The Congressional Budgetary Office has just released its review of the President’s budget proposal: A New Era of Responsibility. The CBO numbers show us sinking faster, at the hands of Obama’s fiscal death squad, than we first thought.

Tapping into my inner Ross Perot, and my love of charts, here are some of the CBO’s latest estimates.

Deficit, Gross Domestic Product, and Publicly Held Debt.

Click on image to enlarge.

Obama’s original estimate had the deficit growing to $6.96 trillion from 2010-2019, a GDP of $22.86 trillion in 2019, and publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP of 67.2%, According to the Budgetary Office the deficit created by the President’s budget will exceed the original estimate of
$6.96 trillion by $2.3 trillion, rising to a total of $9.27 trillion in 2019, a GDP of $20.97 trillion, and publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP of 82.4%.

Here is a graphical representation of what is being projected.

Click on image to enlarge.

The most telling feature of this is the incredible increase in spending while suffering a severe depreciation in revenue the government will be taking in. As time goes on the estimated gap continues to widen which explains the sharp up turn in publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP.

From the CBO Director’s blog,

CBO-Proposed changes in tax policy would reduce revenues by an estimated $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years. Proposed changes in spending programs would add $1.7 trillion (excluding debt service) to outlays over the next 10 years. Interest costs associated with greater borrowing would add another $1.0 trillion to deficits over the 2010–2019 period.

In a nut shell, the President is making good on his promise of keeping taxes low for those making under $250 thousand a year. Although, while doing this he is engaging in absurd spending that does not correspond with the amount of revenue being taken in. Since the main source of government income is tax payrolls, which are being decreased while expenditures are increasing, heavier taxation of all wage earning quintiles will be required at some point in order to make up for revenue deficits.

Fear not though. The President is engaging in high level talks-with our brightest minds-discussing the contentious problems facing all Americans. Barack Obama Pimps the Bailouts on Jay Leno

Kathleen Parker is addling again only this time it’s not about Sarah Palin. Ms. Parker feels she has isolated the cause of the failing mainstream media, and it is the ignorant masses being stoked by the “drive-by-punditry” of the Rush Limbaughs in the world.

From her Washington Post op-ed,

BOSTON — The biggest challenge facing America’s struggling newspaper industry may not be the high cost of newsprint or lost ad revenue, but ignorance stoked by drive-by punditry.

Yes, Dittoheads, you heard it right.

Drive-by pundits, to spin off of Rush Limbaugh’s “drive-by media,” are non-journalists who have been demonizing the media for the past 20 years or so and who blame the current news crisis on bias.

There is surely room for media criticism, and a few bad actors in recent years have badly frayed public trust. And, yes, some newspapers are more liberal than their readership and do a lousy job of concealing it.

I am sure none of this had to with the likes of Dan Rather and his Killian Documents incident, Barrack Obama appearing on 12 of Newsweek’s 52 issues in one year (This does not include 11 skybox appearances, which brings the total to 23 in 2008.), or the 1997 study performed by the American Society of Newspaper Editors which indicated that 61% of reporters were liberal or held liberal views as opposed to 15% who identified with Republican or conservative values, or how Author Jim A. Kuypers, a senior lecturer at the Ivy League college Dartmouth, in 2002 inadvertently found that the media ignores far-left, conservative, and moderate viewpoints in favor of a “narrow brand of liberal bias.” Lest we forget the New York Times endorsement of Barack Obama or Kerry?

As with most conservative apologist writers and left leaning “journalists,” Parker suffers from indignation at the insinuation of liberal bias within the media. How can it be their fault? In order to remain in her pristine tower, the Princess must find outside conspirators who are causing her noble profession to falter and to become perceived as ignoble. It couldn’t be that journalism has become eaten up from within by the cancer of liberal opinion. This has to have been brought on by those damn brainwashed, peasant, Ditto-heads and their Fuhrer, Rush.

This, as we all know, is the hallucination that these modern day Pharisee languish from. Parker and her persuasion are truly commiserable and deserve very little pity for their failures.

With man made global warming becoming pushed as “absolute science,”  central planners are now pushing for the passage of a cap and trade system in an effort to regulate the CO2 output of industrial sectors.

Cap and trade, simply put, is the process by which a central authority sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutants that can be discharged. Industries and manufacturers receive a certain number of allowances or credits, through permits, which allow them to emit a specific amount of these pollutants. If a company is successful in remaining below the standard set up by central planners, they would be allowed to sell their remaining credits to businesses who pollute more. In effect, a company who goes above the standards is penalized through a charge for polluting, while industries which comply are being rewarded for having reduced emissions by being able to sell their credits to violators.

One of the major issues of cap and trade will be the ancillary costs that trickle down to the average American and their families. By selling allowances to firms which operate in industries that are subject CO2 capping there will be an inevitable increase on energy intensive items such as electricity, home heating, natural gas, fuel, etc. Also, cost rises in these areas will certainly have a roll over effect to non-energy intensive industries which rely on energy input for manufacturing, distribution, and transportation. Instead of the these firms solely bearing the brunt of an increase in operating expenditures brought on by cap and trade, they will pass them on to consumers.

Recently, Terry M. Dinan, a senior analyst at the Congressional Budgetary Office, testified before the House Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support about the implications cap and trade would have on average to low income Americans.

The price increases caused by a cap-and-trade program would impose additional costs on households. For example, without incorporating any benefits to households from lessening climate change, CBO estimates that the price increases resulting from a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions could cost the average household roughly $1,600 (in 2006 dollars), ranging from nearly $700 in additional costs for the average household in the lowest one-fifth (quintile) of all households arrayed by income, to about $2,200 for the average household in the highest quintile.

In its testimony the CBO offered a wide range of solutions to offset the increased costs being passed on to consumers. For example, Reductions in Income Tax Rates, Payroll Tax Rebates, Income Tax Rebates, Increased EITC Payments, Supplement to SNAP Benefits, etc. While the markets determine who is bearing the cost, central planners and policy makers will determine who will benefit from these solutions.

Although the price increases triggered by a cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions would have a greater impact, relative to income, on lower-income households, the program’s ultimate distributional effect would depend on policymakers’ decisions about how to allocate the emission allowances.

The Central Planner-and-Chief has offered green tech and renewable energy sources as the only major road for economic revival in our country. While this is a glaring error which is wholeheartedly untrue, people should not discount the fantastic opportunity and potential offered by developing these technologies.

Within the renewable energies and green tech their exists a vast untapped market potential for profit. Instead of burdening industries with tyrannical government controls that are inevitably paid for by consumers why our despotic central planners do not use a free market initiatives to direct firms to reduce green house gas emissions is quizzical. Incentives such as a major reduction in corporate taxes could be offered for firms participating in research, development, and implementation of environmental controls, thus creating an environment of competition and imagination.

