All Da King's Men

Palin At The Tea Party Convention

by Da King on February 7, 2010

Here's the video of Sarah Palin's keynote speech at the Tea Party Convention. The mainstream media usually covers Palin by saying things like, "she throws red meat to the conservative base." Then they find the most controversial quote they can dig up, report that, and call Palin "polarizing" and/or "divisive." That's about the extent of how they cover Palin, except for the disparaging comments about her intellect and other various personal attacks. (question – why doesn't the MSM ever call Obama polarizing and divisive ? To me, he's the most divisive President in memory). The Associated Press actually called the following speech "short on ideas, but long on enthusiasm." That was their "objective" conclusion. I disrespectfully disagree – a lot. The AP was trying to minimize Palin, as the media generally attempts to do with her. That game is getting very tired, and very transparent.

Without further ado, here is the Palin speech in it's entirety. The video is just over 59 minutes long. Judge for yourself:

{ 21 comments }

The Politicization Of Jobs

by Da King on February 6, 2010

in Democrats, GOP, Uncategorized, White House administration, bailout funds, economics, federal spending, jobs

Here's Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), talking about job losses:

“…misguided economic policies have failed to create jobs. Since [the President] took office, the country has lost 3.2 million jobs, the worst record since President Hoover…Job losses are taking a real toll on the financial security of American families…According to today’s survey, while the national unemployment rate dropped slightly, it still stands at a near record high."

Pelosi is being pretty hard on President Obama here, isn't she ?

No, not a bit. Pelosi wasn't talking about Obama. The words I quoted above are from August 2003, and San Fran Nan was talking about President Bush's "misguided economic policies." After Bush had been in office 19 months, Pelosi was castigating the President for an unemployment rate of 6.1%, caused mainly by the recession Bush inherited and 9/11. If Bush implemented any "misguided economic policies" that negatively affected unemployment, then Pelosi must be referring to Bush's across-the-board tax cuts for all taxpayers, though that doesn't make any sense. Tax cuts would only assuage rising unemployment, not add to it. Ask Obama, he cut taxes in his stimulus package to assuage rising unemployment.

Now, let me give you the statement Pelosi did make about the current job situation, with unemployment at 9.7% (actually waaaay higher) and a Democratic President at the helm who presided over more than 4 million job losses in his first 12 months in office:

"Today's jobs report marks a welcome step in the right direction for our economy and our families: the unemployment rate is going down. The Recovery Act, which Congress passed one year ago to pull our economy back from the brink of collapse, has already created or saved nearly 2 million jobs so far. Yet our work is far from over. This recession that President Obama inherited has taken the worst toll on our job market since World War II.

Here we have a tale of two Presidents – they both inherited recessions. They both presided over an economy shedding jobs during their first year in office….Notice how Pelosi treats the two Presidents exactly the same, lol. Just kidding. That's the opposite of what Pelosi did. She blamed Bush for recessionary circumstances beyond his control and cast Bush's jobs performance in the worst possible light, while she gave credit to President Obama for recessionary circumstances beyond his control and cast Obama's jobs performance in the best possible light. That's the politicization of jobs.

That's also why I hate most politicians with a passion, and wouldn't trust them to feed my cat while I was out of town, much less trust them to run the country.

It's not only Democrats who politicize jobs, of course. The Republicans are doing their level best to blame job losses on Obama now, and they continually cite Obama's guarantee that unemployment would not rise above 8% if the stimulus package was passed. Okay, so Obama miscalculated. So what ? Who didn't miscalculate the size of this recession ? Almost everyone did, or at least everyone who had it in their power to do something about it. In any case, it's not like Obama was elected President due to his expertise in economics. He was elected due to his soarting rhetoric, not his record of achievement. He didn't have a record of achievement. He's learning on the job right now. That's OUR fault, not his.

I don't blame the job losses on President Obama. It's unfair to do so, any more than it was to blame the 2001-2002 job losses on Bush. If I have any criticism of Obama on jobs, it would probably be his obsession with health care reform in his first year when there were more pressing economic matters. Also, the uncertainty surrounding the future of health care makes the private sector unsure and hesitant. Business people like to know what their costs and risks are prior to making financial commitments, and Obama has introduced a significant amount of uncertainty into the private sector. We don't know what health care will cost. We don't know what energy will cost. We don't know where taxes will be. We don't know what regulations will be put into place. He's subsidizing one company and not another. And lately, since the Massachusetts election, Obama's policies seem like a patchwork quilt of confusion. He's trying to be a liberal, a moderate, and a conservative all at the same time. It almost seems like he's campaigning instead of leading. All his promises come with expiration dates, and a lot of his rhetoric seems tied to the previous day's news cycle, never a good sign for a President. Obama has added more uncertainty to already extremely uncertain times. Then he wonders why banks are hesitant to loan money, after the banks just got devastated from making questionable loans. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see why they are hesitant now.

But the job losses ? No, those are not Obama's fault, just as the majority of the decrease in the job losses have little to do with Obama either, though he'd like you to believe otherwise. They have more to do with the overall stabilization of the economy. We hit bottom (for now), that's all. You can credit TARP and other bailouts and rescue efforts for stabilizing the financial system and the economy, and you can credit the stimulus package for stopping an even worse hemorrhaging of jobs if you wish, even though we can't measure it. I'm sure over $350 billion spent in stimulus so far had some effect, even if it didn't "save or create 2 million jobs" as the President claims. In fact, if we have to give someone the most credit for stopping the financial collapse and therefore saving jobs, it's probably the Fed, who committed $6.4 trillion to the financial rescue effort. Yes, you heard that number correctly. That's $6.4 TRILLION. If you want to get really depressed, go to this CNN Money link for a list of all the financial rescue efforts. In total, THE GOVERNMENT HAS COMMITTED OVER $11 TRILLION. Thus, using the word "credit" to talk about job loss reductions is a mixed blessing at best. The government cures are almost as bad as the disease, maybe worse.

Not that there's anything to worry about.

{ 21 comments }

The Latest Obama Talking Points

by Da King on February 2, 2010

in Uncategorized, White House administration, budget, economics, federal spending

In his friday meeting with House Republicans, President Obama made the following statement:

"The fact of the matter is, is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. $1.3 trillion. So — so when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly budget that is higher than the annual — or a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true. And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade. It had nothing to do with anything that we had done. It had to do with the fact that in 2000, when there was a budget surplus of $200 billion, you had a Republican administration and a Republican Congress, and we had two tax cuts that weren't paid for, you had a prescription drug plan — the biggest entitlement plan, by the way, in several decades — that was passed, without it being paid for, you had two wars that were done through supplementals, and then you had $3 trillion projected because of the lost revenue of this recession. That's $8 trillion. Now, we increased it by $1 trillion because of the spending that we had to make on the stimulus.

