February 1-3, 2010
Feb 01 01:02 Aikens Says It All Feb 01 10:59 Sen. Collins Demolishes Obama Administration Feb 01 23:10 Clyburn Insulting Our Intelligence Feb 02 05:10 Taking Issue With Tarryl, Part II Feb 03 03:51 Asheville TEA Party Goes Too Far Feb 03 06:15 Gregg Eviscerates Orszag
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Aikens Says It All
The St. Cloud Times' Dave Aikens article says it all about the fundraising done this quarter by Rep. Michele Bachmann and her DFL opponents Maureen Reed and State Sen. Tarryl Clark:
The DFL's problem isn't that Tarryl and Dr. Reed haven't had impressive fundraising totals. It's that Michele's fundraising dwarfed them this quarter. Rest assured, the DCCC will dump millions of dollars into this race to defeat Michele. That's a given.U.S. Rep Michele Bachmann raised almost $600,000 in the fourth quarter in her bid for a third term representing the 6th Congressional District, her campaign said this morning.
The Republican's fundraising totals in the last three months are more than double what her two DFL opponents raised in the same time period. She has raised $1.6 million for the 2010 campaign and has $1 million to spend during the year.Even though her two DFL opponents had strong showings in their first full quarter of fundraising, they still lag behind as many challengers do against incumbents.
State Sen. Tarryl Clark of St. Cloud raised $293,953 and physician Maureen Reed of Grant raised $207,000. Clark and Reed have almost identical amounts of cash on hand with each approaching $390,000. Clark has raised $600,000 since entering the race in July and Reed has raised $574,000 since announcing in May.
The bad news for Democrats is that fundraising isn't the DFL's biggest challenge. In the only polling done on this race, Michele leads both competitors :
In a head-to-head matchup with Democratic frontrunner Tarryl Clark, Bachmann gets 55 percent to Clark's 37 percent, with 8 percent undecided. The numbers are roughly the same when Bachmann is paired with Democrat Maureen Reed.I'm not worried about the margins. The thing I'm most pleased with is that Michele's approval rating is solidly above the 50 percent mark. Leads will fluctuate between now and Election Day but having an approval rating solidly above 50 percent means that the incumbent is in great shape for re-election.
Last year, Republican incumbents with percentages just above 50 percent were defeated because of the Obama wave. The Democrats' wave of 2008 has disappeared as a result of their pursuing their radical agenda. The bad news for Democrats isn't just that the minority votes that propelled President Obama to victory won't turn out like they did in 2010. Independents are rejecting the Democrats' policies, too, often by wide margins.
Michele's done a great job gaining the support of TEA Party activists within the district, too. As one of the organizers of the 9/12 TEA Party, I can testify to the fact that an army of TEA Party activists will run through the proverbial walls this election cycle for Michele.
To be fair, Tarryl will have armies of union activists getting out the DFL vote in CD-6. Tarryl's biggest problem will be that she'll have to hide her record of voting for the biggest tax increases. Good luck with that, Tarryl.
Posted Monday, February 1, 2010 1:02 AM
No comments.
Sen. Collins Demolishes Obama Administration
This weekend, Sen. Susan Collins utterly demolished the Obama administration's handling of Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Here's the transcript of Sen. Collins delivering the GOP's weekly radio address:
Sen. Collins isn't the only critic of the Obama administration's interrogation of Abdulmutallab. Gen. Michael Hayden wrote an op-ed criticizing the Obama administration:Less than one hour. That's right, less than one hour. In fact, just fifty minutes. That's the amount of time that the FBI spent questioning Abdulmutallab, the foreign terrorist who tried to blow up a plane on Christmas Day. Then, he was given a Miranda warning and a lawyer, and, not surprisingly, he stopped talking.
How did we get to this point? How did the Obama administration decide to treat a foreign terrorist , who had tried to murder hundreds of people, as if he were a common criminal?
On Christmas Day, the skies above Detroit became a battleground in the War on Terrorism.
That day the bomb being carried by Abdulmutallab failed to detonate. Thanks to the courageous action of the passengers and crew, nearly 300 lives were saved on the plane and more lives were spared on the ground.
