Fiscal Responsibility?

Here’s an absolute gem of a quote:

“As our nation continues to confront severe budget deficits as a result of unsound economic policy and lax regulation over the last eight years, it is essential that, as we advance our priorities, House Committees also conduct rigorous oversight of all aspects of federal spending and government operations to help achieve deficit reduction and long-term fiscal responsibility.”

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

Wait a minute…  NOW you want fiscal responsibility??  Where was this noble sense of fiscal responsibility when Democrats lined up to support and Seven Hundred Eighty Seven Billion Dollar (that’s $787,000,000,000.00 — I know, that’s a lot of zeroes) stimspendulus bill?!?!  It’s been ONE WEEK!  One week after passing the largest increase in government spending in history, Nancy Pelosi is now calling for Democratic committee chairs to exercise fiscal responsibility!!

This is simply infuriating!

That Pelosi has the solid brass balls to even mention the term “fiscal responsibility” immediately after helping push the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act through congress makes me wish there weren’t laws against threatening elected officials.

This, folks, is what we have to look forward to for the next four years.  The American people showed the Liberal camp that yes, we really are that gullible, and now they’re going to take every opportunity they can to stab you in the back and subsequently lobby for tougher sentences for perpetrators of violent crime.

It’s a classic Liberal maneuver: Do something, then immediately tell everyone else not to do it anymore.  Liberals want everyone else to do (or not do) things that they want to be exempt from doing (or not doing) themselves.  Let’s not forget these are the same people that elected an adulterer, perjurer, and all around scoundrel President in 1992 and 1996.

These are also the same people who repeatedly keel-hauled President Bush, but now suggest that it’s unpatriotic to not rush to get in line to support whatever half-baked plans President Obama can come up with.

These are the same people who will call a conservative gay man a hypocrite for not supporting gay marriage, but will blast their conservative opponents for not begging the gay man to run for re-election.

I really shouldn’t be surprised that they (still) think the rules only apply to everyone else.

President Obama has been in office for one month today, and already he’s managed to ram an $787Billion spending package through congress, asked for a further $73 Billion for housing assistance (where in the hell did that other $787 Billion go??), and had his administration suggest that upwards of $1 Trillion more will be needed to stabilize banks.

Everyone look at California’s fiscal situation — we’ll be there soon.

^Z

Hope and Change? Not so much…

President Obama claims that Senate must act now to avoid a catastrophe. Yet, most of the provisions in the pending legislation would not really be in effect for at least 6 months, and would not begin to impact the US economy before the end of the year.

It’s disingenuous for the President to claim such urgency, given the slow implementation these measures will face if and when they are approved. The President, who derided his predecessor for playing “the fear game”, is now, unsurprisingly, playing the very same game. A spending package of this magnitude (nearly 10% of the US GDP) certainly warrants close examination, and therein lies the rub.

Upon examination, the legislation before the Senate contains an immense amount of spending on pork-barrel projects that will do little or nothing to create jobs or stimulate the economy. It’s as plain as day to see that many provisions in the bill are little more than “Thank You” checks written out to Obama supporters, and President Obama is trying to ram the bill through the Senate, hoping no one will notice.

We have noticed, Mr. President, and frankly, while it’s not surprising that “Hope and Change” are conspicuously absent from your current rhetoric, we’re sick of the notion that the government knows better than the people how best to spend their money.

^Z

“So help me…Bob?”

Conservative news site CNSnews.com is reporting that a federal judge dismissed the complaint of 4 “non-theists”, in which they demanded that “so help me God” be removed from the inaugural oath, claiming that is violates the separation of church and state.

2 very quick things:

First of all, if the language of the first amendment is thus: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”.  “Establishment”, in this context is either a noun or a verb.  Either the amendment implies that congress shall make now law interfering with religions, or it implies that congress shall make no law that establishes (creates) a religion.  Note that the amendment does not attempt to restrict the activities of religious groups.

So it’s not really “separation of church and state” as many people love to quote.  It’s complete one-way.  The amendment language says that the congress may not fiddle around with religions.

Second of all, the president of the united states has the right to swear an oath to whatever he or she deems appropriate.  If we ever elect a Muslim president, he (note the conspicuous lack of “or she” — gotta love Islam!) has every right to say “so help me Allah”.  In my view, the president has the right to just simply swear the oath, without the God part at all.  Here’s the thing, folks.  It is a man, swearing by his own beliefs and conscience, to do something.  Barack Obama is NOT the state (at least not yet — see my articles on socialism…).  So who are these “non-theists” to say that Barack Obama does not have the right to swear to his God that he will do his job?

The vast majority of people in this country believe in a higher power.  These whiners need to quit their snivelling and move on.

^Z

Bailing Out the Auto Industry is a Horrible Idea

I’m going to ask one simple question — what incentive do the Detroit Three have to become more efficient, if we show them that we’ll pay for their losses? 

The Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, if it hadn’t been shot down by the Senate, would have put in place a presidential designee, who would have the power to tell the car companies they must produce “a product mix and cost structure that is competitive in the United States market”.  The remove the doublespeak, there would be a government entity that could tell the car companies what cars to make, and how much they can be sold for.  We’ve socialized banks, and now the government wants to socialize the bloated auto industry.  Fantastic.

All too predictable…

I’d like to take a few moments to write a full response to a comment on my facebook.  I recently changed my status to TSG “for one, welcomes our new socialst overlord!”  I wondered how long it would be until someone I knew made a snide comment.  The time finally came, and I’d now like to tear that comment apart.

Here’s the comment:

“Spoken like a person who knows nothing about nothing. You should try reading a book. Preferably a history book.”

First, I’d like to be pedantic and point out the double-negative of knowing nothing about nothing.  I know it’s possible to know nothing about something, and it’s even possible (although extremely unlikely) to know nothing about anything.  I wonder, however, if it’s possible to know anything about nothing.  If it’s nothing, then is there actually anything to know?  In any case, my guess is that the commenter means to say “Spoken like a person who knows nothing about anything.”  I should try reading a book??  Ok, I’ll start with one on grammar.

Now, I know the commenter is an Obama supporter.  I don’t know how liberal this individual is, but I know it’s more than I am.  What I find most amusing is how this individual never asked why I consider Obama a Socialist.  She just went straight to trying to insult me.  I wish this was surprising, but it’s all too typical of the left.  You see, if someone disagrees with a Liberal, it doesn’t matter why, that person must have some sort of mental deficiency.  Liberals have this attitude that if you don’t agree with them, clearly you don’t have any knowledge of the subject at hand.  This inherent arrogance is simulaneously amusing and infuriating.  Now, I realize there’s a bit of hypocrisy in that statement, because I unabashedly claim on this blog, to be smarter than most of the readers.  The difference is that I claim to be smarter than most of you in jest, and to elicit a response.  This commenter genuinely believes that because I disagree with her, that I must be uneducated. 

For the record, she and I both graduated from Western Washington University.  If I’m uneducated, and they allowed me to graduate, what’s that say about either my degree in Economics or hers, in Music Performance?  I’ll even go so far as to suggest that one of these two degrees implies a greater level of general education than the other.  ”I know how world economies operate.”  “I know how to sing!”  “Oh, my mistake.  You win.”  I don’t mean to sound elitist, but I’m also not the one who suggested someone was completely uneducated.

Read a history book??  How about we look at what Socialism has done to pretty much any country in which it’s been tried?!  You want to talk about history??  Really??  The political left is the group that thinks the US will be able to buck the trend of history when we do the same things that have failed elsewhere, and you’re suggesting that I know nothing about history??  I can’t even continue with this train of thought, as it will only end up with me beating my head against a wall to try tp figure out in what world this comment makes any sense at all.

What is it with people and this election??  I get supporting a candidate – in fact, I applaud it!  You should get involved in the political machinations of our nation.  What I don’t understand is that almost religious following Barack Obama has.  The kind of fanatacism that a comment like the one I’m discussing illustrates is far more common in religious disagreements than in political ones, and so it’s concerning to me to see people that are so devoted to their candidate that they refuse to accept that any contrary position could possibly be valid!  Listen folks, you don’t have to agree with me for my opinion to be valid.  Likewise, your opinion is valid, whether I agree with you or not!  And we’re back to the difference between Liberals and Conservatives.

I’m conservative, therefore I must be completely ignorant of the issues, because I if knew anything at all about the issues, I’d support Barack Obama, right?  

I don’t think that someone is clueless if they support Obama — I think they’re wrong.  There’s a huge difference there.

By the way, if I can understand Economics, analyze data in my job, drive a car, write a website, or cook dinner, I obviously know some things about some things.  To suggest I know nothing, merely because I disagree is just patently ridiculous, and it’s indicative that at least some supporters of our President-elect have no real argument to present, resulting in the pitiful ad hominem jab that this individual decided to throw.  Frankly, I expected more from a fellow Western alum.

^Z

Whether we like it or not…

Whether we like it or not, Barack Obama is the next President of the United States.  Am I happy about it?  Not at all.

