Leave it to the Cleaver: Congressional Black Caucus overt double standard

Maybe it’s just my imagination or has our fine nation become that hypersensitive that we have started looking for hidden messages because those actual messages in plain English don’t exist? Seems rather self-serving, doesn’t it? It also seems self promotion through divisions, such as race, are circling the drain as pundits scramble through sentences of ideological opponents for “subliminal racist” messages.   

That’s the latest word from the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Emanuel Cleaver (D) of Missouri. Mr Cleaver is the super sleuth who decoded two recent Presidentialcandidates sentences that appear to be dog whistle words to the Republican red-neck base that President Obama is in fact (gasp) a black (50%) man. 

Yes, it appears that the racist voters who are on the fence of reelecting a black man need to be reminded that in fact Mr Obama is well… black, you know… in case they forgot.

I am going to go out on a limb and predict racist’s who vote based on color or would have their vote’s at least weighted in such nonsense would not need a reminding; but I’m also not equipped with the: Racist Code Detector Version 7.5 who can spot such subliminal messages.

See, to a typical person, phrases like Gingrich’s “food stamp president” and Mitt Romney’s comments on “the very poor” would think: Poor. However, if equipped with: Racist Code Detector Version 7.5 you would in fact see the real meaning: “damn the black-man and do no reelect him because he is only helping blacks”!

So, if racists will vote against whom they despise anyway without a subliminal message; why the need for the racist code detector version 7.5? The answer is simple. It’s nothing more then a power grab. First, this is the Webster definition of a Caucus:

  

: a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy; also : a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause

That seems to be a simple premise, is closed meeting of persons united to promote an agreed upon cause. Forty years ago the Congressional Black Caucus was founded “to positively influence the course of events pertinent to African Americans and others of similar experience and situation.” So, its a closed meeting of like minded people who want to help black people. Now, this is where it gets interesting…

In a piece done in 2007, Politico’s Josephine Hearn told the story about Stephen I. Cohen, a Liberal Democrat who was rejected for membership to the caucus because he was white. Despite the fact that 60% of his constituents were black not to mention the majority of his staff was African American including his chief of staff. Seems rather confusing considering that a caucus is “a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause” and being its black, meaning race – Mr Cohen fits, his policies (Liberal Democrat) and his constituents fit that mission.

It was William Clay Jr (D) from Missouri who had the courage (or audacity) to lay it out in black and white (pardon the pun) for why Mr Cohen was not allowed directly from a state from his office:

Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.

Now we have the answer. Its not about “the needs and concerns of the black population” because if it was you wouldn’t reject a man applying to your “club” who wants to do exactly what your statement above says – help blacks (you know the people who elected him). This seems like the complete opposite of representation. And let me remind you again, its not about representation, its about power – this is just one of many clear examples.

In that same article was also the story of how Al Green (D) from Texas (now a member of the Black Caucus) got elected despite running against an incumbent Chris Bell, D-Texas who was also a Democrat but white. Hearn stated that:

Although House tradition discourages members of the same party from working against each other, about a dozen black lawmakers contributed to Bell's opponent, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, the eventual victor. Even Bell's Houston neighbor, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Black Caucus member), D-Texas, campaigned against him. 

That is another example of those in the Black Caucus of favoring skin color over policy. It would be “subliminal” if it was a Republican but to be doing this to those in your own party? This is another example of how the two party system is nothing but a sham, a fraud used to promote division across many lines and race being one of them and one of the easiest to promote at that.  

Last but not least, we have the Chairman – Mr Cleaver, the guy with the Racist Code Detector Version 7.5. I will let his quotes on the subliminal messages paint the picture:

“In the last few days, both Gov. Romney and Speaker Gingrich have been guilty of saying things that are not helpful to a society begging for racial inclusion. Whether they are intentional or not, I’m not 100 percent certain; I do know that it doesn't matter in many cases. It’s just unfortunate and it tends to divide.”

Cleaver went on to chide Congress for being “nasty” rather than “inclusive.”

Is there anything left to say? Do I have to point out the hypocrisy of the Congressional Black Caucus or do these quotes of double talk do the job? If not, let these words sink in by J.C. Watts (who is black) was elected to Congress from Oklahoma in 1994 on his views of the Congressional Black Caucus:

They said that I had sold out and (called me) Uncle Tom. But I have my thoughts. And I think they're race-hustling poverty pimps"

Newt Gingrich In 2009: Hey, That Individual Mandate Is A Great Idea!