Democrats are absolutely giddy with excitement over the above Obama claims. They think Obama the GOP slayer has set the record straight. I am, however, more than happy to fact-check the President's claims here, because a lot of them are either wrong or misleading.

Let's start with that alleged $200 billion surplus Clinton left in 2000.

It never happened. I know most of you probably think it did happen, but it didn't. It was a budgetary trick, a gimmick. Clinton did come close to balancing the budget with his Republican Congress, but there was never a surplus. I addressed this misconception in a previous post. The federal debt actually increased by $17.9 billion in 2000. That's a DEFICIT, not a surplus.

Next, let's address the unbelievably inane Democratic talking point that the Clinton administration left us on a path for budget surpluses for the next decade, which Bush came along and ruined single-handedly.

Those imaginary surpluses of 2000 were gone the very next year, in 2001. Remember, fiscal year 2001 budgeting was done by the Clinton administration and Clinton's Republican Congress (the federal government's fiscal year runs from October 1st to September 30th). When Bush entered office, he inherited a recession too, mostly due to the dot-com bust, later worsened by the after-effects of 9/11. Neither of those events were caused by Bush. There were never going to be any ten-year surpluses. Reality intervened. All Democrats, including Obama, tell us now that deficit spending is peachy-keen and necessary to fix a bad economy, and Bush did his part by enacting his 2001 tax cuts. Somehow, Democrats didn't agree so much then as they do now. Here's how the NY Times described it in May, 2001:

Congress gave final approval today to the biggest tax cut in a generation, voting to reduce all income tax rates over the next five years and to give the weakened economy a quick jolt by sending rebates to taxpayers this summer.

Following 9/11, we had the Afghanistan war, which EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN THE SENATE VOTED FOR. The Afghanistan AUMF passed the Senate by a vote of 98-0. That spending came from EVERYONE, not just Bush. Later, came the Iraq AUMF. Democrats in the Senate SUPPORTED that war, by a margin of 29-21. The Senate at that time consisted of 49 Republicans, 50 Democrats, and 1 Independent. It was not controlled by the Republicans. Democrats voted FOR the spending for both wars.

Now, let's move on to the Bush era deficits. This is pretty interesting too.

2002 deficit: $157.8 billion
2003 deficit: $377.6 billion
2004 deficit: $412.7 billion
2005 deficit: $318.3 billion
2006 deficit: $248.2 billion
2007 deficit: $160.7 billion
2008 deficit: $460 billion
2009 deficit: $1.42 trillion

I think we have to look back on those Bush deficits, with the exception of 2009, as the good old days, relatively speaking, no ? It even looks like Bush was heading for a balanced budget, with the deficits dropping in 2005, 2006, and 2007 (and with two wars going, two Bush tax cuts, and Medicare Part D implemented, no less), until the housing sector imploded. Now we have $1 trillion+ deficits projected as far as the eye can see. And if I argued like liberals do, I'd point out that the two largest Bush-era deficits came after the Democrats took over singular command of Congress, and that those two deficits under Democratic leadership were far greater than the previous six years of Bush deficits combined. I might even point out that Barack Obama was in the Senate then, and voted for every budget and spending proposal.

The CBO tells us why the deficit increased so much from 2008 to 2009. From Wikipedia:

The CBO reported in October 2009 reasons for the difference between the 2008 and 2009 deficits, which were approximately $460 billion and $1,410 billion, respectively. Key categories of changes included: tax receipt declines of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense.

You can't blame any politician for revenue drops during the recession, although Obama tried to in his statement that kicked off this post, by acting like he inherited a $3 trillion revenue drop from Bush. Let's look at how much revenue was lost before Obama stepped into the White House. Here are the revenue numbers:

FY2007 – $2.568 trillion federal revenue.
FY2008 – $2.524 trillion federal revenue.
FY2009 – $2.105 trillion federal revenue.

From this, we see that revenue peaked at $2.568 trillion before the recession. Then it dropped by $24 billion in 2008 and $419 billion in 2009. That totals $443 billion that you could say was lost prior to Obama stepping into the White House……BUT….Obama passed $288 billion in tax cuts in 2009 as part of his stimulus package, so he's responsible for part of that lost revenue. A good deal of it, actually. I don't see $3 trillion in lost revenue that Obama "inherited" here, do you ? I see more like $155 billion,. Plus, 2008 and 2009 were deflationary years. If I adjusted for inflation, that loss would be even less. As for projecting revenue drops into the future to explain things away, our double-talking President would be well-served to remember whose job it is to address that situation. It's HIS job, along with Congress. So liberals can understand how ridiculous Obama's claim is, imagine if President Bush had said the dot-com bust and 9/11 recession was going to cause him to run up $3 trillion in debt 10 years later. Liberals would have made a laughingstock of Bush if he had said something so stupid, and rightfully so. Obama's claim of inheriting $3 trillion in lost revenue is nothing more than Obama claiming he's not up to doing his job.

Let's look at the deficit increases the politicians could control:

Who implemented the stimulus tax cuts ? Obama and the Democrats.
Who implemented TARP ? Bush, Republicans, and DEMOCRATS. Obama voted FOR it. A greater percentage of Democrats voted for TARP than did Republicans.
The increases in Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and defense were supported by both parties, including Obama.

I guess Obama thinks he "inherited" deficits that he and his party actively voted FOR. That makes him a dishonest jerk, a synonym for "politician."

Last, let's look at Obama's incredible declaration that $8 trillion in deficits over the next decade are not his responsibility. He claims he inherited those as well, and also claims he only added $1 trillion to the deficit.

Do I even really need to address this fantastic bit of nonsense ? Obama IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He spent tons of money to get the job. His party CONTROLS BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS. They can do whatever they want to do, and that includes DEFICIT REDUCTION. I'm sure they'lll get no resistance on that front from Republicans, who've been screaming about deficits from the rafters all year long. Let's look how the federal spending has increased:

FY2002 – $2.011 trillion (first Bush/GOP budget)
FY2007 – $2.729 trillion (last GOP Congressional budget)
FY2008 – $2.983 trillion (Democrat Congressional budget)
FY2009 – $3.518 trillion (Democrat Congressional budget)
FY2010 – $3.83 trillion (Democrat Congressional budget)

What this shows us is that in six years, the GOP-led (or neutral in the Senate) Congress increased spending by about $870 billion in six years (2002-2007). When the Democrats took over Congress, they increased spending by $900 billion in only THREE YEARS (2008-2010). The Democrats are increasing spending over twice as fast as the GOP did, and Obama voted in FAVOR of every one of those budgets. Obama has fixed spending at a rate nearly $1 trillion per year higher going forward than it was only two short years ago, and then he wants to pretend it's someone else's fault. Un-real.

