So, apparently a bunch of cities (NYC) and states (California) are raising taxes in the hopes of balancing budgets and raising state revenue. While this is a boon to me as a tax attorney (more taxes equals more work), I wonder where fiscal responsibility has gone.
While on an individual (i.e. non-government) basis we are having problems with spending more than we earn, I would venture to say most Americans are fiscally responsible. We tend to spend money that we've already earned and not spend more than we have. Although, again, this may not be the case anymore.
I wonder why the government cannot do the same as we do. If they are spending too much, why are they increasing revenue? Why are they not cutting programs? Why aren't California and New Jersey eliminating programs, which would drive down costs?
From a purely cynical (though righteous) standpoint, I would say that the government rarely, if ever, cuts programs because it would lose the control it has gained from those programs. Anyway, I wonder anymore if there are politicians left in this country who would not rather raise taxes than cut programs.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Evidence that this is all about politics
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-passes-bill-taxing-AIG-apf-14693850.html
This is blatantly unconstitutional. Long story short, in order to tax something, the tax must have been in effect when the something was paid... hence, there are no "Oh yeah, we want to tax that income you earned in 2005 at a higher rate."
So, more evidence that this is more about political posturing than anything else.
This is blatantly unconstitutional. Long story short, in order to tax something, the tax must have been in effect when the something was paid... hence, there are no "Oh yeah, we want to tax that income you earned in 2005 at a higher rate."
So, more evidence that this is more about political posturing than anything else.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
If Bush Was President - 3/18/09
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_usnw/the_american_legion_strongly_opposed_to_president_s_plan_to_charge_wounded_heroes_for_treatment
As I understand the issue, currently the government (i.e. taxpayers) pay approximately $500 million in health care benefits to wounded veterans. President Obama wants to cut this program. This is deeply disturbing for a number of reasons - (1) veterans cannot generally afford health care and we should be taking care of them, (2) of all the things the President is spending money on, I believe this is one program that everyone, and I mean everyone, wants to keep in place, (3) it's stupid, politically, to cut it, and (4) I have heard no mainstream media outlet (CNN, Washington Post, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) report on this. All of those things are disturbing.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Barack-Obama-Thanks-Himself-In-Teleprompt-Blunder-During-Address-With-Irish-PM-On-St-Patricks-Day/Article/200903315243932?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15243932_Barack_Obama_Thanks_Himself_In_Teleprompt_Blunder_During_Address_With_Irish_PM_On_St_Patricks_Day
This is self-explanatory - if Bush did this, we'd never hear the end of it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html
Apparently, President Obama says they did not know about the AIG bonuses until this month. However, according to all media outlets, a Democratic senator (Chris Dodd?) added an amendment to the AIG bailout package that guaranteed bonuses. So, the president didn't know? Hard to believe.
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d17-Obama-Received-a-101332-Bonus-from-AIG
I don't know if this is completely true or not, but apparently AIG's biggest contributions, politician-wise, went to President Obama and Senator Dodd. Again, this is disturbing, but also self-explanatory.
As I understand the issue, currently the government (i.e. taxpayers) pay approximately $500 million in health care benefits to wounded veterans. President Obama wants to cut this program. This is deeply disturbing for a number of reasons - (1) veterans cannot generally afford health care and we should be taking care of them, (2) of all the things the President is spending money on, I believe this is one program that everyone, and I mean everyone, wants to keep in place, (3) it's stupid, politically, to cut it, and (4) I have heard no mainstream media outlet (CNN, Washington Post, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) report on this. All of those things are disturbing.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Barack-Obama-Thanks-Himself-In-Teleprompt-Blunder-During-Address-With-Irish-PM-On-St-Patricks-Day/Article/200903315243932?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15243932_Barack_Obama_Thanks_Himself_In_Teleprompt_Blunder_During_Address_With_Irish_PM_On_St_Patricks_Day
This is self-explanatory - if Bush did this, we'd never hear the end of it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html
Apparently, President Obama says they did not know about the AIG bonuses until this month. However, according to all media outlets, a Democratic senator (Chris Dodd?) added an amendment to the AIG bailout package that guaranteed bonuses. So, the president didn't know? Hard to believe.
