Obama administration claims ‘jobs saved or created’ in congressional districts that don’t exist
The federal government seems to be reporting erroneous jobs created or saved numbers in order to make the stimulus look more succesful than it is instead of the failure that it actually is. What other conclusion can you come to after reading this article which highlights such inconsistencies as the government spending money in congressional districts that don’t exist?
This article lists millions of dollars in spending that was sent to congressional districts that do not exist creating a few hundred jobs. Leaving aside the huge amount of money spent to create so few jobs, one is left to wonder if those jobs actually exist considering the districts do not.
Naturally the government is not taking the blame for fudging the numbers, intentional or not, they are instead blaming the recipients of the money for providing the wrong information.
Some recipients clearly don’t know what congressional district they live in, so they appear to be just throwing in any number
Even if that statement is true and the Obama administration isn’t purposely inflating the job numbers as I think that he is, is it any less disturbing that the government officials who are receiving and disbursing the money don’t know what congressional district they are in?
That thought may be more disturbing because I always expected Obama to fudge the job numbers; he started using the “jobs saved” terminology because it would be too hard quantify actual jobs saved. But to think that those who are in charge of spending the stimulus money don’t even know what district they represent is just too frightening to ponder.
So, the options are; either the government is skewing the jobs created or saved numbers, or the officials who are receiving the money are inept and irresponsible. I ask you which is worse.
And these people want to run our healthcare system.
John Thune will introduce a bill to stop the bailouts
Senator John Thune intends to propose a bill tomorrow that would end the TARP fund bailouts. There is still $200 billion in unspent TARP money and his bill would prohibit the tax evading Timothy Geithner from extending the deadline for spending this money beyond the end of the year.
The fear is that the administration will continue to use this money in a manner that was never intended.
Thune told POLITICO that he wants to ensure that remaining TARP funds “don’t get used as a political slush fund and are used actually for a purpose that I think most people in the country would support — and that is to pay down the federal debt
The TARP money was supposed to be used to bailout troubled banks but the Obama administration has used the money to take over some of the banks and automobile industry.
While I don’t even agree that the money should have been spent for its originally intended purpose I certainly do not agree that it should be spent in such an abusive way. It is time to end the TARP program once and for all. Here is hoping that this Thune bill will have a better outcome than the last amendment that he proposed.
For those of you who may come here and use the Bush started it defense, let me just say: No shit! I opposed the TARP funds then and I oppose them now. I do find it amusing that Obama supporters are willing to justify Obama’s TARP fund spending by defending a Bush policy however.
Senator Jeff Merkley claims that congress’s first enumerated power gives congress the authority to mandate heathcare coverage
When asked for a specific provision in the constitution that gives the government the power to mandate healthcare coverage Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley said it was in the “very first enumerated power” of the constitution.
In other words, he is using the “general welfare” clause to justify the government’s demand that all Americans buy healthcare coverage.
The very first enumerated power gives the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare. So it’s right on, right on the front end.
This is the same argument that Steny Hoyer used and as I have already debunked that myth once by using Madison’s and Hamilton’s own arguments on the “general welfare” clause, instead of wasting my time repeating myself I will provide you with the link so that you can judge for yourselves the folly of this argument.
To see why the “general welfare” clause does not give the government the right to mandate to the people that they must buy healthcare coverage please read this article.
Doug Hoffman unconcedes New York 23
The elections from earlier this month in which Republicans made some gains are over, or are they? As I first wrote about here, the votes are still being counted in New York 23 where Doug Hoffman conceded the election to Democrat Bill Owens and the results have tightened up considerably and the final result will rest in the large number of absentee ballots. Doug Hoffman could still win this race.
When Doug Hoffman conceded the election it provided Nancy Pelosi the means to legally swear in Bill Owens just in time for him to vote for the healthcare reform bill because technically the race was no longer contested. But the official results are still coming in and the race is closer than anybody thought. This has prompted Doug Hoffman to unconcede his concession on Glenn Beck’s radio show earlier today.
