Posts
A $630 billion spending bill nearing final approval in Congress includes $6.6 billion for thousands of lawmakers' pet projects, including $51.5 million requested by Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden when both presidential candidates have sworn off seeking any money. Read the entire article. 
Adding insult to injury - or in this case Congressionally mandated theft - the Democratically controlled Congress is passing $6.6 billion in earmarks - special interest spending that has never gone through the legislative process of debate and vote, spending that has never been subject to competitive bidding. Republicans were shoulder to shoulder with their Democratic partners at the trough.
______________________________________________________
This from the USA Today:
Taxpayers for Common Sense analyzed the 2,321 special-interest items called "earmarks" in the spending bill. The legislation is a temporary measure that would fund the government through March, rather than October 2009, when the next fiscal year ends. It combines spending bills for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs, as well as nearly $30 billion in disaster relief for flood and hurricane victims and up to $25 billion in loans to automakers.
The House of Representatives approved the measure 370-58 on Wednesday, and the Senate is likely to follow before members leave Washington to head home for the November elections.
Both presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, have criticized earmarks. McCain, who doesn't request earmarks, has said that as president, he would veto any bill containing them. Since joining the Senate in 2005, Obama has requested $860.6 million in earmarks, according to the taxpayer group, but none this year, and he has pledged to reduce them if elected president. . . .
The list of top earmarkers:
Senate
Ted Stevens, R-Alaska $238.5 million
Thad Cochran, R-Miss. $226.6 million
Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. $224.9 million
Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii $222.2 million
House
John Murtha, D-Pa. $111.1 million
C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla. $99 million
Jerry Lewis, R-Calif. $78.2 million
Dave Obey, D-Wis. $51.5 million
This corrupting and corrupt process will not end until reform is forced down the throat of lawmakers of both parties. For Democrats, earmarks are the currency of their politics. For Republicans, they are poison pills that rip apart the party.
Showing posts with label pork. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pork. Show all posts
Friday, September 26, 2008
Congress At The Earmark Trough
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Analysis Of The ABC Interview Of Gov. Palin Part II – Reform, Earmarks, Abortion, Guns,
President Bush seems to grasp the issue. A year ago he publicly complained that "over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate. They are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You didn't vote them into law. I didn't sign them into law. Yet, they're treated as if they have the force of law." To make the matter worse, these in the latter category are far too often vaguely worded, open ended funding requests. The latter category absolutely must be killed if we are ever to have a hope of getting control on spending and reducing corruption. The former category needs to severely restricted, though there needs to be a lot of thought given to how to do this without unduly restricting reasonable requests for funding. That is a systemic problem that needs to be debated and reformed at the highest level of government. That said, given the abuses of the system at this point, we need to ere for the foreseeable future on the restricting such requests to the minimum possible.
Comments -
The second part of the ABC interview is an improvement over Part I. Gov. Palin is more at ease with questions and she comes across as conservative, reasonable and sincere. Again the questions were fair but, as in segment I, there were flaws. Charlie Gibson questioning could have been much clearer on his questions regarding earmarks.
Gibson's opening question was what sets Gov. Palin apart from the Bush regime in terms of "change" and "reform." Her list of what she would change are lower taxes, fiscal restraint, and improved oversight of federal and quasi-government agencies. Fiscal restrain is the big part. I wish she had talked about the need to reform entitlement programs as that is, as Gibson intimates, the major hurdle in restraining spending.
On the economy, the big question in this segment concerned earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere. Gov. Palin is attempting to make more out her final killing of the Bridge to Nowhere than is justified – probably because it makes for a good sound byte. Yes, she did redirect the funding from the Bridge project. But she did not reject the funding or otherwise return it to the federal government. Pushing this too far will hurt her.
At the same time, Charlie Gibson was making far less out of Gov. Palin’s record for reducing earmark requests in her state. No, she has not killed all of them, but she has reduced request for them significantly and she is clearly on record as intending to reduce such requests for her state in the future. Further, Chalie Gibson’s question on earmarks shows a fundamental confusion on the issue. Gov. Palin’s answer indicates she fully understands it.
