March 9-10, 2009
Mar 09 01:44 Searching for the Obama Administration's Competence Mar 09 08:21 Chicago Tribune, DCExaminer Step Into Voucher Fight Mar 09 09:04 Introducing Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) Mar 09 16:51 I'm With Patrick Ruffini Mar 09 17:54 Surprise, Surprise Mar 09 23:55 Let's Rally Main Street's Army Mar 10 06:26 Famous Final Words? Mar 10 09:45 Founding Fathers Would Want Obama to Fail Mar 10 19:15 Exposing the DFL's Heavyhanded Tactics
Searching for the Obama Administration's Competence
I've been searching for proof of competence within the Obama administration. I've stopped searching with regard to the Obama administration's economic team being competent. Just looking at Tim Geithner says that they aren't competent. Based on Jack Kelly's column and the Obama administration's willingness to talk with the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and the Taliban , it isn't likely that the Obama administration's national security team will be competent, either.
They certainly aren't an unflinching friend of Israel's. Even Martin Peretz is rethinking his beliefs about the Obama administration's fidelity to Israel:
In May of last year, Mr. Peretz assured Jews concerned about the endorsement of Mr. Obama by Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef that "Obama's own personal history and his political convictions predisposed him towards Israel."another bit of proof that the Obama administration is in over its head is their willingness to elevate terrorist organizations and state sponsors of terrorism to positions of prominence:
Harvard professor Samantha Power has accused Israel of war crimes, and once recommended U.S. troops be sent to impose upon the Israelis a peace settlement by force. She's been appointed by President Obama to a senior foreign policy job at the White House. Mr. Peretz assured his readers in December that Ms. Power "truly, truly loves Israel and the people of Israel."
But Mr. Obama's appointment of Charles "Chas" Freeman to be director of the National Intelligence Council is causing Mr. Peretz second thoughts.
Mr. Freeman is a former diplomat who was ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1989 to 1992. He also was an assistant secretary of defense in the first Clinton administration. Since 1997, he's been president of the Middle East Policy Council, a lobbying group funded mostly by Saudi Arabia.
Mr Obama's admission of the dire situation in Afghanistan followed an invitation to Iran by Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, to participate in a regional conference on Afghanistan this month. The offer was part of a broad arc of diplomacy in recent days that marks a decisive shift away from the Bush Administration's more hardline approach to the region. Asked during an interview with The New York Times if the US was winning in Afghanistan, Mr Obama replied "no". He pointed to the success of peeling away Iraqi insurgents from al-Qaeda in Iraq, and said there might be "comparable opportunities" with the Taleban, although he warned that the situation there was more complex than in Iraq.Letting Iran play a part in determining the final outcome in Afghanistan is irresponsible. Iran doesn't want a stable Afghanistan because a destabilized Afghanistan destabilizes Iraq, too.
In short, by elevating the Taliban's and Hezbollah's stature while giving Iran a seat at the table on determining Afghanistan's future, the Obama administration has destabilized the entire region, especially Israel.
You can't get much worse than destabilizing Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan while elevating the Taliban, Hazbollah and Iran. That double trifefcta almost makes Jimmy Carter's foreign policy team look hawkish and competent. (Trust me when I say that I never thought I'd say that.)
It's almost as though President Obama's goal is to undermine the Bush administration's successes. While it's intellectually dishonest to call Iraq an unquestionable Bush administration success, there's no questioning the fact that it's currently stabilized and an ally because of their stability.
President Bush was also a great friend of Israel's, perhaps the best friend of Israel's. That's saying alot considering what a good friend President Reagan was to Israel.
If we're being intellectually honest, it's difficult to argue that the Obama administration has shown any expertise on any front.
Posted Monday, March 9, 2009 1:44 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 09-Mar-09 05:57 PM
one of the excuses Obama gave was that he was tired. Well every Wednesday he has been holding fancing parties. If he's too tired to do the offical job duties than he should stop having his parties until he learns how to manage his time to run the country properly.
Man that will be a big scandal in Washington though if those parties are canceled.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Chicago Tribune, DCExaminer Step Into Voucher Fight
Last week, I wrote about David Obey cutting out vouchers for DC children . In my post, I said that it was Rep. Obey's way of giving the inner city's underprivileged children the finger. This morning, the Chicago Tribune takes up the fight in this editorial :
We wrote last week about Democratic efforts to strip 1,900 low-income Washington children of $7,500 "opportunity scholarships" to attend private schools.BINGO on that last point. With all the money that's being spent by the Obama administration and the Democratic majority in the US House and US Senate, $14 million is practically nothing. This is the teacher's union saying jump and the Democrat majority asking how high.
It's an experiment in school vouchers, an experiment with little potential downside. But it's an experiment that was launched in 2004 by a Republican-controlled Congress. Today it's on the verge of extinction because the Democratic-controlled Congress wants to do the bidding of public-school teachers unions. The unions see vouchers that let poor kids go to private schools as aiding the enemy.