The government's security system, a front line in the war against terrorists, failed long before Abdulmutallab boarded his flight to the United States. It failed when his visa wasn't revoked, even though his father had warned our embassy in Nigeria about his son's ties to Islamic extremists. It failed when the intelligence community was unable to connect the dots that would have placed Abdulmutallab on the terrorist watchlist. It failed when this terrorist stepped on to the plane in Amsterdam with the same explosive used by the 'Shoe Bomber,' Richard Reid, more than 8 years ago.
But, today, I want to discuss another failure, a failure that occurred after Abdulmutallab had already been detained by authorities in Detroit, an error that undoubtedly prevented the collection of valuable intelligence about future terrorist threats to our country.
This failure occurred when the Obama Justice Department unilaterally decided to treat this foreign terrorist as an ordinary criminal.Abdulmutallab was questioned for less than one hour before the Justice Department advised him that he could remain silent and offered him an attorney at our expense.
Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees American citizens, this foreign terrorist 'lawyered up' and stopped talking.
When the Obama administration decided to treat Abdulmutallab as an ordinary criminal, it did so without the input of our nation's top intelligence officials. The Director of National Intelligence was not consulted. The Secretary of Defense was not consulted. The Secretary of Homeland Security was not consulted. The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center was not consulted.
They would have explained the importance of gathering all possible intelligence about Yemen, where there is a serious threat from terrorists whose sights are trained on this nation. They would have explained the critical nature of learning all we could from Abdulmutallab. But they were never asked.
In the 50 minutes the FBI had to question him, agents reportedly got actionable intelligence. Good. But were there any experts on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the room (other than Abdulmutallab)? Was there anyone intimately familiar with any National Security Agency raw traffic to, from or about the captured terrorist? Did they have a list or photos of suspected recruits?The first priority of any administration, as demanded by the presidential oath of office, is to protect its citizens. If this administration was serious about preventing future terrorist attacks, the first step it would take is gather as much information as possible as quickly as possible from captured terrorists. It's best to think of a terrorist's information like a jar of unrefrigerated mayonnaise: it'll be useless relatively quickly so it's best to make as much use of it ASAP.
When questioning its detainees, the CIA routinely turns the information provided over to its experts for verification and recommendations for follow-up. The responses of these experts, "Press him more on this, he knows the details" or "First time we've heard that", helps set up more detailed questioning.
None of that happened in Detroit. In fact, we ensured that it wouldn't. After the first session, the FBI Mirandized Abdulmutallab and, to preserve a potential prosecution, sent in a "clean team" of agents who could have no knowledge of what Abdulmutallab had provided before he was given his constitutional warnings. As has been widely reported, Abdulmutallab then exercised his right to remain silent.
The Obama administration didn't maximize the intel opportunity given by Abdulmutallab's capture. Instead of interrogating him after getting him treated in the hospital, the Obama administration gave him the option of shutting up. This shouldn't have been an option. PERIOD.
Gen. Hayden's op-ed indicates that it's Obama administration policy to tie the CIA's hands:
Two days after his inauguration, President Obama issued an executive order that limited all interrogations by the U.S. government to the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual . The CIA had not seen the final draft of the order, let alone been allowed to comment, before it was issued. I thought that odd since the order was less a legal document; there was no claim that the manual exhausted the universe of lawful techniques; than a policy one: These particular lawful techniques would be all that the country would need, at least for now.This administration hasn't proven that it'll do everything possible to gather the information needed to prevent terrorist attacks. The Bush administration's first priority was preventing the next terrorist attack. This administration's first priority apparently is to prove to the world that we're good global citizens.
Sen. Collins isn't a right wing ideologue. She wasn't the Bush administration's shill. Her points, along with Gen. Hayden's op-ed, offer an important opposing viewpoint on the Obama administration's mishandling of the Abdulmutallab interrogation opportunity.
It's time that this administration stopped 'admitting' that "the system failed" and started admitting that their policies aren't maximizing our intel gathering opportunities.
Posted Monday, February 1, 2010 11:09 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 02-Feb-10 07:30 AM
I read that headline, I imagine resignation letters being penned at the same time, Biden and Obama.
Yet - I don't see it happening.
There is what, a gap, between wish and reality?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Feb-10 09:53 AM
Eric, Stop hearing things I didn't say. The shouldn't resign until the start of the next congress in 2011 so John Boehner is Speaker.
