Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Strange Bedfellows Indeed: AWB 2009

February 28, 2009

Dirty Harry Reid and San Fran Nancy Pelosi in bed seeking to thwart Eric Holder and the rest of the obamanite’s? Actually supporting the Second Amendment based upon the Constitution? I’m somewhat dazed and it’s been fully a half hour since checking an RSS feed that almost makes it appear that the democrat congress is siding with the National Rifle Association. I’m still waiting for a Gun Owners of America situational analysis, and as we all have learned based upon the collective histories of the players involved we had better keep our heads up.

Eric Holder the treasonous creep that he is blames Americans for Mexico’s crime problem. No, not anything that might be rational, such as America fueling the drug business via the seemingly insatiable market. But, naturally, he attacks our freedoms attaching the blame to Americans. Alright, I’ll give him just a little bit of lee way there. After all, some criminals are buying weapons as straw purchasers and selling them to the drug gangs. That is already a serious felony though Mister Attorney General. But, in your (Eric Holder’s) warped mind it is just so much simpler to deny Americans that have nothing at all to do with the criminal activity their rights as granted them by our Constitution. Or is it just that they (Americans not involved other than possibly as victims) would be all that much easier to arrest and convict than the criminals that are part and parcel of the drug gangs that are more prone to shooting back?

Put all these things together and what do we have then? Politicians that are frightened beyond the pale that they might just lose their positions of power and prestige. An Attorney General who has based his entire career upon being a lackey for the powers of mysandry and hopolophobia. That is also all too obviously a fall guy for the administration, and that has a history of being right in the middle of having an innocent woman killed while holding a baby in her arms, and later having Americans burned to death. None of these people are friends of the American people. After all, the drug gangs have ample means of securing sophisticated weaponry. It’s just  easier to have innocent Americans slaughtered and by law, incapable of effectively defending their families, friends, nation, and selves.

What follows is the National Rifle Association’s take on it all.

Feds Send Mixed Signals On Push For Gun Control

HolderOn Wednesday, February 25, just over five weeks after Inauguration Day, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama Administration will seek to reinstate the expired federal “assault weapon” ban and impose additional restrictions.

“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,” Holder said. Based on Holder’s testimony during his confirmation hearings before the Senate, those other “changes” presumably include prohibiting private transfers of firearms and banning most center-fire rifle ammunition as “armor-piercing.”

Holder said that new gun control laws are needed because in Mexico, a country with a history of corruption and disregard for individual rights, there’s a shooting war going on between drug gangs and government troops, and some of the gangsters’ guns have been illegally purchased in the United States.

Few Americans are going to buy into the idea that the U.S. is responsible for internal problems in any foreign country, particularly one to which we give millions of dollars in aid, and in turn illegal drugs and illegal aliens flow freely into our southwestern states.

Holder tried to sell his scheme by saying that “International drug trafficking organizations pose a sustained, serious threat to the safety and security of our communities,” noting that law enforcement officers in this country have arrested more than 750 individuals on related illegal narcotics charges over the last 21 months.

Atta-boy to our law enforcement officers for their good work in making drug gangs bite the dust. But it appears that Holder exaggerated the “threat” that they pose to the U.S. On Thursday, a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesperson told NRA-ILA that there is little incidence of Mexican drug gang members committing violent crimes in this country against Americans who are not involved in illegal activities with the gangs. Some Americans who have colluded with the drug-smugglers have not been so lucky, but for that they have only themselves to blame.

Of course, ignored in the discussion was any mention that straw purchasing a firearm for a Mexican drug runner, and transferring a firearm to someone knowing it will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime, are currently federal felonies punishable by 10 years in prison.

Holder was still enjoying the high (pardon the pun) that he must have felt from his media moment when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reminded him that it isn’t the Attorney General who makes laws in the United States. Asked whether Holder had spoken to her before putting himself in front of the national news cameras, Pelosi said “no,” adding, “I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now.” Shortly thereafter, the office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) stated flatly that “Senator Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future.”

Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid were joined in opposing Holder by members of the bipartisan House of Representatives Second Amendment Task Force. U.S. Rep. and Task Force co-chair Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said “The Attorney General’s recent comments about reinstating the ‘assault weapons’ ban are extremely troubling since a ban clearly violates our Constitutional right to bear arms.” Co-chair Dan Boren (D-Okla.) added, “The Second Amendment Task Force is adamantly opposed to reinstating the ban on the sale of assault weapons as it clearly would demonstrate a violation of United States citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.” Other members of the Task Force include Democrats Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), Travis Childers (D-Miss.), Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.), and Republicans Rob Bishop (R-Utah), John Carter (R-Tex.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Steve King (R-Iowa) and Steve Scalise (R-La.).

Independently, Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), an NRA Life Member, said that he would “oppose any action on behalf of the Attorney General or President Obama to reinstate the assault weapons ban.”

Unfortunately, Holder still has many options for ways to threaten the right to arms. As examples, he could force the BATFE to once again arbitrarily reinterpret firearm importation law, to further limit the kinds of firearms that may be imported. He could force the agency to discontinue its support of the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects both the privacy of gun buyers and the integrity of police investigations. And though the Justice Department has previously testified against the type of “armor piercing ammunition” restriction gun control supporters advocate today, Holder’s DOJ could reverse course. Holder could also direct BATFE to adopt enforcement policies designed to drive licensed dealers out of business.

And while Sen. Reid has a good record on many gun control issues, there is no doubt where Speaker Pelosi truly stands. She will support gun control, but on her timetable, not one provided her by the new Attorney General.

As we expect to say a lot over the next four years, “Stay tuned.”

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 7 Comments »

Just announced, the Rocky dies

February 26, 2009

The Rocky Mountain News, Colorado’s oldest newspaper will cease operations tomorrow.

More about this later.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Economics, News, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Taxes, taxes…

February 24, 2009

Who really likes taxes? I consider them to one of two things. Necessary evils for the things that we all need, and outright theft.

What to do about taxes? Well, you can go the route that California has done, and end up like California. Or, you can do like Colorado did years ago, and pass as well as enforce what was called the taxpayers bill of rights, or TABOR.

Look for an instant back at the very first thing I wrote. It was a question. The list is in fact very long. That being who really likes taxes. Bill Ritter likes taxes. Unions like taxes. People with social agendas like taxes. The list goes on…

Despite the California experience, as well as more than a few other states; there are still people that are completely irresponsible, if not immoral. Below is a piece written by a Colorado Senator that takes a rather candid look at the taxation situation. He addresses Colorado, but in reality, it is the nation. No, I was not attempting to be a poet.

Colorado’s Fiscal Restraint vs. California’s Failed Socialist Experiment

By Senator Ted Harvey

The current and steep recession across the country has not spared Colorado or its budget.  With only five months remaining in this fiscal year, the legislature is racing to cut $600 million from our current year’s budget.   This is a lot of money, but it pales in comparison to the massive $42 BILLION hole that the state of California is trying to manage.

The Golden State legislature has been under lock down as the Democrat majority tried to twist arms and find one more vote to increase government revenue by $14.2 billion by taxing  income, sales, gasoline and cars.  Six years ago Mr. Schwarzenegger defeated Governor Gray Davis by calling him “Car-taxula.”  Ironically, Governor Arnold’s current budget is asking to double the same tax.

The difference between Colorado’s budget troubles and California’s budget meltdown is not random – Colorado is doing comparatively well because its people have pursued fiscal restraint, while Californians have approved reckless spending packages year after year.

