“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  – Presidential Oath of Office,  Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — Constitution of the United States of America, First Amendment.

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.” — NY Times, January 25, 2010

Last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the Supreme Court struck down a provision in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill that prohibited “electioneering communication”, that is, broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election.  It is what I and many others dub the “Incumbent Protection Act”, because it tips the scales heavily in favor of incumbents who have the name recognition, and the communication power of their office as an advantage in an election.  In addition, the 30 days or 60 days are when many voters really start paying attention.  Our elected representatives love to talk tough about reform, but that reform typically ends up making it harder to replace them.

Obama Weighs In

As the above quotes demonstrate, President Obama’s job is to uphold the Constitution.  The Constitution protects free speech.  So why is President Obama attacking a Supreme Court ruling that protects Free Speech?  Is that what he is supposed to be doing?  Instead he says it “strikes at democracy itself.”  He doesn’t mention that it also lifts restrictions on the speech of unions that typically favor the positions of his party.  Perhaps that is because with the Obama administration unions have extraordinary access to the White House. From January to July, White House logs show that Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) visited the White House 22 times, more than anyone else in the visitor logs.

If President Obama is truly concerned about the influence of lobbyists, it does no good to drive them out of advertising on TV into personal visits to the White House.  Of course, the president would be selective in who has an audience with him.  If you really want to reduce the number of lobbyists, then reduce the reasons for them to lobby.  If, for example, you want to reduce the lobbying effort of the giant agricultural corporation Archer Daniels Midland, then get the government out of the business of ethanol subsidies, farm subsidies, and shut down the federal Department of Agriculture.   Lobbyists will call on Washington less, if they have less to call about.  Shrinking the federal government will reduce the number of lobbyists and their influence, reduce the deficit, help balance the budget, and make the government more manageable so that we can reduce or eliminate waste and fraud.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens blasted the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision saying that the ruling is not grounded in the writings of the Founding Fathers.  His argument being that certain groups could have their speech curtailed and only individuals had their speech protected.  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion to address Stevens argument.  In part:

“I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”… This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored….

The [First] Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals–and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.” – Antonin Scalia, concurring opinion in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Newly seated Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted against free speech.  I always marvel when people who succeed against tough odds attack the very principles of this country that allowed them to succeed.  The Bill of Rights was designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority by defining certain rights of every individual that could not be infringed upon.  It is one reason why people around the world fight to come here for a chance to succeed.  Because they know that these principles will allow them to do so if they have the drive to succeed.

There was a commercial not too long ago where a young man looked out his window to the village green where a bundle of money had just fallen.  He calls his wife/girlfriend over to show her.  She suggests running down and getting it, but he says, no, let’s wait.  Next you see a frizzy headed guy down on the green who screams, “MONEY!!!!”  In seconds, people came out of the woodwork and scoffed up all the money while the young couple looked on.

The image of that commercial popped into my head as I considered the job summit being led by President Obama.  To me, the young couple represented the government pondering how to direct the economy to achieve this specific goal or that.  The mob on the green was the free market.  While the government dithers over what kind of legislation to write, which special interest groups to pay off to pass it, how to develop incentives to get private industry to do this or that, if they would just cut taxes and get out of the way, the free market would get to work creating jobs where they are needed, not where some bureaucrat thinks they should go.

Uncertainty

The biggest cloud overhanging this economy is uncertainty.  The Obama administration is slamming through enormous changes: a $787 billion Porkulus package, cap and trade, health care.  Businesses look at this combined with the accumulation of massive government debt, tax increases rather than cuts (yes letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a tax increase, not just the expiration of tax cuts as Speaker Pelosi tries to spin it) and they don’t know what hiring that extra employee is going to cost, let alone what it will cost to keep the employees they already have.  So they don’t hire until the dust  settles and they can calculate the impact.

