It’s time to face the facts: you don’t boost economic health by creating massive federal debt, taking over significant chunks of the private sector, creating massive new bureaucracies that to hobble what parts of the private sector you’re not putting under direct government control already, and trying to gin up class warfare that results in what success stories still exist in the private sector refusing to risk growing any further. There’s a lot that’s been put in place over the past 19 months that needs to be removed. They were bad ideas when they were proposed, people who know this stuff said they’d result in even further slowing of the economy and lower tax revenues, and the results now in the books have proven those people right.
Of course, this administration will do no such thing. They’ve invested everything into passing this agenda and to pull any of it back would be admitting they set us on the wrong track. It’s up to we, the people, to handle it for them and we can start that process in earnest on November 2nd.
I am drawing a line in the sand Mr. President: No matter how much money you and Governor Doyle try to spend before the end of the year, I will put a stop to this boondoggle the day I take office.
It’s outrageous for Secretary La Hood to suggest that your administration can force Wisconsin to continue building a train it doesn’t want and cannot afford. Almost as outrageous as the fact that the decision to saddle Wisconsin taxpayers with untold millions in operating and maintenance costs, forever, was never debated or voted on by the Wisconsin legislature. If it had been, this letter would not be necessary.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, my opponent in the race to replace Governor Doyle, has made the Milwaukee to Madison train the centerpiece of his economic development plan for Wisconsin. The Mayor tells us that spending $810 million on high-speed rail will create thousands of new Wisconsin jobs, but according to the federal government’s own estimate, the total number of permanent jobs created will be 55. That’s $14.5 million per job, not including any hidden costs!
Yeesh, that’s worse than the average of $300K per job I’ve seen elsewhere. This is the 2nd locality I’ve seen where a large, expensive public-works transportation program has been enacted with little support from the citizens living in the area. (The other one is Cincinnati.) After Seattle’s experience with a transport project of such scale and expense, I would have thought there would be a bit more caution about projects like this. That’s especially true in this economy and with existing transportation infrastructure in such need of the funding.
Jim Callaghan, a veteran writer for the teachers union, told The Post he was booted from his $100,000-a-year job just two months after he informed UFT President Michael Mulgrew that he was trying to unionize some of his co-workers.
“I was fired for trying to start a union at the UFT,” said a dumbfounded Callaghan, who worked for the union’s newsletter and as a speechwriter for union leaders for the past 13 years.
That would be the definition of hypocrisy – that an organization dedicated to both unionizing every school system they can and making it extremely difficult to fire any teacher holding membership in their union would respond by immediately firing an employee of theirs who dared to attempt to emulate their act. Told about the intention, UFT President Michael Mulgrew was apparently blunt about the reason for his resistance:
“I told him I want to have the same rights that teachers have,” said Callaghan, 63, of Staten Island. “He told me he didn’t want that, that he wanted to be able to fire whoever he wanted to.”
The UFT has long strenuously resisted city efforts to make it easier for school administrators to fire teachers.
Indeed they have. Which begs the question: if it’s so important to Mulgrew that he have this ability, why wouldn’t it be important for a school system to have the same? After all, a bad speechwriter can only affect the guy using his work to give a speech. A bad teacher can negatively affect the learning ability of hundreds or thousands of students over a career. I’d say it’s even more important to be able to fire bad teachers than bad speechwriters.
I have extended family that are members of unions and they’re not all bad. But the overall air of elitist entitlement these teachers’ unions display just shows this kind of hypocrisy isn’t a one-off case, it’s endemic. I’d recommend UFT reverse themselves quickly if they don’t want to take a major hit in the public’s eye.
You know, when George Bush was in office I got to listen to a near-endless litany of progressives/liberal/democrats complaining about the amount of time off the man took. He golfed less in the last 4 years in office than Obama has in his first two – and we’re not even to the 2-year mark, yet – and people howled and gnashed teeth over Bush’s down time. When the Bush’s went on vacation, they generally spent it at home in Crawford or up at Kennebunkport. How come I don’t hear them complaining so loudly over the Obamas’ varied vacations? First it was date night in New York. Then it’s vacation in Hawaii, and New England, and Chicago. I think we’ve already covered the rounds of golf.
