Pelosi Orders Wall Street Probe - here is my list of witnesses.

From Politico:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has ordered a broad, swift investigation of Wall Street and will demand testimony from Bush administration officials and captains of finance, congressional officials said

Let's help out with the witness list:

1. Franklin Raines
2. Jamie Gorelick
3. Chris Dodd
4. Barack Obama
5. Joe Biden
6. Andrew Coumo
7. William Jefferson Clinton
8. Hillary Clinton
9. John Kerry
10. Jim Johnson

And here is what you should ask. For all the former Democrat appointees from the Clinton administration, ask them why they lined their pockets while creating an environment that destroyed the mortgage industry in the United States by purposely breaking down the controls for mortgage lending to non-qualified buyers. And ask the politicians on this list what thhey received for the tens of thousands of donations they received from their corrupt friends.

After you are done with that, sure, go to Wall Street. But I suspect you won't have to or want to.

Federal Workers can make tax laws but won't pay!

From foxnews.com:

The Internal Revenue Service is trying to collect billions of dollars in late taxes from nearly half a million federal employees.

Documents obtained by WTOP radio through the Freedom of Information Act show the federal employees and retirees did not pay more than $3.5 billion in taxes owed last year.

Just like with Charlie Rangel and his lack of tax responsibility while reaching into others pockets, this is outrageous. But the article isn't finished:

The Executive Office of the President, which includes the White House, has 58 employees who did not pay more than $319,000. More than 1,000 Capitol Hill workers are on the list.

So 58 people in the White House don't bother to pay taxes. That's bad enough. But 1,000 people who work on the Hill? Are you kidding me? I wonder how many normal citizens are afforded the same courtesy. Frankly, the IRS should release exactly who these people work for and their role in the setting and execution of tax policy decisions.

Charlie Rangel and Fairness

From this morning's New York Post:

Rep. Charles Rangel, the powerful head of the congressional committee that writes the country's tax laws, blamed his ignorance - and not being able to understand Spanish - for failing to report $75,000 in rental income from his Caribbean holiday home.

So let me get this straight, the man in charge of the committee that sets tax policy in the House wants us to believe that he shouldn't be in trouble because he didn't know the rules. Funny. He wrote them.

But he also believes that he shouldn't be held accountable:

"I really don't believe that making mistakes means you have to give up your career."

That is funny. Isn't this the same man who wanted Trent Lott drawn and quartered for a comment praising a colleague at a party. Isn't he also the one who wanted his corrupt colleague in Louisiana to step down from his committee assignment for wrongdoing (maybe Charlie just wanted his seat).

Charie Rangel has been outspoken about taxing all of us from every angle while posing as a man of the people. However, he accepted 4 rent controlled apartments which should have gone to working families. He also didn't pay his taxes on his place in the Dominican Republic. Why? Because he thought he would get away with it.

One more question. If Charlie Rangel was a Republican, would he still be the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee today? I think we all know the answer to that.

NJ Democrats Culture of Corruption Continues

From this article in today's Trentonian:

Federal agents raided the law office of one of North Jersey's most powerful Democrats Thursday, part of their continuing investigation into the dealings of the political powerbroker, Joseph Ferriero, and party lawyer Dennis Oury.

The Record of Hackensack reported that 18 boxes of documents and computer hard drivers were seized.

The inquiry is said to focus on Government Grants Consulting, a consulting firm where the two men were partners. The now-defunct firm held contracts with local governments in North Jersey.

Another day, another Federal raid. The sad thing is that this will probably result in another Federal indictment and conviction. And the voters in New Jersey will continue to do nothing about it. And that is mainly because they will never have the opportunity to vote on candidates that will change anything.

Meanwhile, Assembly Republican leader Alex DeCroce questioned Gov. Jon Corzine's leadership on political corruption issues.

"If Jon Corzine is truly committed to cleaning up New Jersey, he could start by using his clout within the Democrat Party to stamp out the appearance of corruption within the party's leadership."

Neither Ferriero nor Oury have been charged with any crime.

As the head of Democratic politics in the state's most populous county, Ferriero has significant influence. Many officials owe their election to the party's financial backing.

His lawyer said Ferriero still planned on going to Denver for the convention.

Asked about Ferriero's role in Denver, Corzine defended the party boss' right to attend.

"I believe in Constitutional due process, and there is a fundamental issue of him being elected a delegate," Corzine said during a meeting with reporters Friday.