“Tax incentives for job creation are “worthy of further consideration,” he said, while adding that the administration is also set on making a big push in the area of green jobs.” – President Obama at Jobs Summit

“Worthy of further consideration”?  Since conservatives have been calling for tax cuts for a year now, this kind of statement in Obama-ese translates thusly, “I have to make a nod to the right, to acknowledge that I heard them, but it ain’t happening.”  Couple that with the “big push in the area of green jobs.”  We are in the midst of the scientific scandal that the “settled science” of man-made global warming could be the greatest hoax since Bernie Madoff, and Obama wants a big push in the area of green jobs.  What if that area collapses because the urgency that Al Gore has been screaming about is no longer urgent?  It’s government planning on the order of Soviet five-year plans or Mao’s Great Leap Forward programs.  It harkens back to Jimmy Carter’s giant Synfuels project that was going to convert coal into oil, until oil prices fell and the project imploded, but not before billions of tax dollars were poured into that rat hole.

How Simulating!

If you listen to Joe Biden, the stimulus plan is working better than expected.  But let’s take a closer look.  As of about three weeks ago only $120 billion of the stimulus money had been spent. (So why is Congress looking at another stimulus with over $600 billion left to spend in the first one?)  Of that money, 80% went to the Department of Education, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Labor.  What about all the “shovel ready” projects?  Only about $4 billion has gone to the Department of Transportation.  Feel better?

Jobs Summit Attendees

So who is meeting with President Obama at the jobs summit?  Well first let’s look at who was not invited:

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce — they have butted heads with Obama over health care and climate change policies
• National Federation of Independent Businesses

I don’t know about you, but I think they might have an idea or two about how to create conditions that let the free market create jobs.  As for the attendees:

• Service Employees International Union (SEIU) officer
• President of the American Federation of Teachers — a union of workers in a government run monopoly
• United Food & Commercial Workers International Union
• CEOs of some Fortune 500 companies

How many jobs do unions create, not occupy, create?  Think of the auto industry, steel industry, public K-12 education, the Postal Service, and government in general.  Do they bring images of thriving, vibrant, engines of job creation?  Or is the image more of the basket cases of the U.S. economy?  This is not a slight against the union workers themselves, but rather of their leadership who create so many restrictions on job rules to artificially create the need for more jobs.  There motto is: why have three people do the work, when you have five do it?

As far as big business is concerned, let me dispel the thought that conservatives and big business go hand in hand.  In many cases big business looks to cut deals with the government to protect their industries and markets from upstart companies.  They have gotten big and lethargic, rather than nimble and vibrant.  Small businesses create about 80% of the jobs in the U.S. and they didn’t have a seat at the table.

So was the jobs summit about creating jobs or just jive talk?  If you want a real jobs summit see what American Solutions was hosting in Cincinnati, Ohio and Jackson, Mississippi.  They actually discussed ideas that would work.

Can anyone offer us a deal to give us cash if replace our Congressional Clunkers?  How about the health insurance companies?  They’d probably kick in, since they are Congress’ new whipping boy.  Oil companies, coal companies?  They get bashed everytime Congress screws up and bans nuclear power, offshore drilling, ANWR, and coal as the price of oil climbs.  Banks who didn’t take TARP money?  Well Congress wants to set their salaries now.

Congressional Mileage

How much liberty per dollar are we getting for the money guzzling Congressmen and Senators who pull down $169,300 per year (more for committee chairs, and Speaker Pelosi who weighs in at $217,400)?  And this doesn’t begin to count their expense budgets, gold plated health care, etc.  I’m sure we could get much better mileage from a smaller government and a Congress that only meets half a year.  I’m willing to bet that the longer Congress stays in session the more trouble they get us into, while consolidating their power and feathering their own nests.

Here’s the Plan

Let’s set up a fund.  We’ll let Goldman Sachs run it, as they seem to know how to turn a buck. Anyone can contribute to the fund, no limits. For every Congressman who voted for the Stimulus, Cap and Trade, and the Health Care disaster and is run out of office, the fund will pay out a percentage of the fund to everyone who registered and voted.  The percentage will be calculated as the percentage of these clunkers who are retired out of Congress.

Think about it.  If you are a voter who really, really believes that the Stimulus, Cap and Trade, and the government takeover of our health care system is a good thing, you will vote to re-elect the members of Congress who voted the same way.  However if you don’t, then perhaps you need a little personal stimulus to cross party lines, or set aside ideology, and vote the bums out.  It might even help improve voter turnout.  And why not?  If ACORN get get illegal aliens and dead people to vote for their candidates, we need a way to fight back.