Spanish police cleared off a stretch of beach for U.S. first lady Michelle Obama and daughter Sasha to relax by the Mediterranean Friday after a busy day of sightseeing.
Police used palm trees to mark off the boundaries of a 100-meter (100-yard) expanse for the American delegation. On either side, onlookers gawked.
As the first lady rested inside a canvas hut by the shore, her 9-year-old daughter splashed around in the sea and a security guard swam with her.
The First Lady is in Spain for 5 days. Roger Simon of Pajamas Media offers some additional detail and wonders about the growing signs that Obama doesn’t seem to care if he gets re-elected:
Michelle’s $375,000 Spanish vacation — with the Daily Mail dubbing her a “modern-day Marie Antoinette” — is further proof of my thesis. What man who wanted to be re-elected (or see his party do well in November) would let his wife go off on such an “excellent adventure” in these economic times? Of course no one denies the right of people to have vacations – I’m coming to the end of one myself on my beloved Bainbridge Island — but closing Mediterranean beaches while booking 60-plus rooms in a five star Marbella hotel for her entourage? It is beyond tone deaf, perhaps to the level of subconscious (or even deliberate) self-sabotage.
At the very least, something most peculiar is going on. The first lady goes off on a jaunt worthy of 18th Century aristocracy at the very moment of her husband’s birthday. Is somebody trying to tell us something? Is somebody trying to tell her spouse something? Or vice-versa? Who knows? You won’t find out in the mainstream media — that’s for sure. They don’t even bother to check Obama’s college records. Perhaps the National Enquirer is on the case. They may be the only hope.
I have to admit, I was a bit surprised when I heard of Mrs. Obama and one of their daughters going to Spain while the other daughter and Dad stayed home – over Dad’s birthday. I know that if my wife suggested to my daughter that the two of them go on a vacation over my birthday, my kid would want to know why Dad’s not coming along. My wife even suggested to me this morning that the kid would be rather ticked about missing my birthday. It just seems strange.
There is nothing wrong with taking down time, especially in a stressful job. And for the record, I have no real issue with the President getting in a round of golf when he can. (I even think a round a week isn’t too much to be asking for.) But there’s a matter of how this looks to be taking vacations most Americans’ can’t even dream of right now when the economy is doing so badly. For a guy trying to get all of us to believe that “the rich” are such bad people, he’s sure acting like he’s the worst example of the lot. Most of all, I just want to see these people who moaned and complained for 8 years of the previous administration show a little fairness in their complaints. If it was bad for Bush to be doing it, then it’s bad for Obama and they should be saying so with equal vigor. If it’s not a bad thing, then they should have the decency to admit that they shouldn’t have been so hard on the last guy and that his down time was OK, too.
With the district in a financial crisis and hundreds of its members facing layoffs, the Milwaukee teachers union is taking a peculiar stand: fighting to get their taxpayer-funded Viagra back.
The union has asked a judge to order the school board to again include Pfizer Inc.’s erectile dysfunction drug and similar pills in its health insurance plans.
My God, that sounds like an article in The Onion. But it’s not – it’s real. What’s just mind-boggling is that these “teachers” are well aware of the economic situation and they know all about the budget problems. They. Don’t. Care. They just want what they want and they feel they’re owed; that you owe them this. Never mind that the schools can’t afford to keep teachers in the classrooms. The union wants their members to get theirs.
Let’s say you’re a Democrat. How do you feel about thousands of your tax dollars going to the political campaigns of, say, Eric Cantor (R-VA) or even to Sarah Palin’s PAC? Or, if you’re a Republican, how about a boatload of cash headed over to Nancy Pelosi or MoveOn.org? I’m going to guess you’d not be too pleased but that’s exactly what could be happening right now.
Companies that avoided going the way of Pan Am or WorldComm on the backs of taxpayer-funded bailouts are spending millions of dollars on political causes and campaigns. Believe it:
Several companies that escaped financial failure two years ago through massive taxpayer-funded bailouts are spending millions of dollars to make donations to political causes and even some candidates’ campaigns.
General Motors, Chrysler and Citigroup are just three of the biggest bailout recipients who have continued to remain politically active, through their political action committees, federal lobbying or direct donations to the pet projects of lawmakers.
