

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 16, 2009

economy

If afforded the opportunity, by a show of hands, how many would voluntarily fork over some of their hard-earned money to help pay for the weatherization of “modest income homes?” Would you be willing to hand over some of your paycheck to make sure that internet service is provided in “undeserved” areas? How about coughing up the dough to “put more scientists to work doing climate change research?” Or to “help local communities build and rehabilitate low-income housing using green technologies?”

Assuming you would not voluntarily contribute to one or more of these outstanding ventures, no need to worry. It’ll all be taken care of. The Democrats will do it for you.

The $825 billion spending plan put together by the House Appropriations Committee – Democrat controlled, incidentally – is out and boy is it chunky. (Feel free to insert your own well-chosen adjective).

Talk about comprehensive.

Not only is there $2.4 billion allotted for “carbon capture demonstration programs,” but $1.5 billion is being set aside for expanding “good jobs in biomedical research.” Sure, there’s the predictable $20 billion for the increased funding of food stamps, $87 billion to up Medicaid funding “temporarily,” and $20 billion in health information technology to “prevent medical mistakes,” but there’s also $400 million being earmarked “to put more scientists to work doing climate change research.”

I feel better now. We’re finally headed on the right track.

Some of the other goodies include:

-$6 billion for “higher education modernization.”

-$300 million to provide rebates for people who purchase Energy Star products

-$600 million for the federal government to buy brand new energy efficient cars

-$400 million for state and local governments to buy brand new energy efficient cars

-$300 million for grants and loans to state and local governments for projects that reduce diesel emissions, “benefiting public health and reducing global warming”

-$400 million “to put more scientists to work doing climate change research”

-$1.5 billion to help local communities build and rehabilitate low-income housing using green technologies.

What about the $600 million needed to keep button-makers across the country productive? You’d think they must already be doing a brisk business. To this day, more than two months after the election, I still see “Yes We Can” buttons on jackets, lapels and carry bags all over Manhattan. I can’t swing a dead cat without hitting something that has his name or face on it.

What about the $750 billion needed to subsidize bible manufacturers? It isn’t cheap to replace the word “Jesus” with the word “Obama,” you know.

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