Shouldn't They Buy Us Dinner First?

I was reading this post at Wake Up America about the $606 billion dollar spending bill that President Bush, in perhaps his first moment of fiscal clarity since his tax cuts, vetoed and was so stunned by every aspect of it that I went numb for hours before I could write anything about it.

First, I'd like to say to President Bush: Welcome back to the GOP. I've supported him on the war on terror but he's been spending money on other things as if he was Teddy Kennedy at a Moroccan whore house. It's one of the big reasons Republicans like me couldn't seem to find our checkbooks to support the party during last year's elections. If he and the other Republicans back in Washington don't get a grip on this issue soon they can all practice saying "Madame Comrade President". It's nice to see these lines drawn again. It is the job of the Democrats to promise to fund everything forever (see: John "A Pony For Every American" Edwards ). It used to be the job of the Republicans to say "Whoa there, Sparky, back away from the taxpayers." It would be very nice to see this issue become a focal point of the GOP platform next year.

Next, I painstakingly went through the pork items listed in the post before checking out reaction in the MSM. My first stop was my local newspaper, The Los Angeles Times (a big city paper with a circulation of about fourteen), and found its article titled, "Bush vetoes education, spending bill." A quick check of some of the other usual suspects found that this was the general theme of the story now. According to the MSM, it wasn't a bloated bill with more pork than a new Britney Spears video, it was a bill that would have funded "education" and "health." This is a convenient ploy which enables the Democrats to avoid discussion of the $10 billion or so in pork by focusing on things we need to do for the children.

Here are some of the health and education items in the bill.

Chuck Schumer (D-Tantrum) and Mrs. Clinton wanted almost half a million bucks for "Jazz At Lincoln Center." I kind of feel good when listening to jazz so I guess that makes it "health" spending.

Occasional Republican Arlen Spector (R-Back Stab) wanted almost $900,000 for "abstinence education and related services." Sen. Spector is invited to my house any time. I'll show him how easily I can say "Don't have sex," to my daughter at a cost of $0.00. It's ironic, spending almost a million dollars on abstinence can make you feel like you've just been screwed.

This one really caught my eye: "$1,000,000 for Bismarck State College for an instrumentation and control training program for the energy industry." This is about as vague as Christopher Dodd's (D-No Shot) reasons for still being in the race. I believe it's a fancy way of saying "We want to teach people how to work the 'On/Off' switches at the windmills." They'll no doubt seek additional funding next year to teach workers where the sun is when installing solar panels.

The list goes on, with Republican and Democrat offenders sprinkled throughout. Heads up people, this is the kind of crap Congress pulls when they think we're not paying attention. They take a bill that has necessary funding as its purpose, sneak in ten billion dollars worth of "No Sex Jazz at the Energy Industry" and pray that you won't notice. Since this particular bill has Medicare and Medicaid funding in it they were sure the president wouldn't veto it. They're not merely playing politics with your money, they're doing it with your health this time.

My hope is that every member of Congress attached to this porky mess gets voted out of office so he or she can find something in the private sector they're good at.

Like bank fraud.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

UN A Hazard To Our Children

This just in from the U.S. Dept. of Duh!: The United Nations is hazardous to our children.

OK-it was actually Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I-Hissy Fit) who said it here and he was talking about the building itself but any launching point for a discussion about getting rid of the UN is good for me. Truthfully, you could ask me what I had for breakfast and I could turn it into a discussion about why I can't stand the U.S.-hating, foot-stomping do-nothings (I'm excessively hyphenated today, aren't I?) at the UN.

Imagine forming a group in your neighborhood the purports to foster good relations between members. Now imagine the group building its meeting place in your back yard after you agree to pay for most of it and inviting people over to insult you. No sober person with an IQ higher than the teens would sign up for such a group, right?

The idea that all the nations of the world should hang out and get along is wonderful. So is the idea that I should be able to date Jessica Biel. Neither, however, is likely to happen soon.

The UN Charter is full of noble ideals about peace, human rights and putting an end to war. (It completely avoids the subject of me hooking up with Jess which, I'll admit, kind of pisses me off.) It seeks to make a better world through a supranational governing body. Basically, it's the Democrats on steroids. "We don't have to change personally but we can let the UN make the world a place full of pretty flowers and puppies."

Much like the 2007 New Orleans Saints, the UN looked good on paper but hasn't lived up to any of its potential. When not overseeing the "Dictator-Psycopath Hosting Program" the United Nations busies itself with other important things, like trying to take over the world rather than help it get along.