In the unlikely event that Doug Hoffman actually pulls off the victory, Democrat Bill Owens will have to be removed from congress and Doug Hoffman will be sworn in. While this would not reverse the vote that was already taken on healthcare reform, a Hoffman victory would be another feather in the cap of a possible conservative resurgence.
The strange New York 23 race continues to get even more strange.
ACORN sues the government for being defunded unconstitutionally– do they actually have a case?
In the wake of the scandals that have come to light involving ACORN, congress moved to cut off additional funding for the group. ACORN is now suing to have their funding restored, claiming that congress’ actions were unconstitutional.
My first thoughts when I read this were; this is ridiculous, and are you kidding me? But now I am not so sure that ACORN doesn’t have grounds to sue.
While ACORN’s suit may seem outrageous at first glance, I think that the Supreme Court could actually rule in ACORN’s favor. ACORN is claiming that congress passed a bill of attainder to cut off their funding. A bill of attainder is any bill that targets an individual or group and imposes punishment without a trial.
It certainly seems as though that is the case, ACORN was targeted by congress for crimes that they allegedly committed and defunded because of those crimes. If this is how the Supreme Court views it, than they could actually rule in ACORN’s favor, they could declare congress’ actions unconstitutional. The constitution strictly forbids congress passing any bill of attainder in Article 1 Section 9, and under this clause the Supreme Court could actually vote to re-institute ACORN’s funding.
The question is, at least to me, does cutting off funds in an appropriations bill amount to punishment and a bill of attainder? Doesn’t the congress have the right to appropriate money?
The constitution says, under Article 1 Section 7, that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives, it makes no mention of how the money may be spent. While in Article 1 Section 8 congress is given the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
I have made my feelings known about the abuses that I feel have been committed under the “general welfare” clause. Congress has used this clause to implement various “social welfare” programs. I think that they have interpreted the “general welfare” clause in a manner that is at odds with the intent of the founders. But I am getting off topic, that is another debate altogether.
If congress has the right to provide funding for the “general welfare” than doesn’t congress also have the right to stop funding a program if they so choose to do so in the name of the “general welfare”?
That is what the Supreme Court debate will focus on. Did congress unconstitutionally pass a bill of attainder against ACORN or did they simply follow their constitutional right to provide for the “general welfare” of the United States in a manner that they thought was best?
I really do think that this is what the argument boils down to and I think that is could go either way. If ACORN does manage to win this lawsuit can you imagine the legal ramifications and the precedent this will set? Will congress be hamstrung from ever cutting money out of an appropriations bill again? Won’t other agencies when faced with cuts of federal money line up and play the victim the way that ACORN has?
There is nobody that wants to see ACORN defunded more than I do and there is nobody that wants to see ACORN disbanded more that I do, but I am not willing to go as far as Republican Representative Darrell Izza did when he characterized the constitution as “any mechanism available” being used by ACORN in their defense. The constitution is not merely “any mechanism available” it is the law of the land, it is THE mechanism. I get so tired of hearing these politicians marginalize the constitution when the constitutionallity of an issue doesn’t fit what they believe the constitution should say.
ACORN may be a vile, corrupt, insidious organization and I hope that they get what they have coming to them, but if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is allowed to have constitutional rights, so should ACORN.
Homeland Security director, Janet Napolitano, has confirmed what we all knew was Obama’s position; he is going to push for an immigration reform bill that will provide amnesty for the 14 million illegal immigrants now estimated to be in the country.
A tough and fair pathway to earned legal status will mandate that illegal immigrants meet a number of requirements—including registering, paying a fine, passing a criminal background check, fully paying all taxes and learning English
While I like the idea that illegal aliens would have to pay their taxes and learn English is there anybody out there that thinks these guidelines will ever be met or enforced by the administration?
