January 9-12, 2009
Jan 09 11:00 Unprecedented Fearmongering Jan 09 16:54 The Inevitable Happens; Blagojevich Impeached Jan 10 11:24 All the Rhetoric Without the Details? Jan 11 03:21 Deficits, Surpluses & Full Funding Jan 11 14:07 Winning In Iraq, Liberating People Bush's Top Priority Jan 11 22:40 Tubby's Athletes Run Wild on Penn State Jan 12 13:27 Reid's Grabs Land Now, We Pay The Price Later
Unprecedented Fearmongering
Anytime President Bush warned us about being vigilant as we fought the terrorists, Democrats would chastize him for playing on people's fears. It's to be expected, though, that these same Democrats aren't critical after President-Elect Obama delivered a speech that's mostly fearmongering with a tiny hint of optimism . It's impossible to miss the pessimism in his opening:
We start 2009 in the midst of a crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime, a crisis that has only deepened over the last few weeks."We start 2009 in the midst of a crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime"? You can tell President-Elect didn't pay attention in the 1970's. If he had, he would've known that this recession isn't as scary as the Carter economy, when unemployment reached double digits, home mortgage rates were in the mid-teens and inflation skyrocketed. I wonder if he knows that the misery index reached its all-time high of 21.98 under Carter's watch . I wonder if Obama knows that the misery index is obtained by adding the inflation rate to the unemployment rate. It's possible he doesn't.
Nearly 2 million jobs have been now lost. And on Friday, we're likely to learn that we lost more jobs last year than at any time since World War II. Just in the past year, another 2.8 million Americans who want and need full-time work have had to settle for part-time jobs.
Manufacturing has hit a 28-year low. Many businesses cannot borrow or make payroll. Many families cannot pay their bills or their mortgage. Many workers are watching their life savings disappear. And many, many Americans are both anxious and uncertain of what the future will hold.
Now, I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years.
The unemployment rate could reach double digits. Our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity, which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four.
It's impossible to believe that it isn't part of President-Elect Obama's strategy to engage in fullblown fearmongering to get his pet spending projects done. It's especially difficult to believe that fearmongering isn't his intentional strategy considering Rahm Emanuel's spin that "We shouldn't let a good crisis slip away." Everybody thinks that these are challenging times. People aren't pretending like everyone's sharing in a wave of prosperity. We get that we're experiencing difficult economic times.
Nonetheless, we shouldn't be in full panic mode, either.
Running $1,000,000,000,000 deficits is the fastest shortcut to skyrocketing inflation. What's worse is that a $1,000,000,000,000 deficit for FY2009 might be on the low side :
The Congressional Budget Office released its latest budget forecast yesterday, and we now really do have red ink as far as the eye can see. Thanks to a 6.6% decline in revenues due to recession, a spending increase of some $500 billion or 19%, and assorted federal bailouts, the U.S. deficit for fiscal 2009 (ending September 30) will nearly triple to $1.19 trillion . That's 8.3% of GDP, which CBO says "will most likely shatter the previous post-World War II record high of 6.0 percent posted in 1983." It certainly blows away any deficit this decade, not to mention the Reagan years when smaller deficits were the media cause celebre.Having the first deficit in excess of $1,000,000,000,000 is bad enough. Having the first deficit approaching $2,000,000,000,000 is downright frightening. It's also irresponsible.
But there's more. None of that includes the new fiscal "stimulus" that President-elect Obama has promised to introduce upon taking office in two weeks. The details aren't known, but Mr. Obama and Democrats have been talking about at least $800 billion, and probably $1 trillion, in new spending or various tax credits and reductions over two years. Toss that in and add more expected bailout cash, and if the economy stays slow the deficit could reach $1.8 trillion, or a gargantuan 12.5% of GDP .