What do you think?

Congressman John Conyers made this remarkable statement regarding reading a bill before voting on it?

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

Here’s the video:  Why would I read health care bill John Conyers.  These people are paid $169,300 a year and they are voting on legislation that will alter 1/6 of the American economy and they don’t know what they are voting on? Who demanded that this be done in two days?  Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.  If it takes them six months to read the bill, then TAKE THE SIX MONTHS!!! We wonder why there is so much government waste and fraud?  It’s really quite simple.  All the crooks and lobbyists are reading the bill very carefully, every page, probably 2-3 times.  Why?  Because as soon as it is passed they will know exactly where all the loopholes are, where the best opportunities for fraud are, so that they can rip off the taxpayers for billions, while Congress says, oh well, we better make the program bigger and put in more regulations and enforcement.

How much money do you make?  In your job, what would happen to you if you did your job without following instructions and did so willfully?  If you were a nurse and administered medication without following instructions what would happen to you?  If you were a fireman and rushed into a building without following safety procedures that are there to protect your fellow firefighters what would happen to you?  What is the fundamental job of Congressman, if not writing laws?  And they can cavalierly say, they don’t read what they are voting on?

Why does Texas have such a booming economy?  Could it be their legislature only meets once every two years?  Could it be they are required by law to complete their business in 140 days?  Could it be the legislators are only paid $7,200?  Think about it.

In the beginning days of 1789, Congress was paid only $6 a day, which would be about $75 daily by modern standards. But by 1965 members were receiving $30,000 a year, which is the modern equivalent of about $195,000.

Currently the average lawmaker makes $169,300 a year, with leadership making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes $217,400, while the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate make $188,100.

John Adams made $6 per day, $75 per day in today’s dollars.  Nancy Pelosi makes $217,400 per year.  Whom do you admire more?  If that doesn’t make you ill, you are made of sterner stuff than me.

Code of Hammurabi

When I was in engineering school, I was introduced to this part of the Code of Hammurabi, an ancient Babylonian king:

• If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death.
• If it kill the son of the owner the son of that builder shall be put to death.

It was intended to drive home the point that as engineers we should take what we do very seriously as someone may get killed if we get careless.  What could be more careless than what Conyers said.

I have said this before, the bill that created the Interstate Highway System, was only 29 pages long.  Our tax code is horrendous and incomprehensible, the stimulus bill is a disaster, Cap and Trade is another unread boondoggle, and health care is following.  And for this we pay these people, or should I say they pay themselves since we don’t vote on their salaries, more than four times the national average?

Read the 10th Amendment folks, we have got to take back our government and cut it down to size.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi continues to cling to the thin thread that everyone is lying but she.   Considering all the details surrounding the topic of waterboarding, she is either a liar or an idiot, take your pick.  But either character trait is reason enough for her to step down.  The American people deserve better.

We need politicians with integrity.  We need politicians who don’t split hairs over whether or not they were told something could be done or something was already done.  Either way, if she thought it was wrong she should have spoken up. Now she is calling the CIA liars and ones who do it regularly at that.  How much more can she demoralize those who are dedicated to defending us?

In the stimulus bill she voted to give the American taxpayer $8 per week in relief, while giving the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse $30 million.  Let them eat cake!

She can no longer effectively lead, if she ever could.  It’s time to go.

“marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties” — Miriam Webster Dictionary

The talk about bipartisanship and the accusations about a lack of bipartisanship are flying back and forth with such intensity, who could blame the casual observer for throwing up their hands and wishing a pox upon both houses?

President Obama and Bipartisanship

I believe that President Obama is sincere in his desire for bipartisanship.  His willingness to meet with and listen to conservative columnists, and Republicans is indicative of his desire to change the tone in Washington.  On the stimulus bill, I think he just painted himself into a corner by letting Nancy Pelosi write the bill while he held those meetings.  Listening to the other side is a start, but it falls short of the definition.  It remains to be seen if President Obama recognizes where this approach fell short or if it really is just window dressing.