http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d17-Obama-Received-a-101332-Bonus-from-AIG
I don't know if this is completely true or not, but apparently AIG's biggest contributions, politician-wise, went to President Obama and Senator Dodd. Again, this is disturbing, but also self-explanatory.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Crazy? Maybe. Definitely Classy
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090317/D97021CO0.html
Unlike former President Clinton, former President GW Bush has refused to comment on President Obama. For the most part, at least in my un-expert historical opinion (I was a history major), the vast vast majority of presidents do not comment on their successors. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bush I did not criticize or comment on their successors. However, if you notice, former President Clinton constantly criticized and commented on the presidency of Bush.
I think this has more to do with former President Clinton's need to be in the spotlight than any malice aforethought. However, I always thought it was classy that presidents did not criticize their successors. I'm glad Bush is going to do the same thing.
Unlike former President Clinton, former President GW Bush has refused to comment on President Obama. For the most part, at least in my un-expert historical opinion (I was a history major), the vast vast majority of presidents do not comment on their successors. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bush I did not criticize or comment on their successors. However, if you notice, former President Clinton constantly criticized and commented on the presidency of Bush.
I think this has more to do with former President Clinton's need to be in the spotlight than any malice aforethought. However, I always thought it was classy that presidents did not criticize their successors. I'm glad Bush is going to do the same thing.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Anger Rising
This quote got me extremely angry:
Said Obama: "All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multimillion-dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules."
It's from this article - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29714402
So, if I was a reporter, this would be my follow-up question (after I stop shaking my fist at the president... fyi, shaking my fist is my "angry face")...
"Mr. President, when you say that 'everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules,' and then continue to push for and give out bailouts, is that not hypocrticial? Which do you support - bailouts or everyone playing by the same rules?"
Like the title of this post says - anger rising
Here's another ridiculously hypocritical quote from the same article:
Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, earlier Monday charged that the move to pay bonuses amounted to "rewarding incompetence."
"These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever," said Frank, a Democrat.
I was so angry, I stopped reading the article.
If the president and Mr. Frank are serious about these issues then STOP GIVING OUT DAMN BAILOUTS!!! However, I think they are not serious about these issues; rather, they are trying to appear popular (or populist).
Seriously, I'm extremely angry.
Said Obama: "All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multimillion-dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules."
It's from this article - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29714402
So, if I was a reporter, this would be my follow-up question (after I stop shaking my fist at the president... fyi, shaking my fist is my "angry face")...
"Mr. President, when you say that 'everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules,' and then continue to push for and give out bailouts, is that not hypocrticial? Which do you support - bailouts or everyone playing by the same rules?"
Like the title of this post says - anger rising
Here's another ridiculously hypocritical quote from the same article:
Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, earlier Monday charged that the move to pay bonuses amounted to "rewarding incompetence."
"These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever," said Frank, a Democrat.
I was so angry, I stopped reading the article.
If the president and Mr. Frank are serious about these issues then STOP GIVING OUT DAMN BAILOUTS!!! However, I think they are not serious about these issues; rather, they are trying to appear popular (or populist).
Seriously, I'm extremely angry.
Further Evidence Against Bailouts
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29714426
The gist of the article is that people are mad about AIG's bonuses and, therefore, by extension, mad about the federal bailout. No kidding.
One of the many problems with bailouts is that they award poor performance. So, AIG does a poor job (for whatever reason... maybe it's not their faults). With a bailout, they get rescued from bankruptcy and also get money to pay themselves bonuses. Without a bailout, they fail and there is no more money to pay themselves bonuses. Simply put, the only reason AIG is paying bonuses is because of the bailout. If AIG was not bailed out, they would not be paying bonuses, and no one would be angry.
To be cynical for a moment, what people don't seem to understand is that no matter what party a politician is from, that politician is receiving money from these companies. Microsoft, for example, has given money to both Obama and McCain during the presidential election. This means that Obama and McCain are beholden (is that a word?... it is now) to these corporations. Therefore, the bailout may not necessarily be to "save the economy." Rather, could it be that Obama and McCain (and Congress) want to help out the guys that gave them money so they could run for office? I happen to think that is part of the answer.