From the George C. Marshall Institute,

Since 1990, the U.S. has spent heavily on research on climate change, and on research and development of new energy efficiency and energy production technologies. It has promoted an important new international agreement to restrain growth in GHGs.

Domestically, it has instituted a wide variety of public-private partnerships and other programs to spur GHG reductions. This combination of policies, coupled with private sector actions to economize the use of energy, is responsible for the record of reduction in GHG intensity to date and for foreseeable continued improvement in the future.

By forcing these insane regulatory laws upon businesses and corporations nothing is being accomplished except a crippling effect on our economy. Relegating more control into the hands of a few power brokers on the Hill. Their obliviousness to the damage they will wreak on the average consumer is further evidence that their lust for power and dominance is what is driving their agendas.

Related Articles:

RAND-On Carbon Dioxide, a Better Alternative

Popular Mechanics-MIT Fights for Clean Power With Holy Grail of Fusion in Reach

UPI-Gore confident global climate deal coming

Through the campaign, through the transition, and now into the Presidency, the Obama administration has fermented a reputation for altering their websites with the zeal of an obsessive-compulsive tailor. Now they are rewriting history, one word at a time, by altering President Bush’s biography.

The article from Pro Publica,

References to Bush creating “prosperity” through “an ownership society” are stripped in the new version, and praise of the No Child Left Behind Act has been softened.

We contacted the White House for comment, and a spokesman told us that the version of the biography currently on Whitehouse.gov is actually not new, but an old one written at the end of the Bush administration.

Our research says otherwise. The biography preserved in the National Archives is a near-perfect match for the old version, suggesting that the version now on Whitehouse.gov is, indeed, new. (Peter Bray, founder of Versionista, the system that drives ChangeTracker, just wrote a piece in Slate about the changes.)

Is this standard practice or even a big deal? I don’t know, but I found this unsettling because it was lame, sneaky, and they had the gaul to deny it. There is much truth in the statement, “To the victors go the spoils.” But that is usually left to a conqueror, not a publicly elected official. I just wonder how many more “changes” they are going to enact when it comes time to start covering for their failures?

On Thursday, Obama pushed health care reform to the forefront of domestic policy by hosting the Forum on Health Care at the White House. He spoke to lawmakers, lobbyists, journalists, and health care experts about the dire need for comprehensive reform and emphasized that it has become a matter of “fiscal imperative” that actions be taken by the end of the year.

Obama, was careful to maintain a compromising tone, promising to work with the GOP and avoid the mistakes made during the Clinton era attempt at overhauling the health care system. Of course, we have experienced the President’s conciliatory attitude concerning negotiations on the stimulus package with the GOP. We know how that worked out.

Much like how the White House handled the bailout, it is laying out its expectations for comprehensive health care reform and is leaving it up to Congress to craft the legislation. (There goes the compromise or any GOP involvement.)

CQ Politics-He has left the details of such legislation to Congress, where Democratic leaders say they hope to move a bill to the House floor, at a minimum, before the August recess.

Proposals will surely be lacking any creative analysis of reality and rely on the timeless progressive anecdote of more government spending as the only solution.

WSJ-The health plan that Mr. Obama had proposed as a presidential candidate, which is similar to ideas under consideration in Congress, is expected to cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years. That money would cover tax credits to help families and small businesses afford premiums.

With all of the spending that is supposed to induce savings the only change our progressive comrades are going to leave us with will be in your pocket, if that. I hope our government has plans to go to a lint backed currency soon.

Update: If you have any questions about Progressive or Liberal intentions on trying to push through universal health care once this legislation requires Congressional crafting, here is something for you to chew on.

OpenCongress.com-Access for All America Act

For official bill status, please visit, S.486

Just on a note of irony, this legislation was introduced by Sen.Bernard Sanders [I-VT], the only sitting member of Congress who is a self-described socialist.

John Derbyshire, of the American Conservative, recently wrote a very provocative essay called, How Radio Wrecks the Right. (H/T to The Volokh Conspiracy) While not completely maligning talk radio, Derbyshire offers a healthy critique of it’s raucous flavor and populist inducing mania. His solution? One which seems much more suited for America, middlebrow conservatism.

Derbyshire, in the first half of his article, is quick to point out the boorish and garish nature of talk radio has devolved conservatism. Many on the right side of intellectualism do not seem to appreciate talk-radio’s, more specifically Rush Limbaugh, brand of marketing, which forms their message into spoofs, irony, and quick-witted insults of the Left. Doing little more than provoking reflexive reaction in listeners rather than thought. Of course, there is the other side of the argument that Limbaugh does know his enemy well and he seems to have an instinctive flare for deciphering the Left’s plans and motivation.

For many years, conservatism stood as the intellectual rebellion against the liberally indoctrinating members of academia and government. Writers such as William F. Buckley and Irving Kristol lashed out against the rise of the New Left, in the fifties and sixties, with some of the fiercest cerebral onslaughts since Burke in the late 18th century. Buckley is recognized and credited with single-handedly bringing together, conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals under one tent which became known as the National Review.

He encouraged his writers and editorial staff to explain their positions and to debate the issues. This in hopes of influencing conservative policy makers and politicians. Unexpectedly, the National Review gained popularity amongst working class conservatives who appreciated its intellectual, yet satirical nature. They offered, to the American public, cutting edge criticism of liberalism with stalwart evidence of its inadequacies, insightful commentary, and even humor. It made people think as well as smirk, nourishing their intellectual and emotional sides.

Derbyshire, in the last half of his essay , mentions a BBC radio program which he listened to while visiting his native country of England.

One of the few things I used to look forward to on my occasional visits to the mother country was Radio 4, which almost always had something interesting to say on the 90-minute drive from Heathrow to my hometown. One current feature is “America, Empire of Liberty,” a thumbnail history of the U.S. for British listeners. The show’s viewpoint is entirely conventional but pitched just right for a middlebrow radio audience.

Most Americans happily fall into the category of middlebrow, pragmatic enough to know when something is wrong, but dolefully lacking the avenues with which to back their hypothesis up with facts.

Now, providing this path is not incumbent on talk radio and since hype generates ratings, expecting this to happen in the near future would be adolescent.

As Derbyshire points out in his closing, lowbrow conservatism is fun. It is nice to listen or watch someone kick around stuff shirted elitists who would sooner swim in a lake of fire than mix with people whom they are actually fearful of. You know, us God loving, gun totting, illiterate, homosexual hating, racist, xenophobes.

