Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

More on taxation…

May 24, 2009

So the Tea Party’s were just a bunch of fringe lunatics? At least that seems to be what the politicians and MSM thought. It’s too bad that they couldn’t come up with a better descriptive than having to borrow a term from the porn industry to call the supporters of the latest tax rebellion. This week, arguably the most liberal state in America told the big government types to go away with their ever expanding and oppressive form of government. The election results told the tale; the people are “Taxed Enough Already!” And that friends, is not “tea bagging.”

The Golden State is seeing red — lots of it. After voters Tuesday nixed state legislators’ hopes of supplementing federal stimulus money with another taxpayer-funded “bailout,” California’s budget deficit ballooned from $15 billion to $21 billion. Voters rejected five of six ballot measures that would have, among other things, extended tax increases, let the state borrow against future revenue, and redirected education and mental-health money into the state’s general fund. The vote against each of the five defeated measures exceeded 60 percent. The only initiative that passed bans pay raises for elected officials in a year with a budget deficit — it passed with 74 percent of the vote.

The problem isn’t lack of revenue — far from it. As columnist George Will notes, if “state spending increases [since 1990] had been held to the inflation rate plus population growth, the state would have a $15 billion surplus.” Instead, in the past six years, inflation-adjusted per capita government spending has skyrocketed almost 20 percent — under the “Republican” governor who replaced a Democrat in a recall election with his promise to pull California back from financial ruin.

Failing to mention the causes of California’s financial disaster, The New York Times headlined its story with “Calif. Voters Reject Measures to Keep State Solvent,” and ABC was no better, bemoaning the state’s “unwillingness to raise taxes.” Perhaps the most troubling quote, however, comes from columnist Jack Kelly, disturbing not for its distortion but for its truth: “Pay attention to what happens in California. It’s a harbinger of things to come everywhere.”

Then we have this to show as further repudiation of socialism’s promise…

Speaking of higher taxes, Americans are saying good-bye to higher taxes — literally. According to a study recently conducted for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people per day — many of them high-income earners — moved from the nine highest-income-tax states primarily to the nine no-income-tax states. For example, after New Jersey implemented its “half-millionaire” tax hike in 2005, the state lost 4,000 half-millionaires. And as billionaire Tom Golisano recently wrote in The New York Post, his move from the Empire State to the Sunshine State will save him more than $5 million annually in state taxes.

High taxes are not only the antagonist to population retention but are also the toxin that kills economic growth. When the University of Colorado’s Barry W. Poulson examined reasons for states’ prosperity or lack thereof from 1964 to 2004, he found “a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on state economic growth.” The ALEC study confirmed this, finding that from 1998 to 2007, states with no income tax created 89 percent more jobs and boasted 32 percent faster personal income growth than high-tax states.

Still, liberals cry for tax hikes on the rich to alleviate state budget deficits. It turns out that by talking with their feet, the “rich” are saying, “No thanks.”

SOURCE

Bag ’em and Tag ’em, Cap ’em and tax ’em

May 24, 2009

This is trophy hunting at it’s best! (sarcasm)

Democrats Hot for Global Warming Legislation

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) won a victory on his 1,000-page cap and trade (read: cap and tax) bill Thursday when it passed his committee on a party line 33-25 vote. The bill ostensibly tackles global warming by creating a system in which industrial producers of greenhouse gas emissions would be required to meet a government-imposed cap on their emissions, but would allow them to purchase credits that cover emissions exceeding the cap.

Initially, Obama wanted the credits to be auctioned off, with the estimated $629 billion in proceeds to go to other government-subsidized programs, of which he has no shortage. Congress thought otherwise, though, and instead will allow the EPA to dole out 85 percent of the credits for free to various energy producers and states. The remaining 15 percent would be auctioned off, with the proceeds going to low- and middle-income families hardest hit by the inevitable rise in electricity costs that will come after the program is in place.

This brings us to why Waxman is in such a hurry to get this bill through the House. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 80 percent of Americans can expect a rise in their energy bills and a reduction in real income because of the cap and trade bill. What amounts to a national energy tax also will cost jobs, as the bill itself admits. Part 2, section 426, states: “An eligible worker, specifically workers who lose their jobs as a result of this measure, may receive a climate change adjustment allowance under this subsection for a period of not longer than 156 weeks.” That’s three years for those educated in public schools.

Unfortunately, consumers know very little about the cap and trade legislation (and as seen in this video, neither does Waxman. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, only 24 percent of voters know what cap and trade is; 29 percent thought it was related to Wall Street and 17 percent thought it was related to health care reform. Fully 30 percent didn’t have a clue what the term even meant. And that fits perfectly into the Democrats’ plan.

SOURCE

Politicians hang fire on guns

May 22, 2009

Across the country, ammunition prices are soaring and many guns are in short supply as weapons fly off the shelves at stores. This is a telling economic indicator about consumer confidence as many Americans stock up for fear that the end is nigh. It’s also a logical reaction to gun-owner fears that Democrats will implement far-reaching new gun controls. There is cause for concern. Leaders in the Obama administration and Congress have stated that they plan to limit what guns Americans can buy and that guns should be registered.

SOURCE

There is one thing that can be said of President Obama with certainty — his election has had a phenomenal effect on gun sales.