So, in a world where the government is telling you to spend more money, is raising your taxes, and is giving YOUR money to corporations so they don't go bankrupty and can pay bonuses to ineffective executives, I would venture to say that there is NOT ENOUGH anger towards the government. I would argue that people should be a whole lot more pissed off than they are.
You also have to ask yourself this little question: We are told on a regular basis that the bailouts are necessary because we'd all lose our jobs and the economy would go into the toilet without them. Here's the quesetion - Are we sure this is true, or are we being lied to? Food for thought.
The gist of the article is that people are mad about AIG's bonuses and, therefore, by extension, mad about the federal bailout. No kidding.
One of the many problems with bailouts is that they award poor performance. So, AIG does a poor job (for whatever reason... maybe it's not their faults). With a bailout, they get rescued from bankruptcy and also get money to pay themselves bonuses. Without a bailout, they fail and there is no more money to pay themselves bonuses. Simply put, the only reason AIG is paying bonuses is because of the bailout. If AIG was not bailed out, they would not be paying bonuses, and no one would be angry.
To be cynical for a moment, what people don't seem to understand is that no matter what party a politician is from, that politician is receiving money from these companies. Microsoft, for example, has given money to both Obama and McCain during the presidential election. This means that Obama and McCain are beholden (is that a word?... it is now) to these corporations. Therefore, the bailout may not necessarily be to "save the economy." Rather, could it be that Obama and McCain (and Congress) want to help out the guys that gave them money so they could run for office? I happen to think that is part of the answer.
So, in a world where the government is telling you to spend more money, is raising your taxes, and is giving YOUR money to corporations so they don't go bankrupty and can pay bonuses to ineffective executives, I would venture to say that there is NOT ENOUGH anger towards the government. I would argue that people should be a whole lot more pissed off than they are.
You also have to ask yourself this little question: We are told on a regular basis that the bailouts are necessary because we'd all lose our jobs and the economy would go into the toilet without them. Here's the quesetion - Are we sure this is true, or are we being lied to? Food for thought.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Gitmo
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5891553.ece
Where do the detainees go? Foreign countries apparently... including, back to Afghanistan.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article2315283.ece
Preface this by saying this dude was released by the Bush administration, not the Obama administration.
In any event, I struggle to fathom why certain factors (human rights for non-combatant terrorists, respect for other countries, and "feeling good about ourselves") outweighs certain other factors (safety, security, saving US lives). I would urge any commentors not to quote to me Ben Franklin or others who have talked about giving up liberty in favor of safety. Not only do I know the quotes, I use them to rail against things I don't like. However, we're not giving up our liberties to increase our safety. We're giving up the liberties of foreign persons who would kill us all if they could in exchange for security. I fail to see any slippery slope here.
Where do the detainees go? Foreign countries apparently... including, back to Afghanistan.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article2315283.ece
Preface this by saying this dude was released by the Bush administration, not the Obama administration.
In any event, I struggle to fathom why certain factors (human rights for non-combatant terrorists, respect for other countries, and "feeling good about ourselves") outweighs certain other factors (safety, security, saving US lives). I would urge any commentors not to quote to me Ben Franklin or others who have talked about giving up liberty in favor of safety. Not only do I know the quotes, I use them to rail against things I don't like. However, we're not giving up our liberties to increase our safety. We're giving up the liberties of foreign persons who would kill us all if they could in exchange for security. I fail to see any slippery slope here.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Media Bias in Favor of Republicans?
Yes, but only if you're not listening to what is being said...
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/9993.html
My friend Joe posted this on his blog/twitter/page/whatever. The study concludes that there is a Republican (i.e. conservative) rather than Democratic (i.e. liberal) bias. However, what the article does not say is that the study is based upon visual tendencies, not verbal tendencies. In other words, while Republicans may have been pictured more often than Democrats, there was no focus on what was said. So, based on this study, a big picture of President Bush is a Republican bias. However, the study would ignore that the talking head was saying Bush was an utter moron. Therefore, I question the validity of the study's conclusion. Anyway, some telling quotes from the story:
"Grace and Bucy's book is the culmination of the first major research project analyzing the relatively unexplored territory of visual coverage in presidential elections and how that influences public opinion. Between 1992 and 2004, they found, candidates were steadily shown more visually, in what they call image bites, while their verbal statements, or sound bites, decreased in average length."
