February 4, 2009
Feb 04 08:56 President Obama: Agent of Status Quo? Feb 04 11:11 Pelosi's Biden Impression? Feb 04 11:57 Sen. Coleman Conference Call Feb 04 13:04 Sen. Murphy's Tax Increase Agenda Feb 04 15:31 President Obama, Tell Me Why This Bill Is Essential Feb 04 23:01 To Save Or Create Jobs
Prior Months: Jan
President Obama: Agent of Status Quo?
Then-Sen. Obama talked frequently about cleaning up Washington. He portrayed himself as the ultimate change agent. Thus far, he's acting more like the ultimate agent of the status quo. Tim Geithner, his first Treasury Secretary, didn't pay his taxes. That's a great example to set as head of the IRS. Tom Daschle and Nancy Kellefer both withdrew their names from consideration to be the HHS Secretary and chief performance officer respectively because they, too, had tax difficulties.
Toby Harnden has noticed that President Obama isn't the change agent he campaigned as :
What a difference an election makes. On the campaign trail, candidate Barack Obama vowed to fix Washington's "broken politics", which had become "gummed up by money and influence". In the age of Obama, he promised, government would no longer be "a tool to enrich friends and high-priced lobbyists". The stakes were too high to play the "same old Washington games with the same old Washington players". The slogan was: "Change you can believe in."I can't pretend to be surprised. President Obama learned his politics from the inside of Chicago's machine. Where would he learn postpartisanship? Where would he have learned about taking on special interests?
Now that he is in office, however, the new dawn is looking like a false one. His administration is crammed to the gills with alumni of Bill Clinton's White House; Hillary Clinton, whom Obama mocked as the epitome of what was wrong with politics, is now secretary of state.
There have been attempts to give lobbyists top jobs in the Obama administration. Tom Daschle, a former senator and the personification of the slick operator richly rewarded for his influence-peddling, was nominated as health secretary. As with two other Obama nominees, it subsequently emerged that he had failed to pay all his taxes, and yesterday he was forced to withdraw his name from consideration.
President Obama still sounds a lot like candidate Obama. On day one in the White House, he announced that he was closing "the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely" and making "a clean break from business as usual". His new ethics and transparency rules were, he ventured, "historic measures".
But the sheen is already coming off, as realities takes its toll. Two days after he had looked Americans in the eye and told them that this was a new ethical dawn, the President waived his "historic" rule. William Lynn, a lobbyist for the defence giant Raytheon, was nominated as the deputy Pentagon chief. There would always be "reasonable exceptions", the White House press secretary insisted.
People that bought his 'I'm going to clean up Washington' schtick ignored everything he'd done prior to getting to Washington. Simply put, they were gullible.
On a sidenote, Robert Gibbs is having a difficult time explaining away his boss's cabinet picks. He's been forced to defend the indefensible. It's a thankless job, one which he deserves for choosing to work for someone who isn't principled. (I'm not saying President Obama is evil. I'm simply saying that he's slippery at times.)
The problem is, a pattern is emerging. The new treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who oversees the Internal Revenue Service, America's equivalent of the H M Revenue and Customs, apologised profusely for failing to pay $34,000 in taxes and survived. Yesterday, Nancy Killefer, who was to be federal "chief performance officer", stood down for failing to pay employment taxes for her house cleaner. Now Mr Obama has been forced to jettison Mr Daschle, an early supporter who provided key staff and access to an invaluable political network. The loss of two nominees in a single day will inevitably raise questions over his judgment.The stench of the privileged playing by different rules than the average Joe will continue to haunt the Obama administration until Mr. Geithner is terminated or resigns. Ben Pershing highlights that in this post :
"Did I screw up in this situation? Absolutely. I'm willing to take my lumps," Obama told NBC's Brian Williams, one of five interviews he gave yesterday afternoon. Obama told the network anchors that there are "not two sets of rules" for people, and said that average taxpayers deserve to have public officials who pay their taxes on time.President Obama appears to be hoping that we won't notice that there are different, sometimes conflicting rules within his administration. He fought to get Timothy Geithner confirmed as Treasury Secretary. With Tom Daschle, he accepted news of Daschle's withdrawal "with regret." They did the same thing, just to differing degrees.
Most notable of those to date is Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, who won confirmation last week despite his failure to pay some taxes. In addition, Obama has appointed a handful of former lobbyists to key administrative positions, many of which oversee the industries for which they lobbied.The thing that's troubling about Geithner, other than his ethical lapses, is the thought that he's the only guy who can fix our economy. That's nonsense. Geithner didn't descend from Mount Olympus. He's eminently fallible. It's time we accepted that.