Across the country, ammunition prices are soaring and many guns are in short supply as weapons fly off the shelves at stores. This is a telling economic indicator about consumer confidence as many Americans stock up for fear that the end is nigh. It’s also a logical reaction to gun-owner fears that Democrats will implement far-reaching new gun controls. There is cause for concern. Leaders in the Obama administration and Congress have stated that they plan to limit what guns Americans can buy and that guns should be registered.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Feb. 25 that, “As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi poured fuel on the fire five weeks later by admitting that Democrats want to register guns. “It’s a Democratic president, a Democratic House,” she said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “We don’t want to take their guns away. We want them registered.”

The gun controllers are at odds with public opinion. Despite Americans constantly being bombarded with attacks on guns by an anti-gun media, Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, notes that “Attitudes toward gun control have become more conservative, people not wanting gun control.” A Gallup poll released April 8 shows that only 29 percent of Americans support banning handguns. According to Gallup, “the latest reading is the smallest percentage favoring a handgun ban since Gallup first polled on this nearly 50 years ago.”

Popular support for the Second Amendment isn’t lost on all congressional Democrats. On May 12, 27 Senate Democrats voted with 39 Republicans to end a ban on law-abiding citizens carrying legal firearms in national parks. The amendment was attached to unrelated legislation to regulate credit cards. The same tactic was used Feb. 26 when an amendment striking down most of the District’s gun-control laws was attached to a Senate bill giving the District a vote in Congress. Twenty-two Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, voted for this amendment, which passed 62-36.

It’s too early to celebrate Democratic respect for gun rights. Some Senate Democrats who voted for the national park amendment complained that they were painted into a corner on the issue. Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, the party’s chief vote counter, told National Public Radio last week that they were concerned about “how many more times they’d have to face such votes.” Democrats are torn between their constituents’ support for gun rights and an Obama administration committed to gun control.

SOURCE

And the obama continues to be “The Gun Salesman of the year!”

What planet are we on..?

May 20, 2009

What planet are we on? That was what I was thinking as I perused the Internet beyond the basic blogs and such that I look at most every day. News, as always, is slanted toward whatever the particular agenda of the instant platform supports. Statistics are twisted to support, again, whatever agenda is being blasted as the savior of the day. “Experts” of all stripes inform all of us lesser beings about what is best for us on any number of subjects or issues.

A fundamental part of philosophical libertarianism is being able to make your own choices and not having them made for you by others. So long, that is, as you are not impinging on others liberty in doing so. Hence, why I cannot support recent legislation with regards to credit cards, and other things that have been going on in places that are above “my pay grade” as the saying goes.But then, there is also the related issue of basic honesty that went hand in hand with that fiasco. Obfuscation by the lenders was used as a tool to lure those that simply could not understand what the ramifications of getting involved in these scams were, and what could happen. To little, and to late? It reminds me of Tobacco companies being less than truthful about the health effects of their products.

With that in mind, I will post a few things found around the net. Hopefully with proper citation:

“As a tool for understanding the thinking of Obama, [Saul] Alinsky’s most famous book, Rules for Radicals, is simultaneously edifying and worrisome. Some passages make Machiavelli’s Prince read like a Sesame Street picture book on manners. After Obama took office, the pundit class found itself debating the ideology and sensibility of the new president — an indication of how scarcely the media had bothered to examine him beforehand. But after 100 days, few observers can say that Obama hasn’t surprised them with at least one call. … Obama is a pragmatist, but a pragmatist as understood by Alinsky: One who applies pragmatism to achieving and keeping power. … Moderates thought they were electing a moderate; liberals thought they were electing a liberal. Both camps were wrong. Ideology does not have the final say in Obama’s decision-making; an Alinskyite’s core principle is to take any action that expands his power and to avoid any action that risks his power. As conservatives size up their new foe, they ought to remember: It’s not about liberalism. It’s about power. Obama will jettison anything that costs him power, and do anything that enhances it…. It’s not about the policies or the politics, and it’s certainly not about the principles. It’s about power, and it has been for a long time.” –columnist Jim Geraghty

“[T]he budding tyrant identifies personal insults as insults to the country. …Obama and his followers demonize anyone who challenges the Obama agenda as unpatriotic traitors to the country. …Obama’s entire persona is geared toward his personal elevation. His website, BarackObama.com, continues to run apace despite his elevation to the presidency — only now, the focus of the website is ‘Organizing for America.’ The website leads off with this Leninesque quote from Obama: ‘I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington … I’m asking you to believe in yours.’ … Despite certain early warning signs of incipient tyranny, the Obama administration is … still bound by the dictates of the republican electoral system. We must guard those dictates especially carefully, however, in a time when the Cult of Obama casually suggests that disagreement with the Great Leader is tantamount to anti-Americanism.” –columnist Ben Shapiro

“The Troubled Assets Relief Program, which has not yet been used for its supposed purpose (to purchase such assets from banks), has been the instrument of the administration’s adventure in the automobile industry. TARP’s $700 billion, like much of the supposed ‘stimulus’ money, is a slush fund the executive branch can use as it pleases. This is as lawless as it would be for Congress to say to the IRS: We need $3.5 trillion to run the government next year, so raise it however you wish — from whomever, at whatever rates you think suitable. Don’t bother us with details. … The Obama administration’s agenda of maximizing dependency involves political favoritism cloaked in the raiment of ‘economic planning’ and ‘social justice’ that somehow produce results superior to what markets produce when freedom allows merit to manifest itself, and incompetence to fail. The administration’s central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.” –columnist George Will

