Congress Porks Out … Again!

You would think that after the experience with the porkulus/spendulus bill, which enjoyed a favorable rating of over 50% until details of the pork and earmarks attached to it became available after which support fell to barely 37%, that Congress would get the message that we Americans don’t want our hard-earned money to be confiscated away and then given to some pet project that doesn’t benefit us at all.

But, members of Congress (both Democrat and Republican) seem to never learn. According to the New York Post:

Congress went on a pork-a-palooza yesterday, approving a massive spending bill with big bucks for Hawaiian canoe trips, research into pig smells, and tattoo removal – all while the nation faces an economic crisis.

Clearly, they have not learned. But this isn’t all:

The bill also has a whopping 8 percent increase over last year for the numerous federal agencies it funds.

Let’s see, the Obama administration has absolutely no clue as to how it is going to provide oversight for the porkulus/spendulus funding towards the Federal Government and Congress is increasing that money already?

And the fact that 40% of this pork came from Republican lawmakers is not good at all. I hope Michael Steele is paying attention so he knows who not to back in the 2010 elections.


The bill, which critics slammed as larded with pork, has big bucks to combat putrid stenches in the heartland, with $1.7 million for “Swine Odor and Manure Management Research.”

That’s on top of $1.9 million in each of the last two years, or nearly $6 million over the last three years.

The swine research center, at Iowa State University in Ames, got funds through the Agricultural Research Service, and aims to improve the smell of animals and the lagoons where waste is stored.

Well, God knows we can’t live without knowing all there is to know about the smells that come from pigs, now can we?

And this little tidbit, I thought was most telling:

Obama has criticized earmarks and insisted they be kept out of stimulus legislation – a suggestion that drew laughs from Republicans at the president’s address to Congress Tuesday night.

Meanwhile, Obama is set to unveil a proposal today that sets aside $634 billion over the next 10 years for health-care reform.

He plans to pay for it, in part, by capping tax deductions for families that earn more than $250,000 a year.

More socialism that we cannot afford, on top of the pork that we cannot afford.

And Obama’s comment on earmarks? Whom does he think he is kidding? Why did he bother to say anything about that when it is clear to everyone that he has no intention of ever enforcing such a policy?

Obama and Congress are spending our money like drunken sailors on shore-leave. The only thing they will accomplish is destroy an already fragile economy and bankrupt future generations who will have to pay the bill for all of this fiscal foolishness.

It is time we remembered what Margaret Thatcher said: “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The way Obama and Congress are spending, that day will be coming much sooner than later.

Obama and congress seem to have no problem spending our money, but I am sure that they take care of themselves pretty well.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Congress’ Porky Pols Pig Out On Fine $wine
Geoff Earle and Daphne Retter
New York Post
February 26, 2009

Obama’s Backdoor To The Fairness Doctrine Advances

Although Obama has publically stated that he does not endorse a return of the Fairness Doctrine, a policy that effectively censors conservative speech on the radio, he did tell the FCC that he wants to see more “minority ownership” of broadcast outlets.

That is essentially his backdoor to censoring talk radio and the Dems in Congress are going to help him do it.

From Amanda Carpenter at Town Hall:

The Senate overwhelmingly approved a measure to prevent the Fairness Doctrine from being reinstated today, yet also agreed to urge the Federal Communications Commission to increase “diversity” on the airwaves.

President Obama wrote a letter to the FCC when he was Illinois senator saying action must be taken to increase minority ownership in print and broadcast media. Conservative watchdogs have argued using government to do this is a “backdoor” version of the Fairness Doctrine.

Both actions were attached to a larger bill to grant Washington D.C. voting rights. At this point it is unclear if either measure would be included in the final version of the bill.

Conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.) sponsored the amendment to kill the Fairness Doctrine. It passed 87-11.

Liberal Sen. Dick Durbin (D.-Ill.) sponsored the competing amendment for more media diversity, which passed 57-41.

So, what we have here is an initiative by the Dems to have government step in and shut down any network or stations that they don’t think are “diverse” enough.