There is one thing that President-Elect Obama said that I agree with:
We arrived at this point due to an era of profound irresponsibility that stretched from corporate boardrooms to the halls of power in Washington, DC . For years, too many Wall Street executives made imprudent and dangerous decisions, seeking profits with too little regard for risk, too little regulatory scrutiny, and too little accountability. Banks made loans without concern for whether borrowers could repay them, and some borrowers took advantage of cheap credit to take on debt they couldn't afford. Politicians spent taxpayer money without wisdom or discipline, and too often focused on scoring political points instead of the problems they were sent here to solve. The result has been a devastating loss of trust and confidence in our economy, our financial markets, and our government.It's true that we reached "this point due to an era of profound irresponsibility" that stretched into "the halls of power in Washington, DC."
That's where Maxine Waters said that Fannie and Freddie were doing great "under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines." That's where Barney Frank said that he didn't "see anything in here that the safety and the soundness are at issue..." That's where House Democrats that control the banking committee too huge campaign contributions from their friends at Fannie and Freddie.
It's laughable, though, to hear President-Elect Obama say this:
Politicians spent taxpayer money without wisdom or discipline.Any politician that will have a $2,000,000,000,000 deficit isn't spending taxpayer money with wisdom or restraint. In fact, I'm betting that the final version of this bill will be filled with more 'Christmas ornaments' than the last Transportation Bill.
It's insulting to hear Obama gloss over the Fannie/Freddie crisis by saying "Banks made loans without concern for whether borrowers could repay them..." Banks didn't just make loans without concern for whether the borrower could repay the loan. Legislation was passed during the Clinton Administration that forced banks to make bad loans.
It's becoming quite apparent that Mr. Obama is skilled in the Democratic art of 'Chicken Little's the Sky is Falling' pessimism. It's unfortunate that someone who campaigned on a theme of "Yes, We Can" didn't say that he really meant "Yes we can if the government spends unprecedented amounts of money."
Originally posted Friday, January 9, 2009, revised 30-Jan 11:00 AM
Comment 1 by Jim at 09-Jan-09 01:52 PM
The worst unemployment record in one year since the 1940's. The largest loss in the value of the stock market since the Great Depression, and you say Jimmy Carter's era was worse? You are missing a large portion of reality, and you are ignoring the FACT that this happened on the watch of Pres. Bush -- not Clinton, not Carter, but Bush.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Jan-09 03:19 PM
Saying that we're in the "midst of a crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime" is hyperbole. Furthermore, the unemployment record in the Carter administration was so bad that Humphrey-Hawkins serious floor time in the Senate. The biggest provision in Humphrey-Hawkins was the federal government hiring people to return us to 'full employment.'
Furthermore, it's a little difficult to swallow that combining the unemployment rate & the rate of inflation is more than 20.
The fact that that's the worst it's ever been & it happened under Carter's watch should tell you something.
What's worse was that Carter defunded the military to the point that the military's spare parts inventory was practically nonexistent & that military training didn't exist.
That's why the helicopters used in President Carter's attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages failed. You'll remember that the helicopters crashed in the desert.
I'll admit that the economy wasn't very good during the last few years of the Bush administration but I'll fight you tooth & nail if you think it was worse than the economy during the Carter adminstration.
Comment 3 by Jim at 09-Jan-09 04:57 PM
Well, don't take my word for it, how about the Wall Street Journal...
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
Carter had 10.5 million jobs created during his term, Bush had 3 million. Payroll expansion during Carter, 13.1%, Bush, 2.3%
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 09-Jan-09 05:53 PM
OK, Jim is a liberal. Rather than say that Obama's plan is a terrible idea bound to make the economy worse, he jumps immediately to the moral relativist "Bush was worse!" What's done is done. Now, how about we do what is right the next time we make a decision?
Let me make one small correction. That last line should read "... unprecedented amounts of money THAT WE DON'T HAVE."