“Republicans and conservatives are trying to grapple with the Obama administration’s $3,600,000,000,000 federal budget — let’s include the zeroes rather than use the trivializing abbreviation $3.6 trillion — and the larger-than-previously-projected $1,841,000,000,000 budget deficit. Political arguments are usually won not by numbers but by moral principles. And conservatives, banished by voters from high office, are having a hard time agreeing on a moral case. … For the policies of the Obama administration are not designed to shelter and nourish what Edmund Burke called the ‘little platoons.’ They are designed to subject them to what [Alexis de] Tocqueville called ‘soft despotism,’ which he identified as the natural tendency and potentially fatal weakness of American democracy. Our would-be soft despots are offering Americans money and the promise of security against economic distress. The vastly increased cost of government will nonetheless nearly leave half of households free from the burden of paying federal income tax and eligible for occasional rebates. … The policy proposals of the Obama administration are portrayed … as addressing the concerns of middle-income people uneasy about the workings of capitalism. But they are not aimed at giving these people more control and choices over the course of their lives — rather the contrary.” –columnist Michael Barone

“The economic freedom which is the prerequisite of any other freedom cannot be the freedom from economic care, which the socialists promise us and which can be obtained only by relieving the individual at the same time of the necessity and of the power of choice; it must be the freedom of our economic activity which, with the right of choice, inevitably also carries the risk and the responsibility of that right.” –economist Friedrich August Hayek (1899-1992)

“Secularism is a euphemism for a set of beliefs that are the antithesis of faith. Boiled down to its basic elements, secularism is man’s subordination of morality to his own earthly judgments, scientific and otherwise. …[T]he secularist catechism holds that truth is subjective, relative or contextual; because it demands that rationality can solve moral and ontological questions about man’s nature, that discrimination is the greatest of all evils and that patriotism is the only social disease that isn’t sexually-transmitted. … Obama’s thesis … is that our moral code can exist in the absence of a religious foundation. …[S]ecularism — and its cousin, multiculturalism — are the primary causes of the weakening of western society at a most dangerous time in history. The weakness results … because secularism turns the bedrock of western society — the moral code derived from Judeo-Christian faith — into sand. By divorcing our societies from faith, we render every man’s morality equal to every other’s, and thus make them all valueless. When President Obama says we are a nation bound by ideals and values, he postulates an impossibility: where do those secular ideals and values come from if — as liberal dogma requires — every man makes up his own?” –Human Events editor Jed Babbin

“When Barack Obama speaks at an American university, he does not provide a different perspective. He preaches to the liberal choir. And I am afraid that most of today’s Catholic universities are no exception. … Contrary to providing diversity of opinion, by inviting Barack Obama, [Notre Dame University president] Father Jenkins really just played to his audience. True leadership would have been to invite a speaker who would inspire this young audience to take seriously the values of their Catholic tradition. … Where can a parent send their son or daughter to get educated and not be indoctrinated with liberal boilerplate? Catholic universities were supposed to serve this purpose. But it’s clear that they, too, have been swept into the liberal tsunami that has engulfed America. Ironically, Father Jenkins states in his letter that Notre Dame’s invitation to Obama is ‘not a political statement or an endorsement of policy.’ He then expresses admiration for the president’s views on ‘expanding health care, alleviating poverty, and building peace through diplomacy.’ Does Father Jenkins not even understand what a ‘political statement’ is? Unfortunately, Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama has only contributed to the moral ambiguity tearing at our nation’s fabric.” –columnist Star Parker

“And then there is the stark reality that we live in an era of what I call ‘historical and Constitutional illiteracy.’ Most Americans, I am convinced, know very little about world history or American history, and the lessons entailed therein. Likewise, I’m pretty certain that most Americans have no clue about the Constitutional limits on the powers of the government, and the idea that there should be any limits at all on the Executive Branch is unthinkable. In many ways, it’s a sad state of affairs. Americans are scared and want their President to be an omniscient, omnipotent savior, and the man we elected knows with certainty that he is that savior. Yet it’s comforting to know that, in many ways, some of the founders of our nation understood human nature so remarkably well that they could have predicted a day when future generations would want not a President, but a messiah, and a day when a President fancied himself as such. Such wisdom is yours for the reading in ‘The Federalist Papers,’ that old compilation of some 85 newspaper editorials that argued for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, published in 1787 and 1788. While make the case for limiting the power of government, and establishing ‘checks and balances’ between government’s various ‘departments,’ James Madison eloquently wrote in ‘The Federalist Number 51:’ ‘It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government….’ It would seem that Madison the philosopher (who went on to become our Fourth President of the United States) was quite certain that those who govern will never be ‘angels’ (he would probably also concur that a President will never amount to a messiah). Madison also seems to indicate that those who govern will naturally begin to think a bit too highly of themselves, and will have difficulty with ‘self-restraint.’ The good news, even in this brief passage of Madison’s writings, is that ‘the people’ – – those of us who are ‘the governed’ – – can still function as the force that prohibits government from spiraling out of control. Certainly, we are still ‘free enough’ today to speak out, to allow our voices to be heard, and to freely exchange ideas about our country and its government — even if those ideas are contrary to the edicts of a dead-certain Command-In-Chief. The question is not ‘can we,’ but ‘will we’ function as that balancing force against a government that is spiraling out of control? Madison and the other founders set the course. Will we follow their lead?” –columnist Austin Hill

All the above are from the Patriot Post, see the sidebar.

