PresBo Makes More Recess Apointments

So Congress adjourns for the year, and what does Obama do in very short order? Why, he makes six more recess appointments. (For those that don't know, the Senate is supposed to approve Obama's appointments for cabinet officials, judges, ambassadors, and the like, but if Congress isn't in session then Obama can make one-year "recess" appointments.)
http://tinyurl.com/2csh3op

President Obama made six recess appointments Wednesday, exceeding the number of times his predecessor, George W. Bush, exercised this executive power at this point in his presidency.

The most controversial appointment is James Cole as deputy attorney general. A longtime friend of Attorney General Eric Holder, Cole was blocked by Senate Republicans who raised questions about his views on terrorism and his work from 2005 to 2009 as an independent monitor at AIG, the insurance giant that received a federal bailout.

It seems like every time Congress is in recess, Obama makes more appointments. He just doesn't seem to care about the Constitution, you know? The Senate is supposed to approve his picks FOR A REASON. We can't have one idiot-in-chief packing unsuitable candidates in positions of power... and so the Senate is tasked to review nominations and approve or disapprove them.

PresBo doesn't care, he wants who he wants, and to hell with the Constitution.


I can hear you saying, "But Matthew, the Senate hasn't acted on these nominees, so PresBo is right to do this." Ahhh... but ask yourself, WHY hasn't the Senate acted? Obama blames "Republican obstructionism" for the problem, but this is a problem that HE and his liberal cronies created.

Look, for two years they ignored Republicans when crafting bills, blocked Republican bills from being considered, prevented the Republicans from offering amendments to bills, and demonized them in the press for not suddenly supporting extremely liberal bills. How could Republicans react? They reacted by more or less consolidating themselves in opposition to PresBo and the liberal majority in Congress. What else could they do?

So if PresBo's nominations are getting a lot of opposition from Republicans, there are two major reasons for it. One is this animosity that PresBo worked so hard to create over the past two years. The second, however, is the people PresBo is picking to nominate.

Look at these people. He picked a man who is known to have cheated on his taxes to be his Sec Treas. He picks a lawyer who is famous for representing union interests to serve on the national labor relations board. Now he picks a man with close ties to a foreign government to be our ambassador to that foreign government.

Do you see my point? If you ignore, belittle, and demonize your opponents, don't be surprised when they unite against you and refuse to approve your appointments. And if you pick questionable people for posts, don't be surprised when they don't get approved, either.

But PresBo doesn't care about the Constitution and about how things are supposed to work. He just wants the people he picks to be in the spots he wants them in. The Senates job is to rubber-stamp his nominations or, by heavens, he'll just appoint them anyway!

Read the rest...

Virtual Alabama: Spy Tool For Government

Would it surprise you to know that government employees across the state of Alabama have access to spy tools that allow them to track your movements and watch you as you go about your daily grind? I hope not, because the tool is called Virtual Alabama. Here is a short video explaining what Virtual Alabama can do and explaining how it is being used.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-1I0JTWiIY

This was originally created for Homeland Security and disaster reaction, but now it is being used for quite a lot more. It incorporates overhead imagery, including live feeds (how else could they show damage caused by storms?), and live camera feeds around the state. This includes, but is not limited to, traffic cameras and cameras that are installed in schools.

People talk about "Big Brother" watching our every move. With this Virtual Alabama tool, any state employee can actually make it a reality.


Think about the potential for abuse, here. One of the capabilities listed in the "Fact Sheet" is vehicle tracking. Someone with access to this software could potentially track your movements throughout the day. Whatever happened to needing a warrant?

As to the school safety section of this program, don't get me started. Though it has yet to be implemented (two test programs were run), Virtual Alabama will contain blueprints of schools, emergency and evacuation plans, and access to live feeds from cameras within the schools themselves. Imagine what a pedophile could do with access to this software.

There is such a thing as too much information, too much detail, and in my opinion this tool may well have crossed that line.

If any reader has access to the program, I wouldn't mind seeing a live demo of its capabilities so that I can form a more complete opinion. Surely the program can't be considered top secret after being advertised in a YouTube video!

Read the rest...

GOP's Earmark Ban: THAT Didn't Last Long

Remember how the GOP promised to end their practice of earmarking money in the budget? They met together and agreed not to do that anymore. Not because they think it's the right thing to do, but because they think voters will like them better if they do it.

But the new Congress hasn't even met yet, they won't until January, and they've ALREADY violated that ban on earmarks. Three days after they agreed not to have any earmarks, the second highest ranking GOP Senator, Senator John Kyle (R-AZ), inserted a $200 million earmark for his state into a spending bill that Obama wanted to pass and that the Senate did, in fact, pass.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40344219/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Senate Republicans' ban on earmarks — money included in a bill by a lawmaker to benefit a home-state project or interest — was short-lived.

Only three days after GOP senators and senators-elect renounced earmarks, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the No. 2 Senate Republican, got himself a whopping $200 million to settle an Arizona Indian tribe's water rights claim against the government.

That's how much the GOP really believes the new line they're selling... three days.


This is a very bad sign. For those who don't think the Republicans will backslide and betray us again, wake up. They're already doing it!

We may see some lip service to a few things, but overall the Republicans seem poised to continue business as usual, with their turn on top to funnel money to their favorite causes... at least in the House.

That's one promise shattered already.

Earmark ban... BUSTED!

Read the rest...

Gov Riley's Hypocrisy On Ethics

Remember Governor Riley's push to "clean up" the Legislature by passing more rigorous ethics laws? One of the things he wanted to do was restrict elected officials from accepting gifts from lobbyists or the companies/organizations that might hire them. Sad to say, he doesn't practice what he preaches.

You see, even as the Legislature was preparing to meet in special session to pass this law, among others, Riley accepted TWENTY free tickets to the Iron Bowl. I did some checking, and the cheapest seats (which I'm sure these tickets were NOT) cost somewhere around $300. That means that Governor Riley accepted a gift in the amount of SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS... or more!
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201012280335

Gov. Bob Riley's office ac­cepted 20 free tickets to this year's Alabama-Auburn foot­ball game while state legisla­tors were preparing for a spe­cial session on ethics that resulted in a new law making it more difficult for officials to accept such perks.

So much for Riley wanting to clean up ethics in the State, eh? As long as it doesn't affect him, I suppose.


Riley has accepted the free tickets for all eight years of his term as Governor. He saw nothing wrong with doing that, but he thinks a $250 gift from a lobbyist is too much? Please, TELL me that you see the hypocrisy, here.

And though many legislators did not accept the tickets, or accepted them and donated them to charities, far more DID accept the tickets. They see it as an entitlement, a perk that their elected office entitles them to.

And these same legislators just approved a law that would make it illegal for them to accept the same tickets next year. Do as they say, not as they do.

I'm going to be VERY interested to see how these same legislators get around this new law come next November. That will tell you EXACTLY how dedicated they are to ethics reform, and exactly how good the new laws are.

Read the rest...

Four Loko Ban Is Loko

By now, I’m sure everybody has heard of the FDA ban on Four Loko. I would like to take a look at it.

Four Loko isn’t a unique product, and it doesn’t seem to be especially dangerous. Basically, it’s a malt-liquor with caffeine added. Nothing new, there. The alcohol content maxes out at 12%, which means it’s about as strong as regular table wine... but some states require a lower alcohol content, no more than 6%. It was banned by the FDA for a few reasons.

First, the FDA contends that people drinking Four Loko were hallucinating. Personally, I find that hard to believe. Basically all this drink does is combine alcohol with caffeine, something that people have been doing for MANY decades. Think rum and coke, a very popular drink for a very long time, not to mention Irish Coffee, and Red Bull & vodka. And there is nothing about alcohol or caffeine that is hallucinogenic in nature… and no, combining them doesn’t change that.