FINDING – Obama is engaging in full-fledged partisan spin. He doesn't even take responsibility for his own votes in the Senate that increased the deficits he now claims he "inherited." He doesn't take responsibility for anything his party voted for during the Bush era. He doesn't take responsibility for his own massive spending increases. All he is admitting to is basically the $862 billion stimulus package, plus a couple other things.

Who does this guy think he's fooling ??? Besides liberals, that is. They LOVE his misdirection. The rest of us know better.

Note to liberals – This was NOT a defense of the Bush administration. Y'all always get confused about that. I was against the Bush deficits, the Iraq War, and the unfunded Medicare Part D too. I don't want to hear any more silly misdirection comments here arguing as if I supported all those things. This was merely a fleshing out of the Democratic and Obaman involvement in things, to shine a little light on the twisting of history that invariably occurs. Our current Prez is a world-class twister. I'm sorry you have to hear that, but unfortunately, it's true. I wish it wasn't.

Update – I just realized I left something important out about Obama's distortions. When Obama said he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit when he walked in the door in 2009, that included the Bush-era $700 billion TARP spending (that Obama and the Dems voted FOR). What Obama failed to include was that about $500 billion of TARP has been repaid by the banks, reducing the deficit Obama claims he "inherited" to $800 billion. Yet, the 2009 deficit was over $1.4 trillion. Obama nearly doubled the 2009 deficiit, and is raising it even more next year. The man seems incapable of honesty.

{ 33 comments }

The Core Problem

by Da King on February 1, 2010

in Uncategorized, economics

When President Clinton declared 'the era of big government is over" in 1996, the federal budget of the United States Of America was $1.56 trillion. A mere fifteen years later, President Obama has announced a $3.83 trillion budget for 2011. I don't think I'm alone in saying the rumors of the death of big government were greatly exaggerated. The increase in spending alone since 1996 ($2.3 trillion) is substantially more than the entire federal budget was in 1996. It's no surprise that federal revenue has not been able to keep up with this spending explosion, and even if it had, imagine the effect that would have had on our economy. Imagine the economy as it is now, but with the federal tax burden DOUBLE what it is currently. Nightmarish.

It's not like GDP increases justify this spending boom either. In 1996, the GDP was $7.762 trillion. Now, it's $14.4 trillion. Our GDP has increased by 85% while our federal spending has increased by 145% over the same period. If our federal spending was in line with GDP, the federal budget should be around $2.88 trillion now, but it's a trillion dollars higher. We've managed to increase spending by a trillion dollars per year above GDP. That's a trillion per year that comes out of the private sector, a trillion per year more that comes out of the taxpayers pockets.

But we don't pay for all these enormous federal spending increases, as bad as that would be for the economy. No, what we do is even worse. We deficit spend and run up the federal debt. We borrow or print the money. The reason this is worse is because when we run up the debt, we are not only indebting future taxpayers for our irresponsibility, but they also have to pay interest on the debt. We pay hundreds of billions of dollars in interest on the debt now, and it we keep on the trajectory we're heading, as it appears we will judging from the latest numbers coming out, by 2019 we would be paying more than $700 billion per year in interest on the debt alone. To put this in perspective, our entire defense budget now is about $644 billion. That $700 billion in interest on the debt would be money flushed down the toilet, of no use to any American.

And now for the bad news. As bad as our economic prospects are already, we have an economic time bomb getting ready to detonate very soon. That bomb is known as the baby boom generation, the largest group of citizens in America. The baby boomers will begin to retire next year, and by the end of this decade, most of them will be out of the workforce. This will have a number of effects on our economy. First of all, consider that much of the economic growth from the mid-1980's until now has come due to the boomers. They entered the workforce, started earning money, and started SPENDING money, leading to economic growth. As the peak earning years of the boomers starts to wane, they will do LESS SPENDING, resulting in less economic growth. Remember, 70-80% of our economy is based upon consumer spending. That spending will start dropping very soon, as the boomers move into retirement. Secondly, just as the boomers leave the workforce, move into retirement, and start spending less money, thereby inhibiting economic growth, they will start putting an enormous demand on Social Security and Medicare, the two entitlement programs that represent the majority of our federal budget.

And guess what ? We aren't prepared to pay those boomers. We have an estimated $55 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities on top of our $12.3 trillion current debt, a debt that is projected to reach $21 trillion or so by 2019. There is no money in the mythical Social Security Trust Fund (Congress stole it), and Medicare is on a definite path to bankruptcy, in far worse shape than Social Security.

So, what does it all mean ?

It means we are headed for the perfect economic storm, one that will surely bankrupt our country. We are facing nothing less than an economic tsunami, while our distinguished Congresspersons watch it come, doing nothing. Even worse than doing nothing, they are actively making things worse by ramping up federal spending, deficits, and debt at a rate unprecedented in the history of our country. Congress and the White House have gone beyond irresponsibility. This level of depraved indifference to the economic situation America is facing should be a crime, a very serious crime. And I'm not talking about just Democrats or just Republicans here. It's both parties. Almost all of them are complicit in this criminal negligence.

Think about this – we live in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, yet our federal government has never been able to balance the budget in my entire lifetime. That debt has accumulated and accumulated ever since I was born, and I'm 56 years old. It seems to get progressively worse as each year passes. It's absolutely unconscionable.

The federal government is leading us off the brink into the abyss, and I'm so fed up with it that the words I'm writing here can barely express it. I could care less if Obama says he's' "not an ideologue," or if he complains that he's being "demonized" by the Republicans. So what ? Who gives a flip ? He SHOULD be demonized, as should be every other politician of either party who is part and parcel of this problem, as Obama certainly is. Bush was a part of it too. Democrats, Republicans, I'm sick of them all (although slightly more sick of the Dems and their big government bs, which is the essence of the problem). If I hear one more big spending, big government moron talk about being "compassionate" as they spend us into oblivion, I'm going to turn into Howard Beale from the movie Network and start screaming "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore !' out my window. I don't want to hear Obama blame it all on Bush, and I don't even want to hear the Republicans blame it all on Obama. That's useless political puffery. It's meaningless. What we need are some SOLUTIONS, even if they are painful in the short term, because if we don't come up with them, all of us are going to suffer far more down the road. What I don't want to hear is what I just heard from our President – trifling nods toward fiscal responsibility while he massively increases spending and deficits more and more and more. That is phony political posturing, which solves nothing. We've had enough of that already.