And there you go. Corzine himself is supporting another Democrat who is going down to corruption charges. Afterall, he is a superdelegate. Remember from the primaries what that is, a non-duly elected party boss designee. Corzine is wrong. He wasn't elected by the people at all, he was elected by party insiders. And he is corrupt and corrupts every politician to who he directs funds.

Poor Spending Drunk Governors

In this article in the Press of Atlantic City, the story of how poor Northeastern governors got together to discuss how the Federal government should bail them out on transportation.

High fuel prices, crumbling roads and bridges, and how to replace a rapidly vanishing industrial base aren't just New Jersey's problems.
Governors from this and four other Northeast states commiserated about the similar issues facing them and traded ideas for the future at a Monday morning forum in Atlantic City.

Every administration of every state has challenges. But it seems to be a unique perspective that governors in this part of the country accept no responsibility for anything except begging for money from the Federal government.

But as Rendell recounted another scheme that used tax-exempt bonds to encourage private investors to underwrite highways, Corzine said there are a whole series of strategies, adding, "Our challenge is politics."

Rendell said a federal government that drastically scaled back on infrastructure spending was also to blame.

He said at the end of the Eisenhower years, the government spent 11.5 percent of the federal domestic nonmilitary budget on roads, bridges and other improvements. He said that figure is now less than 2.5 percent, with the costs shifted to the states.

Rendell said Pennsylvania started a crash $1 billion program to fix its 411 worst bridges, but it would cost $140 billion to repair them all. Other states are in similar situations. "Its craziness to think the states will be able to handle that alone," he said.

These issues like many facing the states in the Northeast are typical of today's new politics. Since Rendell and Corzine both got into office by pandering to various special interest with freebies and program enhancements, they are part of a "spend the money and hope we find a way to pay for it" mentality. And they are so vested in these politics (yes Gov Corzine-you got it right), they cannot do what is right for the state's citizens without committing political suicide.

Case in point, Governor Corzine was sold to NJ as a brilliant businessman who would fix New Jersey's fiscal issues. What we actually got was a dopey rich guy into social engineering without a trace of fiscal self control. So when this year's budget came around he praised himself for making minor cuts while increasing the burden to most towns (thereby forcing them to look to increase property taxes yet again). He also pushed through a 4 billion dollars in new school borrowing for the very agency whose corruption with money like this in the past is legendary. So cry foul and then spend.

As long as Northeastern states continue to maintain a one party system (in many cases, there is no different between the Republicans and Democrats in these states), the working class will continue to work long hours to support state workers, teachers unions and giveaways that are administered by corrupt individuals looking to line their own pockets. And then they will move south.

Too Tired of Obama's Weakness being Hillary's Fault

In the election cycle, the Democrats kept attributing Barack Obama's failure to secure the deal on Hillary's cynical attacks on him. I am not nor have I ever been a Hillary fan outside of general respect for her and Bill's Presidency which I respect as I respect any President of the USA. But the creepy thing is that somehow, she gets brought up as a problem for Obama and his failure to get beyond black voters, elitists and the general uninformed. What cracks me up is that Obama is getting beat up by normal folks that don't seem to get his 'holier than thou' rhetoric.

John McCain had a good week. While Obama was on vacation, McCain (who I am still not sure I could ever vote for) acted presidential. And Obama tried to play politics and have it both ways. It is a shame we can't have Lincoln/Douglas style debates between these two. The Obama camp won't have it until it is too late. And McCain wants it until Obama tanks. Either way, the one on top doesn't want to take a chance. If Obama wants real change, he should debate everywhere. Debate in the street, the hills, the mountain top and the workplace. But he won't. Because I suspect he is more formidible as a myth than as a real person. Shame.

CAGW - Tell your representative you want energy independence!

From the Citizens Against Government Waster comes a great utility. Follow this link and tell your Senators and Congressman that you want action on oil and gas policy!

Off-topic: Local Response to 2nd Amendment Ruling

This isn't about taxes, but I thought I would share a letter that I sent to my Mayor and Assemblyman, John McKeon, today. It's in reference to his press release about the Supreme Court second amendment ruling.

Mayor / Assemblyman McKeon,

I read your press release this morning and would like to respond, as a double constituent of yours.

Briefly, I disagree with your position, and I think your press release is misleading and inappropriate. I expect the first, and am able to handle disagreements cordially even when my ideas are not those that rule, but I very much dislike political statements that try to hoodwink the public.

Specifically:

* The first line says that you "blasted a...ruling creating a blanket right to gun ownership."