Language passed by the House as part of a massive $410 billion spending bill would effectively doom the federally funded program. The 1,900 kids would have to leave their schools and re-enter public schools in Washington, which has some of the worst schools in the nation. The measure, by the way, is referred to as "the Durbin language" for sponsoring Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.
The Democrats' point is not to save money-at $14 million a year, the effort represents a trivial share of the budget. The point is to prevent the spread of vouchers.
The Democrats' racism is showing.
I don't use that word often because it's such a misused word. This time, according to Dictionary.com , it fits:
discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another raceTell me how this legislation doesn't constitute "discriminatory or abusive behavior." I don't just dare people on that; I double dare them, especially Rep. Obey and Sen. Durbin, to tell me why this doesn't constitute "discriminatory or abusive behavior." Their behavior, along with other Democrats voting for this bill, is despicable.
Here's what I said in last week's post:
I didn't often agree with President Bush on education policy but one thing that I'll wholeheartedly and consistently agree with him was his statements about education being proof of the "soft bigotry" of the 21st century. In fact, Chairman Obey is the personification of that soft bigotry.The Chicago Tribune isn't the only newspaper that's picking a fight with the Obama administration. In fact, some DC students are picking a fight in this DCExaminer editorial :
Domonique, age 14, begins the videotaped letter: "Dear Mr. President Obama." Paul, 11, and Sakeithia, 12, echo the greetings. "In my old public school," Paul says after the formalities, "people screamed at the teacher, walked out of the school during classes, hurt me, and made fun of all my friends." Breanna, 9, chimes in: "I love going to school there where I can learn and be safe." These are the faces and voices of low-income children (via www.VoicesofSchoolChoice.org) who receive congressionally funded D.C. Opportunity Scholarships to attend various private schools of their parents' choice in the nation's capital. They are asking President Barack Obama to make sure their scholarships aren't snatched away by congressional Democrats in hock to the public school teachers and administrators unions. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan told a congressional committee yesterday that he favors continuation of the program. Where is Obama on the issue?I'd call the Democrats' sleight-of-hand political cowardice, too. The only thing Democrats have a spine for these days is for destabilizing MidEast allies like Iraq and Israel.
As has by now been well publicized, the ranks of the 1,900 scholarship recipients include Sarah and James Parker, who attend Sidwell Friends School with Obama's daughters Malia and Natasha. Their mother, Deborah, has said the thought of her children returning to their old school "frightens" her. But unless Congress strips certain provisions from the $410 billion omnibus spending bill, the scholarships will disappear. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic congressional leaders contrived a legislative sleight-of-hand in the omnibus bill to kill the program without having to go on record individually. Some would call that political cowardice.
One thing that's been gnawing at me for years is that this is a great opportunity for conservatives. We're always talking about the private sector doing a better job than DC's bureaucrats. It's one of conservatism's tenets that I wholeheartedly agree with. Now's the perfect opportunity for conservative philanthropists to step forward and offer scholarships. Ideally speaking, we shouldn't just focus on DC, either, but rather on inner city schools across the nation.
The great thing about setting up such a network is that it forces the teacher unions and their liberal enablers in Congress and the state legislatures to justify their monopoly on America's education system. It's time they explained (justified?) why trapping children in schools that don't teach children the things they'll need to compete in a global economy and that don't guarantee each child's physical safety is what's best for the children.
It's time that these unions and their enablers explained how trapping children in unionized schools isn't the soft bigotry that President Bush rightly exposed.
Finally, it's time we forced Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi to explain why they're pursuing policies that that strengthen the teachers' unions instead of pursuing policies that guarantee these children the best opportunity to learn.
Posted Monday, March 9, 2009 8:21 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 10-Mar-09 12:32 AM
Great idea! Aren't there already organizations around doing exactly that, raising money to give scholarships to poor kids in failing schools? Can we find those folks and make a big splash about keeping these 1700 kids where they belong and want to be? Heck, I'd gladly contribute to that.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Mar-09 05:55 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if these types of groups existed for the DC children. My goal, though, is to establish a philanthropy network for every major city in America.
Think of the good that could get done if we identified philanthopists who'd help in each major city.
Introducing Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)
I've been upset with the shortage of information about Republicans serving in DC. the easy (lazy?) thing to do is say that 'there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats'. Benedict Arlen, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe don't exactly discourage that image.
That's unfair to the rock solid conservatives in the US House of Representatives. One such representative that doesn't deserve lumping in with Specter, Collins and Snowe. Recently, Rep. Franks answered a number of questions I had. Here's the transcript of our exchange:
Q1: President Obama just submitted a budget that will spend over $3.5 trillion. What part of President Obama's budget bothers you most?As you can see, I didn't ask 4 softball questions. I asked questions that are weighing heavy on people's minds. In return, Rep. Franks offered thoughful, detailed answers. What's impressive to me is that he didn't take the 'Al Gore/John Kerry approach' of talking down to us. If there's anything that upsets me more than politicians talking down to me, I don't know what that thing would be.