BY Doug Mataconis   ·   Monday, January 30, 2012   ·   9 Comments

Newt Gingrich spent much of yesterday making his case against Mitt Romney on the grounds that Romney’s history with the Massachusetts health care reform plan would make it impossible for him to draw real distinctions between himself and President Obama on the issue of health care. As it turns out, though, Romney isn’t the only one who has that problem. Gingrich’s own support for an individual mandate during the Clinton years and even a mere year before Barack Obama was elected have already been noted. Now, though, we’ve got Gingrich on the record supporting the idea of an individual health care insurance mandate in 2009 just as Congress was beginning to debate what would eventually become the Affordable Care Care:

The real foundation, the most important part of this, is individual rights, responsibilities, and expectations of behavior. … We believe that there should be must-carry, that everybody should have health insurance, or if you’re an absolute libertarian, we would allow you to post a bond, but we would not allow people to be “free riders” failing to insure themselves and then showing up in the emergency room with no means of payment. If you have must carry, then the insurance companies have told us that we can have must-issue, and you will therefore have a system in which you don’t have to worry about cherry-picking and maneuvering. … This is the kind of general model we will be advocating.

The quoted section begins at about the 28 second mark, but the entire audio clip is relevant. At the time, Gingrich was speaking on behalf of one of his business ventures, The Center For Health Transformation, an organization that received significant amounts of money from the health care industry, including many large pharmaceutical companies. At the time, it wasn’t really shocking for Gingrich to say this because it was entirely consistent with what he’d been saying since the days of the long, hard debate over HillaryCare in 1994. It wasn’t until the right started turning on ObamaCare, as it came to be called, that Gingrich changed his position. Now, Gingrich says he was wrong for all those years. however as Morgen at Verum Serum notes, the audio clip is fairly damning when it comes to the case that Gingrich himself tries to make against Romney:

Well, here you have it: not only has Gingrich been a long-standing proponent of a federal health insurance mandate, he clearly and unequivocally called for it as part of the White House health reform initiative in May 2009. Mission accomplished then.
There is something else worth noting in this clip. Not only did Gingrich make the “conservative” argument for the mandate in dealing with the free rider problem, he also advanced a favorite argument of the left. Which is that the only way insurers could be required to offer coverage to everyone regardless of their health status (“must issue”), was to require everyone to carry insurance. This was ultimately the argument which convinced none other than Barack Obama, who remember, opposed an individual mandate during the Democrat primary campaign in 2008.
Romney is arguably even more compromised on ObamaCare than Gingrich, but it’s a much closer call in my opinion than some seem to believe. Call me an Alinskyite, but it seemed like Republican voters should probably know about this before the general election.

I bet they will after this starts showing up in SuperPAC ads in the near future.

Lesser of two evils come November? I cant see it.

 

Is there a difference between Romney and Obama? I have been critical of both Mr Romney and President Obama for various reasons but both being so different in terms of background, surly they cant be that similar, right? When the subject comes up of differentiating between the two I find myself scratching my head. The same head scratching can be said for those folks who ask me my support for either two, and when I reveal my support of Ron Paul regardless if he’s third party or not, it’s often met with the same rebuttal: “it’s a waste of a vote, its better to pick the lesser of two evils”. However, I just can’t seem to grasp the difference between the two men as far as policy is concerned.  

  

Sure, Romney has the business experience, that is unquestionable a difference and he has balanced the budget as Governor in Massachusetts. Both of those are very big props for Romney in my book… but other than that, I looked and I can’t find a difference between the eventual nominee for the Republicans (Mittens) and the incumbent, President Obama (at least not in the pivotal positions).

- Obama has maintained the foreign policy of an empire, just as Romney would do (although Romney said he would actually increase spending on defense) not to mention he chastised the President for pulling out of Iraq. No savings there.    

- Obama has continued to support even more of an assault on our personal liberty’s extending the Patriot Act and signing NDAA, wouldn’t you know it - Romney supports both. Liberty trampled on again.

- Obama passed Universal Healthcare as did Romney. Romney even is proud of his healthcare bill, (‘I’m very proud of my health-care plan and think it should be a model for other states to adopt’) or at least he was before he was against it again.

What do we have left? Taxes. Yes, taxes, death and Mittens oh boy! This is the same guy who didn’t release his taxes because he didn’t wantto show he paid at or under the 15 percentile reserved for Capital gains (between 13.9-15%) on over 40 Million dollars of income. That would show he is using loopholes (although legal) just like many of our corporations do.

Romney said recently that Obama passed 19 tax increases under his terms as POTUS. Most people on the right would believe that to be true, he is said to be the most polarizing president in our history isn’t he? Although the validity to those tax hikes in question has been shaky and even a few of the 19 suspected raises have been actually proved false, Mitt continues his assault. For the record, the Obama tax increases were minimal in nominal terms considering (the large deficit) and directed at very specific small targets; not wide wielding swaths of people and demographics as Romney would have you believe.