This statement is false, because the Court specifically ruled that the right was created by the founders in the bill of rights; when you claim that they "created" a right, you have deliberately misinterpreted the ruling. The Court has not "created" anything. It has interpreted the Second Amendment. For you to disagree with their interpretation is one thing, but you have dissembled about what it means to have a ruling.

The statement is also, in another way, misleading. As Justice Scalia discussed in his written opinion, the right to gun ownership is limited. For you to use the term "blanket" must either mean that it is a right that covers all appropriate circumstances (as any right does), in which case your claim is redundant, or it means that it is a right that can't be constrained, which is false. Since the first usage is defensible but redundant, it sounds like you're trying to say that the right "created" by the court is unconstrained, which is misleading the public.

* Although "we can build guns today the killing capacity of which the Founding Fathers could not have imagined in their wildest dreams", the Founding Fathers knew about handguns (though ours today are better) and knew how to disassemble their muskets; they never imagined that the government they were building would have allowed local governments to break down and lock up their weapons, and, revolutionaries that they were, if a government had told them to do so they no doubt would have rebelled with those very same weapons.

* Your statement that "The Court has essentially given gang members the express right to stockpile guns in their homes under the guise of self-preservation" is particularly egregious. Gang members have no problem getting guns, and you have no right to break into their homes to find them without probable cause, so if the Court had ruled differently this would still be a problem. Moreover, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ruling does nothing to prevent state and local governments from restricting the gun ownership of felons -- and someone who has not been convicted of a crime should not have his rights curtailed.

While I hope that you will reconsider your position on gun control, I think it unlikely and I respect your right to your beliefs. However, I firmly request that you stop using your position to spread misleading statements about the nation's highest Court's decision.

Regards,
Jake Freivald
West Orange

If your local politicians are responding to the ruling, now is the time to show your support or disapproval of their positions. They are all thinking about how to make this play out in the next election.

New Jersey - The Corruption State

Newsday today reports on New Jersey's corrupt political culture and the massive number of indictments and convictions of public offials in the past few years:

Since 2002, 128 public employees in New Jersey have been convicted on federal corruption charges. About a third of those were elected officials, including state lawmakers, mayors and town council members.

Those numbers back up New Jersey's reputation as a corruption hotbed, fueled by TV shows like "The Sopranos." Experts say the state's labyrinth of local boards, commissions and councils has created fiefdoms where fraud and abuse flourish.

This amounts to a lot of work the federal government to prosecute. What strikes me however is the complete lack of local and state prosecution of corruption. With the number of both local and state police jurisdictions around the state, it seems that if public corruption is being ignored that our entire justice system in NJ is only serving to provide traffic enforement and to protect citizens from the recidivist drug and criminal culture in our cities.

New Jersey's federal corruption arrests in 2007 included:

_ Six former mayors, including James, who was convicted of steering cut-rate city land to a one-time mistress.

_ Assemblymen Alfred Steele and Mims Hackett, Jr., charged with trading public influence for bribes. Steele pleaded guilty in October. Hackett has pleaded not guilty.

_ State Sen. Wayne Bryant, charged with steering millions to a medical school in exchange for a no-work job worth tens of thousands of dollars every year. He has pleaded not guilty.

_ Five Pleasantville school board members convicted of steering public contracts in return for bribes.

Of New Jersey's 150 public employees facing federal corruption charges since 2002, 49 held elected office, including 18 mayors, 15 councilmen and six state lawmakers. All but 20 defendants pending trial were convicted by plea or by jury. Two officials charged in 2005 died before they were tried, according to an AP analysis of U.S. attorney arrest announcements.

Federal. Always Federal.

Read the entire article here.

General Petraeus and the Senate - Maybe a cardboard cutout would be better

As I watched the Senate Armed services committee meeting with General David Petraeus testifying to the panel, I am struck by the lack of seriousness of some of the senators especially the chairman. As he attempted to get the General to give him a soundbyte that he was looking for, it was clear he wasn't going to give up. So he proceeded to testify to a conclusion that General Petraeus did not draw.

The entire process (possibly with the exception so far of Senator McCains respectful questions and actually listening to answers) suggest that maybe the panel should get a full sized cardboard cutout of Petraeus to testify. In that way, the panel can blather on to their hearts content and the General can get back to work in Iraq.

I see no difference here between the silly MLB seroid hearings and this hearing. And the sad thing is that if these non statesmen were doing their job, they wouldn't be sleeping when others are speaking (Martinez), they would listen not go fishing for headlines (Levin) and they would ask relevant questions and not testify themselves.

Dodd lives in glass house over mortgage meltdown!

