February 5, 2009
Feb 05 08:55 Republican What??? Feb 05 10:06 Hold The Whoppers, Mr. President Feb 05 11:51 Today's Recount Update Feb 05 13:13 Let's Have This Fight Feb 05 14:31 'Out-Of-Touch Al' Strikes Again Feb 05 18:16 Fearmonger-In-Chief Enters Stage (HARD) Left
Prior Months: Jan
Republican What???
Byron York is reporting from Capitol Hill on something that's only been a rumor until this week. He's reporting on (gasp!!!) confident Republican senators . Similarly, he's noticing an uptick in concern from the Democrats' allies.
On Capitol Hill, you can feel the Republicans' growing sense of confidence. They've scored a lot of hits on the stimulus bill, and now they're aiming higher. "We'll try to make the bill better," Sen. Jim DeMint said a few moments ago, "but this bill is so bad,you can't fix it by tweaking around the edges,The best thing to happen would be for President Obama to lead, to call a time out." Several Republicans now want to throw the whole bill out and replace it with a package that is nearly all tax cuts, "twice the jobs at half the price."It's been ages since Republican senators felt confident challenging Democratic legislation. That's clearly happening with this stimulus bill. The Republicans' uneasiness has disappeared, replaced by a surefootedness that hasn't been seen since...well, if there are any political historians that read this little blog, I'd appreciate hearing from you.
After the Republican news conference, I asked DeMint how many Republican senators oppose the bill, and how many might be won over by a minimum number of changes stripping the bill of its notorious spending provisions, rather than demanding a complete overhaul of the bill. "I think we've got nearly 100 percent of Republicans who are going to vote against this bill unless it is fundamentally changed to include real economic stimulus," DeMint said. "I think just about every Republican has come around to the realization that this is a massive spending bill, it's a grab bag full of the Democrats' wish lists, and they're shamefully using the economic troubles we're having as a country as an excuse to pass their wish list of spending. I think as that grows on people, it makes them more and more outraged."
Since Mr. York penned this article, Senate Democrats have added another $37 billion to it, bringing it now to a whopping $925 billion.
What's nice about the Senate Republicans' not blinking is the fact that they aren't jjust opposing this monstrosity of a pork bill. Sen. McCain has put together a counterinitiative that actually costs half what the Democrats' bill costs AND it actually creates jobs. When Robert Gibbs, Harry Reid or Dick Durbin complain about obstructionist the Republicans' obstructionist tactics, they'll be able to step to tell the American people that they aren't obstructing, that they're supporting a different bill that costs hundreds of billion less, lets them keep more of their money and actually creates jobs.
With that, they'll sink this oinker of a bill deeper into the dustbin of history.
Several things happened that stiffened the Senate Republicans' spine. It started with President Obama foolishly picking a fight with Rush by telling Republicans that they can't "listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." Immediately after that, President Obama's stimulus plan started dropping in popularity.
It started dropping in popularity because Rush started telling the American people about the crap that's contained in the bill.
After Rush jumped into the fight and started highlighting the payoffs to the unions and other Democratic political allies, House Republican resolve stiffened because (a) Eric Cantor did a great job whipping the troops and (b) Mike Pence led a anti-pork rebellion that stunned Democrats.
When they saw that support for the bill that Pelosi commissioned and that President Obama sanctioned started dropping, House Republicans understood that they wouldn't pay a price for opposing the bill, that they'd actually rise in popularity.
That laid the groundwork for the stiffening of the Senate Republicans' spine.
Now E.J. Dionne is whining that President Obama is losing this fight "to a defeated GOP":
Obama's network appearances were planned as a response to a wholly unanticipated development: Republicans, short on new ideas, low on votes, and deeply unpopular in the polls, have been winning the media wars over the president's central initiative.The first mistake Dionne makes is linking President Obama's popularity or the Republicans' unpopularity with what the American people want. Americans' ability to compartmentalize is apparent. They're able to approve of a charismatic president while still strongly disagreeing with that charismatic president.
They have done so largely by focusing on minor bits of the stimulus that amount, as Obama said in at least two of his network interviews, to "less than 1 percent of the overall package." But Republicans have succeeded in defining the proposal by its least significant parts.
Secondly, the American people's definition of pork is different than the Beltway Democrats' definition. They know that the Democrats' attempts to pay off their political allies is pork; they know that won't create jobs. They know that much of the spending is for things that either needs to be improved or eliminated in committee.
