Republicans Are Focused On The Wrong Target
President Obama’s budget is massive, full of debt and, according to USA TODAY, “…did not propose any major savings in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the three entitlement programs that consume nearly 40% of federal spending. By 2020, they’ll eat up 46%.” However, Republicans should not concentrate their fire on the president. Congress holds the purse strings to the federal government, and while Obama is an easy target for both Members of Congress and activist groups to go after, it is Congress that will decide what gets spent, and how it gets spent. Going after the president certainly feels good…but it won’t do the job of holding down federal spending. Only going after Congress will do that.
Thoughts on the State of the Union Speech
Some Thoughts on the State of the Union Speech
The transcript of President Obama’s speech can be found here. Any quotes below from the speech are found in the transcript.
1. I missed the first few minutes of the speech. Did he do the traditional shout-out to members of the audience? I thought I saw the two Fort Hood heroes next to First Lady Obama. (According to the transcript, he did not do it in the beginning of the speech, and I don’t remember it happening at any other time.)
2. He wants to help grow America’s economy by raising taxes on those who outsource. On the one hand, he’s rewarding those who stay. However, without other incentives to stay- such as a practical tax structure- he is asking/telling them to stay out of fear, not out of the dynamic opportunities America offers businesses. This is equivalent to punching someone in the nose who leaves, and telling the rest you’ll not punch them in the face. Thus, you are doing them a favor, or so it appears. Unfortunately for America, business leaders generally aren’t stupid, and they will leave the country completely or simply find a way around the laws.
3. He promised to pay more money for education, more money for community banks to lend- the latter, mind you, out of what the big banks and lending institutions have paid back to the taxpayer- to spend money on green initiatives and to balance out the massive spending increases the Democratic Congress has put on this country in the last twelve months. How would he balance these seemingly contradictory proposals? By freezing discretionary spending for three years and “not continu[ing] tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year.” For fun, let’s see how much he cuts from trial lawyers (huge Democratic supporters) and see how much he raises on those making less than $250,000, as he did last year, breaking a campaign promise. Too, freezing discretionary is to freeze only about 18% of the budget, and he is only targeting $25 billion, a relatively paltry amount. According to MarketWatch, non-military discretionary spending is about $447 billion. Doing the math, we see he is supporting freezing about 1/18th of the discretionary budget, or approximately 5.5%. I am definitely not complaining about the effort, but why is he pretending it’s going to be enough to pay for the new programs and monies he and the Democrats have saddled us with this past year? Perhaps if he were to support real efforts to cut back spending as supported by Senator Coburn (R-OK) and Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation, we could begin the long road back to fiscal sanity.
4. He said “health insurance reform” again, not health care reform.
5. He called for the lifting of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. *Big Yawn* While I have yet to see enough evidence to support lifting DADT, it’s right around the 80th issue back on the list. Too, I think he announced his support for lifting it to get the same kind of energy from the base President Bush was looking for when he called for the Federal Amendment banning gay marriage in his 2006 State of the Union speech. Gays are increasingly incensed with the president, so he had to throw them something. After all, they put thousands of hours and millions of dollars towards his election, and he has pretty much ignored them since that happened, except for some of the requisite events to re-ingratiate himself with them. I don’t see, however, DADT being lifted in the next few months, what with re-election the major concern of most Democrats.
6. He supported nuclear power and offshore drilling. Yes, he still wants cap-and-trade (which won’t happen in an already-tough election year for Democrats), but supporting nuclear power and drilling was one of the few bipartisan ideas he offered, and I was both surprised and glad he supports them.
7. Actually, this might be the Lie of the Day: “That’s the leadership we are providing: engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people.” Given that he was ridiculed by France’s Sarkozy for being soft on Iran, ignored the protesters who were dying in Iran for quite some time, did not support the legal coup by the Honduran people and their government and military, snubbed Germany’s Merkel at the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, snubbed Britain’s Prime Minister and Queen once each and broke a missile shield contract with Poland, how can he say he is using engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people?