US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said that state legislatures are laboratories of democracy in America.  The impact of the current economic crises on national and state budgets could not provide a more vivid opportunity to prove this theory.

While Colorado has chosen fiscally prudent constitutional constraints on growth and spending—through the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) and a 6% growth cap on state spending—California has chosen the path of a socialist experiment in their state.  Like the failed communist experiments of the 20th Century, the irresponsible Californian experiment is soon to find its appropriate place atop what President Ronald Reagan called “the ash heap of history.”

The results of California’s experiment are in: the Wall Street Journal explained that California’s “total state expenditures have grown to $145 billion in 2008 from $104 billion in 2003.” As a result, California’s credit rating has fallen beneath Louisiana’s as the worst in the nation, and the state can now boast the nation’s fourth-highest unemployment rate of 9.3%, and the second-highest foreclosure rate.

Businesses in California have been heavily taxed to fund the $145 billion of entitlement programs, and have been heavily regulated to live up to special interest “green” and “pro-union” policies.

While California businesses are fleeing the burdensome tax and regulatory schemes of the Golden State, Colorado is aggressively marketing to these companies.  Just last month, Douglas County successfully secured 500 new jobs resulting from the relocation of a division of Charles Schwab from California to Colorado—partially because of our friendlier business climate.

The lesson Colorado’s legislators must learn from this recession is clear: fiscal responsibility works. Even though the legislature collectively fell short of creating a rainy day fund, TABOR and the Arveschoug-Bird 6% spending cap forced Colorado legislators to keep spending low. Had the government enjoyed free rein in ramping up spending – which is a great temptation to many lawmakers tasked with spending other people’s money – Colorado’s budget crisis would be as serious as California’s.

The spending limits of TABOR and the Arveschoug-Bird cap implement a culture of fiscal responsibility where there would otherwise be a temptation to spend every dollar that can be stripped from the taxpayers. Colorado must keep these spending limits in place to avoid falling into the trap of state socialism.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Taxes, taxes…

My Vida Loca…

February 22, 2009

Immigration front: Mexican gang violence spreads north

The deadly Latin American gangs that run Mexico’s drug trade in cities near the U.S. border are spreading north. Citizens of both San Diego and Los Angeles have suffered greatly from years of gang culture. But now law enforcement fears that these gangs and cartels are moving into major cities throughout the whole country: from Augusta to Boston to Sioux Falls to Anchorage. “The violence follows the drugs,” said David Cuthbertson, agent in charge of the FBI’s office in the border city of El Paso, Texas.

In Mexico the violence is little short of civil war. Gangs stop at nothing to get what they want. Rusty Payne, a Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman, explained, “When you are willing to chop heads off, put them in an ice chest and drop them off at a police precinct, or roll a head into a disco, put beheadings on YouTube as a warning,” one has to ask if there is anything they won’t do.

State, and to a lesser extent federal, governments have spent millions of dollars on local law enforcement along the Mexican border to help fend off spillover drug crime. But there is no serious coordinated national effort to bring down the gangs.

In other border-related news, former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean were released from federal prison this week after President Bush commuted their sentences in January, bringing to a close an ugly ordeal.

Also, a federal jury found that Arizona rancher Roger Barnett did not violate the rights of 16 Mexicans illegally in the U.S. when he held them at gunpoint and turned them in to the Border Patrol. We highlighted the case last week. The jury did, however, award $78,000 in actual and punitive damages to six of the illegals to cover claims of assault and emotional distress. The plaintiffs had sought $32 million. Still, this leads us to ask, who pays for Barnett’s emotional distress over the last 10 years, not to mention all of his stolen, vandalized or destroyed property?

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Law, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on My Vida Loca…

Obama vs. Reagan

February 22, 2009

By Mark Alexander

“This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America. And generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was our time.” –Barack Hussein Obama [emphasis added]

In July 2006, the median price of a home reached an all-time high of $230,900 and, on 9 October 2007, the Wilshire Broad Market Indexes peaked at 15,806, the latter being the most significant indicator of investor confidence.

According to the latest data, the median home price has decreased by almost 25 percent (a $7.5 trillion loss), and the WBMI is now down 50 percent (a $7.9 trillion loss in capital wealth).

Coincidentally, perhaps, the dramatic downturn in the financial and housing markets corresponds to the last presidential campaign, in which one party rallied Americans around an optimistic outlook for the future, and the other rallied constituents around familiar themes of pending doom. The latter made a more compelling case than the former, which gave Barack Obama the victory, but that victory was accompanied by a colossal crisis of confidence, which is largely responsible for the current economic recession.

For sure, there were very real financial problems fueled by the Democrat congressional mandates that the world’s largest lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and others downstream, engaged in subprime mortgage lending in order to create more home-ownership opportunities for their low-income constituents. Those mandates trace their origins to Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and Bill Clinton’s insistence that the Department of Housing and Urban Development enforce the CRA regulations. Banks were coerced to alter their lending practices and, by 2006, were underwriting loans to a whole spectrum of unqualified buyers.

As you recall, when Republicans, most notably Sen. John McCain, raised questions about how meddling in the housing market could backfire — four years before the housing collapse began — Demo Rep. Barney Frank was the most vociferous defender of market adulteration: “These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the federal government does not bail them out.”

Apparently Frank understood the importance of market confidence, but insisted, “The federal government does not bail them out.”

Demo Rep. Maxine Waters added, “We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Frank Raines.” (That’s the same Frank Raines who directed enormous campaign contributions to Barack Obama.)

It is no small irony that Frank is now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and Waters is Chairwoman of its Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.

If fact, economists uniformly agree that the current crisis of confidence in the market reached critical mass when the federal government stepped in to bail out these two massive corporations — and it’s been a hard, fast ride down ever since.

There was a competing philosophy back when Republicans and Democrats were debating the wisdom of government interference in the home lending markets: Republicans insisting this was problematic and Democrats insisting this would create no problems.

Those competing philosophies are boiling over this week, as Barack Obama signed into law his federally mandated confiscation and redistribution of more than $1.3 trillion dollars over the next decade and maybe as much as $3 trillion and counting. One day after signing the so-called “Recovery Act,” Obama promised another $275 billion from the so-called “Troubled Assets Relief Program” for mortgage bailouts to his constituents — those who enjoy more expensive houses than they can afford — loans that Frank and Waters insisted were not a problem.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office offered this summary: “In the longer run, the [Obama] legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product compared with CBO’s baseline economic forecast.” Put another way, we’re going to add trillions in debt in order to obtain a slight decrease in economic growth.

Now, according to Obama, “Government has to take responsibility for setting rules of the road that are fair and fairly enforced. Banks and lenders must be held accountable for ending the practices that got us into this crisis in the first place. And each of us as individuals has to take responsibility for their own actions. That means all of us have to learn to live within our means again.”

In other words, government is the solution and it was all those greedy bankers and lenders who “got us into this crisis in the first place.”

In a recent debate about President Ronald Reagan’s approach to economic crisis versus that of Barack Obama, columnist Charles Krauthammer argued, “Reagan had a lot more substance and he had a lot more ideas. Obama has never managed a candy store, and the way he put together his cabinet shows that he’s got a long way to go.”

In other words Reagan was all substance and Obama is all fragrance. However, Obama is now managing the largest candy store on the planet.

So, given that both Reagan and Obama entered office in a time of severe economic decline, let’s contrast their proposed solutions and the known outcomes of those solutions: Reagan v. Obama.

