Posts
I can’t see the mountains.
1 month ago
Showing posts with label pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pelosi. Show all posts
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Get Back to the Phones
I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but this is an important provision in the Omnibus Bill which must be acted upon to ensure Americans are given the opportunity for the scarce jobs available and created by our taxpayer funded programs. My post yesterday updating you on Amnesty and E-verify speaks to this issue further.
ANOTHER CHANCE TO PUSH E-VERIFY -- Phone to Get Long-Term Extension in Spending Bill
*DEAR FRIENDS,*
Your anti-illegal-immigration allies in the U.S. House have asked us to get your help Tuesday and Wednesday in obtaining signatures on a crucial letter (see text below).
They need you to support their last-ditch effort to put a long-term extension of the E-Verify program in the giant spending bill before Congress this week.
When we are asked directly by Members of Congress for help, we have to be willing to back them up. They know that the only way to succeed is if they have your help in phoning their colleagues and asking them to sign a crucial letter to House Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader Boehner (R-Ohio).
The key point sentence of the letter is this:
*"Please do everything within your power to protect legal workers by ensuring that the E-Verify program is reauthorized long-term in the Omnibus Appropriations Act."*
Pelosi and Boehner have the power to make that happen when the bill comes to the House/Senate negotiating committee if they would just resolve to do it.
*Your assignment* -- if you choose to accept it -- is to phone your own U.S. Representative
and ask him/her to sign the letter. If you don't know your U.S. Rep, supply your ZIP at congress.org to find
out.
* Step 1: Phone the Congressional operator at *202-224-3121.*
* Ask to be connected to you Rep's office.*
* Step 2: Tell the staffers that their boss has already received a letter about E-Verify from Rep. Bilbray's office.
* Step 3: Read the key sentence quoted above.
* Step 4: Ask that your Rep contact Congressman Bilbray's office at 225-0508 and pledge to sign the letter -- or at least to get another copy of it to read. (YOU should NOT call Mr. Bilbray's office because that will tie up his phone.)
* Step 5: Note that Mr. Bilbray has to receive! the pledge by the close of business Wednesday.
* Step 6: Emphasize that the American people are growing tired of the delaying tactics of Congress over the last six months. It is time to stop treating E-Verify as a political football and to give it the long-term authorization that states and businesses need to be able to rely on the program.
Thanks for taking quick action on this.
If your own Representative is Pelosi or Boehner, they obviously won't be signing the letter. Just phone them and tell them that you agree with the letter that is being sent to them from other Members.
If your Rep is Bilbray or Shuler (original signers), give their staffs a break and call a neighboring Member of Congress.
Here is the letter you are asking your Congress(wo)man to sign:
*
Dear Madam Speaker and Republican Leader Boehner:*
As Members of the House of Representatives, we appeal to you on behalf of American workers. Nationwide, 7.6 percent of the labor force 11.6 million workers is unemployed, and millions more are involuntarily working part-time or have given up hope of finding a job. Estimates of the number of jobs that might be created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Recovery Act) vary widely. While no one can predict exactly how many jobs will be created, we believe that the
American people deserve to know that their tax dollars are being used to create jobs for legal workers.
While the House version of the Recovery Act included two E-Verify-related measures to ensure American jobs would be protected, the Senate failed to include similar language. Because of the Senates oversight, we, the undersigned Members of the House of Representatives, urge you to protect taxpayers and legal workers by including these critical jobs protection provisions in any future economic recovery legislation. The House version of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, H. R. 1105, included a short-term extension of the E-Verify program through the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2009). While a
short-term extension is a step in the right direction, it is difficult for business to plan and effectively utilize the program without its secure future.
According to recent analysis, as many as 300,000 illegal aliens could receive jobs funded by the recovery program because these provisions were not included in the final version of the Recovery Act. If these provisions do not become law, not only will the important E-Verify program be in danger of expiring on March 6, 2009, but it may mean that hundreds of thousands of potential jobs for American workers will be compromised.