Next, the FDA contends that the caffeine makes it impossible to tell that you’re getting drunk. Again, experience with other caffeinated alcoholic cocktails indicates otherwise. It’s the ALCOHOL that impairs judgment, not the caffeine.

One thing I think is a point is that the drink comes in a large, 23.5 oz can. For those that don’t know, a wine bottle holds 750 ml of wine, which is approximately 25 fluid ounces. As you can see, if you have a can that is 12% alcohol by volume, you’re basically drinking an entire bottle of wine with each can… and that’s a lot.

In my opinion, it’s not the caffeine that is causing problems, it’s people drinking the equivalent of an entire bottle of wine in a short period of time. Or two or three, as they open additional cans throughout the night.

Yes, Four Loko flavors the drinks to mask the alcohol taste, but so does Smirnov. You can actually find a bubble gum flavored vodka, if you look for it. And flavored malt beverages are common, too… think Mike’s Hard Lemonade and the entire range of Bartles & James flavors.

In short, Four Loko doesn’t offer anything new and dangerous, they’re just marketing to people who want to be drunk and wide awake… and, as any college student could tell you, being drunk is much more fun if you stay awake to enjoy it.

My opinion of this FDA ban is that it’s a huge overreaction to a minor issue. Think about it… with Four Loko banned, is the problem of caffeinated alcoholic drinks solved? By no means. People can still drink Irish Coffee, whiskey and soda, or even Red Bull and vodka. All that has happened is that the FDA got rid of one product.

And that’s a danger. Look, the FDA is saying they can remove any product that might be abused by some adults. If we accept that assertion, then any product on the market that has even the slightest degree of risk can be banned at some point in the future. If you ask me, that danger outweighs any danger possibly offered by Four Loko.

In my opinion, this whole thing is ridiculous. What should be banned are knee-jerk reactions to real-life problems faced by adults in our society. What should be banned are attempts by the federal government to control the lives of adults.

Read the rest...

Merry Christmas 2010!

From the King James Bible, Luke 2:

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register.

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

“Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Merry Christmas to all.

Read the rest...

Christmas Music: Seven Joys of Mary

This is a traditional Christmas carol that you don't often hear these days, telling seven ways that Mary found joy in her son. I grew up listening to Burl Ives singing this, and I remember it fondly.

I hope you enjoy this song.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OegVwrI6vdM


Read the rest...

Interesting Analysis Of Census Data

The big results of the Census have been trumpeted from every news source in the nation. The list of states gaining and losing Congressional seats isn't surprising, and it will indicate a shift away from Obamanomics in the future. We hope.

But there are other interesting nuggets buried within the data that haven't yet become general knowledge. For example, did you realize that people are leaving high-tax states to live in low-tax states? The census showed precisely that.

Let's look at some examples. New York has a tax rate of 11.7%, and their population grew by only 2.1%, compared to ten years ago. Contrast that with Nevada's 6.6% tax rate and their 35.1% population increase.

Americans are fleeing the high-tax, business-hostile states in favor of states where taxes are lower and the overall business environment is more favorable to success.


Other examples abound.

Rhode Island has a 10.2% tax rate, and the population grew by a mere 0.2%.
Ohio has a 10.4% tax rate, and the population grew 1.6%.

That's not good. On the other hand...

Texas has an 8.4% tax rate, and saw their population increase by 20.6%.
Arizona has an 8.5% tax rate, and saw their population increase by 24.6%.

Those states that are business-friendly, that maintain lower tax rates and don't kow-tow to the unions, saw their populations increase much more than the high-tax, union-friendly states did.

And that says something about how out-of-touch the big-government types are with us ordinary Americans.

Read the rest...

US Takes Big Step Towards Despotism

For those not familiar with the term, I would suggest you learn it quickly. A despot is a tyrant, oppressor, a ruler with absolute, unlimited power. Forget individual rights, forget Congress... the ruler does what he wants.

We've seen some examples of this. For example, the EPA using a law obviously not intended to regulate "greenhouse gasses" to do so. In that case, the Executive branch of the government, in the form of the EPA, usurped the power of Congress to get done what the President wanted done.

The newest example of this is the Internet. The FCC voted 3-2 to regulate the Internet.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/fcc-poised-pass-network-neutrality-rules/?test=latestnews

The Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday approved a plan to regulate the Internet despite warnings that it could strangle industry investment and damage an economy that is still struggling to recover.

The 3-2 vote fell along partisan lines with Democrats capitalizing on their numerical advantage.

Lawmakers in both parties have been arguing for months that Congress, not the Obama administration, should take the lead role in deciding whether and how much to police the web. But despite a brief backing-off earlier in the year, the FCC pushed ahead with its new regulatory plan.

Forget Congress, forget free speech, the President now has the power to regulate and control the Internet. Sounds a bit like despotism to me...


"But Matthew," I hear some of you saying, "the scope of regulations approved yesterday is clearly limited." True, but can you offer examples of when, after getting their foot in the door on regulation or anything else, for that matter, the government didn't expand it later?

Make no mistake, this action is the "foot-in-the-door" for regulation and control of the Internet by the federal government. Think I'm wrong on this one? Think again.

Genachowski's two fellow Democrats voted for the rules, even though they have said they consider them too weak.

Commissioner Michael Copps said Tuesday that he "seriously" considered voting against the plan.

"But it became ever more clear to me that without some action today the wheels of network neutrality would grind to a screeching halt for at least the next two years," he said.

Did you get that? Two of the three Commissioners who voted for this regulatory coup say they want MORE regulatory control over the Internet. Still think I'm jumping at shadows?

The mentality that wants control over people isn't limited, guys. They don't want "a little" control over the Internet, they sincerely believe that it is our government that makes us great. From that, it follows that government control over the Internet will make it better. Ignore the facts on this one that show the opposite, they are pathologically incapable of recognizing that government control is the death knell for freedom and economic growth.

So, what is their goal, here? Thinking about the recent brouhaha with WikiLeaks, that should be obvious. They want regulatory control over content on the Internet, and free speech be damned. Then they don't have to worry about a WikiLeaks repeat.

This should be a target for the newly GOP-controlled House. They should pass a resolution overturning the regulations and send it to the Senate. Let's see if Congress really LIKES the FCC stepping on their toes. Get rid of these newly approved regulations, Congress, if you have even the slightest glimmer of respect for individualism and freedom.

Otherwise, this will be just one major step among many towards a despotism that will be the end of the American dream.

Read the rest...

Christmas Music: Ode to Joy

I created this arrangement of Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" in 2008. I wanted to put a more modern touch on this timeless classic using synth sounds and modern rhythms. I hope you enjoy it.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tc6JmfJoXk


Read the rest...

Christmas Music: Hippo Song

During the Christmas holidays in 2008, I recorded my daughter singing the song, "I Want A Hippopotamus For Christmas." I think she did an excellent job, and I offer this song for your enjoyment.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-DbrHe6zn4


Read the rest...

Poll: Let States Overturn Federal Laws?

Do you think we should amend the US Constitution to let states overturn federal laws?






Thanks for participating in this poll.


Read the rest...

Should States Be Able To Repeal Federal Laws?

There is an interesting idea floating around out there, one that I think might have merit... depending on how it's implemented, of course. The idea is a simple one:

Any Federal law can be overturned if the legislatures of 2/3 of the states vote to do so.

I think this isn't the worst idea in the world. Right now, the only ways to get rid of a law is for the courts to overturn it or for Congress and the President to act. But as we have found out in the past year or so, Congress isn't very responsive to public opinion.

State legislatures are different, and usually a bit more willing to take into account the wishes of the electorate. Not always, and not a lot, but it's definitely true. So, if enough state legislatures vote to overturn a federal law, then that law would be overturned.