There are two different categories of earmarks, and though both are problematic, one is far more problematic than the other. The lesser of two evils is when individual legislators request spending for a specific project within their state or for a special interest that is then debated and voted upon by Congress. But there is another category of earmark abuse that is the preponderance of the problem. The vast majority of earmarks do not go through the process just described. They are never debated and voted upon by Congress. They do not see the light of day in effect. This from the Weekly Standard describes the problem:
Over at the Next Right, they have a superb example of how the corrupt version of earmarking works. Their example is Dem. Senator Carl Levin who literally is refusing any debate in a matter that will allow $5.9 billion in earmarks pass into law in the Defense Appropriations Bill without every being debated or voted upon in Congress.
Gov. Palin gets this one. I hope the audience watching does also. The fact is Palin and McCain will, I fully expect, make a very good faith effort to impose fiscal restraint, reduce pork and clean up the earmark process. And while all three of those are related, they are also separate - something Gibson seems to muddle in his questioning.
On "social issues," I think Palin hit all the questions out of the ball park. She came across as conservative but reasonable and willing to be flexible. In that regard, she made an important point - she distinguished between her personal views and what she believed would be reasonable policy in light of those who disagree with her.
Gibson's first question concerned abortion. Palin's answer was music to my ears. As she said, she would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and abortion made a state issue. She does not want abortion made illegal, but she wants to see a greater "culture of life."
Hers is hardly an extremist position on either count (though her personal opinion that abortion is wrong even in cases of rape and incest puts her is not centrist by any means.) Indeed, the position that she articulates on Roe was one shared by now Justice Ginsburgh, a staunch advocate of abortion rights, who also believed that Roe was wrongly decided. Abortion appears nowhere in the Constitution. It is a social issue that the federal government should have no role in authorizing or limiting. Given my own personal opinion that nothing has done more damage to our Supreme Court jurisprudence than Roe v. Wade, it is a position I believe fundamental to putting our nation back on track. Roe opened up the flood gates for judicial activism - and it is a floodgate that has not been stemmed for nearly half a century. You can find much more on the issue in a seperate post that I did - The Supreme Court, Originalism, Activism & America's Future.
On homosexuality, her answer ought to give the gay rights community a warm fuzzy feeling. She simply said that she will not judge people's lifestyle. Although she did not mention it, I recall that she also supported gay friendly legislation in Alaska. Gibson did not ask her about her stance on gay marriage.
On guns, Gibson prefaced his question by stating that 70% of Americans support a ban on assault rifles. I would love to know where he got that number - that sounds like pure bull. Nonetheless, Palin's answer here was I thought very strong. They cut some of her answer to this line of questioning that I have seen in another video where she makes the very valid point that gun laws take guns out of the hands of the law abiding, not the criminals.
And the PUMA's ought to appreciate Gibson raising the fact that Palin spoke so highly of Hillary long before she was on the radar for the VP slot. That certainly makes her praise of Hillary on the campaign trail seem genuine and not cynical. And you have to love her dig at Obama - that he should have chosen Hillary as his VP pick.
Overall, I would grade Gov. Palin’s performance a solid B in the economic segment, an A in the social segment. I wish she would have expounded more upon the Obama tax plan and I wish Charlie Gibson’s questioning on ear marks and pork had been much clearer.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Dining At The Trough - Obama & Palin Compared
. . . My Senate colleague Barack Obama is now attacking Gov. Sarah Palin over earmarks. Having worked with both John McCain and Mr. Obama on earmarks, and as a recovering earmarker myself, I can tell you that Mrs. Palin's leadership and record of reform stands well above that of Mr. Obama. Read the entire article.
Senator Jim DeMint, McCain's ideological next of kin, has written an article in today's WSJ drawing the stark contrasts between the records of Obama and Palin on the issue of earmarks. The bottom line, for Obama to criticize Palin's credentials on earmarks is the height of hypocrisy.
This from Sen. DeMint in the WSJ:
Let's compare.
Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state's history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility."
Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor's center in Louisiana.
Mrs. Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska's decades-long earmark addiction.
Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.
Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.
When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.
Mrs. Palin has proven courageous by taking on big spenders in her own party. In March of this year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that, "Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin's antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state."
Mr. Obama had a chance to take on his party when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered a sham ethics bill, which was widely criticized by watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste for shielding earmarks from pubic scrutiny. But instead of standing with taxpayers, Mr. Obama voted for the bill. Today, he claims he helped write the bill that failed to clean up Washington.