Still it would behoove the conservative movement to seriously think about blending its formidable intellectual prowess with its equally capable marketing giants. A group of populist motivated semi-intellectuals would accomplish more than a thousand Heritage Foundations or Rush Limbaughs could ever dream of by themselves.

Related Articles:Obama appoints Rush Limbaugh leader of the opposition

Here is the sorted tale of “A New Era of Irresponsibility.” Enjoy your future, it’s gonna cost.

Deficit:

Click on image to enlarge. Press back button to return to post.
_______________________________________________________________

Mandatory Spending:

Click on image to enlarge. Press back button to return to post.
_______________________________________________________________

Taxes:

Click on image to enlarge. Press back button to return to post.
_______________________________________________________________

Discretionary Spending:

Discretionary Spending Continued:

Click on image to enlarge. Press back button to return to post.
_____________________________________________________________

In summary we have a national debt projected to climb to an $6,969,000,000,000 over 10 years, in addition to the $10,840,000,000,000 of existing debt. Just a sidebar, this is a topic I very rarely hear the administration or Congress speak about.

Social Security spending rising from $662 billion in 2009 to $1.14 trillion by 2019. Medicaid spending is getting somewhat under control, rising from $209 billion in 2009 to $468 billion by 2019, total spending $3.5 trillion. However, this article from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services tells a little different story. Medicare spending rises from $425 billion in 2009 to $872 billion in 2019, total spending is $6.4 trillion.

Income taxes rise from $958 billion in 2009 to $2.15 trillion in 2019. Social Security payroll taxation rises from $662 billion in 2009 to $1.05 trillion in 2019. Medicaid payroll taxation rises from $191 billion in 2009 to $308 billion in 2019.

(Sarcasm on.) I see a lot of fiscal restraint, lower taxes, and pragmatism in this 10 year budget projection. We have such a wonderful future ahead of us and I am now sorry I didn’t vote for the President. (Sarcasm off.)

Cross posted at Politics and Critical Thinking.

Since the stimulus package and the economic recovery being at the forefront of domestic and international affairs many of our other problems seem to be systemic background noise. One of the greater threats becoming apparent is the disturbing situation south of border, in Mexico.

This report is from The Monitor, via ThreatsWatch.

REYNOSA — A violent street battle between suspected gangsters and Mexican soldiers killed at least five people Tuesday morning as separate protests against the military presence shut down parts of the city for several hours. read more…

Why should you care about the interior workings of Mexico? Here is the location of Reynosa in proximity to the United States.

According to the Monitor, there were spillover worries among federal and local authorities.

The Monitor-On the U.S. side, federal and local authorities flooded the international crossings with heavily armed officers, fearing a spillover of the violence.

In recent years, Mexico’s narco-culture has become a growing and dangerous problem. Since Columbia gained a degree of control over the drug cartels’ influence within the country and with better enforcement in the Caribbean, the once stagnated Mexican drug routes have turned into the most efficient way to traffic illegal narcotics from Latin America into the US.

This has in-turn, sparked fierce competition among Mexican drug gangs in areas such as, Acapulco, Monterrey, Tijuana, Juárez, Nogales, and Sinaloa. Violence has been on the rise as turf battles and power grabs erupt.

After Mexican President Felipe Calderón took office, ties between the Mexican government and US were strengthened somewhat. The Bush administration signed the Merida Initiative into law, “A three-year, $1.5 billion anti-drug assistance package for Mexico and Central America.”

However, many of the problems facing the Mexican authorities are actually being influenced by activities within the United States. From the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Wilson Center-While drugs flow north from Mexico to the United States, several of the key inputs for the drug trade flow south from the United States. The cartels in Mexico receive most of their arms from the United States, usually through purchases at gun shows along the border. The U.S. and Mexican governments have so far been unable to limit the flow of this “iron river” southward and the U.S. government has few resources devoted to this.

From the Heritage Foundation,

• Drugs. An estimated 90 percent of the cocaine consumed in the U.S. enters via Mexico. This means that between 300 metric tons (MTs) and 460 MTs of cocaine is smuggled into the U.S. annually.

• Arms-According to Jane’s Intelligence Review, Mexican authorities believe that 86 percent of the illegal weapons used and in circulation in Mexico were smuggled in from the U.S.

• Cash-Another key export from the U.S. to Mex­ico is bulk cash. The National Drug Intelligence Council estimates that between $8 billion and $24 billion in bulk currency is smuggled annually out of the U.S. into Mexico.

Although the noise being generated by this growing and persistent problem has reached the ears of the Department of Homeland Security. From a recent DHS press release.

DHS-Southbound Gun Smuggling-A growing wave of criminal violence in Mexico’s border communities and in the interior of the country, fueled by the availability of guns and currency smuggled south from the U.S. poses a serious threat to Mexico’s security and portends deepening problems for our nation’s border regions.

Much of the success to secure Mexico relies on their own internal responsibility and accountability, the US shares a sizable load also. Only until recently, did America start maintaining a strengthened presence on the 2,000 mile border we share with Mexico. While securing the border is a great start, there is far more that needs to be done. We have to clean up our own house by cutting cut off the pipeline of weapons and cash flowing into Mexico. This means aggressive law enforcement against the gangs and people whom are dealing in these illicit trades with the Mexican drug cartels while continuing to partner with the elements of the Mexican government that are still legitimate.

Related articles:

Foreign Policy Research Institute-Los Zetas: the Ruthless Army Spawned by a Mexican Drug Cartel

CNS News-Mexican Drug Cartels Getting Guns From U.S.

I am not an openly religious person, I believe religion is a deeply quiet journey that is the foundation of a moral and ethical system of thought. Nevertheless, I take it as a personal affront when I see “morons” paint people who dare step into a church, regardless of denomination, as some sort of right-wing religious zealot, bent on bombing abortion clinics and garbing everyone in early Quaker fashion. All the while daring to compare these same people to the evil that is Islamic extremism.

For me the statement concerning religious zealotry, “They are all nuts,” doesn’t fit anymore. One is crazy, while the other is dangerous.

From the OC Reigster,

Police: Ohio man held woman captive, read Bible

OC Reigster-A man held a woman captive in handcuffs and an adult diaper for three days while he read Bible passages to her, police said.

Troy Brisport, 34, was charged with kidnapping and felonious assault. Bail was set Tuesday at $400,000.

He picked up the woman Wednesday night in Detroit after she told him she had nowhere to stay, and brought her to his home in Toledo, about 55 miles away, police said.

The woman told police that after she fell asleep Brisport handcuffed her wrists and ankles, gagged her, undressed her and put her in an adult diaper, then read Bible passages, said police Capt. Ray Carroll. read more…

Glad she is alright, hope he goes to jail for a long time and gets the full frontal lobotomy he deserves. I know 3 days of Bible versus, while handcuffed, is enough to be considered inhumane.