This new ability to get rid of bad and onerous laws would have to be enacted via a Constitutional amendment, of course, and that is very difficult to do. Congress would have to approve it, followed by 2/3 of the states.

If you'd like to read more about this proposed amendment, you can do so here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026169-503544.html

Personally, I think it might not be the worst idea in the world. Making Federal law a bit more responsive to the wishes of American citizens would be mostly good, I think.

What do you think?


Read the rest...

Christmas Music: O Holy Night

Christmas is Saturday, so I'm going to start offering some mood music. Nat King Cole is one of my favorite singers of all time, so this is my first offering.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4uP32mnAjY

Merry Christmas, people.


Read the rest...

Legislating In A Hurry Is Bad Idea

I've been replaying the past two Congressional years in my mind, and the major thing that stands out is how much of a hurry this Democrat-led Congress has been in. And this all-fired rush started at the very beginning of PresBo's term.

Every major initiative pushed by the very liberal Democrats has been rammed through so quickly that many Congressman didn't have much chance to READ the bill, much less analyze it to determine if the bill is a good one or not.

We saw this with the bailouts, the stimulus, and health care. All three were pitched as emergency measures that absolutely had to pass immediately, without review, else the entire country would explode, or fall into a flaming vat of marshmallow cream... or something.

Remember Pelosi's famous statement that we'd have to pass ObamaCare in order to see what's in it? Uh, I know I'm not an incredibly smart and ultra-hip liberal Congressman, but... couldn't we find out what is in it by READING THE DAMNED BILL before it's passed? Open debate, especially on massive bills that would impose sweeping new programs and regulations, is not only a good thing, it is absolutely essential to responsible governing.

But it didn't stop there.


We saw the same things more recently with the tax extension bill and the 2011 omnibus budget bill that Democrats ignored until after the election and then insisted it pass toot sweet. (That means fast.)

And in each case, sober reflection has discovered elements in these bills that are bad. Whether it's the 1099 provision of ObamaCare or the newly massive stimulus spending in the tax extension bill, each of these "pass-it-before-you-read-it" bills contained measures that many, if not most, Congressmen would really rather not have been in there.

The idea is for Congress to craft the best bill possible and get it passed. How can this be done when the bill itself is kept secret until just before the vote, and Congressmen are discouraged from reading it not only by the time constraints but also by the massive size of the bill? Congress needs to stop trying to enact massive bills and instead return to the day when small bills on targeted issues were the norm.

The newest "gotta-get-it-done" bill is the START treaty. I'm sorry, but Congress has no business quickly passing a treaty that will bind how this nation engages in its own defence. This treaty should be reviewed, analyzed, and debated to a fair-thee-well, so that each and every Senator knows exactly what is in it and the possible ramifications of each clause. How else can responsible governing take place?

If Congress is in a massive hurry to get things passed instead of actually doing their jobs to make sure the bills they vote on are good ones, then hidden things (intentional or not) will always come back to bite us in the end.

Since the current Congressional leadership has shown itself incapable of legislating responsibly, Congress should refuse to vote on the START treaty until next year. Congress should take the time to do things RIGHT, instead of rushing quickly to get something passed, and thus inflicting their avoidable mistakes on this nation.

Friends don't let friends pass huge bills quickly.

Read the rest...

2010 Special Session Is Over

As you know, a special session of the Legislature is limited in time and scope. This special session ended early yesterday when the Legislature passed the last of a series of bills and sent them to Governor Riley for his signature. According to a press release from the Alabama GOP, the ethics reforms passed include:

• an end to unlimited gift-giving by lobbyists and others to public officials and public employees;

• a ban on pass-through pork spending;

• subpoena power for the Alabama Ethics Commission;

• the outlawing of transfers between political action committees;

• the end of “double dipping” by legislators;

• mandatory ethics training for elected officials and public employees at all levels of government and requiring those who lobby the Executive Branch to register as lobbyists with the Ethics Commission; and

• ensuring that public, taxpayer-funded resources aren’t used to subsidize partisan political groups

The bills go to Riley for his signature, and, since the Legislature is already adjourned, he cannot issue any executive amendments. So he has to sign or veto. He'll sign, of course.


What remains to be seen is whether these "reforms" are substantive or not. Remember, the goal isn't to pass legislation that you can brag about, the goal is to stop or reduce corruption in public officials.

And unless I missed the bill increasing the PUNISHMENTS for violating the ethics law and making them actually serve jail time or pay hefty fines, I'm not certain these bills will accomplish that goal.

Read the rest...

Congressional Update For 12-16-2010

Well, some interesting things happened yesterday in Congress. Let's look at the two most interesting.

First, the House mustered enough votes, finally, to pass the bill extending the current tax rates. It also increased entitlement spending in several areas... I include the unemployment benefits as an entitlement program, because if you can draw unemployment benefits for almost THREE YEARS, that's what it has grown into. However you cut it, this stimulus-by-another-name bill passed the House and goes to PresBo for his signature.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40697296/ns/politics-capitol_hill/?gt1=43001

Acting with uncommon speed, Congress sent President Barack Obama sweeping, bipartisan legislation late Thursday night to avoid a Jan. 1 spike in income taxes for millions and renew jobless benefits for victims of the worst recession in 80 years.

The measure also will cut Social Security taxes for nearly every wage-earner and pump billions of dollars into the still-sluggish economy.

The 277-148 vote came the day after the Senate cleared the bill, 81-19.

The legislation was the result of a reach across party lines by President Barack Obama and top Republicans in Congress — stubborn adversaries during two years of political combat that ended when the GOP emerged the undisputed winner in midterm elections on Nov. 2.

The fact that this is the kind of legislation produced by bipartisan action goes a long way towards explaining why I'm not incredibly thrilled by the concept of bipartisanship. MORE "stimulus" spending? How well has that worked so far? And though reducing taxes will be good for the economy, reducing social security withholding taxes simply means the massive entitlement program will be in worse trouble, and sooner rather than later. Cutting money going to a program that is on a definite and KNOWN path to bankruptcy isn't a good idea.


The second thing that happened yesterday is that GOP Senators managed to kill, at least temporarily, the mammoth "omnibus spending bill" into which the lame-duck Democrats had packed an entire year's worth of wish-list spending.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40710315/ns/politics-capitol_hill/?gt1=43001

Democrats controlling the Senate abandoned on Thursday a huge catchall spending measure combining nearly $1.3 trillion worth of unfinished budget work, including another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 1,924-page bill collapsed of its own weight after an outcry from conservatives who complained it was stuffed with more than $8 billion in homestate pet projects known as earmarks.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., gave up on the bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for it pulled back their support.

Make no mistake, this is a good thing. Trying to rush through massive legislation without adequate time for meaningful review of the details has become the modus operandi of this particular branch of Congressional criminals... I mean Congressmen. But that is no way to govern.

Think about it. Democrats avoided bringing a single budget bill up before the election, but want to cram through, in a few weeks, what normally takes an entire year to get right.

The House and Senate typically spend months on the 12 annual spending bills, but Democrats didn't bring even a single one to the Senate floor this year, an unprecedented collapse of an appropriations process.

The alternative to this massive bill containing who-knows-what is to pass a one-page "continuing resolution" that continues funding the Federal government at its current rate. Then Congress can come back in January and take the time to do it right. What should have been done by the Democrats LAST YEAR will have to be done next year... an astounding failure which they should not be able to get away with.

At least some of the GOP SEEM to get it, though I'm still not confident it isn't just an act.

GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in the days before Christmas legislation that usually takes months to debate.

"Just a few weeks after the voters told us they don't want us rushing major pieces of complicated, costly, far-reaching legislation through Congress, we get this," McConnell said. "This is no way to legislate."