Democratic Leadership and Bipartisanship

The Democratic Leadership has a very different view of bipartisanship.  Their view is, “we stake out a position and you (Republicans) agree with it and that’s bipartisanship.”  If they don’t agree, they are rabid partisans, doing it strictly for future political gain.  But if you look at the definition of bipartisanship above, the Democratic Leadership is just not interested.  The stimulus bill was put together solely by the Democrats and when asked by a reporter if the bill was bipartisan Nancy Pelosi responded, “That depends on how the Republicans vote.”  That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.

When President Bush came into office, he brought with him his experience in Texas where he worked very successfully with the Democrats in the legislature.  However, the Democrats in Congress were so angry with the outcome of the election in 2000 that they never gave him a chance, voting against anything he proposed.

Republicans and Bipartisanship

The Republican leadership has expressed their appreciation to President Obama’s efforts to reach across the aisle.  However, as genuine as the gesture was they were still pretty much excluded from the legislative process.  They fully understand that elections have consequences, but they want to be heard, they want to offer alternatives, they want the opportunity to persuade.  If denied that by the Democratic Leadership, they will take their case directly to the American people and in 2010 get the public’s decision.

Is Bipartisanship Possible?

Is there such a divide that bipartanship is just not possible?  Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is trying to tackle that issue through a non-profit organization called American Solutions.  That organization polled Republicans, Democrats and Independents to find areas of widespread agreement.  The key to bipartanship is to first find areas where you agree. Then look for areas where you differ but not so significantly that there is not room for negotiation and compromise.  Lastly, is to recognize those areas where the difference is so wide that you simply have to agree to disagree.  This is a list of ten initiatives that a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents agree on.

1. English should be the official language of government. (87 to 11)
2. We want our elected leaders in Washington to focus on increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the costs of gasoline and electricity. (71 to 18)
3. The option of a single rate system should give taxpayers the convenience of filing their taxes with just a single sheet of paper. (82 to 15)
4. Every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union. (79 to 12)
5. Keeping the reference to “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is very important. (88 to 11)
6. Congress should make it a crime to advocate acts of terrorism, violent conduct, or the killing of innocent people in the United States. (83 to 12)
7. We should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education. (91 to 8 )
8. We believe that if research indicates we could build clean coal plants in the United States with no carbon emissions, it would be important to build such plants as rapidly as possible. (71 to 8 )
9. Illegal immigrants who commit felonies should be deported. (88 to 10)
10. We support giving a large financial prize to the first company or individual who invents a new, safer way to dispose of nuclear waste products. (79 to 16)

As you can see by the percentages, the support for each of these ten measures is rather substantial.  Bipartisanship on any one of these issues should be very easy to obtain.  You just have to ask yourselves: how many of these are supported by the Democratic Leadership or President Obama?  You can see that a number of them are not only not supported, but adamantly opposed.

So what is your view of bipartisanship?  Is it where you surrender your principles and fall in line with your opponent?  Or is it trying to find common ground amoung all Americans and not pushing a partisan agenda where government runs the smallest aspect of your life?

Frank Schaeffer writes in the Huffington Post, under the headline Republicans: “Go To Hell America”, 100% Partisan Vote”, about the vote on the so-called stimulus package.  As Shakespeare said, “Me thinks he doth protest too much.”  In actuality it was a bi-partisan vote, bi-partisan against the stimulus package.

Stimulus?

As more details about this pork-a-palooza come out the American people grow more concerned and less supportive as evidenced by a recent Rasmussen poll with support slipping from 45% to 42% and opposition growing from 34% to 39% with 19% undecided.  Which means that 3% moved from the support column and 2% from the undecided column into the opposition column.  In other words, more people supported John McCain than support this package, and McCain lost.

So why is Frank Schaeffer on the verge of having a stroke over this?  When you look more closely it’s pretty clear.  By all Republicans voting against the measure, they did not give the Democrats the fig leaf they were looking for.  If this is truly a stimulus package and if the Democrats need no Republican votes to pass it, then pass it and take all the credit when the economy rockets to life.  The dirty little secret is that the Democrats really don’t believe this is a stimulus package at all.