Comment 5 by Jim at 10-Jan-09 12:04 PM
I have only stated facts and figures. J. Ewing replies with name calling and slander. Whats done is done, but what has worked, and what has not? Calling others 'moral relativists"? Calling others a "liberal"? Have those tactics worked? No, they have created what we have today, a nation more concerned with yelling at each other than coming together and deciding what works -- what works, works, and what doesn't, doesn't. And THAT is what is right.
Comment 6 by eric z at 10-Jan-09 08:26 PM
"Facts and figures."
"Name calling and slander."
A lot of things happened in the 70's before Carter took office, during Pardon Me Ford's term and earlier - unpegging the dollar, the oil squeeze, and then Volker took over the Fed and did what created years and years of prosperity, despite Reagan deficit spending.
It goes to show.
"Opinions and finger pointing" will trump figures or slanders.
Always.
The Inevitable Happens; Blagojevich Impeached
Anyone paying attention to the Blagojevich Pay-For-Play scandal has known for some time that Gov. Blagojevich would be impeached. That inevitability happened this morning :
SPRINGFIELD---In a historic vote, the Illinois House has impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich, directing the Senate to put the state's 40th chief executive on trial with the goal of removing him from office.As much as anything, this was a vote of political expediency. They know that every day that they've got the Blagojevich Pay-For-Play scandal hanging around their neck is another bad day for the Illinois Democratic Party.
The vote by the House was 114-1 and marks the first time in the state's 190-year history that a governor has been impeached, despite Illinois' longstanding reputation for political corruption. Rep. Milt Patterson (D-Chicago) was the lone vote against impeachment.
It's difficult to imagine that Illinois machine-style politicians are repulsed by Blagojevich's pay-to-play tactics. It's easy to picture them being disgusted at Blagojevich's arrogance in fighting these charges.
The impeachment resolution covering Blagojevich's actions "show a public servant who has betrayed his oath of office, who has betrayed the public trust, who is not fit to govern the state of Illinois," said Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie, the Chicago Democrat who headed a special panel that recommended Blagojevich's impeachment a day earlier.This might get bloody. If the Senate trial takes three weeks as expected, that's ample time to air Gov. Blagojevich's dirty dealings. Rest assured that the national media will watch this trial like a hawk, too.
Next week, when the Senate convenes, it will begin the process of setting up a trial of the governor in which each of the 59 state senators act as judge and jurors. A total of 40 senators are needed to convict Blagojevich, which would remove the governor from office and make Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn the state's new chief executive. A trial is expected to take at least three weeks.
It's also looking like Blagojevich's attorney isn't going to go gently into that good night, which raises the distinct possibility that we'll see some intense fights between legislators and Blagojevich's attorney.
With drama like this, who needs soaps or tabloids?
Posted Friday, January 9, 2009 4:57 PM
Comment 1 by TRex at 09-Jan-09 07:09 PM
Gov. Rod Blagojevich is just the tip of the iceberg with regard to Chicago Politics. I for one do not believe that we are anywhere near understanding the full level of corruption in Illinois. Anyone who thinks that someone like President elect Obama whom was basically born of "Chicago politics" is not himself corrupt or at minimum beholding and complicit to this pool of septics are themselves dillusional. The house that impeached him should also impeach themselves if they truly want to rid Chicago of corruption. It is obvious to me that what we are dealing with here is just a vindictive response to a maverick criminal who broke the packs code. He did not abide by the plan allowing for Obamas Pick of the litter. After all it must be made sure that the vacancy left by the "Holy One" is filled by only those worthy of his holiness and reverance. There is only one who could make such and enlightend choice and that would be the holy one himself, Obama
We all need to Wake up and smell the coffee,
TRex
Comment 2 by eric z at 10-Jan-09 08:20 PM
How is Quinn? Is there any reason to hesitate? It will be quick and surgical.
Then attention will turn to Madoff, and who he's going to finger to fall with him. If anyone. If there were not others worried a lot, he'd be in jail, not house arrest.
All the Rhetoric Without the Details?