In the wake of Jimmy Carter’s “Great Malaise,” the last colossal undermining of American confidence, Ronald Reagan entered office with inflation at almost 14 percent and unemployment soaring into double digits. It took President Reagan several years to restore free-market principles that would sustain the largest peacetime economic surge in American history.

Campaigning for the presidency, Reagan said, “This is the issue: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them for ourselves. … Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.”

In his 1981 inaugural address, President Reagan assured the nation: “The economic ills we suffer … will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. … Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government.”

Reagan implemented massive tax reductions, deregulation and anti-inflation monetary policies, which brought inflation down to 3.2 percent by 1983 and unleashed a historic period of economic growth. Of course, behind all the policy implementation was the most important element of the recovery: Ronald Reagan was a man of character and substance, as evidenced by his historic re-election in 1984. He restored American confidence.

On the other hand, Obama, now facing the worst economic decline since the Carter debacle, has promised to “fundamentally transform the United States of America. … Everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — to lay a new foundation for growth.”

In his inaugural speech, Obama said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” This, of course, suggests that somehow our bloated central government is not the problem, but the solution, if it is managed correctly.

Obama’s economic philosophy and solution to the current crisis is rooted in the tried and failed policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who attempted unsuccessfully to end the Great Depression with massive government spending. Obama also subscribes to Roosevelt’s class-warfare decree: “Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”

If Roosevelt’s “principle” sounds familiar, that’s because it was no more American than Obama’s. Roosevelt was paraphrasing Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

History, as we know, is littered with the rubble of failed Socialist regimes. Nonetheless, Obama and his ilk press forward with their statist agendas, clearly indicative of their pathological predisposition toward fatalism.

After signing the Democrats’ massive pork pie spending bill, Obama said, “I don’t want to pretend that today marks the end of our economic problems. Nor does it constitute all of what we have to do to turn our economy around. But today does mark the beginning of the end.”

The beginning of the end of the last chapter of liberty and free enterprise, perhaps…

In the final analysis, Obama can redistribute a lot of wealth, but he can’t do what Reagan did — restore our nations confidence, because most Americans, Left and Right, know that he has no character, no substance.

Make no mistake: The “Recovery Act” is not about economic recovery. It’s about shackling our future to a socialist agenda, which will play out in the next decade short of significant intervention — a cyclical economic recovery, the advent of another great leader with the stature of Reagan, or another unpleasantry like that one begun in 1776, the discussion of which has now entered mainstream conversations, albeit at a whisper.

P.S. Visit Obama’s Recovery Act Web site. Once there, you’ll be greeted with a header proclaiming, “Your money at work.” The Accountability and Transparency section claims, “This is your money. You have a right to know where it’s going and how it’s being spent.”

Isn’t that nice — Obama is telling me who he is giving my money to because I “have a right to know”?

Now, if the money that Obama is confiscating from my family were really “my money,” it would be at work paying our mortgage and my kids’ tuitions, paying small contractors for improvements to our home, growing our small publishing business, funding salary increases for my employees to the benefit of their families. Heck, I might even replace my 10-year-old SUV with another GM product.

Obama’s Recovery Act site also has a link to “Share your Recovery Story.” I invite you to share yours today.

(For a list of economists who oppose BHO’s policies, or to read essays by economists who object, link to http://patriotpost.us/reference/disagreement.php.)

Quote of the week

“The fact is, we’ll never build a lasting economic recovery by going deeper into debt at a faster rate than we ever have before.” –Ronald Reagan

On cross-examination

“What [Obama calls] tax reductions in this bill are really transfer payments, particularly redistribution of income from the rich to the poor. The economy did very well [after the Bush] tax cuts of 2003. Obama has blamed [the Bush tax cuts] for part of the current financial collapse. There’s really no linkage between the tax cuts of 2003 and the financial and housing collapse we’ve seen in recent months. Abolishing the corporate income tax at the federal level I think would be very positive. It’s a very poor form of taxation. I would make permanent the kinds of changes that were in the 2003 tax reform, including the marginal tax rate structure.” –Harvard Economist Robert Barro on Obama’s “terrible piece of legislation”

Open query

“President Reagan inherited an economic situation even worse than the one President Obama has. When Reagan took office, the economy had been in recession for about a year, the unemployment rate was almost identical to today’s, but the labor force participation rate was smaller, and inflation was out of control. At the time, the newspapers were filled with stories about the ‘worst economy since the Great Depression’ — which, unlike today, was true, and the economic establishment seemed to be bereft of ideas of what to do. Credit markets were in a mess, and both businesses and consumers were not borrowing because they could not afford the interest rates. President Reagan, unlike his critics, had a clear plan to revive the economy, which included: monetary restraint to stop inflation; large reductions in marginal tax rates to renew the incentives to work, save and invest; and a reduction in nondefense spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). Unlike other recent presidents, Reagan actually kept and delivered on his promises, which resulted in high growth (7.2 percent in 1984 alone) and large reductions in the unemployment rate — particularly, inflation. He stuck with Mr. Volcker and his monetary restraint because he understood inflation had to be brought under control, even though he also knew it would necessarily prolong the recession. How many of today’s politicians would be willing to take the heat for the long run good?” –Richard W. Rahn, Chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth

Patriot Post

Vol. 09 No. 07
20 February 2009

Mark’s assessment is much kinder than what I expected. Then again, he is a gentleman.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Blogroll, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 8 Comments »

And Commies and Thugs Oh My!

February 20, 2009

This is about Unions, and what goes with being a part of such things.

STOLEN FROM

Sen. Bennet may be key vote on “Employee Free Choice Act”

Posted by: “libertarian17” RLCstatechapters@aol.com libertarian17

Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:24 am (PST)

Dear Friend,

Please write Senator Michael Bennet and ask him to oppose ‘The
Employee Free Choice Act‘.

Sen. Bennet may be the key vote we need to stop this anti-worker
forced unionism power grab. You can contact him at
http://bennet. senate.gov/ public/ .

———— ——— —

George Leaf explains the situation:

“For the last several years, Big Labor has suffered net losses in dues
payers. In an effort to remedy that decline, union officials and their
political allies put on a full-court press in favor of a bill called
the “Employee Free Choice Act” (EFCA).

The secret-ballot elections under the NLRA at least have the virtue of
shielding individual workers from reprisals for going “the wrong way.”
Union officials have found what they regard as a better method of
determining whether a majority want their services.

It’s called the “card check” system. If a majority of workers sign a
card saying that they want a union to represent them, then that should
suffice for the NLRB to declare the union to be the exclusive
bargaining representative, without resort to an election. Naturally,
it’s easier for union organizers to get signatures on cards – using
tactics that can include misrepresentation and harassment – than to
get workers to vote for them in an election after the airing of
arguments for and against the union.

Under the NLRA, however, employers have the right to insist on a
secret-ballot election no matter how many cards might be signed. The
Employee Free Choice Act would take that away and require the NLRB to
certify unions simply on the basis of signed cards.

Furthermore, the EFCA would ratchet up the coercion regarding contract
negotiations. The current law is bad enough in compelling “good faith”
bargaining, but the proposed new law would allow government officials
to arbitrate the terms of the initial union contract. That is to say,
if management and the union can’t arrive at a mutually agreeable labor
contract, the federal government will impose one. That additional
dollop of federal coercion is said by supporters to be necessary to
effectuate the workers’ “right to bargain.” In a free society, though,
there is no “right to bargain” with people who don’t want to bargain
with you, and a fortiori there is no right to have the government
dictate the terms of that “bargaining. ”

Union officials were licking their chops at the prospect of using the
EFCA to dragoon thousands of new workers into their ranks, but the
bill has died in Congress. It will be resurrected in the future and we
will again hear supporters making claims of why we need its new
coercive features. We will also hear opponents arguing that we should
stick with the good old status quo. What I think we really need is a
discussion about the proper approach to labor law in a free society.”