Clyburn Insulting Our Intelligence
Earlier tonight, I read a post on the Hill Magazine's blog quoting Majority Whip James Clyburn as saying something that stunned me. Here's what Rep. Clyburn said that I found stunningly stupid:
Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the House majority whip, said that trying to find greater savings in the budget, which was released by President Barack Obama this morning, wouldn't help alleviate the recession.It's obvious that Rep. Clyburn either thinks that we're stupid enough to believe that another Porkulus bill will accomplish what the first Porkulus bill didn't or he actually thinks that that's the solution to the economy. I don't know which answer scares me more.
"We've got to make some decisions here as to what's in the best interests of our country going forward," Clyburn said during an appearance on Fox News. "And I think the best interest is to invest in education, control these deficits, while at the same time trying to get people back to work."
"We're not going to save our way out of this recession," the majority whip added. " We've got to spend our way out of this recession, and I think most economists know that ."
There's little proof that raising taxes on small businesses, America's job creation engine, during a recession will get the economy running again. There's even less proof that pursuing a radical agenda will improve the economy. In fact, there's abundant proof that pursuing a radical agenda is hurting the U.S. economy.
Rep. Thad McCotter said something important when I interviewed him that made so much sense that it hit me right between the eyes. Here's what Rep. McCotter said:
I then asked whether signing a health care bill into law might start the next round of layoffs. I said that I was basing that on businessmen and women talking about not hiring because of uncertain labor costs. Chairman McCotter said that he's warned Republicans that just knowing what the labor costs are isn't enough. He said that knowing that you're being taxed too much won't help job creation.In other words, the key to reviving the economy is in not pursuing a radical agenda that, if passed, would impose greater burdens on small businesses. Put differently, we're better off if government just got out of the way so entrepreneurs would have an incentive to invest in their businesses, whether that means buying new equipment or hiring more people.
Chairman McCotter said that it's important that we bring certainty to the labor costs but that we also make labor costs affordable enough so that businesses have an incentive to start hiring and growing their companies again. According to Chairman McCotter, that isn't possible without controlling spending and reducing government's intrusion into our lives.
The economy will pick up when small businesses know that they won't be subjected to this administration's and the Democrats' majority anti-business agenda. All of Mr. Clyburn's pork won't get the economy growing again if businesses think that they'll continue to have a bullseye painted on their backs.
Adding more pork to future generations' tabs won't cut it anymore. That might work to get a few Democrats elected in relatively safe districts but it won't help those Democrats representing swing districts, especially in this TEA Party election environment.
Clyburn suggested that talk of reducing the deficit was moot as long as the economy remained sluggish in the foreseeable future.With all due respect to Mr. Clyburn, this administration and this Democratic congress hasn't 'invested' in anything other than their political allies. That's why the term crony capitalism is increasingly used. This isn't about investing in all the different types of infrastructure. It's about paying off the Democratic Party's political allies in time for this year's midterm elections.
"You're not going to bring down the deficits, you're not going to eliminate these problems without growing this economy," he said. "And you're not going to grow the economy by wishing it; you've got to invest in it. And that's what we're doing with this budget."
There's one thing that the Democrats' spend their way out of: majority status in the House. That's something I wouldn't oppose.
Technnorati: Spending , Pork , Porkulus , Deficits , James Clyburn , House Majority Whip , Inflation , Tax Increases , Unemployment , Cap And Tax , Democrats , Thad McCotter , Small Businesses , Job Creation , Economy , Fiscal Restraint , Republicans , Election 2010
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Monday, February 1, 2010 11:16 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 02-Feb-10 07:25 AM
Insulting our intelligence, you say.
Hmmmm.
George W. Bush neved did that, did he?
Hmmmm.
Mike Pence.
Hmmmm.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 02-Feb-10 09:49 AM
Thankfully, neither GWB or Mike Pence insulted our intelligence. Talking down to people is something that Jean Francois Kerry & BHO do. BHO recently 'accepted blame' for HCR not passing because he didn't explain it properly.
He's right that he didn't explain it properly but it was rejected because the American people figured out what was in the bill.
Taking Issue With Tarryl, Part II
This weekend, as with other weekends, I taped At Issue With Tom Hauser. This week's interview was with Tarryl Clark, who's running against Michele Bachmann for the right to represent Minnesota's Sixth District in the U.S. House of Representatives. If not for my ability to replay parts of the interview several times, I wouldn't have believed what I'd heard. As is often the case, I transcribed a portion of the interview. Here's a partial transcript of Tom Hauser's interview of Tarryl:
HAUSER: Let's talk about why you've decided to run. You've been representing the St. Cloud area in the State Legislature a couple of terms. Why did you decide to make this leap?First, Tarryl saying that she's "got a pretty good track record" of defeating her opponents is questionable if you don't forget that Dave Kleis defeated her for the state senate seat she currently occupies. Let's put that aside temporarily since that isn't really the answer to Tom Hauser's question. He asked about the 6th District leaning more towards smaller government and lower taxes and how Tarryl would "counter that."