Then we have an example of a lawmaker that knows better then you do when it comes to how to live your life. Go figure!

When we last focused attention on Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (well, aside from her braying about Kirsten Gillibrand’s serial betrayals not being despicably turncoat enough), she was trying to ban guns because they had something on them she could not define beyond “I believe it’s the shoulder thing that goes up.” That and introducing an Assemblywoman who wants to fight terrorism by banning .50 caliber firearms because their bullets had “a heat seeking device” that would allow you to “cook [ a deer] at the same time” you shot it.

Full story here

Then, we have political organizations that, simply put, are less than honest…

A group of ACORN whistle-blowers called ‘ACORN-8’ is alleging that the organization has engaged in deceptive practices and broken federal law.

ACORN is the ‘community-based’ voter registration organization that is under investigation in numerous states for voter registration fraud.

Here is what we know so far:

*Barack Obama was the legal rep for ACORN early in its formation and helped the group get organized.

*While the group claims its mission is to register the poor and minorities to vote, numerous reports from around nation point to intimidation tactics, partisanship in favor of Barack Obama, and outright fraud on the part of ACORN workers whose primary goal was to get Obama elected rather than merely register the poor to vote.

*The New York Times killed a story the day before the election that directly linked Barack Obama with ACORN’s deceptive practices.  This allegation is corroborated by taped conversations between a NYT reporter and a source–a conversation that proves the Times had the story but made a conscious decision not to run it for the fear it would hurt Obama at the polls.

Full article here


Obamanomics explained

May 10, 2009

            Who will help me plant my wheat?" asked the little red 
            hen.

"Not I," 
            said the cow.

 "Not I," said the 
            duck.

 "Not I," said the 
            pig.

 "Not I," said the 
            goose.

 "Then I will do it by myself," 
            said the little red hen, and so she did. She planted her crop, and 
            the wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden 
            grain.

 "Who will help me reap my 
            wheat?" asked the little red hen.

 "Not 
            I," said the duck..

 "Out of my 
            classification," said the pig.

 "I'd 
            lose my seniority," said the cow.

 "I'd 
            lose my unemployment compensation," said the 
            goose.

 "Then I will do it by myself," 
            said the little red hen, and so she 
            did.

 At last it came time to bake the 
            bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red 
            hen.

 "That would be overtime for me," 
            said the cow.

 "I'd lose my welfare 
            benefits," said the duck.

 "I'm a 
            dropout and never learned how," said the 
            pig.

 "If I'm to be the only helper, 
            that's discrimination," said the 
            goose.

 "Then I will do it by myself," 
            said the little red hen.

 She baked five 
            loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted 
            some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, 
            "No, I shall eat all five 
            loaves."

 "Excess profits!" cried the 
            cow. (Nancy Pelosi)

 "Capitalist leech!" 
            screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)

 "I 
            demand equal rights!" yelled the goose. (Jesse 
            Jackson)

 The pig just grunted in 
            disdain. (Ted Kennedy)

 And they all 
            painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the 
            little red hen, shouting 
            obscenities.

 Then the farmer (Obama) 
            came. He said to the little red hen, "You must not be so 
            greedy."

 "But I earned the bread," said 
            the little red hen.

 "Exactly," said Barack the 
            farmer. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. 
            Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our 
            modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide 
            the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and 
            idle.."

 And they all lived happily ever 
            after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am 
            grateful, for now I truly 
            understand."

 But her neighbors became 
            quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she 
            joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats 
            smiled. 'Fairness' had been 
            established.

 Individual initiative had 
            died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared...so long as there 
            was free bread that 'the rich' were paying 
            for.

 EPILOGUE

 Bill 
            Clinton is getting $12 million for his 
            memoirs.

 Hillary got $8 million for 
            hers.

 That's $20 million for the 
            memories from two people, who for eight years repeatedly testified, 
            under oath, that t hey couldn't remember 
            anything.

 IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR 
            WHAT

Thugs in the White House

May 8, 2009

Noted economist John Lott unloads on the White House.

Read it HERE

Killing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAPP)

May 8, 2009

Is this “Aiding and abetting” an invasion of the United States? I am of a mind that it is in fact nothing less than that. Unfunded mandates from the federale’s is nothing new but this takes it to new heights as the impostor in chief and his crime partners still refuse to enforce our laws. At least the ones that they decided are not worth enforcing. Our borders need to be secure, period. This is not an issue about citizens of a failed state called Mexico, it is about national security. American national security. Congress determined some time back that terrorist’s were indeed among us, with many of them gaining access to the United States via the people pipeline from Mexico. Yet Congress does nothing about it. The nation is in a deep recession, if not depression, and yet Congress does nothing about illegals coming into America and working here when Americans and legal immigrants go without any work, much less meaningful employment.

Use the GOA or NRA web pages to contact your elected representatives and tell them what you think about this horrid set of affairs.

Hat Tip to Anthony for bringing this to our attention!