You see, the WORDS are there, and they DID kill this omnibus spending bill, so it looks like they might be serious. On the other hand, the Senate DID overwhelmingly approve the massive amounts of stimulus and entitlement spending in the bill to extend the current tax rates.

So, is the GOP really serious? Their current record shows some hope, but not much. Most likely, they're picking the high-profile issues to make a point, and it will be business-as-usual on everything else.

Read the rest...

Breaking: Ah, THAT Explains A Lot

Harry Reid spoke to reporters this afternoon on earmarks. His comments were, to say the least, interesting. To say more than the least, they are revealing.

Harry Reid first said that "we have a constitutional duty" to approve earmarks. Then he revealed a lot when he made this statement:

"I can't understand why more conservative members want to give up their power."

As you can see, it's not about responsible governing, for the Senate's top Democrat, it's all about what power he and his cronies can gather to themselves. And he can't understand why anybody would choose NOT to put their own personal power ahead of the welfare of the country.

WONDERFUL guys we have in charge up there, eh?


Read the rest...

Breaking: Tax Deal Stumbles In The House

The tax deal brokered by Obama with the Republicans seems to have stumbled a bit in the House. Democrats were trying to hold a vote on the deal today, but ran into problems and had to pull it from the floor. Nobody is quite sure if this means they don't have the votes to pass it or not.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1210/Liberal_Dems_threaten_tax_bill.html

House Democratic leaders hit a speed bump en route to passing President Barack Obama's tax deal Thursday amid rekindled liberal fury over giving breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

Progressives were miffed that they would be forced to vote for the Senate passed bill - the underlying legislation - if they wanted to vote for the estate tax alteration.

It forced Democrats to pull the rule vote and move to restructure debate.

Though the Democrat leaders are saying they still have the votes, they are notorious for saying that even when they don't. And a lot of Democrats AND Republicans have been announcing they'll vote against the deal, so it's a possibility.

UPDATE:
Jamie Dupree has some comments from various Democrats on this:

"What a screw up" one floor staffer just told me; House Dems "in the process of discussing" said one top Dem.

Some Dems say a confusing rule & parliamentary situation has led to lack of votes for tax deal.

Rep Peter DeFazio (D-OR) on tax deal vote delay: "I was surprised"; lots of grumbling among Dems off House floor.

Rep Alcee Hastings (D-FL) says deal may be in works, but "everything is on shifting sand" right now" on tax deal.

UPDATE:
Here's an explanation for what happened:
http://xr.com/sd8n

Progressive just brought down the rule for the tax cuts bill because they it didn't give them enough of a chance to express their lingering anger at President Obama's deal with Senate Republicans. Democratic leaders had hoped that an amendment built into the rule changing the estate tax provisions would sway enough liberals to vote for the rule and for the bill on final passage. But the leaders were forced to yank the rule off the floor when it became clear it was going to fail. Progressives are demanding a clean vote up or down on the original package -- unamended -- so they can register their opposition.

Read the rest...

Special Session Update

So far during this special legislative session, three bills have been passed. One bill was the PAC to PAC transfer ban, another was the lobbyist registration bill, and the third was the gift ban bill... though that one was heavily amended.

Another bill has passed the Senate. This bill, SB2, impacts AEA's ability to raise money for political activity, and the AEA isn't happy about it.
http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/index_2.html

The state Senate on a 22-12 vote today gave final legislative approval to a bill that Democrats said was aimed at limiting the political influence of the Alabama Education Association and Alabama State Employees Association.

Senate Bill 2 will become law if Gov. Bob Riley signs it. It would ban employees of state agencies and public schools from having their employers deduct from their paychecks payments to a political action committee.

The proposal also would ban payroll deductions for dues to organizations, such as AEA, that use a portion of the money to engage in several forms of campaign activity. The activities include polling, engaging in or paying for any type of political advertising and distributing political literature.

In other words, the AEA and other similar organizations cannot deduct money from a paycheck that would then be spent on politics. Roughly, that is. The devil is always in the details.

The AEA is mad because it would affect their ability to collect money to use in their lobbying.

AEA chief Paul Hubbert released the following statement:

Message from AEA Executive Secretary Dr. Paul Hubbert and AEA President Anita Gibson

Many AEA members are well aware of the highly controversial illegitimate actions taken by the Legislature this week aimed at punishing your professional association and taking away your long-held rights to free speech and advocacy for schools and the students they serve.

The bill is headed to Governor Riley for his signature that makes it illegal under penalty of imprisonment and fines for education employees, who have payroll deduction for dues, to engage in any political activity at the association's direction. Political activity consists of things such as making phone calls from home for any political purpose, mentioning the name of a political candidate, conducting public opinion polls about any issue, distributing any type of political literature, or supporting a candidate. Your local association could not even support the continuation of a school tax or hold political forums where candidates appear. You cannot discuss the merits of an elected superintendent. The ramifications of this bill are broad and repressive and AEA will take all necessary action to resolve issues related to this bill.

Alabamians and many AEA members voted for a change for a better day in this past election, but the change they got was to muzzle teachers and school employees regarding any issue facing public schools, from protecting the Education Trust Fund to keeping class sizes small. Every educator, every parent, and every citizen who values their community should be outraged at this Legislature.

There are reasons to be deeply concerned about these but do not be unduly alarmed. AEA remains strong because its membership is strong.

Know this. AEA is here to protect you, fight for public education, ensure your legal rights, and remain Alabama’s strongest voice of public education with its 104,000 members. The dues structure remains in place, and no one is going to be denied membership by any school board or education entity.

You will hear much misinformation from news accounts and other sources, but the important point is to realize that AEA is the only trusted source of accurate information. Don’t fall victim to scare tactics by the State Superintendents’ Association or the school board association, both of which did everything possible to be exempted by the actions of the Legislature. You will receive and can depend on accurate information in the Alabama School Journal, AEA’s Web site myaea.org, and your local UniServ director.

The legislation that passed today by the newly elected Republican-controlled house and senate does not interfere with the day-to-day responsibilities of your association, but it does severely limit your right and your association’s right to political activity. AEA will be fighting on every front to overturn this injustice and restore every educators right to be a full citizen of the state of Alabama.

Once final action comes on the legislation and the ramifications are fully researched by our legal team, we will communicate to you the demands of the new law.

Also, watch for additional information in this week’s Alabama School Journalthat will be published on a later date so that we can give you the most up-to-date and accurate information. In the Journal will be the names, pictures, and contact information of the house and senate members who voted against you, and those who voted for you.

Contact those who vote with you and thank them for being strong and for standing up for the people that voted for them.

Also, call those who voted against you. Ask them one question: “What was so important here in Montgomery that would make you vote against school employees back home?”

Notice that one phrase, highlighted above? Do you believe that the AEA is the only source of trusted information available? If so, I bet you're a member of the AEA.

The other section I highlighted is important. Regardless of what Hubbert says here, the AEA is a TEACHER'S lobbying group. It doesn't lobby for schools or students, just TEACHERS. Like any other employee's union, their job is to gouge the employer (our state government) for as many benefits as they can get. And that's the extent of their concerns.

I haven't finished reading all of the bills that have passed, yet, but I am working on it.


Read the rest...

Breaking: Senate Approves Tax Deal

Does this show you how well the Republicans listened to us voters? The Senate just voted to approve the tax deal that leaves the current tax brackets in place and lets the Democrats spend a lot of money on other things important to them. The vote wasn't even remotely close. They approved it by a vote of 81-19.

So the Republicans apparently don't mind spending our way to bankruptcy, either, as long as they get something from doing it.

Wonderful.