Rep. Franks: The most potentially devastating aspect of the budget is the number of significant tax increases, totally more than $1.4 trillion over 10 years. Allegedly, these tax increases target "wealthy Americans," a subjective term Democrats have used for those making more than $250,000 a year. Unfortunately, more than half of the people who make that amount run small businesses. By significantly raising taxes on small businesses, which create 60 to 80 percent of American jobs, we are choking the very engine of our economy that creates jobs and provides consistent, long-term growth.
Furthermore, the assertion that only so-called wealthy Americans are going to feel the pain of this tax increase is completely false. Initiatives such as the energy tax and the "cap-and-trade" proposal add another approximately $650 billion tax increase on domestic energy consumers. Anyone who heats their home, puts gas in their car, or turns on their lights will bear the brunt of this tax hike, not to mention the fact that it will further erode the U.S. job base and put American companies at a further competitive disadvantage with China and other countries.
Q2: It's been rumored that President Obama's budget relies on unrealistic growth rates in FY20111 & FY 2012. First, is that true? Secondly, does President Obama's budget set us on a path for sustained economic growth?
Rep. Franks: No. The President's budget does not put us on a path to sustained economic growth; in fact, elements of the plan will significantly weaken the U.S. economy. The budget relies on the outdated and disproven notions that massive government intervention in the marketplace can somehow spur economic growth, and that more spending can lead to creating wealth. The amount of borrowing and taxes hikes that will be necessary to finance the President's drastic expansion of government will dampen incentives and crowd out opportunities for long-term investment and growth.
Q3: How worried are you that inflation will be what's most remembered about the stimulus bill that President Obama signed? What's the likelihood that economic growth will be the result of President Obama's stimulus bill?
Rep. Franks: Already, we are witnessing the need for government to print major amounts of money to finance the amount of debt we have incurred in the 111th Congress alone. I am convinced that we will soon face a critical situation where inflation becomes a serious problem. Unsurprisingly, expected inflation is lower in the President's budget than the private consensus. For instance, in 2011 and 2012, the administration foresees a mild inflation rate, slightly under 2.0 percent, while the Blue Chip consensus predicts higher inflation in the 2.5-percent range for this period. The primary takeaway from the administration's economic forecast is that the recovery will be swift, after which we will enter into a period of quick growth coupled with low inflation. That is certainly the ideal economic scenario, but I believe, unless we witness a drastic change of course in the policies being pushed through by the Obama Administration, it is very unrealistic.
Q4: If President Obama's budget doesn't set us on a path to sustained economic growth, how would you change it to return us to the path of sustained prosperity?
Rep. Franks: Over hundreds of years, our free market economy has proven its resilience and it has allowed our nation to flourish with the most free, the most prosperous, and the most robust economy in the world. Now more than ever it is important that we remain committed to the tried-and-true principles that have guided us through stormy economic times. If there is anything I would change about the President's budget, it would be to see a fundamental shift in focus to the mechanisms that will actually create wealth, not redistribute it, by providing tax relief for Americans and small businesses who are the only generators of long-term, sustainable economic productivity.
Rep. Franks isn't bashful about proclaiming that free market economies have proven their resillience over the centuries. It's something that conservatives must preach more often, especially with President Obama waging war with America's free market system.
I'd like to thank Rep. Franks for taking the time to answer these important questions. It's people like Rep. Franks that instill a sense of confidence that the GOP has a bright future.
Posted Monday, March 9, 2009 9:04 AM
No comments.
I'm With Patrick Ruffini
Last week, Republicans jumped all over Michael Steele for getting drawn into the artificial Rush controversy. I thought it was a disgusting sight, frankly, because we were attacking a great spokesman for the Republican Party. Granted, he made a mistake but it wasn't the type of mistake that deserved calls for him to step down as RNC Chairman.
Today, I found Patrick Ruffini's post on the subject. Here's the part of Patrick's post that I most enthusiastically agree with:
Michael Steele made a tactical mistake in getting drawn into this argument, but I still want him to be a successful RNC Chairman. Steele was elected Chairman as a fresh face and a reformer, a basic orientation the Republican Party will need to embrace in 2010. He remains one of the most compelling public faces of the party. If I were a Democrat, I would rejoice if Michael Steele were somehow made less relevant. Moreover, his challenge of the party's blind support for incumbents, conservatives' #1 frustration with the RNC, is probably more relevant to his leadership as Chairman than his Rush comments.AMEN Brother Patrick!!! It's time we figured out that Michael Steele's unwillingness to just blindly support traitors like Benedict Arlen is exactly the right mindset for the RNC to adopt at the time when that mindset is needed most. It's time that the GOP became the party who supports people who best embody conservative principles. More importantly, it's time the GOP morphed into the party that won't support the Arlen Specter and Linc Chaffee types.