During the campaign, Barack Obama thrilled crowds with his platitude-filled rhetoric. Pundits from both sides of the aisle noticed that his soaring speeches lacked details. If you believe this post on the NY Times' Caucus blog, it sounds like he's planning on doing the same thing with his budget plan:
Forget the usual detailed documents, cost estimates and announcement fanfare that capital watchers expect for the unveiling of major initiatives. President-elect Barack Obama and his advisers suggested on Friday that he has provided the "framework" of a plan in recent public remarks; now Congress, coordinating with the Obama team, will flesh it out.In other words, Obamanomics is...a fill-in-the-blank quiz for Congress? Please explain to me how that's leadership. Please tell me what President-Elect Obama's priorities are besides spending money at an unprecedented, unsustainable rate.
Mr. Obama and his advisers "wanted to set the broad outline and, very smartly, want Congress to sort of fill in some of the details," Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said in an interview. "It just makes sense. There's a lot of knowledge here on the Hill."
While one Obama adviser said an actual plan could yet be presented, another said "the only paper you're going to see is the legislation", once the House and Senate write it.
President-Elect Obama is the most risk-averse politician I've ever seen. He's even worse than Jimmy Carter, which I didn't think possible. Now he's planning on issuing his budget that doesn't contain details? He's telling Congress to fill in the blanks? Is that because he wants them to take the hit if something doesn't work? Is President-Elect Obama planning on stepping out of the way and letting Congress take the criticism?
Another possibility is that he's omitting the details to avoid the media's criticism. It isn't likely that the Washington Post or the NY Times would excoriate him if he provided details. That said, it's entirely likely that serious-minded bloggers would've scrutinized his economic plan had he provided the details.
Posted Saturday, January 10, 2009 5:18 PM
Comment 1 by Mr. D at 10-Jan-09 05:10 PM
President-Elect Obama is the most risk-averse politician I've ever seen. He's even worse than Jimmy Carter, which I didn't think possible. Now he's planning on issuing his budget that doesn't contain details? He's telling Congress to fill in the blanks? Is that because he wants them to take the hit if something doesn't work? Is President-Elect Obama planning on stepping out of the way and letting Congress take the criticism?
Yes and yes. And thank you for noticing, Gary. Excellent point about Obama being risk-averse, too. He is going to be the biggest case of buyer's remorse evah.
Comment 2 by eric z at 10-Jan-09 08:15 PM
Back rooms are not smoke filled anymore. Used. Not smoke filled is the only difference.
But unprecented spending, that's Bush. Unfunded too.
Obama will not pull back on deficit spending until the Bush mess is partly mopped up and the economy's on track, but, remember, Clintion paid down the deficits the other Bush left. That one left his war deficits, and from the Gip. Ultimately Obama will balance and pay down the mess too, and he will have a sensible graduated tax structure from Congress - fair shares on the upper brackets for a change.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 11-Jan-09 08:54 PM
That's what I like to hear: blind faith in an Obama economic plan that is as of yet undefined, and most likely has zero chance of success. The only question is how long Obama's plans can continue the economic slide beyond the time it would have ended itself if left alone.
Deficits, Surpluses & Full Funding
Minnesota budget deficits and surpluses are like the old cliche about Minnesota weather: If you don't like it, wait a while; it'll change. I'll admit that our deficit will disappear in the next 15 minutes. I'll even admit that it won't disappear in the next hour. I will predict a couple things, though.
- This deficit will disappear.
- When this deficit disappears, the lobbyists will start their parade in front of committee chairs and tell the legislators that it'll only take a .01 percent of the state's budget to restore their damaged budget to full funding.
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if the DFL characterized these cost-savings as budget cuts in an attempt to put Gov. Pawlenty on the defensive. That tactic won't work, though. The thing that will stop that dishonest tactic dead in its tracks is the fact that Gov. Pawlenty's reform plan (a) has bipartisan support and (b) saves money on things like "information technology, food services and supplies and equipment."