Technically, or perhaps literally, yes, in making his pledge to replace the "business-as-usual" Capitol culture with sweeping ethics reforms, Obama allowed himself to make exceptions.
However, rank-and-file voters are not dense. To stand by most every nominee on grounds that they are the right person for the job despite mistakes or career ties is to water down, if not fully abandon, any pledge to change Washington.
President Obama's fighting for Geithner, in my opinion, is proof that he's a defender of the status quo with no intention of cleaning up Washington. Additionally, President Obama appears to be totally risk averse. That's why he let Sen. Daschle quickly withdraw.
Sounds like the status quo to me.
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 9:03 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 04-Feb-09 10:40 AM
Obama will not do the right thing unless he is forced to do so. The right thing in Geithner's case is to ask for his resignation, or at absolute minimum to demand that he pay penalties and fines for tax evasion. Instead, BO has chosen his usual high-sounding double-talk. Here's hoping that wears thin, and soon.
Pelosi's Biden Impression?
NANCY PELOSI: Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs. I don't think we can go fast enough to stop that.There seems to be a fuzzy math virus filtering its way through DC these days. Whether it's Timothy Geithner not paying taxes or Ms. Pelosi telling fellow Democrats that hundreds of millions of jobs will be lost if the stimulus bill isn't passed, Democrats don't seem strong with math. (They don't seem strong in the area of ethics, either.)
Hasn't Ms. Pelosi been told, or for that matter haven't any Democrats been told , that the population of the United States is 305,000,000? What haven't Ms. Pelosi's staffers told her that there's approximately 150,000,000 people either employed or actively seeking employment? You'd think that with they'd be able to find Democrats with that type of information that could serve on her staff.
More importantly, Ms. Pelosi, the Democrats' leader in the House of Representatives, has stepped beyond spin with this statement. Let's set aside the number of people that will lose their jobs. Let's focus on whether this bill will create jobs.
- What impact will spending $335,000,000 on STD prevention and education have on job creation?
- What impact will spending $1,000,000,000 on Amtrak have on job creation?
- What impact will spending $4,190,000,000 on community stabilization activities have on job creation?
This bill isn't about putting the economy on the right track. It was about paying off the Democrats' special interest allies with our taxes. (BTW, that's a telltale sign that President Obama played a part in this legislation. Alot of his allies have been salivating at the thought of him repaying them for their hard work.)
The moral of this sad story is that Nancy Pelosi is a typical Democrat. She's perfectly willing to say totally outlandish things to pass legislation to pay off the Democrats' special interest allies. What's worst about the Democrats' setting political payoffs as their highest priority is that they've shown that righting the United States' economy isn't their highest priority.
It's time that We The People stopped tolerating the Democrats' misprioritization. It's time that we stopped rationalizing them caring more about their special interest allies than they care about people who make America great.
Most importantly, it's time that we told Nancy Pelosi's Democrats that we won't be led by people who are intellectually dishonest and intellectually bankrupt. It's time that we threw Ms. Pelosi and her Democrat loyalists out on their keister.
If Democrats won't put us first, we'll do everything we can to help them finish second best on election night, 2010.
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 11:15 AM
No comments.
Sen. Coleman Conference Call
This morning, I participated in a blogger conference call with Sen. Norm Coleman and attorney Ben Ginsberg. Sen. Coleman opened with a statement that yesterday's ruling to allow 4,800 absentee ballots to be counted "was a great day for Minnesotans."
The first question was asked by Janet Beihoffer of SCSUScholars. Janet asked if the absentee ballots that were ruled on yesterday were from Republican-leaning parts of the state.
Sen. Coleman's initial response was that he didn't know how the people voted. His next response was that the fifth pile absentee ballots that have already been counted were from precincts that leaned heavily Democratic. Mr. Ginsberg put the total of fifth pile ballots at 950+.
Both gentlemen stressed the fact that Franken's lead was artificial. By that they meant that the lead Franken currently has will likely shrink when ballots from more Republican-friendly parts of the state are counted.
Ed Morrissey of HotAir directed the next question towards Mr. Ginsberg. Ed asked if yesterday's ruling brought any Equal Protection issues into play. This was a clear reference to Bush v. Gore. Mr. Ginsberg said that the ruling followed Minnesota law. Mr. Ginsberg then said that, in Bush v. Gore, the Florida Supreme Court ignored relevant Florida law and essentially wrote their own new law.