Chris Dodd(D-Conn), protector of the poor, tough guy against big business, hater of all things Bush and a big reason why the Senate should have term limits. While Senator Dodd has been blaming everyone under sun the for the mortgage meltdown, perhaps he should look no further than his desk. From the Virginia Pilot on March 21, 2008:

In addition to having regulatory responsibilities, the seven members of the Fed's Board of Governors sit on the Federal Open Market Committee, which shapes the nation's monetary policy by influencing interest rates and using other tools.

In an Oct. 3 article, The Wall Street Journal quoted the banking committee's chairman, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., as saying he had no plans to move the three nominations through the committee and to the Senate floor for confirmation. "The Fed nominations are not a high priority at this point," Dodd said. "We've got some legislative stuff to get out."

So apparently, Senator Dodd had more important things to do for the past several months than allow nominations to the Federal Reserve to be voted on by the Senate which would result in their being seated as this is not a political position. At least it wasn't until Dodd politicized it.

Speaking tonight on Philadephia's Big Talker 1210(WPHT) on Anthony Mazzarelli's(Dr Maz) evening show, fellow talk show host and financial analyst Steve Cordasco called Dodd "a snake". He was referring to Dodd's tendency to speak one thing in public and do another. He also hinted breaking this news on Glenn Beck tomorrow so if you are reading this, you may want to tune in to Glenn on CNN.

And what was Dodd's big plan for the Senate Banking Committee?

When the Senate's current session began two weeks ago, Dodd announced his 2008 priorities for the banking committee, including efforts to enhance economic prosperity and national security. His statement, however, made no mention of whether the committee would vote on the nominations to the Federal Reserve Board.

What a cruel joke.

Read the entire article here.

Economic Stimulus Welfare!

I just received a notice from the IRS regarding the economic stimulus plan. The good news is according to the IRS, I have to do nothing to receive my money aside from filing my tax return. The bad news is that very few people I know in New Jersey qualify. You see, they explain that if you are a "higher income" person (that is someone making 75k single or 150k married), you get phased out. Of course, that would include a State Trooper(You're out!)especially if you are married to a teacher (double out!).

However, if you made more than $3,000 dollars last year you get $300.00. Why did I get this from the IRS? It should have come from the Social Security Admin or State Welfare agency.

Now Obama's preacher is FOX News Fault?

Obama's campaign blog is now blaming FOX News for calling attention to his preacher's hateful rhetoric.

We appreciate Chris Wallace for doing his job as a tough but fair journalist on a network that has been deeply irresponsible over the last week in its unrelenting and sensationalistic coverage of Senator Obama.

Senator Obama gave the speech he did on Tuesday because he believes that Americans are ready for a thoughtful, mature discussion about race, and are hungry to move past media-generated controversies that distract from the struggles they face in their everyday lives.

If Fox News wants to play clips of the same offensive sound bites every day from now until November, that's their right, but that type of coverage does a disservice to their viewers and to a nation that is facing serious challenges that merit thoughtful and honest reporting.

Earlier on this blog we discussed Preacher Wright and his comments and Barack Obama's answer to them. We didn't comment on his speech which seemed to strike people as more "the beauty is in the eye of the beholder". While I didn't agree with throwing grandma under the bus or his comments (which I heard) on a Philadelphia sports radio station (what was he doing interviewing with Angelo anyway)about "typical white person", I though his speech was at least interesting and unique. It also discussed race in a way that not many politician are willing to even touch.

But to blame this entire episode on FOX? Are you kidding me? Barack Obama has largely gotten a free pass from the media since day one. And to now accuse FOX of a media created scandal is beyond the pale. Grow up Mr. Obama. I don't agree with Hillary but you are now getting a dose of the treatment that she and most others have been getting all along. And for the record, FOX has this story a long time ago and aired it. It was only AFTER the other networks caught up to the story that it grew legs.

Maybe FOX should ask you why you won't wear a flag lapel pin but when you give an important speech, you chose to fill the screen backdrop with American flags. I guess our national symbols only exist as a prop. But, you also would probably comment that this is a smear too (oh, wait, you did that already).

Bringing up valid questions on the things politicians think, the people who influence them and the actions they have taken when given the opportunity to make real decisions is part of the primary and general election process. Just as these questions are valid, so are Hillary's First Lady logs and your criticism of them. Stop crying foul and start fighting back.

Attention NJ Residents - Here's who to blame for your higher tax bill!

