Stimulus Pork – Amtrak, NEA, TV, and Subsidies

The WSJ examined the stimulus bill and what did they find? Mostly pork spending, with very little of what could optimistically called “stimulus”. We’re shocked — it’s no wonder Obama wants Congress to pass this quick so nobody can read it. The more you read, the more pork you find crammed in.

“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic “stimulus,” but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm’s point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

We’ve looked it over, and even we can’t quite believe it. There’s $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There’s even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make “dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy.” Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There’s another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.

The National Endowment for the arts qualifies as stimulus? Digital TV? Is that what you had in mind? Oink Oink as everyone in Washington either rushes in to feed at the trough, or uses the bill to payoff political favors. Either way, the little guy gets stuck with a bill while the “stimulus” accomplishes nothing — except saddle the country with yet more debt (and payback political favors).

Of course, that’s one promise Obama will keep — running trillion dollar deficits for his entire term — and he’s off on a good start on that one.

Keeping in mind what the CBO has already stated —- most of the “stimulus” comes after two years — why the rush to pass this pork-fest? Even if it’s needed for economic relief, since the benefits come after two years no rush exists to pass it. Why not send the time and do it right? Perhaps could it be Team RePO (Reid/Pelosi/Obama) know what’s in the bill, and know if the citizens find out it’s not really stimulus but pork and returned political favors, the phones in Washington will melt down?

Nah, hope-n-change promised transparent accountability, so nobody’s trying to pull a fast one, right?

Obama launches recovery.gov

In an attempt to get people to support the biggest pork giveaway ever, Obama launched recovery.org, which will show where (some) of the money disappears to. If enough people support parts of the pork, the rest of the pork slides through and all the political favors incurred during the campaign can begin to be repaid in one massive spending bill.

But with a name like recovery.gov, we thought of the following (but don’t expect to see it):

1. We admitted we were powerless over government spending pork – that the federal budget has become unmanageable pork-fests.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity (the Free Market).
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of free enterprise.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to the country the exact nature of our pork spending.
6. Were entirely ready to have free enterprise remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked to remove our budget pork.
8. Became willing to make amends to the entire country for our excessive and wanton spending.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with the free market, praying only for knowledge of economics and the power to carry responsible budgeting without pork spending.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, to carry this message to Congress, the Presidency, and the states, and to practice these principles in all budgets.

Notice the bill is now called “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” — since the “Community Reinvestment Act” caused the meltdown, why not do it again? Deficit spending and credit expansion caused the problem, surely more deficit spending and credit expansion will solve it.

Yeah, right.

Stimulus Arrives too late According to the CBO

The trillion dollar pork-fest is being sold to citizens as important to get the economy going, but according to the CBO, the pork spending comes too late to do any good.

Less than half the money dedicated to highways, school construction and other infrastructure projects in a massive economic stimulus package unveiled by House Democrats is likely to be spent within the next two years, according to congressional budget analysts, meaning most of the spending would come too late to lift the nation out of recession.

A report by the Congressional Budget Office found that only about $136 billion of the $355 billion that House leaders want to allocate to infrastructure and other so-called discretionary programs would be spent by Oct. 1, 2010. The rest would come in future years, long after the CBO and other economists predict the recession will have ended.

The “stimulus” will be the greatest pork-fest of all time, as each member of Congress (and the President) attempts to return political favors (Acorn, Planned Parenthood, etc), and little of it will actually help. And it’s not to go to “high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers”.

The trillion dollar stimulus arrives too late if the goal is the economy. Since the people pushing trillion dollar stimulus packages must surely already know this, what alternative reasons do they have to push the pork-fest, while publicly telling citizens it’s to stimulate the economy? Why are they hiding their real motives for this pork-fest?

The Stimulus will be the greatest pork-fest since TARP — and we all know how well that worked out, as the Rebublicrats fumbled the ball.

Where is presidential leadership on this? Where is change? The new boss is the same as the old boss — different people may sit in different chairs in Washington, but nothing changed — perhaps the greatest hoax of all time (after Piltdown Man) has been the “change” theme.