———— ——— —

Contact ALL of your representatives today!

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Stimulus..?

February 20, 2009

Broken windows is much to mild a comment…

(CNSNews.com) – The huge economic stimulus package that President Obama signed into law Tuesday will result in “lower wages” for American workers, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The CBO analysis, dated Feb. 11 and sent to Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), says the $787-billion plan will increase employment in the short-term, but will run up deficit spending which will “crowd out” private investment in the economy in the long-term.

The analysis concludes that the stimulus will put downward pressure on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and wages after 2014. (The Gross Domestic Product is the total value of all goods and services produced in the United States in one year.)

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, said the CBO analysis underestimates the long-term economic consequences.

“Number one, the spending spends out very slowly, so it doesn’t give you much of a pop,” Ryan told CNSNews.com. “Number two, it costs much more than advertised. Number three, at the end of the day, it would have been better to do nothing for the economy given that it [the stimulus package] will reduce GDP growth and wages.”

“I find those to be very startling estimates, very startling points and facts that simply have not been reported,” said Ryan.

In its analysis, the CBO predicts that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will increase GDP through 2014. However, in the following years, “the legislation is estimated to reduce GDP by between 0 and 0.2 percent.”

That decrease will not come from lack of employment, which the CBO predicts will increase by between 800,000 and 2.3 million jobs in the fourth quarter of 2009 and up to 3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010.

“The effect on employment is never estimated to be negative, despite lower GDP in later years, because CBO expects that the U.S. labor market will be at nearly full employment in the long run,” the CBO report states.

But the analysis adds, “The reduction in GDP is therefore estimated to be reflected in lower wages rather than lower employment, as workers will be less productive because capital stock is smaller.”

A previous CBO report said that with interest on the debt, the recovery package will cost $1.1 trillion. The Feb. 11 analysis says, “To the extent that people hold their wealth as government bonds rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased debt would tend to reduce the stock of productive private capital.”

It continues, “In economic parlance, the debt would ‘crowd out’ private investment.” The analysis further says that “crowding out is unlikely to occur in the short run under current conditions because most firms are lowering investment in response to reduced demand, which stimulus can offset in part.”

Ryan said this will keep the economy from growing.

“When you borrow, you are going out and taking money out of the private economy, which goes to bonds,” Ryan said. “So then it’s literally taken out of the private sector and brought to the public sector.”

Another way this will decrease private investment is that it will indirectly lead to higher taxes, Ryan said.

“It’s very clear that the kind of deficits this will produce will make it next to impossible for Congress to keep tax rates low,” Ryan said. “It’s very clear that this Congress is going to use the size of the stimulus and its resulting deficit to justify higher taxes in 2011, which will reduce private sector expansion and take money out of the private sector.”

When signing the bill Tuesday in Denver, President Obama hailed the legislation as the first step out of the economic recession that has faced the country for more than a year.

“What makes this recovery plan so important is not just that it will create or save three- and-a-half million jobs over the next two years, including nearly 60,000 in Colorado,” Obama said. “It’s that we are putting Americans to work doing the work that America needs done in critical areas that have been neglected for too long – work that will bring real and lasting change for generations to come.”

The White House points out that the package puts $150 billion into infrastructure improvements across the country for public transportation, upgrading the electric grid and expanding broadband. The law also allocates $19 billion to digitize health records for each American by 2014 and devotes $100 billion to renewable energy projects.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have complained about various spending projects, such as $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $300 million for golf carts and $8 billion for a rail line from Los Angeles to Las Vegas.

The White House estimate that the stimulus bill will create 3 to 4 million jobs comes from a transition team report completed before Obama took office and before a bill was drafted in Congress. Further, the report said there is “considerable uncertainty” about the job estimates. (See Previous Story)

The White House released a state-by-state breakdown of how many jobs would be created or saved. The breakdown showed that California would get 396,000 jobs; Florida, 206,000 jobs; Georgia, 106,000; Illinois, 148,000; Michigan, 109,000; New Jersey, 100,000; New York, 215,000; Ohio, 133,000; Pennsylvania; 143,000; and Texas, 269,000 jobs. (See White House estimates)

SOURCE

Tags:, ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 5 Comments »

Unintended Consequences… I seriously doubt that!

February 18, 2009

Regular readers are aware that I am doing something  that is apparently below the pay grade of Congress-persons and Senators.I am actually attempting to read this entire so-called stimulus bill. Others, bless them, are already zeroed in  on the obvious conflicts with freedom and liberty. Reading, and even more importantly interpreting this abomination (Obaminazition?) is worse than learning the Kreb’s Cycle under Gerry Gordon M.D. in Paramedic school!

In any case Gun Owners of America has already hit the ten ring on at minimum some of this veritable beast that I believe may very well catapult the United States into irrevocable balkanization, if not revolution. I pray that secession this time will be Constitutional, and bloodless.

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

It was a day that will live in infamy.

President Obama traveled to Denver, Colorado yesterday to sign the
multi-billion dollar, pork-laden, so-called “stimulus” bill
into law.

But forget the $787 billion price tag you heard on TV. Forget the $12
TRILLION debt limit which the bill created.

By the time debt services and other frills of the “socialism
bill” are
accounted for, the cost will be over $3,000,000,000,000 (yes, three
TRILLION).

This makes the bill the biggest government spending grab in human
history.

But what about the details? The hundreds and hundreds of pages in the
bill were not made available until less than 18 hours before the final
passage vote. But here’s what we know in relation to the gun-related
provisions:

* The final bill continues to spend between $12 and $20 BILLION on
requiring your doctor to retroactively put your most confidential
medical records into a government database. Based on our experience
with veterans, we would expect the government to try to use computerized
psychiatric records to impose gun bans on people who have sought (or
will seek) treatment.

* The final bill continues to fund liberal community action groups like
ACORN, which, you may remember, engaged in massive criminal election
fraud on behalf of Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy and also was
involved in anti-Second Amendment activism in New Jersey.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was at least honest when he said
it would be a shame to let a crisis like the current recession “go to
waste.” Like vultures picking on the nation’s carcass, the White House
has used the nation’s pain to lavish largesse on its political
supporters, at the expense of the nation’s economic survival.

And, in the end, this act of ethical depravity was made possible by
every Democrat Senator who voted for the bill, plus the defections of
three Republicans: Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and
Susan Collins (R-ME).

If there is one silver lining to all of this, it’s the debunking of a
rumor that recently swept across the internet. The rumor claimed that
the provisions of HR 45 — the massive gun registration bill introduced
by Chicago congressman Bobby Rush (D) — were “rolled into”
what was
passed.

But having searched the contents of the new law, GOA staff has
determined the rumor appears to be false.

****************************

Are You A Bitter Clinger?

Who is a Bitter Clinger? According to Barack Obama, who was recorded
unawares at a San Francisco fundraiser, bitter clingers are voters who
are bitter because of their economic frustration and so cling bitterly
to their Bibles and their guns.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Law, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

The Scamulus Bill

February 17, 2009

This monster is something else; I’m not even half way through it and so far it looks like a manifesto. One that will lock socialism in place in America for generations to come. Here, read it for yourself…

* Text of the Conference Report – Division A
* Text of the Conference Report – Division B
* Joint Explanatory Statement – Division A
* Joint Explanatory Statement – Division B

Thanks to Downsize D.C

Scroll through these pdf files and you’ll see that the bill is filled with . . .