8. I was surprised at the enthusiasm and wide-ranging efforts he talked about. I thought he would be both more mild and more cognizant of the fact that his policies are unpopular and Congress is not going to take political risks right now. Will he convince politicians to be more concerned about the state of the country versus their own survival? I expect Democrats will make some noise in that area, then blame their opponents for not wanting to work together and thus continue this ridiculous and harmful cycle of politics we have in DC.
9. Chuckle of the Day: He wants people to stop campaigning and lead in Washington. Because, you know, he stopped campaigning on November 5, 2009. (As Jonah Goldberg noted today, the president brought back his old campaign manager this week to retool his message. You know, because he’s stopped campaigning.)
10. For all his talk about education, he still has not supported the DC School Voucher program.
11. Last but not least, his “jobs will,” or third stimulus in the last two years, not only won’t do anything positive but will coincide with the current stimulus, only $172 billion of which has been spent. Since we have $600 billion still to utilize, why not use that first before putting more debt on us?
12. Enough with the SOB stories. Please. Use evidence to convince us, not a story about adding 1,200 jobs, because most Americans know at least 1,201 were lost at the same time these 1,200 were brought into play. Please? Treat us like adults, not starry-eyed children. THEN you will be a president we might be able to follow.
*This was originally published at Race42012.com.
God Help The Haitian People
As is well-known by now, thousands of Haitians have died in a massive earthquake. There’s not much to say other than God help the people over there. See this link for President Obama’s statements on the disaster and a phone number for Americans who have family members in Haiti to check on them.
Also, see USA Today’s comprehensive list of organizations that are helping in Haiti. Also, see here for a site dedicated to the assistance of the Haitian people, and here for MSNBC’s list of assisting organizations. Donations, I’m certain, would be gratefully accepted.
Harry’s Situation…
In the episode of the FX show It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia called “The Gang Goes Jihad,” the three guys who own the Philadelphia bar come face-to-face with a man who just moved from Israel and had bought land that included a portion of their establishment. Throughout the episode, the three characters banter over the proper use of the term Jew. At one point they T.P. the man’s building, during which this exchange occurs:
“That jew’s in for a hell of a lot of work.”
“Wow, wow, cool it man.”
“What? What are you talking about?”
“Dude, you just dropped a hard J.”
“No man, he is of Jewish descent and that is a lot of toilet paper. That is going to take a lot of time to clean up. I was thinking bout the context the whole time.”
Suffice to say, I love this show. But who needs to fork over the extra money to get FX Network when you can watch similar debates occur on the local news? It’s one thing to have three mentally unstable friends squabble over political correctness; how about a twenty three year Senator, and current Senate Majority leader demonstrating his inability to decide whether or not to use the out-dated term negro? In case you have been living with Patrick Star under a rock this past week, here is what Senator Reid is quoted in a new Mark Halperin book, Game Change:
“He (Reid) was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he later put it privately.”
The words could have come straight out of Archibald Bunker’s mouth. What is it that has the country so enveloped in this demonstration of ignorance? Ironically enough, Sen. Reid was attempting to compliment the future President of the United States. Instead people are up in arms. If we dissect the statement, we can see that there are distinct parts that probably incite more reaction than others. In what context is the term Negro acceptable? None (and the same goes for you Rush, even though you used it in a parody that ended up making fun of just this situation). Is it true that lighter-skinned African Americans tend to be more influential, more popular, and more electable in society than those who are darker? Sadly this seems to be the case in many situations, but I cannot pretend to be able to comment on the use of such racially charged language and how blacks feel about it truly, in their heart of hearts. Perhaps we should look at what he meant by “Negro dialect,” what does he mean there? Surely he demonstrated that he is out of touch with America because most people refer to ‘Ebonics’ or ‘street-talk’ when they are trying to make a similar point. Nobody is unaware of either of these terms, and his comment just shows his ignorance to popular culture as well as manners.
There is a lot to analyze there; but there seems to be something missing that is causing such turbulence in the souls of many Americans. For me, it’s not what was said on the surface, as much as it is what was said without being said. How can we use this black man to our advantage? He is black, which is useful; he ‘is articulate,’ which is useful; he can turn his ‘blackness on and off;’ which is useful; in the end, this black man is useful and will succeed for us because he is black how we want him to be, but not black when we need him to be. THAT my friends, is racism. There seems to be a disconnect between people who are viewing these comments and only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and those of us who see the rest of the iceberg plummeting miles into the ocean.