Sarah Palin Launches SarahPAC

Just as detractors hoped she’d go away, Sarah Pac is online.

Because 2012 is closer than you think.

More Stimulus Pork – Abortion Clinics Count as Stimulus

The Stimulus will be a pork-fest — only Washington Elites believe otherwise. As more proof, consider Pelosi on “This Week” as she said abortion counts as “stimulus”:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies …

Remember, “family planning” is code for planned parenthood, whose business is abortion. In Pelosi’s alternate universe, abortion is good for the economy.

In Pelosi’s world, less mouths to feed equals less money states will have to spend. Show me one economist that says that we are in an economic crisis because of a birth control shortage, or one that says more contraception (aka: population control) will get us out of it faster. What’s next? Federally funded euthanasia?

Republicans aren’t the only ones shaking their heads in disbelief at Pelosi’s latest perplexing policy push. She will likely make many Democrats horribly uncomfortable. It’s one thing to be pro-Choice; it’s another to spend tax payer money on abortions at home — and abroad — in the middle of a financial crisis.

Even Pro-Choice Feminists understand this has nothing to do with economic recovery.

As a pro-choice feminist I am sickened by this obscene argument explaining why there are hundreds of millions of dollars for “family planning” services in the so-called stimulus bill. What does Nancy say? “It” (the reduction of children as opposed to the reduction of politicians and bureaucrats) will reduce costs the states have for children’s education, health care, etc. Instead of arguing that families should start paying for their children instead of the state and federal governments, Obama (via Pelosi) argues the number of children are the problem, not the fact that government has simply gotten so massive it is now advocating eliminating those who are a ‘drain’ on “costs.” This argument is a hallmark in socialist-fascist states, and now it’s here.

Don’t forget, Obama already talked of being “punished with a baby” in supporting his stance on abortion, so the attitude of the President and Speaker of the House think children are a burden and a problem.

The Stimulus will be 95% pork, and 5% for working people, and Madam Speaker defends it. When you’re thinking of helping the economy, be honest, did funding abortion (oops, “family planning”) clinics ever enter into your mind? We thought not. Instead, Pelosi and her cohorts on Team RePO (Reid/Pelosi/Obama) will attempt to use the “Stimulus” as the greatest far-left social program in the country’s history.

How can funding contraception and abortion be considered in any way funding economic recovery? Pelosi can’t be serious, so what’s her real motive?

Pork in Washington? We’re shocked — no change there, and all the flowery rhetoric can’t change reality.

TARP Pork for Barney Frank

Everyone (well, everyone not in Washington) knew TARP I would turn out to be a pork-fest. And Congress just gave $350 billion more in pork for TARP II. But for those who thought Bush was the problem, and hope-n-change will be completely accountable and transparent, consider what the Wall Street Journal just discovered about the criteria for TARP funds — lobbying Congress and the Democratic majority.

Troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston didn’t look much like a candidate for aid from the Treasury Department’s bank bailout fund last fall.

The Treasury had said it would give money only to healthy banks, to jump-start lending. But OneUnited had seen most of its capital evaporate. Moreover, it was under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives’ use.

Nonetheless, in December OneUnited got a $12 million injection from the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. One apparent factor: the intercession of Rep. Barney Frank, the powerful head of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Frank, by his own account, wrote into the TARP bill a provision specifically aimed at helping this particular home-state bank. And later, he acknowledges, he spoke to regulators urging that OneUnited be considered for a cash injection.

Barney Frank … you know, the same one who was supposed to regulate Fannie and Freddie, took their lobbying money, told you how safe and sound they were …. right up until they collapsed.

THAT Barney Frank.