Democrats in the House and Senate this week voted to end most of the Bush tax cuts and let them expire in 2010. This will result in the largest tax increase in years which will be on the back on the next President. Even the USA Today which is far from a conservative newspaper stated the decision by Democrats as the following:

House Democrats would allow all of Bush's tax cuts to expire, effectively raising taxes by $683 billion from 2011 through 2013

Democrats continue to fail to recognize that taxation is taking money from productive people believing that government knows better how to spend your money. No elected politician is ENTITLED to your money in the United States. And we should all remember our local elected officials that voted for this massive tax increase. They are as follows:

Senate
Lautenberg
Menendez

House
Andrews, Robert E.; New Jersey, 1st
Pallone, Frank; New Jersey, 6th
Pascrell, Bill; New Jersey, 8th
Rothman, Steven R.; New Jersey, 9th
Payne, Donald M.; New Jersey, 10th
Holt, Rush D.; New Jersey, 12th
Sires, Albio; New Jersey, 13th

These members of the House and Senate have let down the people of New Jersey. When you consider the poor rate of return that New Jersey already gets on its tax dollars sent to Washington, you would wonder why our representatives are so anxious to increase our taxes. Interestingly enough, our loss of representation was not as severe in the House with the New Jersey delegation voting 7-6 for higher taxes.

President Bush's tax policies helped New Jersey. And as the federal tax bill went down, New Jersey's last two Governor's stepped in and took the money to feed their corrupt political machines. Now New Jersey residents face even higher federal taxes to match their worst in the US state taxes. And no-one seems to care...

National Security - Not from me

If you doubted my last post, read this one.

If it doesn't disturb you, you may have a problem.

House Blows Off National Security Responsibilities

The House of Representatives today decided to once again place politics in front of national security by taking no action on the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). While some Democrats insist this is no big deal, I wonder why the Senate thought it was a big enough deal to ensure they passed their version of the legislation before a recess was called. Given that the Senate is supposed to be the more deliberative body, I wonder why they were able to act when the House was not.

What's the big deal? In the wake of 9/11, the FISA law originally created in 1978 was altered to make it easier to work with today's tellecommunication companies and electronic exchange. This weekend, instead of the changes the Senate passed to improve these rules and modernize FISA, we will revert back to 1978. You do remember 1978. No internet. No cell phones. No data exchange.

Why you ask? Because the House is concerned with an immunity provision in the Senate version of the bill that protects telecom companies from lawsuits based on their work on behalf of the government. So instead of working out the disaagreements on the bill or passing a patch to at least continue under the status quo until they do, the House decided to turn the clock back to 1978.

What can you do? Let your representatives in congress know how you feel during their unearned recess. Here is a useful link courtesy of New Jersey Community Resource web site.

Tell them to get back to work and finish what they started.

Economic Stimulous Rebates - Not for NJ!

Once again a plan which on the surface rebates taxpayer money back with the objective of having you spend that money and help the economy. But wait, at the last minute an addition was made for anyone who makes over $3,000 in income-they get a $300 check. Of course, that isn't a rebate, it is welfare as you won't even pay tax at $3,000 income. But there's more(from this article on MSNBC):

The rebates would phase out gradually for individuals whose adjusted gross income exceeds $75,000 and for couples with incomes above $150,000. Contributions to IRA and 401(k) retirement accounts and health savings accounts would not count toward the income limit.

And at $174,000, the rebate phases out completely. Now, to someone is Omaha, these numbers probably seem high in terms of income eligibility. But we live in New
Jersey where $174,000 is less than what a policeman married to a teacher makes. Call this whatever you want but it isn't a tax rebate because it cuts out the people in this country who contribute most of the taxes (this group at $174k and above represent in excess of 40% of all tax receipts).

House Votes on Earmark Moratorium

The National Taxpayers' Union has sent out an alert that seemed a little confusing at first but makes sense when you parse it out.

There is a question on the table -- shall we reauthorize the Higher Education Act? -- that needs a "NO" vote.

Why? Because not reauthorizing the HEA would open the door to a full vote on H. Con. Res. 63 -- a vote that needs a "YES", because it would impose an immediate moratorium on earmarks.

Write those letters, people...

McCain Placing Increased Focus On the Economy - WSJ.com

McCain's not the most conservative guy in the world, but he may be dodging right: McCain Placing Increased Focus On the Economy - WSJ.com

At Boston's historic Faneuil Hall, Mr. McCain said he would "be coming out with more specific proposals," on the economy. "They will be based not on big government interventions and not on raising your taxes and not on increasing government," he said.

Mr. McCain's current economic plan centers around making permanent the Bush tax cuts and cutting corporate taxes and government spending. He has yet to make a specific housing-policy plan other than saying he supports President Bush.