Many of the items in this bill won't jumpstart the economy because the money won't get into the economy until 2010 or later. The American people question why this money is dumped into a bill that's supposed to give a jolt to a staggering economy.
In the end, this bill will either pass with little or no Republican support in the House and Senate or it'll fail because the bill is a disaster. If the American people determine that the bill is a disaster, it's largely because President Obama picked a foolish fight with a idealistic conservative named Rush Limbaugh.
It will have been exposed as a business-as-usual Democrat Christmas tree.
Posted Thursday, February 5, 2009 8:58 AM
Comment 1 by Twice Blessed at 05-Feb-09 03:43 PM
It's amazing what returning to the party's roots of smaller government and reigning in spending will do. Go GOP!
Hold The Whoppers, Mr. President
That's my first reaction to President Obama's opening paragraph in his prepared statements yesterday. It's painfully obvious that President Obama wasn't being entirely truthful when he said this:
By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression. Millions of jobs that Americans relied on just a year ago are gone; millions more of the nest eggs families worked so hard to build have vanished. People everywhere are worried about what tomorrow will bring.The conditions President Obama inherited were far from rosy but saying that he faced "an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression" is malarkey.
When FDR was fist inaugurated, unemployment was approximately 25 percent. When President Obama was inaugurated, the unemployment rate was 7.2 percent. In other words, it's between a third and a fourth of what FDR inherited.
The conditions President Reagan inherited from President Carter were more challenging than the conditions President Obama inherited from President Bush. When President Reagan was inaugurated, the unemployment and inflation rates were both in double digits. Interest rates were high, too.
The more President Obama tries selling these unsubstantiated whoppers, the more his credibility will suffer. In the Internet age, his allegations are easily refuted.
For all his Internet savvy, President Obama hasn't figured it out yet that credibility that matters most in winning political fights. Ideology isn't the driving force that it once was.
When President Bush repeatedly told the American people that we were winning the war in Iraq, they could see that, yes, the war had been won but security hadn't improved. I suspect that had he instituted the Surge in September, 2005, his popularity wouldn't have plummeted like it did.
When President Obama says that we're facing an economic crisis unlike anything we've seen since the Great Depression, baby boomers understood that they'd faced stiffer challenges during the Nixon and Carter administrations. Here's another bit of President Obama's chutzpah shining through:
Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.President Obama, enough with the fearmongering. Just because you don't have the solution to the PROBLEMS YOU INHERITED doesn't mean that they're unfixable unless we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a scattershot manner. When President Reagan inherited the mess the Carter administration created, he didn't make hyperbole-filled speeches. He confidently started with intelligent, time-tested policies that he'd seen work before.
President Obama inherited a less challenging, though still serious, problem. His response was to throw together a package of unprecedented proportion and questionable wisdom. It isn't that President Obama thinks that we're facing a Great Depression-like crisis. It's that he doesn't want to waste a good crisis. It's that he wants to pay the Democrats' political allies under the guise of addressing an unprecedented crisis.
That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years, provide immediate tax relief to 95 percent of American workers, ignite spending by businesses and consumers alike, and take steps to strengthen our country for years to come.First, I suspect that President Obama's urgency in passing this bill is triggered by his desire to pass this pig of a bill while he's still popular.
Secondly, I challenge the credibility of his statistics. This legislation doesn't have much in the way of incentives for businesses to invest in their companies. This legislation doesn't spend a great percentage of the money until the middle of 2010. It's my belief that this legislation won't change economic conditions because its intent wasn't to change economic conditions. Its intention was to satisfy the wants of Democratic special interest groups.
Now that he's been caught, President Obama is working frantically to reverse perceptions that he's just another Chicago machine politician.
That won't happen if he keeps telling Gore-like whoppers.
Posted Thursday, February 5, 2009 10:09 AM
Comment 1 by The Gal at 05-Feb-09 12:38 PM
What happened to 'Hope, not Fear'? We should not be bullied, or frightened into paying for this silly spending bill.
Today's Recount Update
Yesterday was an event-filled day for the recount story. Here's what Rachel Stassen-Berger wrote about yesterday's events:
Settle in. The U.S. Senate election trial is going to take a while.