I said before that it's difficult to imagine parents and other taxpayers getting upset when savings are found in these parts of the education budget. Parents and other taxpayers are more willing to approve school levies if they see teachers getting cut and programs getting cut or eliminated.
The easiest way for Gov. Pawlenty to turn the tables on his critics is to ask these simple questions: Would you rather spend money on "information technology, food services and supplies and equipment" that doesn't need to be spent? Or would you rather spend that money on teachers and stabilizing or shrinking class sizes?
The sooner that Gov. Pawlenty and the GOP frames the issue that way, the sooner that they'll hold the upper hand in education policy and reform over the DFL. I pointed out here why that's important:
It's time conservatives started thinking in terms of a well-educated workforce and health care reform as important to making Minnesota business-friendly, too.People want to hear about education policy and how to get health care costs under control. Conservatives can't afford to treat education as a DFL issue. Ditto with health care. We've got great ideas. Let's start letting people know about our great ideas.
Minnesota has a recent history of swinging rapidly between difficult deficits and sizable surpluses. That's because the DFL always has a steady stream of activists and lobbyists willing to testify before committees about the 'need' to restore funding to their budget.
That won't end in my lifetime and I intend on living a long time.
What we need to do is continually make our best arguments about best practices. Every time we make the argument for the intelligent use of the taxpayers' money, we make it difficult for the DFL to argue against us. We make them defend the indefensible and we force them to argue against the inarguable.
Let's picture this in a townhall setting. Let's picture a DFL education activist complaining about Gov. Pawlenty's reform as cuts in the education budget. Imagine the crowd's reaction if Tom Emmer or Laura Brod or Mike Beard stepped to the microphone and made this argument:
Here's your choice: You can either spend lots of money on things that don't improve the students' education or you can save money on things like IT, food services and equipment and put those savings into the classroom. Here's another way of putting it:
Wasting money puts fewer dollars into the classroom. Spending wisely puts more money into the classroom.
There's no doubt that we won't change the minds of the hardline activists. That isn't the goal. In 2006, I talked with a candidate for the state legislature about education reform. The point I repeatedly made with this candidate was that there are more parents and other taxpayers than there are EdMinn activists. The minute we show parents that the GOP wants to spend wisely and deliver a great educational product is the minute we win the education debate.
The more innovations that we come up with, the more we lower the need to raise taxes. More importantly, that's the minute we prove we're serious about being the fiscally responsible party and the party of reformers.
That's also the day we start having a serious shot at regaining the majority.
Posted Sunday, January 11, 2009 3:21 AM
No comments.
Winning In Iraq, Liberating People Bush's Top Priority
During his interview with Brit Hume, President Bush said that winning in Iraq took priority over winning the 2006 elections . I'm thankful that he winning was his top priority. Here's what he told Hume:
"During the darkest days of Iraq, people came to me and said, 'You're creating incredible political difficulties for us,'" the current president said as his term draws to a close. "And I said, 'Oh, really? What do you suggest I do?' And some suggested retreat, pull out of Iraq.Thankfully, we had someone in the White House who took terrorism seriously. Unfortunately, the 42nd president didn't take it serious.
"But I had faith that freedom exists in people's souls and therefore, if given a chance, democracy and Iraqi-style democracy could survive and work," the president said. "I didn't compromise that principle for the sake of trying to, you know, bail out my political party."
Twenty years from now, serious historians will record that President Bush's decisions liberated 50,000,000 people while preventing numerous terrorist attacks after the horrific attacks of 9/11. Twenty years from now, serious historians will say that terrorism wasn't a priority for President Clinton even after the bombing of the Khobar Towers or after the bombing of the East African embassies or after the bombing of the USS Cole. Twenty years from now, serious historians will credit President Bush with liberating Iraq and Afghanistan, countries that will be strong American allies.