Janet Napolitano uses the argument that once illegals become legal and begin to pay their taxes that it will strengthen the economy. Somebody please explain to me how we can add 14 million “workers” to the workforce, who will be taking jobs away from Americans who are searching desperately for work, and this will help the economy.
The fact is that these illegals will take jobs away from American citizens, and please don’t try to tell me that they are only doing the jobs that Americans will not do. With an unemployment rate over 10%, and with Obama’s policies in place the number is sure to climb, there are no jobs that desperate Americans will not do if it means putting food on the table.
Barack Obama should be focusing his attention on creating more jobs for the American people, not on creating more legal workers for jobs that are not there.
But there is another angle to this story that I want to explore, and that is the healthcare issue. Barack Obama continues to claim that there are 40 million AMERICANS without healthcare insurance but that is not true. There may be 40 million people living in America who do not have healthcare but 14 million of them are illegal aliens. Obama has also claimed that no illegal alien will be granted free healthcare under his reform bill and if he manages to legalize the 14 million illegals I suppose that statement will be true. Once Obama provides the 14 million illegals with amnesty they will be American citizens and will then be eligible for healthcare. Obama will give illegals healthcare insurance– he just plans on legalizing them first. He is playing the age old game of bait and switch.
Obama may put global warming bill on the back burner
In his State of the Union address early next year Barack Obama intends to announce that he will focus on reducing the federal deficit next year. When you are finished laughing and can continue reading please do.
If Obama does follow through on this promise, which is unlikely considering his propensity for breaking promises, it looks like the cap and trade legislation will be a casualty of Barack Obama’s newfound frugality.
There is a chance that Obama could curb spending next year because it is an election year.
Democrats have to reassure voters we are not being reckless,” said a Democratic official involved in the planning. “The White House knows this and that’s why we’ll be hearing a lot about reducing the deficit early next year. Democrats owned this issue for the past four years and cannot afford to cede it to Republicans now
The country cannot afford cap and trade legislation period and the Democrats cannot afford cap and trade legislation from a political standpoint. I do find it interesting however that if we are reaching, or have reached, a crisis point in regard to the environment and that action needs to be taken before it is too late as we are constantly being told, that Democrats would find the political ramifications of saving the world more important than actually saving the world. If the situation was as dire as we are told wouldn’t it be irresponsible for Democrats to put politics first?
This should just help to show people that climate change is not the serious issue that the left claims that it is. Climate change, and cap and trade is nothing but bullshit, it is contrived, it is a hoax. Politicians have been preying off of fear in the hopes of passing a huge tax increase as well as government regulations and controls. They realize that this is political dynamite in 2010, cap and trade will further destroy the economy and while the administration has been trying to ram healthcare reform down our throats instead of focusing on the economy turning next to cap and trade would be suicide.
So cap and trade will fall by the wayside, and don’t get me wrong, this is great news regardless of the reason. But the fact is eventually cap and trade will be back on the table after the 2010 election if we do not vote these people out of office. We may have earned a reprieve on this issue but it is not dead.
If Democrats manage to save their jobs in 2010 they will be able to return to saving the world. They have just prioritized the issues I guess.
Obama hires lawyer to “erase tracks” between himself and ACORN
In my last post, I wrote about the resignation of Greg Craig from White House counsel. He became the fall guy for Obama’s failure to close GITMO as promised but there could be even more to the story of his resignation. That story lies in the man Barack Obama chose to replace Craig.
Greg Craig was almost immediately replaced by Bob Bauer, a lawyer who has defended Barack Obama’s association with ACORN in the past. According to Representative Steve King, Bob Bauer could have been put in place to begin “erasing the tracks” between Obama and the corrupt organization that he loves so much.
Bob Bauer has a public record of defending Barack Obama’s relationship with ACORN, the congressman told supporters. “Bauer’s hiring appears to be a tactical maneuver to strategically defend the White House exactly one week after Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell raided ACORN’s national headquarters in New Orleans and seized paper records and computer hard drives that may lead to the White House
One week after ACORN was raided Barack Obama replaced his counsel with a man who has much more knowledge of Obama’s relationship with ACORN. This is certainly and interesting turn of events. A little too coincidental for me, and obviously for Representative King as well.
