Wednesday, April 21, 2010

GM pays back government loans from US, Canada

WELL NOT REALLY! Look at the headline from the Associated Press, it says "GM pays back government loans from US, Canada". But go to the 8th paragraph where it says "The automaker hopes to repay the remaining $45.3 billion to the U.S. government and $8.1 billion to Canada via a public stock offering, perhaps later this year. The U.S. government now owns 61 percent of the company and Canada owns roughly 12 percent."
HOW DISINGENUOUS! SO NO, THEY HAVEN'T PAYED OFF THE LOANS!

Here's the entire article below:

DETROIT – General Motors Co. has repaid the $8.1 billion in loans it got from the U.S. and Canadian governments, a move its CEO says is a sign automaker is on the road to recovery.

GM CEO Whitacre announced the loan paybacks Wednesday at the company's Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas City, Kan., where he said GM is investing $257 million in that factory and the Detroit-Hamtramck plant, both of which will build the next generation of the midsize Chevrolet Malibu.

The White House pointed to GM's repayment of the loan and Chrysler LLC's posting of an operating profit in the first quarter of 2010 as concrete signs that the bailout of the U.S. automakers was working.

In a report, they noted the American auto industry lost more than 400,000 jobs in 2008 and analysts estimated another 1 million would have been lost had GM and Chrysler liquidated. In the past nine months, the White House said the industry has added 45,000 jobs, the strongest job growth in the industry in nearly a decade.

"This turnaround wasn't an accident of history," White House economic adviser Larry Summers said in a blog posting.

GM got a total of $52 billion from the U.S. government and $9.5 billion from the Canadian and Ontario governments as it went through bankruptcy protection last year. At first the entire amount of U.S. aid was considered a loan as the government tried to keep GM from going under and pulling the fragile economy into a depression.

But during bankruptcy, the U.S. government reduced the loan portion to $6.7 billion and converted the rest to company stock, while the Canadian governments held $1.4 billion in loans.

The automaker hopes to repay the remaining $45.3 billion to the U.S. government and $8.1 billion to Canada via a public stock offering, perhaps later this year. The U.S. government now owns 61 percent of the company and Canada owns roughly 12 percent.

The U.S. payments, made Tuesday, came five years ahead of schedule, and Whitacre said they are a sign that the automaker is on its way toward reducing government ownership of the company. The payments on the Canadian loans were also made Tuesday.

"Nobody was happy that GM needed government loans — not the governments, not the taxpayers and, quite frankly, not the company," Whitacre wrote in an op-ed article that appeared on The Wall Street Journal's Web site Tuesday night. "We believe we can best thank the citizens of the U.S. and Canada by making sure that their investments are hard at work every day, building high quality, fuel-efficient vehicles."

The factory investments in Kansas and Michigan will not create any new jobs, but will preserve jobs at both plants. The Kansas plant, which employs 3,869 workers, also builds the midsize Buick LaCrosse luxury sedan. The Detroit-Hamtramck plant, which has 1,048 employees, now builds the Cadillac DTS and Buick Lucerne large sedans and is gearing up to make the Chevrolet Volt rechargeable electric car.

During the financial crisis that led to GM filing for bankruptcy protection last year, the automaker closed 14 factories and shed more than 65,000 blue-collar jobs in the U.S. through buyouts, early retirement offers and layoffs. The company now employs about 40,000 hourly workers in the U.S.

Preserving jobs at the two GM plants won't help the nation's unemployment picture, but it won't make it worse.

Employers nationwide in March added 162,000 jobs, the most in three years. But the pace of the economic recovery and job creation won't be robust enough to quickly drive down the unemployment rate. It's been stuck at 9.7 percent for three months, close to its highest levels since the 1980s.

GM had made about $2 billion in loan payments to the U.S. government and $384 million to Canada in December and March, and had promised to repay the full loans by June. But company officials have said its cash flow, mainly from the sales of newer models, has been better than expected, allowing it to make the remaining $5.8 billion in payments early.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a statement that he's confident GM is on a path toward viability.

"This continued progress is a positive sign for our auto investment — not only more funds recovered for the taxpayer, but also countless jobs saved and the successful stabilization of a vital industry for our country," he said in a statement.

The Treasury Department said total repayments under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, now stand at $186 billion, with less than $200 billion in bailout money outstanding.

The government still has $2.1 billion worth of GM preferred stock, plus its 61 percent share of common equity, the statement said.

Repaying the loans has been a top priority for Whitacre.

GM officials say the company's public stock offering will take place when the markets and the company are ready. They will not predict how much of the remaining government debt will be repaid from the stock offering, but said it likely will take years for the governments to divest themselves fully.

The stock offering hinges on GM posting a profit, which Whitacre has said could come this year. GM lost $3.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2009 on revenues of $32.3 billion.

After the event at the Kansas City plant on Wednesday, Whitacre is scheduled to fly to Washington, where he will meet with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other lawmakers.

Welcome, O - to city you want to ruin - NYPOST.com

Welcome, O - to city you want to ruin - NYPOST.com

Friday, April 16, 2010

Quote

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776

US Senate climate bill to be unveiled April 26

15 Apr 2010 22:04:19 GMT
Source: Reuters
* Backers hope for Senate vote in June or July *

Measure could affect states' climate control activities (Adds reaction from American Petroleum Institute)

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, April 15 (Reuters) - A long-awaited compromise bill to reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming will be unveiled by a group of senators on April 26, sources said on Thursday.

The legislative language to be sketched out in 11 days, according to government and environmental sources, is being drafted by Democratic Senator John Kerry, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and independent Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Backers of the environmental bill hope the unveiling will pave the way for the full Senate to debate and pass a measure in June or July if the compromise attracts enough support from a group of moderate Republicans and Democrats.

Republican Senator Judd Gregg told Reuters he was "committed to getting something that addresses our energy needs in a constructive and comprehensive way." He added he did not know yet whether he would support the bill being developed.

President Barack Obama has made climate change one of his top priorities and took steps recently to show Republicans he was serious, including expanding federal aid for building nuclear power facilities and allowing more domestic offshore oil drilling -- initiatives to be included in the Senate compromise.

The White House is also eager to show the rest of the world the United States is ready to take a leadership role on global warming, including to help kick-start stalled international efforts to tackle the problem.

Despite vocal climate change skeptics in the United States, leading scientific groups have been hoping the United States, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases after China, would take action.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported on Thursday the world's combined land and ocean surface temperatures in March were the hottest on record.

Once the senators formally sketch out their bill, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid will decide the next steps in a year crowded with competing legislative priorities and congressional elections in November.

The bill could face stiff opposition from lawmakers in states with economies heavily dependent on oil and coal.

Lou Hayden, a policy expert at the American Petroleum Institute, said his group would not support the bill unless it went through an economic analysis by the Energy Information Administration, an independent arm of the Energy Department.