It's rare that an American president puts their greatest priorities on liberty. It was certainly a high priority for JFK, FDR, Reagan and Lincoln. Though I don't rank President Bush as high as I rank that group, I do recognize that he liberated more people than JFK and Lincoln.
Achieving important goals like spreading liberty and ridding nations of tyrannical rulers is more important than winning elections because our nation's security is important to several generations' well-being whereas the political pendulum swings back and forth.
Posted Sunday, January 11, 2009 2:09 PM
Comment 1 by FedUp at 11-Jan-09 06:24 PM
We are going to miss President Bush. I wonder how long it's going to take Hope&Change to realize what a responsibility being President is - and not some game or a version on American Idol. He'd better learn damn quick!
Comment 2 by Freealonzo at 12-Jan-09 03:03 PM
"Thankfully, we had someone in the White House who took terrorism seriously"
August 6, 2001 PDB: Osama determined to strike in the U.S.
Bush response: zzzzzz
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 13-Jan-09 12:28 AM
FA, Perhaps you'll explain how to prevent an attack based on such limited & vague information?
Comment 4 by Freealonzo at 13-Jan-09 02:18 PM
O.k. We don't know if President Bush had acted on the 8/6 PDB that the attacks of 9/11 would have been prevented. No one can know, it's pure speculation.
However, the fact is that GWB did NOTHING with the information, basically he blew it off, telling the CIA agent who presented the information "o.k. you've covered your ass." So maybe if Bush, with that 8/6 warning asked the counter-terrorism group to redouble it's efforts, see if something is happening, maybe just maybe someone would have talked to those pilot trainers in Eagan that people were training to fly airplanes but not take off or land them. With that information, maybe a stricter regiment of airline security would have been in place or enough publicity that the terrorist would have backed off their plan.
Like I said above, pure speculation, but not out of the realm of possibility. In any case it sure doesn't sound like "someone in the White House who took terrorism seriously."
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 13-Jan-09 04:30 PM
However, the fact is that GWB did NOTHING with the information, basically he blew it off, telling the CIA agent who presented the information "o.k. you've covered your ass."
That's pure speculation, too. You don't know that "GWB did NOTHING" with the information. In fact, I'd seriously doubt that "GWB did NOTHING".
The truth is that GWB did plenty, including eliminating the Gorelick Wall, which prevented the CIA from sharing their information with law enforcement.
Operation Able Danger picked out the names of several of the 9/11 terrorists while they were still in Europe, including the name of Mohammed Atta. They begged the Clinton administration to warn law enforcement agencies. The Clinton administration refused to let them share the information with law enforcement.
Once the PATRIOT Act USA was passed, President Bush ordered the daily sharing of information between the intelligence community & the law enforcement community.
SUMMARY: GWB's policies prevented terrorist attacks because the dots that went unconnected throughout the Clinton administration got connected after 9/11.
Piss & moan about GWB & covering his ass all you want but facts are damn stubborn things & these stubborn facts don't support your statements.
Tubby's Athletes Run Wild on Penn State
The best thing that can be said of Penn State was that the Nittany Lions played hard from start to finish. The bad news for Penn State is that they ran into a buzzsaw known as the U of M Golden Gophers in Williams Arena this afternoon. Play-by=play announcer Wayne Larrivee got it exactly right when he said that "the Gophers brought their A+ game today."
Leading Minnesota's offensive attack was junior college transfers Devron Bostick & Paul Carter with 19 points & 14 points respectively. This afternoon, the Nittany Lions didn't have an answer for the Gophers' athleticism. They didn't have an answer for the Gophers' long range bombing, either, as the Gophers hit all 9 of their 3-point attempts.
What changed the game from a comfortable Minnesota win into a blowout, though, was Minnesota's stifling half-court defense and their full court trap. Time & again, Minnesota's team speed allowed them to recover from seemingly impossible situations. The highlight of the day was Devron Bostick's rotation from the free throw lineto the low post to block a Penn State shot from behind, which then led the Gophers to a fast break basket.