* Hand-written copy-editing,
* Insertions scrawled in the margins,
* Typographical deletions of whole paragraphs,
* And a variety of curious hash marks and other annotations.

Congressional leaders were so SCARED of the growing public opposition that they couldn’t even take the time to type the changes into a laptop!

But now, at least, we’ll finally get to learn the ingredients of this particular sausage. Think-tank scholars will read the bits that relate to their expertize and tell us about the toxic ingredients.

As the details ooze out, the President and Congressional Democrats will look very slimy. Their dire warnings about the need for speed to save the economy will ring hollow. They’ll lose credibility, and future legislation will be harder to pass.

We intend to stoke the public’s growing distrust into an inferno, starting today. The action item for today is a “Thank or Spank” message.

Your message will go to both your Representative and your two Senators. Tell them, in front of each other, what you think of their vote — thank or spank them. Remember, these people work for you!

Here’s how I “personalized” my note to my delegation,

“Sherrod Brown was flown into town, at my expense (as a taxpayer), to cast the final and most necessary vote to pass this huge, unread, boondoggle bill that rips-off both me and my children. That offends me. It’s like being asked to buy the club with which you intend to beat me.

“I also protest Ms. Sutton’s support of this bill and applaud Mr. Voinovich for voting no.

“November 2010 may seem far away, and the Republicans may yet offend me again, as they have in the past, but I’m going to remember that the Republicans were on the right side in this vote, and the Democrats almost entirely in the wrong.”

Please look below my signature to see how your elected representatives voted, and then thank or spank them.

Urge others to do the same by forwarding this Dispatch to others, and by Digging it on our blog.

Thanks for being part of the growing Downsize DC Army,

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

P.S.SENATE
Alabama
Nay AL Sessions, Jefferson
Nay AL Shelby, Richard
Alaska
Yea AK Begich, Mark
Nay AK Murkowski, Lisa
Arizona
Nay AZ Kyl, Jon
Nay AZ McCain, John
Arkansas
Yea AR Lincoln, Blanche
Yea AR Pryor, Mark
California
Yea CA Boxer, Barbara
Yea CA Feinstein, Dianne
Colorado
Yea CO Bennet, Michael
Yea CO Udall, Mark
Connecticut
Yea CT Dodd, Christopher
Yea CT Lieberman, Joseph
Delaware
Yea DE Carper, Thomas
Yea DE Kaufman, Edward
Florida
Yea FL Nelson, Bill
Nay FL Martinez, Mel
Georgia
Nay GA Chambliss, Saxby
Nay GA Isakson, John
Hawaii
Yea HI Akaka, Daniel
Yea HI Inouye, Daniel
Idaho
Nay ID Crapo, Michael
Nay ID Risch, James
Illinois
Yea IL Burris, Roland
Yea IL Durbin, Richard
Indiana
Yea IN Bayh, Evan
Nay IN Lugar, Richard
Iowa
Yea IA Harkin, Thomas
Nay IA Grassley, Charles
Kansas
Nay KS Brownback, Samuel
Nay KS Roberts, Pat
Kentucky
Nay KY Bunning, Jim
Nay KY McConnell, Mitch
Louisiana
Yea LA Landrieu, Mary
Nay LA Vitter, David
Maine
Yea ME Collins, Susan
Yea ME Snowe, Olympia
Maryland
Yea MD Cardin, Benjamin
Yea MD Mikulski, Barbara
Massachusetts
Yea MA Kerry, John
Not Voting MA Kennedy, Edward
Michigan
Yea MI Levin, Carl
Yea MI Stabenow, Debbie Ann
Minnesota
Yea MN Klobuchar, Amy
Mississippi
Nay MS Cochran, Thad
Nay MS Wicker, Roger
Missouri
Yea MO McCaskill, Claire
Nay MO Bond, Christopher
Montana
Yea MT Baucus, Max
Yea MT Tester, Jon
Nebraska
Yea NE Nelson, Ben
Nay NE Johanns, Mike
Nevada
Yea NV Reid, Harry
Nay NV Ensign, John
New Hampshire
Yea NH Shaheen, Jeanne
Nay NH Gregg, Judd
New Jersey
Yea NJ Lautenberg, Frank
Yea NJ Menendez, Robert
New Mexico
Yea NM Bingaman, Jeff
Yea NM Udall, Tom
New York
Yea NY Gillibrand, Kirsten
Yea NY Schumer, Charles
North Carolina
Yea NC Hagan, Kay
Nay NC Burr, Richard
North Dakota
Yea ND Conrad, Kent
Yea ND Dorgan, Byron
Ohio
Yea OH Brown, Sherrod
Nay OH Voinovich, George
Oklahoma
Nay OK Coburn, Thomas
Nay OK Inhofe, James
Oregon
Yea OR Merkley, Jeff
Yea OR Wyden, Ron
Pennsylvania
Yea PA Casey, Robert
Yea PA Specter, Arlen
Rhode Island
Yea RI Reed, John
Yea RI Whitehouse, Sheldon
South Carolina
Nay SC DeMint, Jim
Nay SC Graham, Lindsey
South Dakota
Yea SD Johnson, Tim
Nay SD Thune, John
Tennessee
Nay TN Alexander, Lamar
Nay TN Corker, Bob
Texas
Nay TX Cornyn, John
Nay TX Hutchison, Kay
Utah
Nay UT Bennett, Robert
Nay UT Hatch, Orrin
Vermont
Yea VT Leahy, Patrick
Yea VT Sanders, Bernard
Virginia
Yea VA Warner, Mark
Yea VA Webb, Jim
Washington
Yea WA Cantwell, Maria
Yea WA Murray, Patty
West Virginia
Yea WV Byrd, Robert
Yea WV Rockefeller, John
Wisconsin
Yea WI Feingold, Russell
Yea WI Kohl, Herbert
Wyoming
Nay WY Barrasso, John
Nay WY Enzi, Michael