From the Middle East Quarterly,

Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?

MEQ-On February 12, 2009, Muzzammil Hassan informed police that he had beheaded his wife. Hassan had emigrated to the United States 30 years ago and, after a successful banking career, had founded Bridges TV, a Muslim-interest network which aims, according to its website, “to foster a greater understanding among many cultures and diverse populations.” Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III told The Buffalo News that “this is the worst form of domestic violence possible,” and Khalid Qazi, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, told the New York Post that Islam forbids such domestic violence. While Muslim advocacy organizations argue that honor killings are a misnomer stigmatizing Muslims for what is simply domestic violence, a problem that has nothing to do with religion, Phyllis Chesler, who just completed a study of more than 50 instances of North American honor killings, says the evidence suggest otherwise. read more…

I am really not sure how to frame this anymore succinctly. If this comparison is lost on people who obviously don’t have the cognitive ability to discern where the malevolence draped in the veil of religion is, I cannot help them. Inevitably, they will be a victim of their own folly.

Here is a prime example of that myopia. All in the name of feeling intellectually superior, while treading in waters with predators who don’t give a damn about the intellect of their prey.

From UPI,

Report: War on terror eroded liberties

UPI-An international human rights legal group says harsh anti-terrorism measures have undermined the “cherished values” of Britain and other nations.

The International Commission of Jurists, a 60-nation group of lawyers based in Geneva, Switzerland, says its 3-year study of the war on terror waged by the United States, Britain and other Western countries has caused a “shocking” amount of damage to their civil liberties, The Washington Post (NYSE:WPO) reported Tuesday.

“Many governments, ignoring the lessons of history, have allowed themselves to be rushed into hasty responses to terrorism that have undermined cherished values and violated human rights,” said Arthur Chaskalson, a former chief justice of South Africa.

The report criticized the administration pf former U.S. President George W. Bush for allegedly equating acts of terror with acts of war — a “legally and conceptually flawed” stance — which the jurists said resulted in “immense damage” to the standing of international law, the Post reported. read more…

Before any left leaning pundit or anti-war aficionado jumps on the “blood for oil campaign,” or “Bush was a war-monger” diatribe, this is about reality. Not skewed partisan politics which people use to shape their outlooks. Judge when you have been there, tell me when you know, until then admit your opinions are just that, opinions.

Finally, this is not saying that Christianity is better than Islam, it is observing that Islam suffers from a cultural disease that is becoming almost pandemic, and it is a sickness that has been around a lot longer than us. Christianity has its problems, but characterizing or leveling it with extreme Islam is insidious and imbecilic. The only accomplishment garnered is an empowerment of extremist Jihadist movements and a weakening of Western culture. All for what? Because “Right Wing Evangelicals” have been a formidable voting bloc since Nixon? Yeah, that makes it right.

Ever get the feeling you are about to get mugged? Have you ever come home to find your home has been ransacked by criminal thugs who have just turned your life upside down? Well, if you don’t feel it now, when comes time to pay for the stimulus package, you might.

The state of California, according to the all seeing all knowing Wiki, boasts the eighth largest economy as far as GDP, eleventh as far as purchasing power parity, and is responsible for thirteen percent of the national GDP of the United States. Pretty impressive.

Now for the bad news, as reported by the LA Times, Cali is facing a projected $41 billion budget deficit by the middle of next year. Lawmakers and Governor Arnold “Arnie” Schwarzenegger are feverishly attempting to come to a compromise on how to settle their budgetary shortfalls. Their solutions; $14.4.billion in tax increases,$15.1 billion in program cuts, and $11.4 billion in borrowing.

Here is a more acute breakdown from the Tax Foundation,

Why look at Cali? Because, California, is the looking glass for future outcomes for the rest of the country, politically and economically. Looking at their solutions might just give some insight as to what to expect from our government and for the country over the next few years .

Now, when it comes time to pay up for the stimulus, what do you think our almost broke country is going to have to do? Raise taxes, cut spending, borrow, or spend more, much like California. Here is the cost per family and per person for just this stimulus, forget the original Bush stimulus ($168 billion), TARP I ($700 billion), Geithner’s proposed TARP II ($1 trillion to $2 trillion), and the national debt, pre-stimulus rich environment (Sept.2007 est.-$9,007,653,372,262.48).

From WashingtonWatch.com

However, this is per American; every man, woman, and child, all 303,824,640 (July 2008 est.) of us. Though, this is not necessarily the people who are going to be paying it back, enter working Americans. The labor force estimates in the US, as of 2008, are at 155.2 million, roughly half of the population. That just about doubles the tax burden, generated by the stimulus, on working Americans who will be required to pay this garbage back. Or, $4,696.20 per American worker, using WashingtonWatch.com’s numbers. Feel like you’re getting mugged yet?

Cross posted at Politics and Critical Thinking.

The House of Representatives has passed the Obastimulus Pork Chop of 2009, 246-183 with no Republican help. Seven Democrats held the line against Pelosi and her cartel by voting no for the 1,071 page bill. All of those exhaustive efforts and debate, just to garner two new votes.

The “generational theft” package (Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz), was touted as being “a historic vote,” by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Historic in the fact that this will open the door to the most massive spending program ever enacted in the United States that was not directed at a war effort.

The CBO’s latest, published on February 13th, 2009.

Big picture, this catastrophe, over a ten year period, will amount to net increase of $782 billion in deficit spending, while generating -$211 billion in government revenues, and then the added expenditure of interest on the loan, which should easily put it over $1 trillion.

Also, this increase in spending does not take into account the amount of increases in discretionary and entitlement spending which are part of standard US government yearly budget proposals. Which have a habit of running into deficit spending also.

The tax cuts are almost as pitiful as the rest of the package. According to Breibart, individual Americans will receive a $400 a year tax break, while married will get $800 per year, and social security payments totaling $250 per recipient will be made. How does this put money in your pocket to spend, save, or invest?

Of course, Paul Krugman, Keynesian-at-large, tells us in a recent NY Times Op-ed piece, this is not a bad thing,

“Consumers, their wealth decimated and their optimism shattered by collapsing home prices and a sliding stock market, have cut back their spending and sharply increased their saving — a good thing in the long run, but a huge blow to the economy right now.”

Maybe we should all be like Mr. Intellectual Dishonesty and get a book deal or two or maybe an op-ed column for the Times, then everything will be alright. It must be nice to sit at the top of ivory towers dispensing advice to people you wouldn’t spit on if they were on fire. Especially when it comes to how the government should be spending their money.