The E-Verify program enjoys a success rate of 99.6%, meaning that 99.6% of those legal workers checked by the program are verified through E-Verify without receiving a tentative non-confirmation (TNC) or having to take any type of corrective action. Testifying in June, Rep. Heath Shuler said, E-Verify is handling at least one in eight new hires already. Based on recent load testing, the system has the capacity to handle 240 million queries a year thats four times the number of people in the United States who are usually hired in a given year. The E-Verify program is reliable, easy to use and, most importantly, expedient.
Employers who break the law by hiring illegal immigrants create unfair competition in the labor market and depress wages for all workers. The Center for Immigration Studies has found that the current level of immigration has reduced the wages of the average native-born worker in a low-skilled occupation by 12% a year, or almost $2,000. Alexander Aleinikoff, a former Clinton Administration INS official, Dean of Georgetown Law School and co-chair of the Immigration Policy Review Team
for the Presidential Transition of Barack Obama, calls it a myth that there is little or no competition between undocumented workers and American workers . . . . !
According to estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center, roughly 7.7 million illegal immigrants are employed in the United States in 2008. These are all jobs that currently unemployed United States workersboth citizens and legal immigrantscould and should have a chance to fill. If the E-Verify program is not reauthorized, this Congress and our President will spend more than $1 trillion of taxpayer money to possibly provide jobs for illegal workers. Please do everything within your power to
protect legal workers by ensuring that the E-Verify program is reauthorized long-term in the Omnibus Appropriations Act.
ANOTHER CHANCE TO PUSH E-VERIFY -- Phone to Get Long-Term Extension in Spending Bill
*DEAR FRIENDS,*
Your anti-illegal-immigration allies in the U.S. House have asked us to get your help Tuesday and Wednesday in obtaining signatures on a crucial letter (see text below).
They need you to support their last-ditch effort to put a long-term extension of the E-Verify program in the giant spending bill before Congress this week.
When we are asked directly by Members of Congress for help, we have to be willing to back them up. They know that the only way to succeed is if they have your help in phoning their colleagues and asking them to sign a crucial letter to House Speaker Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader Boehner (R-Ohio).
The key point sentence of the letter is this:
*"Please do everything within your power to protect legal workers by ensuring that the E-Verify program is reauthorized long-term in the Omnibus Appropriations Act."*
Pelosi and Boehner have the power to make that happen when the bill comes to the House/Senate negotiating committee if they would just resolve to do it.
*Your assignment* -- if you choose to accept it -- is to phone your own U.S. Representative
out.
* Step 1: Phone the Congressional operator at *202-224-3121.*
* Ask to be connected to you Rep's office.*
* Step 2: Tell the staffers that their boss has already received a letter about E-Verify from Rep. Bilbray's office.
* Step 3: Read the key sentence quoted above.
* Step 4: Ask that your Rep contact Congressman Bilbray's office at 225-0508 and pledge to sign the letter -- or at least to get another copy of it to read. (YOU should NOT call Mr. Bilbray's office because that will tie up his phone.)
* Step 5: Note that Mr. Bilbray has to receive! the pledge by the close of business Wednesday.
* Step 6: Emphasize that the American people are growing tired of the delaying tactics of Congress over the last six months. It is time to stop treating E-Verify as a political football and to give it the long-term authorization that states and businesses need to be able to rely on the program.
Thanks for taking quick action on this.
If your own Representative is Pelosi or Boehner, they obviously won't be signing the letter. Just phone them and tell them that you agree with the letter that is being sent to them from other Members.
If your Rep is Bilbray or Shuler (original signers), give their staffs a break and call a neighboring Member of Congress.
Here is the letter you are asking your Congress(wo)man to sign:
*
Dear Madam Speaker and Republican Leader Boehner:*
As Members of the House of Representatives, we appeal to you on behalf of American workers. Nationwide, 7.6 percent of the labor force 11.6 million workers is unemployed, and millions more are involuntarily working part-time or have given up hope of finding a job. Estimates of the number of jobs that might be created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Recovery Act) vary widely. While no one can predict exactly how many jobs will be created, we believe that the
American people deserve to know that their tax dollars are being used to create jobs for legal workers.