It was fitting that forner Gopher great Trent Tucker was the analystyt assigned to today's game. As a Gopher player, Tucker was a great shooter who often guarded the other team's best offensive threat. He was obviously impressed with the Gopher's play on both ends of the court.
It was also fitting that former UVA star Ralph Sampson was in the crowd again today to watch his son play another solid game offensively & defensively.
As with most games this season, the Gophers rattled their opponents into alot of turnovers. Unlike other games, the Gophers hit 62.5% of their shots, including all 9of their 3-point attempts.
Minnesota is now tied with Michigan & Wisconsin for second place behind Michigan State. Minnesota, Michigan & Wisconsin are 3-1 while Michigan State is undefeated at 3-0.
At the start of the year, most outsiders thought that Tubby's team would be dangerous, though not necessarily consistently competitive. I wasn't sure what to expect but I though they had enough talent and a nice balance between their offense & their defense.
Two things that I didn't agree with was that Tubby's best coaching days were behind him and that the Gophers wouldn't miss last year's seniors. At this point, I'd rate Tubby as the frontrunner for Coach of the Year. Frankly, I can't think of another coach that's even close right now.
If the Gophers make the Sweet 16, Tubby should win that honor going away.
What should scare Big Ten opponents is next season. This Gophers team is a talented team but they're adding more Top 20 talent next season. According to Scout.com , the Gophers are adding the 6th-rated SF in the nation in Rodney Williams and the 11th-rated PF in the nation in Royce White.
I won't be surprised if Gophers hoops tickets are the hottest ticket in town next year, especially considering Tubby's coaching, the great atmosphere in Williams Arena & the competitiveness & athleticism of their team. That's why opponents should fear them when the Gophers play in Williams Arena.
Posted Sunday, January 11, 2009 10:40 PM
No comments.
Reid's Grabs Land Now, We Pay The Price Later
Sunday afternoon, Senate Democrats made their first major mistake. They passed legislation that will put millions of acres of federal land offlimits for oil drilling:
Environmental groups said the bill set the right tone for the new Congress.Sen. Tom Coburn, (R-OK), wasn't happy with the legislation:
"By voting to protect mountains and pristine wildlands, Congress is starting out on the right foot," said Christy Goldfuss of Environment America, an advocacy group. "This Congress is serious about protecting the environment and the outstanding lands that Americans treasure."
Coburn and several other Republicans complained that bill was loaded with pet projects and prevented development of oil and gas on federal lands, which they said would deepen the nation's dependence on foreign oil.When oil prices rise again, which will happen, Republicans will point directly at Democrats as passing legislation that put large deposits of oil and natural gass off-limits.
Here's what Amanda Carpenter wrote about Reid's land grab:
The 1200-page, pork-laden, $10 billion proposal locks up millions of acres of energy-rich property by designating it as environmentalist-friendly "federal wilderness" area where not even as much as a bicycle would be permitted to travel across the land. Many of these areas recently became available when the ban on domestic drilling in Western states expired last fall and the liberal left couldn't muster the courage to keep it in place due to rising energy prices. Now Democratic leaders are using different legislative strategies to put a new kind of ban in place.When House Republicans put pressure on Pelosi's Democrats used every trick in their book to pass bills that looked like they were pro-drilling. I said then that the benchmark for whether they were pro-drilling was whether they'd sign the discharge petition for the American Energy Act:
One Republican House staffer put it this way: "Reid is going to make it federal land so no one can touch it. He's locking up the equivalent of ANWR."
The bill, S.22 "Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009," would cordon off more than 3 million acres from energy leasing by restricting various areas as "federal wilderness" or "wild and scenic" river ways.