Through its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN constantly adds to the shrill, unbalanced climate hysteria. The panel gathers scientists and ill defined experts which then meet up Al Gore's butt to examine computer predictions about what might happen. It then highlights the most extreme predictions, ignores any dissenting voices and screams "Consensus!" A report is quickly issued with much fanfare that tells you you're going to drown next Thursday unless you let a new brand of communism hijack the economy. Next year, the IPCC hopes to branch out into horoscopes and Tarot readings.

Even scarier is the Law of the Sea Treaty, or, L.O.S.T., which is probably the most fitting acronym of all time. This treaty would turn over sovereignty of the majority of the world's oceans to the UN. I don't know if you've looked at a globe recently but there's a whole lotta water out there. Under this treaty, the UN would arbitrate territorial disputes. That's a winner. Because fairness to the United States' point of view is really what the United Nations is all about, right? Sure, and Nicole Richey is going to finish all her lunch tomorrow. If you're an American who wants Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin having a say in what's best for you then L.O.S.T. is your kind of treaty.

Now, with proof that the building itself isn't safe we can finally use the favorite argument of liberals to justify getting rid of it: let's do it for the children.

The United Nations has had well over half a century to try and carry out its charter. Its biggest success to date has been getting into bed with Saddam Hussein for a black market oil trading scheme. That it did quite well, I must admit. It bodes well for them getting into black market carbon credit trading once the Climate Commies succeed in ruining the U.S. economy.

Sadly, we still have wars and people are still mean to each other. Turning the UN into a modern day Death Star isn't going to change all that.

For the first time in months, I agree with Mike Bloomberg. The UN is hazardous but for far greater reasons than he outlined.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled dollars...

It is almost impossible to comprehend what it is about taxes that makes Democrats feel so warm and fuzzy inside. When you speak to the average American, April 15th is a day of dread. If you're talking to a politician who's a Democrat, however, it's state-sponsored Christmas, replete with visions of extorted money dancing in their heads.

St. Obama of Lightweight (D-Cuba) was on Meet The Press this morning and trying to get a seat with the adults again. He's at his best when he simply smiles and speaks in generalities but every once in a while he tries to break away from the cult of personality that's gotten him this far and say something specific. The first time he tried this he promised a lunch date with all the dictators in the world if he became president. Today he renewed his love affair with the Internal Revenue Service.

The subject: Social Security. The solution: more taxes! (I'm convinced that if you wake a Democratic presidential candidate up from a deep sleep he or she will yell, "It's all George Bush's fault and we need higher taxes to fix it!)

Democrats make themselves feel smart by telling other Democrats that Republicans are stupid. I have to wonder, though, about a group of candidates who are so intellectually limited that they can only find one solution to every complex problem facing this country. True, they don't want to spend money on the war but they've already earmarked every dollar going to fight terrorism for something else, like building windmills in Nebraska to generate enough power for a small night light. Additional night lights will require additional taxes for additional windmills, of course.

Like every other time he's spoken specifically, Sunday's quotes from St. Obama reveal once again that he has about as much substance as cotton candy. "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," he said regarding Social Security. All of that book learnin' and this is "the best way" to deal with the looming SS nightmare?

Here we arrive at another one of those key differences between Democrats and Republicans that doesn't get discussed enough: Democrats think you are too ignorant to take care of your own money. If you don't believe me, tell one of the presidential candidates that you'd rather be able to invest some of your SS money privately. They'll react as if you just said you wanted to kill their pets. Then they'll accuse you of threatening the legacy of FDR, kidnapping the Lindbergh baby and spiking Lindsay Lohan's drinks. You see, when it comes to Social Security, the liberal and progressive Democrats want to make sure everything stays exactly as it was in 1935.

Never mind that Obama is primarily talking about taxing "the rich" in this one instance. This rabid penalizing of "the rich" that the Democrats are so fond of always trickles down to hurt the middle class and the poor.

Countries from England to Chile to, more recently, Poland have been allowing private investment in their versions of social security with great success. Guess what kids? When the money is managed privately instead of by the government the administrative costs are lower. This is based on a complicated economic model called "The Freakin' Obvious".

Even with safeguards in place, you stand to realize greater returns on your money with private investment than with a completely government controlled Social Security system. The very people who have run this system into the ground economically are trying to tell you that you're still better off letting them handle your money. If you do it it's too "risky" according to them. Imagine a guy who comes by every day at noon, stabs you in the back and then tells you that you need him to protect you. If you won the lottery tomorrow who would you rather have handle the money-Warren Buffet or the House of Representatives? Exactly.