UPDATE:
Here is the list of Senators that voted AGAINST the tax deal:
Sanders I-VT, Sessions R-AL, Udall D-CO, Udall D-NM, Voinovich R-OH, Wyden D-OR, Feingold D-WI, Gillibrand D-NY, Hagan D-NC, Lautenberg D-NJ, Leahy D-VT, Levin D-MI, Merkley D-OR, Bingaman D-NM, Coburn R-OK, DeMint R-SC, Dorgan D-ND, and Ensign R-NV.


Read the rest...

Pork Abounds In Omnibus Spending Bill

In recent years, Congress seems to have abandoned the practice of writing and passing a bill for one purpose. Instead, they write huge, overreaching bills that include just about anything that they wish to stick into it. ObamaCare is a prime example, as is the "stimulus" bill that Obama passed. This Democrat-dominated Congress, in particular, loves to introduce these huge bills as what they call "comprehensive solutions."

With massive bills like these, we're basically buying a pig in a poke.

And speaking of pig, let's look at how much pork was stuffed into the latest massive bill, the omnibus budget bill. This bill contains 5,727 earmarks stuffed within its 1,924 pages.

The problem with massive bills is that wasteful and corrupt crap can be more easily hidden inside them. If you'd like to see a list of which Senators got how many earmarks, or if you'd like to see an actual LIST of those earmarks, you can go here to look:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/12/15/the-omnibus-arrives/

For the record, our own Richard Shelby got 32 earmarks, and Sessions got 21 earmarks.


Read the rest...

Breaking: ObamaCare Unconstitutional - Summary And Opinion

I did a fairly quick read-through of the decision, and am ready with a summary and my opinion on it.

The judge ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. Here are a couple of snippets from the decision that give you a basic idea.

The individual mandate "is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution".

"The legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds"

He ruled that Congress did not have the legal power to force people to purchase health insurance, that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He also ruled that the law was severable, i.e. he only overturned the individual mandate, the rest of ObamaCare remains in place. He also denied Virginia's request for injunctive relief, so they will still be bound by the rest of the law.

By and large, I agreed with his ruling. His analysis was comprehensive and fairly convincing. I urge you to read the decision... It's only 43 pages.
http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/Health%20Care%20Memorandum%20Opinion.pdf


But I didn't agree with ALL of it. The part I didn't agree with was when he decided to sever the individual mandate and leave the rest of the law intact. I understand that he has to respect the actions of Congress as much as possible, but... Let me explain.

The government argued that the individual mandate was the essential to the functioning of the health care bill as a whole. They claimed it was the lynch pin, the keystone of the entire thing. The REASON they did that was to try and make the mandate constitutional under existing SCOTUS precedent.

You see, previous SCOTUS rulings have shown that an action by Congress is Constitutional if Congress had a rational basis to decide it was necessary and if that measure doesn't violate a specific Constitutional prohibition. The government claimed that Congress had a rational basis, and that means the mandate is de facto Constitutional. From the decision:

Furthermore, the Secretary adds that "for the provisions of a complex regulatory program' to fall within Congress's commerce power, 'it is enough that the challenged provisions are an integral part of the regulatory program and that the regulatory scheme when considered as a whole satisfies this test."

So they had to establish that the individual mandate was essential, and they argued that through the entire case.

HOWEVER... And there's ALWAYS a however.

When asked about severability, the government argued FOR it. In other words, if the judge found the individual mandate was unconstitutional, he should sever it and leave the rest of the law intact.

Sever it? Remove the lynch pin, the keystone, the essential center of ObamaCare?

You see my problem? They argued both sides of the issue, tried to have their cake and eat it, too. They claimed it was essential, UNLESS the judge tossed it out, in which case the law would work fine without it.

And it worked. The judge severed the provision. I am NOT a judge, nor even a lawyer, but it seems to me that if the judge accepted their claim that the mandate was essential to the law, then the entire law should have been tossed along with the individual mandate.

Anyway, in general the decision was a good one. I don't agree with all that he did, but the center of his ruling was on point: Congress and the Federal Government cannot force us to purchase products we do not wish to purchase. That way lies slavery.

This thing is heading to the Supreme Court, for certain. Let's hope those nine wise souls recognize that a Federal Government that can force us to buy things we don't wish to buy has no limits; at that point, freedom becomes a quaint concept with no place in American society.

Read the rest...

Breaking: VA Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

I just got the news that a federal judge in Virginia has ruled parts of ObamaCare unconstitutional, including the individual mandate. Details will follow here as I get them.

UPDATE:
This is little more than confirmation of what I already reported.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2002, backed arguments by the state of Virginia that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring that individuals buy health insurance or face a fine.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BC39D20101213

UPDATE:
Here is the entire 42-page decision released by the judge. Read it for yourself...
http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/Health%20Care%20Memorandum%20Opinion.pdf

Analysis to follow shortly.


Read the rest...

What Happened Last Night In Congress?

As time runs out for the lame-duck Congressional session, things are happening at a breakneck pace up there in Washington. Whether or not things get passed, the Democrats keep on trying.

For example, take the vote on repealing "Don't Ask." Senator Reid was in negotiations with Republicans on the procedure involved... Republicans wanted the ability to offer amendments, and Reid didn't want them to have it. Eventually he walked out of discussions and brought the bill up for a vote. It failed.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/09/5619090-key-vote-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-fails

A key procedural vote on the bill containing a repeal of the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy failed Thursday, likely dealing a final blow to advocates who hoped to overturn the 17-year old ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military during this session of Congress.

Democrats needed 60 votes to advance the Defense Authorization bill for debate on the floor. The vote failed, 57-40.

Ultimately, Majority Leader Harry Reid called for the vote without having reached a procedural agreement with moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who supports repeal but wanted greater openness for the process of amending and passing the bill. Collins voted aye on the measure, but other Republicans who support repeal but had voiced similar procedural concerns -- Sens. Scott Brown and Lisa Murkowski -- voted no.

Tell me again, WHO is unwilling to compromise?


The DREAM Act was also dealt a blow today, though Democrats vow to keep bringing it up.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1210/Senate_tables_its_DREAM_Act_for_Houses.html

Senate Democrats voted to kill their own version of the DREAM Act on Thursday so they can consider the one passed Wednesday in the House, but final passage of the bill still seems like a long shot.

The Senate will move to the House bill "later this month," according to a joint statement Thursday afternoon from Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who introduced the immigration bill in the Senate.

But the House bill isn't expected to survive a lame-duck vote in the Senate. Republicans have vowed to block any legislation this month that is unrelated to extending expiring tax cuts or funding the government, and Democrats don't appear to have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.

And last, but certainly not least, the "tax deal." Details on that are simply unavailable, even though it is pending before the Senate. No copy was made available to the press gallery, and nothing was filed online in the Senate's system prior to it being addressed. Status quo for the liberals in charge, do as much as you can in secret.

In connection with this, Washington DC political reporter Jamie Dupree tweeted the following:

When I asked a Democratic aide earlier today for text of the Obama-GOP deal, he said 'transparency is overrated'.

If you want a look at the summary of the deal that was FINALLY released, LONG after it should have been, look here:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/12/09/summary-of-tax-deal/

If you want to read the entire bill yourself, try here:
http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/MAT10785.pdf

So there you have it, that's what was happening on Capitol Hill yesterday. If you look at these things, especially the way the tax cut deal is being handled by the Democrats, how can you NOT conclude that the country would be better off in someone else's hands?

Governing in secret doesn't really fit in with my idea of America, you know?

Read the rest...

Breaking: Ron Paul WILL Head Fed Oversight Committee!

Early speculation has turned out to be accurate. Dr. Ron Paul, who also ran for President in 2008, has been appointed to head the Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee. This is the subcommittee that provides oversight for the Federal Reserve, among other things.
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1806:paul-appointed-chairman-of-domestic-monetary-policy-subcommittee&catid=32:2010-press-releases

Congressman Ron Paul has been appointed to head the Domestic Monetary Policy Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee in the 112th Congress. The subcommittee has jurisdiction over monetary policy, currency, commodity prices, and matters related to the Federal Reserve Bank generally.