This was seen on Sunday, when I watched with gaping mouth, as Liz Cheney and George Will clashed over this point. Mr. Will seems to be looking at the comments on a surface level, Ms. Cheney on the deeper level. In order to be completely forthcoming, I must fess up to a deep admiration to both people (and NONE of the others around the table). I was sad to see the two fight, and sad to differ from George Will, again. However, I think those African Americans who are tired of feeling like pawns in a political game; whether it’s an effort to win voting blocks in cities with programs that have proven to be detrimental to the black family and communities, or putting up candidates that fit a litmus test for winning and avoiding the Bradley Effect. This is not a case of Republican versus Democrat, this is a demonstration of a disgusting ends justifies the means mentality for domestic politics, and should be condemned as such.
-rj
Big News of the day or BIGGEST News of the day?
Read the article below and let me know what you think in the comments section:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. taxpayer profits from bank bailout investments are being offset by estimated losses from American International Group and automakers and mortgage payment cuts for struggling homeowners, a U.S. Treasury report showed on Monday.
The Treasury estimated net losses on its $700 billion bailout program at $68.5 billion for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009.
The December report for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, showed that the fiscal 2009 net loss included estimated losses of $30.4 billion for AIG and $30.4 billion for automakers, with $27.1 billion in losses from the Home Affordable Modification Program.
These were much larger than a $15 billion profit registered from the Capital Purchase Program for banks and $4.4 billion in profits from other bank investments, asset guarantee and lending programs.
A senior Treasury official said the bank investments will ultimately produce a positive return for taxpayers. But the department was not yet ready to update its estimate of the final taxpayer costs for the bailouts.
The official said the Treasury would update its cost estimates on a quarterly basis as the bailout program shifts its focus toward small business lending and housing relief in its final 10 months of operation.
The Treasury in November said TARP’s ultimate cost estimate had been reduced to about $141 billion from $341 billion earlier in the year. Further reductions in the final cost estimate could aid the Obama administration as it faces pressure to produce a new budget that starts to show deficit reductions.
(Reporting by David Lawder; Editing by Dan Grebler)
Unfortunately, this story was not the lead anywhere today, though Fox did have a related one on their top three stories. Drudge’s lead story today is about Scott Brown, the candidate for former Senator Kennedy’s seat (okay, that one’s fairly important). Yesterday, he had an accusation that Senator Reid (D-NV) had a facelift or something. Drudge did have this story, but buried several stories down. Meanwhile, cable news is failing as badly as usual to provide important news. Fox has the “tell-all” story about Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) as their lead story, and CNN has David Frum’s newest column as theirs. MSNBC actually has the most important lead story of the three, with an article about the death of an Iranian opposition leader. ABC is also not doing their job, with a massive lead story about President Obama allegedly playing favorites regarding the race card.
Once again, I’ll ask Americans to look at the important news. Who really cares if Sarah Palin is on Fox? Is anyone surprised? Reid has said two racial statements in recent weeks. Why are we letting our elected officials waste our taxpayer money over his comments? (Note- every time they go after or defend Reid instead of doing their job they are wasting taxpayer money.) We are losing billions of dollars to corrupt government, business and other officials and executives…and we care about something stupid Reid said or the common-sense career move of Sarah Palin? Give me a break. Let’s worry about the troops dying overseas, our sovereignty, the education of our youth and the other critical issues facing this country. Our mainstream/professional media certainly won’t do it, obviously, but in the age of the Internet and other technologies, we the people have no excuse.
The Party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea?
Since the election of President Obama, the Democrats have been very effective at portraying the Republican Party as the ?Party of No.? Depending on your political persuasion, this could be completely true, completely false or somewhere in the middle.