While the House version of the Recovery Act included two E-Verify-related measures to ensure American jobs would be protected, the Senate failed to include similar language. Because of the Senates oversight, we, the undersigned Members of the House of Representatives, urge you to protect taxpayers and legal workers by including these critical jobs protection provisions in any future economic recovery legislation. The House version of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, H. R. 1105, included a short-term extension of the E-Verify program through the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2009). While a
short-term extension is a step in the right direction, it is difficult for business to plan and effectively utilize the program without its secure future.
According to recent analysis, as many as 300,000 illegal aliens could receive jobs funded by the recovery program because these provisions were not included in the final version of the Recovery Act. If these provisions do not become law, not only will the important E-Verify program be in danger of expiring on March 6, 2009, but it may mean that hundreds of thousands of potential jobs for American workers will be compromised.
The E-Verify program enjoys a success rate of 99.6%, meaning that 99.6% of those legal workers checked by the program are verified through E-Verify without receiving a tentative non-confirmation (TNC) or having to take any type of corrective action. Testifying in June, Rep. Heath Shuler said, E-Verify is handling at least one in eight new hires already. Based on recent load testing, the system has the capacity to handle 240 million queries a year thats four times the number of people in the United States who are usually hired in a given year. The E-Verify program is reliable, easy to use and, most importantly, expedient.
Employers who break the law by hiring illegal immigrants create unfair competition in the labor market and depress wages for all workers. The Center for Immigration Studies has found that the current level of immigration has reduced the wages of the average native-born worker in a low-skilled occupation by 12% a year, or almost $2,000. Alexander Aleinikoff, a former Clinton Administration INS official, Dean of Georgetown Law School and co-chair of the Immigration Policy Review Team
for the Presidential Transition of Barack Obama, calls it a myth that there is little or no competition between undocumented workers and American workers . . . . !
According to estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center, roughly 7.7 million illegal immigrants are employed in the United States in 2008. These are all jobs that currently unemployed United States workersboth citizens and legal immigrantscould and should have a chance to fill. If the E-Verify program is not reauthorized, this Congress and our President will spend more than $1 trillion of taxpayer money to possibly provide jobs for illegal workers. Please do everything within your power to
protect legal workers by ensuring that the E-Verify program is reauthorized long-term in the Omnibus Appropriations Act.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Three Cheers for Rep. Shuler
Let's hear it for Rep. Heath Schuler (D-NC) for speaking the truth about the chief architects of the grotesque Spendulous Bill. Wow, a politician who says what he means and means what he says. I feel like we've just come across the last remaining member of a previously thought extinct species.
From Politico today;
Pelosi, Reid have "failed," Shuler says
Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C) has further ingratiated himself with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — not — by declaring that Pelosi and Harry Reid "failed" the bipartisanship test on stimulus.
"In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way," Shuler said in Raleigh following an economic forum, according to the AP.
"We have to have everyone — Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration — saying, 'We got something done that was efficient, stimulative and timely.'"
Here's the kicker: "I truly feel that's where maybe House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed."
Shuler, rumored to be mulling a '10 Senate run, was one of 11 House Democrats to vote "no" on the stimulus and was already deep in Pelosi's doghouse. Now he'll have to build a Harry Reid wing.
From Politico today;
Pelosi, Reid have "failed," Shuler says
Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C) has further ingratiated himself with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — not — by declaring that Pelosi and Harry Reid "failed" the bipartisanship test on stimulus.
"In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way," Shuler said in Raleigh following an economic forum, according to the AP.
"We have to have everyone — Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration — saying, 'We got something done that was efficient, stimulative and timely.'"
Here's the kicker: "I truly feel that's where maybe House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed."
Shuler, rumored to be mulling a '10 Senate run, was one of 11 House Democrats to vote "no" on the stimulus and was already deep in Pelosi's doghouse. Now he'll have to build a Harry Reid wing.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Will the Real Obama Please Stand Up?