Barack Obama seems to be preparing himself for whatever is in the documents that were seized last week. Either he knows what is in those documents and he is “lawyering up” or he doesn’t know what is in the documents but he knows what could be in those documents and he is “lawyering up.” Either way, he appears to be getting ready because he knows about ACORN’s shady past and he was part of it. It makes no difference if there is no incriminating evidence in these papers, Barack Obama’s actions indicate to us that he knows what ACORN was up to and that he was part of it.
It may turn out that there is nothing in those documents that would harm the president but he certainly must be worried. There has to be some documents in some ACORN office that has the president nervous enough to bring in a man with knowledge of Obama’s dealings with ACORN in the past.
Here is what Barack Obama had to say about Bob Bauer:
Bob has served as a trusted counselor for many years to many elected officials and is known as a tough and widely respected advocate
In other words, he has plenty of experience defending corrupt politicians. Barack Obama may need him. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is already investigating Barack Obama’s illegal firing of Gerald Walpin for exposing corruption in another of the president’s favorite organizations, AmeriCorps and now this.
It is becoming more evident that the Chicago style of corruption and thug politics has indeed infiltrated the White House.
Obama’s GITMO fall guy, Greg Craig, resigns
Today it was announced that Greg Craig is stepping down from the Obama administration.
One of the first acts Barack Obama did as president was to sign the executive order to close GITMO by the end of this year. This was a feel good move and a bone that Obama threw to the far left in an effort to appease them. There was never any chance that GITMO was going to be closed by the end of the year. Barack Obama signed this executive order without even bothering to consider what he was going to do with the terrorists that are being held there.
But now that Barack Obama can no longer hide the fact that he has to break his GITMO pledge he has to save face– there has to be a fall guy to provide cover for Obama, after all he is never going to admit his mistake, and Greg Craig appears to be the guy that has to fall on the sword for Obama.
So while Craig supposedly fell out of favor in the administration for his mishandling of the GITMO closing, it was the president’s rash and shortsighted decision to close GITMO without all of the facts that led to this failure. He will never admit this even though many of us knew that his proposal was too aggressive. He can now turn to his far left base and claim that he tried his best to close GITMO but Greg Craig blew it. He will wash his hands of any blame.
I am sure that before all is said and done Barack Obama will reward Greg Craig for taking the hit on this issue.
Virginia senator compares healthcare mandates to driver’s licenses
I have written several posts now about politicians who are trying to justify mandating healthcare coverage. Some politicians have tried to cite a clause in the constitution that they believe gives them this power while other politicians (Roland Burris) made up clauses in the constitution that do not exist, and still others just get insulted that their authority is even questioned. But Senator Warner of Virginia may take the cake.
When asked where the constitution granted congress the authority to mandate healthcare coverage here is what Warner had to say:
The United States Congress passed laws regarding Medicare and Medicaid that became de facto mandatory programs. States all the time require people to have driver’s licenses. I think that this is a bit of a spurious argument that’s being made by some folks
He equates states requiring driver’s licenses to the federal government mandating healthcare insurance? The argument does not hold water.
First, we are talking about state laws versus federal laws.
Second, the reason that states require driver’s licenses is to ensure the safety of others, not just the person holding the license, whereas a person can choose to buy health insurance to protect themselves. This is the same fraudulent argument that has politicians, including the president, claiming that mandating healthcare coverage is the same as mandating auto insurance.
Senator Warner refused to cite the clause that grants congress the power to mandate healthcare coverage and instead tried to justify his position with a faulty argument. In fact he also tried to marginalize the people who feel that congress is over-reaching with his comment that those who question the constitutionality of healthcare mandates are just making a “spurious argument.”
The fact of the matter is that there is no clause that grants the power to the federal government to mandate healthcare insurance, pure and simple.
