Politics for Moms

100 Days

2009-04-29T07:21:00.002-04:00

As reporters and pundits the world over evaluate President Obama's first 100 days in office, I notice a telling trend. People either think he has been the most successful president in modern time OR they think he has been a miserable failure. There really isn't any in-between.

Looking at just a few of his "accomplishments" pretty much sums up the reasons why there is no fence sitting with this particular administration.

Under the guise of "economic stimulus" he was able to pass a $787 billion gift for his liberal special interest base. And he did it so quickly that no member of Congress was able to read it before they voted.
After campaigning on a pledge to end earmarks, he signed an appropriations bill loaded with 8,000 earmarks - and paid no political penalty.
President Obama has kept congressional Democrats marching with him in lockstep. House Democrats tow the party line an amazing 94 percent of the time and Senate Democrats vote Democratic 91 percent of the time.
President Obama has transformed the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) into giant engines of unsupervised spending. Together, they've spent the equivalent of the entire federal budget for 2007, without having to disclose where the money went.
Just two weeks ago, the President presided over an unprecedented bureaucratic power grab when his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruled that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health. This seemingly innocuous decision opens the door to wholesale regulation of American life by government. The threat is so great that politicians and activists are using the specter of an out-of-control EPA to force Congress to pass a $1 trillion to $2 trillion energy tax in the form of cap-and-trade legislation.
In an attempt to overcome anti-Americanism abroad by agreeing with it, President Obama has gone on a global apology tour, labeling America as "arrogant, dismissive and derisive" in front of foreign audiences.
President Obama has unleashed r open to prosecuting Bush Administration officials over the interrogation of terrorists who plotted to kill Americans.

Now that's some change I just can't believe in.

Specter Finally Comes out of the Closet

2009-04-28T16:17:00.003-04:00

I've received many emails today letting me know about Senator Specter's (PA) announcement that he is leaving the Republican party to become a Democrat.

I'll tell you what I've told everyone else: Good riddance. They can have him!

In word and deed, Specter has always sounded more like a liberal democrat than a republican of any degree. I have no idea why he has lasted 30 years as Pennsylvania's senator.

Despite what he is telling the media, the reason he made the switch is because the republicans have all but abandoned him statewide. His senate seat is already being challenged by a fella name Toomey and polls show Toomey with a significant lead. So Specter is doing nothing more than making a political move in hopes of keeping his seat.

I hate to tell him, but it's going to take more than switching parties to send him back to Washington. Republicans (me included) want him gone!

So How's the Auto Makers doing with all that Bailout Money they Received?

2009-04-24T07:28:00.002-04:00

General Motors
General Motors Corp. said Thursday that it will shut down 13 plants for "multiple weeks" in the second and third quarters to bring down the number of unsold cars in the face of dropping demand.

Ford Motor
Ford Motor Co. says it lost $1.4 billion in the first quarter, but it burned through less money as it continued to restructure without government aid during a severe auto sales downturn.

The nation's second-largest automaker said Friday that it spent $3.7 billion more than it took in during the quarter, but that's far less than the $7.2 billion the company burned through in the fourth quarter.

Ford lost 60 cents per share, compared with a gain of 3 cents per share a year ago. Excluding special items such as gains from the company's debt restructuring, the company lost 75 cents per share.

Chrysler
Chrysler lenders have received a new offer from the government amid a report that federal officials could be preparing a bankruptcy filing for the struggling auto maker.

The U.S. Department of Treasury has upped its offer to Chrysler lenders to $1.5 billion of first-lien debt and a 5% equity stake in the restructured company, according to a Reuters report that cited an anonymous source. This would be in exchange for the $7 billion in debt the lenders hold.

On Monday, the Chrysler lending group was seeking $4.5 billion in first-lien debt and a stake totaling 40%, the report said. These amounts were clearly well above the initial offer made by the Obama Administration, and because of that were turned down.

Meanwhile, the Treasury has begun preparing a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing for Chrysler, according to a report in the New York Times. The filing could come as early as next week, according to the Times which cited people familiar with the situation.

Tea Party 101

2009-04-22T09:23:00.000-04:00

The Democrats, Republicans and Independents who went to Tea Parties last week want the same thing that the patriots of 1773 wanted: To be treated as free citizens with inalienable rights, not indentured subjects of an all-powerful government.

Subjects don't complain when government makes their lives more secular and more socialized.

But citizens demand the "right to pursue happiness" as their Creator endowed them in the Declaration of Independence.

Citizens do not want to be told that they can earn up to $250,000, but above that, they are illegitimate possessors of the "people's wealth" and should expect to have it taken by the government.

Citizens do not want to be told that members of Congress or bureaucrats in the Treasury will set salary schedules and decide income for Americans in private business.

The Tea Parties were a reaction to all these threats to the American way of life.

In the News

2009-04-22T06:00:00.003-04:00

Obama's Outrageous Sin Against Our Kids, Juan Williams

Obama Blames America, Wall Street Journal

A Little Outrage, Please, Mr. President, CNN

Fidel Castro: Obama 'Misinterpreted' Raul's Words, FoxNews

Intel Chief: Harsh Interrogations Yielded Info, ABCNews

A Timid Advocate of Freedom, Mitt Romney

Dear Mr. President

2009-04-21T11:32:00.001-04:00

For decades, the United States has been the country to fear and to admire. We are the country people flock to in droves for opportunity and freedom. We are the country that protects our own and protects other countries too weak to protect themselves. We are generous with our resources and our money to a fault.

Those are just a few of the reasons, Mr. President, as to why I'm frustrated you aren't acting like you are the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. It doesn't have to be in a self-righteous or haughty manner, but act like you are proud of this country and what it has accomplished over the last two centuries. Stand proud for our principles and don't apologize for those things that set this country apart. Quit pretending like the United States is an ugly word. For without the United States, many countries around the world would go hungry, succumb to disease, victimize their women and children, never recover from natural disasters, and have no hope that there is a better life possible.

I know that sounds pretentious to you, but it is the truth. The United States plays an important role in this world and probably our most important role is to portray the strength and steadfastness of this nation to leaders and countries who rely on it for their own strength and determination. We didn't become this great nation by trying to be the popular kid on the block. We've never embraced our enemies or those who embrace oppression or violence in their own countries because we've condemned their actions and have worked tirelessly to bring about a better life for their people.

Frankly, in your effort to bring a new tone to the world stage you appear weak, and that is concerning. The United States' enemies have been waiting patiently for a president who is not going to stand up and aggressively defend America and her interests. They've been waiting for a president who rather talk turkey over beers than issue stern warnings and rebukes. They've been waiting for that opportunity when the United States lets her guard down just long enough for them to take advantage of her or to harm her.

Stand tall, Mr President. Be proud of this country. Don't apologize for those things that have made the world stronger. Keep our position in the world secure, not for our own ego, but because so many other people and countries depend on us for their own survival. If we fall, they fall. It we slip, they slip.

Stand tall, Mr. President. Stand tall.

The Tea Parties Rage On

2009-04-20T08:07:00.004-04:00

Last Wednesday, Americans of all stripes and colors gathered to peacefully protest the astronomical debt this country is racking up.

What I've found amusing is how flummoxed the left is by these tea parties. They are completely befuddled by them so all they can think to do is hurl insults and reduce the participants to names like morons, idiots, and mindless robots.

My very own liberalesque brother sent me an email wanting to know what these tea parties were all about and "who's your leader?" That last question kept me laughing for days. Who's our leader? Of course, the left thinks the people who participated last Wednesday are just mindlessly following the orders of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. But that question is precisely why they don't get it.

These tea parties were a 100% grass roots effort. Employing the same social media sites that Obama so brilliantly used during the campaign, these protesters organized over the last two months on Twitter, Facebook and on blogs across the intersphere. The leaders were the lady at the post office, the grandma who babysits her grandchildren during the day, the small business owner, the young stay-at-home mom, the student. In fact, two moms were the driving force behind the tea party that took place at the Alamo in Texas that ended up drawing a national audience.

But as the left tried to comprehend where this movement of idiots came from, they were even more bothered by the reason for the gatherings.

A common theme amongst the editorial hand-wringers was the supposed irony of Americans protesting high taxes on a day when 95% of us would be receiving a tax
break. Unless, of course, you’re one of the 15-20% of adult Americans who smoke. Or maybe one of that tiny little percentage of Americans who use any electricity after Washington imposes a cap-and-trade system of energy taxation. Or if you own (or own stock in) a business facing $353 billion in increased taxes over the next ten years. Or if printing dollars by the trillions results in inflation and you happen to be an American who uses … money. But let’s not let a perfectly good meme get in the way of ridiculing taxpaying Americans.

The left also likes to point out that the first tea party was protesting taxation without representation and (duh) that's not the case today. Really? Today, we are blessed to have 535 morons representing us who don't seem to ever take in account what the American people want or say. After countless emails and phone calls, our "representatives" still do whatever they want to do. Sounds like taxation without representation to me.

I've also seen a lot of blogs and articles saying that they'd respect the protesters if they quit complaining and put forth a viable solution to the problem. I agree with that to a point. I always think a person should be willing to help solve a problem they identify, but isn't that what we have boy wonder Opie Geitner and the masterminds in congress and the anointed one in the White House? Aren't they suppose to be the best and brightest to solve this economic mess?

Americans are desperate to have their voices heard. They are doing everything they know to do to become part of the process, but it has been like beating their heads against a wall. Thus, the tea parties. The peaceful, harmless tea parties where people hold signs, sing 'God Bless America' and wear tea bags on their hats.

So why do they have the left in such a frenzy?

Obama Speaks Out Against Nuclear Weapons

2009-04-06T13:45:00.000-04:00

Just hours after North Korea launched a long-range rocket, President Barack Obama called for "a world without nuclear weapons" and said the United States has a “moral responsibility ” to lead the way, as the only nation ever to use them.

Obama’s speech was long planned as the centerpiece of his first presidential trip overseas, but it gained new urgency after North Korea sent a multi-part rocket soaring over the Sea of Japan early Sunday morning.

you can watch the speech and read more over at Politico...

We've Got One Word for You GM: Bankruptcy

2009-04-06T09:48:00.000-04:00

I couldn't agree more with this advice to GM written in yesterday's OC Register:

If there is any intelligent life left at General Motors, it should run –not walk–to bankruptcy court. That may be the company's only chance to free itself from the triple vise of unions, creditors and, now, President Barack Obama, who is by no means the least life-threatening of the lot.

What is maddening is that if the government would've just let them fall into bankruptcy months ago, we would'nt have wasted $14 million of taxpayer money. But what do I know, I'm just a conservative.

Great article. Take three minutes and read it.

U.N. Security Council Does Not Condemn North Korea...Yet?

2009-04-06T07:28:00.000-04:00

After yesterday's failed launch of a rocket, leaders from around the world (except China and Russia) called on the U.N. to issue a rebuke. Leave it to the U.N. Security Council to not reach a unified response, although I'm not sure a written slap on the hand will do much to deter Kim Jong-Il.

Despite the urging of the United States and Japan, the 15-member council could not agree on a statement criticizing North Korea's rocket launch. China and Russia said they were not yet convinced that Pyongyang had violated any U.N. rules, according to council officials.

The council adjourned after three hours and agreed to continue
negotiations on a resolution in the coming days. "Every state has the right to the peaceful use of outer space," said Russia's deputy U.N. envoy, Igor Shcherbak.

complete story via The Washington Post...

North Korea Launches Rocket

2009-04-05T23:11:00.000-04:00

President Obama called for North Korea to be punished after the isolated communist state fired an intercontinental rocket today, defying weeks of warnings from world leaders and provoking anxiety across north-east Asia.

The UN Security Council will meet in emergency session in New York this afternoon after a demand for action from governments across the world, including the US, Britain, France and above all Japan, over whose territory the rocket flew. It is unlikely that Russia and China will agree to new sanctions because the projectile appears to have been the vehicle for a satellite, rather than an intercontinental ballistic missile.

"This provocation underscores the need for action, not just this afternoon at the UN Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons,” Mr Obama said in a speech in the Czech capital, Prague, calling for efforts towards nuclear disarmament.

“Rules must be binding, violations must be punished, words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response.”

continue reading here...

Weekend Reading

2009-04-05T14:43:00.002-04:00

The First Shrink by Maureen Dowd, NYT

Obama & the Confidence Game, Peter Baker, BYT

The Master of Misdirection by Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard

Obama's Domestic Agenda Gains Credibility, Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal

Call Me Crazy...

2009-04-03T11:56:00.000-04:00

but I just don't think this is a good idea.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says he would be willing to accept prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which U.S. President Barack Obama has said he will close, the Venezuelan government said Thursday.

Nope, just doesn't seem like a good idea.

House Approves $3.6 Trillion Budget Blueprint

2009-04-03T08:30:00.001-04:00

*Updated*

The Democratic-controlled Senate has passed a budget drafted to President Barack Obama's specifications, voting a few hours after the House approved a similar plan.

The Senate vote was 55-43, along party lines.

The plan calls for spending of $3.5 trillion for the budget year beginning Oct. 1 and has a deficit projected at $1.2 trillion.

It provides for higher spending on domestic programs and clears the way for action later in the year on Obama's call for an overhaul of health care, a new energy policy and changes in federal support for education.

The budget votes mark victories for the Obama administration, but tough battles lie ahead when lawmakers turn to the other items on the president's agenda.

--------

The Democratic-controlled House approved a budget blueprint drawn to President Barack Obama's specifications Thursday and the Senate hastened to follow suit after administration allies rejected alternatives from liberals and conservatives alike. The vote in the House was 233-196, largely along party lines, for a $3.6 trillion plan that includes a deficit of $1.2 trillion.

