Saturday, February 21, 2009

Talk about the foxes guarding the hen house.

by jwright
.
I just read an interesting piece on the Wall Street Journal.com web site written by Liz Peek where she stated that President Obama's first month in office had been graded an "F" by the folks on Wall Street. Certainly, the Dow Jones Industrial averages have plunged drastically and the economy hasn't improved even with the billion upon billions being stoked into it via "Stimulus" but can it all be Obama's fault? Anymore than what he inherited and blames on former President Bush is Bush's fault?

If presidents had the power to turn our national economy around, why didn't Jimmy Carter do it in the 1970s instead of allowing the quagmire that Ronald Reagan inherited to transpire? If presidents can do so much and be so powerful, why didn't President Bill Clinton alter the direction of the economy at the end of his second term of office?

In 2000, George W. Bush inherited what was rightly Clinton's recession, but the biased mainstream media and the Democrat politicians quickly blamed the weakening economy on Bush. Today, with the Democrats having been in control since 2006 as far as spending, none of what has taken place since Obama's nomination and election has stuck to him; it's still being blamed on Bush. I find it dazzling that the stream can flow in both directions simultaneously.

Much of this gigantic problem actually began in 1977 when Jimmy Carter who with the aid of the Democratic legislature enacted the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which forced financial institutions to lend mortgage money to questionable applicants who lived in questionable neighborhoods, all in the name of "Affordable Housing." FannieMae and FreddieMac guaranteed a lot of that money and you can see where that got us. Now today, it's more precious tax dollars going to bail out some of those mortgage loans.

Ignoring early warnings from the Bush Administration and even Senator John McCain, Democrat politicians Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, with the support of the Congressional Black Caucus claimed that these two financial institutions were lily-white in their dealings. Today those two gentlemen chair important legislative committees overseeing our economy and contribute greatly to Obama's economic policy. Talk about the foxes gaurding the hen house.

Essentially, many of the same people that helped to create this tremendous financial mess are the ones in charge of fixing it. I think it stinks to high heaven. "Change" definitely is necessary.

jaq~
by jwright

.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Are our State Legislators Becoming Too Elitist?

by jwright
.
In an recent article published here from the Oakland Press, Pontiac, Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, proposed that legislative term limits (implemented by the voters in 1992) should be rescinded because the state lawmakers don’t have time to do the people’s business. Their top priority, running for reelection, takes up too much of their time. Doing the people’s business came in a distant fourth.

It’s my understanding that their “top priority” was attending to the people’s business, that of representing and governing. For that they are paid a healthy $79,650.00 base salary (the second highest in the nation for state legislators) plus benefits and perquisites; all that for investing about 800 hours annually, or about 20 normal workweeks. They refer to that as “full-time,” and in doing so, Michigan is one of eleven states that have a full-time legislature. Additionally, if they serve for six years they are eligible to receive full pay at retirement.

Bishop also proposes that the legislature only serve “half-time.” It appears that’s the case already. Would his proposal also cut their salaries and benefits in half? The article didn’t say.

If our legislators haven’t the time to tackle and solve the steep learning curve in Lansing, and if running for reelection actually is their “top priority” upon taking office, then we as voters have been electing the wrong people.

As far as rescinding legislative term limits, it was reported a few weeks ago that 2/3 of the Michigan voters still approved of them, so why should we sit back and allow a few legislators in Lansing to overturn the voter’s will, especialy when it calls for amending the state constitution?
.
Perhaps an overhaul is needed, perhaps more drastic than Senator Bishop had in mind. Like others, I’m in favor of disbanding the State Senate altogether and forming a unicameral legislature limited to a six month annual session. That would be a start.
.
jaq~

Thursday, February 12, 2009

"Stealth Health?" If not, just call it Socialized Medicine

by jwright
.
Candidate Obama campaigned on the premise that all America would access the same health coverage that he and others in Congress enjoy. Wrong.
.
If the current pork-filled “Stimulus Plan” leaves the Congressional Conference Committee intact, count on socialized health care stealthily becoming law because president Obama’s “stimulus plan” contains an unprecedented federal takeover of our current healthcare system.
.
According to Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, here is some of what Obama and Company have in store, especially for those of us who are seniors:
.
Your current medical records, retrieved from your doctor or hospital, will be tracked electronically on a national database to be monitored and tracked to make sure they agree with what Washington, D.C. deems effective and necessary.
..
The new system is compulsory -- doctors and hospitals who are not "meaningful users" will be forced to pay penalties.
.
A new Health Czar - a "National Coordinator Of Health Information" - willoversee the system. The bill establishes something called the "Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research" that will ultimately establish what procedures are "effective.” A federal HMO in other words.
'
A dangerous standard of cost effectiveness will be added to the Medicare equation, which could lead to health rationing among the elderly for whom expensive treatments are less cost-effective. A senior can out live the benefit, in essence meaning that you will be considered too old for further treatments. Good luck. Maybe Good-bye.
.
This bill will affect every part of health care, how patients are treated and how much hospitals are paid. This “stealth health” bill allocates more funding for this new bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force combined.
.
European style socialized healthcare - attempted more than a decade ago by Hillary Clinton and thrown out, now masterminded by socialists strategists months ago and sneaked into the "stimulus” bill – may become law. Thank you Tom Daschle, who didn't become Secretary of HUD but did write this proposal into the "Stimulus Plan."
.
As an Obama staffer indicated in a TV interview, this is what the voters asked for. It isn’t what he promised.
.
jaq~