The bill is already slated to be analyzed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office, which could take more than a month.

BILL MIGHT END STATE/REGIONAL CARBON TRADE PROGRAMS

Kerry, Lieberman and Graham have been working for months on a global warming compromise significantly different from a measure passed last year by the House of Representatives and a bill approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It also takes many elements from those bills.

Like the House-passed bill and Obama administration policy, it would set a target of 17 percent reductions in smokestack emissions of carbon dioxide by 2020, from 2005 levels.

Point Carbon, an energy markets consulting service, estimated the anticipated Senate bill would result in U.S. gasoline prices rising an average of 27 cents a gallon from 2013 to 2020. The bill is expected to contain a fee on motor fuels.

On Wednesday, a Senate source told Reuters the legislation would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide emissions. It would also end state and regional carbon-trading programs, such as the one several Northeastern states participate in, to be replaced by a national carbon reduction policy. [N14150360]

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, with 10 participating states from Vermont to Maryland, has raised over $582 million for state efficiency and climate programs, said Environment Northeast, a Boston research group.

Peter Shattuck, a carbon markets policy analyst there, said shutting the program could create concerns among the states over lost revenues.

A group of nine senators, mostly from Midwestern manufacturing states, urged Kerry, Graham and Lieberman in a letter on Thursday to take into account jobs in their states.

"Without such a plan, we are concerned that the legislation will ultimately be unsuccessful," Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown and others wrote. (Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner in Washington and Ros Krasny in Boston; Editing by Peter Cooney)

NYC to stop paying teachers to do nothing

Apr 15 12:41 PM US/Eastern
By KAREN MATTHEWS
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - Hundreds of New York City teachers who are paid full salaries to do nothing while they await disciplinary hearings will be released from the city's "rubber rooms" this fall, officials announced Thursday.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the teachers' union announced a deal to reassign most of the teachers to administrative or nonclassroom work while their cases are pending.

About 650 educators, more than 500 of them teachers, are in the teacher-reassignment centers, costing the city tens of millions of dollars a year, including $30 million in salaries, officials said.

The teachers generally spend months or even years in the so-called rubber rooms playing Scrabble, reading or surfing the Internet while still collecting full salaries of $70,000 a year or more. The nickname refers to the padded cells of asylums, and teachers have said the name is fitting, since some of the inhabitants can become unstable.

The city has blamed union rules that make it difficult to fire teachers, but some teachers assigned to rubber rooms say they have been singled out because they blew the whistle on a principal who was fudging test scores.

"The rubber rooms were the result of a broken and protracted teacher-discipline process," Schools Chancellor Joel Klein said Thursday. "This deal goes a long way in improving the way the union and the department deal with teachers accused of and charged with wrongdoings."

Orlando Ramos, who spent seven months in a rubber room in 2004-05, said he was ecstatic to hear they would be closing.

"We want to coach those that are not prepared for this profession to move on. However, we also want justice for those who have been accused of wrongdoing," Ramos said. "The rubber room has been the wrong answer for so long."

Ramos, who is now a middle school principal in San Jose, was an assistant principal in East Harlem when he was accused of lying at a hearing on whether to suspend a student. Ramos denied the allegation but quit before his case was resolved and moved to California.

David Suker, a teacher who is currently assigned to a rubber room in Brooklyn, said educators there were waiting Thursday to hear details about how the system would be dismantled.

"It's just another typical day in terms of powerlessness," Suker said.

Instead of going to rubber rooms, most teachers will perform administrative work in department offices or nonclassroom work in their schools, according to the agreement.

The deal expands the list of charges for which school officials can suspend teachers without pay to include violent felony crimes.

Officials also agreed to increase the number of arbitrators who hear teachers' cases from 23 to 39, and said they hope to catch up with backlogged cases by the end of the year.

___

Associated Press writer Sara Kugler contributed to this story.

Federal Spending


LEFTIST PROTESTERS SUSPECTED IN BEATING OF GOP OFFICIAL & HER BOYFRIEND!


BREAKING: Friend Says GOP Official Brutally Attacked By Leftist Jindal Protesters …Update: Victims Followed Outside of Restaurant; Allee Called “Little Blond B*tch” By Attackers
Friday, April 16, 2010, 11:12 AM
Jim Hoft

LEFTIST PROTESTERS SUSPECTED IN BRUTAL BEATING OF GOP OFFICIAL & HER BOYFRIEND!

The leftist thugs beat them bloody after the Southern Republican Leadership Dinner last Friday night. Allee Bautsch’s leg was severely broken after she stepped in to try to break up the attack on her boyfriend.

Allee Bautsch suffered a broken leg from the beatdown outside to the SRLC dinner at Brennan’s Restaurant in New Orleans. She had her leg operated on over the weekend and it will take her months to recover. Her boyfriend Joe Brown suffered a broken nose, a broken jaw, and a concussion. They were attacked after leaving the Southern Republican Leadership Conference dinner at Brennan’s Restaurant.
(Photo from Jindal’s Facebook Page via The Hayride)
NOLA.com is reporting:

A report on Yahoo! News says an attack last Friday that left Gov. Bobby Jindal’s campaign finance director with a broken leg and her boyfriend with a concussion and broken nose may have been politically motivated.

The report quotes a friend of Alle Bautsch, who was injured in the altercation in the 600 block of St. Louis Street about 10:45 p.m. Friday. Bautsch and her boy friend Joe Brown were leaving a fund-raiser in the French Quarter for the Louisiana Republican Party when they became involved in an altercation with three to five men. Jindal had been at the event, but was not present at the time of the incident.

Yahoo! News spoke to a friend of Allee Bautsch who’s been in communication with her since the attack. The friend, who declined to be named because the attackers are still at large, described the group who descended on Bautsch and Brown as “some weird Bobby Jindal protesters” there in opposition to the state’s governor. The friend confirmed the earlier reports that Bautsch “got caught in the middle” of the altercation as she tried to break it up. Bautsch’s friend also reported that she’s in “loads of pain” with “rods in her leg and ankle,” but that she was also “released yesterday from the hospital and is resting at her home in Baton Rouge.”

There has been widespread speculation that the three to five men who injured Bautsch and Brown were part of a group of protesters that had been outside the fund-raiser earlier, although a Jindal spokesman and others have said the protesters had departed by the time the couple left the event.

Previously:
GOP Official & Boyfriend Savagely Beaten In Politically Motivated Attack – Including Broken Leg, Jaw, Concussion… Media Silent
Police Release Description of Allee Bautsch Attacker; Video Shows Republicans Threatened
PHOTO RELEASED OF GOP OFFICIAL & BOYFRIEND BEATEN BLOODY Outside SRLC Event

UPDATE: Another police report was released today. The report states that they were followed after leaving the restaurant until they were attacked. The report also states that several leftist protesters were still in the area.