TARRYL: Well, as corny as it sounds, I really tried to figure out where I can make the biggest difference. Washington is clearly not working for the people and, frankly, Michele Bachmann isn't working for Minnesotans.
I have a long track record. Before I was elected, and since then, I've worked bipartisanly. I do believe that it's important that we work together, not necessarily in front of the lights...It's time that we got together and got things done.
HAUSER: Some would suggest that you wouldn't be that great a fit for the whole district because it tends to be more Republican, which means less government and lower taxes and those are things that you have not necessarily been for in the State Senate. How will you counter that?
TARRYL: Well, in all honesty, it's my opponents who've said that and I've got a pretty good track record of beating them.
People are struggling. I've been listening throughout the district while our congresswoman has been in California. I've been listening around the district. People are really struggling. We have the highest unemployment rate and the highest foreclosure rate. Small businesses are really reeling with the cost of health care.
Based on her answer, I'm betting that she'd pray like hell that some well-informed blogger like myself wouldn't mention her 2007 Minnesota Chamber of Commerce ratings. That year, the 7 bills that the MCoC rated state senators on focused mostly on tax increases with the only exception being a health care bill and the DREAM Act. According to the MCoC's chart, Tarryl voted for a:
bill would have created a fourth income tax bracket at 9 percent. The Minnesota Chamber opposed the bill because the personal income tax is a small business tax;I'd love hearing Tarryl answer Mr. Hauser's question without slipping the question. Based on the MCoC ratings, it appears that Tarryl voted to raise small business's property taxes (once) and income taxes (twice). Meanwhile, Tarryl voted for a host of tax increases in the transportation bill that the Chamnber opposed because they supported "a more moderate transportation funding package."
transportation finance bill contained a 5 cent gas tax increase, allowed for a 2.5 cent gas tax surcharge to finance the debt service of bonds, a license tab fee increase, authority to impose a one-half cent sales tax to be divided between roads and transit in the seven-county metro area, authority for greater Minnesota counties to impose a half-cent sales tax, and authority for all counties to impose a $5 or $10 wheelage tax. (The Chamber "opposed the conference committee report because we continued to support a more moderate transportation funding package.")
bill that "increases the statewide property tax, paid by commercial, industrial and utility property, and increases the tax on Minnesota companies that use the foreign operating corporation structure" and that included "significant and permanent business tax increases [that] more than offset the benefit of the up front exemption and sales-only apportionment provisions";
another income tax bill that "would have created a new fourth personal income tax bracket at 9.7 percent, the highest state income tax rate in the nation."
Implicit in that last sentence is that the bill that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed wasn't moderate. In fact, we know that since this is what Sen. Murphy said about the bill :
"I'm not trying to fool anybody," said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, sponsor of the measure that would increase funding for roads and transit by $1.5 billion a year once it was fully implemented in the next decade. "There's a lot of taxes in this bill."Based on this objective information, it's clear that Tarryl hasn't hesitated in voting for tax increases. This begs the question of why Tarryl thinks she's a better fit for the 6th District's voters who prefer low taxes and limited government better than Michele Bachmann. Based on their voting habits, I'd say that Michele Bachmann is the perfect fit for this district.
I've been saving the best for last. Here's another thing that Tarryl said that I simply can't exclude from this post:
TARRYL: Frankly, there's times when government can do things but, frankly, there's times when we just need government to just get out of the way.Based on her votes, I'm curious if Tarryl has voted to just get government out of the way. I know that Tarryl was bummed out in 2007 about not being able to do " many good things :"
"This is it. And unfortunately I think people have been led to believe that we're awash in new money and that we can do many good things. I think it's definitely the wake-up call that we can't do many good things; not with these kinds of dollars," according to Clark.This is the same Tarryl that told Tom Hauser that there wasn't much fat to be trimmed from the budget :
Hauser: You can talk about reform all you want but reform inevitably ends up meaning that some people that are getting state services now won't be getting them after this reform, whether it be in HHS, whether it be in education, early childhood, any of those things.At the time, Minnesota's budget was approximately $34,000,000,000. That $500,000,000 equalled 1.5% of the budget. Based on her quote, Tarryl thinks that it's difficult, if not impossible, to find meaningful amounts of waste in Minnesota's budget.