The Obama administration, the Democrats in Congress, and people like Krugman and Robert Reich have continued this charade which is only designed to rip off the American tax payer. Not only are they engaging in rampant spending, they have failed to answer the question, “How will this be payed for?” Furthermore, this was a grand opportunity to reform tax system, Medicaid, as well as Social Security, one which they pathetically missed. They have turned a blind eye to these problems, in fact, they have probably just made them worse.

The President’s legacy is amounting up to missed chances, stimulating debt, and ineffective ideas which are being pushed through without any consideration for the long term effects. Is it to much to ask that someone stops for a moment and thinks?

Photo credit to Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Important Sites:

Read the Stimulus

NoStimulus.com

Update: According to AllahPundit over at HotAir.com, they are awaiting three more Democratic votes to attain a filibuster proof majority; Bayh, Gillibrand, and Brown. As expected, Benedict Arnold and the Arnettes, Specter, Collins, and Snowe, all voted for the porkulus bill. For all practical purposes this is over, not that anyone expected any miracles on the Hill.

For a line by line breakdown of the Bill, in its present form, Pro Publica (H/T Allahpundit). At least you can find out what they are going to be wasting your tax money on.

Cross posted at Politics and Critical Thinking.

This attempt at breaking down the stimulus from the beginning to the end will not be an easy undertaking, since I am not economist. However, neither is President Obama, he is a lawyer. Nevertheless, there is ample information from sound sources to help the average tax payer understand exactly what the government is asking of them and the other possibilities for economic stimulus. This first addition is a challenge to the government’s claim that we are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Also, this will show how they are propagating fear in order to push their agenda onto the American people.

As far as this blog is concerned, free markets and economics are inexorably connected to the liberty and prosperity of every individual American. This is not to say humankind is free due to capitalism, just that if used properly, it can be the engine of that freedom. Mankind is unarguably born with certain unalienable rights that are derived from Higher, not from monetary, fiscal, or economic policy.

However, despots, tyrants, dictators, and megalomaniacs have learned throughout the years that by manipulating these economic systems they can attain a greater accumulation of power over their citizenry. Infringing on, if not taking away these freedoms, all in the name of the State. Thereby, creating an atmosphere of dependency on the government for even the most basic daily needs.

Even as far back as October, then Senator Obama, was stirring fears that this was the greatest economic downfall since the Great Depression. Recently, even his toadies and acolytes have been echoing the same sentiments. All for the sake of spreading fear and generating hopes that they have the only answers to end this crisis.

Now, only a fool would say, with a straight face, we aren’t in hard times and things aren’t going to get harder. But the egregious claims and fear mongering of the Obama administration fall apart once you look at history.

According to the Bureau of Labor, from 1930-41 the unemployment rate never dropped below 8.9% and actually went as high as 24.9%. When the recession deepened in circa 1981-82, unemployment sat at well over 10%.

As far as GDP, from 1929-1933 there was a major constriction, to put it mildly. The GDP output of the United States in 1929 was $865.2 billion and in 1933 it sat at $635.3 billion, this represents a -29.3% decline in the gross domestic product of the US in a 4 year period. It was not until 1936 when the GDP reached $866.6 billion, did the economy finally overcome the 1929 tally. This represents real growth of only $1.4 billion over a 7 year period. Furthermore, this still does not address the rampant inflation or unemployment most Americans still faced.

In 1981 the GDP sat at $5,291.7 trillion, then in 1982 after a major contraction brought on by the recession it was lowered to $5,189.3 trillion, meaning a decline of -1.9%.

Looking at the breakdown of each quarter in FY 2008 you gain a comparison between them and the previous recessions. In FY 2008 we had 1st quarter growth of .9% (Final Report), 2nd quarter growth was 2.8% (Final Report), the 3rd quarter sat at -.03% (Preliminary Report), and finally 4th quarter results were a -3.8% loss (Advanced Report). Totaling up the BEA’s quarterly reports for FY 2008 results in a net loss of -1.3%. The recession of 1981-82 still sets higher in losses by +.6% and there is no contest between the losses that were incurred during the Great Depression years which totaled -29.3%. The best year for declines in GDP, during this time, was actually 1933, when there was a loss, ironically, of -1.3%.

How interesting that once you crunch the numbers you see quite a different picture than what the administration is selling. Quite simply, they are misrepresenting the facts in order to perpetuate fear and panic to gain public support for their expensive and expansive government project. Again this is not to say things are not bad or they will not get worse, this is simply where we are at right now. We have one recession, 27 years ago which was actually worse, yet no one was running around talking about spending our way into oblivion. Quite to the contrary, then President Reagan used tax cuts to stimulate the economy. He brought about huge gains for the American people by creating 20 million new quality jobs under his administration, ushering an era of prosperity and hope that lasted for a little over 15 years.

Please note, the figures presented here are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Read them for yourself, don’t take my word for it.

Personally I don’t listen to talk radio all that much except brief forays into Glenn Beck territory and occasionally, Rush Limbaugh. Nevertheless, I had heard on his show he would be writing an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal concerning the Obastimulus package. At first I thought it was a joke, well I stand corrected.

From the WSJ, words of wisdom from the underground leader of the Conservative movement, Rush Limbaugh.

My Bipartisan Stimulus

By Rush Limbaugh:

Wall Street Journal-There’s a serious debate in this country as to how best to end the recession. The average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they’re left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention.

I believe the wrong kind is precisely what President Barack Obama has proposed. I don’t believe his is a “stimulus plan” at all — I don’t think it stimulates anything but the Democratic Party. This “porkulus” bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party’s power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party’s majority power for decades.

Keynesian economists believe government spending on “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects — schools, roads, bridges — is the best way to stimulate our staggering economy. Supply-side economists make an equally persuasive case that tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs and cause an economy to rebound. That happened under JFK, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back.

Recent polling indicates that the American people are in favor of both approaches.

Notwithstanding the media blitz in support of the Obama stimulus plan, most Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are skeptical. Rasmussen finds that 59% fear that Congress and the president will increase government spending too much. Only 17% worry they will cut taxes too much. Since the American people are not certain that the Obama stimulus plan is the way to go, it seems to me there’s an opportunity for genuine compromise. At the same time, we can garner evidence on how to deal with future recessions, so every occurrence will no longer become a matter of partisan debate.

Congress is currently haggling over how to spend $900 billion generated by American taxpayers in the private sector. (It’s important to remember that it’s the people’s money, not Washington’s.) In a Jan. 23 meeting between President Obama and Republican leaders, Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) proposed a moderate tax cut plan. President Obama responded, “I won. I’m going to trump you on that.”