Mr. Obama has shown little restraint on earmarks until this year, when he decided to co-sponsor an earmark moratorium authored by Mr. McCain and myself. Mr. Obama is vulnerable on this issue, and he knows it. That is why he is lashing out at Mrs. Palin and trying to hide his own record.
Mrs. Palin is one of the strongest antiearmark governors in America. If more governors around the country would do what she has done, we would be much closer to fixing our nation's fiscal problems than we are. . . .
Friday, August 29, 2008
Gov. Palin and Reactions
Part I: John McCain's Introduction of Gov. Palin in Ohio
Part II - McCain introduction (Cont'd.)
Part III - Gov. Sarah Palin's Speech
Part IV - Gov. Sarah Palin's Speech (Cont'd.)
Rush is a happy camper:
- It’s an inspired choice… this is absolutely fabulous.”
- “We’re the ones with the babe on the ticket.”
- “And this is a real Republican woman. This woman hunts moose. She is a total maverick.”
The Volokh Conspiracy visited a pro-Hillary web-site and found them ecstatic in page after page of comments reacting to the news of Sarah Palin being nominated.
Jonah Goldberg gives his reaction.
From Vinny in the comments:
- Its Sarah and John against the Obaminator
The editors at NRO are quite pleased with this pick.
And Mark Levin has also jumped wholly on the McCain ship on the basis of the Palin selection.
From Soccer Dad, on Palin's blue collar husband.
A bevy of links at Instapundit.
And several posts and comments at Ann Althouse. I thought this comment was particularly interesting:
10:21: More from the comments. This is from Peter V. Bella:
Man, the leftist whackos and nutroots are going to come out of the woodwork like cockroaches. Pallin wears fur, she hunts and eats moose burgers, she is a life long member of the NRA, and the worst, the absolute worst crime -- her husband is a fisherman who works in the oil fields in the off-season. Yep, a regular working stiff. The kind of guy they hate and are jealous of. Not a lawyer or a fuzzy headed policy wonk; not a professor of basket weaving or Mayan Mysticism, not someone who lives off the teat of government grants; but a real, solid, hard core, working man. A guy who gets his hands dirty every day. The average Joe American.
What makes her even more odious is she actually worked with her husband on the fishing boats. She really, actually worked for a living. The Gospel chorus is lining up to rage and rant; “my God, how can he pick someone like that? Working people, why, they, they, they, know too much about real life!”
PETA, the anti-gun nuts, ELF, KOS, MYDD, Huffingglue and probably a host of others will be gnashing their teeth, pounding their drums, shaking their chubby little fists and green tamborines, and going into full, foaming at the mouth, rabid attack mode. They are going to have heartastrokes over this.
On The Left:
At Time - already raising the spectre of Dan Quayle.
Susan Estrich launches a viscious attack on Palin as the anti-Hillary. I like her more already. One obvious differnce. Palin is self-made. She made it to governor on her own, not by riding the coattails of the man she married.
Via HotAir, from CNN - Hey, won't Palin be neglecting her Downs Syndrome baby?
Not all on the left are frothing. Talkleft has some sound advice for the left. I wonder what the odds are it will be heeded?
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) Indicted On Seven Counts
Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in the U.S. Senate and one of the chamber's most powerful members, was indicted Tuesday in Washington for failing to disclose more than $250,000 worth of gifts that he received from businessmen who were seeking his help on federal issues and projects. Read the entire article. All I can say is, it's about time.
King of pork, author of the Bridge to Nowhere, and the corrupt poster child for all that was wrong with the Republican Party, has been indicted on seven counts by a grand jury in Washington, D.C.
___________________________________________________________
This from McClatchy News:
The seven-count indictment charges Stevens with making false statements by failing to disclose things of value he received from the Veco Corp., an Alaska-based oil services compmany, and from its CEO, Bill Allen, over an eight-year period.
The indictment charges that among the undeclared items were substantial improvements to Stevens' home in Girdwood, Alaska; automobile exchanges in which he received new vehicles that were worth far more than the old ones he exchanged; and household goods, including a Viking gas grill.
At the same time, according to the indictment, Stevens received solicitations for official actions from Allen and and other Veco employees, and used his office on behalf of Veco.
The federal Ethics in Government Act requires all senators to file financial disclosures statements detailing their transactions during the previous calendar year, including the disclosure of gifts above a specified value and all liabilities greater than $10,000.
