When is close, too close?

In my week off, a great investigation from the Washington post was published surrounding all members of both the House and Senate and its findings were quite detailed and very telling of the dysfunction that lies in the heart of Washington. If there is a reason for this blog its stated in the subtitle and out of the 47 members being investigated; its only fitting that we have 22 vs 25 representing both party's almost equally (22 R vs 25 D). The most telling of this investigation however, in my opinion, is the relationships of sons and daughters to their parents who are elected representatives. This regardless of how innocent the situation appears and it very well may be; it should always be looked down upon as unethical.


Now some of these findings appear to be a big reach as far as corruption is concerned, if nothing more then totally coincidental. For example, Rick Rahall, a Democrat Congressman from West Virginia, who ear-marked 20 million for a parking garage with a bus and taxi facility in downtown Beckley WV. The rub is the construction sits a half a mile from his sons home and about a mile from one of  the congressman's personal property's. Ive been through Beckley West Virginia many times on my way to Florida and its "downtown" is small enough that downtown basically fits inside a mile or at the most a two mile radius; so its not as if the property's could avoid nestling up to one another in that postage stamp.


While some of the others tend to look like outright nepotism. Take for instance, representative Corrine Brown (D) of Florida. This was from the Washington Post investigation:

Between 2005 and 2010, Brown helped secure $21.9 million for six clients of a lobbying firm where her daughter works. The clients paid the firm more than $1 million to represent them before Congress. Brown was the sole sponsor of $1.79 million in earmarks sent to a seventh client, the Community Rehabilitation Center, while her daughter worked as a lobbyist on behalf of the center, the Florida Times-Union reported in 2010. The congresswoman declined requests for an interview. Her daughter did not respond to requests for comment.

According to Sen. Bill Nelson, also a Democrat, was a co-sponsor for the pork containing the rehabilitation center. After learning about the connection to Corrine's Daughter he bailed and rightfully so:

“We try to do our due diligence. The center had the backing of many community leaders,” Nelson spokesman Bryan Gulley told the Post. “But when we learned her daughter was involved in lobbying for the center, that raised enough concerns that we no longer supported the project.”

This wasn't the first time Rep Brown was in hot water because of her lobbyist daughter. There was the situation in 1998 where a millionaire ex-con (Foutanga Bit Babani Sissoko) who just before he was sent to prison, turned around and handed Corrine Browns daughter the keys to a brand new 50K Lexus. Then it was said Mrs Brown "led a feverish lobbying campaign" to then Attorney General Janet Reno for his pardon. I'm sure some type of vote down the road required by the Clinton Administration would be sufficient payment enough? 


According to Sissoko's lawyer however, the car was meant for Brown herself... I wonder why she didn't take it? Sissoko, being from West Africa, might not understand the ethical concerns of that - but you can be sure Brown did; hence the re-gifting of the vehicle to her daughter. The same lobbyist daughter who would join her mother on long weekends (and there were many of them) in one of Sissoko's lavish Miami property's. 

Mrs Brown is certainty not the worst offender on this list in terms of dollar amounts but it raises some serious questions about ethics when you have a sitting member of Congress doling out billions of dollars to company's or organizations that are represented by family members of said Congressmen. The relationship between Congress and lobbying  is already too close for comfort but when you factor in family members working on K-Street it just opens up an entire new paradigm. One that only tightens the grip special interest has on our coffers.

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"

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.

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?

If we only had 1 Trillion...

Jesse Jackson Jr, the esteemed (sic) Congressman from Illinios said recently that we could bail out the states and local governments for just a mere Trillion. Well, its 900 billion to be exact. Now he contends this would be larger than the last two stimulus packages put together, but... who cares right? Its only a Trillion between friends.

“So fore a mere $900 billion in one year, which is slightly more than the last two stimulus packages, we can bail out all the states, most of all of are counties and cities.”

"Mere"? That's almost the deficit of the federal government! So, let me get this straight. The federal government are facing annual budget deficits of 1+ Trillion each year for the foreseeable future and Mr Jackson wants to add to that... to pay for the states and local governments inability to live within in its own means? How does he suppose we get that 900 Billion when we are already 1.3 Trillion in the hole from last year? Add it to the 10+ trillion in the hole in public debt? Which isn't counting the 5 Trillion in intergovernmental debt. This is utter stupidity at its finest.

What about the states and local governments that aren't in the red and who run their governments with efficiency and are responsible with their peoples money? They should be the ones rewarded. Why throw borrowed money at people who cant stay out of debt and cant escape bad policy? Do we assume once these city's and states are in the black, they all of a sudden will become fiscally responsible? Is this not the definition of insanity?  

“Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.” ―  Rita Mae Brown

Is this not the antithesis of sound and reasonable judgement? Is this not the poster-boy of robbing Peter to pay Paul? But this is what happens when you have a name that people recognize. A nice treasure chest behind you in a district that overwhelmingly has supported your party and oh yeah; you share the ethnicity of the predominate race in the district who has always strongly voted within racial lines.

His father has made a living off race baiting and using his color to hijack the supposed pulse of black America all the while using his non profit to cover up and pay for his extra marital affairs and love child. Jesse Jackson Jr has never been a part of anything outside of school and politics; thus how much can he understand about how the real world works? This is the same guy who thought giving the public IPods and Laptops would end unemployment. Its obvious the apple doesnt fall too far from the dumb tree.

The Slave Master...

After the "decision" last Thursday, i was working on a funny piece exposing Jesse Jackson for the fraud and sensationalist that he is after his diarrhea laced drivel two days following cable TV's blockbuster, most watched program on July 8th. I had it all planned out. It was the same Jackson that attributed the Duke Lacrosse scandal as part of a history of white-men exploiting female black slaves from Africa. Or the good Revs own words:

"That fantasy's as old as slave masters impregnating young slave girls"

This was the same 'Rev who compared Mike Vick to Jackie Robinson. The same man that was so quick to condemn the "wealthy white athletes – many from prep schools – of Duke" whom were conducting a code of silence. The same man that came to the defense of the "victim" by presenting her a single mother of two, just trying to make ends meet and go to college (at a mostly black college according to Jackson... thanks for pointing that our reverend). Even thou it was "the first time she had been hired to dance for a party" the good "Reverend" decided he and his Rainbow coalition would pay for her college so that she would have to lower herself to strip anymore.

This was the same woman who has led a life full of criminal behavior long before the Duke case proved her a liar. In fact this was the same "victim" that was recently charged with:

attempted first-degree murder, five counts of arson, assault and battery, communicating threats, three counts of misdemeanor child abuse, injury to personal property, identity theft and resisting a public officer

Like i said, i had it all wrapped up. Hell i was even going to get into Jacksons forays into Africa over the last twenty years, allegations that he supported the overthrowing of democracy in favor of thugs and tyranny. But i came across this article.This article says it all. Great work Greg Doyel.