The potential public relations disaster for firms spending big dollars on political causes and federal lobbying after being extended a taxpayer lifeline has led some, such as AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to suspend their political activities until they pay the government back in full.
Other companies, however, defend their political engagement by saying their political action committees are voluntary groups that employees use to support political causes, that their federal lobbying is necessary to keep Congress informed of their mission, and that donations to pet projects are going to a good cause.
Lobbying is necessary to keep Congress informed? Bullshit. Utter crap. Lobbying is the practice of applying persuasion to government officials in order to achieve a desired outcome. Persuasion is not informing, folks, it’s persuasion. Want to keep Congress informed? Start up a Wiki for members of Congress to use. Hell, give ‘em your Facebook page or write them a good, old-fashioned letter if you need to. Spending millions on political issues when the money you’re using to keep your operations alive is coming from taxpayers who didn’t get a say in whether or not Company X got to live while Company Y bites the dust isn’t ethical in any way, shape or form. It’s yet another sign of the arrogance of these companies who first managed to convince Congress that they needed to stay alive badly enough that they were owed taxpayer funding and now must be allowed to spend their cash giving back to the same Congress that voted to let them have the money to begin with.
Ridiculous. No company that accepted any bailout money of any kind should be permitted to spend that money on any campaign or political cause until that money is repaid – and I mean really repaid, GM. And don’t try telling me that it’s coming from a different pool of money. The only reason they even have money at all is because the taxpayer bailouts allowed them to keep breathing. When all of the bailout money is repaid – in full – then they can say they’re spending only the money they’ve earned. Not until.
This practice should cease immediately. It has certainly solidified my stance that I won’t be buying any of their products until they’ve paid everything off and until the government has divested themselves entirely of any ownership. I’ll just spend my money at Ford, Toyota, Honda, or some other company that kept going on their own work.
You’d never know from the story but it’s a fact that Ford Motor Company declined to accept any of the taxpayer money being thrown around the industry, preferring to remain in business by being, you know, a profitable business.
Obama’s sinking support numbers with women sent him running to the friendly ground of ABC’s “The View” where he offered this commentary:
“You now have all those U.S. auto companies showing a profit. They’ve rehired 55,000 workers. We are going to get all the money back that we invested in those car companies,” Obama said in an interview aired Thursday on the ABC daytime talk show “The View.”
He said the government is on track to recover all the taxpayer money his administration poured into GM, Chrysler, auto lenders and suppliers to avert a near-certain industrywide meltdown.
Again, Ford is showing their profit on the basis of their hard work, tough decisions, and superior product. How tough is it, after all, to show profits when you dump massive amounts of debt in a bankruptcy, declare your existing stock to be next to worthless and gin up some new paper to sell, conveniently, to the federal government? Oh, and to have lots of cash infusions to cover those pesky things like expenses. Answer: not too tough at all. But let’s have a quick look at the President’s strong assertion that “[w]e are going to get all the money back that we invested in those car companies.” As soon as that little bit of misdirection went to air we saw the White House immediately scramble to clarify a rather critical item:
However, the White House said that proclamation referred only to the $60 billion spent by the Obama administration, not the additional $25 billion funneled to the industry in 2008 under the Bush administration. The most recent government estimate found that taxpayers will lose $24.3 billion on the auto bailout.
Pardon me, but when someone tells me I’m going to get “all” of my cash back, I assume that means “all.” As in: every penny. In Obamaworld, it only means the part he thinks is important. Of course, the announcement that taxpayers are looking at a significant loss under this program didn’t get near the scope of listeners that Obama’s initial comments got. I suspect that was intentional. They were spending way too much time talking about how great things are now:
In a report on the status of the auto industry, the White House said failing to intervene would have led to the loss of nearly 1.1 million jobs. The auto industry has added 55,000 jobs in the year since the automotive bankruptcies, making it the strongest year of job growth in the industry since 1999.
The administration pointed to several signs of progress: plans by GM and Chrysler to skip the typical summer shutdown of several auto plants to meet demand for hot-selling vehicles and the addition of shifts at GM, Chrysler and Ford Motor Co. plants. The report notes that the three companies are beginning to post profits.