Congratulations, Dr. Paul. I can think of no one better qualified for the post.


Read the rest...

Democrat Caucus Rejects Deal On Taxes

This is interesting. All of the Democrats in the House met to discuss the deal on taxes that Obama made with the GOP leadership, and they voted to oppose it.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/09/5617540-house-dem-caucus-votes-to-reject-tax-compromise?GT1=43001

In a non-binding vote Thursday, the House Democratic Caucus voted to reject the president's tax compromise.

This is significant in the sense that it shows how many House Democrats are angry about the compromise with Republicans to temporarily extend the cuts for the highest earners, but it is not binding in regards to legislation that goes to the floor.

It's amazing, actually. For the past two years the Democrats have been demanding compromise, and now that PresBo actually DOES it, they scream bloody murder. What these liberals in Congress miss is that compromise doesn't mean you get your way and the other guy sucks wind. Sometimes YOU have to be the guy that doesn't get what he wants.

I don't like all the details of the compromise deal they reached, but from what we know of it, it's better than letting our economy be ravaged by substantial tax increases.


Read the rest...

PresBo On Mythbusters Last Night

So, did anybody except myself watch the new episode of Mythbusters last night? For those that aren't aware, the Mythbusters test myths and urban legends to determine if they are busted, plausible, or confirmed. You can find details on the show here:
http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/about/about.html

In last night's episode, they tested two myths. The second was whether or not an impact from a heavy weight falling on the front could flip an SUV over, ala the movie Hellboy. The second was their third visit to the myth of the Archimedes solar death ray. The Mythbusters had already tackled that myth twice, but revisited it yet again at the specific request of President Barack Hussein Obama.

Yes, you understand that correctly, the President of the United States, leader of the free world and the most powerful nation on the planet, made a guest appearance on the television show Mythbusters. Heck, what's the big deal, right? I mean, he doesn't have anything more important to do, or anything. Right?


Here's my take on his appearance. PresBo appeared on the show in the White House library, in his suit, and looked Presidential. Adam and Jamie were dressed up, in their own way, and were respectful to him. The piece was obviously scripted, and PresBo looked a little stilted in the part assigned to him.

The idea was to test the myth again, this time with 500 school kids holding mirrors trained on the target ship. PresBo explained that getting kids interested in science was important, and that was the justification for Presidential involvement.

So the Mythbusters debunked this myth for the third time, and PresBo's response was, "okay." He (and Jamie) pointed out that even busting a myth teaches us something.

Beyond that, Presidential involvement was clearly unnecessary. If the Mythbusters wanted to run the test, they could have accomplished it without the President. It is my opinion that this appearance was obviously politically motivated, probably to bolster his public image.

I mean, really. We have several military threats and hot spots developing, including a nuclear-armed Iran, Islamic terrorists attacking our country, and global economic problems with looming budgetary collapses. Congress is showing a lack of leadership as the lame duck session continues and the new Congress prepares to take over in December. Does the President of the United States REALLY have nothing better to do with his day than appear on an entertainment TV show?

His appearance certainly creates the IMPRESSION that he doesn't have much in the way of weighty matters on his mind, and how can that be a good notion for foreign leaders to have?

In my opinion, this was little more than a massive publicity stunt staged for PresBo's benefit. His participation added nothing to the experiment, and doing this diminished the office of the President in the eyes of the world.

Read the rest...

House Narrowly Passes DREAM Act

Yesterday, the US House of Representatives narrowly approved the DREAM Act, a law that would legalize many illegal aliens if they meet certain criteria. The vote was close, 216 to 198.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46175.html

A bill that would provide a path to citizenship for young illegal immigrants cleared the House on Wednesday night, but now faces a daunting test in the Senate.

After a two-hour floor debate, the House passed the DREAM Act along mostly partisan lines, 216 to 198, with 38 Democrats voting against the bill and 8 Republicans supporting it.

Stalled in Congress for the past decade, the DREAM Act would provide “green cards” – and eventually the opportunity for citizenship — to some illegal immigrants who were brought to the country as children — if they attend college or join the military for two years.

To be eligible, beneficiaries must have come to the U.S. before the age of 16; be under the age of 30; lived in the country for five years; pass a criminal background test; and have a high school diploma or GED equivalent.

Even without the eight Republican crossover votes, the bill still would have passed with a vote of 208 - 206.


So, who were the eight Republicans who voted in favor of it? They would be Cao LA, Castle DE, Djou HI, Ehlers MI, Inglis SC, Ros-Lehtinen FL and Diaz FL, and Balarts FL.

Whether or not the bill passes the Senate will depend largely upon the Republicans, and I still don't find them particularly trustworthy. Time will tell, but my trust isn't fully extended, yet.

Read the rest...

Senate Removes Federal Judge From Bench

Earlier today, the US Senate met to determine the fate of US District Judge G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana. Porteous had been impeached earlier this year by the House, and today's vote removes him from the bench. The Senate voted unanimously on one article of impeachment, and at least two thirds of the Senate was in favor on each of the other three counts.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46134.html

In the midst of a hectic lame duck session, the Senate diverted its attention Wednesday to oust a federal judge following a rare impeachment trial and closed-door deliberations.

The Senate voted to remove Louisiana Judge G. Thomas Porteous from the bench after ruling him guilty of all four articles of impeachment including charges of corruption.

I am fully in favor of removing corrupt judges (and politicians, for that matter) from office.


Read the rest...

Giant Budget Bill Up For Vote Today

Normally, Congress passes a yearly budget by passing a dozen or so appropriations bills. This year, the Democrats didn't want voters to see how much they were spending BEFORE the election, so they didn't bother to pass a budget. Now, in the lame-duck session, they're trying to push the entire budget through in one fell swoop, in one massive budget bill. That bill is up for a vote in the House today.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/12/08/house-budget-details/

The U.S. House is set to vote today on a long-term budget plan that would keep the government running through the end of the current fiscal year, September 30, 2011. That goal would be accomplished in an unusual manner, by approving just one bill - instead of the normal 12 different budget bills that routinely go through the Congress.

A summary of the bill is included at the link above, so have fun reading it. Pay close attention to the end of it. Why? Because the Democrats are doing their normal piggyback routine. Tacked onto this bill is the so-called "Food Safety Bill"... remember that one?

The Food Safety Bill passed the House and finally the Senate, then hit a hurdle because the Senate disregarded the Constitution and added new taxes; All revenue measures must originate in the House.

So, to solve this, they've tacked the bill onto the mammoth budget bill, and it will face a vote in the House today. Personally, I think that should be forbidden. It's separate legislation, and it should be dealt with separately.

Oh, and the Democrats are playing their normal procedural tricks and won't allow Republicans to offer any amendments to the bill. Gee, it must be good to be the King. Deposed, yes, but not yet out the door.

This bill will likely pass both Houses, and the food bill will become law.


Read the rest...

Tax Cut Deal Reached, May Not Hold

PresBo, probably reacting to the "shellacking" Democrats took in November, looks to be more willing to compromise, to acknowledge that other people matter. In this case, we're talking about the "Bush Tax Cuts" that will expire in less than a month. Democrats wanted to extend most brackets but let taxes rise on high earners. Republicans are holding out for extending all the cuts, regardless of brackets.

Obama blinked, and now says that he has worked out a deal with the GOP leadership.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024842-503544.html

Anyone waiting to see how the midterm election would change the course of the Obama Presidency, look no further than yesterday. The president started his day with a call for a bipartisan approach on infrastructure and education initiatives, hoping to rally American to a new "Sputnik moment," and ended with a truly bipartisan agreement on taxes.