It's also important that we keep Michael Steele around for his prioritizing outreach to minority communities. The GOP has a chance to make longterm inroads with the various minority communities. Let's be clear about this: I'm not suggesting that we abandon our conservative principles. Quite the opposite. It's time we put a greater emphasis on sharing our conservative principles with minority communites.
Our goal should be to expand the GOP into every part of America. That's the basis for the 435 District Plan .
As enthusiastically as I agree with Patrick's earlier opinion, I passionately agree with him on this:
Taking a step back, and it's easy to see why the Obama team must be rejoicing. Some of the Republican Party's most charismatic and influential voices are being attacked...from within. Conservatives appear flailing and divided, embroiled in controversies against the leading talk show host, the party chairman, and one of the party's rising stars.The sooner that Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and Michael Steele are the image that the GOP projects, the sooner we'll return to being a truly national majority party. None of these political figures are flawless but they each appeal to demographic groups where the conservative message is routinely rejected without the people giving it a second thought. If we want to have a truly national party, we need to appeal to every demographic group.
I could deal with the "flailing and divisive" narrative if it were aimed at public embarrassments, like Bunning, or against more expendable, transactional pols, people whose removal would not hurt the cause and in fact could help it. We should be highly vigilant, however, when the attacks are aimed at people who would be significant public scalps for the Democrats, and who are not easily replaced.
I suspect that many of the attacks against Michael Steele are disgruntled, formerly entrenched, staffers who now find themselves looking for employment. Similarly, I suspect that many of the attacks against Rush that originate within the GOP are coming from blueblood Republicans who don't know a thing about main street conservatism other than it isn't country club conservatism.
If we want to move forward, it's important that we hold our fire on influential people like Bobby Jindal and Michael Steele. Having them play significant roles in today's GOP is nothing but a net positive.
That's the biggest reason why I agree with Patrick Ruffini.
Posted Monday, March 9, 2009 4:54 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 09-Mar-09 05:30 PM
Nothing against Sarah, Bobby and Michael, but those folks who would be impressed by race, gender or ethnicity are not the kind to be persuaded by rational conservative values. I tediously dislike this notion that all blacks vote alike, or that all women vote alike, or that only a black or female can relate to the corresponding demographic. Nothing wrong with our outreach person being of the same group, so long as they are THE BEST PERSON for the job. Isn't that what we're all about-- merit, equal opportunity?
Surprise, Surprise
Marty Seifert issued this statement after Ann Lenczewski's comments that the DFL will be proposing tax increases:
SEIFERT: TIME FOR DEMOCRATS TO COME CLEAN WITH ALL MINNESOTANS ON TAXESHere's a video of Lenczewski's speech:
"You shouldn't have to drive to Edina on a Saturday morning to find out what Democrats are up to."
ST. PAUL, March 9, 2009 - Minnesota Democrats have all but made the formal announcement about their plans for tax increases, according to House Republican Minority Leader Marty Seifert, R-Marshall. Seifert's comments come in response to House Taxes Committee Chair, Representative Ann Lenczewski (DFL-Bloomington) telling a group of party activists that there is "no doubt" that Democrats will propose tax increases.
"Now that leading Democrats have confirmed their plans for tax increases, it is time they officially put their agenda on the table for all Minnesotans to see. You shouldn't have to drive to Edina on a Saturday morning to find out what Democrats are up to," Seifert said.
Lenczewski's comments came during the Senate District 41 DFL convention on Saturday, March 7. Seifert has long predicted that Democrats would roll out their plan for tax increases when few people are paying attention.
According to the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, more than 90 percent of Minnesota businesses use the personal income tax, making income tax increases counter-intuitive to the goal of growing jobs.
"Raising taxes will not turn this economy around and grow jobs," Seifert said. "We want job creators to stay here, come here and expand here. Raising their taxes would tell them they aren't wanted. It is absolutely the wrong policy to pursue."
Lenczewski's comments to the DFL crowd(emphasis added):
"I am a State Rep in the neighboring senate district. So it's nice to come and be with you today. I have to tell you that, you know, we haven't gone public with this and we've gotten a lot of flak for it. But there is no doubt that the Minnesota House will be proposing revenue to solve the downsizing. We've been criticized because everyone supposedly in the press thinks we're hiding or waiting or something. The process works where we wait for the second forecast. We now have that as of a few days ago. We came into Legislature in January and unlike the Governor who gets to look at this all last year, we've now begun the process of making a bunch of very difficult choices. And there will be cuts. There will also be progressive revenue proposed.
You will be seeing that as time goes on here. So I know that a lot of people are waiting for that and we appreciate that. Its part of how the process works to get to a final solution. So, I know that you understand the need for progressive taxation, we will be getting to that point soon."
What's most insulting is Rep. Lenczewski's statement that Gov. Pawlenty gets to look at the budget all year but the committee chairs don't. What's worse is this line:
The process works where we wait for the second forecast.I'd defy Rep. Lenczewski to explain why legislators have to wait until the second forecast to start identifying their priorities. I'd further defy Rep. Lenczewski to explain why legislators have to wait until the second forecast to start identifying wasteful spending. Why can't those things be identified during January and February hearings?