Arrrrrggghhhhh ! No wonder people take Xanax.

P.S. – As bleak as our future is, allow me to point out one bright spot before we all go out and hang ourselves. Here it is – we don't have a long-term unemployment problem. As the boomers retire, starting next year, all kinds of jobs are going to open up for younger workers. In fact, our problem will soon become that we don't have enough workers to fill all the available jobs. The demographics should insure it. So, all you young workers, take heart. You will have jobs…but how you're going to pay all the taxes that my stupid generation is leaving for you is another matter. On behalf of my stupid generation, I sincerely apologize. I never supported the stupid policies of my stupid and greedy generation. I wish all you young people the best of luck. You'll need it to get through the Great Recession ahead.

{ 45 comments }

More Obama SOTU Distortions

by Da King on January 29, 2010

in Uncategorized, White House administration

Well, you could knock me over with a feather. The Associated Press actually fact-checked Obama's State Of The Union speech. Will wonders never cease. They better watch out, or Team Obama will start claiming that the AP is not a real news organization, like they did with Fox News.

The AP found many examples of Obama stretching the truth, in contrast to my friend the Reverend at the Blog Of Mass Destruction, who claimed, "Obama speaks the truth. He's not duplicitous."

Sure, Reverend. Whatever you say.

I am a little surprised that the AP could only find eight or ten examples of Obama's deception. I'll assume they just hit the word maximum for their article and stopped checking. My take on the Obama speech was…..it sure sounded good if you don't already know better. Perhaps the AP is starting to know better now too, so they've decided to tell a little truth about Obama. It's about time. Here are a few of the distortions AP found. I lifted the following partial list from the HotAir website, because I'm being lazy today:

- Spending freeze – The AP points out that it will save less than 1% of predicted deficits over the next ten years — and that Obama scoffed at such a plan when John McCain proposed it in 2008.

- Health care – Obama said the Democratic plan would allow people to keep their insurance and their doctors, but the bill doesn’t guarantee either. Their plan has massive cuts to Medicare Advantage, which would definitely affect coverage of a large portion of America’s seniors and disabled.

- Lobbyists – Obama has not “excluded” lobbyists from his administration; he’s hired over a dozen for key posts, and the AP notes seven of those waivers were for White House posts. Obama called for restrictions on lobbyist contributions, but those already exist.

- Two million jobs saved through Porkulus – The CBO puts the theoretical range between 600K and 1.6 million, but also cautions that the methodology of estimating jobs “saved or created” is “uncertain.” The last detailed numbers the White House produced totaled 650,000 — and were found to be highly inaccurate.

- Openness: “Obama skipped past a broken promise from his campaign — to have the negotiations for health care legislation broadcast on C-SPAN “so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.” Instead, Democrats in the White House and Congress have conducted the usual private negotiations, making multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and other stakeholders behind closed doors. Nor has Obama lived up consistently to his pledge to ensure that legislation is posted online for five days before it’s acted upon.”

HotAir also addressed Obama's self-serving claim that he inherited almost all of the deficits from Bush. There are important caveats to that claim:

Obama repeatedly insisted that he inherited massive budgetary problems from George Bush, but the Con Law professor may want to retake his high-school civics class. Congress passes budgets, not the President, and the last three budgets came from Democrats. In three years, they increased annual federal spending by $900 billion, while the admittedly profligate and irresponsible Republican Congresses under George Bush increased annual federal spending by $800 billion — in six years. And during the last three years before taking office as President, Obama served in the Senate that passed those bills, and he voted for every Democratic budget put in front of him.

So, Obama is now whining about the very budgets he voted FOR when he was in the Senate. Rather than those being budgets and deficits Obama "inherited," which is how Obama characterizes them, those are budgets and deficits Obama and his Democratic cohorts CREATED, along with Bush. The Reverend may say that is "not duplicitous," but I'd say it's not only the very definition of "duplicitous," it's far worse. I'd say Obama is soul-less (along with many other pols), and will say absolutely anything at any time, as long as it serves his needs. The truth is immaterial. All that matters is what he can get the rubes (that's us) to believe.

If you set aside the 15-20 spins and deceptions (by my count) in Obama's SOTU speech, there actually were some things I liked in it. Zeroing capital gains taxes for economic stimulus, his all-around energy approach which included nuclear power and offshore drilling. Those are two that I liked, and there were others. It's just that I no longer take this President at his word, because his actions frequently do not match his rhetoric. Part of this is due to the fact that Obama made more campaign promises than any other candidate in history, by far. That probably should have tipped us off that something was amiss, but it all sounded good in theory, at least to many. Besides, Obama knows it doesn't matter what you say to get yourself in power. All that matters is that you do get power. Now, it also appears Obama thinks he should say anything to keep power…….no matter if it's true or not. And that means things are still amiss.

{ 15 comments }

President Lies About Supreme Court Ruling

by Da King on January 29, 2010

in Uncategorized, White House administration, special interests, supreme court

During wednesday's State Of The Union address, President Obama made the following statement about the recent Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC case:

"[it] open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

Obama made this statement with the entire Supreme Court in attendance. Justice Samuel Alito appeared to respond "that's simply not true" following Obama's statement.

Alito probably said Obama's words were not true because…..

Obama's words were not true.

Here's an explanation from Bradley Smith, law professor at Capital University:

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication."

The President Of The United States owes the Supreme Court an apology. I won't hold my breath.

As for the Citizens United v. FEC ruling allowing special interests to gain a disproportionate foothold in American politics………….you gotta be kidding me. We just got done bailing out Goldman Sachs, AIG, Citigroup, Bank Of America, many other banks and Wall Street firms, foreign banks, General Motors, Chrysler, GE, etc. We subsidize every special interest from Agriculture to Zoology. In Obama's health care reform, the unions got an exemption from the Cadillac tax unavailable to non-union workers. Two senators were bribed with special deals to get their votes. Lobbying on Capital Hill is a booming business. Health care reform is favored by every big health care interest – the insurance companies, big pharma, AARP, etc. They all see it as a great boon to THEIR special interests. You also didn't see tort reform in Obama's health care plan, because the trial lawyers are a huge special interest who contribute to the Democrats.