The Big Payoff

The purpose of this package is to help the Democrats to consolidate power.  It begins by paying back those who supported them.  Why else is there money in the package for Hollywood, family planning, teacher’s unions, massive transfers of money from the federal to the state governments?  The “tax stimulus” of about $10 per week, is aimed at those who pay little to no income taxes.  “If I give you a check for nothing today, will you give me your vote in 2010?”  They are pushing to reach that tipping point where the majority of voters pay no income tax and maybe even get checks from the government.  Once that magical 50% line is crossed look out.  By having majority rule, they can then jack up the tax rates on “the rich” to astronomical levels, and there is little that can be done about it short of another revolution.  Remember those famous words, “Taxation without Representation”?  And why should it matter to rich Democrats, since they don’t pay the taxes they owe anyway (Rangel, Daschle, Geithner).

The Republicans could have done a great thing for their party and the country: sent a message to the world — we stand together! Imagine the impact on tomorrow’s stock market, and our enemy’s view of America and our standing in the world if instead of a partisan Republican “NO” vote the backing of the recovery plan had been unanimous approval! — Schaeffer

Sorry, comrade, it’s time for Mr. Schaeffer to get a reality check.  First of all that was a bipartisan NO! Second, the stock market has fallen 1,600 points since Obama was elected.  That’s not exactly a vote of confidence from the financial markets.  Look, the measure passed.  If it is a truly good stimulus package the stock market should rise on that alone.  Does he think Wall Street cares whose vote is in which column?  Please!

The Republicans might have then shared the credit, even won a few elections in the future. Now their fate is sealed. Obama will succeed. America won’t forget who to thank. — Schaeffer

You would think that Mr. Schaeffer was born yesterday.  This package was put together by President, I mean, Speaker Pelosi.  She gave the back of her hand to the Republicans.  They had no role to play in putting this package together, so let’s put the bipartisan rhetoric back in the museum case where it belongs.  President Obama’s dinner with conservative writers, his cocktail parties, his Capital Hill meetings with Republicans were all just PR and window dressing if they have no input on the legislation.  When asked if the package was bipartisan, Speaker Pelosi said that depends on how the Republicans vote.  In other words, if they vote for what we are trying to cram down their throats, its bipartisan, if not, well just call on Frank Schaeffer to scream FOUL!

If he wants a true stimulus package, cut the pork, cut the unnecessary spending, eliminate the capital gains tax and cut tax rates, not give out $10 per week that will barely buy a pizza.  If you want to build a serious stimulus package, I am sure the Republicans would stand ready to work with President Obama, but it’s time for President Obama to realize that he’s the one with the 70% approval rating not Nancy Pelosi, whose Congress has approval ratings in the single digits.  He should take the lead not follow hers.  But for now someone has to watch the American people’s backs and their wallets, and that, my friends, are the conservative Republicans.

President Barack Obama, took office with historically high approval ratings.  Congress ended its last session with historically low approval ratings.  So why is Barack Obama, the head of the Democratic Party, taking a back seat on the economic stimulus bill while Nancy Pelosi calls the shots?

President Obama campaigned on ending the divisiveness in Washington, as did George Bush, but bipartanship is far more than dinner parties with conservative columnists, cocktails with leaders of Congress, welcoming ideas from Republicans that will eventually be ignored by Speaker Pelosi.  If bipartanship was one of your themes, pay attention, there was bipartanship on the stimulus vote, it was bipartisan opposition.

Taking family planning and some sod for the Washinton Mall out of the package, does not magically turn this turkey into a stimulus.  It’s time for President Obama to do some arm twisting within his own party or his critical first 100 days will be a flameout.  Take a lesson from history, Presidents Carter and Clinton both took office with large Democratic majorities in Congress and tried to please them and neither could.  Clinton had a Republican Congress two years later and ended up with a pretty successful presidency.  Carter didn’t.

It’s your adminsitration Mr. President, don’t let Nancy Pelosi snuff it out.