Tarryl: Sure, and an estimate, a good estimate would be that maybe we could figure out how to save about $500 million.
Based on these things, isn't it reasonable to conclude that Tarryl's past votes and quotes betray this weekend's quotes? Doesn't it sound like Tarryl is like President Obama in that she's great at talking like a moderate without voting like a moderate?
Finally, Tarryl said that she's been travelling the district, listening to people, doing the hard work of finding out what the people want. It's interesting that she'd mention that after last winter's listening tour :
From: Gene Pelowski [mailto:Rep.Gene.Pelowski@house.mn]Who can forget that not-so-old golden oldie? For that matter, who can forget the night the Misery Tour visited St. Cloud ? That's the night when "a sizable group of people were upset that there wasn't a segment devoted to cutting spending." They had time to manipulate the testimony but they didn't allocate time to suggested cost savings. Now that the TEA Party movement has sprung up, Tarryl's returned to sounding like a fiscal moderate.
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:13 AM
This Friday, February 20, there will be a bicameral hearing held in our region. Senators and Representatives from both political parties will be in Winona from 3:30 to 5:30 PM, Winona City Hall, 207 Lafayette St. The purpose of this hearing is to get testimony from affected programs in every level of government, education, health care or service impacted by the cuts suggested by the Governor's state budget.
I am writing you to ask that you or a designee get scheduled to testify. You may do this by going to the House website at www.house.mn and clicking on "Town Meetings".
We would ask you to focus your comments on the impact of the Governor's budget including what is the harm to your area of government or program. Please be as precise as possible using facts such as number of lay offs, increases in property taxes, cuts in services, increases in tuition, elimination of programs . To be respectful of the time necessary to hear from a large number of constituents it would be advised to use no more than 3-5 minutes to convey your message. If you choose to provide handouts or printed materials, please plan to bring approximately 25 copies, enough for committee members and media.
Sincerely,
Representative Gene Pelowski
District 31A
Isn't it time we rejected politicians that talk moderate and vote for radical tax-and-spend agendas? Haven't we had enough of that type of politician?
Posted Tuesday, February 2, 2010 5:18 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 02-Feb-10 07:20 AM
National on down, the Chambers of Commerce are Republican organs.
You think it is significant that the Republican organs do not like a Democrat.
Why, Gary, that's like the sun rising in the east in the morning.
And, whatever you say about Tarryl Clark or Maureen Reed, neither is a welfare recipient railing against government like Bachmann.
Saying cut taxes, gladly cashing the Wisconsin family farm government welfare-subsidy checks.
Bottom line. When there's free government money is on the table she takes it. Out of principle, I suppose.
How, Gary, can you support that?
What's your justification?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Feb-10 09:44 AM
Eric, the national & state chambers have actually been more liberal than conservative. The local chambers have been the most conservative level.
Frankly, I've seen Tarryl's schtick. She isn't an honest person. I've caught her more than once. Like it or don't but that's a fact.
Comment 2 by Joan at 02-Feb-10 09:24 AM
I think Tarryl had great answers - very reasonble and she recognizes that these are complex issues. To be really free, we need the right balance of private and government actions. Tarryl will be a representative we can be proud of in Minnesota, in my opinion.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Feb-10 09:45 AM
There's just one little flaw with your answer, Joan. Tarryl couldn't win in the 6th District, especially this year.
Comment 3 by Lady Logician at 02-Feb-10 11:02 AM
"National on down, the Chambers of Commerce are Republican organs."
Eric - I wonder if you thought that when the NATIONAL ON DOWN Chambers were supporting President Obama during the campaign or during the Stimulus debate or during the beginnings of the health care debate. One has to wonder....
Jean - PLEASE...her "answers" may have been moderate but her VERIFIABLE voting record has been anything BUT moderate. Look beyond the talking points. It's amazing what you will learn.