I don’t like the idea of a man leading this country who wants to take money someone earns, and give it to someone else, based solely on the fact that one earns more than the other.  And this incredibly UNfair practice is all done in the name of fairness.

I don’t like the idea of a man leading this country who thinks it’s acceptable to deny care and protection to a child who was born alive after a failed abortion.  Nor do I like the idea of a man leading this country who accepts the notion that killing a child part-way through the delivery process is acceptable.  The notion that 10 seconds before a child is born it’s not alive, and is therefore eligible for killing is quite frankly abhorrent, and it dismays me that a man who holds such beliefs is our President-elect.

I don’t like the idea of a man leading this country who voluntarily associates with known domestic terrorists, racists, and other radicals.  Bill Ayers’ past was common knowledge at the time he and Obama associated with each other, and yet Obama willingly associated with this man.  Compare this to Sarah Palin, who quit her six-figure job at the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission due to corruption.  Either Barack Obama has been completely ignorant time and time again when deciding who to associate with, or he knows full well who he’s been associating with — to be honest, I’m not sure which scenario is more concerning.

I don’t like the idea of a man leading this country who doesn’t seem to place value on history.  Nationalized health care has been abysmal everywhere it has been tried, yet President-elect Obama thinks we can make it work here.  Between 1980 and 1982, the top marginal tax rate was lowered from 70% to 50%.  By 1988, it was down to 28%.  This contributed to our emergence from high unemployment, high interest rates, and high inflation.  In the middle of an economic downturn (not a recession…at least not yet), raising taxes, even on the “wealthy” is not a good idea.  And how the definition of wealthy has gone from 250k, to 200k, to 250k to 120k?  I wish I was surprised.  Finally, socialism has been a failure, or at the very least has dramatically curbed the freedoms of the populace everywhere it’s been tried, yet Barack Obama thinks we can make it work here in the US?  Is he naive, or does he think he really CAN perform miracles?

Now, having said all that, Barack Obama is still the President-elect of the United States.  As much as I dislike his views, he is still my future President.  I’m not going to go down the immature road of saying things like “Not My President” (I’m looking at you, liberals).  The fact is, I am an American, and my fellow Americans elected Barack Obama, so whether I like it or not, as of January 20, 2009, he is my President.  I will support him when I think he’s doing the right thing, and I will oppose him when I think he’s doing the wrong thing, just as I would if McCain or anyone else had been elected.

I may not like his views, but I will not pretend that he’s not my President, and that’s the bottom line.

^Z

So, this is what it looks like to see your country stumble and fall…

Get ready for socialism, higher taxes, higher unemplyment, higher cost of living and decreased national security, folks, because that’s what Obama brings to the table.  I’m truly disappointed in how blind so many Americans are.  You may not like McCain’s stance on Iraq, and you may think the Republicans spent too much under Bush, but over the next 4 years, the Obama Administration will make Bush’s expenditures look like pocket change, and he’s going to take that money from you and me.  Anyone know of a good country to defect to?  I’m pretty sure people fleeing socialist nations can apply for asylum…

Gotta go, Obama’s “truth squads” are knocking on my door, no doubt to start investigating me for having a less than favorable opinion of our new supreme leader president.

^Z

Washington State Initiative 985

Tomorrow, voters in my home state of Washington will decide whether to enact Initiative 985 into law.  From the Washington Secretary of State’s office, “This measure would open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, require traffic light synchronization, increase roadside assistance funding, and dedicate certain taxes, fines, tolls and other revenues to traffic-flow purposes.”[wei.secstate.wa.gov]

The full text of the initiative can be found in PDF format here.

To put it bluntly, the initiative is a bad idea.  More after the jump.

GWB = TR?

Doug Wead has a blog up comparing George W. Bush to Theodore Roosevelt.  It’s quite a good read.

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/w-for-mt-rushmore/

The Lower Class Middle Class

I encourage you all to add CNSNews.com to your normal circuit of news sites.  They have a bit of a Conservative slant, but they’re not nearly as biased as a large portion of the mostly Liberal mainstream media.  They posted a story today discussing how the Community Reinvestment Act played a pivotal role in creating our housing bubble. [link]

According to Wikipedia [link] (which I acknowledge is not a terribly reliable primary source, however, information that it cites from elsewhere is used here), “the CRA seeks to ensure the provision of credit to all parts of a community, regardless of the relative wealth or poverty of a neighborhood.”  Did you catch that?  Let’s remove the doublespeak.  “parts of a community” = “people”.  “the relative wealth or poverty of a neighborhood” = “their ability to pay back loans”.