The truth of the matter is Obama has cut taxes too. He did so in his 700+ Billion dollar stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) he then cut taxes in the ‘December 2010 tax deal’ that extended the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts were worth $654 Billion and if you factor in the 250+ Billion from the ARRA cuts in his 2009 Stimulus act, we are talking 900 Billion in Tax cuts through his administration. I think its safe to say he has cut more taxes than he has increased taxes by a large sum.

Look at the revenue or receipts our government is pulling in. If we were seeing tax increases, wouldn’t we also being seeing soaring revenue? We aren’t. We are in a massive economic quagmire and tax cuts will not get us out of it. And if we continue to cut taxes and keep the budget as is or increase it, we will only cause even more damage down the road. And that seems like the message from Newt, Obama or Mitt.  

While I agree with the Republican field running for the oval office about the over-regulation that we are seeing under this administration; it’s not what ails us either. What we have is a political atmosphere where nobody wants to make the touch decision and cut major aspects off our budget or raise taxes to pay for the bills we have. Obama or Romney will never do it; they lack the thick skin and willingness to lead by example despite the consequences. responsible debt is one thing, what these kooks are proposing is simply not feasible long term. 

Romney has no plan to cut government just spend an equal amount or more and lower taxes for the richest Americans. Obama seems to have no plan at all and while he lowered taxes he increased regulation and didn't do anything to make cuts. Gingrich? He thinks we can save 500 Billion annually on modernization, he’s also the same guy who said Fannie and Freddie hired him as a historian... not a lobbyist. He won’t be the nominee but it further drives home the point. The 900 lb gorilla in the room remains Keynesian economics. Until we face the reality of the magnitude that beast has in terms of influence and destruction we will be here every four years with the same logical outcome: vote for a Paul (Ron or Rand).

Apparently the Grinch does have a heart after all?

Newton Gingrich, who is said to be the Tea-Part choice (it’s good the paper muffles my chuckles) for the Republican ticket for November is angry over cuts Mitt Romney made while Governor. Which I find funny because Gingrich said himself cutting waste and fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid program would save $1 trillion over 10 years.

I disagree with much of what Mitt Romney has to say as I have pointed out on many occasions, but this piece in the New York Post that Gingrich is trying to use against him in Florida (a big Jewish population no doubt) is one where I cant fault Mittens. Apparently, in 2003 as governor of Massachusetts, Romney cast a veto that would nix $600,000 in additional funds for poor Jewish nursing-home residents to get kosher meals.

Romney said it “unnecessarily” would lead to an “increased rate for nursing facilities”. That is because of the costs of Medicade and what it was doing to the budget. We are talking about Medicade here; which means we are talking about government money. Romney’s spokesman defended his opposition, saying the state was in crisis and the kosher funding veto was needed to head off higher reimbursement rates for Medicaid.

Of course there was stiff opposition. Jeffrey Goldshine, the retired CEO of a company that operated a kosher facility in Massachusetts said this when being interviewed by the NYPost: “I was outraged. For the elderly Jewish residents of a nursing home that have always been kosher — they should be entitled to continue.”

There was also Brooklyn state Assemblyman Dov Hikind, an Orthodox Jew and Newt Gingrich supporter, who also had this to say: “People who are kosher — it’s not a choice they have, everybody understands what kosher is. You have huge communities of Jews who eat only kosher and you have a huge community of senior citizens”.  

Let me state that I have no religious background nor preference and I feel no religion should be upheld by government and this veto by Romney is no exception. Then you have a Mormon in Mittens who is not only making cuts to Old Jewish folks but Catholics as well according to Newt (who is a Catholic) at a recent campaign stop in Pensacola: “Let me note in passing that Romney as governor imposed on Catholic hospitals provisions against their religious strictures” said at a campaign stop in Pensacola.

We can debate what waste is and we know what’s fraud, but when do you have to make tough decisions as to what to cut? Gingrich wants to make serious cuts to save money as he sees half a Trillion annually in savings on the budget if you modernize. How do you suppose you “modernize” and “cut waste and fraud in Medicade” if you never have to make the tough decisions? You don’t. Newt has no plan to shrink government and this proves he doesn’t even want to make the tough decisions when its time to break out a scalpel.

For Newton to somehow say on the stump: “he (Romney) has no understanding of the importance of conscience and importance of religious liberty in this country” because Romney made cuts to Medicade is insane. Of course it’s not popular. The Assemblyman and retired CEO of the Kosher Company illustrate that. I see it this way; no religion or beliefs should be paid for by government across the board. Secondly, Newt is using fear to drive voters. He even used the infamous “I know of a” to strike his point. “And in at least one parish I know of, the priest talked about the danger of a dictatorship that imposed anti-religious standards in all of us.” Stop it Newt.

Lastly, since there is “huge communities of Jews who eat only kosher” as the Assemblyman says there is, I would suggest they ought to pick up the check and not the government. This goes for all religious beliefs when it comes to Medicare. If I fault Romney for anything in this, it is simply not reaching out to said  community, thus giving them a chance to help.

If Gingrich is running to cut government and restore fiscal responsibility, why does he chastise thou that do? He went after Mittens for his experience at Bain he goes after his for cutting Medicare expenses when he was Governor. I think there is much bigger issues to cut besides Kosher food from Medicare as i think there is more honorable things than basically being a corporate raider, but Mitt's work history and his balancing budgets is in the realm, I don't think you can say the same for the Grinch. Maybe is realm truly is on the moon?

Pimp My Crony Capitalist Ride: Starring Prez Obama

There is something about a true free market that is romantic and optimistic, so much so that it arouses the deepest emotions in all of us if we imagine the boundless possibilities. The simplicity and beauty of a true free market is that way because it’s derived from nature itself. Its self correcting, rewards hard work and due diligence but also poetically enough; punishes and discards the losers and Mal-investment. You could call it Darwinian, and it can be cruel but more than anything it you have to call it fair.

Now comes what we have – crony capitalism. American capitalism today and for over a century has been anything but free. The system we have in place today is corrupt and has been completely hijacked by the collusion between big business and legislators on the take. I’m not talking about the overt sleazy ones either; im talking about almost every single one of them outside of maybe a Ron Paul. Capitalism today is being destroyed by itself. We are eating our own. Corporations are collectively smarter than politicians. Politicians also need money. Corporations need favorable legislation and thus what we have today is a shell of a free market.

The overt transparency of fraud became evident in the Obama administrations predecessor (the Bush Administration) who used the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and disasters like Katrina to facilitate no bid contracts and cost plus contracts with huge corporations like Bechtel and Dick Cheney’s former company Halliburton (do i really need a cite or link here). There was also Treasury's Hank Paulson (former Goldman CEO) giving his former cohorts on Wall Street inside information as to governments plans weeks and months before things happened during the financial crisis of 2008. Not nearly as talked about but equally suspect was the 1 Trillion dollar (and counting) Medicare prescription-drug benefit that facilitated a giant subsidy to thepharmaceutical industry. Maybe it’s the rise of the information age, maybe its our system finally coming undone; either way this type of corruption is something I have never seen or read about since the days of the industrial revolution.  

 

This current administration is no stranger to this corruption either (just look at his past contributors). In fact, what we are seeing under this administration is unprecedented on the subject of crony capitalism and that's saying alot considering Bush's track record. . 

One of the most notorious cases has been the solar company out of California, Solyndra. This was a company that received a 535 Million dollar loan from the federalgovernment in 2009 - spent 1 Million dollars in lobbying in 2010 – then went bankrupt in 2011. This put US taxpayer’s on the hook for the 535 Million dollar loan. Solyndra was also influential in the Presidents (who toured Solyndra in 2010 and tabbed it a success) election as its board contributed large sums of money from their own accounts. We also learned via the Tribune Washington Bureau that the Department of Energy employee who helped monitor the Solyndra loan guarantee was one of Obama's top fundraisers.

Solyndra however doesn’t touch the GM scandal. As I pointed out before, the US buying a stake in a company and having it competing with other company’s in the same industry who is not back by the federal government is not supposed to happen. Talk about an UN-leveled playing field? But it did.

GM saw what the Prius was doing a decade ago and for years wanted to get into the hybrid market but never could gain traction. So it concentrates on the next big thing, the electric car. This drive towards the electric car breeds the conception of the Chevy Volt. In September in 2008, the Volt was unveiled. By this time, GM is failing and on its death bed. Nine months later enters Obama and his blank check.   

So here the President sits with a gigantic stake in GM. It’s actually us, the taxpayer with the giant stake, but for the sake of the argument, it is Mr President since he has our check book…we just pay the bills (but only some as we have annual trillion dollar deficits). This could go on forever.

Let’s reset. It’s 2009 and with the US tax payers on the hook for GM, and the economy in the tank, Obama puts together the: Presidents Economic Recovery Board. On that board he appoints several giants across the commerce spectrum; one of them is GE Chairman and CEO Jeffery Immelt. GE is known for many things and being a conglomerate, it is obviously diversified. One of the technologies GE is bullish on is Wind Turbines (read green energy) so it makes sense when you take into account this administrations feverish green outlook. GE is also smart, they havent grown to their size and scope being naive; so they do not take risks that aren’t highly calculated.