"Grabe and Bucy analyzed several such visual packaging techniques employed in television coverage, including one of the most negative forms of image bites, the 'lip-flap shot' -- where the reporter's narration is overlaid on video to the candidate talking... 'Not only is lip-flap unflattering for the candidate who appears... but it distracts from the reporter's narration because viewers focus attention to making sense of what the lip flapper appears to be saying.'"
"In their research, Democrats were more likely to be subjects of the 'lip-flap' effect."
There are others, but the gist of the article is that Democrats are VISUALLY(!!!!) shown in an unflattering light while Republicans are VISUALLY (!!!!) show in a flattering light. This has NOTHING to do with what is being said. Here is the ultimate quote and summation of the article, which proves that this study does not prove conservative bias in the media...
"Visuals are underappreciated in news coverage," Bucy added. "You can have a negative report. You can have a journalist being opinionated against the candidate. But if you're showing favorable visuals, that out-weights the net effect on the viewer almost every single time."
I would much rather have a bad visual of myself than something bad said about me. But, it appears that the people who prepared this study have their own agenda.
I would venture to say that the New York Times endorsing a Democrat for president in every election since Eisenhower or NBC fawning over Obama are more telling signs of media bias than whether or not the Republican is not shown in a "lip-flap" segment.
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/9993.html
My friend Joe posted this on his blog/twitter/page/whatever. The study concludes that there is a Republican (i.e. conservative) rather than Democratic (i.e. liberal) bias. However, what the article does not say is that the study is based upon visual tendencies, not verbal tendencies. In other words, while Republicans may have been pictured more often than Democrats, there was no focus on what was said. So, based on this study, a big picture of President Bush is a Republican bias. However, the study would ignore that the talking head was saying Bush was an utter moron. Therefore, I question the validity of the study's conclusion. Anyway, some telling quotes from the story:
"Grace and Bucy's book is the culmination of the first major research project analyzing the relatively unexplored territory of visual coverage in presidential elections and how that influences public opinion. Between 1992 and 2004, they found, candidates were steadily shown more visually, in what they call image bites, while their verbal statements, or sound bites, decreased in average length."
"Grabe and Bucy analyzed several such visual packaging techniques employed in television coverage, including one of the most negative forms of image bites, the 'lip-flap shot' -- where the reporter's narration is overlaid on video to the candidate talking... 'Not only is lip-flap unflattering for the candidate who appears... but it distracts from the reporter's narration because viewers focus attention to making sense of what the lip flapper appears to be saying.'"
"In their research, Democrats were more likely to be subjects of the 'lip-flap' effect."
There are others, but the gist of the article is that Democrats are VISUALLY(!!!!) shown in an unflattering light while Republicans are VISUALLY (!!!!) show in a flattering light. This has NOTHING to do with what is being said. Here is the ultimate quote and summation of the article, which proves that this study does not prove conservative bias in the media...
"Visuals are underappreciated in news coverage," Bucy added. "You can have a negative report. You can have a journalist being opinionated against the candidate. But if you're showing favorable visuals, that out-weights the net effect on the viewer almost every single time."
I would much rather have a bad visual of myself than something bad said about me. But, it appears that the people who prepared this study have their own agenda.
I would venture to say that the New York Times endorsing a Democrat for president in every election since Eisenhower or NBC fawning over Obama are more telling signs of media bias than whether or not the Republican is not shown in a "lip-flap" segment.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
The Quote of the Times
I think this quote sums up the government right now (and my views as such):
"The point to remember is that what the government gives it must first take away." - John S. Coleman, Detroit Chamber of Commerce, 1956.