Shortly before 10:30 p.m., Mr. Brown and Ms. Bautsch left the restaurant and began walking towards St. Louis Street. Mr. Brown noted there were several protestors loitering in the area, but not nearly the number which had been present earlier. Soon after leaving the restaurant he heard “cat calls.” At an unknown point within the 400 block of Royal Street, both Mr. Brown and Ms. Bautsch then crossed from the Brennan’s side of the street to the Supreme Court side of the street.

They continued to walk towards St. Louis when Mr. Brown began to hear people behind him scream obscenities. Initially he was not sure if they were being directed at him and his girlfriend, of if they were simply the outbursts of drunken revelers.

As they neared the intersection, Mr. Brown state he heard subjects state things such as “Little blonde bitch,” “You’re a f——- faggot,” and “You think you’re f—— special.”

At this point, Mr. Brown realized these derogatory terms were being directed at Ms. Bautsch and him. He then requested she begin to walk faster toward the Omni-Royal hotel located at the intersection of St. Louis and Royal.

Mr. Brown also recalled the farther they got from the restaurant, the closer these subjects got to them. When they reached the corner of St. Louis and Royal, Mr. Brown and his date turned south on St. Louis.

It was at this time that one of the subjects pushed him into the iron gate that surround the State Supreme Court (building). He then fell to the ground, and one of the attackers got on top of him and began to attack him. Mr. Brown stated as he was pushed to the ground, Ms. Bautsch was also either pushed down or fell down near where he was. As he fought to get his attacker off of him, he heard his girlfriend cry out in pain. She then repeatedly stated, “Oh my god, my leg is broken.”

All of the attackers then ran away in an unknown direction.

For the record… The police released a description of the attackers earlier in the week:

One of the suspects was described as a Caucasian male who appeared to be dirty, in his 20’s, 6′1″ tall, thin build with a thin face. He had a beard and auburn color hair in a pony tail. He was wearing a light color T shirt and dark color pants.

gatewaypundit.firstthings.com

GE's Big Brother


Posted by Billy Hallowell on Apr 15th, 2010 from http://frontpagemag.com/



The Obama administration has come under scrutiny for its ties to several large corporations, including the auto industry giants General Motors and Chrysler, whose bailout it engineered last spring. But one corporate connection has not received similar scrutiny. Since 2008, General Electric has been cozying up to the Obama administration. The relationship is sure to result in financial gain for GE, while likely granting the company greater access and influence. The arrangements set forth are legal, but the potential impact the interconnections may have – and the blatant kickbacks that have been offered – should alarm Americans.

In a Washington Examiner op-ed, journalist Timothy Carney points out the eyebrow-raising ties between President Barack Obama’s team and GE’s leadership. According to Carney, “GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama.”

Immelts’s place on the board is concerning for a number of reasons. First and foremost, GE has been the recipient of bailout funds and stands to benefit from current and future contracts with the U.S. government. This may partly explain MSNBC’s highly favorable treatment of the Obama administration. With GE’s CEO sitting on Obama’s economic panel, it is no surprise that MSNBC rarely provides critical coverage of the administration. Furthermore, GE’s environmental business interests may explain why NBC recently joined Hollywood in inserting environmentally-friendly messaging into network programming. Furthermore, NBC promotes two annual campaigns — “Green Week” and “Earth Week” — that focus on environmentalism.

Media connections are just the tip of the iceberg. GE’s increased permeation into other sectors will have a more profound impact on policy and, in turn, Americans’ lives. A December 2009 Vanity Fair article points to what it calls suspicious “GE-friendly developments” that were spearheaded by the Obama administration. Following Immelt’s placement on Obama’s board, GE found a loophole and became the biggest benefactor of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, a federal bailout initiative. According to Jeff Gerth and Brady Dennis of ProPublica, GE appealed behind the scenes to secure the company’s ability to participate. Coincidently, Immelt was quoted in a November 2009 Wall Street Journal article boasting about $192 million that GE plans to secure in government-sponsored projects – an interesting development considering his close relationship with President Obama and the work being conducted through the Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Additionally, Vanity Fair reports that after months of the Obama administration claiming that the government would not allocate $1 billion for the Joint Strike Fighters program (a fighter engine in which GE is one of two main benefactors), Obama included the plan in the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill. One wonders what caused Obama to change course, considering his previous opposition to GE’s engine. In fact, Defense Secretary Robert Gates threatened to recommend a veto should funding for the engine be included in the bill. Somehow, perceptions changed quite fluidly.

As reported by Reuters, back in September 2009, President Obama decided to cancel plans to install “inceptor missiles” in Poland and a “radar complex” in the Czech Republic. Both of these security elements were intended to ward off missiles coming from rogue states. Perhaps most concerning was Russia’s response that immediately followed Obama’s announcement: “Shortly after the pullback on the shield program was announced, Russia’s government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives…from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley…”

As Megan Stack of the L.A. Times has noted, the U.S. needs Russian support to ensure that more viable action be taken against Iran. As a result, U.S. leaders have been pushing Moscow to take a tougher stance. On a recent trip to Russia, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made clear U.S. opposition to a nuclear power plant that Russia is building and fueling in Iran – a plant that Clinton says the rogue nation is not entitled to until it can prove peaceful intent. Obama’s decision to change course on the missile program appeases Russia, while opening the door for GE and other U.S. businesses to more readily operate there.

While this may have some strategic benefits, the cost of abandoning security goals also poses its dangers. Obama’s decision to appease Russia may only embolden its government; this would be potentially dangerous to harmony and security in the region. Furthermore, given GE’s history of dealings with Iran, one has to wonder about GE’s willingness to work intensely with a nation that has such integral financial and energy sector connections with the Islamic Republic. Ultimately, the push to secure business for GE and other U.S.-based companies could imperil important security measures against rogue states like Iran.

If compromising media coverage, national security and economic interests were not enough, the energy sector is also at play. GE is looking to partner with the U.S. government in an effort to manage greenhouse gas credits. Tim Carney points out that GE has created a new “joint venture” called Greenhouse Gas Services (GGS). GGS invests in and seeks to manage greenhouse gas credits, and without the government stepping in to restrict greenhouse gases, GGS cannot turn a profit. Obama has answered this call by promising to create a greenhouse gas industry by 2012, providing yet another potentially lucrative opportunity for GE.

With new business on the horizon, Carney points out the potential ramifications of GE’s quest for greenhouse dominance. These potential downsides include: increased electricity and heating costs, increased manufactured and shipping goods costs and environmental costs as a result of Ethanol usage. Carney concludes: “When the lobbying fingerprints of GE and other well-connected firms are considered, it’s not hard to conclude that the policy that will finally emerge won’t be the one that is best for the planet and least bad for the economy, but the one that is best for General Electric.”