Mr. Ginsberg said that if an illegal ballot (for example, received late) was wrongly counted in one instance, it doesn't mean that all late ballots should be counted. He went on to say that elementary fairness, as well as equal protection, requires the court to treat all similar ballots the same if one Is counted, but the other is not. For example, Mr. Ginsberg noted the situation of a ballot signed by a the voter, but not in the signature block, the court heard testimony from one county that counted those ballots but a second that didn't. Neither was right or wrong under MN law, but this court now has to make such decisions uniform throughout the state.
The next question came from Amanda Carpenter of Townhall.com. She asked whether Franken's tax problems had been resolved. Sen. Coleman said that some of Mr. Franken's tax problems were resolved but they weren't certain that all of his issues had gotten resolved. (Personally, if Franken loses the recount, he'd fit perfectly into President Obama's cabinet.)
Next up was Philip Klein of the American Spectator, who asked whether this election contest was the end of the line. Mr. Klein also asked for an explanation of the duplicate ballots issue. Sen. Coleman said that this isn't about exhausting all of his legal options in the hopes of winning. He said that it's about making certain that every legally cast ballot is counted. Sen. Coleman expressed confidence that he'll win if every legally cast ballot is counted, then added that if Mr. Franken winds up with more votes after the ballots are counted, then Mr. Franken will have won.
The final questioner was Soren Dayton of The Next Right and Redstate. Soren asked if the Senate would be forced to seat Sen. Coleman if he was certified the winner or if Harry Reid might try playing some shennanigans to prevent Sen. Coleman from serving in the Senate. Sen. Coleman asked how Sen. Reid's comments about not seating Roland Burris worked out.
Asked if a re-vote was possible, Sen. Coleman said that they wouldn't get into hypothetical questions but did say that certified election winners traditionally get seated.
They ended the call before I got to ask my question. I'd planned on asking whether the election contest would've been able to proceed if Sen. Cornyn hadn't threatened to filibuster Sen. Reid's attempt to 'temporarily' seat Mr. Franken.
UPDATE: Ed's got a good post up about the call here .
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 2:27 PM
No comments.
Sen. Murphy's Tax Increase Agenda
I was informed yesterday that Democratic Sen. Steve Murphy called for tax increases during a Senate Finance Committee hearing. Senate Republican Leader Senjem immediately issued this press release:
Let me be clear: now is the worst time in state history to raise taxes. Even the Obama administration is proposing tax cuts, not tax increases. Senator Murphy and other Minnesota Democrats are out of touch with their legislative proposals to increase taxes.This is what precipitated Sen. Senjem's issuing that press release:
Helping create a business friendly environment that will stimulate the creation of private sector jobs is the best solution to solving this budget deficit. Minnesota businesses are being chased away with excessive taxes and regulations, and Senator Murphy's call for new tax increases is simply the wrong approach to jump-starting Minnesota's economy.
Last week, Pawlenty recommended borrowing $1 billion to help plug a $4.85 billion hole in the state's next two-year budget. To pay that debt, he would use about $100 million a year for the next 20 years from tobacco company payments to the state that settled an industry lawsuit in 1998.The next portion of Bill Salisbury's article is particularly humorous:
Instead of borrowing money, Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, said the Legislature should take the lead in balancing the budget in an "open, honest, straightforward way." "Would there be some tax increases? Yes," Murphy said during a Senate Finance Committee hearing.
With that statement, he broke ranks with Democratic-Farmer-Labor legislative leaders, who have carefully avoided mentioning the possibility of tax increases.Several important points must be made:
But Pawlenty and other Republican leaders expect DFLers to call for more taxes - after they spend several weeks showing how painful the governor's spending cuts would be. He proposed eliminating health care benefits for 84,000 Minnesotans and sharply reducing state funding for cities, counties and state colleges and universities.
"I think what they'll do is make the case that my budget is inadequate in some regards, and then, surprise, surprise, they'll come out with a tax-increase proposal," Pawlenty said Monday.
- The DFL won't put out their own budget even though they've conducted hundreds of hearings when the Legislature wasn't in session. Democrats held the hearings. Democrats have listened to testimony. Democrats have been paid thousands of dollars of per diem. Despite all that, we don't know what benefit those hearings have given Minnesota's taxpayers. The only thing we know is that the Senate Democrats either haven't gotten anything done or they're being secretive about what they got accomplished.
- Since taking the majority of the House, Democrats haven't proposed anything that will bring prosperity and sustained job growth to Minnesota. Democrats proposed growing the size of existing safety net programs. Democrats have proposed hundreds of millions of dollars in here-today-gone-tomorrow jobs through bonding bills. They just can't bring themselves to cutting taxes so increase entrepreneurial activity.