Yes, elections have consequences. But where’s the bipartisanship, Mr. Obama? This does not have to be a divisive issue. My proposal is a genuine compromise.

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me. read more…

I thought this would be wrought full of sarcasm and infantile jabs at Obama, but surprisingly, El Rushbo, has offered the most bipartisan, comprehensive, sensible, and comparative stimulus package yet. The best part is, by applying his idea you could finally determine which economic school of thought solves recessions better, Keynesian or Supply-Side. This is perfect since recessions are a fact of life and will continue to happen. While I am not his hugest fan, my hat’s off to Limbaugh for his simple and common sense approach, I love it!

This is a video from You Tube of Robert Reich and Charlie Rangel discussing how to best target the money from infrastructure spending towards minorities versus skilled professionals, and in Reich’s own words, “White male construction workers.”

Link to video form You Tube,

Explosive Video Reich, Obamas economic advisor no “White Male Construction Workers”

If you are white or an educated professional, we don’t want you, please dry up and blow away in the wind like dog excrement. Welcome to hope and change you can believe in, America.

While on a typical blogging junket, I found an article on the notably Left-leaning blog, The Political Animal. Decent, Lefty blog as Lefty blogs go, but that isn’t the point. They have an article posted, CBO PESSIMISTIC, FINDS NEED FOR STIMULUS . This particular article somehow supports the theory that we need a “stimulus,” now! Well, quite interested in their outlook and conclusion, I went to the source for myself, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office). However, I found information quite to the contrary, just posted today.

Excerpt from McClatchy, via The Political Animal.

McClatchy-The nation’s current recession is likely to be the longest since World War II, and by some measures could be the worst since the Great Depression, a new Congressional Budget Office forecast said Tuesday.

Without a major economic stimulus plan, “the shortfall in the nation’s output relative to its potential would be the largest — in terms of both length and depth — since the Depression of the 1930s,” said new CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf in testimony prepared for the House Budget Committee.

The analysis is sure to add important momentum to the effort to enact an $825 billion stimulus by mid-February.

Fair enough, the highly regarded CBO stated we need an economic stimulus, there are just a few problems with this claim. But before we get into the CBO data, I would like to address a situation that is conveniently overlooked by most proponents of the the Highway Robbery Bill of 2009. We won’t see the money till late 2010.

From the McClatchy article cited on The Political Animal.

CBO already gave House Democrats good news Monday night, estimating that about 64 percent of the funds would go into the economy by Sept. 30, 2010.

The problem here is that some experts figure we will be coming out of the by 2009 and feeling the effects of recovery by 2010. Will things get worse? Yes, they will, financial constriction is an inevitable result of a massive recession. Unemployment will more than likely reach 10%, if not higher, consumer and business spending will be dramatically reduced for quite awhile, and the housing market will hit rock-bottom. This is the simple reality of it. However, how will an infusion of government capital, after the recession is over, help quell its effects now? It won’t.

Onto the CBO data, from Congressional Budget Office, Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director’s Blog.

Click on image to enlarge.

You will notice Division B-Revenues and Division B-Net Impact on the Deficit, this correlates the estimated government revenues versus the increase in the stimulus package will incur on the deficit, we are consistently in the red. Over ten years, $815.8 billion is added to the deficit, while government revenues are down -$211.8 billion.

Of course it could be argued that you don’t cut taxes while engaging in such massive government spending. And if you argued that point you would be correct, nevertheless, there is no need to cut taxes and spend like a drunken sailor. Nor, is there any need to increase taxes and spend like a drunken Airman. Well targeted tax cuts on issues such as capital gains, corporate taxes, consumer payroll taxes, social security, while engaging in less government spending , leaving interest rates alone, and better monetary controls sparks enormous economic growth.

The next obvious question is why would he government do this? The answer is it is nothing more than political positioning by the White House, Far Left Senators, Progressive Representatives, and frightened-spineless Republicans who wish to further their power through a massive increase in the size of government.

Whether you consider yourself a Republican, Conservative, Democrat, or Progressive, I suggest you get over it. If you think Madhoff pulled off the greatest scam ever, you haven’t seen the Federal government in action.

“Happy Hunting.”

Fulfilling his campaign promises, Obama in his first series of executive orders has effectively shut down Guantanamo Detention Facility, ensured “lawful” interrogation of detainees, and brought into question the status of the detainees currently housed at Gitmo. However, upon analysis of the legal language within these very orders, you get quite a different picture.

For the longest time I have personally tried to understand the psyche of Obama, the moniker of socialist, black liberation theology aficionado, or even to some degree, hyper-liberal, never fit. His description in my own mind, always started with self-serving, opportunistic, ________, the last word to fit that description I could never find, until today. It is, “lawyer.” His chosen profession is what has allowed the former heir apparent, and now boy king, to navigate through the cesspool that is Chi-Town politics and ascend to the position of POTUS, un-mired, unquestioned, and most of all, unknown.

His very first Executive order was his greatest victory, for himself, and those on the far Left fringe whom he used to attain his current position. However, upon further exploration of the legal speak in his orders you might find a different story, altogether.

From Whitehouse.gov,

EXECUTIVE ORDER — REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY NAVAL BASE AND CLOSURE OF DETENTION FACILITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (Guantánamo) and promptly to close detention facilities at Guantánamo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.

But the fairy tale changes when you get to Section 2 Findings, Subparagrah (c.) and continues from there.

The individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have the constitutional “privilege” of the writ of habeas corpus.

Why is this important? The word privilege is what determines the meaning of this whole sentence. If it was replaced by the word “right” it would succinctly guarantee the detainees trial by jury, no ifs, ands, or buts, about it.

Using the example of driving, it is not a right, it is a privilege allowed to you based on the fact that you have fulfilled certain qualifications to be eligible to participate. Nevertheless, it can be revoked at anytime if you do not comply with certain rules that govern the conduct of driving. This gives the administration great maneuvering power and latitude when it comes to defining the status of the detainees, whether they are characterized as enemy combatants or federal criminals.

Section. 4. Immediate Review of All Guantánamo Detentions, Subparagraph (c.) Operation of Review. The duties of the Review participants shall include the following:

Section 5 states,

(5) Consideration of Issues Relating to Transfer to the United States. The Review shall identify and consider legal, logistical, and security issues relating to the potential transfer of individuals currently detained at Guantánamo to facilities within the United States, and the Review participants shall work with the Congress on any legislation that may be appropriate.

Sec. 5. Diplomatic Efforts. The Secretary of State shall expeditiously pursue and direct such negotiations and diplomatic efforts with foreign governments as are necessary and appropriate to implement this order.