The buck does not stop there. Health care, an industry Obama has spent a substantial portion of the past 15 months pledging to reform, is also an area of interest for GE. According to BNET’s Ken Terry, as the federal government began pushing for health care reform back in 2009, GE announced its own intent to invest $6 billion in a new “Healthymagination Initiative.” The overall goal, as Terry notes, is to increase GE’s standing in the health care industry. Perhaps most intriguing was Immelt’s pledge to influence consumers in their health behaviors as well as NBC and MSNBC’s commitment to begin airing more health-related stories and programming. It will become increasingly necessary to monitor and understand the role that GE will play once health care reform is more solidified. If recent history is any indication, GE will also have a major stake in the nation’s health care sector.

The U.S. government has always been, as Carney notes, a viable GE partner, but the changing political landscape is paving the way for the company to receive transformational benefits and control. Immelt realizes this, which is likely one reason that Obama was the top recipient of GE contributions during the 2008 presidential campaign (after all, Immelt is a Republican and a former McCain supporter who has no other reason apart from profits to partner with Obama). With such extensive reach into sectors that impact the daily lives of Americans and with international policy at stake, it is in the public’s best interest that close attention be paid to the alliance between GE and the Obama administration.

Lt. Col. Allen West Tea Party Speech

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Waxman Cancels Obamacare Hearings

By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
04/14/10 2:07 PM EDT

A House Energy and Commerce Committee spokeswoman tells me that Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has indeed cancelled the April 21 subcommittee hearing in which CEOs were to testify about Obamacare. So far, the only indication of this change appears on the committee's website is on the Republican minority ranking member's site. In fact, the hearing still appears on Waxman's committee calendar for that day.

Waxman had called the hearing in reaction to public statements by several companies -- including Verizon, AT&T, and John Deere, among others -- that Obamacare would cost them hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars because it laid a new tax on their retiree health benefit payments.

Ever since the passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit, the payments had been subsidized, tax-free, as a way of preventing these companies from dropping enrollees onto the Medicare rolls, where they would cost the government far more. When Obamacare changed the tax rules, it was quite clear that this would result in huge losses, but President Obama and Democrats had failed to heed warnings to this effect in the run up to Obamacare's passage last month.

The CEOs, required by law to be honest about earnings projections, re-stated their bottom lines in reaction to Obamacare's passage, earning the ire of Waxman and other Democrats.

Hearings on this matter would likely have proved an embarrassment to the Democrats and helped drag out discussion of Obamacare's unexpected ill effects.

Daniel Hannan Speech From July, 2009

Daniel Hannan, Member of the European Parliament, speaks before ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) in July, 2009.

Greta Van Susterenand Ben Nelson



Neil Cavuto-Health Care Law Forcing Doctors Out?


Neil Cavuto-Congress Confused About Own Health Care Status?

Paul Ryan: The regime running Washington is replacing the American ideal with European social welfare state

It’s one thing to hear Rush Limbaugh refer to the ‘regime’ in Washington, but Ryan says that the only thing he can conclude with all of this paramount spending and taxation is that they are taking us to a European social welfare state.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Will Democrats Duck a Budget Bout?

Democrats may simply decide not to pass a federal budget this year.

According to Politico.com, Democrats may simply decide not to pass a federal budget this year. Without a budget, an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars can be flushed down this summer's appropriations process. There wouldn't have to be a floor debate allowing Republicans to highlight the vast expansion of spending under the Obama administration.

Since the Budget Act of 1974, the House has never failed to pass a draft budget (even though Congress as a whole four times failed to enact one). While Speaker Pelosi still has time to bring a bill to the floor, the slow pace suggests she's leaning toward making history and avoiding altogether a discussion of federal spending limits. For one thing, that would allow Ms. Pelosi to avoid contending with Ohio GOP Congressman Jim Jordan.

Mr. Jordan, who holds the seat once occupied by Mike Oxley, has made a habit of promoting alternative budgets that seek to align spending with revenues. A year ago, he called for a 1%-per-year decrease in non-defense discretionary spending (aka domestic spending outside of entitlement programs like Social Security). Reducing spending, not just reducing the rate of spending growth, is Beltway heresy, yet Mr. Jordan managed to attract 111 votes last year for a proposal that would have balanced the federal budget by 2019.

This year, he's back with another spending plan that would lead to a balanced budget. With elections approaching, few Democrats are eager to debate his proposal and vote on it. As a high-school wrestler Mr. Jordan compiled an astounding record of 150-1 before going on to win two NCAA titles at the University of Wisconsin. His congressional opponents may find him just as formidable if they are ever forced to defend the Obama spending spree.

From The Wall Street Journal

Bernanke Warns: U.S. Debt Could Balloon to More Than 100% of GDP

Healthcare Law To Sock Middle Class With A $3.9 Billion Tax Increase In 2019

Taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes — in 2019 alone — due to healthcare reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress's official scorekeeper.

Once the law is fully implemented in 2019, the JCT estimates the deduction limitation will affect 14.8 million taxpayers — 14.7 million of them will earn less than $200,000 a year. These taxpayers are single and joint filers, as well as heads of households.

From The Hill

Bill O'Reilly Talking Points-The Government Wants Your Money From April 13, 2010

"As we have been reporting, America's broke. Not only do the feds owe $13 trillion, but cities and towns all over the USA are going bankrupt."

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term

Real personal income for Americans - excluding government payouts such as Social Security - has fallen by 3.2 percent since President Obama took office in January 2009, according to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis.

For comparison, real personal income during the first 15 months in office for President George W. Bush, who inherited a milder recession from his predecessor, dropped 0.4 percent. Income excluding government payouts increased 12.7 percent during Mr. Bush's eight years in office

From The Washington Times

The CRS concludes that Congress and its staff probably won't keep their coverage under Obamacare.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010


Buyer’s Remorse [Yuval Levin]

A few weeks after passing “historic” health-care legislation, Democrats in Congress may finally be discovering what other Americans already know in their bones: this law is a horrendous mess. Some members apparently asked the Congressional Research Service (an arm of the Library of Congress that does research for members and staff) to explain to them just what will happen to their own insurance and that of their staffs as a result of the law. As the New York Times reports today, “In its painstaking analysis of the new law, the research service says the impact on Congress itself and the intent of Congress are difficult to ascertain,” but it sure does seem as though members and staff (like so many other Americans) will not be able to keep the insurance they like, and may lose it even before there are any alternatives for them. Pointing to a broad array of complex and contradictory provisions and a variety of “drafting errors,” the CRS concludes: “It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. [the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program] may be able to retain this coverage.”

If you had your own research service to help you figure out what the law will do to your insurance, the answer would likely be just as confusing and discouraging. And what it will do to American health care and American public finances is even more appalling. As more and more voters appear to be concluding these days, the new law was one big drafting error.

From National Review Online

Medical Schools Can't Keep Up

As Ranks of Insured Expand, Nation Faces Shortage of 150,000 Doctors in 15 Years

"Experts warn there won't be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges."