Mr. McCain has portrayed himself on the campaign trail as a Reaganomics conservative, against government spending, taxes and regulation. But his record reflects Teddy Roosevelt's brand of government regulation, which serves the consumer to the benefit of no specific industry or company.

Let's see some more specifics, and let's hope.

Sounds Lovely, But Exactly What Are You Talking About?

I'm still on John Kerry's mailing list, and today the Obama campaign used it to send the following email. When you read it, consider that this man is a Senator running for President, and that this is his outreach to the Democratic base.

Hello Jake,

When Michelle and I talked about my running for president, one of the goals we both shared for this campaign was to leave the political process better off than we found it.

We wanted to create a campaign that would energize and empower activists, and hopefully create new ones who would stay involved for years to come. We believed that at this moment in our history, we had an opportunity to move beyond cynicism and remind our fellow citizens of the potential of politics to transform our country.

This campaign has come from a long way back to be competitive in the Democratic primary. Many said we couldn't do it, but we are here because people are ready for change and ready to work together to bring it about.

Today, you can help.

If you live in one of the 22 states that are holding primaries and caucuses today, make sure you vote. But also make sure to bring someone with you.

You can find your polling location on our website:

http://action.barackobama.com/feb5statepages

No matter where you live, you can also get involved right now -- by volunteering to help get out the vote or by making calls from your own home using our online calling tool:

http://action.barackobama.com/call

We have an opportunity to give our country a new direction. We can replace the politics of division and destruction with a new politics of engagement and hope.

Thank you for your support, and thank you to the JohnKerry.com community for all you’ve done for the Democratic Party.

Thank you,
Barack Obama

I'll say this for him: he gives the impression of being positive, poised, and professional. I can't help but respect him as an orator. But what is he actually saying? I find no substance in his words.

He claims he won't be divisive or cynical, but his beliefs are far to the left of mine. If he wants to "make progress" or "give our country a new direction" then he will have to do it by fighting me and people who think like I do.

He talks about "engagement and hope"; since this email reaches his base, it must be things that he thinks they agree on: universal health care, citizenship for illegal aliens, and a pullout from Iraq. But I don't hope for those things. I don't want him to engage in those things.

If he wants to talk to me about them then I'm happy to discuss non-governmental and non-federal solutions to health care and the immigration problem, but what little he has said indicate that his solutions and mine won't coincide.

And I find that cynical. He claims not to be divisive so that he can get elected by a populace that is sick of division, but he's far enough to the left that he will surely divide the reds and blues as much as GWB did. He is not, as my friend Dennis says, offering something new. It's still "pap", in Dennis's words, just not John Edwards-style pap.

As a side note, Dennis and I were talking today, and he reiterated something he's noted before: if the left hadn't become so overrun with hatred for GWB, they could have compromised with him much more and advanced their agendas better. His positions on education, health care, immigration, and other things clearly put him to the left of this year's Republican candidates -- why couldn't they work with him? GWB should have been more divisive for Republicans (think No Child Left Behind, Harriet Myers, etc.) than he was for Democrats. At least when someone's in the other party you expect them to be against your programs. :)

Earmarks: "Congress Should Debate Them In The Open And Hold A Public Vote"

Over at Human Events, Newt Gingrich has a great roundup of the recent efforts to regain control over earmarks. Earmarks, you may recall, are dollars that are targeted to pet programs; and the pets often look a lot like Jabba the Hutt -- bloated, all-consuming, and either irrelevant or nasty.

Among other great developments, there's an executive order that prohibits the feds from taking their cues from explanatory reports and other ancillary material -- if a spending guideline isn't in the law as written, it doesn't count.

For appropriations laws and other legislation enacted after the date of this order, executive agencies should not commit, obligate, or expend funds on the basis of earmarks included in any non-statutory source, including requests in reports of committees of the Congress or other congressional documents, or communications from or on behalf of Members of Congress, or any other non-statutory source, except when required by law or when an agency has itself determined a project, program, activity, grant, or other transaction to have merit under statutory criteria or other merit-based decisionmaking.

How often does a sentence that dry sound that good? :)

Also, the President has committed to vetoing any appropriations bill that doesn't cut the number and cost of earmarks by half.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) are both fighting the good fight here -- McConnell, in fact, has just appointed a Republican task force chaired by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) to address earmark reform. Look for ways to support these men in their struggles against a bloated and domineering federal government.

Who Should You Vote For?

votechooser.com has a simple, 10-question quiz that may help you to decide for whom you should cast your vote today. In order, I got Romney, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, Clinton, and Obama.