Allen, the former Veco CEO and Richard Smith, a former Veco vice-president of community affairs and government relations, pleaded guilty in May, 2007, to providing more than $400k in corrupt payments to public officials from Alaska.
A broad federal investigation of public corruption has been under way in Alaska for more than four years, . . .
Alaska's sole congressman, Don Young, is also under federal investigation.
Stevens' home in Girdwood was renovated in 2000. Those renovations doubled the size of the home and were overseen by Veco Corp. chief executive Bill Allen. Witnesses with knowledge of Veco's role have reported testifying before grand juries in Anchorage and Washington, D.C.
Stevens has said he paid all the bills he was presented, leaving open the question of whether he was billed the entire amount. . . .
Monday, May 19, 2008
A Case Study in Republican Suicide
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, 38 and having served less than five terms, did not leap over a dozen of his seniors to become the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee by bashing GOP leaders. But an angry Ryan delivered unscripted remarks on the House floor last Wednesday as the farm bill neared passage: "This bill is an absence of leadership. This bill shows we are not leading." Read the entire article. This is just sheer insanity.
The Farm Bill has always been problematic. Agricultural policy in America is a patchwork of protectionism, payoffs and pork that skews production and marks the worst of democratic government. And this year's Farm Bill is a particularly egregious example of that policy. But worse is that it will pass into law with the support of not only the Republican party, but the leadership of our Congressional Republicans. Everything that is wrong with today's Republican Party is summed up in the story of how this bill attained a veto proof majority and relief from the ban on earmarks.
________________________________________________________
This from Robert Novack today in the Washington Post:
Ryan's fellow reformer Jeff Flake of Arizona, 45 and in his fourth term, is less cautious about defying the leadership and has been kept off key committees. On Wednesday, he said of a $300 billion bill that raises farm subsidies and is filled with non-farm pork, "Sometimes, here in Washington, we tend to drink our own bath water and believe our own press releases."
A bill that raises spending 44 percent above last year's level has been approved by a majority of both Senate and House Republicans, dooming any chance of sustaining President Bush's promised veto. . . .
George W. Bush was just as ambivalent. In 2002, he signed a massive farm bill. But with Democrats now in control of Congress, Bush preaches the old-time religion. Addressing the House Republican caucus behind closed doors at the White House on May 7, he disclosed that he would veto the farm bill, then implied it was all right if members "voted their districts" -- that is, if the "aggies" supported the bill. This message was pressed on his colleagues by Rep. Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, ranking Republican on the House Agriculture Committee.
. . . There was never any hope [of sustaining a vetor] in the Senate, where Republican leader Mitch McConnell not only supported the farm bill but also earmarked a tax provision benefiting horse farms in his state of Kentucky. But in the House, Republican leader John Boehner always has been anti-pork, even if he's been passive about exhorting other Republicans to follow his example.
On May 9, Flake sent Boehner a candid letter: "We need more than individual members of the Republican leadership to state their opposition to the bill. We need the leadership to use its good offices to explain the importance of sustaining the president's veto as opposed to advising members to 'vote their districts.' " Last Tuesday, waiting four days before responding, Boehner rejected the "vote their districts" escape for House Republicans: "I believe they should also vote their consciences, and cast their votes in a manner consistent with the small government principles upon which our party was founded." Boehner took the floor Wednesday to speak against the bill.
But nobody cracked the party whip. On the contrary, Minority Whip Roy Blunt voted for the bill. So did Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam, who was seen whipping for passage. House Republicans voted 100 to 91 to approve the bill (with only 15 Democrats opposed), assuring a veto override. Similarly, in the Senate, 35 Republicans voted for the bill. Only 13 Republicans voted no, and the only Democrats opposing it were Rhode Island's two senators.
That did not conclude the dismal Republican performance for the week, as lawmakers raced out Thursday for their usual long weekend. Seventeen pork-minded Republican senators gave the Democratic leadership necessary support to waive from the farm bill the brand-new ban of earmarks on a bill that had cleared both houses. . . .