Again, note that they’re using figures on “the auto industry” that will include the hiring numbers of firms like Ford, Toyota, and Honda who didn’t take any bailout funds. To include those numbers is to claim success for something they didn’t have a damned thing to do with, not that this is a major sticking point for this administration. In the lead-up to the bankruptcies, these firms did what most firms do: they shed personnel. With the shot in the arm filled with taxpayer cash, is it at all surprising that they could hire hundreds of those workers back? Want to impress me? Tell me 1) how many of those 55,000 jobs were added by firms who got a bailout and 2) tell me how many of those were simply people being rehired to jobs they’d been let go from. I want to know if the payrolls for those bailout companies are higher than they were 2 years ago, not last year when they were climbing onto the taxpayers’ backs.
And I have the same problem with touting additional shifts brought on at Ford as I do the rest of this spin: Ford didn’t rely on taxpayer funding to stay a going concern.
The Democrats are desperate to show the Obama administration as an effective organization and their programs as working solutions. That doesn’t give them the clearance to lie and cheat about it.
I note that the Bush-era tax cuts are back in the news again with the argument over whether to extend them or not heating up fast. Democrats in Congress can read polling numbers and – whether they want to admit it or not – they can understand what angry constituents showing up at increasingly rare town hall meetings are saying. The clock’s winding down on the Dem’s ability to just do whatever they want and to hell with the People’s will. Their incentive to govern in accordance with that will is decreasing exponentially, leaving them with little more than trying to justify their decisions as quickly as they can. Part of that justification is to continue to mislead people on the matter of these tax cuts, both in terms of what they are and in terms of what they do.
“Tax cuts for the wealthy” is the titled they continually glue onto those cuts, enacted during the Bush administration and set to expire in January. As has been repeatedly shown, however, is that those cuts applied to every citizen in the United States, regardless of income level. Someone making $30,000 a year got those cuts just the same as someone making $300,000 a year. The fact that those cuts generate a larger sum for someone making a larger amount of money isn’t injustice, it’s mathematics. And no one has yet explained to me why one American is owed less consideration for the “bread [he] has earned”1 than another merely because that first one makes more bread. The point is that the tax cuts were not for “the wealthy,” they were for all of us.
Now that they’re in the position they’re in, the Dems are trying to make it all about a “tax cuts for the wealthy” situation by proposing to extend the tax cuts, but only for families making less than $250,000 a year. Republicans are resisting that but it’s not a function of just wanting to protect the rich at the expense of the common Joe. The fact is that most of the job creation in this country – assuming you disregard the government, which isn’t generating jobs that actually help the economy anyway – is coming from small business. Small businesses are owned and operated by people with the cash to start up and maintain (mostly) but not with cash reserves sufficient for them to be buying luxury yachts2. In other words, the people comprising families making $250,000 annually. In many parts of the country – like the one I live in, for instance – making that kind of money isn’t a huge stretch for a double-income family. Allowing these tax cuts to expire is hitting our economy in the job-creation engine right at the time we need it to be firing on all thrusters.
Lastly, let’s quit accepting the notion that speaking of what extending these cuts will “cost” us is the right frame of reference. Since when did letting our citizens keep the fruits of their labor equate to an expense? When someone like Best Buy only makes $2 million in a month instead of 3, would any of us think it was reasonable for them to assert that we consumers “cost” them a million bucks? Not a chance. This circumstance deserves the same regard.
BP says oil has stopped leaking into the Gulf of Mexico for the first time since April, touting the success of its new cap on its broken well.
BP has been slowly dialing down the flow as part of a critical pressure test on its new cap, which it now believes is fully containing the oil for the first time since the crisis began nearly three months ago.
Engineers are monitoring the pressure to see if the busted well holds, but has already said their custom-fitted cap will be a temporary fix before they permanently clog the blown-out well.
I’m looking forward to hearing independent confirmation of this but it’s good news, that’s for sure. If it’s actually true, we must now bend our efforts into cleanup. It’s not technically difficult but it’s a long, monotonous process. The faster we can put all of the assets we have into it, the faster it’ll get done.
Search the web:
RSS Feed
Ric's Twitter