Rep. Lenczewski is spinning this. What she's really saying is that the DFL wanted to wait until the last possible moment to announce that they'd planned on raising taxes since forever ago. Anyone that thinks that they weren't planning this wasn't paying attention to what Tarryl Clark said during her appearance on Tom Hauser's At Issue program:
Hauser: You can talk about reform all you want but reform inevitably ends up meaning that some people that are getting state services now won't be getting them after this reform, whether it be in HHS, whether it be in education, early childhood, any of those things.Couple that with the common mantra at the DFL's Cherrypicked Testimony Tour that we couldn't afford to cut programs. Let's remember that these testifiers were part of an orchestrated attempt to make it sound like there was a great grassroots groundswell supporting tax increases.
Tarryl: Sure, and an estimate, a good estimate would be that maybe we could figure out how to save about $500 million.
Let's remember that DFL Rep. Gene Pelowski sent out this email prior to the hearings :
From: Gene Pelowski [mailto:Rep.Gene.Pelowski@house.mn]Let's not forget this email either:
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:13 AM
This Friday, February 20, there will be a bicameral hearing held in our region. Senators and Representatives from both political parties will be in Winona from 3:30 to 5:30 PM, Winona City Hall, 207 Lafayette St. The purpose of this hearing is to get testimony from affected programs in every level of government, education, health care or service impacted by the cuts suggested by the Governor's state budget.
I am writing you to ask that you or a designee get scheduled to testify. You may do this by going to the House website at www.house.mn and clicking on "Town Meetings".
We would ask you to focus your comments on the impact of the Governor's budget including what is the harm to your area of government or program. Please be as precise as possible using facts such as number of lay offs, increases in property taxes, cuts in services, increases in tuition, elimination of programs. To be respectful of the time necessary to hear from a large number of constituents it would be advised to use no more than 3-5 minutes to convey your message. If you choose to provide handouts or printed materials, please plan to bring approximately 25 copies, enough for committee members and media.
Sincerely,
Representative Gene Pelowski
District 31A
Dear Reps. Benson, Ruud, Winkler, Peterson and Simon and Sens. Bonoff, Rest and Pappas,The testimony was cherrypicked with a specific intent: to make it appear as though there was a great groundswell of support for the DFL's pre-ordained tax-increasing agenda. This pageant didn't have anything to do with listening to mainstreet Minnesotans. They didn't want to hear from small business owners because they stand to get hurt most. They didn't want to hear from homeowners sick of the unfunded mandates that drive up property taxes.
Thank you for participating in the Plymouth town hall meeting this Thursday. I anticipate there will be additional members participating but have so far not yet been notified. Meeting details are listed below and directions from the Capitol are attached.
Plymouth Town Hall Meeting
Thursday, Feb. 26 7:00 pm
Plymouth City Hall
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
I have also attached the list of people who have signed up to testify as of 9 a.m. this morning. Because we will be meeting for approximately 2 hrs., we will not be able to hear from everyone. (140 have submitted their names.) We will be limiting testimony to 2 minutes and encouraging individuals to submit their comments in writing or online. If there are any individuals listed who you think would provide particularly compelling testimony, please let me know. We will be working to hear from a variety of individuals covering a wide range of topics.
Please contact me with any additional questions or suggestions.
Most importantly, they didn't want to hear the citizens' frustration with the DFL majority increasing spending instead of increasing the size of the rainy day fund.
If you learn nothing else from this post, learn this: The DFL majority are as intent on increasing spending and taxes as they are about breathing air. Caution and priorities are 4-letter words to people like Rep. Lenczewski and Rep. Pelowski.
Thanks to that YouTube video, we finally have proof of the DFL majority's intentions.
Originally posted Monday, March 9, 2009, revised 24-May 9:02 AM
Comment 1 by Chad at 09-Mar-09 08:10 PM
The saddest part of the video is the applause Rep. Lenczewski gets when she says the DFL will raise taxes.
Comment 2 by Sue at 16-Mar-09 05:51 PM
The Dem's want to take money OUT of the economy now?? Oh wait, that way THEY get to control how our money is spent, not those who EARNED it!
Let's Rally Main Street's Army
After reading this AP article about President Obama's former campaign supporters now morphing into his agenda's supporters, it's obvious that we need our own army. Here's what the AP is reporting:
US President Barack Obama mustered his powerful campaign army on Monday, calling on his millions of supporters to lobby on behalf of his budget and economic plan. The appeal to back the president was made in an email and video sent out by "Organizing for America," the organization which morphed out of Obama's campaign machinery to push his agenda when he entered the White House.There's undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of Obama supporters that still support his socialist agenda. They're undoubtedly willing to flood the Senate's phone banks. With a number of weak-kneed Republicans willing to betray their Republican colleagues, the omnibus spending bill will pass.
In the video, Mitch Stewart, the director of Organizing for America, urged the president's supporters to take part in the "Organizing for America Pledge Project."
"The pledge project is an ambitious effort to map out and identify support for President Obama's economic blueprint across towns and communities in America," Stewart said.
What's needed now is for us to organize an army that mobilizes around Main Street-approved reforms. the last thing we need more of is President Obama's Beltway-centered, lobbyist-supported agenda.
President Obama's budget, this omnibus spending bill and the less-than-stimulating stimulus bill are the lobbyists' dream come true. We've seen Wall Street's reaction to President Obama's policies. Anyone thinking that major corporation after major corporation that pulls its money out of the stock market won't have an impact on the economy is a fool's fool.
Rather than sitting idly by, it's time for small businesses, still-healthy big corporations and Main Street to join forces in sending a message to Congress that more radical, counternproductive policies will be met with ferocity in November, 2010.
Instead of lobbyist-supported spending increases, we need Main Street-supported reforms that differentiate between wants and needs, reduce spending and force fiscal sanity on Washington.
The CBO already is saying that President Obama's budget, coupled with the stimulus bill that Speaker Pelosi wrote, will significantly slow GDP growth for the next decade. Pundits talk about spending the next generation's money but that's sugarcoating it. The reality is that President Obama's budget is already spending money that the generation after that will pay for.
We've all heard the saying that "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Today is the day that we must decide if we're going to do nothing. If we do nothing, we will have let evil triumph.
People thinking that sitting idly by while President Obama's policies and Speaker Pelosi's legislation diminish our prospects for prosperity and rob us of our economic liberty isn't letting evil triumph aren't thinking things through properly.
Posted Monday, March 9, 2009 11:59 PM
No comments.
Famous Final Words?
This article in Time Magazine focuses on what might be Christopher Dodd's last Senate race. According to the article, Sen. Dodd isn't drawing rave reviews. Most of that started, it claims, with the original TARP bailout:
In the Quinnipiac poll, Dodd's approval ratings came in at a dismal 41%; that makes him even less popular than Joe Lieberman, the independent junior Senator who left the Democratic Party after losing his primary race and then crossed what was left of his party lines to endorse John McCain for President. "It's a legitimate question to ask; I'm certainly aware of [the polls]," Dodd says. "But my answer to it is: do your work. And look, that stuff last fall was terribly unpopular, the banking things, the assistance to the automobile institutions. We have never seen mail or e-mails so hostile to those ideas...But it was the right thing to do."Sen. Dodd is spinning like a top to avoid the real reason why he'll face a difficult re-election fight. I think Kevin Rennie's explanation is more plausible:
It takes considerable political skill for a U.S. senator to win a presidential pardon for a friend without the traditional review by the Justice Department. Sen. Christopher Dodd moved the furtive levers of power in 2001 for Edward R. Downe, convicted of tax and securities fraud eight years before. A man will do a lot for a former real estate partner.The corruption becomes more obvious here:
It was reported here two weeks ago that Downe's real estate development partner, William "Bucky" Kessinger of Kansas City, Mo., purchased a 1,700-square-foot home in Ireland with Dodd in 1994 for $160,000. Downe's name appeared on the transfer document filed in the Irish Land Registry as the witness to Kessinger's signature. Kessinger owned two-thirds of the property, Dodd one-third.
In 2002, long into a historic Irish property value boom and the year after Dodd got Downe pardoned, Kessinger sold Dodd his share in the lair for only $15,000 more than the $107,000 he'd paid in 1994. Two years after the bubble exploded, homes smaller than Dodd's and on smaller pieces of property than his are on the market for several times the maximum $250,000 Dodd has declared his is worth each year on his Senate disclosure forms since 2002.With TARP II becoming a toxic subject in DC, I can't imagine Sen. Dodd wanting to spend this election explaining his coziness with people who've gamed the mortgage system. Nonetheless, that's what he'd likely do if Larry Kudlow was the GOP's challenger.
Kudlow would also make Sen. Dodd defend President Obama's economic plan at a time when President Obama's plan is losing popularity in proportions equal to the amount the NYSE drops. If the economy isn't markedly better when 2010 starts, Dodd will face a difficult fight. (Who'd want to defend voting for massive, and ineffective, spending bills and who will have voted for a budget that's vastly overbloated while fending off corruption charges?)
There's alot that can happen in the next year but I'm certain that Sen. Dodd could envision a scenario that he'd rather start from.
As for his voting for the original TARP bill, will it be a consolation that "it was the right thing to do" when he's delivering a concession speech? Will "it was the right thing to do" become his famous final words?
Posted Tuesday, March 10, 2009 6:31 AM
No comments.
Founding Fathers Would Want Obama to Fail
According to Jonah Goldberg's column , the Founding Fathers would want President Obama to fail. While that sounds absurd, Jonah makes the case this way:
In the Federalist Papers, written 221 years ago, Madison addressed the need for a Senate to accompany the more populist House of Representatives. An upper body, he wrote, "may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions."QUESTION: If President Obama says something is a crisis, is he required to provide proof that he isn't telling us a tall tale?
For the times when a political leader would attempt to capitalize on those errors and delusions, the Founders prescribed the Senate, with its members elected to terms three times the length of those in the House, originally chosen not by the people but by the state legislatures. From Federalist 63:
"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?"
Now is the time for the salutary interference of temperate and respectable citizens, otherwise known as the 41 Republicans in the United States Senate. It is their job to help the president in areas where there is widespread agreement that he should be helped, and hold the line on everything else.
Of course the economy is in crisis. But if Obama had his way, everything would be treated as if it were a crisis. Health care is a crisis. The environment is a crisis. Education is a crisis. In truth, those other areas are not crises, and the Senate's job is to delay action on them until Obama's power to stir popular passions fades. Then, whatever legislation is truly needed on health care, etc., can be undertaken in a more reasoned and measured way.
Here's how crisis is defined by Dictionary.com :
1. a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined; turning point.Is health care at the point where what's done now will determine "all future events"? Will holding off on global warming legislation bring about a "condition of instability or danger"? To those that answered yes to either question, I'd recommend that you think things through better. To those of you who answered yes to both questions, I'd ask that you return to your institution immediately so you can be properly medicated.
2. a condition of instability or danger, as in social, economic, political, or international affairs, leading to a decisive change.
In our current situation, the people elected Barack Obama and large Democratic majorities in Congress. They didn't elect them to do nothing. When action is needed to deal with the economic crisis...it would be nice to have a financial stabilization plan, Mr. President...they will support it.Expecting Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel and President Obama to act with restraint isn't realistic. In fact, it's imprudent to think that they'll act with restraint.
But they didn't elect Obama to change everything, either. With Pelosi eager to go along with the president's every wish, it's up to temperate and respectable citizens to distinguish the crisis from the non-crisis, and act accordingly.
In other words, it's up to the Senate to slow things down. Just like Madison planned.
President Obama likely doesn't think that Greenberg's focus group results apply to him because it's entirely possible he thinks he can sell anything because he's always been able to sell himself. It wouldn't surprise me if President Obama's audacity was the first indicator of his impending downfall.
The worst news for President Obama is that Warren Buffett is now questioning and criticizing him as he did in this exchange:
BUFFETT: I think; I think a lot of things should be; job one is to win the war, job; the economic war, job two is to win the economic war, and job three. And you can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat. So I would; I would absolutely say for the; for the interim, till we get this one solved, I would not be pushing a lot of things that are; you know are contentious, and I also; I also would do no finger-pointing whatsoever. I would; you know, I would not say, you know, 'George, the previous administration got us into this.' Forget it. I mean, you know, the Navy made a mistake at Pearl Harbor and had too many ships there. But the idea that we'd spend our time after that, you know, pointing fingers at the Navy, we needed the Navy. So I would; I would; I would; no finger-pointing, no vengeance, none of that stuff. Just look forward. ..[snip],The Democrats will have made a major mistake if they think they can get away with pushing an unpopular, oversized agenda through. If the overreach badly enough, they will fall victim of their own audacity. (Everyone knows that they've overreached. It's just a matter of whether their overreach is repulsive enough to trigger a major backlach or just a backlash.)
BUFFETT: Well, I was going to mention to Joe that you've heard this comment recently from some Democrats recently that a `crisis is a terrible thing to waste.'
BECKY: Yeah.
BUFFETT: Now, just rephrase that and since it's, in my view, it's an economic war, and; I don't think anybody on December 7th would have said a `war is a terrible thing to waste, and therefore we're going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things and ; but we expect to; expect the other party to unite behind us on the; on the big problem .' It's just a mistake, I think, when you've got one overriding objective, to try and muddle it up with a bunch of other things.
Labelling everything a crisis simply isn't credible. Thoughtful people will understand that President Obama, Rahm Emanuel and Speaker Pelosi will be attempting to use a genuine crisis to push through an unpopular agenda. We know that it's an unpopular agenda because Democrats have tried passing universal health care before. The last time Democrats tried pushing manmade global warming down our throats, Kyoto was defeated on a unanimous vote.
One of the major reasons why the Democrats' agenda is so unpopular is because they've listened too often to K Street inhabitants. The other explanation why why the Democrats' agenda isn't popular is because they haven't listened enough to Main Street.
Here in Minnesota, the GOP is rebuilding quickly because they're gaining the reputation of supporting Main Street-approved reforms. They're fighting against unfunded mandates, many of which turn mayors into administrators. They're fighting against the DFL majority's oversized and predictable tax increases.
Most importantly, they're offering Main Street-approved reforms on health care and education. For instance, my adopted state legislator, Steve Gottwalt, has proposed one market-based health care reform after another. Rep. Laura Brod is another conservative who's proposed market-based health care reforms.
As a result, Republicans are getting a reputation for listening to Main Street while solving their problems.
That's important because it's the type of thing that kills the momentum for passing a runaway agenda like President Obama's crisis-a-minute agenda.
Posted Tuesday, March 10, 2009 9:52 AM
No comments.
Exposing the DFL's Heavyhanded Tactics
A couple weeks ago, King interviewed Dan Ochsner during the first hour of the Final Word. Dan's a radio talk show host for KNSI. A tradition of Hot Talk is to do the show from the Capitol about once a month or so. During a recent visit to the Senate, Dan was informed that his press credentials for reporting from the Senate Floor had been revoked. What's fishy about this is that, according to Dan, it's more difficult to reject a person's press credentials than it is to renew them.
Now tons more red flags are going up. Check out the subtitle for this post on Esme Murphy's blog:
Michael Brodkorb: "House Democrats Should Be Ashamed"This is where things get interesting. Here's what Esme posted:
The quote is from Michael Brodkorb the author of the blog Minnesota Democrats Exposed commenting in Pat Kessler's 5 p.m. story on the proposed censorship of journalists at the capitol.Here's a portion of the SPJ's statement on the House proposed rules:
House DFLers are also taking a drubbing from the left with the Uptake's Jason Barnett also ripping the proposal in Pat's story.
The proposal has been amended to strike the first three provisions which called for journalists to agree not to videotape audience members, individual house members and any interactions before or after the committee convenes or adjourns. For a complete look at the original proposal click here .
The Minnesota Legislature does the people's work during committee meetings and formal House and Senate floor sessions. Minnesota SPJ understands the difficulty in maintaining decorum and a productive environment in such open, public forums. However, this is precisely the job legislators were elected to do. Public scrutiny comes with the office. SPJ takes the position that transparency is the only way elected representatives can maintain credibility with their constituents. As such, the best approach is one that adheres to the most noble aspects of the First Amendment that recognizes the need for openness and accountability from government.Mind you, this is the House side of things. They aren't talking about the Senate, which the SPJ should address, too. The notion that the leigslature thinks it's ok to impose draconian restrictions on credentialed reporters goes against the First Amendment and against the principle that legislators work for us, not vice versa.
House Majority Leader Sertich says that the additional press corps makes security a challenge. Here's Esme Murphy's reply to that:
The proliferation of bloggers and journalists at the capitol and everywhere allows more people access to more information. It is not, as Rep. Tony Sertich, maintains "a security threat." The capitol has its own police force, after all.The notion that the DFL majority has to restrict press privileges just because it makes the capitol police's job more challenging is nonsense. Couple the House DFL's attempt to restrict what the press can and can't report and what reporting equipment they can use sounds alot like media manipulation.
The SPJ gets this part exactly right:
SPJ prefers to define 'journalist' in the broadest of terms and we believe it's time for the legislature to do the same. The public loses whenever elected officials choose to exclude people who wish to document what happens in a public meeting, working on public policy in a public space. If there is an issue of decorum, safety or logistical space, elected leaders have appropriate methods in place.A number of bloggers have broken stories before the traditional media have, making it difficult to say that bloggers aren't reporters.
The SPJ is also spot on when they say that "the public loses whenever elected officials choose to exclude people who wish to document what happens in a public meeting". The 6 rules of reporting are: transparency, accountability, transparency, accountability and transparency and accountability.
King has more on this troubling situation here :
Mary Lahammer has picked up on this, including an utterly stunning story in which Don Davis , a very longtime, reputable reporter for Forum Communications, was approached by state troopers for taking pictures of a representative introducing a bill.Let's connect the dots we've identified thus far:
- Dan Ochsner, who ran against Tarryl Clark in a special election, had his Senate credentials revoked after having been credentialed for several years.
- During an appearance on Hot Talk, Dan pressed her about this issue. Rather than answering, Tarryl said that Dan's listeners weren't interested in this issue, then suggested that they change subjects.
- Don Davis is approached by state troopers after taking pictures or a legislator introducing a bill.
- The DFL leadership in the House and Senate try restricting the media's ability to film and report on what's happening on the House and Senate floors.
- While the Senate was revoking Dan Ochsner's credentials, they're credentialling the Uptake, which is a blog with a camera, to the tune of six passes. (One of the people who's been credentialed through the Uptake is Noah Kunin, the man who needed 17 attempts to hack into a computer containing unreleased ads for the Mark Kennedy for Senate campaign.)
I'm impressed with the tenacity with which Esme Murphy and Mary Lahammer have pushed back with. They both understand that politicians that try limiting any part of the press corps is an attempt to limit reporters' ability to report. That's unacceptable regardless of who's in the majority.
Let's be abundantly clear about something: The DFL's tactics in both the House and Senate are tactics I'd expect to find in a totalitarian regime. There's no justification for state troopers questioning longtime journalist Don Davis on why he took a picture of a legislator submitting a bill during a committee hearing.
Who do these people think they are? There's no excuse for these heavyhanded tactics, especially in what's theoretically the freest country on the face of the earth.
Posted Tuesday, March 10, 2009 7:15 PM
No comments.