Today, President Obama met with Republicans on the Hill to discuss his economic stimulus plan and encouraged them to put partisan politics aside in an effort to revive the ailing economy. Republicans, reportedly, were "swooning" over BO and his sincere efforts to listen to their concerns, something which the House and Senate leadership has utterly failed to do.
"President Obama won praise from some of the House's most conservative lawmakers as "engaging" and "respectful" during his meeting with congressional Republicans Tuesday.
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) said that Obama was sincere and "impressive" during his meeting with Republicans Tuesday afternoon.
"There's real desire in this room to figure a way back to prosperity," Inglis wrote on Twitter. "[The president] and Republicans here [are] expressing deep concern about unemployment."
"If [the] President carries this on it does open door for a new tone!" Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) exclaimed.
"Sharp differences are muted," Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) Twittered."
After only one week in office, a distinct pattern has emerged of Obama's leadership style across the spectrum, from engaging foreign leaders to the American people to Republican lawmakers. He is conciliatory, seemingly willing to listen, speaks of unity and a post partisan nation.
Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership has acted in the exact opposite vein with their rhetoric and actions, by excluding Republican involvement in hammering out details of the stimulus plan, and marginalizing them even further than was possible for the majority party to do during the Bush years. The stimulus plan, as currently laid out, is a pork barrel of useless projects long adored by liberals, along with tax rebates which will do little to nothing to actually stimulate the economy. And it will, by all accounts, grow larger.
So who is the real Obama, and when will he emerge? Will he try to play both sides of the fence, acting as good cop to Pelosi and Reid's bad cop, but ultimately getting exactly what he intended all along? Or is he simply naive and unable to control the far left loons in the legislature, and despite sincere motivation to act in a bipartisan fashion, will prove to be impotent in reining in his own party? His record in the Senate shows an aversion to making hard choices. He cannot avoid them now. Soon, we will see the real Obama, but of the two choices, neither is encouraging, nor what this country needs at this perilous juncture.
"President Obama won praise from some of the House's most conservative lawmakers as "engaging" and "respectful" during his meeting with congressional Republicans Tuesday.
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) said that Obama was sincere and "impressive" during his meeting with Republicans Tuesday afternoon.
"There's real desire in this room to figure a way back to prosperity," Inglis wrote on Twitter. "[The president] and Republicans here [are] expressing deep concern about unemployment."
"If [the] President carries this on it does open door for a new tone!" Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) exclaimed.
"Sharp differences are muted," Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) Twittered."
After only one week in office, a distinct pattern has emerged of Obama's leadership style across the spectrum, from engaging foreign leaders to the American people to Republican lawmakers. He is conciliatory, seemingly willing to listen, speaks of unity and a post partisan nation.
Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership has acted in the exact opposite vein with their rhetoric and actions, by excluding Republican involvement in hammering out details of the stimulus plan, and marginalizing them even further than was possible for the majority party to do during the Bush years. The stimulus plan, as currently laid out, is a pork barrel of useless projects long adored by liberals, along with tax rebates which will do little to nothing to actually stimulate the economy. And it will, by all accounts, grow larger.
So who is the real Obama, and when will he emerge? Will he try to play both sides of the fence, acting as good cop to Pelosi and Reid's bad cop, but ultimately getting exactly what he intended all along? Or is he simply naive and unable to control the far left loons in the legislature, and despite sincere motivation to act in a bipartisan fashion, will prove to be impotent in reining in his own party? His record in the Senate shows an aversion to making hard choices. He cannot avoid them now. Soon, we will see the real Obama, but of the two choices, neither is encouraging, nor what this country needs at this perilous juncture.
Monday, January 26, 2009
I Won
So said President Obama in his "bipartisan" meeting with Republicans last week to discuss the $825B and counting fiscal stimulus plan to be passed sometime in the next few weeks. Obama wants bipartisan support (read CYA in case the whole shebang goes south and does nothing for the economy.) Which is exactly what it will do.
First of all, is this guy a bratty nine year old? Who says "I won" in the real world to one's adversaries when trying to hammer out a deal? Secondly, the Republicans would be wise to steer way clear of approving this mother of a plan, which will do nothing to stimulate the economy in an expedient manner, and is so laden with liberal dream pork, it's like a bucket of organic lard.
Only $26 billion of the $825B will be spent this year. It's January, for Pete's sake-they've got a whole year to grease the economic engines and this is the best they can do? Virtually nothing in the entire plan will create long term job growth, stimulate consumer spending, or result in saving jobs. Infrastructure, road, and bridge building take years to get going, even if they are "shovel ready". (And how many government funded infrastruture and road building projects have you heard of that come in at budget and on time?) The tax "rebates" are nothing more than welfare checks to those who don't pay taxes. Rebates don't work. As an example, please see Bush's rebate stimulus plan of last spring. It barely increased consumer spending, and that was BEFORE the crisis hit. Nobody is going to spend a rebate check on a tv- they are going to squirrel it away, resulting in zero stimulus to the economy. Finally, the crap that bogs down the bill such as spending on contraceptives is outright ludicrous. By the way, would someone please ask Nancy Pelosi who is going to fund Social Security for all of us in the future? It's the people who are born TODAY who will carry our water buckets, Princess. (Maybe you should reconsider your corporate jet. Oh sorry that's only for business people, not lowly public servants such as yourself).
The only good I see coming out of this plan is it's complete and total inability to stimulate the economy. There won't be any spin factor that could possibly twist it's illegitemacy. Obama and the liberal ideology will be proven useless and ineffective and hopefully 2010 will result in a new dawn for America. It's a shame that we have to endure this darkest night for such an unnecessarily long period because of such misguided thinking.
First of all, is this guy a bratty nine year old? Who says "I won" in the real world to one's adversaries when trying to hammer out a deal? Secondly, the Republicans would be wise to steer way clear of approving this mother of a plan, which will do nothing to stimulate the economy in an expedient manner, and is so laden with liberal dream pork, it's like a bucket of organic lard.
Only $26 billion of the $825B will be spent this year. It's January, for Pete's sake-they've got a whole year to grease the economic engines and this is the best they can do? Virtually nothing in the entire plan will create long term job growth, stimulate consumer spending, or result in saving jobs. Infrastructure, road, and bridge building take years to get going, even if they are "shovel ready". (And how many government funded infrastruture and road building projects have you heard of that come in at budget and on time?) The tax "rebates" are nothing more than welfare checks to those who don't pay taxes. Rebates don't work. As an example, please see Bush's rebate stimulus plan of last spring. It barely increased consumer spending, and that was BEFORE the crisis hit. Nobody is going to spend a rebate check on a tv- they are going to squirrel it away, resulting in zero stimulus to the economy. Finally, the crap that bogs down the bill such as spending on contraceptives is outright ludicrous. By the way, would someone please ask Nancy Pelosi who is going to fund Social Security for all of us in the future? It's the people who are born TODAY who will carry our water buckets, Princess. (Maybe you should reconsider your corporate jet. Oh sorry that's only for business people, not lowly public servants such as yourself).
The only good I see coming out of this plan is it's complete and total inability to stimulate the economy. There won't be any spin factor that could possibly twist it's illegitemacy. Obama and the liberal ideology will be proven useless and ineffective and hopefully 2010 will result in a new dawn for America. It's a shame that we have to endure this darkest night for such an unnecessarily long period because of such misguided thinking.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Moonbats' Plans to Ignite Civil War
Several far left liberals are entertaining the notion of prosecuting Bush administration officals for war crimes associated with the Iraq invasion and treatment of terrorists. Fox news reports:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is receptive to the idea of prosecuting some Bush administration officials, while letting others who are accused of misdeeds leave office without prosecution, she told Chris Wallace in an interview on "FOX News Sunday."
"I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it," the California Democrat said. "And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."
Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced Friday he wants to set up a commission to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives. The Michigan Democrat called for an "independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities.""
In addition, Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, columnist for the NYT, and terminal sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome, dedicated his Friday column to the same cause; prosecution of Bush, et al. Obama has not ruled out prosecution but says it is unlikely.
Are these people completely nuts? Does Nancy forget that she voted for the invasion into Iraq? Our nation and it's people are suffering under great economic stress, anxiety, and fear for the future, terrorists and rogue nations are chomping at the bit to test our naive President-elect, and Pelosi, Krugman, Conyers, and crew want to ignite a culture war. To divert even one moment of attention or funds to this issue should be slapped down immediately by whatever sane voices remain in Congress. My stomach turns with each passing day at the new bits of news related to the next four years and the unprecedented arrogance of those who will be in charge. The MSM, as usual, only fuels the fire.
We cannot take this assault sitting down.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is receptive to the idea of prosecuting some Bush administration officials, while letting others who are accused of misdeeds leave office without prosecution, she told Chris Wallace in an interview on "FOX News Sunday."
"I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it," the California Democrat said. "And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."
Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced Friday he wants to set up a commission to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives. The Michigan Democrat called for an "independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities.""
In addition, Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, columnist for the NYT, and terminal sufferer of Bush Derangement Syndrome, dedicated his Friday column to the same cause; prosecution of Bush, et al. Obama has not ruled out prosecution but says it is unlikely.
Are these people completely nuts? Does Nancy forget that she voted for the invasion into Iraq? Our nation and it's people are suffering under great economic stress, anxiety, and fear for the future, terrorists and rogue nations are chomping at the bit to test our naive President-elect, and Pelosi, Krugman, Conyers, and crew want to ignite a culture war. To divert even one moment of attention or funds to this issue should be slapped down immediately by whatever sane voices remain in Congress. My stomach turns with each passing day at the new bits of news related to the next four years and the unprecedented arrogance of those who will be in charge. The MSM, as usual, only fuels the fire.
We cannot take this assault sitting down.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
I've Been Thinking
As I watch and read about Congress grilling the CEO's of the Big Three Automakers, some questions keep popping into my mind.
1) The CEO's rightfully took it on the chin for flying to Washington to beg for money in their private corporate jets. They have failing companies, and yet they still flew in those things, which cost $20,000 each for a round trip from Detroit to Washington. The leaders of Congress also have failed miserably in their jobs, and have approval ratings in the toilet. Why doesn't someone grill Nancy Pelosi about her taxpayer funded jumbo jet, which flies her non-stop to California and back every week at an estimated cost of over $5 million per year? Of OUR money? In THIS economy?
2) Barney Frank has also been front and center in the debate about how to spend bailout money. Why doesn't someone ask him about the part he played in the collapse of the economy with his demands to allow non-qualified buyers to buy houses?
3) Chris Dodd is asking for the ouster of failed GM CEO Richard Wagoner as part of the auto bailout deal. Why doesn't somone ask for his ouster for his part in the Fannie and Freddie debacle?
4) Sniveling Senate leader Harry Reid complains about the stinky tourists in Washington. Why doesn't someone ask him to go home where he will not have to put up with the unwashed masses he purports to stand up for?
The outright hypocrisy of our Congressional leaders boggles the mind. They don't even bother to hide it. Do they think that we are really that stupid? Apparently so.
1) The CEO's rightfully took it on the chin for flying to Washington to beg for money in their private corporate jets. They have failing companies, and yet they still flew in those things, which cost $20,000 each for a round trip from Detroit to Washington. The leaders of Congress also have failed miserably in their jobs, and have approval ratings in the toilet. Why doesn't someone grill Nancy Pelosi about her taxpayer funded jumbo jet, which flies her non-stop to California and back every week at an estimated cost of over $5 million per year? Of OUR money? In THIS economy?
2) Barney Frank has also been front and center in the debate about how to spend bailout money. Why doesn't someone ask him about the part he played in the collapse of the economy with his demands to allow non-qualified buyers to buy houses?
3) Chris Dodd is asking for the ouster of failed GM CEO Richard Wagoner as part of the auto bailout deal. Why doesn't somone ask for his ouster for his part in the Fannie and Freddie debacle?
4) Sniveling Senate leader Harry Reid complains about the stinky tourists in Washington. Why doesn't someone ask him to go home where he will not have to put up with the unwashed masses he purports to stand up for?
The outright hypocrisy of our Congressional leaders boggles the mind. They don't even bother to hide it. Do they think that we are really that stupid? Apparently so.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Rebuilding the Ground Game
The Republican Party got smacked upside the head the other night. Part of the thrashing was well deserved, part of it was outside anyone's control, and part of it was manufactured by a concerted media effort. Whatever the causes, what's done is done, and it's now time to suck it up and get back in the saddle.
We've heard lots of conciliatory garbage from the politicians and taking heads alike. At the end, Obama campaigned on a centrist message. Nancy Pelosi is now playing the part of Queen of Bi-Partisanship. Conservative commentators are saying let's work together. Blah, blah, blah. What a bunch of hooey.
Obama's pick of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) as Chief of Staff sends a pretty clear message. I'm out to fight, I'm out to win. Emanuel grew up in the same dirty Chicago political machine as Obama, and is known to be extremely partisan and sharp elbowed. As for Pelosi, she wouldn't know how to cross the aisle if her daughter's life depended upon it. House congressional committees are right now meeting to discuss how to go about confiscating workers' 401K plans and IRA's to put into a government trust fund like Social Security. And the Fairness Doctrine, which would bar any dissenting talk radio media, could be enacted as soon as June 2009. So much for working together. Two days after the election, Obama and his thieves are already out to put forth the most liberal, government run agenda EVER in the history of the USA.
That leaves the Republicans in Congress, with their tiny bit of leverage, left to the gargantuan task of holding back this tsunami of liberal over-reaching. Democrats up for re-election in 2010 had better pay heed. Those who voted for Obama did not do so to endorse the take-over of the country by the government. They idealistically (and ignorantly) wanted change. And if the change that comes is not what they thought they bought, they will abandon Obama and the Democrats in droves.
We must pay attention to every move made by our new Dear Leader. We must ACT when we do not agree, and make our voices heard. We will not let them turn our country into a socialist, propagandized dictatorship on our watch. America, it is now Time to Revolt!
We've heard lots of conciliatory garbage from the politicians and taking heads alike. At the end, Obama campaigned on a centrist message. Nancy Pelosi is now playing the part of Queen of Bi-Partisanship. Conservative commentators are saying let's work together. Blah, blah, blah. What a bunch of hooey.
Obama's pick of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) as Chief of Staff sends a pretty clear message. I'm out to fight, I'm out to win. Emanuel grew up in the same dirty Chicago political machine as Obama, and is known to be extremely partisan and sharp elbowed. As for Pelosi, she wouldn't know how to cross the aisle if her daughter's life depended upon it. House congressional committees are right now meeting to discuss how to go about confiscating workers' 401K plans and IRA's to put into a government trust fund like Social Security. And the Fairness Doctrine, which would bar any dissenting talk radio media, could be enacted as soon as June 2009. So much for working together. Two days after the election, Obama and his thieves are already out to put forth the most liberal, government run agenda EVER in the history of the USA.
That leaves the Republicans in Congress, with their tiny bit of leverage, left to the gargantuan task of holding back this tsunami of liberal over-reaching. Democrats up for re-election in 2010 had better pay heed. Those who voted for Obama did not do so to endorse the take-over of the country by the government. They idealistically (and ignorantly) wanted change. And if the change that comes is not what they thought they bought, they will abandon Obama and the Democrats in droves.
We must pay attention to every move made by our new Dear Leader. We must ACT when we do not agree, and make our voices heard. We will not let them turn our country into a socialist, propagandized dictatorship on our watch. America, it is now Time to Revolt!