Upon taking office, what the President does as his first action often sets the tone of his presidency, indicating what he thinks is important.  Bill Clinton chose to wade into the debate on gays in the military.  Of all the things of importance to the country that he could have chosen to work on first, that was his pick.

President Obama chose to close down Guantanamo Bay, saying we needed to restore our image in the world.  It seemed to matter little to him that under President Bush we had gone over seven years without an attack.  Shortly after that he quietly signed another order that struck down a Bush administration ban on giving money to international groups that performed or provided information on abortion.

So let’s look at these two together, since they were both done in Obama’s first week in office. To restore the United State’s moral leadership in the world, we need to go easy on terrorists and fund the killing innocent unborn babies.  Evil gets a pass, innocence gets snuffed out.  Are we feeling more proud yet?  Are we holding our heads higher?

There is a consistency there, in that these terrorists have no problem strapping bombs on themselves, wading into a crowd of innocent men, women, and children, blowing themselves up and taking as many innocents with them as they can.  So protecting these people, and not making them uncomfortable while interrogating them, even if it would spare innocent lives, is somehow against our principals?

The point could not have been driven home any more starkly than by Nancy Pelosi when talking about the economic stimulus package making its way through Congress said:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

So now we know, abortion stimulates the economy.  How long before we can hear Joe Biden tell us, “C’mon, do your patriotic duty, pay more taxes, have an abortion, we’re in an economic pinch here.”

When the founders wrote about “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” life is what they put first, liberty, which really means smaller government, they put second, and the Pursuit of Happiness third.  I don’t see how you can square that with Life for terrorists, death to babies, more government and more taxes.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has released a draft of the proposed stimulus package that is now standing at around $825 billion.  It didn’t take too long to grow $50 over what Obama was asking for (read draft here).  Needless to say, that in order to get bi-partisanship off on the right foot, she had to make sure to give Bush a parting shot by indirectly blaming him for the current crisis (“Since 2001…” gee, who began their presidency in 2001?).  I also found this statement curious:

The economy is in such trouble that, even with passage of this package, unemployment rates are expected to rise to between eight and nine percent this year. Without this package, we are warned that unemployment could explode to near twelve percent. With passage of this package, we will face a large deficit for years to come. Without it, those deficits will be devastating and we face the risk of economic chaos. Tough choices have been made in this legislation and fiscal discipline will demand more tough choices in years to come.

The first interesting point concerns unemployment.  In Obama’s economic team’s analysis they said that with a stimulus plan unemployment would rise to 8% and without it, rise to 9%.  Pelosi is now saying it could explode to 12%.  Can we get on the same page, here?  Which is it?  The next point is that with the stimulus we will face large deficits for years to come, but without the stimulus the “deficits will be devastating and we face the risk of economic chaos.”  So we’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t because Congress can’t keep themselves from spending more damn money than they take in.

But don’t worry folks, this time (really) there will be unprecedented accountability.  Do you feel better? I do.  After all, don’t we have Barney Frank to thank for making sure Fannie Mae was fically sound?  No?  Let’s recap.

In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie’s oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were “overblown” and that there was “no federal liability there whatsoever.”

Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. “I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems,” he said in response to another reform push. And then: “I regard them as great assets.” Great or not, we’ll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam’s assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities.

Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that “there is no federal guarantee” of Fan and Fred obligations.

A month later, Freddie Mac’s multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. “I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis,” he said at the time.

Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no “threat to the Treasury.” Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become “a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

In April 2004, Fannie announced a multibillion-dollar financial “misstatement” of its own. Mr. Frank was back for the defense. Fannie and Freddie posed no risk to taxpayers, he said, adding that “I think Wall Street will get over it” if the two collapsed. Yes, they’re certainly “over it” on the Street now that Uncle Sam is guaranteeing their Fannie paper, and even Fannie’s subordinated debt.

By early 2007, Mr. Frank was in charge of the House Financial Services Committee, arguing that he had long favored some kind of reform. “What blocked it [reform] last year,” Mr. Frank said then, “was the insistence of some economic conservative fundamentalists in the Bush Administration who, to be honest, don’t think there should be a Fannie Mae or a Freddie Mac.” What really blocked it was Mr. Frank’s insistence that any reform be watered down and not include any reduction in their MBS holdings.

In January of last year, Mr. Frank also noted one reason he liked Fannie and Freddie so much: They were subject to his political direction. Contrasting Fan and Fred with private-sector mortgage financers, he noted, “I can ask Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to show forbearance” in a housing crisis. That is to say, because Fannie and Freddie are political creatures, Mr. Frank believed they would do his bidding.

So, I for one am really glad that we will now have A Recovery Act Accountability and Transparancy Board, to keep an eye on things.  Whew, I was concerned there for a minute.

What’s Included in the Package

• Clean Efficient, American Energy
• Transform Our Economy with Science and Technology
• Modernize Roads, Bridges, Transit and Waterways
• Education for the 21st Century
• Lower Health Care Costs
• Help Worker’s Hurt by the Economy
• Save Public Sector Jobs and Protect Vital Services
• Tax Relief

Clean Efficient, American Energy

“To put people back to work today, and reduce our dependence on foreigh oil tomorrow.”  Wow, sounds like, Drill Here, Drill Now, doesn’t it?  Not a chance.  Oil drilling is no where to be seen.  After over 1 million signatures on a petition to tell Congress to stop blocking our ability to drill for our own oil, Congress agreed, until the election that is, and then nothing more.  Also, nothing about nuclear energy either.

What is included:

• Reliable electric energy grid — $11 billion
• Renewable energy loan guarantees — $8 billion
• Renovations and repairs to federal buildings, including energy energy efficiency — $6.7 billion. Why are our federal buildings in such need of repair?  Why hasn’t Congress been maintaining them?
• Local government energy efficiency block grants — $6.9 billion.  This is taking money out of the left pocket and putting it in the right pocket.  The federal government’s money comes from individuals and businesses in all fifty states.  Why do we send our money on a round trip ticket to Washington, only to have our local politicians grovel to get it back?
• Energy Efficiency Housing Retrofits for HUD sponsored housing — $2.5 billion
• Energy Efficiency Research and Development — $2 billion
• Advanced Battery Loans and Grants — $2 billion.  I’ve got a better idea.  Do you want to see innovation in battery and energy efficiency?  Eliminate the Capital Gains tax.  It will boost the stock market and bring in a lot more investment in new technologies
• Energy Efficiency Grants and Loans for Institutions — $1.5 billion
• Home Weatherizations — $6.2 billion.  That’s $20 for every man, woman, and child in America.  Does every house in America need weatherization or is this a but much?
• Smart Appliances (rebates for new appliances) — $300 million
• GSA Federal Fleet (replace older vehicles with alternative fuel vehicles) — $600 million. Are they saying that today the Federal Government buys inefficient vehicles?
• Electric Transportation (new grant money to encourage electric vehicle technology) — $200 million.  Did any of these politicians go to the Detroit Auto Show?  It was chock full of electric vehicles.  Didn’t we just give GM and Chrysler $14 billion?  Are we saying they need another $200 million for encouragement?
• Cleaning Fossil Fuel — $2.4 billion
• Department of Defense Research — $350 million
• Alternative Buses and Trucks for state and local governments — $400 million
• Industrial Energy Efficiency for demonstration projects — $500 million.  There are dozens of things we can do to improve Industrial energy efficiency.  We need demonstrations?
• Diesel Emission Reduction — $300 million

That’s just the energy piece of the package.  With regard to the renewable and efficiency spending on government buildings, there should be a reduction in energy costs going forward.  Are the operating budgets for those buildings going to be reduced in future budgets to reflect the savings or is that money just going to be diverted to other uses?

It seems to me that we could get a lot more stimulus with some immediate tax breaks and if the problem with the economy is a lack of credit, perhaps loan guarantees is a better way to go.  Having the government pick winners and losers, or set dollar amounts on each of the slop troughs, just opens the door to lobbying, corruption, and mismanagment.  Who gets the money?  How is it determined? Who gets to decide?

Tax cuts are there for everyone.  As I have said many times, to me, many of our problems have been caused by the government.  The government is not the answer.