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Earmarks & Tin Ears
House Minority Leader John Boehner and his colleagues among the GOP leadership shanked one this week on the earmarks issue. A GOP slot opened up on the House Appropriations Committee, which signs off on the pet projects of lawmakers. If Boehner and company were serious about ending the earmark culture, which has badly undermined the credibility of Congress, they had a perfect man to fill the vacancy: Jeff Flake of Arizona. He has introduced more amendments to strike earmarks than any other member of the House, and putting him on the appropriations panel would have shown that the GOP was no longer just talking about earmark reform. Instead, Boehner and company settled on Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama. Read the post here. Rep. Bonner is highly porcine. And in the Republican Senate, things are worse. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell - himself a heavy feeder at the earmark trough - is providing something far less than stellar leadership on this issue. This from the Hill explains the situation: Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) may return to Capitol Hill this month to support an amendment imposing a one-year ban on earmarks, a move that could set up a divisive clash within the GOP caucus. Read the article here. As Bluegrass Roots puts it: So Mitch McConnell has a choice: (1) continue his campaign strategy of bragging about how how pork and government waste he can bring to KY in order to secure support for himself, or (2) go with "conservative" principles and end earmarks for the sake of John McCain and the Republican Party. Read the post here. If Republicans succeed in recapturing either the Senate, the House, or the Presidency, it will be on the strength of John McCain's national security credentials and his very principled position to reform our government. It will be over the kicking and screaming of our current tin-eared Congressional Republican leadership. This really will be a battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party. As Ed Morrisey states: A vote for fiscal responsibility will put McCain in conflict with the GOP? The party won’t back McCain on earmarks, even though his improbable come-from-behind victory for the party’s nomination shows exactly how seriously the Republican voters take fiscal responsibility, transparency, and accountability? Read the post here. This tin ear among our Congressional Republican leadership is setting up a battle that they cannot possibly win in the long run and that can only do untold damage to the conservative cause.
Congressional earmarks are perhaps the most emblamatic symbol of corruption and out of control spending by our government. Republican Presidential nominee John McCain has taken a clear and fiscally conservative stand against earmarks, promising not to sign a single bill with earmarks. Republicans lost the 2006 election in large measure because of their profligate spending and embrace of earmarks. So how idiotic is it that our Republican caucus is now going to break with McCain on his call for ending earmarks?
_________________________________________________________
Some things make you step back and wonder just how out of touch our leadership is in Washington. In both the House and the Senate, the Republican leadership talks about fiscal responsibility, but their actions tell another story entirely - one that suggests that they are fitting comfortably into their role as a minority party. This a few weeks ago from Instapundit on the problems in the House:
McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, has long broken with most of Congress, including the Senate Republican leadership, in seeking an end to the practice of inserting line items in spending bills for parochial projects. . . .
“I absolutely would support such an amendment – and abolish [earmarks] altogether,” McCain said, according to the Red State blog. “As I’ve said, I will veto any earmark project that comes across my desk.”
McCain is highlighting his opposition to earmarks as a way to appease conservatives skeptical of his candidacy because of other issues, such as his support for a legalization program for illegal immigrants and campaign finance restrictions and his initial opposition to President Bush’s tax cuts. On the stump, he has criticized his Democratic opponents, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), for individually securing almost $4 million and $100 million, respectively, for pet projects in the fiscal 2008 spending legislation enacted in December.
McCain, who secured no pet projects in the recent spending law, calls them a waste of taxpayer dollars.
“I really can’t tell you, traveling and campaigning now for many months, how dispirited the Bridge to Nowhere or earmark and pork-barrel spending was to our Republican base,” he said on this week's conference call. “We lost in 2006 not because of Iraq but because spending got out of control.”
. . . A McConnell aide said the Republican leader probably wouldn’t take a position on the DeMint measure until after the GOP task force issues its recommendations. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, McConnell secured $126 million in individual earmarks in the recently enacted spending law; his deputy and Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl earmarked $2 million; the third-ranking Senate Republican leader, Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), inserted $6 million individually; GOP Policy Chairwoman Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas) racked up almost $42 million in projects; and Conference Vice Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) got $14 million.
If McCain returns and lobbies his members to support an amendment that the leadership opposes, it could test rank-and-file members to support either their nominee or their Senate leaders.
“McCain is a Senate reformer who’s locked horns with our leadership for years,” a GOP aide said. “But now he’s our nominee and the old bulls will have to decide if their pork is more important than our party’s future.”
But when it comes to Mitch McConnell, one thing should be certain: the only thing he cares about is himself and his own power. McConnell does not have any principle and will do whatever is necessary for himself. So, as the GOP aide said in the story, Mitch indeed will have to "decide if (his) pork is more important than (his) party’s future."