Obama budget nixes aid for jailing illegal immigrants

Posted: 05/08/09 09:24 AM [ET]
President Obama voted in the Senate to provide additional funding for a program targeted for elimination by his budget that provides states a federal subsidy to offset the costs of jailing illegal immigrants.

Killing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAPP) would save $400 million, according to Obama’s budget for fiscal 2010 released Thursday. It’s one of the largest non-defense discretionary cuts proposed in the president’s budget.

The program is popular with border-state politicians on Capitol Hill, however, making its elimination a tough sell to lawmakers, particularly from California.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has repeatedly pushed for additional funding for the program, and lawmakers from other states that have costs associated with illegal aliens have also offered support.

A bipartisan trio of House members from California have drafted a letter urging the House Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies to restore funding for the SCAAP program. The three members, Reps. Mike Honda (D), Adam Schiff (D) and Jerry Lewis, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, are also asking the rest of the California House delegation to sign the letter, Honda’s office said.

As an Illinois senator, Obama co-sponsored an amendment offered by then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), now Obama’s secretary of state, that would have provided additional funding for the program. It also would have established a grant program to defray local government healthcare and education costs for non-citizens.

“Each year, the SCAAP program is underfunded,” Clinton said in 2006 comments urging support for her amendment. She cited a 2005 Government Accountability Office study that found local governments get only 25 percent of their costs reimbursed through the program.

“Throughout our country and in my state, there are counties and municipalities that are covering the costs of dealing with education, healthcare, and law enforcement without adequate or any federal reimbursement,” Clinton said. “So we have left our local and state governments to fend for themselves. They should not be left to bear these costs alone because it is not they who are making federal immigration policy.”

Another Obama Cabinet member, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, then a senator from Colorado, was also a co-sponsor.

Obama voted for the amendment, but it was defeated 43-52.

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that has called for tougher border security, predicted it is “very unlikely” that Obama’s proposal to cut the program will be accepted by Congress. He noted that the Bush administration repeatedly tried to zero out the program, but always ran into opposition in Congress.
“It’s hard to justify getting rid of it honestly,” Krikorian said. “It’s a necessary program because the federal government is reimbursing states and localities for the federal government’s own mistakes.”

Krikorian, like Clinton in 2006, argued immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and if state and local jails are incarcerating illegal immigrants, it is because of failed federal policies.

According to the fiscal 2010 budget, Obama’s administration thinks resources used for the program could be better used to enhance federal efforts to curb illegal immigration.

“In place of SCAAP, the administration proposes a comprehensive border enforcement strategy that supports resources for a comprehensive approach to enforcement along the nation’s borders that combines law enforcement and prosecutorial efforts to investigate arrest, detail, and prosecute illegal immigrants and other criminals,” the budget states.

It emphasizes that the budget will provide funding for an additional 20,000
Border Patrol agents, and an additional $1.4 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement programs to support the quick identification and removal of illegal aliens who commit crimes in the U.S.

The Office of Management and Budget did not respond when contacted about this story.Should Obama’s budget cut all subsidies to states for jailing illegal immigrants? Sound off here!

Ken Salazar: Stupid is as stupid does redux

May 7, 2009

Ken Salazar is a nice guy. That said he is a near total incompetent in the realm of public service in mine, and the opinions of many others. It is beyond me why on earth he was selected by the impostor in chief for the position that he currently holds. His only true claim to fame in public service is the Great Outdoors Colorado Amendment, and that, by all accounts was suggested to him, no initiative  there. Some point to his service as State Attorney General with pride. What I saw was mysandry, and later siding with Ex Governor Roy Romer in pardoning a woman that put an axe through her sleeping husbands head. That woman should still be in prison, just like every man that has murdered his wife and been convicted has. I am perhaps being too harsh on him, after all, he had the good sense to oppose listing grass rats that infest the state as “endangered” after all. Perhaps my biggest problem with him is what I see as a lack of courage in refusing to go on air with people like Gunny Bob, or even soft ball pitchers Caplis and Silverman.

Then he goes and does this…

Gov reacts strongly to Salazar’s wind power comment

CHEYENNE — Depending on where you stand, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s comment this week that wind energy could replace coal-fired power in the United States was either welcome news, or so much hot air.

“The idea that wind energy has the potential to replace most of our coal-burning power today is a very real possibility,” Salazar said, according to The Associated Press. “It is not technology that is pie-in-the sky; it is here and now.”

Here in Wyoming, the nation’s No. 1 coal-producing state, Salazar’s comments drew a mix of responses.

Marion Loomis, executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association, said it’s important to look carefully at what Salazar actually said.

The key word in the secretary’s comments, Loomis said, was “potential.”

“To say that the potential is there is true,” Loomis said. “Just like it’s true with nuclear or oil shale. It’s another thing to say you’re going to switch from the traditional sources to something that would be impossible.”

That said, Loomis agrees that wind energy will doubtless play a larger role in the nation’s energy generation.

“But it will be difficult to approach anything close to what coal is providing in any realistic foreseeable time frame,” Loomis said. “Coal is going to be around for a long time.”

Gov. Dave Freudenthal put it even more bluntly.

“Ain’t going to happen,” Freudenthal told reporters at an impromptu new conference Wednesday that mostly focused on other topics.