LL
Asheville TEA Party Goes Too Far
When I read about the whining that the Asheville TEA Party did after Michele Bachmann was forced to back out of due to House Ethics rules, I decided that I couldn't sit back any longer. Here's what upset me the most:
Are we liberty loving capitalists or aren't we? Tea Party Nation is a for-profit corporation. They have organized what, for all appearances, will be a well attended, well executed conference. Does it strike anyone else as a little odd that Rep Michele Bachmann, a woman known for her embrace of the free market and individual liberty, would back out of this event due to concerns that the ticket price is too high?What a bunch of morons. They didn't bother listening to why Michele is backing out. Dave Dziok's explanation should've sufficed but apparently, they don't think Dave's explanation is a credible one. Here's Dave's explanation:
This event has been much maligned, not unlike every other step of this movement. Bachmann has dealt us a blow, but as usual, we will soldier on. Ultimately, I believe the damage will be to her credibility, not ours.
"We're out," said Bachmann spokesman Dave Dziok. "It comes down to conflicting advice as to how these profits are going to be used after the fact. We'd rather err on the side of caution than do it and find out it's improper, with somebody saying 'they're using the money from an event you were at to support this and this,' which comes as a direct conflict with what you're doing as a member of Congress."This organization must think that violating House Ethics ruls isn't a big thing. Michele's already got a bullseye painted on her back. She doesn't need a House Ethics Committee investigation starting up, especially heading into an election year.
I'm certain that the Democrats on the House Ethics Committee would rejoice in having anything to attack Michele with. Wisely, Michele put a higher priority on obeying the House ethics rulse than on attending a TEA Party event.
When the author said that Michele's cancelling out of the event would damage her credibility, I couldn't help wonder whether she knew the first thing about Michele. Anyone who knows Michele knows that she says what she means and means what she says. I'm betting that a solid majority of CD-6 voters will think her credibility is just fine, thank you. I'm betting that they won't think twice about re-electing her.
As a local TEA Party organizer, I'll guarantee that I'll invite Michele to speak at future TEA Party events. I won't think twice about whether Michele's credibility has been damaged because I'll know it hasn't suffered even a tiny bit. As long as Michele keeps voting against President Obama's and the Democrats' insane budgets, complete with sky-high deficits for as far as the eye can see, as long as Michele keeps voting for budgets that set sane priorities, as long as Michele keeps voting against legislation that violates the Tenth Amendment, Michele's credibility on matters that fiscal conservatives care about, her credibility will be just fine.
I can understand if these statements were said out of disappointment at not having one of the pre-eminent leaders of the TEA Party movement speaking at the event. If that's the case, I can look past the statements. I'm hoping that's what those statements were about.
Finally, this spat doesn't rise to tempest-in-a-teapot level in the overall scheme of things for the TEA Party movement. When history is written about this year's elections, I'm confident that the TEA Party movement will be known as the dominant political force of this election cycle.
Posted Wednesday, February 3, 2010 3:51 AM
Comment 1 by Asheville Tea Party at 03-Feb-10 10:12 AM
When history is written about this year's elections, I'm confident that the TEA Party movement will be known as the dominant political force of this election cycle.
Not if we call each other "a bunch of morons" when we disagree. I do find Bachmann's move disappointing. I am also a fan of Bachmann's. The two positions are not mutually exclusive.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Feb-10 11:52 AM
That's a fair point. Let's call a truce & just keep working towards beating up on the people with the D's behind their names. Deal???
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 03-Feb-10 02:34 PM
OK - now that you two have kissed and made up....
The ONLY caution that I would advise is to remember that not all districts can elect a Michele Bachmann type small government conservative. We have to take advantage of victories like Scott Brown or (ugh) Mark Kirk and work with them where we can. Neither one is a true doctrinaire conservative, but in this fight against doctrinaire progressives - we need every ally we can get!
LL
Comment 3 by eric z at 03-Feb-10 04:51 PM
You missed a quote at that site:
"Unlike Palin, who is reportedly getting a $100,000 speaking fee, Dziok said Bachmann was not getting any money for her speech."
Jealously? Coveting thy neighbor's fee?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Feb-10 12:12 AM
Eric, What happened? Is it that you don't believe anything that Michele says? She isn't going because the House Ethics Committee wouldn't give her or Marsha Blackburn a consistent answer on whether speaking at the event would violated House rules. PERIOD. Michele's decision was based on the premise that she wasn't going to do anything that might've been used against her in a campaign.
I'll just suggest that you read everything through the first time without your ideological blinders on. Digest the information first, then start answering the why questions. Deal?