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Alabama
Nay AL-1 Bonner, Jo
Nay AL-2 Bright, Bobby
Nay AL-3 Rogers, Michael
Nay AL-4 Aderholt, Robert
Nay AL-5 Griffith, Parker
Nay AL-6 Bachus, Spencer
Yea AL-7 Davis, Artur
Alaska
Nay AK-0 Young, Donald
Arizona
Yea AZ-1 Kirkpatrick, Ann
Nay AZ-2 Franks, Trent
Nay AZ-3 Shadegg, John
Yea AZ-4 Pastor, Edward
Yea AZ-5 Mitchell, Harry
Nay AZ-6 Flake, Jeff
Yea AZ-7 Grijalva, Raul
Yea AZ-8 Giffords, Gabrielle
Arkansas
Yea AR-1 Berry, Robert
Yea AR-2 Snyder, Victor
Nay AR-3 Boozman, John
Yea AR-4 Ross, Mike
California
Yea CA-1 Thompson, C.
Nay CA-2 Herger, Walter
Nay CA-3 Lungren, Daniel
Nay CA-4 McClintock, Tom
Yea CA-5 Matsui, Doris
Yea CA-6 Woolsey, Lynn
Yea CA-7 Miller, George
Yea CA-8 Pelosi, Nancy
Yea CA-9 Lee, Barbara
Yea CA-10 Tauscher, Ellen
Yea CA-11 McNerney, Jerry
Yea CA-12 Speier, Jackie
Yea CA-13 Stark, Fortney
Yea CA-14 Eshoo, Anna
Yea CA-15 Honda, Michael
Yea CA-16 Lofgren, Zoe
Yea CA-17 Farr, Sam
Yea CA-18 Cardoza, Dennis
Nay CA-19 Radanovich, George
Yea CA-20 Costa, Jim
Nay CA-21 Nunes, Devin
Nay CA-22 McCarthy, Kevin
Yea CA-23 Capps, Lois
Nay CA-24 Gallegly, Elton
Nay CA-25 McKeon, Howard
Nay CA-26 Dreier, David
Yea CA-27 Sherman, Brad
Yea CA-28 Berman, Howard
Yea CA-29 Schiff, Adam
Yea CA-30 Waxman, Henry
Yea CA-31 Becerra, Xavier
Yea CA-32 Solis, Hilda
Yea CA-33 Watson, Diane
Yea CA-34 Roybal-Allard, Lucille
Yea CA-35 Waters, Maxine
Yea CA-36 Harman, Jane
Yea CA-37 Richardson, Laura
Yea CA-38 Napolitano, Grace
Yea CA-39 Sanchez, Linda
Nay CA-40 Royce, Edward
Nay CA-41 Lewis, Jerry
Nay CA-42 Miller, Gary
Yea CA-43 Baca, Joe
Nay CA-44 Calvert, Ken
Nay CA-45 Bono Mack, Mary
Nay CA-46 Rohrabacher, Dana
Yea CA-47 Sanchez, Loretta
Not Voting CA-48 Campbell, John
Nay CA-49 Issa, Darrell
Nay CA-50 Bilbray, Brian
Yea CA-51 Filner, Bob
Nay CA-52 Hunter, Duncan
Yea CA-53 Davis, Susan
Colorado
Yea CO-1 DeGette, Diana
Yea CO-2 Polis, Jared
Yea CO-3 Salazar, John
Yea CO-4 Markey, Betsy
Nay CO-5 Lamborn, Doug
Nay CO-6 Coffman, Mike
Yea CO-7 Perlmutter, Ed
Connecticut
Yea CT-1 Larson, John
Yea CT-2 Courtney, Joe
Yea CT-3 DeLauro, Rosa
Yea CT-4 Himes, James
Yea CT-5 Murphy, Christopher
Delaware
Nay DE-0 Castle, Michael
Florida
Nay FL-1 Miller, Jeff
Yea FL-2 Boyd, Allen
Yea FL-3 Brown, Corrine
Nay FL-4 Crenshaw, Ander
Nay FL-5 Brown-Waite, Virginia
Nay FL-6 Stearns, Clifford
Nay FL-7 Mica, John
Yea FL-8 Grayson, Alan
Nay FL-9 Bilirakis, Gus
Nay FL-10 Young, C. W.
Yea FL-11 Castor, Kathy
Nay FL-12 Putnam, Adam
Nay FL-13 Buchanan, Vern
Nay FL-14 Mack, Connie
Nay FL-15 Posey, Bill
Nay FL-16 Rooney, Thomas
Yea FL-17 Meek, Kendrick
Nay FL-18 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana
Yea FL-19 Wexler, Robert
Yea FL-20 Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
Nay FL-21 Diaz-Balart, Lincoln
Yea FL-22 Klein, Ron
Yea FL-23 Hastings, Alcee
Yea FL-24 Kosmas, Suzanne
Nay FL-25 Diaz-Balart, Mario
Georgia
Nay GA-1 Kingston, Jack
Yea GA-2 Bishop, Sanford
Nay GA-3 Westmoreland, Lynn
Yea GA-4 Johnson, Henry
Yea GA-5 Lewis, John
Nay GA-6 Price, Tom
Nay GA-7 Linder, John
Yea GA-8 Marshall, James
Nay GA-9 Deal, Nathan
Nay GA-10 Broun, Paul
Nay GA-11 Gingrey, John
Yea GA-12 Barrow, John
Yea GA-13 Scott, David
Hawaii
Yea HI-1 Abercrombie, Neil
Yea HI-2 Hirono, Mazie
Idaho
Nay ID-1 Minnick, Walter
Nay ID-2 Simpson, Michael
Illinois
Yea IL-1 Rush, Bobby
Yea IL-2 Jackson, Jesse
Present IL-3 Lipinski, Daniel
Yea IL-4 Gutierrez, Luis
Nay IL-6 Roskam, Peter
Yea IL-7 Davis, Danny
Yea IL-8 Bean, Melissa
Yea IL-9 Schakowsky, Janice
Nay IL-10 Kirk, Mark
Yea IL-11 Halvorson, Deborah
Yea IL-12 Costello, Jerry
Nay IL-13 Biggert, Judy
Yea IL-14 Foster, Bill
Nay IL-15 Johnson, Timothy
Nay IL-16 Manzullo, Donald
Yea IL-17 Hare, Phil
Nay IL-18 Schock, Aaron
Nay IL-19 Shimkus, John
Indiana
Yea IN-1 Visclosky, Peter
Yea IN-2 Donnelly, Joe
Nay IN-3 Souder, Mark
Nay IN-4 Buyer, Stephen
Nay IN-5 Burton, Dan
Nay IN-6 Pence, Mike
Yea IN-7 Carson, André
Yea IN-8 Ellsworth, Brad
Yea IN-9 Hill, Baron
Iowa
Yea IA-1 Braley, Bruce
Yea IA-2 Loebsack, David
Yea IA-3 Boswell, Leonard
Nay IA-4 Latham, Thomas
Nay IA-5 King, Steve
Kansas
Nay KS-1 Moran, Jerry
Nay KS-2 Jenkins, Lynn
Yea KS-3 Moore, Dennis
Nay KS-4 Tiahrt, Todd
Kentucky
Nay KY-1 Whitfield, Edward
Nay KY-2 Guthrie, Brett
Yea KY-3 Yarmuth, John
Nay KY-4 Davis, Geoff
Nay KY-5 Rogers, Harold
Yea KY-6 Chandler, Ben
Louisiana
Nay LA-1 Scalise, Steve
Nay LA-2 Cao, Anh
Yea LA-3 Melancon, Charles
Nay LA-4 Fleming, John
Nay LA-5 Alexander, Rodney
Nay LA-6 Cassidy, Bill
Nay LA-7 Boustany, Charles
Maine
Yea ME-1 Pingree, Chellie
Yea ME-2 Michaud, Michael
Maryland
Yea MD-1 Kratovil, Frank
Yea MD-2 Ruppersberger, C.A.
Yea MD-3 Sarbanes, John
Yea MD-4 Edwards, Donna
Yea MD-5 Hoyer, Steny
Nay MD-6 Bartlett, Roscoe
Yea MD-7 Cummings, Elijah
Yea MD-8 Van Hollen, Christopher
Massachusetts
Yea MA-1 Olver, John
Yea MA-2 Neal, Richard
Yea MA-3 McGovern, James
Yea MA-4 Frank, Barney
Yea MA-5 Tsongas, Niki
Yea MA-6 Tierney, John
Yea MA-7 Markey, Edward
Yea MA-8 Capuano, Michael
Yea MA-9 Lynch, Stephen
Yea MA-10 Delahunt, William
Michigan
Yea MI-1 Stupak, Bart
Nay MI-2 Hoekstra, Peter
Nay MI-3 Ehlers, Vernon
Nay MI-4 Camp, David
Yea MI-5 Kildee, Dale
Nay MI-6 Upton, Frederick
Yea MI-7 Schauer, Mark
Nay MI-8 Rogers, Michael
Yea MI-9 Peters, Gary
Nay MI-10 Miller, Candice
Nay MI-11 McCotter, Thaddeus
Yea MI-12 Levin, Sander
Yea MI-13 Kilpatrick, Carolyn
Yea MI-14 Conyers, John
Yea MI-15 Dingell, John
Minnesota
Yea MN-1 Walz, Timothy
Nay MN-2 Kline, John
Nay MN-3 Paulsen, Erik
Yea MN-4 McCollum, Betty
Yea MN-5 Ellison, Keith