In other words, the ones whose status cannot be determined become someone else’s problem. If this can even be negotiated, however, there is a flaw in this logic. Please note, this example has nothing to do with the Obama administration and is showing of what the action of releasing these “people” to other countries could incur.

Report: Ex-Gitmo detainee joins al-Qaida in Yemen

Next is the Section 7 as it applies to Military Commissions,

Sec. 7. Military Commissions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately take steps sufficient to ensure that during the pendency of the Review described in section 4 of this order, no charges are sworn, or referred to a military commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Rules for Military Commissions, and that all proceedings of such military commissions to which charges have been referred but in which no judgment has been rendered, and all proceedings pending in the United States Court of Military Commission Review, are “halted.”

Halt, meaning the “temporary” or “permanent” stoppage of an operation. Again, legal ambiguity, leaving room for maneuvering, while playing a dangerous game with national security and the well being of the people of the United States. However, not the clear cut victory the Left was hoping for. On the flipside, not the status quo of President Bush’s policies that the Right was garnering, either. What are we left with? Legal speak trying to mask confusion.

America, because you wanted change you could believe in so bad, we have a lawyer in the White House, not a leader. Good luck, we are going to need it.

While stumbling around in the wilderness, often mumbling incoherently to itself, the GOP has possibly been shown the way to reunify itself, and maybe pick up a few unintended allies along the way. Enter the inspiration, Far Left crazed-spending into oblivion.

In an article on the heavily conservative American Thinker, author Larry Anderson takes a poignant look at the lies and exploitation the GOP has perpetrated on conservatives.

As Mr Anderson points out, most of the rhetoric attached to the Republican “big tent” speeches promise of returns to free markets, tax cuts, government reform, and fiscal responsibility are just that, rhetoric. Exactly the message to get a group of conservatives fired up and ready to retake Washington. Ironically, most of the funding and time for the GOP is provided by these very same conservative activists, who in the end get rampant spending, socialist lite policies, and government expansion for their trouble. Not exactly delivering on what was promised.

There are many reasons we have a President Obama today; DNC mastering of tech, tapping into a younger voting base, 50 state strategy, Latino voters, ACORN, Iraq, etc., take your pick. While all of these were obvious factors, the one that is barely talked about is the mandate against President Bush and those who recklessly supported his bad spending habits. Unfortunately, we are still getting more of the same old same old.

Right now we stand on the brink of an $800 billion plus “stimulus package” to get the economy off life support. What American wouldn’t be ecstatic about getting a nice little hunk of change from their Uncle Sam. The problem is these checks will be passed out, hopefully, to make you start spending, not paying bills or saving for the leaner times. Furthermore, this solution fails to address the long term ramifications of the economic downturn and inevitable fiscal constriction.

This brings up the obvious question, “How are we going to pay for all of this?” Are we going keep printing money to the point of making it valueless. Are we going to keep borrowing from the Chinese till Beijing owns every home in America? No, they will have to raise taxes, and raise them they will. If this doesn’t prove to be enough, then what? The government will then have to find alternative ways to generate more capital to pay the bill. The only answer is a profitable return on a government investment, better known as the nationalization of domestic companies. This is not saying Obama is a socialist, it is an observation that he is not leaving himself or future administrations much choice.

This path leaves the constituency of America with few options. Overt taxation will be levied to God knows what level, leaving many with little or no earning, spending, savings, or investment potential. An expanded government, possibly doubled in its size, and only adding to its already horrible mismanagement. And nationalized businesses and companies which have to answer to the very same broken bureaucracy that got us into this mess in the first place. How can we expect our technocrats to manage and provide sound services within a larger government, when they can’t take care of the one they have now?

With all this in mind, triangulation on a message that can bind together the factious movements in the GOP, as well as garner some allies (i.e. Blue Dogs), should be top priority to the RNC. That message is fiscal responsibility and reform of the present process of government spending. If the weak-minded GOP Congressional leaders could get this through their thick skulls and start practicing it, they could become a positive force to be reckoned with. However, they won’t due to fear of the President’s approval rating.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, shows his true colors when it comes to being the leader of the opposition.

“I think it’s important not to be in a hurry,” Mr. McConnell, of Kentucky, said in an interview in his office in the U.S. Capitol last week. “The new president has high approval ratings. Polls indicate that both Republicans and Democrats want him to be successful. We want to be a respectful, loyal opposition.”

Let’s not forget our conservative leaning experts either.

From D. R. Tucker of Human Events,

Frum’s “Diary” blog at National Review Online has been a must-read for the past few years and, unfortunately, a target of much unfair criticism. Frum has been smeared by the talk-radio world for allegedly being a RINO or a faux-conservative, largely because he a) didn’t buy the right’s effort to position Sarah Palin as the new Queen of Conservatism and b) believed that merely recycling old lines from the Reagan ‘80s would not lead to a new era of Republican dominance.

He of course goes on in his post to show the backlash against Sarah Palin as obvious proof that the 80′s style Reagan message is dead. Tucker, in all of his myopia, is overlooking two important points: message is one thing, actually practicing it is another and we tried running a moderate Republican in John McCain, it didn’t work.

Tucker’s point about the death Reagan conservatism is very important, though. But not for the reasons he intended. How can you put forth the message of fiscal responsibility when you haven’t been practicing it? The American people don’t trust the GOP anymore because of their wanton disregard for America’s prosperity. It’s time to rebuild that trust by standing up for them through opposition of stupidity,like the stimulus package, communicating to the people directly, offering viable fiscal solutions, and why they work. As far as McCain, I think the answer to that is painfully obvious.

Finally, all is not lost, from Senator David Vitter’s (R-La.) attempted opposition to the release of the second half of the TARP funds, to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin’s, Roadmap for America’s Future, to gentlemen like Senator Demint who offers some sound advice,

“We have to have a remnant of the Republican Party who are recognizable as freedom fighters,” Mr. DeMint said. “What I’m looking to do as a conservative leader in the Senate is to identify those Republicans, and even some Democrats, and put together a consensus of people who can help stop this slide toward socialism.”

Freedom in America is inexorably connected to the economy and its prosperity. It is what our country was founded on and the more the government controls the less you have. You don’t even have to use critical thinking to figure that out.

In the interests of history and brotherhood, we figured we would embrace this monumental day of hope and change by giving a recount of the days events. This is a glimpse of things to come.

It seems even Chief Justice John Roberts got caught up in the hypnotic gaze of the “One.” While administering the Oaf of Office to the Messiah, the Chief Justice finally feels the Chris Matthews tingle.

From MSNBC,

ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama…

OBAMA: I, Barack… (Wonders if he should let the world he is a closet Muslim.)