It's worth noting that some of the key issues can be boiled down to the role of the federal government in taking and spending our money.

Primary Elections - Both sides

It looks like both sides are going to go reasonably long. As I have stated before, I am less for a candidate on either side and more for a protracted and substantive debate. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have started to have to address the difficult issues and leave their sound byte cocoons. Some things to hope for:

Democrats

With the word out that Edwards is gone, it is a two person race. So far, the debate between Hillary and Obama has been loaded with sniping and indirect shots back and forth about race and gender. Given the longstanding development of political correctness and race and gender baiting directed at those outside the Democratic party, it has been fun to see those issues talked about openly. It is long overdue but the fun is over. Now it's time to speak about real issues and real governance and real leadership. Hillary needs to answer hard questions without cackling and Obama needs to prove that his message of hope isn't a fairytale.

Republicans

With Rudy now out of the Republican mix (maybe he was never in it) and throwing his support behind McCain, it is time for Mike Huckabee to exit gracefully. So far, McCain has had the benefit of competing for the Republican nomination by carrying only RINO's and Independents. The rest of the Republican voters have been split between everyone else. For John McCain's good, he needs to win clean among Republicans. Huckabee doesn't have a real chance any longer as 80% of the country will never vote for him. Let's see a real debate between McCain and Romney and let the best man win. McCain can't win the general without real Republicans supporting him. And if it is perceived he only won because Huckabee stayed and split the vote, he will never get that support. And Romney needs to prove he can stand in the ring and go toe to toe without sounding lame.

Here's hoping that both parties go the distance. The voter will be the real winner.

Romney's win means a real race!

You can't help but be pleased if you are a Republican by Mitt Romney's win tonight in Michigan by a significant margin. McCain's surge was just a little too easy. My hope all along was a long drawn out primary process and we may just get it. This year of all year has exposed the stupidity of every state, including New Jersey who moved up their primaries. We could have had the candidates have to work through the process over the long haul and really have to campaign in many states instead of a select few. I can only continue to hope that we pass Super Tuesday with no clear winner and let the fun begin!

McCain - Vote Early Vote Often

Please tell me the clip I just saw did not have John McCain quoting Chicago's senior Daley saying to vote early and vote often...please tell me that didn't happen...

Republican Primary Roundup

It is often said that one can get a good view of a person in both victory and defeat. I watched two concession speeches and one victory speech tonight. In victory, McCain has one good moment when he referred to his life serving this country. In defeat, Romney showed class and dignity and fight. I don't want to comment on what Huckabee reminded me of but it didn't include either dignity or service.

Top points to McCain and honorable mention to Romney. More to come from a tax perspective on this crew later.

Because TV is an Essential Right to be Safeguarded for All Americans...

...we have this:

Millions of $40 government coupons become available Tuesday to help low-tech television owners buy special converter boxes for older TVs that might not work after the switch to digital broadcasting.

The networks are switching their over-the-air broadcasts from analog to digital signals, which will make some older TVs into very bulky paperweights.

The good news: You can get a brand-new digital TV at Best Buy for $139.

More good news: If that's too rich for your blood, you can continue using your old TV by buying a converter for fifty to seventy dollars.

The bad news: the federal government wants to help pay for the converters. Or, less euphemistically, it wants to force people who
(a) have already upgraded or
(b) don't watch TV
to pay for people to keep their old TV sets.

Yes, Congress has set aside $1.5 billion for 33.5 million of these $40 coupons. That's $1.34 billion in coupons and another $160 million for "other expenses" -- i.e., to establish the bureaucracy that will administer the coupons.

That's the equivalent of 10,791,367 of those TVs from Best Buy -- and 1,151,079 of those TVs are just for the administration costs.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration will allow two coupons per household, so this could -- in theory -- affect over 16 million households.*

Let's do a little math: 1.5 billion dollars divided among 16 million households = $93.75 per household. This government program will actually cost more than if we just gave each of the affected households one converter box -- but forces that cost onto the other 93% of the population that has already upgraded or doesn't watch TV.

I want to know what part of managing the radio frequency spectrum requires the US government to pay for a private citizen's choice to not upgrade his equipment.

What else could we do with that $1.5 billion? I say we should let citizens spend it for themselves. They'll often spend extra money on luxury goods like TV sets. And when they invest in new TVs, they'll be investing in the production of the latest-and-greatest technology instead of dead-on-arrival converters for old technology.

This is a clear case in which limited government would result in less-limited technology.