Monday, February 9, 2009

A Stone Deaf Senate vs. the People's Will?

by jwright~
.
The U.S. Senate is poised to vote and pass a humungous non-stimulus bill that according to the latest Rasmussen poll, 62 % of U.S. voters want the plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending. Just 14% would like it to move in the opposite direction.
.
Unfortunately, the majority isn’t being heard this time around except by 216 Republicans and 11 House Democrats who thus far are against it. It’s a Democrat bill.
.
A few days ago the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Senate’s “watch dog,” claimed that this overstuffed bill would do more damage in the end than it would help. According to even the best Democrat sources, this pork-laden bill will only create about 1.3 million jobs at best; that at a huge cost of more than $120,000 dollars each according to one Senator, and all at your grandkids expense. Well, boys and girls, the U.S. Treasury doesn’t have $815 billion spare dollars in it so the money will have to be borrowed and paid back eventually by someone. None of this has changed any Democrat Senator’s mind.
.
Several months ago when the so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Bill” was placed before the Senate, the people made it abundantly clear that this was not what they wanted. Upon hearing that loud and clear, the Senate let the bill die. This go-round, with a Democrat controlled Senate and House, it’s fat city and our future taxpayers are going to pay the bill. I find that unconscionable and highly irresponsible.
.
I’m a conservative that is all for seeing President Obama succeed, as long as what he espouses is for the greater good of the country. If it’s only an expensive, wasteful measure to ensure that his party and those elected representatives in it succeed and gain in political power, then count me out.
.
jaq~

Friday, February 6, 2009

More "old politics and influence peddling."

by jwright
.
Failure to pass the so-called Stimulus bill will be a catastrophe? So says claims our new president. It’s so urgent that our economy may collapse if your grand-kids don’t borrow the dollars somewhere to fund these Spending programs? Excuse Me?

I don’t see a lot of stimulus or urgency in much of the following; all of which are included in Obama’s “stimulus” package, and it isn't bi-partisan in any way, shape of means:

$145 billion for “Making Work Pay” tax credits; $89 billion for Medicaid; $83 billion for the earned income credit; $79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund; $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits; $30 billion for COBRA insurance extension; $20 billion for food stamps; $15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships; $15 billion for business-loss carry-backs; $8 billion for innovative technology loan guarantee program; $6.2 billion shall be for the Weatherization Assistance Program; $6 billion for university building projects; $4.5 billion for electricity grid; $4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; $4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”; $4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion to provide “youth” summer jobs for people up to the age of 24; $3.5 billion shall be for energy efficiency and conservation block grants; $3.4 billion shall be for the State Energy Program; $2.4 billion for carbon-capture; demonstration projects; $2 billion for federal child care block grants; $2 billion for renewable energy research; $2 billion for a “clean-coal” power plant in Illinois.
.
Those are just a portion of the total bill.
.
Columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote: “(Obama was elected) to create something new -- a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new.”
.
Instead folks, we’re getting “perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington.” This is not the “Change” I expected.
.
jaq~
.
Krauthammer source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020502766_pf.html

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Change? Same ol'' Deceitful Crap; Different Faces.

by jwright
.
It’s interesting how many times during the past eight years that we heard the words, “Bush lied!’ When the dust settled and we examined his words, they weren’t exactly lies at all, just wishful thinking by those engaged in what later became known as "Bush Derangement Syndrome."
.
Now we have a shiny new administration in Washington, one whose major premise whilst campaigning was that “Change” was on the horizon,; a new era of political ethics was coming our way. Huh?

First, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson withdrew his name for Commerce Secretary because of some shady “pay-for-play” dealings that are still under investigation. Then we are presented with a questionable nominee for Attorney General, who had he been a Republican would have been sent packing, instead he was confirmed by the Democrats in the Senate..

Following that, Timothy Geithner, who previously failed to pay the IRS all its due ($25,970.00) now heads up the Treasury Department wwhich also overseesg the IRS. Hey! The guy is sharp, and in our current state of national economic crisis; the "best" man for the job! (End sarcasm)

This was followed by former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle who didn’t pay more than $140,000 in taxes or even bother to report it; he’ll possibly be out next HUD Secretary. His excuse? “I forgot.” Good grief, could you or I get away with a simple “I forgot?” Yet today, Obama’s pick for Performance post, Czarina Nancy Killefer, withdrew her name over a potential income tax problem. (Within hours after I wrote this post, Tom Daschle withdrew his name from contention.) Bully!

“Is this really the message he (Obama) wants to convey (snip), a message that it’s O.K. to break or skirt the law just as long as you’re a good guy with a special skill?” asked Andy Ostroy, a blogger writing on the liberal Huffington Web site.

During the campaign, Candidate Obama said he would not allow former lobbyists in his administration: already he has named at least three, possibly a fourth. His excuse: there are hundreds of posts to be filled and hiring three that are previous lobbyists is not a problem. It is to me President Obama, IF you say you aren't going to hire the first one and then proceed to break your word.

Worse, Candidate Obama pledged to ban earmarks from future Congressional bills (AKA “bringin’ home the bacon!” ) yet he doesn’t seem concerned with this massive taxpayer funded “$817 billion (non)-Stimulus” bill being considered in the Senate. (Reportedly, it's getting bigger... worse in other words,)

Change? Same ol’ deceitful crap; different faces. That's the way it appears from my living room.

jaq~