This morning, Hennepin County Judge Denise Reilly, one of the three judges hearing the Norm Coleman's case to overturn Al Franken's 225-vote lead, said that the judicial tribunal wants to count many more ballot into the race's tally.Judge Reilly's comments are sure to put some extra lift into the Coleman campaign's step, especially following on the heels of the ruling that says 4,800 improperly rejected absentee ballots would get counted.
"The panel is going to make sure that every legally cast and wrongfully rejected ballot is opened and counted," Reilly said in court today.
The judge's statement was the first time anyone in the panel confirmed that indeed the panel wants more ballots included. It is still unclear how many ballots may be counted into the race.
It appears as though Mr. Franken's strategy was to get ahead, then shut the recount down. If that was their strategy, it's time for them to move onto Plan B, if such a plan exists.
In other news from yesterday, newly-elected RNC Chairman Michael Steele issued this statement:
"I proudly stand in support of Senator Norm Coleman's pursuit to see that Minnesota's voters are enfranchised by having their ballots counted. If voters do not have confidence in elections, then they will not have confidence in their elected leaders. That is why the judges' review of thousands of additional ballots in Minnesota is critical to the democratic process. The Republican National Committee remains committed to Norm Coleman's campaign and confident that when the recount contest is complete, he will be re-elected to the U.S. Senate."This has to be a major boost to the Coleman campaign's morale. They now have an additional eloquent advocate setting the record straight on what's happening in Minnesota. Michael Steele telling the American public that nonpartisan judges are making rulings based on Minnesota election law lets them know that the recount has the sufficient amount of checks and balances.
They now know that the judges' rulings prove that Sen. Coleman's election contest has merit. Including 4,800 previously unopened and uncounted absentee ballots says that there've been a number of serious mistakes made that need correcting.
This morning, The Hill Magazine's Aaron Blake is reporting that it isn't likely that Al Franken will get seated :
Al Franken's request to be seated provisionally in Minnesota's vacant Senate seat looks to be in trouble.the provisional seating argument is nothing more than Mr. Franken's ploy to unjustly appear senatorial. Based on Mr. Blake's reporting, it's apparent that the judges weren't impressed with Mr. Elias's arguments.
In a hearing before the Minnesota Supreme Court held Thursday morning, Franken lawyer Marc Elias made the case that the Democrat should be seated, even as the seat's previous occupant, Republican Norm Coleman, contests his 225-vote loss to Franken.
The justices didn't immediately rule, but Elias's arguments were met with much skepticism.
Minnesota law states that a candidate cannot receive a certificate of election while the result is being contested. Without that certificate, the Senate has declined to seat Franken.
Franken's lawyers argued that federal law, which requires a state be represented by two senators, trumps state law. The seat has been vacant for about a month now.
"The Senate decides who sits. However, the state of Minnesota is not free to decide it is not going to participate in a federally mandated timetable," Elias said. "The nation's business is being conducted as we speak in the United States Senate," and Minnesota has failed to meet its obligation.
The justices expressed concern that any provisional status wouldn't need to be recognized by the U.S. Senate and peppered Elias with questions questioning his legal reasoning.
Particularly egregious is Mr. Elias's statement that "The Senate decides who sits. However, the state of Minnesota is not free to decide it is not going to participate in a federally mandated timetable." I'd be particularly interested in finding when a "federally mandated timetable" was established. Absent proof of a "federally mandated timetable", the judges have little choice but to ignore that argument.
Furthermore, it's apparent that the Senate doesn't decide who's seated. When then-Gov. Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama in the Senate, Harry Reid blustered about how Burris wouldn't be seated. We all know how that turned out.
Coleman attorney James Langdon argued with Elias' claims of a federal timetable:
Coleman lawyer James Langdon said precedents cited by Franken's lawyers come from states with far less precise election statutes than Minnesota has.The Franken campaign's consistent contention has been that Minnesota laws take a back seat in terms of election law. Team Franken's attorneys have tried arguing that certifying a winner happens at a time of their choosing. The courts have consistently seen it differently, saying that certifying a winner won't happen until all properly cast ballots have been counted one time only.
"There is no federally mandated deadline here," Langdon said. "Minnesota has made a determination that when it comes to the question of who has won, it will take the time to make absolutely sure that it's right."