I’m pretty sure that Durbin and the other socialists who want to see hosts like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham taken off the air are already thinking up ways to claim that outlets who carry conservative talk radio are not “diverse” enough and also thinking up the legal language to be used to have them shut down. I guess you could call it affirmative action for radio.

Nothing like using a back-door to trample on the First Amendment, eh?

You can access the complete entry on-line here:

Obama’s Back Door Fairnes Doctrine Advances
Amande Carpenter
February 26, 2009

Vice-President Joe Biden’s Attempted Hit Piece On Bobby Jindal Backfires; VP Tells Big Lie

One thing you can always count on the Democrats for is that whenever someone speaks out against them, the Dems will orchestrate a campaign against that person, usually with the help of the media, in order to somehow discredit that person and the Dems will use half-truths and outright lies when they can.

The list of people that the Dems have done this to is too long to recount here. But, the latest victim is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Here is what Vice President Joe Biden had to say after Governor Jindal gave the response to Obama’s State of the Union address.

According to KSLA News:

Wednesday morning on the CBS Early Show, Vice President Joe Biden asked, “But what I don’t understand from Governor Jindal is what would he do? In Louisiana, there’s 400 people a day losing their jobs.”

But Biden’s claim is a lie.


“In December, Louisiana was the only state in the nation besides the District of Columbia, according to the national press release, that added employment over the month,” said Patty Granier with the Louisiana Workforce Commission.

“The state gained 3,700 jobs for the seasonally adjusted employment,” Granier said of the most recent figures.

Those numbers are available on Louisiana’s employment website,

I can think of only one reason why Joe Biden would tell such a blatent lie. It is the beginning of yet another campaign to discredit a public figure who opoosed the Democrats. I think Joe Biden knew it was a lie but told it anyway knowing that CBS would do nothing to correct him.

If anyone from CBS wishes to defend the actions of the Early Show, please feel free to respond to this post. In a similar manner, if anyone at CBS was able to confirm where Joe Biden got his information from, again, please respond.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Reality Check For Vice President Joe Biden
Fred Childers
KSLA Channel 12
February 25, 2009

Obama’s Tax Increases: Heralding The Beginning Of The Second Great Depression

Are you ready for double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation rates? We haven’t seen that since Jimmy Carter. But, they are on their way here again.

Barack Obama’s tax-and-spend liberal policies are the same exact policies that Jimmy Carter tried and the same exact policies that took us into the recession of late 70’s/early 80’s. We got out of that recession by cutting taxes and letting the American economy grow.

Only this time, Obama’s policies are Carter’s policies on steroids. The results are going to be even more catastrophic than Carter’s, and those of us who remember 1979 know exactly how catastrophic they were. It was the first time since the Great Depression that we has a misiery index over 20. (Misery index = inflation rate plus unemployment rate.)

Here is what Barack Obama wants to do to our economy according to Jake Tapper of ABC News:

President Obama’s budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion – Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion – eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion – capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion – Reinstate Superfund taxes
$24 billion – tax carried-interest as income
$5 billion – codify “economic substance doctrine”
$61 billion – repeal LIFO
$210 billion – international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform
$4 billion – information reporting for rental payments
$5.3 billion – excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas
$3.4 billion – repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs
$62 million – repeal deduction for tertiary injectants
$49 million – repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties
$13 billion – repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies
$1 billion – increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers
$882 million – eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years

Several things to notice here:

1. Look at all the new taxes on oil and gas companies. How high do you think the price for a gallon of gas will go? How badly do you think that will affect low and middle income families? It is not only the gas that will go up in price but anything that has to be transported will go up in price as well. That includes food, clothing and any other consumer commodity that must be transported by ship, truck or rail.

2. The total revenue on these new taxes is $989 billion. That doesn’t even cover the porkulus/spendulus bill (1.3 trillion total in spending and interest) and represents only about half of Obama’s proposed $1.75 trillion deficit! Who among you really believes that the Dems are going to stop their tax-and-spend orgy at people making more than $250,000 per year? How long before the proposed new taxes extend downwards towards people making $100,000 per year, or $75,000 per year or $50,000 per year? I’m betting months.

