Calling the President a Liar

The Democrat outrage at Joe Wilson correctly (admittedly an inappropriate time and place) identifying President Obama's comments last week as lies has been loud and almost comical. But what about their outrage over these comments from the floor of the House and Senate (from Gateway Pundit):



and this:



or this inappropriate comment by a Speaker of the House:

---

WSJ: Obama and the Economy

The Wall Street Journal had an excellent opinion piece in regard to the President and his advisors and their economic policies. One of the most telling items was in the subtitle:

As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.

This was no partisan screed. It was documentation of the impact that Obama's policies are rapidly having on the only economic indicator that can react to events close to when they occur.

As 2009 opened, three weeks before Barack Obama took office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9034 on January 2, its highest level since the autumn panic. Yesterday the Dow fell another 4.24% to 6763, for an overall decline of 25% in two months and to its lowest level since 1997. The dismaying message here is that President Obama's policies have become part of the economy's problem.

While it is clear that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid along with the Obama Administration have incited absolute class warfare. The problem is that they are doing it by scaring away the people they will need to fuel the programs they insist are so important. And what's worse is that they are hiding behind the economic situation to push their agenda through hoping that no one is noticing. But the market is clearly paying attention.

So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

His Treasury has been making a similar mistake with its financial bailout plans. The banking system needs to work through its losses, and one necessary use of public capital is to assist in burning down those bad assets as fast as possible. Yet most of Team Obama's ministrations so far have gone toward triage and life support, rather than repair and recovery.

Read the entire article here.

---

Earmarks vs Porkulus

Barack Obama and congressional Democrats keep touting a canard that this wonderful stimulus bill they are ramming through is "completely free of earmarks". Let's examine that statement. The definition of an Earmark is as follows (from Wikipedia):

In US politics an earmark is a congressional provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.

Earmarks can be found both in legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks"). Hard earmarks are binding and have the effect of law, while soft earmarks do not have the effect of law but by custom are acted on as if they were binding.[1] Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in his/her home state or district.

So if we parse the words, to be an earmark it should:

a. the direction of funds in a bill
b. be inserted by a senator or member of congress
c. to benefit their states or districts financially

I have reviewed the drafts of pieces of this legislation and the summaries. I would estimate that more than half of this entire bill is an earmark. Just because the spending size is so large that multiple senators and members of congress are taking home the loot, doesn't negate it fact that it is for an earmark.

Some favorites rumored to be in the final legislation:

- LA to Vegas train (Reid)
- $30 million dollars in wetlands preservation for San Fran (Pelosi)
- $200 million dollar power plan in IL (Obama)
- Major funds for building govt building projects in Maryland, Virginia and Georgia
- 80 billion for outright payments for state who have through their out of control spending are in financial trouble (see California, New York, Michigan and New Jersey)
- 6.5 billion for National Institute of Health as a buyout for Republic Arlen Specter


If it looks like an earmark, costs like an earmark, is hidden into legislation like and earmark with no attribution....it's an earmark.

---