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Waking Up in France
On November 5th, there is a very likely chance that we will wake up to a new America, one that will in short order veer sharply from the principles upon which this Republic was founded i.e "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Instead, the new guiding principles will be more closely aligned with that of socialist countries, such as France or Denmark, in which the goal of government is to, as Obama puts it, "spread the wealth around." I happen to love France. To visit, not to live there. The Wall Street Journal had an opinion column yesterday which lays out how the Triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will reinvent the government in ways we have not seen in the past 40 to 75 years.
A Liberal Supermajority
Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.
If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
AP
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.
- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.
Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.
The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.
- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.
The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.
- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.
The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.
- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.
- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.
- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.
Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.
- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.
It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.
In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.
A Liberal Supermajority
Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.
If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
AP
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.
- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.
Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.
The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.
- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.
The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.
- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.
The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.
- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.
- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.
- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.
Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.
- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.
It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.
In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
There's Something About Obama
David Brooks had an interesting op-ed piece in the NY Times yesterday, entitled "Thinking About Obama". David has an ability to cut through a lot of extraneous stuff and get right to the heart of the characteristics that define a person, and how they may effect their actions. In the piece, he focuses on Obama's unflappably cool demeanor. In the 20 months or so of this unending campaign, Obama has time and again shown a calm, cool, analytical reserve; a detached demeanor that goes right to his core. David notes that this quality could serve him well, and could help make him a great President.
On the flip side, David opines, that coolness can be attributed to a lack of passion and courage, perhaps even a certain dullness. He may very well sit back and let government happen around him. This is not a difficult scenario to imagine, as he will probably have even larger majorities in both legislative branches who will do the dirty work for him. I have a feeling that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be more than happy to oblige.
I found this article interesting because there has been something about Obama that has been gnawing at me, and I think that his almost inhuman coolness goes to the heart of it. Under the perfectly orchestrated veneer, is he actually cold, detached, and ruthless? We know he is aggressively ambitious. To gain his seat in the Illinois State legislature he had his opponent, the incumbent, thrown off the ballot on a technicality. In the US Senate, he has never rocked the boat, avoiding unwarranted negative attention from the Democratic leadership. We have seen him lie about his radical associations, using them when they can help, and eschewing the relationships when they hurt him. We've seen him go after not just McCain with a vengeance, but also an ordinary citizen who disagreed with his master plan.
What does all of this mean? How will it play out should he win the Presidency? Will he be cool under fire? A non-leader who lets others play the game of government, letting others take the blame when it is politically expedient, and grabbing the spotlight only when things look good? Is there a ruthlessness there that all those who question him should fear? I don't know. My gut tells me that there is something about Obama and it is not a good feeling.
On the flip side, David opines, that coolness can be attributed to a lack of passion and courage, perhaps even a certain dullness. He may very well sit back and let government happen around him. This is not a difficult scenario to imagine, as he will probably have even larger majorities in both legislative branches who will do the dirty work for him. I have a feeling that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be more than happy to oblige.
I found this article interesting because there has been something about Obama that has been gnawing at me, and I think that his almost inhuman coolness goes to the heart of it. Under the perfectly orchestrated veneer, is he actually cold, detached, and ruthless? We know he is aggressively ambitious. To gain his seat in the Illinois State legislature he had his opponent, the incumbent, thrown off the ballot on a technicality. In the US Senate, he has never rocked the boat, avoiding unwarranted negative attention from the Democratic leadership. We have seen him lie about his radical associations, using them when they can help, and eschewing the relationships when they hurt him. We've seen him go after not just McCain with a vengeance, but also an ordinary citizen who disagreed with his master plan.
What does all of this mean? How will it play out should he win the Presidency? Will he be cool under fire? A non-leader who lets others play the game of government, letting others take the blame when it is politically expedient, and grabbing the spotlight only when things look good? Is there a ruthlessness there that all those who question him should fear? I don't know. My gut tells me that there is something about Obama and it is not a good feeling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