Comment 4 by snopercod at 09-Feb-10 05:47 PM
It's pretty simple. The Democrat-controlled House Ethics Committee threatened an investigation if she attended, so she did the prudent thing and backed out.
What's so hard to understand about that?
Gregg Eviscerates Orszag
God bless Sen. Judd Gregg for eviscerating OMB Director Peter Orszag during yesterday's Senate Budget Committee hearing. Here's what Sen. Gregg said in response to Director Orszag's tesimony:
While President Obama was visiting Nashua, Gregg's birthplace, the three-term senator was on Capitol Hill skewering Peter Orszag over the plan to funnel $30 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.The legislation that established TARP is very specific. Once the money is repaid, that money goes into the general fund. It's against the law to use the repaid money as a slush fund to be spent on whatever this administration wants to spend it on. PERIOD.
Gregg erupted as Orszag spoke of the TARP use to solve lingering problems with access to credit for small businesses. "No! No! No!" he yelled out. "You can't make that type of statement with any legitimacy. You cannot make that statement." Gregg then held up a guideline for the TARP, which he helped write in 2008 to keep the country from further economic collapse.
"This is the law," he said. "Let me tell you what the law says. Let me read to you again because you don't appear to understand the law. The law is very clear. The monies recouped from the TARP shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for the reduction of the public debt. It's not for a piggy bank because you're concerned about lending to small businesses and you want to get a political event when you go out and make a speech in Nashua, N.H."
Gregg accused Orszag and Obama of passing on debt to generations of Americans and having an abashed sidestepping of the TARP law. "And," he said, "you ought to at least have the integrity to be forthright about it."
Under further questioning from Gregg, Orszag said the administration would be seeking congressional approval. Then Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, chimed in, "That is how laws are made usually, Congress passes them."This administration and their progressive allies in Congress have this nasty habit of running roughshod on the laws of this country, especially if those laws stand in the way of President Obama's ability to recklessly spend money at unsustainable rates. Thank God that people of the intellectual heft of Sen. Gregg still serve in the Senate. Sen. Gregg is the taxpayer's watchdog. For that alone, I'll grant him hero status.
Gregg fired back, "Did the senator from Vermont make a statement? Well the senator is wrong. This is the law as it stands today. There is no law on the books."
Orszag, whose official title is director of the Office of Management and Budget, appeared before the committee to testify on the President's 2011 budget. In his prepared remarks, Orszag placed much of the blame on the country's budget deficit on the Bush administration.It's getting old to hear President Bush get blamed for everything that's wrong with the US economy and the federal government's budget deficits. It simply doesn't pass the laugh test. The administration and the congress that passed two omnibus spendin bills, the failed stimulus bill and a budget that runs up trillions of dollars of debt over the next decade simply don't have any credibility as being fiscally responsible.
President Bush wasn't a fiscal conservative by any stretch but it wasn't his signature that turned this administration's failed stimulus bill into law. It wasn't President Bush's signatures that turned the Democratic Congress's omnibus spending bills into a 25 percent spending increase of the federal budget. This administration and the Democratic majority's reckless spending habits are documented facts. This isn't theory. This isn't speculation.
Dick Morris's column puts the administration's argument to rest. Here's the important statistics:
President Obama is being disingenuous when he says that the budget deficit he faced "when I walked in the door" of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.The deficit that President Obama inherited was the biggest in history to that point. Now he's exploded that deficit, surpassing it by $620,000,000,000.
Congressman Joe Wilson might have said "you lie," but we'll settle for "you distort."
(As Mark Twain once said, there are three kinds of lies: "lies, damn lies, and statistics.")
Here are the facts:
In 2008, Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on October 1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was about $600 billion at the start of the fiscal crisis. That was the real Bush deficit.
But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit, officially, up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short term loan. $500 billion of it has already been repaid.
So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won't be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
Then,he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama's 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.
People aren't buying this administration's talking points that it's all President Bush's fault because it isn't all his fault. This administration and this Democratic Congress certainly played a major role in doubling the deficits they inherited from the Bush administration.
Posted Wednesday, February 3, 2010 7:42 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 03-Feb-10 04:46 PM
Bush with those objectionable signing statements, and you talk about running roughshod over the law.
What were you saying back then?
Why are you so concerned about the law when there's been a judicial determination the Unalloter ran roughshod over the law?
It seems GOP is different???