So what happens in 2010 is pretty interesting. Remember Jeff Immelt? He cuts a deal with GM to have GE  buy 12,000 Chevy Volts by 2015. This is the same Chevy Volt that there is no demand for, the same vehicle that has serious questions about its reliability and its safety. Yet, one of the richest, most diverse corporations in the world decides to replace half of its fleet with a car that is still much in question? How does Obama show his gratitude, for buying into this boondoggle? He gives Immelt a promotion. One might start to ask themselves, how does a Chairman and CEO of GE…receive a promotion? Simple, President Obama Gave him another chair, and made him Chairman of the: Council on Jobs and Competitiveness on January 21, 2011.

My Congressional representative (3^rd district of PA) Mike Kelly, who is a car dealer himself, had this to say recently about the Volt and Administration:

 

“This is a halo car, not so much for General Motors , but for this administration,” Mr Kelly Said. “If GM thought this was such a good investment, they would have launched it themselves many years ago. If these cars are so great and so marketable, why do we have to subsidize them so heavily?”

 

Here you have a sitting President with a green agenda buying with US taxpayers a stake in an American company GM who sells cars in the US against other US car manufacturers with no federal coffers to dip into. That is the first strike. Then you have said President in a cozy relationship with a CEO of a company like GE (who also has green interest) buying an enormous amount of cars off of GM, who is backed by the federal government. I mean, why not the Ford Fusion Hybrid? They are an American automaker as well and the Fusion Hybrid is actually a better car, according to many industry experts. Strike Two.

Last but not least is ethics. How can a President (who came in loaded with a cabinet of Wall Street insiders) so stuck in a jobs rut side with a company that has been shipping some of its businesses and jobs offshore all the while using tax loopholes to escape paying taxes while using the Volt as another tax win with its tax credits? Or how can we cut joint venture deals with the Chinese to sell the Volt; then to only have the Chinese steal the technology to turn around and use it against us like they have on so many other occasions across multitudes of industry. It’s pretty obvious that the end game is this: GM must succeed for the President to succeed, regardless of how it’s done. The ends justify the means. The government picking and choosing winners, betting on what technology they think is the best option instead of the market place is why Obama strikes out on this matter.   

There have been numerous examples of crony capitalism over the years but we are seeing some pretty alarming examples at the height of our elected representatives over the last decade, and the corruption starts at the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. This isn’t a partisan problem; this is a national, state and local problem; as this affects all of us and at every level of our government. If it happens there and is so visible, imagine what we don’t know about? We can call it crony capitalism or call it a plutocracy or a plutarchy but whatever you do; do not call it capitalism and never under these conditions dare call this market free.

GM and the US taxpayers are at the halfway point to break even on GM

It was learned this week that the US tax payers are still missing the repayment of 132 Billion dollars from  TARP, which was launched in 2008. In a report issued Thursday by Christy Romero, who is the acting special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The Program, as we all recall, was to save the financial sector from themselves because of their addiction to the derivatives game (think World Series of Poker).

In 2009, the remaining cash in TARP was split between a variety of business (mostly banks) but there sat GM. Facing Chapter 11, GM was first rebuked then denied by the President. GM had to do what any failed business has to do, it had to file for bankruptcy and they did; wiping out all the stockholders who stocks were completely vaporized into worthless pieces of paper. Then after filing and less then a month off of the stock exchange; GM reemerged with an infusion of American taxpayers borrowed capital. With backing of the US and Canadian government; GM was now owned more by the state then it was private investors.

Fast forward to this week. Here is what President Obama had to say in the State of the Union Address:

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back. 

This is classic example of where politicians say things that are rather hallow but are not completely false, so in lies some grey area (wiggle room). Mr Obama actually did refuse to help GM at first. So therefore, President Obama only refused to let them fail, well... only after he first refused to help. He can say it was because he "demanded responsibility" but the truth of the matter is; he was weighing the political capital in letting it fail or saving it. Being one of the most anticipated Presidents in decades, he wasnt about to start out his presidency by backing a losing horse. Think about it, organized labor are as close to the Democratic hip as the Evangelicals are to the Right's, so for him to not having saved it from the jump means he was weary of the public's growing anger towards the bailouts. 

As far as the 1 million jobs, it is including all the suppliers and they wouldnt have all lost work. There is many small businesses across the country that feed off the automotive industry but many of them would have survived because most of them are diversified enough to withstand the hit. Its also worth noting that even if GM did face liquidation, another automotive company would have stepped in and bought the brand. Thus many jobs would have been saved if not most; even without the bailout.

As far as GM being some kind of triumph or success story... you give me any business and dump 34 Billion dollars of outside investment money into it that costs said company nothing; Ill build you a success story too. Who couldnt, with that type of Capital/lottery/welfare? Now, about the American auto industry being back? In the words of the immortal Lee Corso: not so fast my friends. According to the US Treasury, US Taxpayers would need to sell its GM stocks at $53 per share to break even. Friday, January 27th it closed at $24 per share. How long do we have to wait to see if this investment at least breaks even? Being GM is the "worlds number #1 car-maker" now, don't ya know...lets hope its sooner rather then later. 

In defense of Obama (allow me to explain)

Let me start out by saying, that feels weird uttering out that title to myself. For those that don’t know me... I’m not a liberal, far from it. For those that do, know I would consider myself a Libertarian and Libertarianism is rooted in logic. Freedom across the board seems to be the "fairest" premise one can have in such an unfair game that is politics. With that said, I see a lot of venom spit at the President in terms of his economic approach that I don’t think is quite fair. Again, before you bitch slap your monitor - allow me to explain.

Much has been made recently about the Presidents accumulation debt. We have seen 5 Trillion added onto the 10 Trillion of national debt since he came into office in January 2009, that's no cheap date. So let there be no doubt that the spending is spiraling out of control going forward.  However, the attempt to put this on one man and his quest to outspend any president in history doesn't make him a Marxist as some would like to believe he is; it makes him a loyal solider. First a very crude and broad history.

A curious thing happened during the early 80's... GDP started to escalate as the country found itself in the midst of an economic growth period unlike anything it has seen in decades. One could point to Nixon ending Bretton Woods in the early 70's as a precursor to this expansion but that is another topic for another day. The reality was the country was booming. However, with that came enormous amounts of debt. So much so that the National debt ballooned from 1 Trillion in 1980 to 4 Trillion by 1988; so this explosion of growth came with a price tag (on a credit card).

Even though the debt was piling up as long as the economy kept building and building like it always has, there would be nothing to worry about. So the federal outlays began to climb and so did the deficits. Bill Clinton had his time to shine as being the only president in four decades to pass a balanced budget, although that was much to do because of the tech boom and the validation and explosion of a new business and platform: the Internet. Then the subsequent NASDAQ crash came in 2000, right when the economy was heading into recession.Ouch.

Then something changed. George Bush Jr was elected and began to rapidly increase spending on new entries to the budget like the Prescription drug plan (entitlements or votes) and Homeland Security (not sure what that still does to this day) while cutting taxes in the midst of a recession. Then we added two wars on two separate fronts and before you knew it we had doubled the debt from roughly 5 to 10 trillion in his eight years and oh yhea, the housing bubble bursts bringing on one of the worst financial calamities since the 30's.  And if that wasn't enough, right before his leaving of office the great recession came and wreaked havoc on our economy on all fronts (except for those at the very top) causing us to pass TARP while most taxpayers getting what amounts to a welfare check of 300-1200 Dollars from the Economic Stimulus Act.

Enter the "O" man. Right out of the gate, Mr Obama pushed through a 780+ Billion dollar stimulus bill which had much of the nation in an uproar based on the preconceived notions upon his entering of office. That stimulus act, like George Bush's before him, had large lump of tax credits worth 250 Billion, so it wasn't all spending parse. President Obama's budgets, although record setting high nominally; were in-line with the last budget of President Bush. The subsequent Obama budgets after his first were (and estimated) to be in the 3.5 to 3.7 Trillion dollar range. President Obama therefore is no bigger of a spender than President Bush if you account for the history seen below.

A large part of the deficit spending has to do with the walloping the middle class took as it affected the receipts. The last three years (2009-2011) receipts were roughly 400 billion lower then they were in all three years before (2006-2008). At the same time the outlays keep increasing. This creates tremendous deficits. But, it wasn’t like Obama came in with a blank check. In fact, Obama's first budget had actually less spending than Bush's last year in office. Obama's final budget is actually only 200 billion more than Bush's final budget (and Bush's biggest to be fair). 

So, if President Obama doubles the national debt, he will just be doing his part to continue the legacy that was put in place before him started in the early 80's by Ronald Regan. This is no disrespect to George Bush nor is this some type of vindication for Mr Obama; its simply setting the record straight. If anything, this points to a bigger problem, regardless of who sits in the oval office and its pretty straight forward. We have too many bills and not enough income. How we bridge this gap, will be the most vital national issue of the next decade. Keynesian economics appears to have reached its saturation point. We either slash spending or we dramatically raise taxes... or invent the internet again.

Former Rep. William Delahunt Pockets $90,000 From Earmarks

Former Rep. William Delahunt Pockets $90,000 From Earmarks

Written by Brian Koenig
Former Congressman William D. Delahunt (left) from Massachusetts established a lobbying firm, the Delahunt Group, soon after retiring as one of the federal legislature’s most liberal lawmakers. After claiming an office on the 16th floor of a Boston skyscraper, Delahunt launched his business, and one of his first clients was the small town of Hull, on Massachusetts Bay, which agreed to pay him $15,000 a month for assistance in launching a wind energy project.  Delahunt’s lawmaker-gone-lobbyist conversion last year has already reaped a generous bounty, as he stands to rake in at least $90,000 for six months of work for his client. And 80 percent of those earnings come from the earmarked funds he generated through two Energy Department grants administered in his final congressional term. Philip Lemnios, the city’s town manager, said local officials resolved last spring that a wind-driven power plant would be too expensive, so they began researching wind turbines, which convert kinetic energy from wind into mechanical energy that is convertible to electricity. Lemnios claimed the Delahunt Group would be the most strategic source for effectively pursuing this alternative. "Obviously he’s got connections into the federal government that we don’t have," Lemnios acknowledged in an interview. "We’re hoping he can open doors at the federal level that we could never open." Naturally, the former congressman’s advocacy has sprouted legal and ethical discussions, according to some legal experts, mainly due to regulations on the use of federal money for lobbying purposes. In fact, some experts who study federal earmarking — the practice of channeling federal money to a specific project — asserted that Delahunt’s shifty political behavior, in this incidence, is one of the worst cases they’ve observed in the history of earmark lobbying. Government watchdog organizations have already offered their ruling. "It may not be illegal, it may not be unethical, but it’s certainly another reason why taxpayers hold Congress and its members in such low esteem right now,’’ contended Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington-based government watchdog group. "It just adds to the perception that members are out to help themselves and not the taxpayers.’’ Schatz, whose organization publishes a "Congressional Pig Book" targeting federal earmarks, mentioned that congressional members had to sign a certification assuring that they would not benefit from an earmark they themselves request. "This is the first I have heard about a member benefiting after the fact from an earmark." However, Schatz added, the certification "does not say, ‘In the future they won’t see a benefit,’ but maybe it should be changed so it does." Mary Boyle, spokeswoman for the advocacy group Common Cause, added, "This looks like a self-made golden parachute. He appears to be another in a long line of people who leave Congress to cash in. It obviously raises the question of whether he had this in mind when he left Congress and who[m] was he advocating for: his constituents, or himself?" While Delahunt declined several interview requests, he said in a statement last Friday, "I want to be clear — I have no federal lobbying relationship with any past or current client. I have not lobbied anyone in Washington since leaving Congress. Further, while in Congress, I had no conversations with anybody regarding any future consulting contract, and I am extremely proud of our work and the assistance we were able to bring to many communities throughout our district." Lemnios rushed to Delahunt’s aid, countering that the city declined to offer the contract as a public bid because municipal light departments are immune from the state’s procurement laws. "[Delahunt] didn’t lobby for it; he didn’t come in and inform the town that he was looking for this work,’’ Lemnios said. "I was aware that he had formed a group, and as I thought about how to move the project forward, I thought about him and brought him to the [light plant] board.’’ But apparently, Hull is not Delahunt’s only political lobbying project, as he also capitalized on a relationship with the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe, when it paid the Delahunt Group about $40,000 to advocate the approval of a casino. The former congressman had strapped down $400,000 in earmarks for the tribe for a substance abuse program and other projects.  Further, the New York Times reported: The city of Quincy, Mass., meanwhile, brought on Mr. Delahunt last year to help deal with federal officials on a downtown redevelopment program. In 2008, Mr. Delahunt secured nearly $2.4 million in earmarks for the city on a separate tidal restoration project.  And a fishermen’s group on the elbow of Cape Cod hired Mr. Delahunt to navigate regulatory issues; he had helped the group get a low-interest, $500,000 federal loan in 2010, records show. The group, which thanked Mr. Delahunt, then a congressman, for his help getting the loan, used the money to renovate a historic coastal home as its headquarters.  If that’s not enough evidence to explicitly define Delahunt’s crony actions, noted Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner, then maybe this will be: In 2005 Rep. Bill Delahunt, a Democrat who represents Cape Cod, addressed the Washington Summit of the Travel Business Roundtable, and urged it to lobby more. Fed News reported, "The Congressman called on the industry to wage a more aggressive, bipartisan campaign." ...The Travel Business Roundtable registered as a lobbying organization in 2006, changed its name to the Discover America Partnership, and hired Steven Schwadron, Delahunt's longtime chief of staff, as its K Street lobbyist. "And then," Carney concluded, "Delahunt introduced a bill to subsidize the travel industry."