-----

* That's 7% of the total US households in 2005, and 14% of the "total television households" in the nation (112.8 million per the Nielsen Co.).

"Mitt Romney's Thinking of a Number", But At Least He Thinks

"Chris Kelly lives near Los Angeles, and writes for television." So says his bio on the Huffington Post, anyway. And if these are the kinds of credentials needed to write for HuffPo, it's no wonder that they end up with drivel of the kind they do.

Drivel, in this case, refers to his post "Mitt Romney is Thinking of a Number". Romney says that he wants to spend 4% of GDP on the military.

Forget the fact that Kelly doesn't know the difference between a paradox and an infinite sequence.[*] I just want to point out his logic for disliking the number 4%:

Now, you probably thought the way to come up with a figure to spend on defense was to consider either:

a) What you could afford
b) A threat

or

c) The cost of some weapon you wanted to buy

Which is why you don't work in a think tank.

The way you figure out what to spend on defense is to think of a number. In this case, four.

Now, I have to ask, have you ever heard of a liberal politician using this kind of logic to decide what to spend to stop global warming, or to expand the S-CHIP legislation to people who make 300% of the poverty line, or to provide additional Medicare / Medicaid / Social Security / whatever benefits?

Didn't think so.

And forget the fact that there may be very good reasons for that number. Kelly doesn't even ask why Romney might think that 4% is a good number. Kelly fails to mention that the Heritage Foundation report that he belittles shows that military spending in the cold war averaged about 7.5% of GDP. No, he'd rather just bash Romney for not explicitly doing something that liberals never do anyway.

-----------------------

[*] Paradox vs. Infinite Sequences: Kelly ends the post by attempting to appeal to infinite regression under the heading "Romney's Paradox":

Let's say President Romney gets to the end of the fiscal year, looks at the GDP and realizes that he hasn't spent enough money on freedom. He immediately writes a check for another nuclear zeppelin. But when you calculate GDP, you include government spending. So the price of the zeppelin raises the GDP. And now Romney has to buy something else. Perhaps a tarp. But that raises the GDP, too.

When Romney adds 4% to the GDP, it goes up 4%, and then he has to add .4% to that, and it goes up again, and then he has to add .04%. And so on, forever, without reaching his goal.

But this isn't a paradox, and (with a hat tip to my anonymous commenter) it isn't an infinite regression. A paradox is like "square circle" or "good Chris Kelly post". Infinite regression is like a child asking "but why?" every time you give an answer.

Kelly's formulation of Romney's problem is just a basic mathematical equation (though I can't do the notation here): it's GDP times the sum of .04*(1/10^x) over all integers x. It would take someone who remembers college-level math better than I do to solve it, but the equation is easily solved.

Soaking the Rich

Jonah Goldberg penned an excellent editorial in the NY Post today entitled "The Trouble with Soaking the Rich". He opens his article with a telling quote from Hillary Clinton's chief economic advisor:

The question is should we be giving an extra $120 billion to people in the top 1 percent?

Goldberg goes on to explain the thinking behind this comment:

Translation: It's the governments money and anything left over after Uncle Sam picks your pocket is a "gift".

This article really makes me think. Here I am on a train with thousand of other people on their way to work in Manhattan. I leave my family early in the morning and try to arrive home in time to say goodnight to my children. And yet, according to Hillary, the money I am earning belongs to her to spend, not me.

The article goes on to talk about who actually pays taxes:

The top 1 percent of wage earners already pays 40 percent of Federal income taxes; the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers only about 3 percent.

Given the facts there is really something unseemly about the rhetoric from some on the politicians when they continue to say that the system is unfair to poor people. The system is definitely unbalanced and it is unbalanced against those who actually pay taxes. He drives all of his points home in the closer:

I don't know what the best tax rates are, for rich or poor. But I'm pretty sure that it's unhealthy for a democracy when the majority of citizens don't see the government as a service they're reluctantly paying for - but as an extortionist that cuts them in for share of the loot.

A truly scary thought. You can read Jonah's column here.

Obama Wants a Tax Increase

Just the title of this article is another silly parody of real news. It is just like Warren Buffet proclaiming that he should be paying more taxes (while he has spent plenty protecting himself from the government he claims to want to donate more to). But Obama thinks that by raising the Social Security tax we will solve all of the issues with Social Security.

According to Obama:

"I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected," the Illinois senator said.

People like MYSELF. Of course Mr Obama forgets that he isn't really in the Social Secutity retirement systen at all. He has a US Federal Government Pension, unavailable to the rest of us. His comments are at the very least disengenous and I will leave it at that.

See the entire article here.