"The point to remember is that what the government gives it must first take away." - John S. Coleman, Detroit Chamber of Commerce, 1956.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
If Bush Was President - 2/4/09
The third installment -
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/500k-spent-on-dem-caucus-retreats-2009-02-03.html
Democrats using taxpayer money for a caucus retreat.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.971ca461247820662877d6aaecf06087.361&show_article=1
I actually think this is a fantastic idea. But, in light of the first link... um, how about we cap some other taxpayer-paid stuff too?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D964BKD01&show_article=1
Oh Lord...
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/500k-spent-on-dem-caucus-retreats-2009-02-03.html
Democrats using taxpayer money for a caucus retreat.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.971ca461247820662877d6aaecf06087.361&show_article=1
I actually think this is a fantastic idea. But, in light of the first link... um, how about we cap some other taxpayer-paid stuff too?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D964BKD01&show_article=1
Oh Lord...
Oh Lord.
I sure hope the Colbert Report or the Daily Show report this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E
Talk about out of touch... 500 million jobs lost a month??? We'd better make sure the Bureau of Smoking Cessation gets set up fast! That'll save those jobs!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E
Talk about out of touch... 500 million jobs lost a month??? We'd better make sure the Bureau of Smoking Cessation gets set up fast! That'll save those jobs!!!
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
The GOP Plan
Even though they did not win (of which they are constantly reminded), the GOP has put forward their own bill.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/stimulus/index.html
I mean, look how ridiculous this bill is: $55o billion divided as follows:
Education - $142 billion.
Healthcare - $111 billion.
Infrastrucutre - $90 billion.
Aid and Benefits - $72 billion.
Energy - $54 billion.
Science and Technology - $16 billion.
Housing - $13 billion.
I mean... how ridiculous is that? Seriously? Money for education, healthcare and infrastructure? Preposterous. We need more tax breaks for Hollywood and STD services!!! Polar icecap breakers!!!
Thank you Republicans, for putting forth an economic stimulus plan.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/stimulus/index.html
I mean, look how ridiculous this bill is: $55o billion divided as follows:
Education - $142 billion.
Healthcare - $111 billion.
Infrastrucutre - $90 billion.
Aid and Benefits - $72 billion.
Energy - $54 billion.
Science and Technology - $16 billion.
Housing - $13 billion.
I mean... how ridiculous is that? Seriously? Money for education, healthcare and infrastructure? Preposterous. We need more tax breaks for Hollywood and STD services!!! Polar icecap breakers!!!
Thank you Republicans, for putting forth an economic stimulus plan.
Stimulate THAT!
Here's some objections from the Republicans on the "Stimulus" Bill. I put stimulus in quotes because it only stimulates government spending, not job creation. My comments are in bold for your viewing ease.
• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient. - So, we are re-funding something that the Department of Energy (of all Departments) determined was inefficient? That's just what we need... more inefficiencies.
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. - Seriously. Do I need to even address this one?
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. - WAAH!!! I can't watch my TV anymore!!! That's in the Constitution right?
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). - I thought we wanted the polar ice caps intact? Also, with the onslaught of global warming, won't these be obselete in a year when the icecaps melt?
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. - I guess this stimulates construction. Except that I'm surprised the Dems are going for this one. I thought they hated the DHS.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. - Furniture costs half as much as the construction of the building? That's a little ridiculous.
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees. - In theory, I'm okay with this. It will likely stimulate the economy.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's. - I heard (on conservative talk radio) that one of the programs is to hire a gay porn star cowboy to talk to students about STDs.
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs. - Can't the states take care of this themselves? Additionally, how does this stimulate the economy?
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system. - How does this stimulate the economy?
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities. - How does this stimulate the economy?
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion. - Wow... $3 billion overbudget? How does this stimulate the economy?
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities." - Not only does this not stimulate the economy, but if it works, tax dollars from tobacco taxes decrease and Altria starts laying off cigarette employees. We should be giving tax breaks to smokers to buy more cigarettes.
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. - How does this stimulate the economy?
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI. - I'm all for this one, except how does it stimulate the economy?
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction. - Um... how does this stimulate the economy?
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River. - I'm fine with this one. It creates jobs and should stimulate the economy.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. - Same as above.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings. - Same... jobs = stimulate economy.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations. - States can do this themselves. As an aside, look at Texas, Alaska, and South Carolina. They have balanced budgets, no deficits. They won't see a dime of the money generated by this bill. Why? Because they are fiscally responsible. So, again, we are rewarding being bad at something. Go America!
• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands. - Hmm... how does this stimulate the economy?
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs. - What? What youth jobs? Go work at McDonald's punks. I ain't paying your salary.
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service. - Same as DHS note above.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property. - Same as DHS note above.
• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland. - Same as DHS note above.
• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service. - HAHAHAHA. Paid volunteers.
• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration. - What?
• $850 million for Amtrak. - Yes! Finally, Amtrak will run on time. Oh wait...
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. - Not going to stimulate the economy.
• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies. - Waste, waste, waste.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems. - More waste.
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations. - Wow... okay.
Nick again... As I understand it, the Republicans are objecting to the Stimulus Bill because it has so many pet projects and pork in it. I dare you to argue that this stuff is "economic stimulus" and not "pork." Double dare.
• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient. - So, we are re-funding something that the Department of Energy (of all Departments) determined was inefficient? That's just what we need... more inefficiencies.
• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. - Seriously. Do I need to even address this one?
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. - WAAH!!! I can't watch my TV anymore!!! That's in the Constitution right?
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). - I thought we wanted the polar ice caps intact? Also, with the onslaught of global warming, won't these be obselete in a year when the icecaps melt?
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. - I guess this stimulates construction. Except that I'm surprised the Dems are going for this one. I thought they hated the DHS.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. - Furniture costs half as much as the construction of the building? That's a little ridiculous.
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees. - In theory, I'm okay with this. It will likely stimulate the economy.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's. - I heard (on conservative talk radio) that one of the programs is to hire a gay porn star cowboy to talk to students about STDs.
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs. - Can't the states take care of this themselves? Additionally, how does this stimulate the economy?
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system. - How does this stimulate the economy?
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities. - How does this stimulate the economy?
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion. - Wow... $3 billion overbudget? How does this stimulate the economy?
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities." - Not only does this not stimulate the economy, but if it works, tax dollars from tobacco taxes decrease and Altria starts laying off cigarette employees. We should be giving tax breaks to smokers to buy more cigarettes.
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. - How does this stimulate the economy?
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI. - I'm all for this one, except how does it stimulate the economy?
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction. - Um... how does this stimulate the economy?
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River. - I'm fine with this one. It creates jobs and should stimulate the economy.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. - Same as above.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings. - Same... jobs = stimulate economy.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations. - States can do this themselves. As an aside, look at Texas, Alaska, and South Carolina. They have balanced budgets, no deficits. They won't see a dime of the money generated by this bill. Why? Because they are fiscally responsible. So, again, we are rewarding being bad at something. Go America!
• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands. - Hmm... how does this stimulate the economy?
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs. - What? What youth jobs? Go work at McDonald's punks. I ain't paying your salary.
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service. - Same as DHS note above.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property. - Same as DHS note above.
• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland. - Same as DHS note above.
• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service. - HAHAHAHA. Paid volunteers.
• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration. - What?
• $850 million for Amtrak. - Yes! Finally, Amtrak will run on time. Oh wait...
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. - Not going to stimulate the economy.
• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies. - Waste, waste, waste.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems. - More waste.
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations. - Wow... okay.
Nick again... As I understand it, the Republicans are objecting to the Stimulus Bill because it has so many pet projects and pork in it. I dare you to argue that this stuff is "economic stimulus" and not "pork." Double dare.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Stimulate THIS!
So, the stimulus bill has passed the House. "But, Nick, why didn't you say the president's stimulus bill or the Democrats stimulus bill?" Well, dear friend, apparently the Democrats and the president do not want to take responsibility for this bill. Let me a-splain...
For the last eight years, Democrats have ranted and raved vis-a-vis the Republicans mismanagement of the government in two areas: the war in Iraq, and, in the last year, the economy. Now, January 29, 2009, the Democrats have control of the House, the Senate, and the presidency. There is nothing stopping them from doing what they want, when they want. However, I have heard a number of friends, radio personalities, newspapers, and other media outlets indicating that the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for not voting for this bill. A Congressman from Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak, went on the radio and said it was irresponsible not to vote for this bill.