The State of the Union? At least we are out of Iraq (sorta)

I got one paragraph into the State of the Union address before I literally laughed out loud and looked to the DVR and found Mondays episode of "The Bachelor". I figured if I'm going to watch some superficial, shallow empty suit lie to me about something; I prefer it be about how much in awe he is over some 20-year old bimbo's  on national TV looking for true love rather than the (sorry) state of our beloved nation. 

The President was at it again, trying to appeal to every segment of the population without offending none all the while detailing ideas that basically amounted to nothing more than, well... nothing. But for our commander in Chief to lead off with Iraq, sums up his tenure at President. Uninspiring.

For a President who promised and represented so much, especially in the name of transparency; his failures have been catastrophic. Iraq is no exception. This is what Mr Obama said from the very top.

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought – and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.

It made me remember an article I read a month ago at Salon.com. Its surprising the President didnt mention the private contractors still stationed over there, all 3,000 - 5,000 of them. Names like Triple Canopy, Global, SOC Inc and Academi (formerly known as Blackwater) are private American security contractors that do not have to be held to the US Military rules of engagement, yet there they still remain just as the giant embassy and its 15,000 people to run it. How about those "fellow citizens"? But hey, we are out of there... I guess.

Yawn...another war on concept announced: The "war on women".

I was emailed a link the other day from a friend of mine who frequents the Huffington Post. Him being a self described Marxist and uber liberal and myself as a Libertarian; we do share some commonalities on various points of view across the political spectrum.

So, it’s only natural that abortion is a topic we speak of from time to time. Now, my personal view of abortion is different from my political view of abortion; I am pro life. However, I wouldn’t dream of making that choice for another through legislation (or at gunpoint i.e. the State).

With that said, this article she forwarded was written by a Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) Pro choice America. Quite the mouthful it is, no doubt. Its important to note the name: “Pro choice America” after the acronym “NARAL” for later in this exercise.

NARAL was formed in the late 60’s and had a lot to do with the woman’s movement regarding the right to choose. Of course on January 22, 1973, Roe v Wade gave the woman the right to choose and the rest is history as we have had no encroachments on the legislation since. I applaud the activism and rightfully so, a woman’s choice is just that. Right after the decision on that fateful day in January is where it gets sticky for this author.

Being that abortion laws were in fact repealed thus eliminating the use for half of the acronym in NARAL; those on the board of NARAL decided to keep the “N” for National and shit can the rest. So they replaced ‘Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws’ with ‘Abortion Rights Action League’. Trouble is abortion rights were already secure… so 20+ years later they became ‘National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League - Pro choice America’. This constant reshuffling of the deck basically sums up the message, that you’re no longer relevant… but I have no problem with organizations collectively standing up for things they think are important.

Where I do have a problem is with the hyperbole used by this organization and others like it to inflame fires that don’t exist (non-profit or not). Its simply a distraction from much more pressing issues. To illustrate this point lets look at the first few paragraphs of this piece with my comments after each paragraph.

2011 was the year of the War on Women. Anti-choice politicians ignored the American people's call to focus on jobs and the economy, and instead made attacking a woman's right to make personal, private medical decisions one of their "highest legislative priorities."  

“2011 was the year of the War on Women” is complete nonsense. Much like the war on drugs or the war on poverty or the war on terror or hunger etc etc etc… etc. This type of language is used to instantly garner support to eradicate a perceived threat to an enemy that cannot ever lose. Thus the funding is always needed, and that is the point.  

The U.S. House of Representatives held more choice-related votes in 2011 than in any year since 2000, and states enacted 69 anti-choice measures -- one shy of the record number set in 1999. In the more than 30 years I've spent defending a woman's right to choose, I can't recall a time when politicians have been more out of touch with our nation's values and priorities. And we're not out of the woods yet. The very same politicians behind the War on Women are ready to resume the legislative attacks in 2012 here in Washington, D.C. and in state legislatures throughout the country.

2011 was the year of the “War on women” yet by this authors own statistics, the years 2000 and 1999 were more egregious… wouldn’t at least one of those two years been the War on Women? Then the author says “I can't recall a time when politicians have been more out of touch” and I hate to beat a dead horse but again, 1999 and 2000 were worse, so…? Lastly, to my point about using specific monikers to evoke passion to defeat a concept that will never lose thus creating endless needs for funding and job security for staff isn’t this following quote indicative of that?

The very same politicians behind the War on Women are ready to resume the legislative attacks in 2012

I had posted a much more condensed version of this rant on the Huffington Post but my comment never made it out of the “pending remarks”. I guess they missed it?