Nay MN-6 Bachmann, Michele
Nay MN-7 Peterson, Collin
Yea MN-8 Oberstar, James
Mississippi
Yea MS-1 Childers, Travis
Yea MS-2 Thompson, Bennie
Nay MS-3 Harper, Gregg
Nay MS-4 Taylor, Gene
Missouri
Yea MO-1 Clay, William
Nay MO-2 Akin, W.
Yea MO-3 Carnahan, Russ
Yea MO-4 Skelton, Ike
Yea MO-5 Cleaver, Emanuel
Nay MO-6 Graves, Samuel
Nay MO-7 Blunt, Roy
Nay MO-8 Emerson, Jo Ann
Nay MO-9 Luetkemeyer, Blaine
Montana
Nay MT-0 Rehberg, Dennis
Nebraska
Nay NE-1 Fortenberry, Jeffrey
Nay NE-2 Terry, Lee
Nay NE-3 Smith, Adrian
Nevada
Yea NV-1 Berkley, Shelley
Nay NV-2 Heller, Dean
Yea NV-3 Titus, Dina
New Hampshire
Yea NH-1 Shea-Porter, Carol
Yea NH-2 Hodes, Paul
New Jersey
Yea NJ-1 Andrews, Robert
Nay NJ-2 LoBiondo, Frank
Yea NJ-3 Adler, John
Nay NJ-4 Smith, Christopher
Nay NJ-5 Garrett, Scott
Yea NJ-6 Pallone, Frank
Nay NJ-7 Lance, Leonard
Yea NJ-8 Pascrell, William
Yea NJ-9 Rothman, Steven
Yea NJ-10 Payne, Donald
Nay NJ-11 Frelinghuysen, Rodney
Yea NJ-12 Holt, Rush
Yea NJ-13 Sires, Albio
New Mexico
Yea NM-1 Heinrich, Martin
Yea NM-2 Teague, Harry
Yea NM-3 Lujan, Ben
New York
Yea NY-1 Bishop, Timothy
Yea NY-2 Israel, Steve
Nay NY-3 King, Peter
Yea NY-4 McCarthy, Carolyn
Yea NY-5 Ackerman, Gary
Yea NY-6 Meeks, Gregory
Yea NY-7 Crowley, Joseph
Yea NY-8 Nadler, Jerrold
Yea NY-9 Weiner, Anthony
Yea NY-10 Towns, Edolphus
Yea NY-11 Clarke, Yvette
Yea NY-12 Velazquez, Nydia
Yea NY-13 McMahon, Michael
Yea NY-14 Maloney, Carolyn
Yea NY-15 Rangel, Charles
Yea NY-16 Serrano, José
Yea NY-17 Engel, Eliot
Yea NY-18 Lowey, Nita
Yea NY-19 Hall, John
Yea NY-21 Tonko, Paul
Yea NY-22 Hinchey, Maurice
Nay NY-23 McHugh, John
Yea NY-24 Arcuri, Michael
Yea NY-25 Maffei, Daniel
Not Voting NY-26 Lee, Christopher
Yea NY-27 Higgins, Brian
Yea NY-28 Slaughter, Louise
Yea NY-29 Massa, Eric
North Carolina
Yea NC-1 Butterfield, George
Yea NC-2 Etheridge, Bob
Nay NC-3 Jones, Walter
Yea NC-4 Price, David
Nay NC-5 Foxx, Virginia
Nay NC-6 Coble, Howard
Yea NC-7 McIntyre, Mike
Yea NC-8 Kissell, Larry
Nay NC-9 Myrick, Sue
Nay NC-10 Mchenry, Patrick
Nay NC-11 Shuler, Heath
Yea NC-12 Watt, Melvin
Yea NC-13 Miller, R.
North Dakota
Yea ND-0 Pomeroy, Earl
Ohio
Yea OH-1 Driehaus, Steve
Nay OH-2 Schmidt, Jean
Nay OH-3 Turner, Michael
Nay OH-4 Jordan, Jim
Nay OH-5 Latta, Robert
Yea OH-6 Wilson, Charles
Nay OH-7 Austria, Steve
Nay OH-8 Boehner, John
Yea OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy
Yea OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis
Yea OH-11 Fudge, Marcia
Nay OH-12 Tiberi, Patrick
Yea OH-13 Sutton, Betty
Nay OH-14 LaTourette, Steven
Yea OH-15 Kilroy, Mary Jo
Yea OH-16 Boccieri, John
Yea OH-17 Ryan, Timothy
Yea OH-18 Space, Zachary
Oklahoma
Nay OK-1 Sullivan, John
Yea OK-2 Boren, Dan
Nay OK-3 Lucas, Frank
Nay OK-4 Cole, Tom
Nay OK-5 Fallin, Mary
Oregon
Yea OR-1 Wu, David
Nay OR-2 Walden, Greg
Yea OR-3 Blumenauer, Earl
Nay OR-4 DeFazio, Peter
Yea OR-5 Schrader, Kurt
Pennsylvania
Yea PA-1 Brady, Robert
Yea PA-2 Fattah, Chaka
Yea PA-3 Dahlkemper, Kathleen
Yea PA-4 Altmire, Jason
Nay PA-5 Thompson, Glenn
Nay PA-6 Gerlach, Jim
Yea PA-7 Sestak, Joe
Yea PA-8 Murphy, Patrick
Nay PA-9 Shuster, William
Yea PA-10 Carney, Christopher
Yea PA-11 Kanjorski, Paul
Yea PA-12 Murtha, John
Yea PA-13 Schwartz, Allyson
Yea PA-14 Doyle, Michael
Nay PA-15 Dent, Charles
Nay PA-16 Pitts, Joseph
Yea PA-17 Holden, Tim
Nay PA-18 Murphy, Tim
Nay PA-19 Platts, Todd
Rhode Island
Yea RI-1 Kennedy, Patrick
Yea RI-2 Langevin, James
South Carolina
Nay SC-1 Brown, Henry
Nay SC-2 Wilson, Addison
Nay SC-3 Barrett, James
Nay SC-4 Inglis, Bob
Yea SC-5 Spratt, John
Not Voting SC-6 Clyburn, James
South Dakota
Yea SD-0 Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie
Tennessee
Nay TN-1 Roe, David
Nay TN-2 Duncan, John
Nay TN-3 Wamp, Zach
Yea TN-4 Davis, Lincoln
Yea TN-5 Cooper, Jim
Yea TN-6 Gordon, Barton
Nay TN-7 Blackburn, Marsha
Yea TN-8 Tanner, John
Yea TN-9 Cohen, Steve
Texas
Nay TX-1 Gohmert, Louis
Nay TX-2 Poe, Ted
Nay TX-3 Johnson, Samuel
Nay TX-4 Hall, Ralph
Nay TX-5 Hensarling, Jeb
Nay TX-6 Barton, Joe
Nay TX-7 Culberson, John
Nay TX-8 Brady, Kevin
Yea TX-9 Green, Al
Nay TX-10 McCaul, Michael
Nay TX-11 Conaway, K.
Nay TX-12 Granger, Kay
Nay TX-13 Thornberry, William
Nay TX-14 Paul, Ronald
Yea TX-15 Hinojosa, Rubén
Yea TX-16 Reyes, Silvestre
Yea TX-17 Edwards, Thomas
Yea TX-18 Jackson-Lee, Sheila
Nay TX-19 Neugebauer, Randy
Yea TX-20 Gonzalez, Charles
Nay TX-21 Smith, Lamar
Nay TX-22 Olson, Pete
Yea TX-23 Rodriguez, Ciro
Nay TX-24 Marchant, Kenny
Yea TX-25 Doggett, Lloyd
Nay TX-26 Burgess, Michael
Yea TX-27 Ortiz, Solomon
Yea TX-28 Cuellar, Henry
Yea TX-29 Green, Raymond
Yea TX-30 Johnson, Eddie
Nay TX-31 Carter, John
Nay TX-32 Sessions, Peter
Utah
Nay UT-1 Bishop, Rob
Yea UT-2 Matheson, Jim
Nay UT-3 Chaffetz, Jason
Vermont
Yea VT-0 Welch, Peter
Virginia
Nay VA-1 Wittman, Rob
Yea VA-2 Nye, Glenn
Yea VA-3 Scott, Robert
Nay VA-4 Forbes, James
Yea VA-5 Perriello, Thomas
Nay VA-6 Goodlatte, Robert
Nay VA-7 Cantor, Eric
Yea VA-8 Moran, James
Yea VA-9 Boucher, Frederick
Nay VA-10 Wolf, Frank
Yea VA-11 Connolly, Gerald
Washington
Yea WA-1 Inslee, Jay
Yea WA-2 Larsen, Rick
Yea WA-3 Baird, Brian
Nay WA-4 Hastings, Doc
Nay WA-5 McMorris Rodgers, Cathy
Yea WA-6 Dicks, Norman
Yea WA-7 McDermott, James
Nay WA-8 Reichert, Dave
Yea WA-9 Smith, Adam
West Virginia
Yea WV-1 Mollohan, Alan
Nay WV-2 Capito, Shelley
Yea WV-3 Rahall, Nick
Wisconsin
Nay WI-1 Ryan, Paul
Yea WI-2 Baldwin, Tammy
Yea WI-3 Kind, Ronald
Yea WI-4 Moore, Gwen
Nay WI-5 Sensenbrenner, F.
Nay WI-6 Petri, Thomas
Yea WI-7 Obey, David
Yea WI-8 Kagen, Steve
Wyoming
Nay WY-0 Lummis, Cynthia