Ignoring politics, there is no reason why the Democrats and, by extension, members of the liberal media should be outraged by the Republicans voting against this bill... the Democrats had the votes, they (presumably) think it's a good plan, and they got it passed. There is no reason for the whining and crying and stamping of feet... ignoring politics.
BUT... not ignoring politics, we can see why the rampant complaining about Republicans not voting for this bill has been... um... rampant. If the Democrats own the bill (i.e. take responsibility for it), if the bill fails to do what it's meant to do (stimulate the economy), the Democrats take the blame for it. If the Democrats don't own the bill, if the bill fails to do what it's meant to do, the blame can be spread around. This is why the Republicans' stand is such an issue. And, frankly, the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves and their bill if they can't stand behind it.
For the last eight years, Democrats have ranted and raved vis-a-vis the Republicans mismanagement of the government in two areas: the war in Iraq, and, in the last year, the economy. Now, January 29, 2009, the Democrats have control of the House, the Senate, and the presidency. There is nothing stopping them from doing what they want, when they want. However, I have heard a number of friends, radio personalities, newspapers, and other media outlets indicating that the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for not voting for this bill. A Congressman from Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak, went on the radio and said it was irresponsible not to vote for this bill.
Ignoring politics, there is no reason why the Democrats and, by extension, members of the liberal media should be outraged by the Republicans voting against this bill... the Democrats had the votes, they (presumably) think it's a good plan, and they got it passed. There is no reason for the whining and crying and stamping of feet... ignoring politics.
BUT... not ignoring politics, we can see why the rampant complaining about Republicans not voting for this bill has been... um... rampant. If the Democrats own the bill (i.e. take responsibility for it), if the bill fails to do what it's meant to do (stimulate the economy), the Democrats take the blame for it. If the Democrats don't own the bill, if the bill fails to do what it's meant to do, the blame can be spread around. This is why the Republicans' stand is such an issue. And, frankly, the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves and their bill if they can't stand behind it.
If Bush Was President - January 29, 2009
This is my next installment... I will also address the bailout package (not so much the package itself, but the politics behind it).
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alINrCmj3dgU - Candidate and President-Elect Obama promised transparency. President Obama? Not so much.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123320178103027715.html?mod=article-outset-box - I have heard some of my liberal friends indicating that Republicans should support this bill because we screwed up the country for the last eight years. Nah.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/drinks-are-on-t.html - Now, if this was, say, AIG or another "fat cat" company, imagine the outrage.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alINrCmj3dgU - Candidate and President-Elect Obama promised transparency. President Obama? Not so much.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123320178103027715.html?mod=article-outset-box - I have heard some of my liberal friends indicating that Republicans should support this bill because we screwed up the country for the last eight years. Nah.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/drinks-are-on-t.html - Now, if this was, say, AIG or another "fat cat" company, imagine the outrage.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Back Again
So, I've decided to come back to the blog. Friendster and Facebook are not for me. In any event, I will try to put up a three-times weekly segment I like to call... IF BUSH WAS PRESIDENT. Basically, I will throw up some links to news stories that I think would have been more widely reported if the last president was in office (as opposed to President Obama). A disclaimer - I do not do this to show that President Obama is doing bad things or has any control over anything he does not actually have control over (for example, the economy); rather, I do this to show the incredible bias of the mainstream and non-partisan media. Therefore, I will not be referring to Fox News which is, to mainstream America, a conservative news outlet (and, thus, does not report the news, so much as report anti-liberal and pro-conservative news). Contrast the view of Fox News with the views of any other wide circulation newspaper (The Washington Post, the New York Times) or news show (like MSNBC and CNN), which are generally considered to be unbiased. In any event:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090123/D95T436O0.html - US missle strike kills 18 in Pakistan (not Afghanistan).
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95SR0K80&show_article=1 - Media denied access to Obama.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090123/D95T436O0.html - US missle strike kills 18 in Pakistan (not Afghanistan).
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95SR0K80&show_article=1 - Media denied access to Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)