So how will hope-n-change monitor those of his own party? He won’t (and can’t even if he tried). TARP II (and the soon-to-come stimulus, also known as the Generational Theft Act of 2009) is and will be pork-fests for Congress as they seek to return favors and institute social policy. If you’re connected, you can get bailout/TARP/Stimulus money so you can keep driving your Porsche — courtesy of Barney Frank and majority members of Congress — while everyone else (well, the 50% left of the country paying income taxes) pays for it.

Thanks guys — this is yet another demonstration of why gridlock in Congress is good — the less these guys do the better it’s for everyone.

The country has a hangover from the drunken spending spree of Congress. And like any hangover, it won’t go away with any magic cures — you’ve just got to suffer through it and come out the other side (and hopefully learn your previous binges don’t produce good results). The country got into this mess by Congress deficit spending and expansion of easy credit (sub-prime mortgages given to people who everyone knew couldn’t pay via NINJA loans [no income, no job] and the Community Reinvestment Act).

And how do the Washington elites plan to get the country out of this mess? Deficit spending and credit expansion.

Huh?

Abortion Rights

As Roe v. Wade is celebrated again, one part of the issue doesn’t seem to be discussed — what about the rights of the father? Simple answer — he has none.

But why? If the issue is “reproductive rights”, why can’t the father control his? If the woman wants an abortion, he can’t stop it. If she wants to keep the baby and force him to pay, he can do nothing but pay. Why deny men reproductive rights? Is there not an equal protection argument here? Attorney Tommy De Seno notes the problem.

A father can’t stop an abortion if he wants his child, nor can he insist upon an abortion if he doesn’t want his child.

This situation should trouble everyone, not from a religious point of view, not from a personal choice point of view, but rather from an Equal Rights point of view.

Two weeks ago I tried an experiment in anticipation of writing this column. I wrote a column about gun control and posited that only men should vote on the issue of guns. The logic (rather illogic) used by me was that men buy guns the most, men are called upon to use them most (when a burglar enters our home) and we get shot the most. Why shouldn’t men have the only voice on the issue?

I wanted to gauge people’s reactions to the thought that in America we would ever give more weight to one person’s view than another’s because that person can show the issue affects him more.

As I walked around my city during these past two weeks, I was accosted by people who wanted to take me to task for suggesting that women lose their right to vote on an issue just because they may be affected by it less than men. Some pointed out, quite rightly, that even if there was an issue that didn’t affect women at all, as equal members of society, they should still have a voice in all decisions America makes.

An interesting perspective, and demonstrates just how bizarre the abortion issue has become. So extreme Obama voted to deny care to babies surviving a botched abortion, and a recent Texas court ruled a woman can’t be charged with murder if she wants to kill her baby. And now, an attorney notes current abortion case law creates an equal protection contradiction.

Where are the rational arguments? Abortion is (and will always remain) a major controversy for two reasons:

1. The courts “found” a right in the Constitution which never existed, creating law instead of Congress. If Congress legislated instead of the courts, perhaps some of the nastiness would go away. As it stands, every time a judge needs to be confirmed, the question pops up “how will they judge on abortion” as a litmus test for or against otherwise qualified candidates. If Congress actually legislated, the problem disappears
2. No compromise can be found. One side wants to terminate babies, the other doesn’t. What compromise can be found? Only half-terminate? Abortion simply can’t have a compromise — it’s a binary operation — either a baby lives or doesn’t.

Thus the abortion issue will forever remain unsolved, but for the time being, what about a father’s rights? Here’s a novel proposal.

I propose a “father’s abortion.” Let a father petition the Court to terminate his own parental rights to his child before or after the child’s birth. He would be rid of his obligations to that child in favor of his mental health and finances, the same as a woman does when she aborts.

As Justice Ginsburg said in the quote that appears at the top of this FOX Forum post, the emphasis is not abortion, rather an individual’s right to control his own reproduction. If we protect such a right for women, can we constitutionally deny it to men?

I propose this not because it would be in any way good. I propose it because constitutional Equal Protection demands it, and to show the danger created when judges destroy democracy by making up laws that don’t exist.