The facts are – special interests already run the USA, because they run the government. The people who get stuck with the bill are the little guys, the taxpayers. When Obama says he doesn't "think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests," I respond with a different observation – I don't think America's most powerful interests should be bankrolled by the American taxpaying public. And Obama is public enemy #1 in that regard, because he's spending more of our money than ever. And let's not forget the single largest special interest in the country – the federal government itself. Whether it's run by Democrats or Republicans, it's serving the special interests of Democrats or Republicans. And it's robbing us blind, putting the country on the road to economic ruin. Until that changes, the state of the union will never be good, and the presidential State Of The Union message will be a partisan, spin-filled crock.

{ 32 comments }

TOTUS Goes To The Sixth Grade

by Da King on January 27, 2010

in White House administration, humor

Here's Jon Stewart cracking on The Great Tele-Communicator for taking his teleprompter and presidential podium, complete with the presidential seal, to a sixth grade middle school classroom.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

Obama Speaks to a Sixth-Grade Classroom

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

Barack Hussein Obama, truly a man in touch with the little people.

Obama took no questions from the class after his speech, saying "a couple kids looked like they might be plants from Fox News." After it's stint in the sixth grade, TOTUS had to rush back to Washington D.C. to give it's State Of The Union Address tonight. Obama will also be in attendance and serve as the voice of TOTUS, due to a scheduling conflict with TOTUS' first choice, actor Morgan Freeman.

{ 15 comments }

Let's Pretend – Obama Is A Moderate

by Da King on January 27, 2010

in Uncategorized, White House administration, abortion, budget, economics, federal spending, first amendment, freedom, liberalism, moonbats, natonal debt, recession, taxes

The official proclamation from the media is that President Obama is a moderate now, after word came from the White House that Obama will propose a three-year federal spending freeze in tonight's State Of The Union address. The official proclamation claims that the President got the message from the Massachusetts senatorial election, and now he's taking bold steps to deal with our disastrous deficit/debt problem, the one thing certain to destroy the economic future of this country.

Let's scrutinize the official proclamation for accuracy.

1. Obama's spending freeze would only cut non-defense discretionary spending. This is the small part of the federal budget, representing only about 20% of federal spending. It excludes nearly all the major expenditures, such as Social Security, Medicare, other entitlements, and defense. Over ten years, the White House says this spending freeze would save $250 billion, but the White House isn't proposing a ten-year freeze, it's proposing a three-year freeze, from 2011 through 2013. Estimated savings – about $15 billion per year for three years. To put this in perspective, the deficit for FY2009 was $1.5 TRILLION. The estimated deficit for FY2010 is $1.35 TRILLION. Obama's spending freeze is like taking a drop of water out of a bucket-full, it's so minor. If this is an example of Obama being a moderate, we're in trouble.

2. Obama already INCREASED non-defense discretionary spending by about $100 billion during his first year in office. In FY2009, President Bush's last budget, that spending was $589 billion. Obama jumped it to $687 billion for FY2010, and he did it during a recessionary period of no inflation. That's not moderate either. That's standard liberal big government policy.

3. Prior to announcing the three-year spending freeze, Obama had already submitted budgets to Congress for the next three years. Those budgets had called for REDUCTIONS in non-defense discretionary spending after FY 2010. As Alex Conant explains:

In the budget proposal that President Obama submitted to Congress last year, his budget office already projected actual cuts and freezes in “non-defense” discretionary spending for the next three years. That’s in part because of the huge increase in that area of spending that the President requested (and received) for the current fiscal year. To be specific: FY2009 (President Bush’s last budget) had $589 billion in non-defense discretionary spending. That number jumped to $687 billion in FY2010 (Obama’s first budget), and then drops to $641 billion in FY2011, $622 billion in FY2012 and $625 billion in FY2013. So for the White House to now boast that it will freeze non-defense discretionary spending is hardly news. If anything, it’s backtracking on its earlier plans to actually cut that area of spending.

By my math, if Obama freezes spending at the FY2010 level, he will actually be spending $173 billion more than his own previous budget proposals called for. Still sound moderate ???

4. Also excluded from Obama's spending freeze will be the rest of his stimulus package (which has now swelled from $787 billion to $862 billion, according to the CBO), the massive spending of ObamaCare if it passes (at least a trillion over ten years and most likely WAY more), and a second stimulus package that is being contemplated ($174 billion). I don't see anything moderate there either.

There's nothing at all moderate about Barack Obama. Those who say there is are playing their typical game of 'Let's Pretend.'

Still, this spending freeze that isn't…this drop in the bucket…this $15 billion pretend spending cut amidst trillions in defcits and massive federal spending and entitlement increases….has liberals in an uproar. As the Nobel-prize winning Princeton professor, NY Times columnist, and alleged economist, Paul Krugman, said of the imaginary spending freeze, "this is appalling on every level." President Clinton's former Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, actually had the audacity (of a dope) to refer to Obama's move as "fiscal austerity." These guys REALLY like to play 'Let's Pretend.' There has been nothing austere about Obama's fiscal policies to date. Nothing. The reactions of Krugman and Rubin are typical of the liberals, er, I mean progressives. You see, progressives have two fiscal scenarios:

1) During lean economic times like this, they advocate massive government spending and tax increases (like Obama's bank tax, health care taxes, carbon tax, etc, etc).

2) By contrast, during flush economic times, they advocate…um….massive government spending and tax increases.

See the difference ? I don't, but somehow progressives do. They must call them progressives because they progressively take away your income, progressively take away your liberty, progressively take away your rights, and progressively ruin America. I can't think of any other reason to call them progressives on the fiscal front.

Far from being a moderate, Obama is the biggest liberal to ever hold the office of President, by far. His little kabuki theater of fiscal responsibility shouldn't fool anyone.

P.S. – Speaking of progressives taking away your rights, I see the progressive anti-free speech crusade is continuing. They are still trying to stop groups from airing ads on television. This time they are trying to censor Tim Tebow's mother. They don't like her Super Bowl ad, where she says she's glad she didn't listen to the doctors who recommended she abort the future Heisman trophy winner. Progressives know we can't have any crazy talk like that floating around, with mothers going around saying they're glad they had their babies and stuff. With this brilliant move, progressives have now placed themselves solidly in the anti-life, anti-free speech camp. You couldn't make this stuff up, nobody would believe it. They are not only against freedom of speech now, they are against human beings as well.