This part really demolishes Team Franken's campaign:
The state's solicitor general, Al Gilbert (D), appeared before the court and backed up Coleman's case.Finally, this is a flimsy argument:
Elias also noted that the fate of President Obama's stimulus package could be decided by one vote in the Senate.Theoretically speaking, political considerations should be irrelevant to a judicial ruling. Judicial rulings should be based on codified law.
Posted Thursday, February 5, 2009 11:51 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 06-Feb-09 01:33 PM
wow if Minnesota's Senator is the deciding vote than we don't want Franken there since Coleman might join the No votes while Franken can't wait to vote yes.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Let's Have This Fight
According to this LATimes article , President Obama has changed tactics in an attempt to get the stimulus bill passed. Here's what the Time's Peter Nicholas is reporting:
"Now, let me say this," Obama said. "In the past few days, I've heard criticisms of this plan that frankly echo the very same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis in the first place, the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems, that we can address this enormous crisis with half steps and piecemeal measures and tinkering around the edges, that we can ignore fundamental challenges, like the high cost of healthcare, and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.Let's get something straight, Mr. President. Tax cuts didn't cause this recession. The Democrats' unwillingness to fix Fannie and Freddie until they were crises and the entire subprime lending mess played a significantly bigger role in creating this recession than Republican tax policies ever did.
"I reject these theories," he continued. "And, by the way, so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."
Obama also sought to sway public opinion in his favor through his newspaper column, reiterating many of the same points.
"In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis, the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems," Obama wrote.
Had Democrat Barney Frank and Democrat Christopher Dodd not run interference for the subprime mortgage industry, we wouldn't have had to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on ill-conceived bailouts that've wasted money but had little or no effect. It's time for President Obama to admit that his party's disinterested attitude towards providing HONEST oversight into the subprime industry played the biggest part in the recession.
It's one thing to disagree with President Bush's tax policies. That's an honest debate we can have. Crediting President Bush's tax cuts with causing the recession is intellectually dishonest.
Let's further ask President Obama to explain the driving principles behind his stimulus bill. He can't answer that because he'd rather not admit that it's a payoff to the Democratic Party's political allies. That's the only driving principle seen in this bill.
It's just a hunch but I'm betting that that isn't a winning argument with voters.
During last night's O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly asked Dick Morris whether President Obama would quickly move to the center or cave to the lunatic fringe that drives the Democrats' electionmobile. Morris said that President Obama likely would move to the center. Morris's opinion was based on his belief that staying this far left would hurt President Obama in the short- and long-term.
Based on this morning's speech, it's looking more and more likely that President Obama is shedding his postpartisan facade and reverting to partisan mode. If that's the approach he finally settles on, President Obama should expect to pass this bill without GOP support.
If that's what he wants, then the Democrats can reap the rewards of passing such ill-conceived legislation in 2010.
Finally, I need to make an important point: President Obama and Robert Gibbs calling this recession a crisis doesn't mean it's a crisis. It's definitely a time where we face significant challenges but it isn't a crisis.
Calling it a crisis is reminiscent of Al Gore's fearmongering. That's the politics of the Twentieth Century, not the postpartisan politics that President Obama campaigned on.
If that's the turf that President Obama wants to fight on, that's a fight Republicans should welcome because that's the terrain and fight that we can win on.
Posted Thursday, February 5, 2009 2:37 PM
Comment 1 by Amitabha Mukhopadhyay at 07-Feb-09 01:53 AM
Investing hundreds of billions of dollars in renewable energy, health care and education would certainly create three million jobs and all these areas will change U.S. economy but it will take time. Meanwhile many more millions of Americans will be out of jobs and this cycle of reduced consumption by still employed causing further unemployment will continue and as a result U.S. economy will fall in such a deep hole that it will be extremely difficult to get out. So U.S. government may form a corporation by the name STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF AMERICA and buy up stocks of ailing banks and automajors to push up their stocks to pre subprime level. Again it can buy up the so called toxic debts. Money, as much trillions of dollars as required may be printed but there will be no inflation as the goods and services in the economy is intact only the matching money supply is not there. Besides all the major economies of the world would buy up excess dollars to make its value artificially high. So we have to act now. Tomorrow is a distant day.