This of course has no chance of actually happening, because abortion has nothing to do with “reproductive rights” (and may or may not actually be a good idea, but that’s beside the point — what about equal protection?). But the equal protection problem adds more bizarre legal contradictions created by abortion, where by it’s nature abortion attempts to justify something society generally frowns upon — terminating a life.

Should men have reproductive rights? Or just women? We’re sure the idea generates strong feelings on both sides, but since the abortion question itself fails to have a compromise, perhaps other areas of abortion law could at least be discussed.

Why TARP, Bailout 2.0, and Stimulus is Doomed to Failure

As hope rides into Washington on a white horse, what chance does hope-n-change have for success? Consider the words from long ago:

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulged, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess, what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action : but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed? (James Madison, The Federalist, page 350)

As Obama, Frank, Pelosi, Reid, et al, complain they had no idea the first TARP funds would be wasted, did they not take the time to read the bill they voted for? By their reactions, apparently not, as TARP was (is) a pork-fest of staggering proportions, and accomplished nothing.

As a revenue bill starting in the Senate (unconstitutional), switched to the auto companies against the language in the bill (in what way are they “financial” institutions), and then spent on pork (golf courses for UAW) — how does Obama/Frank/Pelosi dare feign indignation at it? They wrote it and voted for it. Oh well, we’re sure with the next $350 billion of taxpayer money they’ll do better.

And now Mr. Obama wants to up the ante — not just $750 billion for TARP, but trillions for “stimulus” to “save or create” 3 million jobs (note the weasel word “save” — a completely unquantifiable statistic. If the economy tanks, they’ll still claim to have “saved” 3 million jobs). Absurd.

The only stimulus coming is pork — as has been seen with TARP, Congress has no idea what they pass, and then are shocked — shocked! — when it works exactly like they wrote. As Michelle Malkin says, call it what it is, The Generational Theft Act of 2009 as Congress spends trillions on pork to be paid back in the future — how high will taxes go to pay for this pork-fest?

The economy has a hangover from the drunken spending of Congress; nothing can be done except to suffer through it. Think about it — what got the economy into this mess? Deficit spending and the forcing of (by Congress) easy credit given to people who they knew couldn’t pay. And how do our fearless leaders expect to save us from doom? Deficit spending and easy credit.

TARP was a pork-fest with no accountability — Congress wrote it that way, it worked that way. And Team RePO wants to double down with another trillion dollars (or more) of taxpayer money?

Yeah, great idea guys. Maybe this time read it before you vote for it.

Obama to Double Federal Deficit

Obama states he’ll run trillion dollar Federal deficits for years to come. To put that in perspective, President Bush is perhaps the most fiscally irresponsible spender in history — running up deficits of over $470 billion. But incoming President Obama takes fiscal responsibility to new lows — going from irresponsible to reckless in doubling the Federal deficit.

Change you can believe in? No, change will be all that is left as sooner or later massive inflation arrives reducing everything to pocket change. You can not borrow your way out of debt — a “stimulus package” is simply borrowing against future production — it must be paid sooner or later (hopefully for Mr. Obama if the bill comes after he leaves office).

There’s simply no way to continue to spend and spend and spend massive deficits without paying the piper. Our prediction: Obama’s administration will not only double the deficit, he’ll double the debt (by adding over $10 trillion in deficit spending during his administration), hoping the bill waits for his successor. But kicking the can down the road is not viable fiscal policy (for all those Bush-haters saying Obama has to “clean up the mess” left by Bush, repeat again You can not borrow your way out of debt — there’s no excuse to continue irresponsible fiscal policy which makes the situation worse).

The rapid increase of the deficit under Obama will make the ponzi scheme of Madoff look minuscule by comparison. Obama is in a bad situation — he promised massive new spending, free healthcare, social programs, welfare (disguised as refundable tax credits), and so on, but with a bad economy he can’t pay for it. But no problem, just crank up the printing presses and presto!

The debt passed to children and grandchildren is massive. Of course that’s nothing new, as politicians have been doing it forever. But the kick-the-can scale Obama proposes, and the complacent attitude of Congressional leaders (and Obama disciples) is astonishing. If President Bush was bad for massive spending (true), how can many times more deficit spending by Obama be our savior (it’s not)?

We hope Mr. Obama changes course (that would be change we could believe in), but with a liberal Democratic Congress passing massive deficit spending a liberal Democratic President wants, how can this train wreck be averted?

From the we-can’t-make-this-up Department

Look who’s at the bailout trough:

As the 2009 AVN Adult Expo opens in Las Vegas this week, Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis and Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt are petitioning the newly convened 111th Congress to provide a financial bailout for the adult entertainment industry along the lines of what is being sought by the Big Three automakers, a spokesperson for Francis announced today.

Adult industry leaders Flynt and Francis sent a joint request to Congress asking for $5 billion in federal assistance, “Just to see us through hard times,” Francis said.

And of course, the taxpayer foots the bill. First UAW golf courses, now $5 billion for the adult industry. And the taxpayer pays, and pays, and pays — once the bailout begins, everyone wants a part of it. As usual, “bailouts” turn to pork-fests as everyone wants a spot in line at the trough.

It’s only $5 billion, right?

Oregon Leads in Stupidity – Again (This Time on Gas Taxes)

Governor Kulongoski proposes installing GPS units in all cars, dropping the per-gallon gas tax, and replacing it with a per-mile tax, with each vehicle tracked by GPS. Why would he do something so obviously wrong? We’ll see in a minute, but first, the reasons against such a proposal.

1. It decreases conservation at a time gas conservation should be encouraged. They’ve actually said the per-mile GPS idea needs to exist because people drive too many fuel-efficient vehicles. Imagine that — Oregon government wants to penalize saving gas. Visualize the adds — help the state of Oregon — drive a Hummer!
2. Massive new state bureaucracy. Since none of the infrastructure exists to collect the GPS data, the state will spend millions installing equipment and new employees to handle it.
3. Increase price of new cars for unneeded new equipment. As the auto industry stumbles, Oregon wants to make it harder on them to sell new cars. Great!
4. The tracking data will be abused as the state monitors every citizen’s movements. Stalkers, divorce conflicts — the possibility for abuse is limitless.
5. GPS use fades in mountains, tunnels, in cities or any number of other situations. It’s not reliable for the proposed usage. And suppose your GPS says you drove hundreds of miles in a cross-town commute due to a GPS flaw. Is the guy who fills up your tank going to arbitrate the dispute between you and the state while he fills the tank?

And so on. If people drive more fuel-saving cars, isn’t that a good thing? Why create a massive new bureaucracy which actually encourages people to drive Hummers to pay less tax? Insane. To see the obvious absurdity of the idea, consider the proposed $0.012/mile tax verses the current $0.24/gallon tax. A car which gets 20 MPG is the break-even point. Any vehicle getting above 20MPG pays more in taxes, while gas-guzzlers pay less (obviously, if you play with the numbers a bit, the break-even point moves, but the problem of penalizing fuel-efficiency remains). And you thought Oregon was a green state? Nope, they’ll penalize you if you conserve gas or use alternate fuel vehicles.

Two simple solutions. First, just raise the gas tax. Simple and easy. No new bureaucracy required. Or use the revolutionary new technology called an odometer — when the cars registration is renewed, take a look at the odometer, and pay accordingly. Simple, quick, and easy. No tracking of citizens, no new bureaucracy, no new expenses.

With all the negatives (and no positives) for this crazy idea, why propose it? Only one reason — the state of Oregon feels the need to monitor all it’s citizens movements — when, where, and how much.

That’s not tinfoil paranoia, but reality. Why else propose such a ridiculous idea with so many negatives, costs, and new bureaucracy, while passing on simple solutions? Why the Oregon governor feels the need to monitor his citizens movements is unknown, but if that’s not the primary motivation we’d like to know what is. It can’t be additional road fees, as much simpler ways exist to solve the problem.

Any ideas?