{ 14 comments }

It's All Bush's Fault ???

by Da King on January 25, 2010

in Democrats, Uncategorized, White House administration, federal reserve, recession

Every time I hear President Obama or any other Democrat blame George W. Bush for the recession, it makes my head want to explode. It is so dishonest that words can barely describe it. Yes, Bush was the President when it happened, but Bush didn't put the policies in place that made it happen. For the last 16 months, I've asked every liberal who said 'it's Bush's fault' to tell me what Bush policy or policies caused the recession, and I'm still waiting for an answer. They got next to nothing (except maybe for Greenspan and Bernanke keeping interest rates too low, which is Fed policy, not White House policy), because there is next to nothing. I don't say this because I'm a Bush fan. I'm not one. I say this because I have a fondness for the truth.

To find out what did cause the recession, consider this New York Times article from September 30th, 1999, titled Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending. The author's name is Steven A. Holmes, and his words in 1999 were amazingly prophetic:

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

"Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements," said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. "Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market."

Here we have the Clinton administration and Fannie Mae (run almost entirely by Democrats) wiping out credit requirements in mortgage lending. I'm not sure how this was Bush's fault.

Now, guess when the housing bubble started really exploding ???????

It started exploding in, you guessed it, 1999, the same year the easy credit policies were put in place. Here's a graph of the housing bubble:

That darned Bush. He created the housing bubble before he even became President. Man, that guy is insidious.

Now listen to more from the New York Times article quoted above. The author describes what could happen with the easy credit policies instituted by the government. He sounds like Nostradamus with this observation:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

"From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us," said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry."

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers

As I've been saying for almost two years, the government caused the recession with it's policies and pressuring of the banks. Yet, have you heard even one government official cop to it, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle ? I haven't heard even one Democrat say, 'you know, we instituted some really bad policies, which almost brought down the entire financial system. Our bad.' No, instead you hear them say 'it's Bush's fault.'

By the way, the American Enterprise Institute, who warned that the easing of credit could lead to failures and bailouts of the financial industry, is one of those mean conservative groups, the ones Obama continually says are responsible for "the failed policies of the past." I question who is truly responsible for those failed policies, and I know it wasn't Bush.

Some Democrats are no doubt thinking at this point, 'okay, but Bush did nothing to stop the problem. Ha !!!'

But Bush did do something to stop the problem. When the Bush administration saw Fannie Mae spinning out of control in 2003, he tried to scale it back. The following is from a September 11, 2003 New York Times article, and describes the actions Bush wanted to take.

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

"There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises," Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

But alas, the Bush plan was blocked. Who were the opponents of the Bush plan to reform Fannie and Freddie to manage the exploding risk ???? The NY Times article tells us:

Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

"These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

That would be the same Barney Frank who now says it's all Bush's fault. Sure Barney, whatever you say. Frank is one of those guys who you can always tell is lying…..his lips move.

In 2005, Republicans again brought forward legislation to reign in Fannie and Freddie. At that time, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said of Fannie and Freddie, "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk." Democrats blocked that legislation in committee.

Yet Obama blames it all on Bush, and has said so about a thousand times by now. He got elected President by saying it. The problem is, it was never true. Bush wasn't a dictator. He couldn't act alone, and the Democrats blocked reform at every turn.

As Congress decides whether or not to keep Ben Bernanke as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, it's also helpful to know that Bernanke got almost everything wrong leading up to the recession too. He backed the easy credit policies and downplayed the extent of the risk. So, naturally, the Democrats want to keep him. In Bernanke's defense, he's made the right moves since the economic collapse, though I'm not sure there were any different moves for him to make.

And so the fictional narrative of the Democrats and the Obama administration goes on and on and on……it's all Bush's fault. The 'failed policies of the past' blather. It's nothing but a wall of noise, misdirection away from the real truth.

It would be nice if we had a media in this country to set the record straight. The recession was only the biggest economic story since 1929. I guess that's not as important as Jon and Kate plus eight, or whatever their names are, or the fact that Sarah Palin goes moose hunting. That's the real news.

Our priorities are just perfect. In the next election cycle, thanks to the Citizens United v. FEC ruling, maybe some corporation will air an ad on television exposing the truth that the media keeps so well hidden. And maybe that's what the Democrats are so afraid of. So afraid that they vote against freedom of speech to keep dissenting opinions off the air.

{ 27 comments }

Boom Year For Lobbyists

by Da King on January 24, 2010

in Uncategorized, White House administration, civil rights, corruption, freedom, lobbyists

After listening to President Obama whine about the Supreme Court's ruling on the Citizens United v. FEC case, where the Supremes struck down an unconstituional McCain-Feingold prohibition on campaign ads, I wondered, exactly how big of a hypocrite is Obama ? Apparently, his hypocrisy knows no bounds. Remember, Obama is the one who broke his word on taking public campaign financing so he could raise $600 million to defeat John McCain, who did take public campaign financing. LOTS of that money came from special interests, running the gamut from Wall Street to the unions. Obama also spouted quite a lot of anti-lobbyist rhetoric on the campaign trail in 2008, and then turned around and had several lobbyists on his White House team (another broken Obama campaign promise), including John Podesta, who headed Obama's transition team.

As it turns out, 2009 was a very, very good year for lobbyists, and guess which lobbying firm increased it's revenue the most ? If you said, 'John Podesta's lobbying group,' you win the grand prize. The revenue of the Podesta Group jumped 60 percent in 2009. Some grand coincidence, eh ?

Next, consider Obama's health care bill, which catered to practically every medical special interest in sight – the health insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, AARP, AMA, the unions, etc. Then consider the bribes to Senators Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) to get their health care votes. ObamaCare has been a special interest bonanza, and partly responsible for the lobbying boom in 2009, a boom that happened in the midst of a recession, no less.

Lobbying, in and of itself, is perfectly legal and constitutional, just as is running political ads on television. Those activities are part and parcel of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Here's the text of that Amendment, which I'll repeat here because many liberals seem unaware of it, judging by their recent reactions to events:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Lobbying IS petitioning the government. The massive increases in the number of lobbyists over the past decade (they've doubled in number) isn't really the problem. It's only a symptom of the real problem, which is – the massive expansion in the size, scope, and power of the federal government itself. This has gone on regardless of which party was running things. The lobbyists grew during the Bush administration's huge expansion of government, and the lobbyists are growing during Obama's all-time record expansion of government. Btw, I heard Obama say the other day that he wasn't for big government, he was for smart government. That's another of Obama's titanic lies. He is for BIG GOVERNMENT, period. And that leads inexorably to more lobbyists, more special interest catering, and more corruption, just as it has this year. When the government is trying to remake the entire health care system, is granting subsidies to everyone and everything the government deems wise and appropriate, is disseminating $800 billion in stimulus money to whomever it deems wise and appropriate, is bailing out every industry it deems wise and appropriate, is contemplating how to raise taxes to pay for it all, what else COULD happen, other than every special interest in the country flocking to Washington D.C. to get their share of the taxpayer-funded bounty ??? There is no other possible reality.

