Google Analytics

Friday, February 27, 2009

Go H RES 199!

Submitted by Rep Todd Tiahrt (KS) and Cosponsored by Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN],Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD], Rep Carter, John R. [TX], Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA], Rep Mack, Connie [FL], Rep Moran, Jerry [KS], Rep Paul, Ron [TX], Rep Price, Tom [GA], Rep Shimkus, John [IL]


1st Session

H. RES. 199

Providing that the Congress should stop passing massive Government bailouts.


Providing that the Congress should stop passing massive Government bailouts.

Whereas financial markets have been saturated with well over a trillion dollars from the Government ranging from the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at $200 billion, Bear Stearns at $29 billion, AIG at $85 billion; Wall Street at $700 billion, the automakers at $25 billion, and Citigroup at $247.5 billion;

Whereas, in 2008, total Federal spending increased by 11 percent to nearly $3 trillion;

Whereas Congress should not rely on the same failed economic policies of the past;

Whereas, by looking in the past, we see the massive spending initiatives that occurred during the 1930s and 1970s failed to produce economic growth;

Whereas the Government has a role in helping ensure American workers and industries are free to prosper, but these bailouts are nothing more than a mere band-aid that continues to follow a pattern of throwing more taxpayer money at a problem instead of addressing the root causes of the problem; and

Whereas Congress should address fundamental reforms to help American workers and businesses achieve long-term prosperity through incentives for private-sector solutions instead of Government involvement: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should stop passing massive Government bailouts.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Barack Obama "Public Will Have 5 Days To Look At Every Bill That Lands On My Desk"


Oh wait, except for the one that is the largest spending bill in American history!

History of HR 1

2/13/2009 Conference report agreed to in House: On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 246 - 183, 1 Present (Roll no. 70).
2/13/2009 Conference report agreed to in Senate: Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 60 - 38. Record Vote Number: 64.
Cleared for White House.
Presented to President.
2/17/2009 Expected signing by the President Signed by the President


When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you the public will have 5 days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.

So this looks like 1 day (which is less than 5), but even if we go back to when they voted it it through, on 2/13, that is only 4 days including a weekend which contained 2 holidays!

Not to mention, that the vote happened in Congress without them getting a chance to read it.

Obama Fails his own standard of bipartisanship

In the Wall Street Journal today William McGurn makes an excellent point about how the current administration got the stimulus bill done in a “bipartisan” manner. Which brings me back to my favorite political question “Are they liars or just stupid?”

In 1996 in Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope he outlines the definition and need for bipartisanship – especially in the face of a majority party which has the ability to run roughshod over the minority. Given how the stimulus bill was driven through Congress without any real Republican support, you would have thought the excerpts from the book came from the current Republican congressmen.

if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so -- the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this 'compromise' of being 'obstructionist.'

For the minority party in such circumstances, 'bipartisanship' comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being 'moderate' or 'centrist.'"

Can the Obama administration really consider this a successful bill given his strong stance on bipartisanship and compromise during the campaign?

Does he really believe it is a compromise when no one on the other side votes with you (Stupid) or does he just spout the rhetoric to further his party’s agenda (Liar)?

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Obama in Prime Time: 7 Questions Left on Cutting Room Floor


Larry Elder lists the 7 questions that Helen Thomas forgot to ask Barack Obama at the press conference earlier this week.

He indicates “no charge to use these.” Someone, PLEASE ASK THEM!!!

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Financial crisis already solved!

Quote of the day – brought to you by the Financial Times

How then would Adam Smith fix the present mess? Sorry, but it is fixed already. The answer to a decline in the value of speculative assets is to pay less for them. Job done.

Maybe his concepts were written 200 years ago but they still hold up and explain how we got to where we are today. And the only way to get out of this is to allow a little hurt to be spread around. Meaning that somebody holding the current assets has to sell them for less than they paid for them. Ouch? Yes, but that’s the risk and the reality.

Somebody has to pay and I’d rather it be the ones who took the risk than it be me. I’ll pay for my own risks. You pay for yours.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Just do it already!!! aka “House votes to delay digital TV transition”


How long has then been delayed? Years. How many times has it been delayed? Several.

MSNBC actually has a really good take on this

With a nation in economic turmoil, it seems the last thing on the to-do list of legislators should have been the transition to digital television

Absolutely! Only 6% of US households have only analog televisions that are not ready to receive digital signals. How close to they think they are going to get by postponing another few months and spending more money that we can’t afford.

Cut it off. Everyone has already had years to deal with this. The people who suddenly realize it when the signal goes to static will get properly educated when they go down to the local electronics store to buy a new converter or TV.

Monday, February 2, 2009

British official calls for fewer babies

Maybe Nancy Pilosi should get together with Jonathan Porritt (chairman of Britain's Sustainable Development Commission). He has just decided that maybe China’s birth policies weren’t so bad after all. 

A top British official says couples who have more than two children create an unbearable burden on the environment.

I think we will work our way towards a position that says having more than two children is irresponsible

Together I’m sure they could come up with a policy that will save the world both money and trees and babies all at the same time!

I also like that there is a solid figure on how much humans cost. An “amount of carbon equivalent to 20 acres of old-growth woodland.” Once we decide how much we are each worth then we can start to decide who gets to stay and who doesn’t.

This is especially important to note in the midst of all the backlash against Angela Suleman, the woman who gave birth to octuplets recently. Yes, maybe she shouldn’t have gone for invitro with 6 children already. Maybe the doctor should have denied her treatment as well. But, where do you draw the line - legally? How many kids are you willing to put down on paper is “the limit”? Or is it OK to just make it much more expensive and less successful by only allowing 1 egg at a time? Its personal and its not the government’s job.