- By refusing to propose a plan that counts on robust entrepreneurial activity, Democrats paint themselves, and all Minnesotans, into an economic corner.
Democrats like Steve Murphy haven't had an original thought in ages. Democrats like Steve Murphy are agents of the status quo. They don't think of big picture things. Instead Democrats think in terms of stop-gap policies that get us from year to year.
It's time Minnesotans rejected the Democrats' stop-gap policies. It's time Minnesotans gave a closer look at the Republicans' plans for prosperity and reform.
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 1:04 PM
Comment 1 by Angela Berger at 04-Feb-09 03:33 PM
Right on. The Minnesota DFL has spent too much tax payer money between sessions to not have a budget of their own ready and on the table. See a crosspost about DFL per diem spending at http://www.conservativecravings.blogspot.com
President Obama, Tell Me Why This Bill Is Essential
It isn't pretty watching a president ruin his image. When President Obama said that not passing the stimulus bill would lead to an economic catastrophe , President Obama's ruined his image. Here's what the AP is reporting:
Obama indicated he's amenable to changes. "No plan is perfect, and we should work to make it stronger," Obama said at the White House Wednesday. "Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the essential. Let's show people all over our country who are looking for leadership in this difficult time that we are equal to the task."Hearing President Obama admit that this bill isn't perfect is barely worth noting. We KNOW that it isn't perfect. Passing this bill is a disaster. President Obama saying that we shouldn't make the essential the enemy of the good is irrelevant. This bill isn't essential. Most of its provisions are taxpayer-funded payoffs to the Democrats' political allies.
That's certainly not essential. Those provisions should be dropped immediately. One time 'tax cuts' should be dropped immediately, too. If the goal is creatng jobs, those gimmicks should be immediately replaced with permanent tax cuts for small businesses and blue collar workers.
President Obama says that "people all over our country who are looking for leadership." I agree that's what we're looking for. It's time Democrats, starting with President Obama, led with policies that put small businesses and mainstreet America first instead of putting the Democrats' special interest allies first.
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.Health care reform isn't something that you just write into a bill like this. Policies must be weigheds, options must be examined, costs questioned and technology's role identified. In short, reforming health care shouldn't be done without extensive hearings. This isn't something that's best done flying by the seat of the Senate's pants.
If President Obama is interested in energy independence and in setting a postpartisan example, he should tell Congress that they adopt the American Energy Act as the centerpiece of their energy policy. Here's the provisions in the AEA :
To increase the supply American-made energy in environmentally sound ways, the legislation will:
- Open our deep water ocean resources, which will provide an additional three million barrels of oil per day, as well as 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as proposed in H.R. 6108 by Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC). Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) has also worked tirelessly on this issue.
- Open the Arctic coastal plain, which will provide an additional one million barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6107 by Rep. Don Young (R-AK);
- Allow development of our nation's shale oil resources, which could provide an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, as proposed in H.R. 6138 by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI); and
- Increase the supply of gas at the pump by cutting bureaucratic red tape that essentially blocks construction of new refineries, as proposed in H.R. 6139 by Reps. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Joe Pitts (R-PA).
To improve energy conservation and efficiency , the legislation will:
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and families that purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, as proposed in H.R. 1618 and H.R. 765 by Reps. Dave Camp (R-MI) and Jerry Weller (R-IL);
- Provide a monetary prize for developing the first economically feasible, super-fuel-efficient vehicle reaching 100 miles-per-gallon, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT); and
- Provide tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency, as proposed in H.R. 5984 by Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Phil English (R-PA), and Zach Wamp (R-TN), and in H.R. 778 by Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL).
To promote renewable and alternative energy technologies , the legislation will:In other words, the AEA will put us on the glidepath to energy independence because it's a balanced, straightforward approach. Not only that but implementing it will create thousands of new jobs. Isn't that exactly what's desperately needed ASAP? After all, didn't President Obama say that doing nothing while people are hurting will lead to catastrophe?
- Spur the development of alternative fuels through government contracting by repealing the "Section 526" prohibition on government purchasing of alternative energy and promoting coal-to-liquids technology, as proposed in H.R. 5656 by Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), in H.R. 6384 by Rob Bishop (R-UT), and in H.R. 2208 by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL);
- Establish a renewable energy trust fund using revenues generated by exploration in the deep ocean and on the Arctic coastal plain, as proposed by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA);
- Permanently extend the tax credit for alternative energy production, including wind, solar and hydrogen, as proposed in H.R. 2652 by Rep. Phil English (R-PA) and in H.R. 5984 by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD); and
- Eliminate barriers to the expansion of emission-free nuclear power production, as proposed in H.R. 6384 by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT).