The problem certainly is not McCain-Feingold. The problem is every big government advocate everywhere. The answer to the problem is contained in the very U.S. Constitution the left wants to blissfully ignore. The Constitution was designed with the intent of the government being limited. The founding fathers designed it that way on purpose. The founders didn't want the state to be all-powerful. They'd seen enough of that in the monarchies and dictators of their own time. The Constitution is a description of the powers and limitations on the government, and the political power brokers in Washington D.C. are shredding it article by article, page by page. Thus, the solution to all the corruption and favor-buying in Washington D.C. is the same as it's always been – limited government. This is best expressed by the Libertarian/Conservative key phrase – limited government, lower taxes, liberty. It is the ONLY way.

Obama is hardly the solution to the problem. He and those like him ARE THE PROBLEM. The only reason Obama dislikes the Citizens United v. FEC ruling is because he fears much of that corporate advertising won't be in his favor. He fears that money might favor his pro-business opponents, the very ones Obama would like to keep quiet. Obama is perfectly fine with special interests, as long as those special interests are in his corner, as long as he can use them to advance his agenda, and as long as he can use them to consolidate his power.

The bottom line is, if government weren't so all-powerful, if it wasn't handing out favors to everyone in sight, then there wouldn't be so many standing in line jostling for those favors. And if we start cutting government spending, there'd be a nice little side benefit – we could move off the path to bankruptcy that we're on now. We might start righting our financial ship.

But I'm sure our President would consider all this crazy talk. It makes too much sense, and in addition, it doesn't leave the President free to redistribute everyone's wealth (aka, thievery).

{ 12 comments }

Supreme Court Free Speech Ruling

by Da King on January 22, 2010

in Uncategorized, first amendment, supreme court

But first…last night at the Q…Cavaliers 93, Lakers 87. Yes !!! That's two wins in a row over the defending NBA champion Lakers, and the Cavs did it without all-star point guard Mo Williams, who is out with a shoulder injury. Lebron rules, throwing down 37 points along with 9 assists. Get well, Mojo. Go Cavs ! (Box score)
=====================================================

The Supreme Court made a ruling yesterday on a major free speech case, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Here are the facts of the case, as described by The CATO Institute:

Citizens United, a nonprofit political advocacy group, produced a film called "Hillary: The Movie" about the current Secretary of State, who at the time was a presidential candidate. The movie did not reflect well on Ms. Clinton but did not explicitly advocate her defeat in the 2008 presidential contest. Citizens United planned to show the film in theatres, sell it as a DVD, and make it available on-demand on cable TV. The group also planned to run ads marketing the movie.

In a free country with freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in reading the above it seems obvious that Citizens United should have the free speech right to produce, air, advertise, and distribute their film. After all, we don't ban films, books, etc. in this country, do we ? We especially don't ban films, books, etc. that contain political speech, because free political speech is what the First Amendment is there to protect.

So, Citizens United aired and advertised their film in this free country with free speech rights, no problem at all. That has to be correct, right ???

Nope. Incorrect. It was illegal for Citizens United to air their film in the United States at the time Citizens United wanted to air it. Here's the reason, from the same CATO Institute article:

Citizens United knew, however, that distributing the movie—or even running ads for it!—was illegal under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform." That is, part of McCain-Feingold prohibited advertising about candidates funded by corporations or labor unions during primaries and general elections.

But Citizens United is a corporation—that it's a nonprofit doesn't matter—Hillary Clinton was a candidate, and the movie most definitely discussed the merits of her candidacy. Showing the movie and even advertising it would thus be illegal unless the courts invalided the relevant section of McCain-Feingold as a violation of the First Amendment (as the Supreme Court already has with several other parts of the law).

Clearly, parts of McCain-Feingold infringed upon the free exercise of political speech. This isn't a new thing, however. There is a reason for it, and here it is:

The courts have long upheld campaign finance regulations as a way to prevent corruption (or the appearance of corruption) in elections. Contributors to campaigns might buy favors from candidates once they are in office, for example, so contribution limits are supposed to deter such exchanges.

Limits on campaign contributions from corporations were designed to prevent corporations (or other large groups, such as unions) from "buying" elections and corrupting the political process. Advocates of McCain-Feingold might say, 'yes, we infringe upon free speech, but we do it for a good cause.' If a regular person like you or I can afford to donate $100 to a political campaign, while the Mega-Bucks Corporation can donate $5 million, guess who is going to get influence with that politician ? As they say, money talks.

That's the case that went before the Supreme Court.

An important point here is, Citizens United wasn't making political contributions to any campaign. They just wanted to advertise and air their film. Should they, as a corporation, have that right, even though the film contained political content ? I say, of course they should have the right. After all, other corporations are free to air political content 365 days per year, 24 hours per day, with no restrictions whatsover. We call them newspapers, television stations, radio stations, etc. Why should only media corporations be entitled to uninfringed free political speech ? What makes them special ? It's also obvious that different media corporations contain different biases. Compare Fox News to MS-NBC, for example. Vastly different. In addition, some media corporations are owned by non-media corporations. NBC, for example, is owned by General Electric, so you could say GE has unfettered rights to political speech, while other corporations like Citizens United do not. How can that possibly be considered fair or right ? It's an extremely unlevel playing field, saying THIS corporation has free speech rights, while THAT corporation does not.

Further, is it even the province of the government to create a level playing field for political speech or for political contributions ? In doing so, the government would by definition limit political speech, our most important civil right. Free speech with accompanying government regulation of political speech is a contradiction in terms. It invalidates the First Amendment.

Another aspect of McCain-Feingold to consider is this – corporations and other organized groups still donate massive amounts of cash to political campaigns, about $1 billion in the last election cycle. They just don't do it directly. They get around McCain-Feingold restrictions through PAC's, 501's, etc.