ROBERTS: … do solemnly swear…

OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear… (Figures screw it, it’s too late. Finally admits Muslim heritage.)

ROBERTS: … that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully… (Tingle sets in.)

OBAMA: … that I will execute… (True intentions are known.)

ROBERTS: … faithfully the office of president of the United States…

OBAMA: … the office of president of the United States faithfully…

ROBERTS: … and will to the best of my ability…

OBAMA: … and will to the best of my ability… (Doesn’t have much.)

ROBERTS: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

OBAMA: … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. (More like change, shift, and shape so it suits my needs.)

ROBERTS: So help you God? (Has to remind him he isn’t swearing to Allah.)

OBAMA: So help me God. (Suckers!!!!)

ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President. (Feints like a 15 yr girl at a Jonas Brothers concert.)

____________________________________________

Bush Mocked As He Arrives on Inauguration Dais

The Hill Blog-The crowd packed on the west side of the Capitol grounds serenaded President Bush in mocking fashion when he took to the inaugural stage alongside Vice President Dick Cheney.

“Nah nah nah nah, hey hey, good-bye,” a section of the crowd chanted.

The crowd packed immediately below the podium received Bush in stony silence when he took his seat on the stage surrounding the podium where Barack Obama was scheduled to take the oath office to become the 44th president of the United States. read more…

Great to see that Liberals are still a class act, they haven’t disappointed yet. You can’t accuse them of being inconsistent.
___________________________________________________

Carter ‘Snubs’ Clinton?

ABC-ABC News’ David Wright reports: Today may be a day when the nation briefly sets aside partisan enmity for the peaceful transition of power, but personal enmity? That’s another matter.

One small example: as the ex-Presidents gathered in the crypt of the Capitol preparing to head out to the platform, a chilly day got a bit chillier as the Carters and the Clintons were forced to occupy the same cramped space.

Former Democratic President Jimmy Carter appeared to greet former Republican President George H.W. Bush and his wife warmly, kissing Barbara Bush on the cheek. But as Carter passed fellow Democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton, the two men did not appear to acknowledge each others presence at all. read more…

When Jimmy Carter starts picking on you, you know you have lost all your political capital. This is like the former starting QB getting kicked around by the high school science nerd.

____________________________________________

Clinton and Cornyn wrangle in Rotunda

The Politico-Hillary Clinton and John Cornyn, who’s delaying her floor confirmation vote, have been having a fairly heated (that is to say, intense but cordial) discussion just out of earshot under the Washington statue in the rotunda. Lots of hand gestures, back and forth and her squeezing his forearm. read more…

It was later reported that Hillary had to be held back by Bill, while shouting, “You remember Vince Foster, don’t you?!?!? Yeah, look what happened to him! I better be confirmed by tomorrow!”
_____________________________________________________

Seems like you can “hope” for “change” all you want, but, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

There are many takes on why President Bush was either a bad President or one of the best ever. Here is an offering of two of the fairest assessments I have found on the Left and the Right.

From Dissenting Justice, an open minded Progressive weblog that is actually a very good read. The author, Professor Darren Hutchinson, usually gives a poignant and well thought analysis on politics and current events. You don’t have to agree him, but at the least, his writings are not full of vitriol and hubris, as can be seen in his opening statement.

Get a Grip People: Bush Is not the Worst President in U.S. History

I have always found surveys that ask people to rank presidents a little silly. People who complete these surveys often fail to look beyond their own reality and consider figures from the past. Also, even when people look to the past, they usually employ contemporary standards to judge historical conduct. But many political positions that are suicidal today, were perfectly acceptable in the past (and vice versa). Not taking this into account can cloud our assessment of historical actors. Finally, in order to determine a president’s place in history, we might have to wait until long after the person leaves office before we can accurately ascertain the longterm impact of the individual’s term in office. read more…

WithBias, is written by a little spitfire of an online Conservative activist. BiasedGirl, the author, tends to use great sourcing to back up her posts and opinions. Links are abundant to viable sources, and her conclusions, sometimes with a populist draw, follow a reasoned line of logic that she ferociously backs up with hard evidence. At the bare minimum, all she can be accused of is being passionate about her movement. Definitely a good read if you want some great debate.

Presently, she has an ongoing series about the Bush II years versus the Clinton years.

Shocker! Bush Not the Worst US President

With Tuesday’s looming immaculate inauguration, we will see the conclusion of the Presidency of George W. Bush. A man maligned by the media from the beginning of his first term when they demanded recounts until he won then called it a “stolen election”. To the final days of his second term, when Everyone is trying to define the Presidency of W as one of, if not ‘the worst in history’. read more..

Facts Reveal: Bush Actually A Good President!

In yesterday’s post I revealed why George W Bush has been a superior President to the Liberal hero Bill Clinton, on matters of Civil Rights, Protecting us from Terrorists, and the Military, regardless of what you might have heard. Today I’m taking a look at what Karl Rove would call the “kitchen table” issues. read more…

While I may not personally agree with the totality of either of their conclusions, they’re at least making an attempt to think about their positions. In turn, hopefully their readership will draw the proper judgments about the out-going President and the historical ramifications of his governance. Judgments that are based on reality and not mired down with ignorant memes and talking points.

Both blogs are highly recommended.

In an interview with Chris Wallace, Nancy Pelosi, has indicated her willingness to investigate former Bush DOJ officials for “warrantless wire-tapping” and “torture” of known terrorists.

From the Politico,

The Politico-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday that she was open to pursuing investigations of abuses by the Bush Justice Department.

“I think that we have to learn from the past and we cannot let the politicizing, for example, of the Justice Department, to go unreviewed,” Pelosi said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Past is prologue. We learn from it.”

Pelosi told host Chris Wallace she thought the Obama administration would be open to scrutinizing the Bush White House, as House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) has urged. read more…

Last Sunday on “This Week,” Obama spoke with George Stephanopoulos about a question posed on his website, www.change.gov, concerning the prosecution of Bush administration official’s “gravest crimes.”

Obama’s response,

This Week- “We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously we’re going to look at past practices. And I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up. read more…

The key point here is the relentless Democratic pursuit of revenge against the Bush administration and its officials. Congressman John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, released a 500 page report supposedly detailing the egregious Bush DOJ offenses committed. The report calls for a “blue ribbon panel” to fully investigate administration activities, and independent criminal probes.

The Department of Justice fired back with detailed documentation, of their own, recapping the President’s Constitutional authorities and responsibility to protect the nation when it is threatened at home and abroad.

These people, especially in Congress, are dangerously naieve about the world they live in. Glad to know we have elected officials, whom I thought were sworn to protect us, willing to sacrifice the safety of the American people for their pitiful quest of political vengeance.