Don't hold your breath folks, I can tell you how this story ends.
This shows the deafness that comes from living within the Beltway for too long. If the Republicans didn’t lose in 2006 because of Iraq, nor because of profligate spending, nor because of corruption generated from the nexus of political contributions and earmarking, exactly why do these geniuses think they’re in the minority? Misaligned stars in the firmament? Not only did the voters send a message on corruption, they had it delivered by FedEx with two signatures and a return receipt. Yet the survivors of 2006 somehow think that fiscal responsibility doesn’t matter.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
A Lame Duck Quacks (Updated)
I just watched President Bush’s State of the Union Speech. All in all, I thought it was one of the strongest speeches I have ever heard him give. Bush spoke with a rare gravitas and clarity on all of the major issues. You can find the text of his speech here, as well as video and audio.
There is clearly a lot that Bush mentioned that just is not going to happen with the Democrats in control of Congress. That said, the best line of the night came when Bush tweaked the Democrats about making his tax cuts permanent:
Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm, and I am pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders.
Even Nancy Pelosi cracked a smile on camera for that one.
And Bush was singing sweet music to the conservative base, calling for balanced budgets, limitations on spending, and most importantly, a real cut back on earmarks. Admittedly, Bush's new found fiscal conservatism could qualify as the topic of an example sentence in Webster's Dictionary for the definition of "hypocrisy." Conservatives will not care.
Republicans spending the tax dollars of America like drunken Democrats and the scent of corruption associated with earmarks like the "bridge to nowhere" cost Republicans the election in 2006. Now Bush, if not all Republican lawmakers, has found religion on this issue. Bush just reclaimed the mantle of fiscal conservativism and helped out his party in the coming elections immensely.
As to the earmarks, Bush promised to veto spending bills that did not cut by half the number and cost of earmarks, and he promised to "issue an Executive Order that directs Federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by the Congress." What he is referring to is the habit of slipping earmarks into committee reports that then are treated as law despite the fact they have never been subject to a vote.
I was highly unimpressed with Bush's discussion of energy. You will recall that he signed into law last month a "bipartisan" energy bill that emphasized, in part, biofuels. What we are seeing around the world now, in large measure because of the biofuel program, is a steep rise in food prices that only portends to get only worse. This is bad for the economy and particularly hard on the poor. Moreover, biofuels are significantly less environmentally friendly than oil and gas. See here and here. Yet, in his speech, Bush seemed to be indicating his continued support for biofuels. I think that a huge mistake.
Another major theme in Bush's speech concerned the Protect America Act (PAA) which will sunset on Friday if the Congress does not act. The PAA closes the loopholes in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act so that we can monitor communications between people on foreign soil without the necessity of a warrant. But it also contains a grant of immunity to private companies that assisted the government post 9-11 with intelligence gathering. The Democrats postponed a vote on that bill today because they did not want Bush to be able to say in his speech that the Democratic Congress voted down the bill.
The real problem for Democrats is that one of their constituencies, the tort lawyers, are eyeing a huge payday by suing the communications companies that voluntarily cooperated with the Justice Department post 9-11 in domestic intelligence gathering. Once again, for Democrats, partisan politics trumps our national security.
The majority of Bush's speech was given over to discussing Iraq. Bush covered the surge, noting the tremendous success it has had in quelling the violence in Iraq that was, in large measure, driven by al Qaeda terrorists and Iran. Bush also spelled out the successes of the government of Iraq, noting the progress towards provincial elections, the equal sharing of oil revenue, and the recent passage of both a de-Baathification law and pension law. Those last two mark substantial progress towards reconciliation. Most important of all was Bush spelling out the potential fruits of victory and the consequences of failure in Iraq.
Any further drawdown of U.S. troops will be based on conditions in Iraq and the recommendations of our commanders. General Petraeus has warned that too fast a drawdown could result in the "disintegration of the Iraqi Security Forces, Al Qaeda-Iraq regaining lost ground, [and] a marked increase in violence." Members of Congress: Having come so far and achieved so much, we must not allow this to happen. . . .
The mission in Iraq has been difficult and trying for our Nation. But it is in the vital interest of the United States that we succeed. A free Iraq will deny Al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will show millions across the Middle East that a future of liberty is possible. And a free Iraq will be a friend of America, a partner in fighting terror, and a source of stability in a dangerous part of the world.