I have historical fact on my side for that last assertion. In 1992, Bill Clinton promised that his new taxes would not affect anyone making less than $90,000 per year. After they added up all the numbers, a new tax law was passed through Congress which levied new taxes on people making as little as $36,000 per year. So much for unkeepable promises.

These new taxes will mark the beginning of the Second Great Depression, just as Smoot-Hawley heralded the onset of the First Great Depression.

When all is said and done, the Democrats will only have themselves to blame for the coming financial disaster, but you can be certain they will be trying to pass the blame off on someone else.

You can access the complete entry on-line here:

Obama’s Budget: Almost $1 Trillion In New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
Jake Tapper
ABC News
February 26, 2009

Excellent Dilbert Cartoon: Sums Up The Democrat Controlled Congress Nicely

Normally, Dilbert wouldn’t be a political cartoon, but this particular strip is fantastic:



Obama’s Deficit: His Gift To Future Generations

Can someone tell me why just a few days ago this guy was bitching about inheriting a budget deficit from the previous administration but then turns around and does this:

President Barack Obama is sending Congress a budget Thursday that projects the government’s deficit for this year will soar to $1.75 trillion …

He was complaining about the deficits left to him by the previous administration. Is he so ignorant that he does not realize that he will be passing along deficits that will be five to ten times larger to the next administration in 2012?

And here is what is going to send us into a new Great Depression:

A senior administration official told The Associated Press that Obama’s $3 trillion-plus spending blueprint also asks Congress to raise taxes on the wealthy in 2011 and cut Medicare costs to provide health care for the uninsured.

It would raise taxes on wealthy hedge fund managers and corporations …

Obama’s budget proposal would effectively raise income taxes and curb tax deductions on couples making more than $250,000 a year, beginning in 2011.

Somehow, Obama and the socialists in Congress have convinced themselves that taking money away from those who provide investment and employment will magically result in more investment and employment. The exact opposite is going to happen and given Obama’s track record in his recent speeches, he will come up with any lie to try and blame someone else.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Official: Budget Projects $1.75 Trillion Deficit
NBC News and News Services via MSNBC
February 26, 2009

New York Times Article From September 30, 1999 Showcases Who Is Really Responsible For The Credit Crisis

Despite Barack Obama’s bold-faced lie about deregulation being the cause for the mortgage credit crisis, the New York Times, in an article published on September 30, 1999, reveals the truth about what happened and why.

We know that it all began with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act which required banks and lenders to make risky loans to people who didn’t have the credit rating necessary to qualify for those loans.

But, as the NYT article illustrates, it was stepped up and taken to even further extremes. Now, we all know who was President in 1999, right? (Hint: it wasn’t a Republican.)

Here are some exceprts from that article:

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.

Did you read that? “Fannie Mae is easing credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.”

Now, why would they do that?

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 …

Yes, you read that correctly. “Under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration.” This was also the time when Franklin Raines made millions off of Fannie Mae even though he knew it was heading for big trouble.

I wonder if Barack Obama knew about this before he told his bold-faced lie about Republicans being at fault for the credit crisis in his State of the Union Address last night?


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.”

Again, more history that gets ignored by leftist politicians. It was the conservative American Enterprise Institute that saw the danger and the libs ignored it. And, everytime someone brought up the possibility that Freddie and Fannie would go under, it was libs who blocked any effort at reform.


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. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The push for making all of these subprime loans came first from the 1977 CRA (passed and signed into law by Democrats) and then later from the Clinton Administration.

Now, who is responsible for this economic crisis? (Hint: they were not Republicans.)

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Steven A. Holmes
New York Times
September 30, 1999

And just in case the New York Times decides to place this article into a memory hole, you can download it in .pdf format here:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Steven A. Holmes
New York Times
September 30, 1999