Freudenthal said Salazar’s comments were a “dumb thing to say,” and may provide a teachable moment in which the new interior secretary will learn the wisdom of “not making gratuitous statements.”

Freudenthal added that the importance of coal in the nation’s energy mix is a reality, despite any creative hypotheticals by those in the Beltway.

“That potential (for wind energy to replace coal) is never going to be realized,” said Freudenthal, adding that Salazar’s comment was out of step with other messages from the Obama Administration.

For example, Freudenthal said, the federal economic stimulus package includes millions of dollars to develop technology for clean coal and carbon capture and sequestration.

He also pointed out that the administration has signaled its desire to restart the FutureGen clean coal initiative, a $1 billion project to install cutting-edge carbon capture systems on new coal-fired power plants.

“It’s kind of an interesting comment” by Salazar, Freudenthal said. “But it’s inaccurate; ain’t going to happen.”

Laurie Milford, executive director the Wyoming Outdoor Council, a Lander-based conservation group, had a slightly different take.

Milford praised Salazar for “looking seriously at renewable sources of energy.� But she also accepted that coal is a major part of the nation’s energy future.

“We have to be realistic about that,” Milford said. “It’s an important bridge fuel for decades to come. And yet while we’re still using coal to make energy, we need to be working to make coal less dirty.”

Milford also praised efforts by the state to develop more environmentally friendly coal-based energy, including efforts to perfect underground carbon storage methods, and the General Electric-University of Wyoming partnership to develop coal-to-fuels technology.

“I really think that everything the state of Wyoming is doing to make coal viable in a carbon-constrained economy is important,” Milford added. “We’ve got a long ways to go, but Wyoming is getting quite serious about it and I’m encouraged.”

Salazar, who hails from Colorado, made the comments at a public hearing in Atlantic City, N.J., on how the nation’s offshore areas can be tapped to meet America’s energy needs.

Salazar said ocean winds along the East Coast can generate 1 million megawatts of power, roughly the equivalent of 3,000 medium-sized coal-fired power plants, or nearly five times the number of coal plants now operating in the nation.

One wind power company official estimated it would take hundreds of thousands of windmills to harness that volume of energy. Efforts to develop even small-scale wind projects off the East Coast have met considerable resistance from those who live there.

A spokesman for Salazar said Monday that the secretary does not expect wind power to be fully developed, but was speaking of its total potential if it were, according to the AP.

Wyoming coal mines produced more than 450 million tons of coal in 2007, or nearly 40 percent of the nation’s coal, according to the Wyoming Mining Association.

SOURCE

More on the first 100 days…

May 2, 2009

It’s no secret to regular readers of this blog that I think that the impostor in chief is the single biggest disaster this nation has encountered in my fifty-seven years. Beating out Jimmy Carter and the socialism of Lyndon Johnson takes some doing but, he has succeeded in doing so, and in a very short amount of time. Mark Alexander distills these first hundred days with class and style well beyond my meager skills.

The Peaceful Revolution’s First 100 Days

By Mark Alexander

Last fall, Barack Hussein Obama pledged that his administration would carry out a “fundamental transformation of the United States of America.” Today, as we reflect on the first 100 days of the Obama regime’s occupation of the executive branch, with Party allegiance in the legislative branch, it pains me to report that he has exceeded the wildest expectations of his Socialist constituencies.

In the wake of last year’s “October Surprise” (the catastrophic meltdown of the nation’s largest financial institutions), his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said of Obama’s strategy, “Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.”

Indeed, Obama has done BIG things. In the words of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Obama’s first 100 days have been spectacularly successful. Obama is the strongest domestic Democratic President since Lyndon Johnson. … In just 100 days, Obama has been devastatingly effective in moving forward swiftly the most radical, government-expanding agenda in American history.”

How did that happen?

Some political scientists argue that democracy is a conduit for “peaceful revolutions,” including radical shifts in political ideology, without a shot being fired.

I agree, except that our nation is not a “dumbocracy.” It is a republic, or at least it was before the once proud Democrat Party became infested with Socialists, who masterfully co-opted the education system along with the modern “opiate of the masses” (television and print media), and re-educated those masses.

So successful has this Leftist strategy been that their dumbed-down constituencies now follow their messianic leader like dullard lemmings.

Consequently, here is an account of a few notable events from the first 100 days of “hope and change.”

Under the aegis of “economic stimulus,” Obama promptly raided the Treasury and doled it out to his constituencies — at terrible expense to this and future generations. Asked how one might evaluate the effectiveness of his plan, Obama replied, “I think my initial measure of success is creating or saving four million jobs.” Not even Bill Clinton had the hubris to suggest something as slick as “saving four million jobs.”

Remarkably, Obama managed to ram that one through Congress without a single Democrat claiming to have read it.

As for his cabinet, a long list of Obama nominees agreed to pay back taxes in return for rubber stamp appointments, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who, despite owing more than $40,000 now oversees the IRS.

Poor nominee Tom Daschle, who in a previous life as Demo Senate Majority Leader proclaimed, “Tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter.” He was all but confirmed as HHS Secretary until we learned that he had cheated us out of $130,000 in back taxes. Apparently even Obama’s hypocrisy knows some limits.

Obama last fall repeatedly promised to end the practice of special interest earmarks. Then, he signed an appropriations bill with more than 8,000 earmarks, including $2 billion for House Appropriations Chairman David Obey’s lobbyist son’s projects, $3.7 billion for contracts to Sen. Diane Feinstein’s husband’s company, and $4.19 billion for Obama’s favorite voter fraud outfit, ACORN.

When the pork-laden bill passed, Obama had the audacity to proclaim, “I’m proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks.”

Obama also converted the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation into instruments for nationalizing the banking system.

Under the pretense of responding to “global warming,” Obama has plans to impose almost $2 trillion in cap-and-tax energy taxes — this despite his oft-repeated pledge that 95 percent of Americans wouldn’t see their taxes increased.

Obama’s $3.5 trillion 2010 budget includes projections for more than $9 trillion in near-term increases of national debt. Feigning fiscal integrity, Obama demanded budget cuts of $100 million — which is to say that even while obscenely expanding the size of government, he targeted some spending that was out of line with his ideology. For the record, $100 million represents three one-thousandths of one percent of Obama’s FY 2010 budget, or approximately what the central government redistributes every 13 minutes of every hour of every day of every week of…

Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw also offered some perspective on this $100 million spending cut, noting that it’s the equivalent of a family with a $100,000 income cutting a $3 latte from their budget.

Of Obama’s budget, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi exclaimed, “[F]or the first time in many, many years, we have a president’s budget … that is a statement of our national values. … It’s a very happy day for our country.”

Meanwhile, according to The Wall Street Journal, in February, the price of single-family homes in 20 major metropolitan areas fell 18.6 percent from the previous year, after a record 19 percent drop in January.

In the first quarter of 2009, the U.S. economy contracted at a seasonally adjusted 6.1 percent annual rate, and Americans lost more than two million jobs. No doubt Obama’s bold and swift action saved four million other jobs.

Perhaps the most dangerous of all the Obama policy shifts, however, is his framing of our foreign policy with atonement for America’s past, which he says has been “arrogant,” “dismissive” and “derisive.” In doing so, he lends credibility to the anti-American attitudes and actions of our enemies.

Some of the most telling examples of Obama’s ideology are apparent in the last few of his first hundred days. For example:

Day 97: Obama’s White House Military Office appointee, former Clintonista Louis Caldera, authorized a photo shoot of Air Force One over Manhattan, an event which involved the low flight of a large jet plane with two F-16s in pursuit over Ground Zero and points nearby. Because the public wasn’t told, many feared another 9/11 attack was in progress.

Indeed, an FAA memo prior to the flight warned of “the possibility of public concern regarding DoD aircraft flying at low altitudes.” To which Obama responded, “It, uh, was, uh, a mistake. It, uh, will never, uh, happen again.”

The Air Force reported that the flight of the VC-25 (customized Boeing 747) and its two attendant F-16s cost $328,835. However, the actual cost associated with the operation of VC-25 alone, when considering all support and planning for this photo folly, was closer to $775,000 (and who knows how many Al Gore carbon credits had to be purchased to offset this operation).

On the other hand, the one-time purchase of Adobe Photoshop costs around $600.

In January, Obama chastised private sector executives for using corporate jets to commute, most of which cost $3-$5 thousand per hour to operate. The plane we taxpayers fund for Obama costs $260,000 per hour to operate, and Monday, it was cruising around without him.

Day 98: Obama’s EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, in an NPR interview about Obama’s Orwellian cap-and-tax policy, remarked, “The president has said, and I couldn’t agree more, that what this country needs is one single national roadmap that tells automakers, who are trying to become solvent again, what kind of car it is that they need to be designing and building for the American people.”

The interviewer asks, “Is that the role of the government? That doesn’t sound like free enterprise.”

Jackson, obviously in need of her ObamaPrompter, replied, “Well, it, it, it is free enterprise in a way. Um, ah, you know, first and foremost, the free enterprise system has us where we are right this second. And so some would argue that the government has a much larger role to play then we might’ve when Henry Ford rolled the first cars off the assembly line.”

Some might argue that “we are where we are” because government has played “a much larger role since Henry Ford rolled the first cars off the assembly line.”

Day 99: After the media fanned the flames about a “swine flu pandemic,” Obama warned, “This is obviously a serious situation, serious enough to take the utmost precautions.” He then promptly applied his “Rule 1” and asked Congress for $1.5 billion in emergency funding.

Day 100: The Obamaprompter addressed the nation yesterday, and not only did he claim, “We inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. That wasn’t me,” but once again trotted this one out: “[My recovery act] has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.”

We checked, and Congress sets budgets, the Democrats have controlled the Senate and House for the last two years (which coincides with the housing and financial market collapses) and Obama was in the Senate for two of those years.

â?¨As for jobs, I am sure that Obama has “saved” all our jobs! Hail Obama! Let’s us all bow down to “The One.”

House Minority Leader John Boehner correctly surmises, “The president’s first 100 days can be summed up in three words: spending, taxing, and borrowing.”

Suffice it to say, the list is as long as it is absurd, and you can bask in a litany of examples we’ve compiled for your reading displeasure at “The First Hundred Days.”

As for “peaceful revolutions,” John F. Kennedy declared in 1962, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

I would argue this case: “Those who undermine our republican rule of law make violent revolution inevitable.”

To that end, there is some good news on the “checks and balances” front, though some may find this a bit disconcerting.