By contrast, a failed Iraq would embolden extremists, strengthen Iran, and give terrorists a base from which to launch new attacks on our friends, our allies, and our homeland. The enemy has made its intentions clear. At a time when the momentum seemed to favor them, Al Qaeda's top commander in Iraq declared that they will not rest until they have attacked us here in Washington. My fellow Americans: We will not rest either. We will not rest until this enemy has been defeated. We must do the difficult work today, so that years from now people will look back and say that this generation rose to the moment, prevailed in a tough fight, and left behind a more hopeful region and a safer America.
Bush also touched on Iran, but only in relative passing. The NIE on Iran neutered our ability to hold out the threat of force to coerce the mad mullahs into ending ever quickening march towards a nuclear weapon, and it showed in the speech. Bush all but announced our capitulation on that issue tonight. Further – and maddeningly – he took note that Iran is responsible for the death of our soldiers in Iraq, and then just let the topic drop there. Although Bush tried to sound bellicose, the words "act of war" were left unsaid. It was all very hollow - and in the end, I think may only encourage further acts of deadly meddling by Iran's theocrats.
Bush's speech was wide ranging, but those were the highs and lows as I saw them. You can find the WaPo spin here, and an ironic bit of "fact checking" here. What an incredibly disingenuous bit that WaPo fact checking is. And you will find some stomach churning spin from the NYT here. You can also find Fred Barnes take on the speech here.
And unless I am really reading the signals wrong, open season was just declared in Demland for Hillary hunting. First there was the Kennedy clan endorsing Obama today. Then there was what occurred tonight.
Hillary Clinton's name did not come up in the State of the Union Speech by the President. Nor did it explicitly come up when Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius gave the Democratic Respone. But read this portion of Sebelius's speech:
And so I want to take a slight detour from tradition on this State of the Union night. In this time, normally reserved for a partisan response, I hope to offer something more: An American response. A national call to action on behalf of the struggling families in the heartland and across this great country. A wake-up call to Washington, on behalf of a new American majority, . . .
You can find the full speech here. Wow. What does it say when the official response of the Democratic Party adopts the themes of Obama and reads like one of his stump speechs? Obama just got a huge DNC embrace . . . and it would appear that Hillary has fallen from grace in a very big way.
As an aside, Sebelius was even more wooden reading from a teleprompter than Gore at his worst. And as to the substance of the speech, it was a typical call for the President to put aside partisanship and just, by golly, show your true support for America -- by agreeing to every socialist program the Democrats can dream up. In other words, it really was an Obama stump speech.
Final Score:
President Bush – 7
Obama – 3
Fox News - 0 and need to give Major Garrat a crash course on professional journalism.
Hillary Clinton - 0 and feeling hunted.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Interesting News From Around The Web - 12/22/2007
Secretary of Defense Gates says that Pakistan is now al Qaeda’s primary target. And now a suicide attack inside a crowded Mosque in a settled area of Pakistan.
When the NYT runs positive front page articles on a particular Republican presidential candidate, why do I feel like there is an ulterior motive?
More on the destroyed CIA Tapes, this time from the 9-11 Commission staff.
Is China’s military operating outside of Politburo control?
Is global warming a cover for countries to try and gain economically at our expense?
The WSJ takes note of the incredible sophistry of Ms. Clinton’s far left foreign policy statements.
Reversing a trend that began with the Jacobites some 200 years ago, Sarkozy, a Catholic, is urging a greater role for religion in France’s public life.
Soccer Dad looks at Iranian influence on this side of the pond which, in reality, has been with us and growing for many years: "Allowing Iranian influence to grow in the Western hemisphere presents a threat to the United States. Will the government act to forestall this threat or allow it to grow unchecked?" If the latest NIE is any indication, we will not be forestalling that threat anywhere in the world.
I do not understand Israel’s restraint in failing to respond with overwhelming force when they are regularly attacked from the Gaza Strip. The latest is six qassam rockets that landed in an Israeli school yard. Joshuapundit has the story.
A Porkbusters letter to the President pleading for an end to earmarks in the Omnibus Spending Bill.
The insane energy bill that skews agricultural production and puts us on the edge of incredible inflation in the price of food.
Rick Moran at Right Wing Nuthouse throws his political endorsement behind Fred Thompson.