'Out-Of-Touch Al' Strikes Again
Esme Murphy's blog highlights the fact that Al Franken has been wintering in Florida since he declared victory a month ago today. Here's what Ms. Murphy wrote about 'Out-Of-Touch Al':
I want to know, Al, what you are thinking. Norm Coleman has been around attending the trial, giving his opinions on anything people have asked him. I know because Coleman has gotten quite a bit of flak over an interview he did with me on Sunday. But at least he is out there, and I do think at this critical time people want to hear from the person who could be our next senator.If people needed proof that Mr. Franken was a mostly disinterested Minnesota bystander, this post provides it. Instead of holding townhall meetings and doing in person interviews and watching the court proceedings, 'Out-Of-Touch Al' has hidden in Florida.
After the Canvassing Board, I asked one of Franken's loyal staffers if he could appear that Sunday on WCCO Sunday morning for a live interview. The staffer replied, "I think we are going to be putting Al back in the box for now." (I kid you not.) And so I plead with the Franken staff, FREE AL!
As appalling as that is, it's more appalling to hear a Franken staffer say that "I think we are going to be putting Al back in the box for now."
The contrast couldn't be more stark. Norm Coleman is the embodiment of a public servant who listens to the people's needs and is always accessible. At his campaign stops, Sen. Coleman would tell the story about a woman attending a politician's funeral. A reporter asked the woman if she knew the politician. The lady said that she didn't but that "he knew me." Sen. Coleman said that he wanted people to feel like he knew them because he shared their values and their concerns.
It appears as though Mr. Franken doesn't share that passion to know Minnesota's people nor share in their concerns. Mr. Franken hasn't convinced me that he's anything more than an angry political opportunist.
Posted Thursday, February 5, 2009 2:31 PM
No comments.
Fearmonger-In-Chief Enters Stage (HARD) Left
Until President Obama stops with his hyperbolic rants that we'd better pass his stimulus package or fear spiraling downward into an irreversable recession, I'll keep calling him the Fearmonger-In-Chief. According to this article , the Fearmonger-In-Chief is at it again:
"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse," Obama wrote in the newspaper piece titled, "The Action Americans Need."First, let's just establish the fact that this legislation doesn't create jobs. If ANY jobs get created between now and the midterm elections, it's more likely because this legislation didn't pass or they were created in spite of this legislation.
REPEAT AFTER ME:
This is not a jobs bill. It's a political payoff.
This is not a jobs bill. It's a political payoff.
This is not a jobs bill. It's a political payoff.
This is not a jobs bill. It's a political payoff.
There. Now that we've settled that, let's get down to dissecting President Obama's latest ramblings. Saying that there will ever be a recession that we can't come back from is ignoring the fact that we overcame the Great Depression. Not only did we survive it, we prospered after winning a war. We survived because that's who we are as a nation.
It isn't a stretch to think that President Obama is saying these outlandish things either because he's panicking or he's saying these things because he actually believe what he's saying. If it's the former, he's just engaging in unadulterated fearmongering. If it's the latter, it's because he doesn't know how to put things together for the good of the country.
Other than the Great Depression, I'd ask historians and economists that could cite the last time a recession that lasted "for years." I;ve been paying attention to such things since 1972 and I don't recall recessions that lasted a couple of years in that time.
Newt Gingrich narrated this YouTube video for American Solutions. In it, Speaker Gingrich talks about some of the 'creative' ways that the Senate bill, as currently configured, wastes our taxes:
Building new schools in Milwaukee when 21 schools sit empty will jumpstart the economy and create jobs? At what price?
On top of all that, the nonpartisan CBO says that Obama's stimulus plan does more harm than good :
CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.This information gives a whole new meaning to the cliche "Give till it hurts." Thouogh there aren't any tax increases in this bill, it's guaranteed that they're heading our direction because we can't continue piling up debt like this.
CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary.
I'm interested in economists' opinion on this question:
Would we pull out of this recession faster if we did nothing?
President Obama stops just short of saying that the world will end if we don't pass the Political Payoff Bill of 2009. I'd like to know if that's accurate or if he's pulling an Al Gore on us.
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2009, revised 07-Feb 10:24 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 06-Feb-09 09:52 AM
You know Obama claims that Republicans have old ideas. I have a simple idea that worked in the past. do nothing and let the economy work out the problems on it's own. It might hurt but we don't add trillions of extra dollars of debt to the national debt.
In the movie "Wargames" the computer that was about to start world war three was taught not to start the war by playing tic tac toe against itself and realizing that you can't win if both sides play to the best strategy. What's the economic version of tic tac toe for Pork Obama?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