With a temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts, 13 months of additional unemployment insurance, a renewed 35 percent estate tax, and a two-percent payroll tax cut, the plan has something for everyone to love and most to find something to hate.

If you'd like to see the White House's press release on the deal, you can find it here:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/12/07/white-house-on-tax-deal/
The President has long promised to be "bipartisan", but this is literally the first time that he's actually taken a step in that direction. And predictably, the Democrats don't like it.


No, they don't like it at all. House Democrats, seemingly led by Nancy Pelosi, are railing against the deal and threatening to kill it.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/132381-hoyer-house-dem-leaders-not-on-board-tax-deal

House Democrats signaled Monday they will fight the tax-cut deal President Obama announced a day earlier with Republicans.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday there was "no consensus or agreement reached by House leaders" on the deal Obama negotiated with the GOP, while Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) criticized GOP provisions in the agreement.

Many Democrats are even taking this as more than a sign of hated compromise and claiming that this means Obama is damaging his own chances at reelection.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/132307-angry-left-sees-refusal-to-fight-as-crippling-2012-reelection-bid

President Obama could be crippling his own reelection effort by making a deal with Republicans to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts, Democratic strategists and liberal groups said Monday.

“President Obama has shown a complete refusal to fight Republicans throughout his presidency even when the public is on his side — and millions of his former supporters are now growing disappointed and infuriated by this refusal to fight,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

Heck, even some Republicans in the House oppose the deal, albeit for different reasons.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/132367-voinovich-slams-tax-deal-vows-to-vote-no-on-everything

Republican Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) teed off on a tentative deal between Senate GOP leaders and President Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years.

Voinovich said he would vote against the proposal and called for tax rates to reset to the levels they were at in the 1990s. He said that would give Congress an incentive to take up tax reforms.

“I’m going to vote to no on everything,” Voinovich said Tuesday about the proposal to extend all tax rates by two years and federal unemployment benefits by 13 months. “I want to not extend them. I want to force us to do tax reform.”

So don't count your chickens before they hatch, this "tax deal" was reached between PresBo and the Republican leadership, and we have NO guarantee that the rank and file members of either party will go along.

Read the rest...

Charlie Rangel May Have MORE Ethics Problems

As you all know, Charlie Rangel was censured for 11 ethics violations, a punishment that he described as "too severe." As all kids know, it's better to be hit for your misdeeds than have a finger waggled at you, right?

No sooner was Rangel censured than he ran into more ethics complaints. This time, that he misused funds from a PAC he controls by spending them on his ethics defense team.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/rangel_in_deeper_with_new_ethics_NN5qV3bXesmA99ZPPDytiO

The Federal Election Commission is investigating a complaint that Rep. Charles Rangel improperly used his National Leadership PAC to fund his legal defense on ethics charges for which he was censured Thursday, The Post has learned.

The FEC is acting on a complaint by the National Legal and Policy Center filed after The Post reported last month that Rangel paid nearly $400,000 from his PAC.

Lawmakers are only allowed to use money in their individual campaign funds for legal fees, or they can set up legal defense funds for such costs.

I guess the issue here is whether it's legal to break the law in order to defend oneself against an accusation that you broke a law.

Oh, and Maxine Waters isn't out of the woods, either.


In her case, her ethics trial was postponed after the ethics committee found "new documents" that impacted her case. Apparently, they show that Waters' participation in events may have been a bit different than she portrayed.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/19/house-ethics-committee-cancels-waters-case-new-documents-emerges/

The ethics trial of Rep. Maxine Waters was postponed Friday, as the House ethics committee found new documents connected to charges that she improperly tried to help a bank in which her husband owned stock.

Although few details of the "new documents" have been leaked, I have heard rumblings that the new documents show she and her office intervened far more than they claimed they did. We'll have to wait and see, of course.

And the ethics problems just keep on coming. Personally, I'm wondering how many violations they have to be found guilty of before the House votes to remove them from office?

Read the rest...

NaNoWriMo Article In The Paper

Well, NaNoWriMo is over for this year, though we're still working on our beasts. We met last week for a TGIO party, and quite a few people showed up. It was a good dinner, and a news reporter and photographer from the paper came out. You can find the story that was published in Sunday's paper here:
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201012040332

It was a fun month, and I will probably do it again next year.


Read the rest...

Contest: Tweet The Bill Of Rights

Ladies and gentlemen, today starts a brave new challenge in the realm of concise and abbreviated social networking. Why? Today sees the beginning of the "Tweet the Bill of Rights" contest. Each day, competitors will tweet one of the ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights. Winners for each day will be announced on the following day.

For details, look here:
http://blogs.archives.gov/prologue/?p=2690

Today's challenge is to convert the tenth amendment into a tweet WITHOUT losing the meaning. If you're inerested in giving it a shot, please post your efforts in the comment section below.


Read the rest...

Charlie Rangel Censured

The House voted yesterday to censure Charlie Rangel for 11 ethics violations. The vote was 333 to 79, with two Republicans voting against censure.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024507-503544.html

After 40 years in Congress, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) was censured Thursday by his peers for 11 violations of House ethics rules. With the censure, Rangel joined the same page in the history books as 22 other House members, including Gerry Studds and Daniel Crane who were the last members to be censured in 1983, for sexual misconduct with House pages.

These were just some of Rangel's offenses that the ethics committee found him guilty of committing: Failing to pay back taxes on income from a villa in the Dominican Republic; soliciting donations to a school of public service bearing his name from donors with business before his committee; using congressional resources, such as letterhead, to solicit those donations; improperly using a rent-controlled apartment in New York as a campaign office.

Here is video of the censure.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDsRSSrnDR4


Did you watch the video? That's their idea of a "severe" punishment.


And, of course, as soon as he was censured he stood up and said "I didn't deserve this harsh punishment!" Okay, so he didn't use those words, but he DID get that message across.

But if you wanted a stark example of how out of touch Congress is with the rest of the country, this should do it. A sitting Congressmen gets caught "forgetting" to pay taxes, and his punishment is to pay the taxes he owes and to have the rest of the House waggled their collective finger at him. Oooh... I had no idea that they risked so much!

In another post yesterday dealing with ethics reform on a state level, a reader commented the following... and I think it applies well to Congress, too.

"bring everyone into a room and announce that a single violation terminates your political career, ends your ability vote in any Bama election, ends your ability to procure a hunting & fishing license, and requires you to pay back the previous salary from the day you performed the ethics violation to that day convicted. We need to make ethics something that you'd think about everyday you walk into a state legislative area or a county commission area."

Yeah, I can get behind that.

Read the rest...

Breaking: Unemployment Rate Rises To 9.8%

This is pretty bad news. For the first time in quite a while, the unemployment rate rose, from 9.6% to 9.8%. The economy added a pathetic 39,000 jobs in November.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/131823-jobless-rate-up-to-98-percent-economy-adds-39000-jobs

The jobless rate rose to 9.8 percent in November as the economy added a disappointing 39,000 jobs, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday.

Forecasters had expected the economy to add as many as 150,000 jobs, and the November numbers are a steep fall from a month before, when the economy added 172,000 jobs.

If you'd like to read the full report, you can find it here:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

This is an ominous sign, I think. And we also received another ominous sign today, a warning that we could see a major sell-off in the market beginning in two weeks or so.
http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/12/2/delaying-tax-vote-could-crash-stock-market.html

Failure by Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts, especially locking in the 15 percent capital gains tax rate, will spark a stock market sell off starting December 15 as investors move to lock in gains at a lower rate than the 20 percent it would jump to next year, warn analysts. [See who gets the most money from the financial industry.]

While it is unclear how bad the sell off could be, it could wipe out the year's gains, they warn.