In the last couple of weeks, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been hammered by Erick Erickson of RedState and Michelle Malkin for not fighting to the very finish on the recent Senate passage of a health care reform bill. On the one hand, these criticisms are of delaying tactics would only have slowed the vote by twelve hours, which would have done nothing in the halls of Congress but would have, as Ed Morrissey points out, given the media less time to cover the vote?s aftermath. On the other hand, if the Republican leadership had held firm on the many opportunities they had to slow things down, for example by following Senator Judd Gregg?s (R-NH) advice, and Senator Tom Coburn?s (R-OK) wish to read every part of the Senate bill, among other tactics to slow the bill, senators would have had to go home for Christmas a) without a bill, and b) to face their constituents, the majority of whom dislike the Democratic versions of health care reform and whom are increasingly against them as time goes on.
Senators Gregg, Coburn and Jim DeMint (R-SC), among many others, have been vilified for their articulate and unyielding opposition to health care reform and other Democratic measures. However, they are also the poster children for what Republicans should be about- namely, being the party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea.? All of these senators, along with other Republicans, have jammed the Democrats but also offered their own solutions to the various issues facing America. They have also worked with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion on a case-by-case basis.
When it comes to dispelling the myth that Republicans have been, and are being, merely obstructionists, let’s start with Senator Judd Gregg. On the one hand, Gregg voted for Secretary Geithner?s nomination, nearly accepted a position as President Obama?s Commerce Secretary, offered support for the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill and has worked with Democrat Kent Conrad (D-ND) on a debt commission. On the other, Gregg has hammered Obama on debt, passed around a virtual handbook for Republican obstructionism and taken the lead on opposing Democratic reconciliation. Additionally, however, Gregg has offered his own bill as an alternative to the Democratic proposals.
Senator DeMint is probably most famous for his Waterloo statement and his numerous delaying tactics on health care reform (see here and here for examples). However, he has also worked with self-declared socialist Independent Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on halting the Bernanke nomination and bringing transparency to the Federal Reserve. As a representative of the Party of ?No, but here?s a better idea,? he too has put forth a health care alternative to the Democratic proposals.
Lastly, we have Senator Coburn. Coburn has slid in two gun amendments this year to two Democrat-supported bills, halting the DC voting bill in its tracks. He has also held up funding for veterans because he wanted to use unused stimulus funds for the benefits and loudly opposed the stimulus package. He also forced a reading of Senator Sanders? single-payer amendment to the Democratic bill. However, at the same time, he has maintained a friendship with President Obama, pushed a transparency bill with then-Senator Obama (D-IL) into law in 2006 and sponsored a Republican alternative to the Democratic health care bills on, of all places, Huffington Post. In fact, he wrote on Huffington Post not once but twice. This is a guy who clearly wants his message to get out to all Americans, not just his constituents or fellow conservatives.
Other ?No but here?s a better idea? Republicans include Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), the numerous Republican co-sponsors of the Wyden-Bennett bill and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
The fact is that Republicans are trying to stop a very bad makeover of a massive portion of America in ways that swing from bad policy to unethical to unconstitutional. For an example of the latter, with respect to David Frum?s recent piece supporting the individual mandate?s constitutionality, he is wrong- an individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. Other bad components include the Senate bill’s abortion funding, the House bill’s public option and the lack of legitimate tort reform in either bill.
Personally, I think Republicans should have fought tooth-and-nail for a post-Christmas vote on the Democratic health care reform bill in the Senate. They should have offered amendments, yes, as Frum has said- but they have a responsibility to stop the bill first and foremost. That is what the minority is supposed to do with a bill as bad as this one, with as little power as Republicans and conservatives have right now- stop the legislation cold and start over with a bill that includes conservative and free market principles and ideas. Some Republicans are just being the Party of No, but sometimes saying?saying?’no’ is necessary, despite what some Democrats may say.
Obama points to “Poverty” in Radio Address
President Obama demonstrated his biting deductive reasoning this morning as he released a radio address where he announces his decision that Al-Qaeda in Yemen was in fact behind the Christmas morning attempted bombing of an airliner after landing at Detroit Airport.?
What I found considerably perplexing was when the President made this comment:
?We know that [Abdulmutallab] travelled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies…?