It's obvious that Republicans won't be satisfied with voting on just any bill. They want their amendments heard and voted on. Specifically, they want the AEA voted on. Any attempt by Speaker Pelosi to thwart amendments to their legislation will be met with fierce opposition.Now Reid's Democrats have all but passed legislation that will make us more dependent on foreign sources of oil. When this legislation reaches the House, Pelosi's Democrats will be little more than a rubberstamp. By the time it reaches President Obama's desk, he'll prove that he lied about his energy policy.
Let's remember that Barack Obama took 3 different positions on drilling in 3 days :
Perhaps his handlers didn't tell him that he shifted positions from drilling being a Republican "scheme" during a campaign stop in Missouri to saying he was open to drilling when campaigning in Florida.He started by calling drilling on the OCS a GOP scheme. Later, he made this idiotic statement :
"If everyone were just filling their tires and getting regular tuneups, you could actually save just as much."By the time he reached Florida, polls were showing that 60 percent of Floridians supported drilling on the OCS. Here's how he reacted:
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.Reid's bill isn't comprehensive energy legislation. Relying heavily on green energy isn't comprehensive, either. By definition, we can't have comprehensive energy legislation if we lock up 3,000,000 acres of oil-rich land.
"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage-I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."
It isn't a stretch to think that this congress is a protectionist congress that agrees totally with its special interest allies. It isn't a stretch to think that this congress will attempt to pass everything on their special interest allies' wishlist.
They certainly voted the way their envirowhacko lobbyists wanted them to vote on this bill. They put a higher priority on voting the special interests' interests ahead of voting for the United States' energy independence. They put a higher priority on voting the special interests' interests ahead of voting for stabilizing or lowering home heating prices for their constituents.
Every middle income person that watches their home heating bills should write their senator and complain that their senator didn't vote for them, that their senator voted with special interest groups who don't have their best interests at heart.
Let's put it differently. This land grab was theoretically done to lower the risk of global warming. Let's leave the arguments out over whether man-made global warming is real or not. The million dollar question we should pose to people is whether they're more concerned with saving money on their heating bills or with curtailing man-made global warming.
This is the proper framing of the question. If you poll people if they're concerned about 'the environment', 90+ percent of people will say yes. If you ask them whether they're more worried about doing whatever it takes to stabilize or lower home heating bills or curtailing man-made global warming, I'd doubt that 50 percent of people would pick curtailing man-made global warming.
Conversely, I don't have trouble believing that 50+ percent of people polled would pick stabilizing or lowering home heating bills.
That's how we need to frame this argument if we want to put Rust Belt Democrats on the defensive.
Posted Monday, January 12, 2009 1:36 PM
Comment 1 by candace oathout at 12-Jan-09 04:09 PM
The travesty of this legislation is that its impacts extend far beyond their very real impact on energy prices. It prevents effective forest management across vast areas of the Rockie Mountains, Pacific Northwest and both Northern and Southern California. It devastates the ability of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to apply sound science-based principles to caring for public lands. Thanks to the extreme restrictions placed on uses and management of Wilderness Areas, we have vast acres of overcrowded, stressed, disease and insect infested forests that are tinderboxes waiting to burn. We have seen larger more catastrophic wildland fires and greater CO2 emissions due to these fires than all the cars on the road in the United States. This legislation is based on the false premise that there is some balance in natural ecosystems that will occur if man does not interfere with the processes involved. It is based in a subtext theory that the American Continent was an undiscovered Eden until it was discovered by Europeans. This is held up as a measure against which all activities on this Continent are to be judged. Unfortunately, neither the fossil record nor modern experience bear this out. Nature always has been, is now and always will be a dynamic system that is constantly in flux, always evolving sometimes rapidly, sometimes slowly but always changing. It is never static so it is never in balance. Something the fossil record bears witness to. The very foundation of evolutionary science proposed by Darwin espouses constant change and adaptation by species to their surroundings. Man is one small influence among many. We have progressed to the modern day lifestyle because we have managed our ecosystems in ways that benefit mankind. Soemthing that Wilderness Designations thwart with increasingly devastating results.