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation
Normally published 3 – 6 times per week.

CONTRIBUTE in support of the “Educate the Powerful System”

http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. — a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.  Operations office: 1931 15th St. Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202.521.1200

You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

Conservationists..?

February 17, 2009

One would think that the Associated Press could distinguish between conservationist’s and preservationists, much less eco-terrorist’s. What follows is so filled with misinformation that it is difficult finding a place to begin. Gray wolves are endangered? Not where ariel control is being used, not at all. Coyotes? You have got to be kidding, period. Black Bears..? Again, it is simply ridiculous to think that Black bears are endangered. Why can’t these people be honest? They just hate killing animals, even when those animals are a clear and present threat to humans. No doubt they will also make the claim that this is some sort of sport hunting as opposed to culling , or removing human threats.

RENO, Nev. — Conservationists argue in a new report that U.S. taxpayers should stop subsidizing a $100 million program that kills more than 1 million wild animals annually, a program ranchers and farmers have defended for nearly a century as critical to protecting their livestock from predators.

Citing concerns about the economy and the potential for a fresh look at the decades-old controversy in the new Obama administration, 115 environmental groups signed onto a recent letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack urging him to abolish the U.S. Agriculture Department’s Wildlife Services.

The American Sheep Industry Association, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and more than 70 other livestock production and state agriculture offices in 35 states countered with a letter citing more than $125 million in annual losses to the sheep, goat and cattle industry as a result of predation.

Now, as Congress tries to tackle the looming federal budget crisis, a new report by conservationists entitled “War on Wildlife” being made public on Tuesday documents significant increases in recent years in both the number of carnivores killed and the size of the agency’s budget — $117 million in 2007, up 14 percent from the average from 2004-06.

“We ask Mr. Obama to get out his scalpel and protect the public’s hard-earned dollars from this unscrupulous agency,” said Wendy Keefover-Ring, director of carnivore protection for WildEarth Guardians based in Bozeman, Mont.

The vast majority of the 121,524 animals killed in 2007 were coyotes — 90,326. But the trapping, poisoning and aerial gunning of the predators also is taking an increasing, unintended toll on other creatures, including 511 black bears and 340 endangered gray wolves in 2007, according to a copy of the report obtained by The Associated Press.

Authors of the 108-page report being presented to USDA, members of Congress and the White House on Tuesday described it as the first comprehensive, national, independent assessment of the agency in 40 years.

“While most people enjoy observing wildlife, Wildlife Services massacres our nation’s wildlife mainly to benefit agribusiness,” Keefover-Ring said.

“They’re killing more and more predators, and more endangered species and using more tax resources,” she said.

The result is a “sledgehammer approach” to wildlife management that in many cases could be replaced by non-lethal alternatives, the report concluded.

More than 40,000 of the coyotes killed in 2007 were in just four states — Texas (19,123), Wyoming (10,915), California (7,759) and Nevada (7,447).

In addition to concerns about the fiscal and biological impacts, the use of helicopters and small planes to fly low enough for contracted sharp shooters to pick off the coyotes has resulted in plane crashes killing 10 and injuring 28 from 1979-2007, the report said.

Aides to Vilsack referred questions about the program to USDA’s Animal, Plant, Health Inspection Service, which oversees Wildlife Services.

USDA spokeswoman Carol Bannerman said Vilsack intends to review all of USDA’s programs but that it would be weeks before he had any idea about possible changes he wants to make.

Bannerman said the federal agency only kills predators when livestock owners or state officials request their assistance. She said most of the time those private individuals or state agencies provide about half the funding for the effort.

“From our perspective, we certainly feel that we have a responsibility to respond to those requests,” she said from APHIS headquarters in Riverdale, Md.

Bannerman said the agency is required to review each individual project under the regulations of the National Environmental Policy Act “and move ahead only if there would be no long-term negative impact on the environment.”

“With that mandate … we can give people an outlet to deal with a problem that if they took into their own hands could have longer-term negative impacts,” she said.

The agricultural commodities’ groups said in their letter to Vilsack about a month ago that livestock losses to predation cost producers more than $125 million a year.

“Without non-lethal and lethal predator control by Wildlife Services, these numbers could easily double or even triple,” said Skye Krebs, an Oregon rancher and president of the Public Lands Council, which spearheaded the letter along with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

“The agency provides a means for striking a balance in the wildlife-livestock interface, including limiting the spread of disease from wildlife,” Krebs said.

___

On the Net:

WildEarth Guardians: http://www.wildearthguardians.org

USDA Wildlife Services: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association: http://www.beef.org

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »