New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came to Washington Wednesday to slam both parties for what he described as their “irresponsible” and “dangerous” game in not addressing the country’s shaky entitlement programs.http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/16/gov-christie-slams-democrats-and-gop-over-spending/
The Republican governor accused both the White House and Republicans in Congress of irresponsibility for failing to propose fixes for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all of which face solvency problems in coming years.
“What game is being played here is irresponsible and it’s dangerous,” he told a packed house at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “We are on the path to ruin.”
Barack Obama became president because the Democrats wanted to elect a black man as president and the country was ready for that. Chris Christie may benefit from a similar alignment as Republicans want someone to address out of control spending and the country appears ready for that.
Eleanor Clift on Chris Christie
Leadership is about doing big things, says New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who invoked the phrase in his State of the State address—some two weeks before President Obama voiced the same words to rally the country in his State of the Union address.http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-16/chris-christie-aei-speech-shows-why-nj-governor-is-a-gop-star/
Not that Christie thinks Obama stole his line, but the two men have different visions of what constitutes big things. Christie is focusing on budget reform, pension and health reform, and education reform, although "reform" is a euphemistic word for cutbacks. He's convinced the mood has changed enough in the country that the politicians who take on these once-sacred cows will be rewarded…..
Eleanor is a hard leftist and she uses this article to highlight Democrats Cuomo and Brown are also going after spending, but it is a worthwhile read.
John Wiley Price Tells Citizens To “Go To Hell”
Tuesday’s Dallas County Commissioner’s Court meeting erupted into an argument between Commissioner John Wiley Price and a citizen, ending with Price repeatedly telling several citizens to “go to hell.”http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/02/15/john-wiley-price-dallas-county-commissioners-go-to-hell/
The exchange started during the public speaking portion of the meeting, which happens after the commissioners have gone through their weekly agenda…..
….As Price stood to leave, he looked at Turner and the five other citizens who addressed the court. Price said to them, “ALL OF YOU ARE WHITE. GO TO HELL!”
PRICE REPEATED “GO TO HELL” THREE MORE TIMES. An unknown member of the audience said, “You should be ashamed!”
Imagine if a white commissioner had told a group of six black citizens, “You all are black. Go to Hell!”
Civility: Democrat style
After last month's shooting of a congresswoman, President Obama urged more civility. How civil is it to destroy a congressional oversight committee chairman for practicing oversight?
DEMOCRATS HAVE TAPPED THE POLITICAL OPERATIVE KNOWN AS DR. DEATH TO LEAD A CHARACTER ASSASSINATION OPERATION AGAINST DARRELL ISSA, chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
AVERELL "ACE" SMITH OF SAN FRANCISCO'S LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC CONSULTING FIRM SCN STRATEGIES, a "cutthroat" operative who won the California and Texas Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton in 2008, WILL LEAVE "NO STONE UNTURNED IN DIGGING INTO ISSA'S PERSONAL AND BUSINESS HISTORY," SCN told Politico this week.
Why Issa? Because the California Republican is asking 180 federal agencies to explain their voluminous Freedom of Information Act request refusals in detail…..
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/02/issa-subpoenas-friends-of-angelo.html
We saw this during the Clinton Administration happen to Ken Starr. It seems civility is a one way street for the Democrats and only applies to the Republicans.
Obama's budget assumptions only exist in fantasyland
"Blue smoke and mirrors" is a particularly apt phrase to describe the way Washington politicians in both major parties create annual budgets. "Rosy scenario" is another.
Call it what you will, healthy public policy cannot be based on fantasy foundations. To be sure, multiple assumptions about future economic and fiscal conditions must be made in constructing a forward-looking budget, BUT IN DOING SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES ARE CREATED FOR PUBLIC POLICY MISCHIEF. Since professional politicians are at the helm, said mischief is almost ALWAYS IN THE DIRECTION OF CREATING A MISLEADINGLY POSITIVE OUTLOOK ABOUT THE FUTURE AS A TOOL FOR GAINING SUPPORT FOR MORE SPENDING AND DEBT IN THE PRESENT. Consider President Obama's 2012 federal budget proposal in this context. Rosy scenario certainly applies to the Obama budget's assumptions about economic growth, unemployment, and inflation between now and 2013. The president's proposal ASSUMES REAL GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT GROWTH OF 3.1 PERCENT THIS YEAR, 4 PERCENT NEXT YEAR AND 4.5 PERCENT THE YEAR AFTER. To grasp the unreality of that projection, recall that IN ONLY FOUR YEARS OF THE PAST 30 HAS THE ECONOMY GROWN 4 PERCENT OR MORE. Two of those years, 1983 (4.52 percent) and 1984 (7.19 percent), were at the outset of the economic boom sparked by President Reagan's tax cuts. The other two years, 1997 (4.46 percent) and 1999 (4.83 percent), both followed on compromises between President Clinton and Republican congressional majorities that restrained federal spending and debt, and cut taxes. White House assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, the proposed OBAMA BUDGET RAISES TAXES, ADDS MORE DEBT AND RAISES FEDERAL SPENDING
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/02/obamas-budget-assumptions-only-exist-fantasyland#ixzz1EDSOQFke
This is nothing really new, but it is a good idea to remember that what you see in budget projections tend to be fantasy.
Obama Offers Spending Inertia, Not Hope and Change
One way to judge the merits of the budget Barack Obama unveiled this week IS BY THE COMMENTS OF HIS POLITICAL ALLIES. "IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO FOCUS PRIMARILY ON THE NON-SECURITY DISCRETIONARY PART OF THE BUDGET," SAID SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN KENT CONRAD.
ERSKINE BOWLES, the Democrat whom Obama appointed as co-chairman of his fiscal commission, said the budget goes "NOWHERE NEAR WHERE THEY WILL HAVE TO GO TO RESOLVE OUR FISCAL NIGHTMARE."
"The president punted," began the editorial of THE WASHINGTON POST, which endorsed Obama in 2008. The paper noted tartly that he "CHOSE TO DUCK" THE FISCAL COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS….
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/17/obama_budget_offers_inertia_not_hope_and_change_108930.html
It appears everyone but the majority of Democrats in congress knows that the jig is up and we MUST address our fiscal insanity.
Obama can only tie a generic Republican
At this moment -- 57% of the way through a first term with only 628 days left until the 2012 presidential election -- THE DEMOCRAT CAN ONLY TIE ANY CONCEIVABLE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/02/obama-tied-with-no-name-republican-for-2012.html
The GOP doesn't even need a frontrunner to catch the incumbent of the most powerful political office in the world. No wonder Obama's bringing fresh blood into the White House and shipping out aides to kick-start the billion-dollar campaign back in Chicago.
A new Gallup Poll finds Obama a little worse off in that generic presidential ballot category this year than he was last year at this time.
And -- this'll get the ex-state senator chewing the nicotine gum faster -- THE NEW GALLUP NUMBERS SHOW OBAMA SIGNIFICANTLY BEHIND THE SAME STANDING OF HIS REPUBLICAN PREDECESSOR, that Texas guy who still refuses to reciprocate Obama's criticism…..
…. But THE YOUTH VOTE, so crucial to the Democratic ticket last time, IS EVAPORATING. Going into the 2008 election Obama had 63% of the registered voters aged 18 to 34. Today, he's got only 51%. Likewise, OBAMA'S SUPPORT AMONG 35-TO-54-YEAR-OLDS HAS CRUMBLED FROM 53% IN 2008 TO 43% TODAY….
Things do not look good for Barack Obama. It’s early yet, but America bought a dream the last time and it isn’t clear what they would need to buy this year if he wants to be reelected.
Andrew Jackson vs Henry Clay
For all of its complexities, American politics is sometimes reducible to a single enduring conflict, symbolized by THE HISTORIC BATTLE BETWEEN ANDREW JACKSON AND HENRY CLAY IN THE ELECTION OF 1832.
JACKSON SAW THE STATUS QUO IN GOVERNMENT AS AN UNFAIR PAYOFF TO THE PRIVILEGED, AND BELIEVED THAT HE SHOULD BE THE GREAT LEVELING AGENT. This explains much of the Jacksonian agenda: the assault on the Second Bank of the United States, the elevation of the spoils system to a civic virtue, and efforts to secure more land for poor Western farmers.
Clay, the greatest statesman never to become president, ADVOCATED FOR THE “AMERICAN SYSTEM,” A COMBINATION OF PROTECTIVE TARIFFS TO GROW AMERICAN INDUSTRY, INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS TO FACILITATE TRADE, AND THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES TO STABILIZE THE MONEY AND CREDIT SYSTEMS. The government was not, in Clay’s view, intended to be the GREAT EQUALIZER, BUT THE GREAT FACILITATOR of American enterprise in all its varieties.
TODAY’S DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS CAN TRACE THEIR ROOTS TO THIS CONFLICT, although the road back in time is somewhat tortuous. For one thing, the issues that the country debates have largely changed, and in some cases the parties hold different positions than they once did: the Whigs supported higher tariffs while Republicans backed NAFTA; Jacksonian Democrats thought less government would level the playing field while liberal Democrats have reached the opposite conclusion. Still, the broader orientation to the country and its problems has remained generally the same. BORROWING A PHRASE FROM THEODORE WHITE, WE MIGHT CALL IT THE EVERLASTING BATTLE OF THE “SHARE OUT” AGAINST THE “SHARE UP.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-2012-thrilla-manilla_550203.html
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. This is a great read for history buffs who are trying to apply the lessons to today’s politics. And it’s viewpoint on the ideological battles being infrequent, but that 2012 appears to be one is very interesting.
Wisconsin and the Unions
Say you generally liked Gov. Scott Walker's move to rein in government labor costs but had a few doubts on his method. The last few days should have cleared that up nicely.http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/116355379.html
The public-sector union tantrums, meant to make lawmakers wobble, have an inadvertent message for the rest of us: VOTERS CAN VOTE ALL THEY WANT. We can elect a cheapskate governor and a Legislature to match. BUT COME THE MOMENT, UNIONS WILL HAVE THE LAST, LOUDEST WORD.
THEY'LL HAVE IT IF TAKES MARCHES. THEY'LL HAVE IT IF IT TAKES WHAT AMOUNTS TO AN ILLEGAL STRIKE, with so many Madison teachers calling in sick Wednesday that the district closed schools. If it takes showing up for a we-know-where-your-family-is protest on Walker's Wauwatosa lawn while he was at work, THE UNIONS ARE SURE THEY CAN OUTSHOUT ANY ELECTION RESULT.
This is exactly why Walker is right to limit the unions' power over government spending.
Be prepared to see more of these kinds of stories in the coming years.
Meanwhile, Wisconsin Democrats are nowhere to be seen
POLICE OFFICERS WERE DISPATCHED THURSDAY TO FIND WISCONSIN STATE LAWMAKERS WHO HAD APPARENTLY BOYCOTTED A VOTE ON A SWEEPING BILL THAT WOULD STRIP MOST GOVERNMENT WORKERS OF THEIR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110217/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions
The lawmakers, all Democrats in the state Senate, did not show up when they were ordered to attend a midday vote on the legislation.
The proposal has been the focus of intense protests at the Statehouse for three days. As Republicans tried to begin Senate business Thursday, observers in the gallery screamed "Freedom! Democracy! Unions!"
Republicans hold a 19-14 majority, but they need at least one Democrat to be present before taking a vote on the bill.
This has happened in the past, but it is a dreadful example of leadership by the Democratic party. It appears not only don’t Democrats have any useful ideas, they have no guts either.
DNC Caught Organizing Wisconsin Protests
THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE'S ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA ARM -- the remnant of the 2008 Obama campaign -- IS PLAYING AN ACTIVE ROLE IN ORGANIZING PROTESTS AGAINST WISCONSIN GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER'S attempt to strip most public employees of collective bargaining rights.
OfA, as the campaign group is known, has been criticized at times for staying out of local issues like same-sex marraige, but IT'S RIDING TO THE AIDE OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS WHO HOPING TO PERSUADE SOME REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS TO OPPOSE WALKER'S PLAN. And while Obama may have his difference with teachers unions, OfA's engagement with the fight -- and Obama's own clear stance against Walker -- mean that he's remaining loyal to key Democratic Party allies at what is, for them, a very dangerous moment.
OFA WISCONSIN'S FIELD EFFORTS INCLUDE FILLING BUSES AND BUILDING TURNOUT FOR THE RALLIES this week in Madison, organizing 15 rapid response phone banks urging supporters to call their state legislators, and working on planning and producing rallies, a Democratic Party official in Washington said.
http://nation.foxnews.com/wisconsin-protests/2011/02/17/dnc-caught-organizing-wisconsin-protests
This gives a whole new meaning to Federalism.
Let’s we forget who we are fighting
….The girl, who was illiterate when she left Afghanistan, is now learning English as she prepares to study for a full education and put her troubled past behind her.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357654/Bibi-Aisha-Time-cover-girl-takes-New-York-subway.html#ixzz1EDqcwBsm
WHEN AISHA WAS 12, HER FATHER PROMISED HER IN MARRIAGE TO A TALIBAN FIGHTER TO PAY A DEBT. SHE WAS HANDED OVER TO HIS FAMILY WHO ABUSED HER AND FORCED HER TO SLEEP IN THE STABLE WITH THE ANIMALS.
When she attempted to run away, she was caught and, AS A PUNISHMENT, HER NOSE AND EARS WERE SLICED OFF BY HER HUSBAND while her father-in-law held a gun to her head.
'When they cut off my nose and ears, I passed out. In the middle of the night it felt like there was cold water in my nose. I opened my eyes and I couldn't even see because of all the blood,' she told CNN reporter Atia Abawi.
Left for dead in the mountains, SHE CRAWLED TO HER GRANDFATHER'S HOUSE AND HER FATHER MANAGED TO GET HER TO AN AMERICAN MEDICAL FACILITY, where medics cared for her for ten weeks.
They then transported Aisha to a secret shelter in Kabul and IN AUGUST SHE WAS FLOWN TO THE U.S. BY THE GROSSMAN BURN FOUNDATION TO STAY WITH A HOST FAMILY
All civilizations are not equal. The one we are fighting can be particularly brutal.
The First Silver Fleece Award goes to…..
Today, U.S. Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) unveiled the first winner of the “Silver Fleece” Award for government waste profiled in “Wastebook on Facebook,” a joint initiative of Senators Kirk and Tom Coburn (R-OK).http://www.wifr.com/politics/headlines/Kirk_Announces_First_Silver_Fleece_Award_for_Government_Waste_998000_for_Poetry_in_Zoos_116407254.html
On Wastebook, thousands across THE COUNTRY VOTED TO GIVE THE SILVER FLEECE AWARD TO A GRANT BY THE INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES (IMLS) OF $998,000 TO PROVIDE POETRY FOR SIGNS IN ZOOS.
The Silver Fleece award pays homage to Senator William Proxmire’s “Golden Fleece” award given for government waste between 1975 and 1988. “We named our award the ‘Silver’ Fleece because in these times of austerity and we can no longer afford a Golden Fleece award. I started the Wastebook on Facebook’s Silver Fleece Award with the intention of HIGHLIGHTING EXAMPLES OF WASHINGTON “FLEECING” AMERICAN TAXPAYERS,” SAID SENATOR KIRK.
As Congress reviews the White House budget proposal for 2012, Wastebook on Facebook will continue to profile government waste. WITH 1,087 VOTES (63%), THE FIRST SILVER FLEECE AWARD GOES TO A $998,000 GRANT BY THE INSTITUTE OF MUSEUM AND LIBRARY SERVICES for signs with poetry in zoos. A $615,000 GRANT TO BUILD A GRATEFUL DEAD ARCHIVE GOT 412 VOTES (24%). In last place with 217 votes (13%) was a $456,000 grant by the National Science Foundation to Stanford University for a study of online dating and why political figures were vague on social networking sites.
It’s no wonder we have problems with the country’s finances.
No comments:
Post a Comment