A skilled politician our President is, he can indirectly link something to another when all of the evidence points to the opposite conclusion.? This was an attempt to plant a seed in the minds of Americans that the “crushing poverty” contributes heavily?to the existence of terrorism, particularly in this case.? However, it turns out that the opposite holds true, as Abdulmutallab was a well-off and well-educated.? The same with the mastermind of the London bomings in 2005, not to mention many of the 9/11 hijackers as well…
-rj
Health Care Officially Passes Senate
It passed on a party-line vote, too. However, do not despair yet:
1. The White House is outright lying about President Obama’s campaigning on the public option. Desperation?
2. According to Politico, the White House is admitting negotiations over the bill may go past the State of the Union address in late January or very early February. Given that there have been multiple passed deadlines already, and primary season hits full stride in May, will vulnerable Democrats like Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) be willing to pass this monstrosity in the final vote? Their constituents will be (and are) paying attention, and 2010 is going to be a Republican year anyway, so conservative Democrats are going to continue to be very careful.
3. Democrats in the House have felt ignored and trampled for much of the health care debate, and The Heritage Foundation has compiled a number of issues the House and Senate will have to overcome to get a final bill passed. Question: will the House be willing to cave? That verdict is uncertain.
4. Politically influential conservatives, liberals and moderates are against the Senate bill. Polls show Americans are increasingly against the so-called “ObamaCare” version of health care reform. Again, will vulnerable Democrats risk voting for the bill?
5. The designed-to-be-a-pain federal legislation process is in America’s favor.
It’s Christmas- let’s enjoy the day, thank God for sending us His son and enjoy our time with family and friends. Let’s also pray for the guidance and ability to prevent this bill from gravely harming Americans by not letting it pass.
Ed Morrissey Asks The Right Question
“Is she ever again going to be north of 50 percent favorable?”
Ed Morrissey of Hot Air asked the above question at the end of a critique of the “news” that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin blacked out Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) name out of an old campaign hat she wore. *Rolls eyes* Obviously, this isn’t news, and Morrissey makes that clear. (He also pokes fun at himself for using Palin’s name to bring extra viewership, something he critiqued the “Today” show for.)
Morrissey’s question is very important. Sarah Palin is incredibly unpopular among many demographics of Americans, yet many of her supporters think she is the greatest thing since Ronald Reagan and believe she is the answer to President Obama in 2012. Unfortunately, they are incorrect, and the more quickly Palin’s supporters realize this and stop protecting her from every sling and arrow, the more quickly we can move onto better candidates such as Governors Romney and Pawlenty, Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) and pretty much anyone else.
When Democrats and liberals of many affiliations and political backgrounds want Palin to win the nomination- including a number of Democratic and liberal friends and acquaintances- there’s something very bad going on. Either they are all wrong- doubtful, since my friends and acquaintances are politically experienced, intelligent guys (yes, by coincidence they are all guys)- or Palin’s supporters are throwing the party, and by association the country, to President Obama in 2012. Again, abandon ship, Palinites, or the country will be harmed for a long, long time.
Democrats & Liberals Standing On Principles
The left is revolting over health care reform. Almost all Americans agree the country does need health care reform, but not the kind the current crop of Democratic Senators and Representatives want. The left and far left- as well as some of the middle- were leaning towards passage of the health care reform package going through the Senate. However, since Senator Lieberman (I-CT) broke the Medicare buy-in into pieces the other day, Keith Olbermann, Markos Moulitsas- the founder of Daily Kos- have come out against the bill, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has as well and former Vermont governor Howard Dean is against it. Too, an opinion piece featured on Huffington Post calls Dean “a genuine hero” for the way he is opposing the current bill, and the SEIU is calling out the President.
Part of me feels badly for these guys and gals. They worked really hard to put President Obama and his Democratic majority into power and are being rejected on what has been their biggest issue all along. Despite being what many consider a far-right conservative, I greatly respect their stand on their principles, and hope they will continue to work to create real reform, as Dean referenced here in his Washington Post column today: “Any measure that expands private insurers’ monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.”
Except for forcing companies to cut unnecessary administrative expenses, I like what Dean for health care reform results. Hopefully he, Kos and the rest of the left will join The Heritage Foundation, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and other conservative organizations and individuals in bringing choice, competition and lower costs to American health care.