You see, the current rate is 15%, and unless Congress does something soon, it will rise to 20% at the beginning of the year. Starting in the not too distant future, some people will choose to sell their stock now in order to pay the lower rate for their profits.

So things aren't as rosy as they appear.

But I do have a final thought, here. What is it about November? I mean, last month we saw a gain of 172,000 jobs, so why did we only see 39,000 new jobs last month? Did something happen in November that we don't know about? Was a mistake made this month? Was a mistake made in previous months, and the actual number of jobs created in previous months was lower than claimed?

I don't know, and I wonder if we'll EVER know.

Read the rest...

Riley Calls Special Session

Governor Riley has finally done what many had expected him to do; Riley issued the call for a special session of the Legislature, starting next week, to deal with ethics reform.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20101202/NEWS02/12020337/1009

Gov. Bob Riley expects a special session that will begin next week to overhaul ethics laws in Alabama and fundamentally change politics in this state.

The new Republican majorities in the House and Senate campaigned on toughening ethics laws, and they will have that opportunity when they convene beginning Wednesday.

Riley said they can "put an end once and for all to a broken and corrupted political system."

Pay attention to that last line, as you'll likely hear Riley using it in 2012 or 2016 as he runs for President.


I have made no secret of the fact that I oppose this special session idea. Why? The legislature will be meeting in just a few months, and we have no elections or anything between now and then. The urgency that requires the state to spend an extra $100,000 just to get something done NOW simply isn't there. Yes, I know that Riley wants to claim credit for doing this, but he's had eight years. It's time to let the Legislature work as it is designed to and deal with the subject in regular session.

Riley did make an attempt to explain WHY he was calling the special session, but it was a little strange. Here is what he said:

Riley said there is momentum after the election and they must move fast because lobbyists and special interests already are working to deter lawmakers.

Let me paraphrase what he said: "We have to do this fast, before all you politicians get corrupt and we can't trust you anymore."

Uhhh... yeah.

Now don't get me wrong, I think we need stronger "ethics" legislation... though I strongly doubt that the Legislature will pass bills that REALLY clean things up. In my opinion, lawmakers abusing the public trust should be jailed, not slapped on the hand like Charlie Rangel will be. I want to see the specific bills before passing judgement, though.

I just don't agree that passing these laws NOW is worth the added cost to the taxpayers for a special session. Get it done during the regular session that is, after all, just a few short months away.

But now you see how much our lawmakers care about our money. They're more than willing to spend our money to increase their own political reputations. Even when it's not necessary.

Read the rest...

Breaking: JeffCo Occupational Tax Unconsitutional

Think back a few years. Do you remember in 2009 when a judge ruled JeffCo's occupational tax unconstitutional? They went into a panic, and asked the Legislature to pass them a new one to replace the old. At the time the Legislature met in special session specifically for that purpose, I and many others warned that the new tax wouldn't be any more constitutional than the old. Guess what happened this morning.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/12/jefferson_county_new_occupatio.html

The current Jefferson County occupational tax and license fees approved in a special session of the Legislature in 2009 has been ruled unconstitutional.

So the tax passed to keep the County afloat in 2009 is illegal, meaning that all of the money collected during that time was illegally stolen from the rightful owners. Of course, anybody who paid the tax shouldn't hold their breath to get it back. They're in bad financial condition, over there.

Now, their natural reaction will be to have the Legislature authorize YET ANOTHER occupational tax that will also, in time, be struck down. Why? Because the tax is and will remain unconstitutional. Give it up, guys.

I heard rumors not long ago about JeffCo financing a new sports stadium downtown. I wonder how they're affording this? Because it doesn't look to me like they really CAN afford it...


Read the rest...

Plan To Balance Budget By 2020

All the politicians CLAIM they understand that we HAVE to get our mounting debt under control, though we see few signs of this as they go about their daily routine. What we DO see is business as usual.

The CATO Institute has produced a plan showing how to reduce federal spending to match revenues (balance the budget) by 2020 WITHOUT raising any taxes.
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/balanced-budget-plan

Federal spending is soaring, and government debt is piling up at more than a trillion dollars a year. Official projections show rivers of red ink for years to come unless policymakers enact major budget reforms. Unless spending is cut, the United States is headed down the road to economic ruin.

Policymakers should implement an emergency plan of cuts to defense, domestic, and entitlement programs. This essay proposes spending cuts of $1 trillion annually by 2020, which would balance the budget without resorting to damaging tax increases. Federal spending would be reduced to 18.5 percent of gross domestic product by 2020 under the plan, which compares to President Obama's projected spending that year of 23.5 percent of GDP.

A large percentage of the spending cuts proposed are to reduce or eliminate subsidies, grants, and other methods the government uses to outright give money to people they favor. For example, cuts are specified to farm subsidies, as well as various grants and training subsidies. And yes, business subsidies are also cut.

All in all, it's not a bad plan.


Now, contrast that plan to the one put out by Obama's "fiscal panel." Their plan would cut some spending but also raise a lot of taxes... with the predictable effect on our economy. Possibly the biggest increase would be an additional 15 cents on each gallon of gasoline we buy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024235-503544.html

Compare the two and decide. In my opinion, it's no contest. Part of the problem is that the federal government is branching out and getting involved with things it shouldn't be dealing with, and all of this costs money. We MUST trim back the branches of an overgrown government if we want to have any chance of long-term improvement.

Read the rest...

Food Safety Bill May Get Delayed In House

I've been hearing a lot about the "food safety bill" recently. Some say the bill, approved quite a while ago in the House and approved yesterday in the Senate, is incredibly bad. I've heard claims that the bill removes our ability to grow our own food legally in private gardens, but I haven't seen supporting information for that.

Regardless, the bill might well be "blue slipped" in the House, thus delaying its final approval. Why? Well, among the many things that the Senate added were revenue-raising "fees," which are technically taxes under the Constitution. And that's a problem, because the Constitution says that ALL taxes must originate in the House, and the members of the House Ways and Means Committee are jealous of their prerogatives.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/-201012-1.html

A food safety bill that has burned up precious days of the Senate’s lame-duck session appears headed back to the chamber because Democrats violated a constitutional provision requiring that tax provisions originate in the House.

By pre-empting the House’s tax-writing authority, Senate Democrats appear to have touched off a power struggle with members of their own party in the House. The Senate passed the bill Tuesday, sending it to the House, but House Democrats are expected to use a procedure known as “blue slipping” to block the bill, according to House and Senate GOP aides.

If the bill IS blue-slipped, that means the House must make changes to the bill to pass it, which means the bill has to be re-approved by the Senate. Which leaves Senate leader Harry Reid two basic choices. He may simply decide there isn't enough time and drop the issue until the new Congress convenes next year. It's not a controversial bill, as many Republicans voted in favor of it, so he doesn't have much to lose by doing that. On the other hand, he may decide to push it through during the lame duck session. The problem is that they already have so much to do that they'd need to limit debate in order to fit it in, which means he'd need a unanimous consent agreement to limit that debate.


After it passed, the Democrats sent out numerous press releases trumpeting the passage of this law. "See," they seemed to scream over and over again, "we CAN accomplish things!" Oops.

The debacle could prove to be a major embarrassment for Senate Democrats, who sought Tuesday to make the relatively unknown bill a major political issue by sending out numerous news releases trumpeting its passage.

Perhaps the real message they sent was this: "We can pass bills IN SPITE OF the Constitution... watch this!"

I mean, really. This isn't some obscure provision of the Constitution of which Senators weren't aware, this is a major part of the Constitution that they live with every day that they're in session. I reiterate... Oops.

This should serve as a stark example of how little our Senators care about the Constitution. And the only reason the House cares is because the Senate stepped on their toes!

This could get messy...

Read the rest...