There are now more than 65 million gun-owning Patriots across this nation, many of whom have taken sacred oaths “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

We stand ready to honor that oath, understanding that, in the words of John Adams, “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

And the ranks of Patriots are growing.

In the last three months of 2008, Americans bought enough guns to arm the national armies of both China and India — a total of 12.7 million guns last year. Gun sales in the first three months of 2009 were 27 percent higher year-over-year than the first three months of 2008 (which also recorded record sales).

Perhaps all these gun purchases are coincidental, not consequential. But I doubt it. As Americans begin to awaken to the reality of Obama’s Socialist agenda, it will be interesting to see how his next 1,361 days unfold.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was asked if the delegates had formed a republic or a monarchy. “A republic,” he responded, “if you can keep it.”

We will see.

Quote of the Week

“There’s something very curious — even laughable — about watching the media assemble to offer President Obama a grade after the first 100 days. They weren’t exactly a team of dispassionate scientists in a lab. They continue to be what they’ve been all along — a rolling gaggle of Obama cheerleaders — only before it was a campaign, and now it’s an administration. So now they’re assessing whether their awe-inspiring historic candidate still glows with the luster of victory. Hmm … let’s see. They applied the luster, they boasted of the luster, and you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll continue doing both. … After 100 days, the media still look more like the president’s advertising team than the people’s watchdog.” –Media Research Center president Brent Bozell

On Cross-Examination

“Barack Obama is the frivolous man who concocted his own presidential-looking Great Seal before he was elected. An ego big enough to publicly display a ridiculous ‘Vero Possumus’ (‘Yes, we can’ in Latin) motto and a regal eagle with the Obama campaign logo emblazoned on its chest is an ego capable of far more reckless things. Obama orchestrated a grand photo-op in Berlin, Germany, to declare his world citizenship at the Siegessaule — the Victory Column — a soaring monument of arrogance championed by Adolf Hitler and Third Reich architect Albert Speer. He manufactured his own Open Temple of The One in Denver for the Democratic National Convention last summer, replete with fake Greek columns.” –columnist Michelle Malkin

Open Query

“Obama’s very activism these days arrogates to himself the blame for the success or failure of his policies. Their outcome will determine his outcome, and there is no way it will be positive. Why? You can’t borrow as much as he will need to without raising interest rates that hurt the economy. The massive amount of spending will trigger runaway inflation once the economy starts to recover. His overhaul of the tax code (still in the planning phases) and his intervention in corporate management will create such business uncertainty that nobody will invest in anything until they see the lay of the land. His bank program is designed to help banks, but not to catalyze consumer lending. And his proposal for securitization of consumer loans won’t work and is just what got us into this situation.” –political analyst Dick Morris


The Golden Dome on Colfax Avenue

April 30, 2009

Shenanigans, pure shenanigans is what I see going on down on Colfax Avenue at Colorado’s golden dome. Those few brave souls that try to do what is right and correct for the state’s population are to be commended. Those that do otherwise need to be tarred and feathered, chained to a log and tossed into the South Platte River. What with the run off beginning, they might make it all the way to New Orleans where their politics and sense of ethics would be more the norm. To that end, I’m posting an informative email that I received from one of the people that is taking the heat by standing firm for his beliefs.

The final version of the budget passed the House and Senate last week. It was one of the most controversial bills of the session, forcing legislators to make a choice between true fiscal responsibility and the temptation of big government.

In spite of the doomsday proclamations you may have heard about budget shortfalls in Colorado, the Democrats managed to pass a budget that increased spending by about 4% over last year.

Colorado fell about $850 million short of projected tax revenues this year. The Democrats’ original plan to fill the gap was to increase fees on everything from car registration to hospital stays and to seize $500 million from a private insurance company. Shortly after the Senate approved the seizure, Governor Ritter and the Democrats were forced to accept the fact that his plan was illegal and doomed to failure.

The House then had to rewrite  the $17.9 billion budget to make up for the $500 million gap. The Democrats relied primarily on gimmicks to fill the  gap: adding a new tax to vending machine sales, diverting cigarette tax revenues from anti-smoking campaigns to state coffers, repealing several tax breaks, and furloughing state employees for eight days next year.

While making small, temporary cuts is certainly preferable to Communist-style nationalization, this approach does nothing to address the fundamental budget problems in Colorado: our government has grown too big, too fast.

The Democrat notion of fiscal management consists of growing the size of government as quickly as possible: they managed to add 200 new employees to the state payroll this year in spite of the recession. To avoid making tough choices, they have drained cash funds, used creative accounting practices, and sidestepped TABOR to raise taxes again and again without voter approval.

Colorado needs to return to fiscal responsibility and adjust spending to meet revenues, reassess the size of government, and live up to the spirit of the law and ask voters before increasing their taxes. The Democrat-controlled legislature has dug itself into a deep fiscal hole. I sincerely hope that the economy bounces back quickly so that Coloradans will not be forced to pay for their irresponsibility.

In the final stretch of the legislative session, I could use your help in writing or e-mailing legislators and donating to cover ongoing expenses. You can donate online now be clicking HERE.

The legislative session will end next week, and I am still fighting a repeal of the death penalty, more tax and “fee” increases, forced unionization of public employees, and a proposal to abolish the Electoral College. I’ll keep you updated.

Sincerely,

Ted Harvey