The question of universal healthcare has several facets, but the gate keeper is can such a system be made to work without degrading the quality of care. The Glittering Eye has an interesting post on this from the perspective of a Canadian doctor.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Interesting News From Around the Web
The big news of the day, Chavez loses his bid for dictatorial powers in Venezuela by democratic vote. Fausta’s Blog has the story. And here is a WaPo article on the loss. Given Hugo’s past, its amazing the official results of this vote came out as they did. So whither now, Hugo? Daniel Duquenal at PJM ponders the possibilities.
Not all putatitve dictators for life received bad news yesterday. Putin’s party won handily in Russia amid charges of large scale fraud.
Sudan has pardoned the British teacher, Gillian Gibbons, who caused untold damage to the delicate sensibilities of Salafists by allowing her class to name Muhammad’s teddy bear Muhammad.
“Last month, the Senate had to choose how to spend $400 million: health insurance for 173,000 children, or 1,056 pork projects. Pork won, 68-26.” It seems the Democrats’ promises to clean up Washington have not quite panned out. Unfortunately, this is a bipartisan malignancy. Suicidal Republicans desperately need to clean up their act on this one, also.
Men are simple creatures. Women often ask: ‘What underwear do you like to see me in?’ and the usual answer is: ‘Any underwear.’ Unless your relationship has been going so long that you have sex only on special occasions, such as the installation of a new Pope, then most men are just pathetically grateful to see women partially unclothed.” More hardhitting journalism from my favorite tabloid, the Daily Mail
France is “stunned by rioter’s savagery.” The left blames the rioting on social injustice. Sarkozy is of a different view.
Instapundit links to a fascinating post on one of the more corrupt practices in our legal system, judge shopping in politicly charged cases.
After much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects, it is now known that a noose and threatening letter left at a Baltimore Fire Department station two weeks ago was left by an African American employee who was having problems in his job.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Interesting News From Around The Net
The Boston Globe notes that the Democrats in Washington are feeding heavilly at the trough, with Jack Murtha being the biggest hog. The Republicans are only a little better, unfortunately. For my part, I think if our House and Senate Republican leadership had any guts they would try and clean up the party. It needs it desperately.
And in a related story, "During his first six years in the White House, [Bush] never met a pork-stuffed spending bill he didn't like -- or dislike enough to veto. But now that he's seen the light on federal spending, Democrats in Congress are giving him plenty of opportunities to make amends for his wasteful ways.
Is North Korea finally going Chinese? Der Spiegel is reporting on a North Korean experiment in capitalism.
Even Der Spiegel can see what the NY Times and Congressional Democrats cannot - that Iraq has turned around and that, much to their consternation, Bush is anything but a lame duck.
Islamists like the dark and want no examination of their Wahhabi religion. They are often aided in that quest by useful idiots in the West who are lulled into support or tolerance out of sheer ignorance. But sometimes the Islamists strike paydirt in such people as London's Mayor Red Ken, who aggressively and suicidally embraces the Islamists, defending them against any criticism.
Channel 4 in Britain has finally been cleared following an investigation demanded by Islamists into their expose, Undercover Mosque. If you have not seen it yet - watch it. As I said, Islamists do not want the light of day shined on their religion. If everyone understood what was going on in the Wahhabi Mosques, there would be a lot more concern, though no Islamaphobia. A phobia is an unjustified fear. There is a world of justification for being concerned with Wahhabi Islam.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Interesting News from Around the Web
"This Is Your Brain on Hillary: Political Neuroscience Hits New Low in New York Times." Heh.
American culture is defined by our ideas, not our cheese or puddings.
Dinah Lord has a hilarious look at the top yahoo searchs in the Middle East. They show some rather unusual lifestyle choices.
Robert Novak documents the pork barrel machinations of Harry Reid. More on the topic here.
The Oxford Medievalist questions the veracity of Hillary's claims of victimhood - and he has a poll up on the greatest Roman Emperor to boot. I'm still debating between Augustus and Constantine myself.
Hamas fires into a crowd of Fatah supporters marching to honor Yassir Arafat on the anniversary of his death, alleging that some Fatah gunmen fired on Hamas first.
An article published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences highlights information on the benefits of diets high in fruit, vegetables, cereals and fish and low in saturated fats in reducing dementia risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