Faced with this decision, the Supreme Court ruled correctly in favor of free speech, but amazingly, it was only a 5-4 decision. The liberal wing of the court (Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Sotomayor) all ruled against free speech, against Citizens United being able to air and advertise their film. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy said "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits jailing citizens for engaging in political speech." It doesn't get much clearer than that, but the liberal wing of the court voted instead for censorship. They voted, in essence, to ban books. Unbelievable. In the dissenting opinion, Justic Stevens wrote the following:

The real issue in this case concerns how, not if, the appellant may finance its electioneering. Citizens United is a wealthy nonprofit corporation that runs a political action committee (PAC) with millions of dollars in assets. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it could have used those assets to televise and promote Hillary: The Movie wherever and whenever it wanted to. It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 daysbefore the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante, at 1. All that the parties dispute is whether CitizensUnited had a right to use the funds in its general treasury to pay for broadcasts during the 30-day period. The notion that the First Amendment dictates an affirmative answer to that question is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided.

Stevens' opinion, in short, is complete horsecrap. It isn't free speech if the government dictates when you can exercise it. To hold with Stevens, we'd also have to take MS-NBC and Fox News off the air for 30 days before the election. The NY Times would have to stop publishing political stories for 30 days before the election. No newspaper could endorse a candidate. Basically everyone in the media would have to shut up about politics during the most important political days we have, if Stevens' rationale was accepted and equally applied.

An important distinction here is that the Supreme Court only struck down the McCain-Feingold limits on independent expenditures (such as Citizens United's film). They did not strike down limits on campaign contributions, even though many media outlets are reporting it as if they had.

Read the Supreme Court opinion here.

{ 33 comments }

The Massachusetts Message

by Da King on January 20, 2010

in Democrats, GOP, Uncategorized, congress, corruption, elections, health care, jobs, national security, natonal debt, protests, senate, soldiers, special interests, taxes, terrorism, voting

Republican Scott Brown's improbable Senate victory in the bluest of all blue states, Massachusetts, has sent the Democrats reeling. Their reflective navel-gazing has begun. I look at this as a wakeup call for the Democratic party. Will they now "get" it, or will they remain in denial ? Will they continue pushing policies the American people do not want ? If so, they will continue to isolate themselves, and they will continue to lose, as they have in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia this year.

It's too soon to make that call, but early indications are not promising. This morning I heard Robert Gibbs, Obama's press secretary, say the Dems just need to "retool their message." Wrong. That's not it. The people understand the message of the Democrats all too well. That's not the problem. The problem is, the people don't agree with the Democrats message. I heard MS-NBC's Norah O'Donnell blame the loss on Coakley not taking the campaign seriously enough. That's waaay wrong. Nobody takes a Senate seat lightly, and Martha Coakley certainly didn't. O'Donnell then said Coakley lost due to anti-incumbent sentiment. That's a pretty bizarre statement, considering Coakley wasn't the incumbent.

The excuses will continue, but Coakley lost because the American people are turning against all the divisiveness, the catering to special interests, the corruption, the partisan business as usual, and the wasteful big government arrogance of Washington D.C. Scott Brown tapped into America's dissatisfaction, and the silent majority (independents) went with him, overcoming the Democrats 3-1 voter advantage over Republicans in Massachusetts. Nowhere is the dissatisfaction of the American people more evident than in the Tea Party protest movement (which the Democratic party has arrogantly denigrated to the nth degree), and Scott Brown got that support, by saying things like this, from his victory speech:

Most of all, I will remember that while the honor is mine, this Senate seat belongs to no one person and no political party – and as I have said before, and you said loud and clear today, it is the people’s seat…When I first started running, I asked for a lot of help, because I knew it was going to be me against the machine. I was wrong, it was all of us against the machine… I go to Washington as the representative of no faction or interest, answering only to my conscience and to the people.

I certainly hope Scott Brown means it when he says he will represent no faction or interest, but rather the American people. We shall see. He's certainly right that it is all of us against the machine. This government is, after all, supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's not supposed to be for Goldman Sachs, the health insurance companies, the lawyers, the unions, or any other particular special interest. We are all in this together. We should pursue policies that are responsible for the nation as a whole. That means, first – national security. Second – fiscal responsibility.

Brown also tapped into the disagreement the American people have with some of the policies of the Democrats, and to this, the Democrats SHOULD take heed (and the Republicans too, for that matter):

In every corner of our state, I met with people, looked them in the eye, shook their hand, and asked them for their vote. I didn’t worry about their party affiliation, and they didn’t worry about mine. It was simply shared conviction that brought us all together.

One thing is clear, voters do not want the trillion-dollar health care bill that is being forced on the American people.

This bill is not being debated openly and fairly. It will raise taxes, hurt Medicare, destroy jobs, and run our nation deeper into debt. It is not in the interest of our state or country – we can do better.

When in Washington, I will work in the Senate with Democrats and Republicans to reform health care in an open and honest way. No more closed-door meetings or back room deals by an out of touch party leadership. No more hiding costs, concealing taxes, collaborating with special interests, and leaving more trillions in debt for our children to pay.

In health care, we need to start fresh, work together, and do the job right. Once again, we can do better.

I will work in the Senate to put government back on the side of people who create jobs, and the millions of people who need jobs – and as President John F. Kennedy taught us, that starts with an across the board tax cut for individuals and businesses that will create jobs and stimulate the economy. It's that simple!

I will work in the Senate to defend our nation’s interests and to keep our military second to none. As a lieutenant colonel and 30-year member of the Army National Guard, I will keep faith with all who serve, and get our veterans all the benefits they deserve.

And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation – they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.

Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country. What I've heard again and again on the campaign trail, is that our political leaders have grown aloof from the people, impatient with dissent, and comfortable in the back room making deals. And we can do better.

They thought you were on board with all of their ambitions. They thought they owned your vote. They thought they couldn’t lose. But tonight, you and you and you have set them straight.

Dissent is the lifeblood of any democracy, which the Democrats should pause to consider before they viciously and falsely attack the Tea Party movement, and last night in Massachusetts, dissent won. Big time.

This morning on the Blog Of Mass Destruction, my friend the Reverend, a liberal by anyone's standard, reminded me that Thomas Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic party……..as if the current Democratic party bears any resemblance whatsoever to the one Jefferson represented. It certainly does not, and I'll leave you with the following Jefferson quote to explain exactly why not:

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government." – Thomas Jefferson

Does that sound like any current Democrat you know ? Not by a country mile. The current Democrats see almost no bounds for the government (except maybe in granting terrorists the full civil rights of American citizenship). They want the government to intrude on everything and everyone. THAT is the problem, and that is the Massachusetts and Tea Party message.

We hope the Democrats are listening.

{ 44 comments }

← Previous Entries