The country wants "real change, and we have come here to make a difference," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said as both chambers worked on plans to boost spending on domestic programs, raise taxes on the wealthy in two years' time and clear the way for action later in the year on Obama's priority items of health care, energy and education.

Republicans in both houses accused Democrats of drafting plans that would hurt the recession-ravaged economy in the long run, rather than help it, and saddle future generations with too much debt.

"The administration's budget simply taxes too much, spends too much and borrows too much at a moment when we can least afford it," said the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

continue reading here

G-20 Wrap Up

2009-04-03T01:14:00.000-04:00

I know I've said this before, but the pace at which things are moving politically is crazy. I need a full-time staff to keep on top of all the bills that are being introduced, debated, and voted on plus keeping track of our fearless President who is out solving the world's problems. But since you just have me, you'll have to settle for the highlights. A few days late.

So this week was the G-20. The G-20 is the simply the name for the nations with the 20 largest economies plus the European Union. The G-20 economies comprise 85% global gross national product, 80% of world trade and two-thirds of the world population.

President Obama held a press conference yesterday at the conclusion of the summit to cautiously yet optimistically tout the week's accomplishments (and a few disappointments):

World leaders pledged $1.1 trillion in loans and guarantees to struggling countries and agreed to crack down on tax havens and hedge funds — but failed to reach sweeping accord on more stimulus spending to attack the global economic decline.
The G-20 leaders said they would upgrade an existing financial forum to serve as an early warning monitor to flag problems in the global financial system.
U.S. and British calls for new stimulus measures was not satisfied.
Nor did European politicians get their goal of a global financial superregulator.
The leaders did bridge several gaps between the United States and some European nations over how far to regulate the market and how to curb the excesses that sparked the global economic crisis.

Here are a few additional articles that you might want to read for a more in-depth analysis from ABCNews.com, Real Clear Politics, Shadow Government, and badice.com.

Obamas Take G-20 by Storm

2009-04-02T09:28:00.003-04:00

It's no secret that the G-20 is going on in London this week. President Obama and the First Lady are making their debut on the world stage and, of course, they are causing quite a splash. Now I don't mean to throw stones at presidental glass houses, but I'm flummoxed by several of the stories.

1. The Obamas presented the queen with a gift of an inscribed video iPod, with preloaded songs, and a rare musical songbook signed by U.S. composer Richard Rodgers. They need to get a new gift buyer. And fast!

2. Michelle Obama touched the Queen. Apparently that is a major faux pas in the royalty handbook. In 1992, Australia's prime minister was called the "Lizard of Oz" after he put his arm around Elizabeth

3. Of course, Michelle Obama's wardrobe is under constant scrutiny. She was applauded yesterday from going from a designer dress to an outfit the average Joe could wear from J. Crew for a mere $500. Last time I checked, "average" Joes don't buy outfits that cost $500.

We're only two days into this extravaganza so I can only imagine what other hijinks the Obamas are going to stir.

The Minds that Move the World

2009-03-30T14:46:00.003-04:00

If you would enjoy hearing Anderson Cooper, Charlie Rose, Karl Rove, Bill Maher or Ann Coulter (and many others) speak in person, then you need to check out the 2009 Speaker Series: The Minds That Move The World.”

This is a timely series of events that will provide attendees with a unique framework for understanding America’s current political landscape and place in world politics, through the insights of some of the most prominent political figures of our time.

They are in New York City tomorrow with Anderson Cooper interviewing Mike Huckabee, Arianna Huffington and D.L. Hughley. If you are in the New York area, you can catch this event at Radio City Music Hall. And, since you are a P4M reader you can buy tickets for 50% off for this New York date only. Just use the code MEDIA.

For all their other events, you can still get $10 off selected tickets. Go to www.speakerseries2009.com and use the following codes for each city.

New York – use code SPIN

Boston – use code SS09SPIN
3/30: Al Gore
5/27: Charlie Rose interviewing James Carville and Karl Rove

Chicago – use code SPIN
4/1: Al Gore
4/22: Chris Matthews interviewing Tucker Carlson, Arianna Huffington and Paul Begala
5/28: Charlie Rose interviewing James Carville and Karl Rove

And this is something additional just in case you are interested: there is a trivia quiz about the speakers on http://www.msg.com/speakerseries/.

If you happen to attend any of them, let me know so I can be appropriately jealous!

When Will it Stop?

2009-03-30T11:10:00.002-04:00

Well, if this wasn't enough...

The government has instructed Chrysler to form a partnership with Fiat as a condition for new aid.

Really, what are they thinking?

Dow Dives 200+ Points

2009-03-30T10:45:00.004-04:00

Saw this on the news ticker just now:

Dow Dives 200+ Points on News of Obama Administration's Actions on Auto Industry.

Wow, that's a shocker! I can't believe the market would react poorly to news that the government had kicked out the CEO of a private American corporation. I mean, doesn't the market know that government is the answer to this messy economy. At least that's what Opie Geitner told us over the weekend. And he should know. I've been told he's very smart. The smartest, in fact.

Hey folks, you wanted change. Well, this is what change looks like.

Simple Economics

2009-03-30T01:06:00.000-04:00

I've been looking everywhere for a simple explanation of our current economic situation. The problem is that it is a very complex and multi-layered issue that can't be easily broken down, but I think this piece by Weakenomics.com that was posted at Simple Mom this week is about as good as I've seen.

It's well worth a read if you want to try and understand where we are at today. Here's a little tidbit to get you started...

The media has tried to explain the current economic crisis. But many of them don’t fully understand it themselves, so elements and details are lost in translation. The ultimate failure is trying to explain it in a matter of minutes - and this is impossible. You have to keep it simple, and then add layers of complexity as each level is understood.

So let me tell you a story.
Meet Ivan. Ivan is an investor. After a recession in the early 2000s, Ivan pulled his money out of the stock market. He wanted a safe investment, but interest rates were very low and because of this, government bonds offered a low return.

You can continue reading here...

Obama Announces His Plan for Afghanistan

2009-03-29T19:57:00.002-04:00

The U.S. presence in Afghanistan will not "be an open-ended commitment of infinite resources, President Obama said in an interview aired Sunday.

Obama said security is tenuous in that nation in part because of
neglect in the last U.S. administration. He said he inherited the war and tried to suggest that it was not his war now that he has announce a new strategy for bringing stability to Afghanistan.

"I think it's America's war. And it's the same war that we
initiated after 9/11 as a consequence of those attacks," Obama told CBS' "Face the Nation" on Friday, the day he announced his new plan. "The focus over the last seven years I think has been lost. ... Unless we get a handle on it now, we're gonna be in trouble."

(You can read the rest of the story here.)

Once again, President Obama wants us to know that he "inherited" the problem in Afghanistan. Does anybody else getting tired of his whining? All presidents "inherit" the situations, problems, and missteps of the prior administration. Get over it!

If you read on in the story, Obama's plan calls for increasing the number of troops, increasing aid and there is no exit plan. Sounds vaguely like a plan a guy named George W. Bush had eight years ago for Iran---a plan that he has been widely criticized for.

Hmmm, I hope that works out for O.

GM CEO Steps Down at Request of White House

2009-03-29T19:14:00.004-04:00

I always thought that at some point the heads of the automakers might resign, but I never thought they'd retire at the request of the White House. Now we are definitely in uncharted territory.

DETROIT – General Motors Corp. Chairman and CEO Rick
Wagoner will step down immediately at the request of the White House, administration officials said Sunday. The news comes as President Obama prepares to unveil additional restructuring efforts designed to save the domestic auto industry.

The officials asked not to be identified because details of the restructuring plan have not yet been made public. On Monday, Obama is to announce plans to restructure GM and Chrysler LLC in exchange for additional government loans. The companies have been living on $17.4 billion in government aid and have requested $21.6 billion more.

via Associated Press

What You're Getting Served

2009-03-29T00:55:00.001-04:00

A pastor of a church in Indiana wrote this interesting look at what can happen when government gets involved in private business.

Think about regulation before you ask for it. Consider carefully the laws you enact. You may get more than you bargain for….

Suppose you legislate against high risk/high reward endeavors. What then?

The brilliant researcher is asked to, “Join our firm. Cancer is destroying thousands of lives and we’re investing everything to find the cure. We need your genius leveraged against this great need. Of course, if we fail – after you’ve invested a decade of your life in our cause – you’ll receive minimal compensation for your effort.”

The courageous physician is asked to, “Come quickly! This patient coded and you are the one we’re counting on to save her life. We need your skill. None of us can do what you can do. Please help us save her! Of course, you should bear in mind that if she dies, you’ll have your salary capped, we’ll publically blame you for the loss and the ensuing lawsuits will take everything you own.”

The remarkable business leader is asked to, “Fix this mess. The company has negotiated some bad deals. Toxic assets are killing us. Not many people could fix this problem; truth is, not many people even understand this problem. Few would even attempt what we’re asking you do to. Of course, you’d do well to remember that if you fail to rescue this industry, fail to deliver seventy-hour-work-weeks for the handsome compensation of $1 per year or fail to make everyone happy, you’ll have your name drug through the mud, your address publicized, your children exposed to angry protestors and your assets taxed into oblivion.”

Do we really want to reduce the reward for risk?

Do we really want to incentivize safety-first, low-level, risk-averse living?

Do we really want to give high-capacity people little reason to produce more and lots of reasons to produce less?

Better pay attention friends. That’s what’s on the table… and it’s about to be served.

Proverbs 28:2 When a nation sins, it will have one ruler after another. But a nation will be strong and endure when it has intelligent, sensible leaders.

Change We Can Believe In?

2009-03-28T16:05:00.001-04:00

A History of Toxicity

2009-03-26T19:31:00.003-04:00

In response to this post, I found this short Q&A from the Associated Press which I thought gave a little more explanation about what toxic assets are and how Geitner's plan will remove them from bank balance sheets.

What are toxic assets?
Toxic assets are, mostly, the investments backed by risky subprime mortgages that are held by the larger US banks and that have lost value. They hang like shackles from the banks' feet, dragging down their balance sheets and their fortunes.

It started in early 2007, when the mortgage crisis hit and defaults on subprime home loans, those made to borrowers with tarnished credit histories, began to climb. That gutted the value of the mortgage-backed securities---subprime mortgages bundled and sold on Wall Street to investors---held on the books of the big banks.

When the banks---such as Citigroup Iinc., Bank of America Corp, and JPMorgan Chase and Co.---started writing down the value of the securities, they reported billions of dollars of losses. Their capital eroded and they didn't have the money to make loans. Credit dried up. Banks large and small foundered and failed. The crisis was in full throttle.

There now is an estimated $2 trillion in bad assets on banks' books.

How will the new plan for getting toxic assets off banks' balance sheets work?
It's what the government calls a public-private investment partnership, with the goal of scooping up about $500 billion, and eventually $1 trillion, in toxic assets. The government will put in $75 billion to $100 billion taken from its $700 billion financial bailout program.

For every $100 in bad assets being purchased, private investors would put up $7, to be matched by $7 from the government. The remaining $86 would be covered by a government loan, provided in many cases by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.---the same folks who provide insurance to make sure depositors don't lose all their money when a bank fails.

Dear A.I.G., I Quit!

2009-03-26T12:16:00.000-04:00

An A.I.G. executive printed his resignation in the New York Times yesterday. It's a great perspective from the other side of the story.

It's a shame what these employees have had to endure for simply doing their job. I applaud Mr. DeSantis for taking the money and giving it to charity, however, I wouldn't have blamed him for keeping it either.

Opie Asks for More Power

2009-03-26T00:02:00.003-04:00

Opie Geitner was on Capitol Hill this week asking for congress to grant Treasury and the Federal Reserve new powers to regulate troubled non-bank financial institutions that are deemed to be "too big to fail."

Their plan — if approved by Congress — will give the government new powers to seize and re-organize institutions like insurance companies, investment banks, and hedge funds whose collapse might have significant systemic effects.

Am I the only person who just doesn't like the sound of that?

Obama Press Conference Recap

2009-03-25T13:03:00.005-04:00

I have two confessions to make. First I have been working on this post all day, and at 11pm, it's still not done. That's what happens when the field in front of your neighbor's house catches on fire and you have to watch their kids while four fire trucks take care of business. Despite the fact that the world revolves around Washington politics, life happens.

Second, I have to confess that I was helping kids with homework and completely missed about 75 percent of the press conference. But what I did see assured me that I probably didn't miss much.

If you were also doing homework with your kids last night, then you can read the transcript of the press conference here. I personally like to read the transcripts more than watch the event because then I'm not swayed by O's boyish good looks, suave mannerisms, and smooth talking. That's why I'm not an official member of the White House press corp, they would never fall prey to such amateurish antics.

But since you come here for summary and analysis, let me sum it up for you in three words: Yada, yada, yada. And here's my analysis: Yada, yada, yada.

You know it's a bust when the only thing the "professionals" can point to as the BIG MOMENT was when Ed Henry from CNN had the gall to ask the President why "he didn't spew outrage as soon as he learned about the AIG bonuses. The president, with an icy stare, responded that he 'likes to know what he's talking about' before he speaks."

The big moment. That was it.

But for what it's worth, here are a few of my lingering observations.

Biggest Non-Story: I'm not bothered that O used a teleprompter for his prepared remarks. And neither is Robert. So move on people. What would've been odd is if he used the teleprompter to respond to the questions with prepared answers.

Obligatory Compliment: I like how orderly his press conferences are and how he calls on a variety of different news outlets. Although I think the NYT and Washington Post are feeling a little slighted today.

Biggest shock of the night: That 1 in 5 kids in America are living on the street. Wow, I'd love to see the source on that stat because I just don't believe it at all. But if it's true, I hope they didn't hear O's answer to the previous question about taxing charitable giving.

The lamest question of the night: Ann Compton from ABC Radio asked that if during his 64 days in office, have any decisions been made because of race? Or have any foreign leaders treated him differently because he is the nation’s first African-American president? Really? We have an economic crisis, two wars, education in a mess, the world burning to a crisp and Ann wants to know if he has had his feelings hurt by other world leaders because of his skin color.

Most Noticeable Absence: Not one question about Iraq and Afghanistan. None. Zilch. There was a question about peace in the Middle East, but nothing about the two countries that dominated the political agenda and news for the last 7 years. I guess it really is about the economy, stupid.

The Best Reassuring Moment: It wasn’t so many tax days ago – five years – that Mr. Obama was in a far lower tax bracket. Now, he is in the highest, so he seemed to speak for the rest of the wealthiest Americans. “It’s not going to cripple them,” Mr. Obama said. “They’ll still be well-to-do." From Jeff Zeleny at the NYT.

That's my take. What's yours?

Obama on The Tonight Show

2009-03-24T01:34:00.000-04:00

I watched President Obama on the Tonight Show last week. He shines in that type of setting. He's one of the guys. The neighbor next door. The dad in the carpool lane.

However, I find it ironic that the forum the President used to speak to the American people is the show that brings us Jaywalking, a popular bit where Jay Leno asks random people on the street questions about current events. What makes the bit work is that the people are usually clueless about what's going on in the world. At times it's down right frightening when they don't know who the current vice president is or the words to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Unfortunately for the President, his laborious and mind numbing explanation of the economy didn't make the news. It was a quick, off the cuff remark he made about Special Olympics that topped the headlines.

Before kids, I worked for Special Olympics for five years as the director of public relations for the PA chapter. So this little problem would've landed on my desk.

Honestly, it was a passing comment and a stupid slip on his part. I don't believe he really understood what he was saying. But what a gold mine of an opportunity for Special Olympics. I know that they last few years have been tough financially for all non-profits and Special Olympics has not been immune from the decline in donations.

I would've had Special Olympics CEO Tim Shriver on every news program forgiving the President and then touting the incredible stories of Special Olympics athletes and their achievements in bowling and the other 30 sports they can compete in year-round.

I also would've challenged the President to a bowling game with several of Special Olympics' best bowlers. I'm afraid the President will need a better score than 127 to even compete. These are true athletes who train and compete seriously.

So don't feel bad for Special Olympics athletes. The President actually did them a favor by drawing attention to a fantastic organization that has impacted millions of lives world wide.

***If you are from the media and reading this, please don't call them "the Special Olympics" or "Special Olympians." Both or those are like nails on a chalkboard to Special Olympics athletes, parents, fans and former PR directors. It is simply "Special Olympics" and they are "athletes" or "Special Olympics athletes."

"The 4th Time is a Charm"

2009-03-23T22:09:00.003-04:00

That was a quote from an economist I heard on a news show tonight. It only took six months, one boy genius and about 958 trillion dollars, but those who understand this mess seem to think that the plan to buy up the toxic assets is a winner.

Apparently the market agreed since it went up almost 500 points today. I guess Opie Geitner finally proved his worth.

All kidding aside, I wish I could explain this entire mess to you in lay terms but I just don't understand it. I have no idea why anybody would willingly buy bad assets but apparently someone is willing and it is suppose to help us get out from under this mess.

So I'm not going to pretend like I know what is going on with the economy. Instead, I'm going to steer you toward some articles that will provide a better framework and narrative for you.

Then once you understand it, please come back and explain it to me!

My Plan for Bad Bank Assets, Wall Street Journal

Treasury Unveils Details of Plan to Relieve Banks of Toxic Assets, The Washington Post

Will the Geitner Plan Work? David Gergen, CNN

Inside Obama's Economic Brain Trust, NY Mag

Life Happens

2009-03-21T23:06:00.002-04:00

I took an unscheduled bloggy break. Life happens and then you realize your last post was a week ago. Ouch.

I'll be back Monday and there is no shortage of topics to discuss:

Obama on Leno
AIG
Omnibus Bill
Timothy "Opie" Geitner
The teleprompter
Congress Passing 90% tax on executive bonuses

What else is on your mind?

Good Reads

2009-03-12T05:28:00.000-04:00

New Chairman Boos G.O.P When He's Not Cheerleading, New York Times

The D-word: Will recession become something worse?, Forbes.com

Wealthy Idiots Meet Idiot Reporter, The New Republic

Mr. President, Time to Rein in the Chaos, The Washington Post

Obama's Clumsy, Smirky Staff is Sinking Him, Salon

Thanks to everyone who submitted links!

Let Your Voice be Heard: Card Check

2009-03-11T14:15:00.002-04:00

Since I posted about card check yesterday, I thought you'd be interested to know that opposition to this labor law is not only from Republicans. This week, President Obama's economic advisor Warren Buffet said he opposed card check while making an appearance on CNBC. Democrat Presidential candidate and former U.S. Senator George McGovern has also come out against this bill.

If you would like your voice heard on this issue, Newt Gingrich, along with Saul Anuzis, is organizing nationwide campaign to stop Congress.

"We are collecting thousands of signatures online to turn into members of Congress and to encourage voters/activists to let their members of Congress know they oppose this reckless legislation, particularly during these tough economic times. Our goal is to protect freedom in the workforce and not encourage fear through intimidation."

You can go to this site to sign the petition! It's quick and easy and lets your voice be heard.

Employee Free Choice Act or "Card Check"

2009-03-10T12:56:00.004-04:00

Today, the Employee Free Choice Act is being introduced in the Senate. This labor-backed bill, also known as “card check”, is designed to make it easier for employees to vote in a union at their workplace.

Let's Look at What We Have Now

Today, the system for forming unions allows employees to vote by secret ballot whether or not a union should be organized within their company. This method allows privacy for employees to make their own choices without outside influences or potential consequences.

The right to a private ballot is fundamental to the American democratic system. Under existing law, a private ballot election is guaranteed and administered by the National Labor Relations Board. This proven method prevents workers from being vulnerable to misinformation, intimidation and coercion by union advocates or company management.

What's Card Check?

Proposed card check legislation replaces secret ballots with a signature drive. If 50 percent of a company's workers sign individual authorization cards that waive the employee right to a secret ballot, collective bargaining automatically begins between employers and union officials.

Employee signatures can be collected and organized by anyone, anywhere. Card check opens a company's break room for unions to use while wrangling employee signatures. Company parking lots would serve as a place for union expansion.

Binding Arbitration

Card check contains a provision that mandates compulsory, binding arbitration on the employer and the employees as part of the collective bargaining process. This would require a third party - a government official - making labor contract decisions that are binding upon both parties. This would mean that the business owner would have no real voice in his own business nor would the now unionized employees be provided with the opportunity to vote on their new contract.

Why does Labor Want Card Check

First, to add due-paying members. Union membership has decreased steadily since their heyday in the 1950s when nearly 35% of the American workforce belonged to a union, compared with 7.5% today. Indeed, even as the economy added more than 9.5 million jobs between 1999 and 2006, unions lost more than 1 million members.

Secondly, according to Forbes Magazine, there has been a major shift in the mentality of the modern-day labor movement, which now regards political advocacy as its main role rather than workplace representation. With card check, however, Big Labor will get more money and added flexibility to pursue its political agenda.

In A Nut Shell

Andy Stern, the head of the SEIU, says the simpler procedure is needed to keep companies from intimidating workers who try to unionize.

Glenn Spencer, who heads the Workforce Freedom Initiative, argues that the loss of a secret ballot will simply allow labor organizers to coerce their co-workers into joining a union whether they want one or not.

If Card Check Passes

You can expect organized labor to target small businesses, hospitals, and hotels who are already struggling under this economy. They also have their sights set on big box companies like Wal-Mart and Home Depot. The unionization of those companies would put many small businesses out of business and drive prices higher for the ones who are still standing.

My Two Cents

It's an all around bad idea...just look at the auto makers.

President Unveils New Education Standards Today

2009-03-10T08:21:00.004-04:00

This morning, President Obama will announce new standards that he hopes will improve the nation's schools and better educate future generations. Included in his proposal:

The president’s will call today for a merit-pay system for teachers. It would reward with extra compensation teachers who are improving student achievement and taking on new responsibilities, rather than the seniority system that long has been a staple of bargaining agreements with teachers’ unions.
Obama will propose increasing the number of charter schools, which operate independently from the regular public school system while still under the authority of local boards.
The president also wants to pursue a retooling of the No Child Left Behind Act, championed by former President George W. Bush, to set more uniform and rigorous standards for tests on reading and mathematics in elementary schools.
Obama also will reiterate his goal of boosting the number of college graduates. The stimulus package and his fiscal 2010 budget would expand the Pell Grant system, which helps low- income families send children to college.

source: Bloomberg News

President Lift's Restrictions on Stem Cell Research

2009-03-10T08:10:00.001-04:00

Pledging that his administration will “make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,” President Obama on Monday lifted the Bush administration’s strict limits on human embryonic stem cell research.

At a ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Obama announced that he was issuing an executive order intended to advance the research. He said he hoped Congress would follow with bipartisan legislation that would ease the existing restrictions even more.

The president acknowledged that studying stem cells extracted from human embryos, which are destroyed in the process, is deeply divisive.

“Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research,” the president said. “I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.”
But Mr. Obama went on to say that the majority of Americans “have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research; that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight the perils can be avoided.”

In making his announcement, Mr. Obama drew a strict line against human cloning, an issue that over the years has become entangled with the debate over human embryonic stem cell research.
He said that he would ensure that his administration “never opens the door” to cloning for human reproduction, adding, “It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society or any society.”

read more here...

Treaty Could Infringe on Parental Rights

2009-03-09T14:25:00.003-04:00

Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.

The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.

Critics say the treaty, which creates "the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and outlaws the "arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy," intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.

Nearly every country in the world is party to it -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not -- but the convention has gained little support in the U.S. and never been sent to the Senate for ratification.
That could change soon.

The United States Constitution warns that we do not enter into treaties lightly because once a treaty is signed, it becomes law. Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the U.S. Constitution, ratified treaties preempt state law. Since nearly all laws regarding children in the United States are state laws, this treaty would negate nearly 100% of existing American family law, and grant the federal government and international organizations authority to override parental decisions by applying even to good parents a standard now only used against those parents convicted of abuse or neglect.

Possible results of this treaty could be:

parents prohibited from spanking their children
parents prohibited from homeschooling their children
parents forbidden from deciding their family's religion
a ban of youngsters from facing the death penalty regardless of how heinous the crime is or how close to 18 the child is
the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision in the name of their version of "what's best for the child"
a child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed
according to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare
children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure
teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC so it could place into jeopardy the ability of parents to send their children to private schools that are not secular in nature
allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education would be eliminated
children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent

This treaty will transfer responsibilities from the parent to the government, and all parental rights will be forfeited. The government would decide what is in the best interest of a child in every case, and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child would be considered superior to state laws. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.

As always, the time is now to lobby your representatives in Washington to not ratify this treaty.

sources: Fox News, Political Pistachio, Heading Right

Would You Like Some Pork with that Tea?

2009-03-09T13:55:00.004-04:00

Back in February, MSNBC commentator Rick Santelli gave a rant on the floor of the Chicago Merchantile Exchange that criticized the administration's solution to the housing crisis. These are just a few of his comments:

"How about this, new President and new administration, why don't you put up a Web site to have people vote on the Internet...to see if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages."

"Or would we like to at least buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people who might have a chance to actually prosper down the road...reward people who could carry the water instead of drink the water."
"President Obama," Santelli continued. "Are you listening? We're thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July," Santelli said.

The YouTube video that caught the rant has gone viral and has rallied Americans from coast to coast to have their own tea parties in protest of government spending. My city held their tea party Saturday and my family joined about a thousand other citizens who are fed up with government spending.

My favorite part of the rally was all the signs.

You may not realize it, but there is a growing grass roots protest movement. The best organizational resources are Tax Day Tea Party (nationwide April 15 events), Twitter #teaparty, PJTV’s list of upcoming protests, Re-TeaParty (send teabags to Washington and find July 4 events), and TCOT Report. And one more good one: New American Tea Party. (Thanks to Michelle Malkin for compiling that list).

Has your city had a tea party? Did you attend?

650,000 Jobs Lost

2009-03-06T11:46:00.001-05:00

The country lost another 650,000 jobs last month while the unemployment rate jumped to 8.1 percent as companies continued to slash payrolls in the face of an unyielding recession.

In the last four months alone, employers shed 2.6 million jobs. Last month, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, job declines were "widespread across nearly all major industry sectors."

The government also reported that December and January sustained greater job losses than previously calculated. Employers shed 681,000 jobs in December and 655,000 jobs in January. The new December total rivals losses not seen in some 50 years.

via ABCNews.com

Precaution, Style or Mental Crutch?

2009-03-06T07:44:00.001-05:00

President Barack Obama doesn’t go anywhere without his TelePrompter. The textbook-sized panes of glass holding the president’s prepared remarks follow him wherever he speaks.

Resting on top of a tall, narrow pole, they flank his podium during speeches in the White House’s stately parlors. They stood next to him on the floor of a manufacturing plant in Indiana as he pitched his economic stimulus plan. They traveled to the Department of Transportation this week and were in the Capitol Rotunda last month when he paid tribute to Abraham Lincoln in six-minute prepared remarks.

Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.

continue reading here...

At Least it Wasn't a Tie, Right?

2009-03-06T07:11:00.001-05:00

This story made me chuckle this morning.

Omnibus Bill is Perfect Opportunity for President to Make Good on His Word

2009-03-05T15:08:00.004-05:00

A staple on the campaign trail for President Obama was his promise to reform Washington's budget process by eliminating earmarks and that he'd "scour the federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts."

What a difference four months makes. Or even a few weeks, as it was at his not-quite-a-state-of the-union-address where he reaffirmed his commitment to eliminating pork during this "disastrous" time in our economy.

Now he wants to turn a blind eye to the $410 billion omnibus spending bill with about 8,500 earmarks. This is on top of the $787 billion stimulus bill already signed into law.

The White House justifies the omnibus spending bill as "last year's business." While that may technically be true, it's going to be passed on Obama's watch. What better way to gain the trust of this nation then by holding true to his word and going through that mammoth bill line by line and eliminating wasteful spending. Or, he could even send a larger message by vetoing the legislation. He could even invite Fancy Nancy over for tea and crumpets and charm her into ditching the earmarks on her own. He'd be a hero. A national wonder. A president for the history books. I would even consider voting for him in 2012!

Sorry, I got carried away for a minute and lost my senses.

I think we have a better chance of seeing Newt run for President in '12, than having any of those reasonable solutions happen because Obama has no intention of eliminating earmarks. In my humble opinion, he never did. But it sure does sound good and it swayed a significant number of bitter and Bible-gripping Americans to think he was a genuine moderate that was going to govern from the center.

And, in case you didn't hear him say it the first 439 times, Obama wants us to know that the excessive spending is someone else's responsibility because he "inherited" this poo poo economy. Fine. So that must mean when our President of hope and change has complete and utter control of his own budget, we'll get a balanced budget the likes we haven't seen since the Clinton years and there won't be a single earmark within a mile of it?

Wrong again. Mr. Obama has proposed $4 trillion this fiscal year and $3.6 trillion next fiscal year, yet he still likes to point out how W is the author of today's problems. Well, I think Karl Rove has a great rebuttal for that point:

Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush's decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush's eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America "cannot and will not sustain" deficits like Mr. Bush's, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he's flogging?

The House has already approved the Omnibus bill and now it's in the Senate. If you have the time, you can read more about the bill here. I guess we can always hope they change their minds.

What's Coming in Through the Back Door?

2009-03-04T14:37:00.005-05:00

When I was considering whether to come back to this blog, I was concerned that there wouldn't be a ton of topics to write and discuss in non-election years. Even though things in politics are constantly happening, not all of it is blog-worthy. It's just the day-to-day running of the country.

So far, my fears have been completely unfounded. In fact, now what concerns me is the breakneck pace at which the Obama administration is pushing through legislation. Granted, they are trying to make their first 100 days count, but there are so many balls in the air right now that while we are all focused on the economy and the massive federal spending bills, there are so many other things being shuffled in the back door.

Here's one bill that caught my eye as I was looking through all the proposed bills that are before congress right now:

H.J. Res 5
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary is considering a bill that would repeal the Constitution's 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-NY, introduced the bill.

That sure would be an appropriate bill for his majesty.

Next up...The Fairness Doctrine!

What does Bobby Jindal have in common with The Brady Bunch?

2009-03-03T08:55:00.003-05:00

He's named after Bobby Brady.

Just a little trivia that was discussed on Sunday's 60 Minutes interview with Gov. Jindal that gives a fascinating look at Jindal's personal and political life.

Even though he gave a lackluster rebuttal speech to President Obama's quasi-State of the Union address, he shows great promise for the Republican party. In fact, I like him even more after watching this segment.

Thanks to Robin at Life is Like Champagne for the link.

Dear Presiden Obama

2009-03-03T08:45:00.003-05:00

(Laura from Omaha, NE sent me this letter that she is sending to President Obama. I think it sums up nicely the way a lot of conservatives are feeling right now).

Dear President Obama,

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who are not.” Thomas Jefferson.

“It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.” Psalm 118:8

President Obama, I do not trust you or your democrat led Congress. I do not agree with a majority of the policies and beliefs that you have. I am certain I never will agree with you. I am concerned about a myriad of topics, but have chosen to focus on one in this letter. You need to know how the citizens of this country feel about the items you are signing into legislation.

These items are being passed swiftly without even allowing taxpayers and the people serving in CONGRESS to READ THEM before they are voted on. That is underhanded and sneaky. Anyone who condones and/or participates in this behavior is not fit to serve the United States of America in any form. They should not be trusted to make the decisions for our nation. I do not trust any lawmaker who would not allow a citizen of this country to research and gain a full understanding of how our tax dollars are being spent before the fact. We are slowly learning the details after the bill was signed into law. I know I am extremely upset about a majority of the spending included in the “stimulus” package. I also know I am not the only one.

With the new multi-billion dollar economic stimulus plan you signed into law recently, welfare cuts made in the 90’s have been replaced with a huge increase in welfare benefits available to states. I believe this increase in benefits is promoting current welfare recipients to continue receiving benefits. It will motivate more people to do what is necessary to receive benefits (conceive fatherless dependents). Where is the positive motivation for people to support themselves and their families? Why are you rewarding people for behavior that does not benefit personal advancement? Why are you perpetuating a vicious cycle of dependency? Why are you going to punish my family and every family that has played by the rules?

I have absolutely no problem helping a person who is in need of temporary assistance. You never know when you will be down on your luck and need TEMPORARY help from outside sources such as a local food bank, a homeless shelter or as a last resort, the government. As long as you are ACTIVELY pursuing a solution to solve your problem (employment, job training, college, etc.), it is ok for people needing help for a short time.

I teach in a school with a high rate of poverty and I am appalled at the slovenly, entitled behavior I see from my students and their parents. When you keep giving people handouts with no expectation of their advancement and you do not hold them accountable for the benefits they receive, you are promoting the cycle of poverty. There are kids having kids in the neighborhood where I work and no one is showing them a way out. As an educator, I can talk until I am blue in the face about the importance of internal motivation and how vital a post-secondary education (I understand that college is not for everyone, but some kind of post-secondary training is) is for success. When those students walk out the door of the school and return to their environment and see what their culture deems acceptable, all of my talk was for naught.

As a president who prides himself on bringing people HOPE and CHANGE, I find it ironic that you are not doing anything to give them HOPE and CHANGE. Your policies are working to keep them entrenched in their current poverty situation. All they are getting is a new and improved government check (more benefits) with no strings attached. These people need to see from their families, local, state and national leaders that welfare benefits are a TEMPORARY fix for a TEMPORARY situation, not a lifetime pass for a ride on the government gravy train. The true goal of welfare needs to be to help families move to employment and self-sufficiency and off of LONG TERM dependence on government assistance.

Dr. Adrian Rogers said "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

My family prides itself on being self-sufficient. However, the new welfare policy YOU signed into office is threatening to take that freedom away from us in the form of higher taxes. And don’t tell me my taxes are not going to be affected by this piece of legislation. How are you planning on paying for this massive “economic stimulus plan” if not for raising taxes? You are robbing Peter to pay Paul and that is not ethical or responsible. You are reaching further and further into the pockets of average people who are also struggling, but are responsible enough to take accountability for their life and their problems.

My husband and I both come from lower-middle class families. We did not have extravagant childhoods. We are both the first generation in our families to graduate from college and I went on to get my master’s degree. We work hard to support our growing family and have our basic needs met. We have late model vehicles, a comfortable but average house in a nice neighborhood and we enjoy spending time doing simple things as a family and with friends. Again, we work hard for what we have and we work hard to keep it. If we are ever in the situation where we need TEMPORARY assistance, the government will be the last place we turn. We take great pride in our ability to provide for our family. How are you going to build pride in people who are used to having everything given to them? How are you going to build an internal motivation factor for them to work to support themselves?

I reiterate, the focus of welfare should be a temporary solution to a short-term problem. The bill you signed into law does very little to promote self-sufficiency or personal growth for the people receiving welfare benefits. In order to bring people true HOPE, you must offer them a way to help themselves from the dark depths of poverty and welfare dependency, not make it easier for them to fall into the poverty cycle.

I am sure you have heard the phrase “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.” President Obama, please stop handing people fish and start giving people HOPE. TRUE HOPE that their future can be better than their past. They can learn new skills; they can get a job; they can support their family and not rely on government assistance.

I’d like to share a bible verse that is a personal favorite. “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” Jeremiah 29:11. Help the needy citizens of your country find TRUE HOPE and a FUTURE where they are not dependent on the government to support their lifestyle.

“I am doing good for the poor, but I differ in opinion of the mean. I think the best way of doing good to the poor is not making them easy in their poverty, but leading or driving them out of it,” Benjamin Franklin.

Respectfully,
Laura from Omaha, NE

Bear Market Comparisons 1929-2009

2009-02-27T14:30:00.000-05:00

The chart below is a comparison of the current market to all previous bear markets — including Friday’s new low on the Dow.

Fact Checking Obama's Speech

2009-02-27T05:49:00.000-05:00

The Associated Press provided a nice fact check of Obama's Tuesday night speech:

President Barack Obama knows Americans are unhappy that their taxes will be used to rescue people who bought mansions beyond their means.

But his assurance Tuesday night that only the deserving will get help rang hollow.

Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman expect some of that money will go to people who used lousy judgment.

The president skipped over several complex economic circumstances in his speech to Congress — and may have started an international debate among trivia lovers and auto buffs over what country invented the car.

A look at some of his assertions:

OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values."

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn't said so.
Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.

"I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed."

Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford.

"I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.
___
OBAMA: "And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it."

THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany's Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S., Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.
___
OBAMA: "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before."

THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.
___
OBAMA: "We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade."

THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don't mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House.
Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won't be 10 years from now.
___
OBAMA: "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day."

THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn't only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.
___
OBAMA: "In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas."

THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That's all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama's proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress.

Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.
___
OBAMA: "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

THE FACTS: While the president's stimulus package includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone.

In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

If Obama is to achieve his much more ambitious goal, Congress would need to mandate it. That is the thrust of an energy bill that is expected to be introduced in coming weeks.
___
OBAMA: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs."

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation. The estimates are based on economic assumptions of how many jobs would be lost without the stimulus.

Associated Press writers Tom Raum, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Dina Cappiello contributed to this story.

From One of those "Crazy" Right Radio Guys

2009-02-26T19:49:00.005-05:00

(I've edited this for space and flow).

In 1996 we had a $1.6 trillion budget.

In 1999 we had a $1.8, 2000 with President Clinton was $1.9.

Then the first budget of Bush was $2.0, then $2.2, then $2.3, then $2.4, then $2.7, then $2.77, then $2.9.

We are now looking at $3.6 trillion, and that's just what's in the budget.

Now, why don't people care? Well, people don't care because 40% of this nation doesn't pay any income tax. They get money. And remember this $4 trillion budget is going to be paid for with just the wealthiest 2% of Americans. That's who's going to pay for it.

So now the top 2% is going to pay for it and nobody will pay a dime more under $250,000. So let's look at that.

Roughly 3.8 million people filed for income tax that make over $200,000. They don't break it down at $250,000, so the closest number we could get to is $200,000. These people paid $522 billion in income tax. Roughly 62% of everything paid in the United States came from the top 2%. 62% paid for by the top 2 percent? They paid $522 billion in income tax.

The richest 1% paid $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax. Now the top marginal rate currently is 35%. So far Barack Obama is saying he's going to raise it to 39.6% plus another 2 percentage points hidden in deduction phaseouts.

But it's never what he says it is. You always have to watch the other hand as well, and the other hand is taking two additional. So you are now at 41.6% of your income. 41.6% of your income goes to the federal government. That's not including all of the other taxes these people pay.

So are you going to be able to pay for this? No, you can not pay for it at 42% of your income if you just do the top 2%, but let's not stop at 42 percent . I mean, 42%, big deal. Look how much they made. What about 70%? What about 80%? No, can't pay for it. What about 90%? No, can't pay for it. "These rich people, they caused this. We should take all of their income." 100% of their income, let's take 100% of their income.

That would be $1.3 trillion in extra revenue. Less than half of the 2006 federal budget of $2.7. Gee, we take all of the top 2% income, all of it and we get $1.3 trillion. If you take every taxable dime from everybody earning anything over $75,000, you still don't make it to $4 trillion.

Now let me ask you this. With businesses going out, with recession, these numbers are from 2006. Remember those good days?

With all of the money that was flowing and all of the money that was happening and everybody was rich and making money and your houses had worth, you just keep taking and taking and taking and taking, do you think that their income is going to be the same next year as it was in 2006? The point is you cannot cover it. You can't cover it. What we are doing is we are asking our children -- no, we're not even asking them. We're not even consulting them. We're not even talking about them. We're now to the point where we don't even care.

Thomas Jefferson said it is a crime to do this, to take from the next generation. Think of your child going in and just getting a tax lien. What we're saying is we want healthcare, we want this stuff, we want to bail out people's mortgages and so when your kid turns 20 or 24, they get out of college and getting their feet on the ground. Wait, let's just hold off until they're 30 and they got their feet on the ground and they're just starting to really save up to buy a house and everything else. Your bill, my bill, now comes knocking at their door and there is a tax lien. We're just taking it out of their paycheck. It's reprehensible and it won't work.

from Glenn Beck

Some Interesting Reads

2009-02-26T19:21:00.003-05:00

How Radio Wrecks the Right, The American Conservative

The Future of Conservatism, Becker-Posner Blog

Obama's Abortion Extremism, The Witherspoon Institute

links sent to me by P4M readers

Live Blogging Obama's Speech

2009-02-24T21:17:00.006-05:00

I tried my best to capture the President's quotes in real time. I may be a word or more off, but the content should be in the ballpark. Plus, I've added in a few of my own observations...cause that's more fun.

9:17 And we're off...with a shout out to the First Lady. I don't always like all her fashion choices, but I think she looks snappy tonight.

9:19 "We will rebuild, we will recover and then we will emerge stronger than before." (Hey, can we let the man finish the sentence before we stand up).

9:21 "I don't want to lay blame or look backwards" but let me mention how I inherited this deficit at least 300 times during my speech.

9:22 "We're not going to transfer wealth to the wealthy, instead of invest in the future?" What the heck does that mean? Don't people earn their wealth, they aren't given it.

9:23 "I don't believe in bigger government." ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?

"Our plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. Like the 57 police officers in Minneapolis whose jobs were saved by this bill or they would've been laid off." Or is it layed off?

9:26 Biden to lead the oversight effort because "nobody messes with Joe." Excuse me while I fall off my chair laughing. Look at that cheshire cat smile.

9:26 Recovery.gov so you can see how your money is being spent.

9:27 "No recovery unless we clean up the credit crisis."

"Your money in the banks is secure." Tim Geitner reminds me of Opie.

9:28 "Credit is the lifeblood of our economy."

9:28 Provide auto, college, and business loans to the people who keep this economy running. Republicans didn't know if they should stand or not

9:31 "We've got the banks' backs." in other words...we'll take them over.

9:31 "We're going to hold these banks fully accountable." Oh, Nancy's putting her program down and getting ready to jump up.

Nancy, where's the red, white and blue?

9:33 No more fun for the corporate muckety mucks. No private jets or fancy drapes for you. (say that with your best soup Nazi impersonation).

"No action is not an option. Not good for economy and I refuse to let that happen."

Obama should've coordinated his tie with the flag behind him. We got a little psychedelic line thing going on.

9:34 Ugly tie on Sen. Specter. He looks sad tonight. I guess he realized this is his last term.

Responsibility. "I will not spend a single penny to reward Wall Street but will do everything for small business and your family."

There's Burris! He looks like he's the cat who ate the canary.

9:36 "Not about banks. About people." cue the music... 'That young family can buy a home, company will hire workers to build it and then those workers will have money to spend."

drive and innovation = good. shortcuts = bad

9:37 "I will submit a budget to congress in next couple of days. It's a vision for America, a blueprint for our future. It does not solve every problem or issue. We all will have to sacrifice...including ME."

What are you sacrificing Obama? That's right, you're not going to take that new copter with the kitchen. You'll just keep that old, dingy copter you have now.

9:39 Now we're having a history lesson.

Budget will invest in energy, health care and education. Everyone stands, except Joe was a little slow on the draw.

9:40 He will double supply of renewable energy in next two years. Is that even possible?

9:43 "carbon based cap" whah? Sorry, my mind wandered, thinking about that bowl of ice cream I want but have sworn off.

9:44 "I think the nation that invented the auto can not walk away from it." Now that is a quote for the books.

9:45 "won't be easy or without cost, but this is America."

9: 46 facts, facts, fast, facts, can't keep up with all the healthcare facts & stats.

11 million children whose parents work full time and earn up to $80,000 now have healthcare. There is so many things wrong with that sentence that I don't know where to being.

9:47 I think Joe's getting tired of standing.

9:48 How is universal healthcare going to bring down the deficit?

"Let there be no doubt health care reform can not wait, it will not wait and must now wait another year."

9:49 Education. facts, facts, facts. Interesting and true. Our education system stinks. He "will insure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education from the day they are born to the day they die." (May I just say VOUCHERS!)

9:52 Expand commitment to charter schools...whoops, Nancy didn't clap for charter schools.

9:53 "If you drop out of school, you are letting your country down. It's not an option, we need everyone's contributions."

"By 2020 we will have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world."

9:54 The community organizer has just emerged. Tipping his bi-partisan hat to Kennedy and Hatch.

9:55 Parents..listen up, you're getting parenting advice.

9:56 "I don't want to pass on a debt to our children they can't pay." Republicans go crazy, Obama makes a joke and then he slammed the
Republicans with his "inherited" talk.

9:57 He will cut deficit in half by end of his term. His staff will go line by line through next year's budget and cut out pork. They will end programs that don't work. Already have identified $2 trillion to cut. (MORE ON THIS IN AN UPCOMING POST. SMOKE AND MIRRORS, PEOPLE. SMOKE AND MIRRORS).

10:01 Will end tax breaks for corporations that send jobs overseas.

Camera cuts away to a guy who looks like he is drunk on Obama.

If you make $250,000 or less, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. Recovery plan provides a tax cut for 95% of working families. It's in writing so it must be true.

10:02 Starting to zone out... but I hear a "finally,"

10:04 "I will find a way out of Iraq and responsibly end the war." Interestingly, McCain stands.

"I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens half way around the world. We will not allow it."

10:05 Time for a tour of the peanut gallery to meet all the war heroes and common Joes.

10:06 Closing Club Gitmo. "Living our values doesn't make us weaker, makes us stronger.USA does NOT torture. We're making that commitment tonight." everyone stands.

10:07 "Can not avoid the negotiating table or those who could do us harm."

10:08 "Hope is found in unlikely places, inspiration doesn't come from power or celebrity, it comes from those dreams and inspiration of ordinary Americans who are anything but ordinary."

10:09 Ty'sheoma Bethea, student at school in SC. Wrote to Obama that her school needed help. She wrote, "We are not quitters." I have a tear in my eye. Seriously. Touching moment with Miss Bethea.

"We haven't agreed on every issue thus far, and there will be times in the future we will part ways, but every American sitting here tonight loves this country and wants it to succeed. It's the foundation where American people expect us to find common ground."

"something worthy to be remembered"

THE END (Why are congressman getting autographs from Obama? Like all of them.)

So now the question is what did the American people tonight? Did he sell his stimulas plan to you? Did you feel he had more hope tonight? Was it a vintage Obama speech?

Obingo

2009-02-24T20:47:00.002-05:00

There is just 12 more minutes until President Obama addresses a joint session of congress. As we all know, even the most diehard at-home pundit gets a little bored during these speeches. So just out this game over at Heading Right. It's OBINGO!!!

Obama State of the Union Address Tonight

2009-02-24T01:44:00.000-05:00

President Obama will speak to the people tonight in a nationally televised quasi State of the Union address. Check your local listing for time, but I think it will be at 8:00pm eastern time.

I just hope he brings the hope...I can't take another doom and gloom speech.

Obama Taps Biden to Oversee Stimulus Package Implementation

2009-02-23T13:38:00.001-05:00

President Obama has turned to his own vice president to oversee implementation of the $787 billion economic stimulus package, part of which will be available this week for state Medicaid programs.

Obama announced his decision before the National Governors Association in Washington on Monday, saying Vice President Joe Biden will help ensure the distribution of the money is not just swift, "but also efficient and effective."

"The fact that I'm asking my vice president to personally lead this effort shows how important it is for our country and future to get this right," he said.

read more...

Protecting Children or Endangering our Constitution?

2009-02-23T01:07:00.000-05:00

Last week I outlined the provisions of H.R. 45, a bill that will significantly rewrite gun-ownership laws in America. The bill claims its purpose is "to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of firearms to criminals and youth."

Sounds noble, right? We all want to protect our children from gun accidents and violence, but rather than providing a solution that will hit at the heart of the problem, another legislator wants to put even more limitations on our second amendment.

There are a lot of factors that work together to bring a person to the point they pick up a gun and take the life of another. Whether they actually have a gun is usually not the tipping point to that decision.

These types of bills are always put forth as a means to curbing violence, in this case, violence against children. The problem is that it is the ordinary, law-abiding citizen who is punished and not the thugs who buy their guns in back alleys and out of trunks of other dangerous thugs. If you're a thug, you are more than likely aren't going to a gun shop to obtain a gun.

So the provisions in this bill become a infringement on the ordinary citizen's privacy (mental records released) and makes it something that may not be accessible to all citizens (associated costs).

The most disturbing provision in this bill is the one that takes away your right to keep a gun in your home to protect your family and your property. While I have no desire to keep a gun in my home, it is a right we have under the second amendment. Which begs the question, how can you have this bill as law and still keep the second amendment?

I have a hard time believing H.R. 45 will ever make it out of committee in this form. But it should concern us that our constitution and one of our basic rights is being threatened. We'll keep our eyes on this and see where it goes.

What do you think?

Recent Headlines

2009-02-22T21:32:00.002-05:00

3 GOP Governors Don't Rule Out 2012 Presidential Challenge
Govs. Bobby Jindal, Tim Pawlenty and Mark Sanford never say never although all say they aren't focused on presidential politics right now.

Obama Seeks to Halve Deficit to Half Trillion Per Year by 2013
President Obama is using the coming week to work on a budget for the next fiscal year that puts government in the direction of spending only half as much beyond its means than will be spent this year.

Dodd: Nationalizing Banks May be Needed
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., told Bloomberg News on Friday that banks may have to be nationalized for "a short time."

"I don’t welcome that at all, but I could see how it’s possible it may happen," said Dodd. "I think that’s unfortunate, but it may come to that. I think the administration is resisting it; they prefer not to go that way for all of the reasons that we’re familiar with in terms of the symbolic notion of nationalization of major lending institutions."

Leveling the Playing Field - Part 2

2009-02-20T01:19:00.004-05:00

UPDATED

It looks like all the flattery didn't buy us a reprise; Jeff's already disputing facts and getting his panty hose in a knot. So for the record, b/c I like to run this ship free of errors (much like the NYT), let me state that Jeff didn't vote for Bush the second time and he regrets voting for him the first time. But it does sound like he'll support Palin in 2012 :)

So why should you care Jeff is my brother? Well, frankly, it doesn't matter. But if you're like me, his comments sometimes make you want to go screaming from the room and jump in a vat of boiling oil. He's that infuriating.

The funny thing is that his wife says that he is this critical of Democrats also. He loves to pin them in corners and argue just as vehemently. Their liberal friends think he's a card carrying conservative while I think he has become a bleeding heart liberal.

So the question becomes is he a Republican or a Democrat? I really have no clue. I do know he voted for Obama and that he likes paying taxes and wouldn't mind paying more if the government could use it to help more of those living in poverty. But he also voted for Bush both times and he supported the war. For a while. Now he's not such a big fan of it. Like a lot of Republicans.

So what is he? I'd say he is something that we are lacking in our country: an independent thinker.

We need more independent thinkers. We need people that aren't locked into boxes with donkeys or elephants on the outside. People that ask the hard questions. People that are innovative and creative problem solvers. People that just don't regurgitate the party platform and blindly support a candidate just because they are part of the big party machine. We need people who are willing to challenge the status quo and not afraid to back down. People who are critical thinkers.

Yes, I'm going to say it: We need more thinkers like Jeff in the world. Now do I always agree with him? Nope. Almost never, in fact, when it comes to political matters.

But I hope he'll stick around and continue to push us to defend our positions and ideals, not so we can make a believer out of him, (b/c that sooo ain't going to happen) but so we can become well-versed in the facts, better develop our positions and then be able to articulate them persuasively.

That's what I notice missing the most from the conservative side of the fence: people who can persuasively articulate their position. We rely too much on our emotions to make our point and we come across as slobbering idiots. If you want to whip a liberal in an argument, you'll never do it with emotion and platitudes. They only respect and respond to fact driven conversations.

Hopefully Jeff is here to stay. I once mentioned he should blog with me and we'd come up with some clever name like "Polar Opposites" or "I'm a little bit Country...And he's a little bit Rock N Roll" but he mumbled something about having a job and supporting his family.

Whatever.

So until he finds religion and decides he was created to be a political blogger, we'll just have to get our kicks from him in the comments.

And, if you ever think Jeff's being too hard on you, just throw in a "Palin 2012" or "the only place I get my news is from Fox News" and I guarantee he'll go running from the room and dive head first into a vat of boiling oil.

So who wants to come over for Easter dinner this year!

Leveling the Playing Field - Part 1

2009-02-18T21:19:00.010-05:00

UPDATED:

Let me correct the record to state that Jeff's father-in-law is NOT a Democrat. In fact, it's highly suspected he's a closet Republican. And his mother-in-law is NOT a strong Democrat. She's a moderate Democrat. My apologies...especially to Mr. S. It is no joking matter to be miscategorized as a liberal Democrat. No joking matter whatsoever. But Jeff's wife IS a Democrat and a feminist in the vein of Hillary Clinton. Whatever that means!

One more thing...this story does have a happy ending. So please don't worry about the "outing" of my quasi Conservaberal brother. He ends up a hero. I know, it's all quite disgusting. The next entry will be posted overnight.

I have a confession to make. I've not been entirely upfront about something on this blog.

For those of you who have followed this blog from the beginning, you know that one of our most opinionated commenters is not even a mom. He started as out as an anonymous commenter, then he became anonymous Jeff and now he is just Jeff.

Here's what you don't know about Jeff: He's my brother. At least that's what our parents told us.

Jeff and I were born into a strong Republican family and grew up in a conservative mid-western town. Then we moved to the east coast and both went to the same conservative, Christian college. Following college and a short stint in the business world, Jeff went to law school. If you couldn't tell by his intense scrutiny, questioning, and desire to always have your points documented with sources, preferably sources that are independent and impartial, YES, he's a lawyer.

Ahhhh, now it's all becoming clear, isn't it? Oh, but it gets better.

After practicing law and living in the City of Brotherly Love, where there are more liberals than cheesesteaks, he met his wife. She's from a strong Democratic family---not that there's anything wrong with that---also an attorney, and a modern feminist in the vein of Hillary Clinton. (I have no idea what that means, but it sounded right).

Somewhere in law school, probably the week they began teaching how to argue a case, Jeff started practicing his arguing skillz on his family. His favorite topics are religion and politics. They are also my mom's favorite topics. (Remember, she's the lifelong Republican who has about 12 autographed pictures of Dubya.) Good times.

So we've tried to stay on more neutral topics over the years, especially now that we have an authentic Democrat in the family. And things were going well until I started this blog a year ago. I started noticing anonymous comments showing up that sounded strangely like the arguments I had heard while eating turkey and mashed potatoes across from my brother. After a few more, I knew it was him.

With a strong tongue lashing about proper blog etiquette and how rude anonymous comments are, he finally started signing his name.

Sometime in September, he started twitching, mumbling in his sleep about uniformed conservative robots, and neglected his job, family and eating to set us women straight about the election. Palin's nomination and the conservative love fest that ensued sent him over the edge. That's when an intervention was launched. His wife and my mom both took him aside and said, "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP IT. LEAVE THE WOMEN ALONE."

And he did.

In the end Obama won and Jeff assured his lifelong Republican family that we could expect our unicorn and pot of gold in the mail within the year.

Coming Up...So is he a Republican or a Democrat?

What a Pleasant Surprise

2009-02-18T12:44:00.001-05:00

A measure approved by the North Dakota House gives a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being, a step that would essentially ban abortion in the state.

The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended abortion rights nationwide, supporters of the legislation said.

Representatives voted 51-41 to approve the measure Tuesday. It now moves to the North Dakota Senate for its review.

read the rest of the story here...

$50 Billion Needed for Housing Market

2009-02-18T09:01:00.003-05:00

According to ABCNews.com, these are a few of the provisions that will be announced in President Obama's proposal to bail out the housing market.

The price tag is $50 billion -- from the TARP funds -- plus more on top of that from other programs.
Government subsidies for lenders to modify loans to homeowners who are struggling to make payments. The government would subsidize the difference.
A program through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for homeowners to refinance their mortgages if they owe more than their homes are worth.
An effort to make loans more affordable through various means -- extending loans, lowering interest rates, and other ways.

The president will announce the plan from Arizona today unemployment in the state was 6.9 percent in December 2008, and Arizona recorded 117,000 foreclosures in 2008, the third highest number in the U.S.

via ABCNews.com

Damage Control

2009-02-18T08:53:00.003-05:00

Last week, I wrote Sen. Arlen Specter two times asking him to NOT vote for the stimulus package. If talk radio was any indicator in Pennsylvania, I was not alone. The people are outraged over his actions.

Yesterday, he sent out an e-mail to his constituents explaining his justification for his actions. The last paragraph is my favorite.

Dear Friends:

As you know, today the President signed into law the "Americans Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009."

The vote on the stimulus package was a very tough vote because of the very large deficit we have and the very large national debt faced by future generations. But the economy is in a desperate situation. Just in the month of January we lost 600,000 jobs, added to the loss of 2.8 million last year. There are millions of people who are having their homes foreclosed. The economists tell us that if we do not act that the current severe recession could well develop into a full-fledged depression like 1929.

The agreement we reached was the best one we could under the circumstances. We were able to cut out $100 billion from the package and include 35% in tax relief in the overall bill. My preference would have been John McCain’s proposal, which I voted for, to have the stimulus package of $421 billion in tax cuts alone. I voted for the Reagan tax cuts back in 1981 and that would be the best course, but in a legislative body you don’t have exactly your own choice.

I was impressed with the position of the United States Chamber of Commerce which was for the bill very solidly. The Chamber of Commerce, obviously, is a very conservative, Republican organization which has its hands on the economy and what’s happening to many, many businesses and they were for it. All factors considered, I thought that action had to be taken.

I voted for it with reservations, as I have commented. One was I didn’t like the speed of the operation. When President Obama came to talk to the Republican Caucus and my turn came for a question I said, ‘Why the haste? Why do you have to move ahead on February 13?’ I reminded him of the bailout package of $700 billion where mistakes were made because the legislature didn’t go through what we call ‘regular order.’ The President responded that there was an emergency and that we had to act. Another factor which concerned me was that there is a good bit in this bill which should be in the regular appropriations process - important healthcare and education projects, but they ought to be in the regular budget where we establish overall spending and then make a determination of priorities.

My vote was cast recognizing the very substantial political peril that I face. I know that there are many on the Republican political spectrum who do not like the vote. I remember, obviously, the tough primary fight I had in the year 2004. But I felt in the final analysis, given the very severe consequences which might befall the country, that my duty was to look out for the public interest and not my own personal political interest.

Sincerely, Sen. Arlen Specter

It's good to know he wasn't concerned about his "own personal political interest," it will make voting him out in 2010 that much easier.

It's a Done Deal

2009-02-17T15:36:00.002-05:00

On Wednesday in Arizona, President Obama will unveil another part of his economic recovery effort -- a plan to help millions of homeowners fend off foreclosure.

photo via FoxNews.com

Please make it stop!

Who's Blair Holt? And What's He Got to Do With Your Rights to Bear Arms.

2009-02-16T21:02:00.005-05:00

Amber wrote and asked what I thought about H.R. 45. To be honest, I didn't even know what H.R. 45 was all about and I'm betting you don't either. So here's a little background:

Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., introduced a firearm-licensing bill in January that will significantly rewrite gun-ownership laws in America. The bill claims its purpose is "to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of firearms to criminals and youth."

H.R. 45, is also known as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009," named after an Illinois teenager killed by a gunshot. According the bill, "On the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting."

The bill then argues that interstate firearm trafficking and children dying from gun violence create legitimate cause for the federal government to monitor gun ownership and transfers in new ways. If passed, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a handgun or any semiautomatic firearm that takes an ammunition clip – without a "Blair Holt" license.

To obtain a "Blair Holt" license, an application must be made that includes a photo, address, all previous aliases, thumb print, completion of a written firearm safety test, and release of mental health records to the attorney general.

The bill also makes it illegal to transfer ownership of a qualifying firearm to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector. Exceptions to this rule include transfer to family members by gift or bequest and loans, not to exceed 30 days, of a firearm for lawful purposes "between persons who are personally known to each other."

The bill also requires qualifying firearm owners to report all transfers to the attorney general's database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours or fail to report a change of address within 60 days. And if a minor obtains a weapon and injures someone with it, the owner of the gun – if deemed to have failed to meet certain safety requirements – faces a multiple-year jail sentence.

So that's the bill in a nutshell. You can go here and here and here to read more. Let's chew on it for a day or so and then we'll discuss it.

A Lingering Question

2009-02-16T09:54:00.002-05:00

I have a lingering question regarding last week's passage of the stimulus bill.

After all the frenzy to get the stimulus bill passed because "if we don't the world is going to fall off its axis and all our money will self-combust and we'll be wearing potato sacks by Saturday if we DON'T PASS THE BILL NOW, so let's not even take 48 hours to read it or to find out who put the handwritten changes and sticky notes all over it because WE MUST PASS THE BILL NOW.

Then, we can wait four days for Obama to sign it into law.

So why couldn't we have waited until Tuesday to vote on the bill?

President Obama will sign Stimulus Bill on Tuesday

2009-02-15T05:33:00.001-05:00

Stimulus Bill Passes Congress

2009-02-14T15:42:00.002-05:00

"This morning, I'm reminded of words President Kennedy spoke in another time of uncertainty," President Obama says in his weekly address today. "'Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men. Do not pray for tasks equal to your powers. Pray for powers equal to your tasks.'"

The passage of the $787 billion stimulus bill yesterday, however party-line the vote was in the House, and near-party-line in the Senate, is a big victory for President Obama. It is arguably the biggest economic recovery legislation in history. (I believe it amounts to roughly 5% of the GDP, whereas FDR's biggest was about 2% of the GDP at the time.)

Whether it works, of course, remains to be seen.

continue reading ABC News' Jake Tapper's story here...

You can read President Obama's comments about this bill's passage here...

House Vote Expected at 1:30PM Eastern Time

2009-02-13T12:09:00.002-05:00

UPDATED

Senator Kennedy is too ill to make the vote today. Can the Democrats get their 60 votes??

C'mon Specter! Show some backbone.

I'm Glad the First Lady has Confidence in Her Husband's Plan

2009-02-13T10:17:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama's wife quipped that the $600 tax stimulus check could be used for a pair of earrings.

"You're getting $600 - what can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month," she said. "The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings."

From the Washington Times, July 11, 2008

I Hope He's a Speed Reader

2009-02-13T10:06:00.001-05:00

Republican Study Committee chair Rep. Tom Price has a special message for you about this final stimulus bill. This is your last chance to ACT NOW.

What a Transparent Obama Administration Looks Like

2009-02-13T09:45:00.003-05:00

At the Elkhart, IN rally earlier this week, President Obama said:

"Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off.

Sounds like great news for the 22,000 Caterpillar has had to layoff in recent months, right? Well, not so fast.

After the president left, Mr. Owens not only did a turnabout on rehiring; he also suggested there may be even more layoffs. Although he said he continued to
support the stimulus package, it wouldn't result in a reversal of layoffs for anyone: “I think realistically no. The truth is we’re going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again.” In part, Mr. Owens indicated in one of the interviews that he did not want to raise false expectations for people.

I guess it's only taken 3 weeks for Obama to define for us what an "open and transparent" administration looks like. Apparently, it relies on lies and deceit.

You can read the entire New York Times article here.

What's in the News (Yesterday & Today)

2009-02-13T09:23:00.002-05:00

Congress Readies Final Vote on $790 billion Stimulus Plan
After a 24-hour delay caused by late, lingering controversy, Democratic congressional leaders say President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill -- a massive, $790 billion package of tax cuts and federal spending -- is on track for a Friday vote in the House.

The Senate could vote on the bill later in the day or over the weekend, sending the measure to Obama's desk and awarding him a crucial victory. He says the measure will create or save 3.5 million jobs, while critics contend the bill is filled with wasteful spending and provisions that won't boost the economy. Continue reading here

Gregg Withdraws as Commerce Secretary Nominee
Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire abruptly withdrew his nomination as commerce secretary Thursday, citing "irresolvable conflicts" with President Barack Obama's handling of the economic stimulus and 2010 census.

"We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy," Gregg said in a statement released by his Senate office. Continue reading here

Will the Stimulus actually Stimulate? Economists Say No
The compromise economic stimulus plan agreed to by negotiators from the House of Representatives and the Senate is short on incentives to get consumers spending again and long on social goals that won't stimulate economic activity, according to a range of respected economists.

"I think (doing) nothing would have been better," said Ed Yardeni, an investment analyst who's usually an optimist, in an interview with McClatchy. He argued that the plan fails to provide the right incentives to spur spending. Continue reading here

Tell Chuck You Care

2009-02-11T14:47:00.002-05:00

Instead of kicking your dog or throwing your cell phone out of a moving car, I thought you might want to channel your energies into some constructive dialog. I'll warn you though...apparently poor Chuck's email form has been disabled and his phone lines are jammed. I tried. Go figure.

Schumer, Charles E. - (D - NY) Class III
313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6542
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm
Fax:202-228-3027

Hey, Chuck Shumer!

2009-02-11T12:52:00.001-05:00

Yes, We Care!

With Love, From the Chattering Class

"It's All We've Got"

2009-02-11T11:38:00.003-05:00

"We've got to do something."

Those are two phrases you hear the most when talking with people about the stimulus bill and whether it should be put in motion.

Honestly, I think those are very lame reasons to saddle the American people and future generations with millions, no, billions, wait, ZILLIONS of dollars of debt.

Then to have Treasury Secretary (and tax whiz) Tim Geitner say yesterday he had a new plan but it wasn't guaranteed to work either. He obviously inspired great confidence as was shown with the markets closing down 400 points.

So maybe, just maybe, there is another way that doesn't require us to "settle" for a second rate plan just because that's all we've got. For having scores of brilliant minds to draw upon, I can't believe the only thing we can come up with is to throw the kitchen sink at this problem and see what sticks.

Maybe the answer is actually right under our noses. Maybe it's allowing our free markets to decide who lives another day and who fails. I know some of you feel like that is definitely a more risky proposition and you ask about the people that will become collateral damage? Well folks, neither plan is without collateral damage. The stimulus plan just slaps a big ole Dora band aid on the pain and delays the inevitable for another day. Letting the market correct itself takes all the phony money out of play and puts our economy back on solid ground.

I'm not alone on my call to "do nothing." Here's a smattering of articles from around the Web that are sounding the same alarm:

Let Wall Street Fail

Keep Your Hands off my Shaky Assets

Let Failed Banks Fail

Why a Few of the Financial Giants Should Crash

Leading Experts: Let the Banks Fail

What if we let the Banks Fail

I'm So Confused

2009-02-10T17:05:00.002-05:00

Today, tax wiz extraordinaire and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner outlined a massive $2 trillion plan today that is meant to stabilize the nation's banking sector and restore the public's faith in the government's ability to handle the crisis.

Oh yeah, that'll do it.

So what the heck is the $838 billion economic stimulus bill for that the Senate passed today?

In case you were wondering, to put $2 trillion into perspective, consider this: That's enough money to outright buy 8 million homes at $250,000 each.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Another Day, Another Tax Problem

2009-02-10T14:00:00.000-05:00

President Obama's choice for labor secretary, Hilda Solis, is (surprise!) facing tax questions. A Senate committee's vote on her confirmation is delayed after it learns her husband had $6,400 in unresolved tax liens filed against his business. Solis is a Democratic Representative from California.

Public records show that since 1993, two state and 14 Los Angeles County tax liens totaling about $11,640 have been lodged against Sayyad and his business, Sam's Foreign and Domestic Auto Center. The documents indicate that $6,468 in county liens remained unresolved until Wednesday, when Sayyad paid off the balance, according to the Los Angeles County treasurer and tax collector's office.

Despite her problems, Democrats seem confident she'll still be confirmed. The White House defended her by saying that Solis is "not a partner in that business. So we're not going to penalize her for her husband's business mistakes. Obviously, her husband, I think, has and should pay any taxes that he owes." Although they file their taxes jointly, her husband is the sole proprietor of his business.

I'm All Ears

2009-02-10T12:39:00.003-05:00

I'm making no bones that I'm not a supporter of this stimulus bill. But I'm sure there are readers out there who are supporters. Give me you best reasons why this bill needs to pass. Why should I support this bill? Why should I overlook all the pork and nationalization of health care to support this legislation.

I'm all ears. I truly want to understand why the American people should support this bill.

The Time is Now

2009-02-10T12:10:00.003-05:00

Despite what you are hearing in the media, there is still an opportunity to stop this stimulus legislation. You can't wait in the wings for others to voice concern over this bill. You need to act. Congress needs to hear from you.

Contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them you aren't happy with the current bill. Tell them you absolutely do not support the health care legislation they are trying to sneak through. Tell them you want them to vote no.

There are three Republican Senators said to be voting with the Democrats. Call Senators Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter and ask them to vote with their party.

Senator Snowe, 202-224-5344
Senator Collins, 202-224-2523
Senator Specter, 202-224-4254

The switchboard number at the Capitol is 202-224-3121. Or, go on line and get the number for your senator's local office in your home state. You can also send an e-mail. Heck! DO BOTH.

Health Care in Stimulus Bill

2009-02-10T11:41:00.005-05:00

Tom Daschle may have dropped out of the hunt for a cabinet position, but his handprints are all over the Senate's stimulus bill. Unfortunately, what has been unearthed from the bill in regards to our health care is just the type of thing we have feared.

First, health care is one of those lightening rod topics that should demand lengthy and in-depth deliberation and research before sweeping legislation would turn it on its head. But according to Bloomberg.com, this legislation hidden within the stimulas bill to avoid just the type of debate.

Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration’s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,” he said. “The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.”

According to Bloomberg.com,

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446).

Unfortunately, for doctors and hospitals who choose to exercise their professional opinion without the blessing of the government strict penalties will be imposed (511, 518, 540-541).

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

And if you think that all sounds bad, then just be glad you aren't elderly. Yet. According to Daschle,

Health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).
This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

Is this the type of health care system you want in the United States? Do you want a system that doesn't value all members of our society? When you are diagnosed with cancer, do you want some government worker making arbitrary decisions about your care? Do you want the government overriding your doctor's decisions?

If that type of health care is okay with you, then sit tight. But if that type of health care scares the socks off you, then you need to take action now. Read this to learn what you can do.

Is it really a Catastrophe?

2009-02-10T08:41:00.004-05:00

President Barack Obama has painted an extraordinarily bleak picture of America’s future if Congress fails to move quickly to pass stimulus legislation, warning that inaction “could turn a crisis into a catastrophe.” He's also said that he's inherited "the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression."

Back in October, Bush used the same type of language to convince us that if government intervention didn't move swiftly our financial world would come crashing down around us. But let's look at the facts.

As bad as the economic numbers are, the unemployment figures have not reached the levels of the early 1980s, let alone the 1930s---yet. A total of 598,000 payroll jobs vanished in January---the most in nearly 35 years---and the unemployment rate jumped to 7.6 from 7.2 percent the month before. The most recent high was 7.8 percent in June 1992.

The jobless rate was 10.8 percent in November and December 1982. Unemployment in the Great Depression ranged for several years from 25 percent to close to 30 percent.

Bad? Maybe. Catastrophic? No.

Someone's Gotta Read It

2009-02-09T18:34:00.002-05:00

I know how some of you like to see the actual language of the bills so you can make your own determinations. So here is the Senate bill and the House bill. These are the actual bills and not the executive summaries. The House bill alone is over 1500 pages!!

So for you diehards, have at it. If you find any interesting pork, leave a comment and let us know!

Why He Supports the Stimulus Package

2009-02-09T17:16:00.005-05:00

For better or for worse, Sen. Arlen Specter is my Senator. He's also one of three Republicans who were instrumental in working with Democrats on a "compromise" to the stimulus plan. To hear that he helped to craft the bill and that he plans to vote for it are absolutely no surprise to Pennsylvanians. Specter is what we like to call a Rino (Republican in name only).

So I was pleasantly surprised to receive an e-mail from the good Senator yesterday that outlined his rationale for supporting this bill. If there is one thing I've learned about Specter, it is that he doesn't often feel the need to explain his position. But he did acknowledge in a speech on the floor of the Senate that his office is being inundated with e-mails and phone calls from Americans not in support of the stimulus package. I even heard a poll this morning that said over 90 percent of polled Pennsylvanians would not vote for him in the next election is he voted yes for this bill. So he's feeling just a tab vulnerable right now.

The e-mail he sent contained an op-ed piece that was in Friday's Washington Post. I was hoping to link to his piece, but its not available. So I'm going to re post it right here and you can make your own determination about one of the three senators who have reached across the aisle to try and make this bill something palatable.

Why I Support the Stimulus
By Arlen Specter

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

The unemployment figures announced Friday, the latest earnings reports and the continuing crisis in banking make it clear that failure to act will leave the United States facing a far deeper crisis in three or six months. By then the cost of action will be much greater -- or it may be too late.

Wave after wave of bad economic news has created its own psychology of fear and lowered expectations. As in the old Movietone News, the eyes and ears of the world are upon the United States. Failure to act would be devastating not just for Wall Street and Main Street but for much of the rest of the world, which is looking to our country for leadership in this crisis.

The legislation known as the "moderates" bill, hammered out over two days by Sens. Susan Collins, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman and myself, preserves the job-creating and tax relief goals of President Obama's stimulus plan while cutting less-essential provisions -- many of them worthy in themselves -- that are better left to the regular appropriations process.

Our $780 billion bill would save or create up to 4 million jobs, helping to offset the loss of 3.6 million jobs since December 2007. The bill cuts some $110 billion from the $890 billion Senate version, which would actually be $940 billion if floor amendments for tax credits on home and car purchases and money for the National Institutes of Health are retained.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the proposed cuts "do violence to what we are trying to do for the future," especially on education. Her objections are a warning to conservatives that more cuts would be unlikely to win House approval. They are also an admission of the high price that moderates have been able to extract for their support of stimulus legislation.

If a stimulus bill doesn't pass, there won't be any money for Title I education programs. The moderates' bill provides marginally less money for Title I than the House and Senate bills. But while it's less than supporters want, this proverbial half a loaf beats no loaf by a mile.

In health funding, both the House and Senate bills contain billions of dollars for wellness and prevention programs, including for smoking cessation, prenatal screening and counseling, education, and immunization. The moderates' bill, regrettably but necessarily, cancels this funding on the grounds that such programs are better left to the regular appropriations process.

"In politics," John Kennedy used to say, "nobody gets everything, nobody gets nothing and everybody gets something." My colleagues and I have tried to balance the concerns of both left and right with the need to act quickly for the sake of our country. The moderates' compromise, which faces a cloture vote today, is the only bill with a reasonable chance of passage in the Senate.

The Tax Man Cometh

2009-02-04T15:28:00.003-05:00

I'm sorry.

I reeled you back in and then I left you hanging here for a few days. What can I say...I got busy clinging to my guns and religion. Oh, and I was doing my taxes because that's what good Americans do according to Vice President Biden: We pay our taxes. All of them. Without complaining.

Apparently, some of Washington's finest need to be paying a little more attention to their taxes as we learned this past weekend. You could say this is old news by now, but I think it's important to recap.

First, we had Timothy Geithner confirmed as Treasury secretary despite belatedly paying $34,000 in income taxes. After saying about 1 zillion and two times that he was very, very sorry, he got a 'pass' and was confirmed as Treasury secretary.

I mean, he WAS sorry. It was probably just a fluke because we all know that it's our patriotic duty to pay our taxes. And he was sorry.

Then, there was Nancy Killefer who was nominated to be the first Chief Performance Office. When her selection was announced by Obama on Jan. 7, The Associated Press disclosed that in 2005 the District of Columbia had filed a $946.69 tax lien on her home for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax on household help. She withdrew her candidacy Tuesday.

Hmmm, I'm noticing a pattern here.

And finally, but probably not lastly, we learned that Tom Daschle had a little tax problem. I really don't know how you can not pay more than $130,000 in taxes when you have a bevy of lawyers, financial planners and other advisers who do all that work for you. It's not like Daschle is sitting at his kitchen table surrounded by crumbled receipts trying to peck the numbers into Turbo Tax. But President Obama told reporters he "absolutely" stands by the former South Dakota senator.

Today? Not so much. Daschle withdrew his nomination for health and human services secretary on Tuesday. Would've been cheaper just to pay the $130,000.

Could we throw some money into that stimulus plan for professional tax help for the Obama administration? Better yet, why don't we do a full tax audit of every Representative, Senator and high up muckety muck in Washington. We might just find enough money in back taxes to pull us out of this economic slump.

Economic Stimulus Plan in More Detail

2009-01-30T10:23:00.000-05:00

Several of you left comments asking for more detail on the American recovery and Reinvestment Bill 2009 that passed the House this week. So for those of you who like the nitty gritty, here are a few links:

Executive Summary of the Bill, Committee on Appropriations

Wall Street Journal's Interpretation of the Plan

If you know of any other worthwhile links, please shout them out in the comments.

A Reasoned Approach to the Stimulus Package

2009-01-30T09:09:00.001-05:00

Interesting NYT op-ed piece on the recovery plan. If the guy is a top Obama advisor, why did he have such little influence over the final product?

The Best of Both Worlds?

2009-01-30T01:18:00.000-05:00

If you are a Dittohead, you know that your fearless leader has been under fire this week from President Obama for being a bulwark to unity and progress. But in this new era of bipartisanship, radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has extended a modern-day olive branch and proposed an economic stimulus plan that he believes both sides of the aisle can rally around.

Limbaugh's plan was in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. Take a minute to read it (it's not long) and then come back and tell us if you think the Limbaugh-Obama Stimulus Plan can solve our country's economic woes.

Loose Screw or Rush to Judgment?

2009-01-29T15:25:00.002-05:00

I know this will go against what 98% of America believe, but I think Gov. Blagojevich may have a point.

There is no doubt that Blagojevich is a bit strange and has made his share of enemies in the state of Illinois. Earlier this week, pundits actually thought he may have been trying to mount a case for insanity as he zipped around NYC doing television show after television interview babbling about Oprah, cowboys and other nonsense.

Regardless, the fact remains that he hasn't been convicted of a crime, he hasn't even been indicted.

"How can you throw a governor out of office, and you haven't been able to show or prove any criminal wrongdoing?" Blagojevich said in his address to the Illinois Senate today. "How can you throw a governor out of office who is clamoring and begging to bring witnesses in?" he continued.

Then you have the prosecutor who seems to make a worthy argument.

"He has a Constitutional right not to be thrown in jail without a fair trial," said David Eillis, impeachment prosecutor continued. "But he does not have a Constitutional right to be governor. That is a privilege and he forfeited that privilege. He has abused the power of his office."

But where is the abuse of power? If it hasn't been proven that he committed a crime, then what exactly has he done wrong...besides be an idiot more often than not. It would appear that maybe they are trying to oust him for past grievances than maybe on the merits of this case.

Of course, if Blagojevich is indicted and the charges stick then I believe they have all the justification in the world to impeach him. The crimes he could be charged with are very serious and would mean that he intentionally tried to undermine and corrupt our democratic system. We should all be outraged at that.

But can't we let the judicial system work before we hang him out to dry? You can't get rid of a guy just because he may have a loose screw. Even loose screws deserve their day in court.

sources: FoxNews.com,

New Legislation Guarantees Equal Pay for Women

2009-01-29T14:41:00.002-05:00

I was fresh out of college and had visions of finding the right job where I could prove I was an intelligent and hard working employee and then I was sure career advancement and pay increases would follow.

Then I did a phone interview with the president of a local non-profit and my Pollyanna world crumbled just a bit. The guy was doing screening interviews and so we talked about my qualifications and a little bit about the available position. At the end of the call, he gave me the salary range for the position and then stated, "Now you do realize that if you were a guy, you'd make more money. That's just the way it is in business, men tend to make more than women."

My jaw hit the ground. First, I couldn't believe pay discrimination even existed; I thought it was simply an urban legend or practice that maybe existed 50 years prior. Secondly, if it did, I couldn't believe an employer would openly admit to it.

That's why I was especially happy that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act was signed into law today by President Obama.

Lilly Ledbetter filed a 1998 suit against a Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. plant in Gadsen, Ala., after learning that men working in the same position were making more money. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote that Ledbetter had waited too long to sue, since she brought the suit near the end of her 19-year career with the company.

The new legislation allows lawsuits to be brought years later, as long as the alleged pay disparity is continuing. The bill does not change current law limiting back pay for claimants to two years.

On average, women make 78 cents for every dollar men earn. The new legislation isn't limited to gender-based discrimination. It amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act and also applies to discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, disability or age.

Agree or disagree with this legislation? What are your thoughts?

sources: ABCNews.com, FoxNews.com

Are You on Twitter?

2009-01-28T23:27:00.002-05:00

Want more Politics for Moms? Follow me on Twitter and you'll get little gems just like this:

Congressional Budget Office says borrowing $820B will cost $347B more in interest. Puts total cost of the stimulus package over $1 trillion.

and this:

Post Office is considering only delivering mail 5 days a week to save money.

$819 billion Stimulus Plan Passes House

2009-01-28T22:51:00.003-05:00

The House passed the stimulus package tonight. Despite President Obama's desire to have a bipartisan bill, all of the Republicans and 11 Democrats voted against it.

Although the plan was suppose to help create jobs, there was plenty of other causes represented. Among the nearly $820 billion in the proposal are $25 million for new ATV trails; $400 million for the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global warming research; $335 million for the Centers for Disease Control to combat sexually-transmitted diseases; and $650 million coupons to subsidize TV viewers for digital television conversion.

Supporters of the bill contend though that the bill is suppose to help create jobs and that's exactly what it does.

"I think that you have a hard economic argument to make that paving a road, or fixing a bridge, or building a wind turbine, or laying a power grid doesn't create jobs," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Of the $819 billion package, $30 billion has been set aside for infrastructure spending.

Now the bill heads to the Senate for consideration.

sources: FoxNews.com

What Really Matters in Life

2009-01-27T01:39:00.000-05:00

George Bush was not a perfect president. Perfect presidents don't exist. But I believe he tried his best to serve and protect a country that he loves.

George Bush is not a perfect dad. Perfect dads don't exist. But despite his imperfections, he did his best to raise and protect two daughters that he loves deeply.

I think history will be a harsh judge of his presidency, but this video proves that he already is a huge success with his girls. And in the end, I think their opinion will be the only ones that matter to him.

Better Late Than Never

2009-01-26T12:29:00.003-05:00

I know the inauguration is now in the history books. But in the spirit of the new tone of this site, I wanted to post some reflections I had from that day. This was previously posted on my family site the evening of the inauguration.

Here are my inauguration observations...

Loved that Michelle Obama brought Mrs. Bush a gift. Classy.
Kid Rock said he is a patriot. God help us!
Bush #41 was showing his age today.
Loved #41's hat he donned for the swearing in ceremony. I bet the Bush twins were mortified.
I thought that if Bush's helicopter broke down and couldn't take him to Texas, maybe Aretha Franklin would let him borrow her hat. I'm pretty sure that thing could fly, if given the chance to take off.
I don't understand poetry.
I wonder what people would've said if Rick Warren would've prayed "when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead..."
The tradition and peaceful transition of power on this day is truly amazing.
Abe Lincoln on the Illinois float was scary looking.
Dick Cheney looked miserable.
I was reminded of how lonely the job of President is as Obama walked down the long corridors and out onto the Capitol terrace by himself.
What do you think Bush and Obama talked about during the car ride to the Capitol?
I bet Cheney leaned over to Biden and said "So are you nervous to be sitting so close to the most dangerous man in America?"
Michelle is hating having that train on her dress tonight. Every time I see her she is flipping it out of the way.
I wonder if I can hire the White House staff to move me into my next house. I'll give them 15-20 minutes and then show up to find my clothes in the closet and the refrigerator stocked with my favorite foods.
I'm glad my husband wasn't sworn in as the president. My 3-year-old would've probably launched the Lincoln Bible into the crowd and then hidden under Sandra Day O'Connor's robe.
Where do 2 million people go to the bathroom?
I was disappointed in Obama's speech. No electricity.
I was saddened to hear the crowd boo Bush when he was introduced.
I think every television station was given the same talking points. As I flipped through all of them I heard the same facts, statistics and anecdotes over and over again.
For instance, William Henry Harrison's inauguration speech was over 2 hours long. He got pneumonia due to the bitter cold weather of that day and died a month later.
Wall Street took a dive today. Coincidence?
If they would've passed the bucket and taken an offering with all those people in attendance, maybe we could've cut the deficit a little.
600 private planes flew into Dulles for the festivities. Are energy-saving, carbon footprint concerned Democrats allowed to own private planes?
An announcer welcomed Barack H. Obama to the Capitol's west steps. Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath of office to Barack Hussein Obama, who repeated his full name. And the ceremony ended with the Rev. Joseph Lowery's benediction for Barack Obama.
And, suddenly Hillary Clinton is again Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Production at work places must have been close to nil yesterday b/c the Internet was on overdrive (i.e. soooooooooo slow) with people trying to watch the festivities live, view pictures and read commentary. It's amazing that the American people didn't break the Internet on our historic day. But if we had, Al Gore was around and could have fixed it. I mean, he did invent it so I assume he could fix it if it broke.
On my TV, Michelle's outfit looked green. The commentators said it was yellow gold. Regardless of the color, how did she stay warm? There was nothing to that coat.
Loved Dr. Jill Biden's go-go boots. But I thought her skirt was too short for her age and the occasion. I did like her red coat. Seems like red is a better color to wear than yellow gold/green.
I wonder what kind of gas mileage the President's new armored car gets. I'm sure it's probably a hybrid of some sort.
I thought the instrumental music by all those famous musicians (too tired to look all their names up) was wonderful.
They should've done a balloon release. Nothing says inauguration like a red, white and blue balloon release.
Saw Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans, sitting in the cheap seats. Actually, I'm not sure he even had a seat. Maybe he gave his ticket to Oprah.
Obama is a lefty. Trivia Question: How many presidents have been left-handed?

In conclusion, a great day for America. God bless (and help) the United States of America. What were your observations and impressions from the day?

I'm Baaaaaacccckkkkk

2009-01-26T10:44:00.004-05:00

(tap, tap, tap)

Hello. Is anyone out there?

(tap, tap, tap)

Anyone at all?

According to my site meter, I'm averaging 7 visitors a day right now. So I may very well be talking to myself in this post. But I'm hoping many of you left me in your Google Reader or Bloglines.

On January 22, 2008, I started this site to inform women about the candidates and issues for our upcoming election. What I wasn't expecting was to be completely exhausted trying to achieve that goal. It is a lot of hard work trying to keep up on the ever changing political landscape and to check and verify information (especially when the "real" media isn't doing that).

So when the election was over I was mentally exhausted and didn't care if I ever read another newspaper or talked politics again in my life. I toyed with what to do with the site and tried a few times to write something but I just didn't have anything to say. I just wasn't sure that people even cared about politics when it wasn't an election year. And if they weren't going to care, I wasn't going to knock myself out trying to make them care.

Then a week ago, we inaugurated a new president and suddenly I had a lot to say again about politics. Ironically, at the same time, I got several emails from people asking me if I was going to continue blogging at P4M. I felt the love.

So, the short answer is yes, P4M is back up and running. But---isn't there always a 'but'---P4M is going to read a little differently.

I am no longer going to stay neutral on issues and candidates. I'm a conservative mom who lives in a blue state and I think it's important that I let my voice be heard. There are plenty of great on-line resources if you still want a unbiased take on the day's events and hot topics. I'll be listing those sites in the sidebar in the coming days.

I especially hope that my liberal readers will stick around and take part in our discussions. It gets kind of boring when you're preaching to the choir. But intelligent debates lead to even better ideas.

And, to be honest, politics can be sooooo boring. In fact, I got bored just reading this site sometimes. So I'm going to write more like I normally write---with a little wit thrown in to keep us from thinking that the sun rises and sets according to those in Washington.

I guess that does it! Thanks for sticking with me. Regardless of who you voted for, I hope you'll visit often and jump in with your two cents.

Change.gov

2008-11-08T13:02:00.000-05:00

Change.gov is the official Web site of the the U.S. Presidential Transition Office. The site has all the latest news about staff and cabinet appointments, press conferences, and the different policy agendas.

The site is also very interactive as it asks for your story. Readers are encouraged to submit what this campaign and this election means to you and asks you to share your hopes for an Obama Administration and a government for the people.

It also outlines Obama's America Services initiative aimed at getting everyone in the nation to volunteer in any of the national service programs.

And, if you're seeking a job, Change.gov also lets you apply for non-career positions - whether in the White House or in any Federal Department, Agency or Commission.

Obama Selects Team

2008-11-08T12:42:00.000-05:00

President-elect Barack Obama only got a few hours to drink in his victory before it was back to the task at hand: Setting up his new administration.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., has accepted the position of White House chief of staff. A veteran of the Clinton administration and a close political ally of Obama's from Chicago, Emanuel brings experience, knowledge of Capitol Hill and a sense of duty.

Emanuel is not a newcomer to the White House. He served six and a half years under Clinton and has been a member of Congress for four terms. Emanuel has moved up through the Congressional ranks and knows how to work Washington.

Although these are not confirmed appointments, other names that are circulating are David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs.

Axelrod was Obama's chief campaign strategist and has known the president-elect since 1993, longer than anyone else in Obama's inner circle. He is widely credited for helping Obama's political ascent and has been on the forefront of Obama's campaign.

Robert Gibbs is also one of Obama's top aides and pundits predict he will be tapped for the position of White House press secretary. Gibbs helped lead the campaign's communication team as the senior strategist for communications and message.

While Democrats are lining up with resumes in hand for the more than 2,000 positions Obama will appoint in his administration, there is also a lot of chatter whether he will reach across the aisle to any Republicans.

What do you think ... which Republicans do you think have the greatest change at a cabinet position?

Barack Obama's Victory Speech

2008-11-05T07:52:00.001-05:00

With the same inspiration and flourish of words that have been a hallmark of his campaign, President-elect Obama spoke to an adoring crowd. His speech was a call to unity and an acknowledgment of the momentous moment in history that has been made.

McCain's Concession Speech

2008-11-05T07:48:00.000-05:00

Sen. John McCain gave a concession speech last night that has drawn the admiration of supporters and opponents alike. With tears in his eyes at times, he spoke eloquently about his part in this election and offered his continued service to this president and the country he loves.

Barack Obama Wins Election

2008-11-05T07:21:00.000-05:00

Sen. Barack Obama is today President-elect Barack Obama.

After winning several key battleground states including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Indiana and Virginia, Obama went on to take 349 electoral votes to McCain's 161---three states have races too close to call still. By 52% to 46%, Obama easily coasted to victory.

Sen. McCain came out to a disappointed crowd in Arizona and gave a very gracious concession speech that called on his supporters to offer "our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited."

At midnight, just after the last polls closed in Alaska, Sen. Obama and his family greeted the more than 150,000 people who had gathered in a Chicago park to congratulate the next president of the United States and the first African-American to hold that position.

"It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America,"

And to those who didn't cast a vote for him, Obama said, "There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as president, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face.''

"So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people."

Go Vote!

2008-11-02T23:14:00.003-05:00

Here are some tips for voting today:

Plan plenty of time to be at the polls. Early indications are that turnout is going to be heavy. Don't get discouraged by the crowds. Instead, celebrate that people are exercising this great freedom we have.

Visit this site if you're not sure where you're suppose to vote.

Take your kids with you to vote. Explain to them the process.

If you experience any problem or confusion while voting report the situation to one of the poll workers or election officials immediately. Do not wait until you have finished voting. If the election officials at the polling place are unable or unwilling to help you, the problem should be reported directly to the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. There are no special forms to use or procedures to follow--just call the Civil Rights Division toll-free at (800) 253-3931.

If you are voting for the first time, check your state's requirements for what kind of ID you'll be asked to present.

After you've voted, come back here and tell us about your experience (how long did you wait, any problems with voting machines, did you take your children, etc) and then grab this "I Voted" button and put it on your blog to encourage others to exercise their own vote today!

Final Look at the Issues

2008-11-02T23:09:00.001-05:00

In just 24-hours, we'll all be at the polls. If you have any lingering questions about the candidates, now is the time to act. Here are several great sites to help you find just about anything you want to know about the federal and state candidates.

Click here to track Federal legislation and find out how your Congressman and Senators are voting.
Sites like Project Vote Smart, On The Issues, iVoteValues, Easy Voter, and The Ballot, provide a wealth of non-partisan information on voting and candidates (including biographies, issue positions, voting records, campaign finances and interest group ratings).

Another way to access voter information for your state is to use a search engine (i.e., google or yahoo) and type in "voter guide" or "voter information" along with key words like "pro-family" or "Christian" and the name of your state.
For instructions on viewing candidates interest group ratings, commonly called "Scorecards," click here.

The pro-family organizations listed below provide voters resources for most states. Click on the organizations’ links to get more information.
American Family Association: Voter Resources
Catholic Answers: Voter's Guide
Christian Coalition: Voter Guides
Eagle Forum: Election Central
Family Research Council: Voting Records
Focus on the Family: CitizenLink
National Right to Life Committee: Voting Records
Pew Forum: Religion and Politics 08

Why I'm Voting for John McCain!

2008-11-02T08:17:00.001-05:00

Okay, McCain supporters, it's your turn to tell us your most compelling reasons for supporting Sen. John McCain for President of the United States. Sound off in the comments.