From The Wall Street Journal

Obama Attends Non-Existent Soccer Game?

Reading the story about President Obama breaking tradition and ditching the presidential press pool over the weekend to watch one of his daughter's soccer games, it appears harmless, right? Not so. It is rather disturbing when you dissect it. So let's do just that. According to the Chicago Sun Times, the press pool was to assemble at 11:30AM.
However, Time reported:

The president left the White House at approximately 9:20 to attend one of his daughter's soccer games at 40th and Chesapeake NW. A pool was hastily called at around 9:35 and drove north at 9:43 to catch the president before the game ended. We didn't make it. The President returned to the White House at 10:17. The pool returned at 10:30. We now return you to your regularly scheduled pool call time.

Read The Rest From The American Thinker

Healthcare Overhaul Won't Stop Premium Increases

"The new law doesn't prevent rate hikes such as Anthem Blue Cross' double-digit increase last year. 'It is a very big loophole,' says Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is pushing regulatory legislation.

Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama's healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does not give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.

And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.

Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases."

From The Los Angeles Times

Projected Deficit From CBO

Things Are Looking Up, Aren't They?

Saturday, April 10, 2010

This Is The Stuff You Won't Hear Anywhere Else

Your Kids Aren't Being Taught This In School. This Is The Real History Of America. If You Know Anyone Who Thinks That America Was Not Founded On Christian Principles, And That The Founders Were All Diests That Didn't Believe In God-Pass This On To Them. If They Have An Ounce Of Free Thinking Left, They Will No Longer Believe That After Watching This Show. Tonight's Guest: David Barton
Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Newt Gingrich Speech-2010 Southern Republican Leadership Conference

Friday, April 9, 2010

The Defects of Obamacare

April 9, 2010 - 11:26 ET


Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History
By Andrew P. Napolitano

There are four constitutional defects in the healthcare law recently signed by President Obama.

The statute has many odd parts to it that are also subject to challenge, like the federal takeover of student loans, the creation of a healthcare army, which includes members of the states’ National Guard, and the hiring of 16,000 new IRS agents. But the main constitutional violations address what the Congress has ordered the States to do and what it has ordered individuals to do. These unconstitutional and troubling provisions are:

- Order the States to increase state taxes and spend the monies collected on healthcare.

- Order individuals to acquire health insurance that provides coverage acceptable to the federal government.

- Transfer regulation of healthcare from the States to the federal government.

- Put a federal bureaucrat between patients and physicians.

Can the federal government tell the States how to spend state generated tax dollars? In a word, NO.

Recall that the States formed the federal government, and not the other way round. When they did so, they gave away only seventeen specific powers, all written down in the Constitution, and expressly retained for themselves that which they did not give away. At the time the States formed the federal government, they were independent nation-states, and the powers that they gave to the new federal government were aspects of nationhood. Examples of the powers include raise an army and navy to defend the country, operate a court system, provide for standard weights and measures, coin money, and run a post office. These are all aspects of nationhood with which the States would no longer be concerned. But the States retained for themselves the power to legislate for the health, safety, welfare, and morality of the people in the States. The federal government simply has no authority under the Constitution to regulate in these areas or to tell the States how they should do so.

The Democrats have argued that the power the Constitution gives to Congress to regulate interstate commerce permits it to regulate healthcare. But I ask you; when you go to your doctor, is that for commercial purposes, or is it to enhance your health? The power to regulate interstate commerce was given to the Congress so it would keep commerce between the States regular, by eliminating state tariffs. It was not given to regulate purely local professional services like visiting a doctor. Can the Congress regulate a Tupperware Party? Of course not.

Since the federal government cannot tell the States how to tax and regulate in the areas reserved to the States and since the regulation of healthcare has been done by the States for the past 200 years, it follows that the Congress cannot order persons to purchase health insurance. The Congress cannot order us to wear shoes or buy guns, even though both are beneficial to us, so how can it order us to buy health insurance? As well, the Supreme Court has held that the most private—and thus most insulated from government intrusion—conversations we have are those between a patient and a physician. Yet, the statute just signed by the President violates that right to privacy by requiring physicians to share private medical information with federal bureaucrats and by permitting those bureaucrats to direct physicians how to treat you. The government cannot run the Post Office or Amtrak and has bankrupted Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Can we really expect it to manage healthcare?

The Congress that enacted this monstrosity recognizes no limits on its own powers. It does not take seriously its oath to uphold the Constitution and it acts like a general legislature that can right any wrong, regulate any activity and tax any event. That is 180 degrees contrary to the values of inalienable rights and limited government that the Framers gave us.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in January 1998 and currently serves as the senior judicial analyst. He provides legal analysis on both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN). He is also the host of Freedom Watch on Foxnews.com and co-hosts FOX News Radio's Brian and The Judge show daily. His latest book is the New York Times best seller, Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power and Deception in American History. To learn more about Judge Andrew P. Napolitano visit, www.judgenap.com.

Health law will be costly for Floridians

By George LeMieux, special to the Times
In Print: Thursday, April 8, 2010

The nation's new health care law represents a monumental series of missed opportunities.

Instead of lowering the cost of health care for Americans, this law will increase costs.

Instead of fixing the health care programs for seniors and those who cannot afford insurance, this law cuts Medicare and adds more people to the failing Medicaid system. This law actually cuts $529 billion out of Medicare, the health care plan serving more than 3 million of Florida's seniors, to create a new entitlement program.

Instead of letting people keep their existing health care plans, this law will force many families out of their current coverage.

For Floridians, the new law means:

• More than 985,000 Floridians enrolled in Medicare Advantage will likely have their benefits reduced. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services predicts a decrease in Medicare Advantage enrollment somewhere between 33 percent and 64 percent.

•Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce indicate Florida's small businesses employing 50 or more people will pay either higher health care costs or a new penalty because of new government mandates.

• Many of Florida's 1.2 million college students will continue to pay 6.8 percent interest on unsubsidized student loans. The health care law allows the federal government to take over the student loan program, saving what CBO estimates is $61 billion over 10 years. But instead of passing those savings on in the form of lower interest rates, students will continue paying the current rate and some of the savings will fund new health care programs.

• Based on an Oliver Wyman study, the youngest 30 percent of Floridians will pay 35 percent more as premiums rise in the individual market.

• Approximately 4.45 million Floridians making less than $200,000 will pay higher taxes, based on estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation.

• Every Floridian's share of the national debt will increase when the cost of paying doctors to see Medicare patients is included.

• There will be $8,470 in new government spending for every Floridian.

• 1.5 million low-income Floridians will be added to Florida's Medicaid program even though only 50 percent of doctors nationally are willing to see new Medicaid patients.

Floridians deserve better.

We should have taken a step-by-step approach to fixing what is wrong with our health care system. Left unaddressed after this debate is how to make Medicare solvent for the future, how to effectively reduce and eliminate the estimated $60 billion in Medicare waste, fraud and abuse, and how to make insurance plans more price competitive.

I will continue working with my colleagues to repeal the ill-conceived portions of the changes to our health care system and work to ensure all families have access to affordable, quality health care.

George LeMieux is a U.S. senator from Florida.

From Tampabay.com

$500 Billion Shortfall Awaits California's Big Pension Funds

A study released Monday by Stanford University estimates that California's three largest state-operated, public-employee pension funds—the California Public Employees' Retirement System, California State Teachers' Retirement System and University of California Retirement System—currently face a total shortfall of more than $500 billion.

From The Wall Street Journal

Automaker Pensions Underfunded by $17 Billion

DETROIT — The pension plans at General Motors and Chrysler are underfunded by a total of $17 billion and could fail if the automakers do not return to profitability, according to a government report released Tuesday.

Both companies need to make large payments into the plans within the next five years — $12.3 billion by G.M. and $2.6 billion by Chrysler — to reach minimum funding levels, according to the report, prepared by the Government Accountability Office. Whether the companies will be able to make the payments is uncertain, the report concluded, though Treasury officials expect the automakers will become profitable enough to do so.

From The New York Times

Dr. Drew: President Obama Was Never a Professor – He Was Never Even Close to Being a Professor

2010 April 9

During the 2008 presidential campaign, I got caught up in the controversy regarding whether or not Senator Barack Obama was really a law school professor. Obama referred to himself as a “law professor,” but – in truth – he had only served as a Senior Lecturer. (This was a non-tenure track position that did not require achievements in research or publication.) To the general public, this probably looked like a minor case of a politician fudging his resume. As a published, award-winning political scientist, however, I thought Obama’s claims demeaned the once – somewhat honorable – image of genuine law school professors at the University of Chicago.

Doug Ross floated a blog post reputing to be the comments of a highly ranked University of Chicago law school professor which – in my mind – rings true as a plausible reaction from a tenured law school professor, someone who probably went into this line of work back when it was a sign of extraordinary intelligence, and not simply the expression of affirmative action window-dressing or compliance with politically correct dogma. According to the report in Ross’s blog, his source shared that:

    I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

Off and on, I have been an adjunct professor myself. I soon learned that my colleagues would be ticked off when I skipped out on staff meetings. As the anonymous source indicates, Obama had a similar experience:

    The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool.

Personally, I thought it was unfair for me to attend faculty meetings as an adjunct when I was earning a fraction of the earnings of the real professors. Even worse, as a consultant, I lost time I could bill my clients when I was attending these fun, but unproductive meetings.

As much as I understand that Obama might be disinterested in attending faculty meetings, I also think his claim that he was a law school professor is likely to offend those of us who have competed for that honor through research, publication, and lonely scholarship. As Ross’s source relates:

    According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Obama’s fib that he was a law school professor reminds me of all the people who seem to think that just because they earned their M.A. that they have achieved the equivalent of a Ph.D. To those of us who have gone on and earned our Ph.D.’s, however, the completion of an M.A. seems to be a minor accomplishment compared to the intellectual challenge of conducting original research and grappling, on a day-to-day basis, with the exhilarating (sometimes heart-breaking) process of creating new knowledge.

The Doug Ross blog post is a telling reminder Obama was never a professor. He was never even close to being a professor. Professors publish articles, compete for tenure, conduct research, win grants, and speak at national and international conferences. They attend faculty meetings where their expertise and skills are challenged in lively debate. In this world, the time professors spend teaching classes, creating exams and grading papers – the majority of Obama’s work as a Senior Lecturer – has only limited significance and prestige.

Obama’s insistence that he was a law school professor shows that he sought the status of being a law school professor…yet never proved he had what it took to compete among the academic elite.

Videos of David Horowitz and Glenn Beck

Great Great Great Discussion Between Glenn Beck and David Horowitz
"Fundamentally Transforming The United States Of America"
From September 4, 2009


Great Discussion Between Glenn Beck and David Horowitz
College Indoctrination
March 10, 2009


Great Discussion Between Glenn Beck and David Horowitz
More School Indoctrination Discussion Regarding Al Gore
February 6, 2009

David Freddoso: Five things we learned about Obamacare after it passed

By:David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
April 7, 2010
(AP)

"[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., famously said that about President Obama's health care reform package. She was right. We are just finding out what was contained within that Obamacare law that Obama signed weeks ago.

Here are five things we've learned so far:

One: No sooner had Obamacare passed than the White House discovered that someone goofed. Despite all of Obama's promises and talking points, Obamacare as passed by Congress does not require insurers to cover children with expensive pre-existing medical conditions.

Immediately, the White House got an assurance from the insurers. After demonizing them for months as callous profiteers on others' misery (in fact, the entire industry is barely profitable), Obama now tells Americans that they can trust health insurance companies to do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts.

Two: State governments discovered that they are no longer just required to guarantee payment for indigent patients' care under Medicaid. Obamacare changes Medicaid law so that now states must also guarantee treatment to the poor.

This is a thorny issue: Many doctors refuse to see Medicaid patients because the program doesn't pay enough for them to break even. (In some states, payments to doctors have been delayed for months or years.)

Some cash-strapped states expect this new definition to spawn court challenges, which will ultimately force them to pay exorbitantly high prices to doctors and hospitals for their existing patients.

Three: Even as Medicaid's costs increase because of the above, so will the number of Medicaid patients under Obamacare's coverage provisions. Thanks to the "Cornhusker Kickback" -- the special Nebraska provision that was extended to every state in the final version of the bill -- the federal taxpayer is on the hook for 90 percent of the new patients' expenses.

So remember those rosy budget projections about Obamacare reducing the deficit, or at least not costing too much? Forget it.

Four: Douglas Shulman, commissioner for the Internal Revenue Service, announced this week at the National Press Club that Obamacare means he can take your tax refund from you. Obamacare requires Americans to purchase insurance, but contains no serious enforcement mechanisms.

So, Shulman said, the IRS will collect penalties from those who fail to purchase "qualified" insurance by confiscating the interest-free loans that taxpayers make to the government throughout the year through employment withholding.

Five: The ski-tourism industry suddenly realizes that it is endangered by Obamacare. Ski resorts must now provide health care or else pay a fine for each employee who works more than 120 days out of the year -- and many of their employees do.

The bill had applied only at the 150-day threshold, until House Democrats changed it in reconciliation. They also cranked up the fine from $750 to $2,000 per employee, in order to pad their budget numbers.

Those are just five things we've learned, out of more than 2,000 pages. You can bet we'll learn a lot more in the seven months leading up to Election Day.

Speaking of which, on Monday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., explained away public opposition to this new health care law, shaped in large part by the special deals he made with reluctant senators last December.

"The loud minority made a lot of noise," Reid said. "Everybody acknowledges, with rare exception, that what we did with our immediate deliverables was terrific."

Reid's state defies the laws of math. Sixty-two percent of Nevadans somehow constitute a "rare exception." And it looks as though the "loud minority" will send Reid looking for a new insurance plan later this year.

David Freddoso is the Washington Examiner's online opinion editor. He can be reached at dfreddoso@dcexaminer.com.

The Database That Ate American Business

Very few people outside of the commissioners and employees of the Consumer Products Safety Commission, a few business lawyers and the legion of left-wing so-called "consumer activists" know much about the countdown to the new SaferProducts.gov "database," but by this time next year American business will be reeling from the launch of what will become a government sponsored virtual bulletin board for the serial slandering of American manufacturing.

Reputations will be ruined and brands deeply damaged once the Congressionally-mandated internet bulletin board becomes operational. Here's the benign summary of what the law requires, as interpreted by the CPSC in a report to Congress :

To meet the requirement for a public database, CPSC is planning to build SaferProducts.gov (working name only – final still to be determined), which will be a single central location where consumers can go to report product safety incidents, and to search for prior incidents and recalls on products they own, or may be thinking about buying. In conjunction with the web site launch, CPSC will also conduct a public awareness campaign to raise awareness of SaferProducts.gov. Sounds wonderful, right? But how will it operate in reality?

Understand that every "report" received by the CPSC will have to appear on the database, and not just reports of actual injury but also of threat of injury.

And anyone who cares to make the report --activists, plaintiffs' lawyers, busybodies, disgruntled employees etc-- can do so with their anonymity guaranteed. Manufacturers whose products are slandered on this site will be allowed to respond, but the agency has a total of just over 500 employees, and they must oversee the entire process. Anyone care to guess how quickly the agency's resources will be overmatched by a flood of trolls and mud-slingers?

Congress obviously loved the idea of providing "internet tools" to consumers who are upset with any particular product, but the staffers who wrote this piece of legislation must be unfamiliar with how open forums on the internet actually operate. For a taste of the absurdity of comments received in such a place, sample the comments below for the usual trolls who show up to spew and stomp their virtual feet. Amusing stuff for an opinion columnist, but deeply damaging for a business trying to sell product.

A few lawyers specializing in CPSC law have begun to warn their clients of the perils ahead, especially when the plaintiffs' bar begins to both hunt for clients among the postings and to use the "reports" found there in courtrooms far and wide as evidence of a pattern or practice of corporate indifference to injury. My colleague Gary Wolensky gave a presentation to the Sporting Goods Manufactures Association this week on the need for every manufacturer in America to design now a response strategy to roll out when the database goes live next spring. Rob Neppell of Kithbridge.com opined on my show last week that any manufacturer in the country that isn't already methodically scanning the web for mentions of its products is far behind the information curve, a late start that will become lethal if the companies aren't prepared to monitor and effectively respond to the "reports" to the database.

But even with the best lawyering and real-time monitoring it is hard to imagine American manufacturing being able to keep up with a flood of anonymous "reports" about the dangers posed by their products. The old Mark Twain rule about a lie being half-way around the world before truth has its boots on is even more obviously true in an era of instant connectivity to the global information superhighway.

Congress has ordered the CPSC to arrange for open-season on American manufacturing. If the Congress is returned to saner hands this November perhaps this train wreck can be averted, but don't count on it. American business is about to take another one on the chin.


From Hugh Hewitt

The Massachusetts Insurance Blackout

Insurers go on strike after Deval Patrick imposes price controls.

This week it became impossible in Massachusetts for small businesses and individuals to buy health-care coverage after Governor Deval Patrick imposed price controls on premiums. Read on, because under ObamaCare this kind of political showdown will soon be coming to an insurance market near you.

From The Wall Street Journal

Here Come The Lefties!

From http://www.crashtheteaparty.org/
























Don't be surprised if you see these people on t.v. soon!

Onerous New Department Of Energy Regulations Headed Our Way

The Department of Energy announced Thursday that it has finalized the new and higher energy efficiency standards for several classes of appliances which they decided upon last year. Those standards can be found here.

Warning! Keep your seat belts on, this is going to be a bumpy ride.

...the administration is planning to force us to register our homes, just like our cars, and get them inspected by an authorized agent of the DOE in order to get an "Inspection Label" for the home. So I suggest that you all read the Cap & Trade bill which was passed by the House last June, and which President Barack Obama is probably going to try to ram through the Senate shortly. That abomination of a bill requires us to bring our homes into compliance with each of the new standards for all regulated appliances, in order to legally sell them.

Read the rest from The American Thinker

Here is the link to the actual bill that was introduced to the Senate after being passed by the House.

The Nuts and Bolts of Cap & Trade From Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson

Just to make something clear, the poor will be exempt from these mandates by being subsidized for the costs of these regulations. More redistribution of wealth!

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Romer: "America is too stupid to understand my superfantastic advanced Math skillz!!!1!"

by @ 10:28. Filed under Politics, Socialism

Geebus, can this discredited windbag of a woman get any MORE frakking annoying???

The federal stimulus act has performed “exactly” as the Obama administration expected it to, Council of Economic Advisers Chairwoman Christina Romer said Sunday.

Right.

The “stimulus” didn’t just perform “within our strict margin of error” or, simply, “admirably”.

No, Romer’s going all in for her shot at The Nobel Prize for Hubris in Economics here with “exactly“.

According to the bogus Office of the President-Elect back in January of 2009, THAT DARK BLUE LINE, BELOW is what the Obama administration expected the “stimulus” to do, per Romer:


Romer’s clearly just banking on the hamster-like attention span of the average American citizen and cover from The Left Wing Media here. Because based on her own predictions, it’s impossible to see her statement as anything but an outright, shameless lie.

Well… almost impossible…

There is one other possibility. One effect of the stimulus can be easily verified, and this is most likely the one Romer’s referring to:


Either that or this administration really does believe we’re all a bunch of idiots.

Sadly, those two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

We’ve Come a Long Way in the Last Year: 10 Reasons the Economic Recovery Is Real

By Mark J. Perry

1. Railroad freight traffic is increasing.
2. Restaurant activity is improving.
3. The millionaires are back.
4. Jobs, jobs, and more jobs.
5. The manufacturing sector is showing V-shaped signs of growth.
6. International air travel has rebounded.
7. Strong global shipping demand.
8. A global stock market rally is under way.
9. Real estate recoveries in some of the hardest-hit markets.
10. Market indicators of risk are back to pre-recession levels.

For the explanation of each, go to The Enterprise Blog

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

THE COSTLY CONSEQUENCES OF HEALTH CARE ‘REFORM’

REPUBLICAN CAUCUS
THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
A REVIEW OF THE LEGISLATION AS ENACTED
CONCLUSION
"The U.S. health care sector clearly needs reform. But the legislation discussed here is not solely about health care. It really deals with what kind of country America will be in the 21st century: whether government will have a bigger role in making individuals’ deeply personal decisions about their medical care; whether Americans will come to depend more on the government than on themselves for their livelihoods; whether America declines into a culture of dependency, or rejuvenates itself as a culture of initiative, opportunity, and creativity – the principles on which the Nation was founded."

Here's The Complete PDF File

Health Insurers Sue To Raise Rates In Massachusetts

A half-dozen health insurers yesterday filed a lawsuit against the state seeking to reverse last week’s decision by the insurance commissioner to block double-digit premium increases — a ruling they say could leave them with hundreds of millions in losses this year.

The rulings mean that health insurance rates established in 2009 for small businesses and individuals will remain in effect — rates the insurers say were not even sufficient to cover last year’s costs.

From The Boston Globe

WH Adviser Paul Volcker: US May Need to Consider European-Style Value-Added Tax

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

Associated Press

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Amazing Glenn Beck Show!

Folks, This Is Very Disturbing! Avowed Marxists and Socialists Targeting Glenn Beck.

Monday, April 5, 2010

Love Him Or Hate Him, A Great Speech By Newt Gingrich

"This is a moment to quit worrying about them.
We know who they are.
We know how bad they are.
We know how much damage they would like to do.
This is the moment to figure out what the replacement is.
I want to argue that the purpose of 2010 and 2012 should be very straight forward.
That this should be the greatest replacement campaign probably since Andrew Jackson in 1828.
And it should be designed as a replacement campaign.
We should be very clear from day one.
We're not interested in reforming the left.
We're not interested in compromising with the left.
We're not interested in understanding the left.
We're interested in replacing the left." - Newt Gingrich

Watch The Speech Below

Off-the-Hook Hypocrisy: Rep. Waters Used to Love ‘Vulgar’ & ‘Outlandish’ Protest Rallies



From Breitbart.tv

Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews and the 'regime' question

"It appears that Matthews has suffered a major memory loss. I don't have the facilities to search for every utterance of Joe McCarthy, but a look at more recent times reveals many, many, many examples of the phrase 'Bush regime.' In fact, a search of the Nexis database for 'Bush regime' yields 6,769 examples from January 20, 2001 to the present.

It was used 16 times in the New York Times, beginning with an April 4, 2001 column by Maureen Dowd -- who wrote, 'Seventy-five days into the Bush regime and I'm a wreck' -- and ending with a March 6, 2009 editorial denouncing the 'frightening legal claim advanced by the Bush regime to justify holding [accused terrorist Ali al-Marri].'

'Bush regime' was used 24 times in the Washington Post, beginning with a January 22, 2001 profile of Marshall Wittmann by Howard Kurtz -- who noted that Wittmann served as 'a Health and Human Services deputy assistant secretary in the first Bush regime' -- and ending with an October 6, 2009 column by Dana Milbank which quoted far-left antiwar protester Medea Benjamin questioning whether the Obama administration 'looks very different from the Bush regime.'

Perhaps Matthews missed all of those references. If he did, he still might have heard the phrase the many times it was uttered on his own network, MSNBC. For example, on January 8 of this year, Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak said that, 'In George Bush's regime, only one million jobs had been created…' On August 21, 2009, MSNBC's Ed Schultz referred to something that happened in 2006, when 'the Bush regime was still in power.' On October 8, 2007, Democratic strategist Steve McMahon said that 'the middle class has not fared quite as well under Bush regime as…' On August 10, 2007, MSNBC played a clip of anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan referring to 'the people of Iraq and Afghanistan that have been tragically harmed by the Bush regime.' On September 21, 2006, a guest referred to liberals 'expressing their dissatisfaction with the Bush regime.' On July 7, 2004, Ralph Nader -- appearing with Matthews on 'Hardball' -- discussed how he would 'take apart the Bush regime.' On May 26, 2003, Joe Scarborough noted a left-wing website that 'has published a deck of Bush regime playing cards.' A September 26, 2002 program featured a viewer email that said, 'The Bush regime rhetoric gets goofier and more desperate every day.'

Finally -- you knew this was coming -- on June 14, 2002, Chris Matthews himself introduced a panel discussion about a letter signed by many prominent leftists condemning the Bush administration's conduct of the war on terror. 'Let's go to the Reverend Al Sharpton,' Matthews said. 'Reverend Sharpton, what do you make of this letter and this panoply of the left condemning the Bush regime?'"

Friday, April 2, 2010

From Heritage.org

It Was a Setup!… State-Run Media Conspired on Racist Tea Party Attack

Friday, April 2, 2010, 2:40 PM
Jim Hoft From Gateway Pundit

The American Thinker did an outstanding job describing the events on March 20th, when democratic members of Congress in Washington DC were reportedly taunted by tea party activists with racial and sexual slurs. It appears from the timeline of the events that this race-baiting story was in the works before the Black Caucus members paraded through the tea party crowd on Capitol Hill.

Now Doug Ross found this—–

McClatchy
released their story on the reported attacks on the Black Caucus members at 4:51 PM EST. The McClatchy reporter William Douglas refers to Huffington Post contributor Sam Snead as a source in his article.

But… The Huffington Post did not post their article until 4:56 PM EST:

Amazing.
It looks like the democratic-media complex was working on this story before it even occurred.
…If it even occurred.

The Black Caucus members and democratic-media complex STILL have not provided any proof that the N-word was said once, let alone 15 times, as Rep. Andre Carson claimed.

Andrew Breitbart has more on Obama’s helter-skelter Alinskyite plans to deconstruct America.

Putin Warns U.S. About Socialism

"In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute," Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated."

Sounding more like Barry Goldwater than the former head of the KGB, Putin said, "Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors, and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state."

From INFOWARS.com

Here Is The Full Text of The Speech

VAT: Fuel For The Full-Entitlement State

"ObamaCare, when stripped of its budgetary gimmicks — the unfunded $200-billion-plus doctor fix, the double counting of Medicare cuts, the 10-6 sleight-of-hand (counting 10 years of revenue and only 6 years of outflows) — is at minimum a $2 trillion new entitlement."

From Investor's Business Daily

ObamaCare Dissent Will Not Be Tolerated

"Last week AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere, and Verizon announced that ObamaCare was impacting their financial bottom lines in a big way. They indicated they were being subjected to large additional costs as a result of the consequences of ObamaCare. Other major companies including Boeing, Prudential, and A K Steel also reported their corporate incomes would be adversely affected by the impact of ObamaCare. The Obama White House was not pleased."

From Mr. Consrvative

Didn't Understand What Was In It

"Most of these people (in the administration) have never had a real job in their lives," a senior lobbyist for one of the firms told the American Spectator over the weekend. "They don't understand a thing about business, and that includes the president. My CEO sat with the president over lunch with two other CEOs, and each of them tried to explain to the president what this bill would do to our companies and the economy in general. First the president didn't understand what they were talking about. Then he basically told my boss he was lying."

Las Vegas Review-Journal