Obama has sought each day to ratchet up the pressure on lawmakers, bringing different supportive groups to the White House, scheduling a series of TV interviews, even traveling to a charter school to tout one portion of the bill.When billions of dollars are borrowed to spend on taxpayer-subsidized political payoffs, does President Obama think that inflation won't spike? Does he think that that won't have an effect on the 2010 economy? Doesn't President Obama think that high inflation rates have the same effect as a tax increase on everyone? In fact, isn't high inflation the most regressive taxation of all?
"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," Obama said in his prepared remarks.
It's time that Senate Republicans stood up to President Obama and confronted him with these questions. In fact, Republicans should ask all Democrats , including President Obama, Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi, why it's important to push through a bill that will cause interest rates and inflation to spike .
Secondly, Republicans should ask all Democrats , starting with President Obama but including Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi, why it's important to push through a bill that doesn't create jobs .
Thirdly, Republicans should ask all Democrats , starting with President Obama but including Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi, why it's important to push a bill that's filled with pork .
Finally, Republicans should ask all Democrats , starting with President Obama but including Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi, why it's important to push a bill that doesn't create jobs or make Americans prosperous .
If Democrats can't answer those questions, Republicans should withold their support. If Democrats want to pass this bill, let them own it. PERIOD.
Republicans should let Democrats deal with the fallout in 2010.
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 4:17 PM
No comments.
To Save Or Create Jobs
Since his inauguration, President Obama hasn't talked about job creation. Instead, he's talking about the stimulus creating some jobs and saving other jobs, thereby giving him an out when the stimulus bill doesn't create jobs or lift us out of this recession.
It's important that people not lose their jobs. That's never been the benchmark for whether the economy is heading in the right direction, though. In the first place, how do you measure jobs that aren't lost?
More importantly, how does not losing one's job translate into a growing economy? Most importantly, how does not losing one's job translate into a prospering economy?
Shouldn't the creation of jobs and the expansion of the economy be the biggest determining factor on whether a president's economic policies are right policies? When President Reagan took over the disaster left by the Carter administration, he didn't talk about treading water. He didn't talk about saving jobs. He had a vision of a robust America because he knew that we're a country of doers. He spoke about letting America achieve by getting government out of America's way.
By contrast, President Obama has told us that we're in a crisis, that massive government intervention is the only thing that can lift us out of this crisis and that, even then, our future is uncertain without even more amounts of government intervention.
That message is sure to inspire the true believers. His uplifting rhetoric obviously won over people in the middle. One wonders, though, how long President Obama will keep the independents on his side.
The popularity of President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's stimulus package shrinks almost daily. Each time another batch of pork is exposed, people start scratching their heads wondering why we're wasting money instead of making the popular parts of the Bush tax cuts permanent. (The dirty little secret that President Obama won't admit is the fact that the best of President Bush's policies are still quite popular.)
Now President Obama is at a crossroads. If he starts pushing a more moderate bill and strips out the pork, the Nutroots will villify him. More importantly, they'll dry up the contributions spigot to Pelosi and Reid. If he pushes a bill that spoils the Democrats' special interest allies, he'll be crucified for catering to radicals.
President Obama wouldn't be in these dire straits if he hadn't surrendered much of his opening agenda to Nancy Pelosi and David Obey. President Obama wouldn't be in these dire straits if he understood how to put a real agenda together. Thus far, his only known skill is delivering a great speech. The thing about delivering great speeches is that a day after it's been reviewed, people get right back with living their lives.
If people only have time to think about all the things that have them depressed, the downward spiral continues. That's why putting a real agenda together is vital. An agenda that people trust will create jobs and lift an economy out of a recession is vital in lifting a nation's spirits.
Thus far, President Obama has botched the two most important things in creating a positive first impression. He's botched a bunch several cabinet appointments. The stimulus bill loses support daily. Unless I miss my guess, people will soon start noticing that he isn't the postpartisan politician he claimed to be on the campaign trail.
How does this impact President Obama's ability to create jobs? Simple. If people don't trust the people setting economic policy, they won't put their money at risk. Without people wondering if he's a bungler, it's easy picturing President Obama's policies not leading to job creation.
Posted Wednesday, February 4, 2009 11:03 PM
No comments.