So, Barack, I'll keep my hand on my wallet as long as you're speaking, thank you. Go read this from the National Center for Policy Analysis and find out just how many leaders in other countries have come up with solutions that involve creativity, intelligence and belief in people. For now, your "best way" of handling anything is to shut up, smile and let the press keep fawning over you for no reason whatsoever.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Behold The Sweating Donkey

This is the party a supposed majority of Americans wants in charge? Their front-runner, who has a war chest of about 67 quadrillion dollars, hiccups in one debate and suddenly all the Dems are running for the Zoloft. One wouldn't want to think that a party with two women in charge would become hysterical at the first sign of trouble, would one?

An article at the liberal The American Prospect considers some signs of growing unease amongst our liberal friends. Hillary is no longer stomping Rudy in the polls so some Democrats are getting their government subsidized knickers in a twist. At first blush, it's difficult to tell if there is genuine panic or the magazine merely wants to fire up the faithful to make sure they don't get too comfortable.

A post from yesterday over at Wake Up America (another new favorite of mine!) titled Panic In Hillaryville? examines the suddenly vulnerable Mrs. Clinton from a few different angles.

True, the Clinton campaign has had a few stumbles in recent weeks. Her support of NY Governor Eliot "Che" Spitzer and his "Break The Law-Get A Driver's License!" program may come back to haunt her more than her wedding vows. The press is even getting on her a little as part of their "Saint Obama 24/7" approach to covering the campaigns.

If you take Hillary's problems and couple them with the leadership train wreck that is The Nancy Pelosi Express and you would think things are looking better for the G.O.P. all the time. A Republican with no memory might be excited but those of us who have been around for more than a couple of elections need to be wary.

Let's remember the most important thing here: Hillary is a Clinton. How many times during the 90's did the Republicans think they had Bill on the ropes only to see him grin and end up in better shape than he was before? I can't count that high either.

I'm not a real believer in satanic pacts but if they do exist the Clintons have signed on for the Deluxe Package. These people have their friends sit in jail for them. When the nicest thing you can say about a couple is "Well, they've never been convicted of anything," you know you've got some slippery operators on your hands. You'd think if there ever was a law breaking president who prosecutors could catch with his pants down, Bill Clinton would have been it. But he always managed to stay one quick zip-up ahead of the law.

I just saw it posted on Wake Up America that Hillary's newest scandal is called Questiongate. This scandal does show what a control freak Hillary is but I don't think any of us doubted that. As scandals go, this one doesn't have much chance of derailing her. Just Google "Vince Foster" if you don't believe me.

Let's let St. Obama and Fluffy Edwards get cocky because Mrs. C. tripped up a bit. What the Republican party needs to do is spend time getting back to its roots then getting the message out there. Republican leadership wasted a lot of time during the late 90's reacting to Bill Clinton rather being proactive with a powerful message. If we make that mistake again our Clinton Hangover is going to come back with a vengeance.

Cross posted at Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Alternative Minimum Brain Cells

Watch your wallets kids, House Speaker Fancy Nancy Pelosi (D-Delirium) wants to go shopping and guess who she wants to pay for it? Ronald Reagan once said that the scariest words in the English language were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." I think we should add to that the words "fiscal responsibility" coming out of any Democratic leader's mouth.

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), like Social Security, was set up a long time ago without factoring in inflation, a growing economy or common sense. Again, this is the government helping. It was created to keep a few of the very rich from being able to work the system and avoid paying taxes. Because lawmakers made an "Oops!" on the inflation part, more and more of the middle class is defined as "a few of the very rich." Now Congress has to create a "patch" every year to keep that from happening, sort of like a trauma surgeon shooting you then offering to operate. The government creates a problem (convoluted, extortionist tax code), provides relief for a problem created by the problem (AMT) then provides relief for the problem created by the problem created by the problem (patch). Stop helping already!

This year, Speaker Nannykins and her dancing chimp Steny Hoyer (D-Highway Robbery) are trying to sneak some extra baggage in with the patch. She's trying to get $80 billion in new tax revenues by throwing some hurt on private equity managers as well as real estate and venture-capital investors, to name a few. Grandma Nancy says that this plants "a flag for fiscal responsibility." It's where she wants to shove that flag during said planting that worries me.

Here we go again...the Dems are mad at "The Rich." There is a fundamental breakdown in the wiring of liberals that makes them incapable of understanding that wealth in this country flows from the top down and not the bottom up. There is an inextricable link between "The Rich" and "The Paycheck" that they just don't see. I guess when you've been in Congress too long you just get used to waving a tax wand and "Poof!"-the money you want appears. It's all play money to them and they don't really ever consider where it comes from.

Of course, the problem is rooted in the socialism that has become the primary engine of the post-Viet Nam Democratic Party. In their ideal world, the money would flow from all of us directly to the bloated cow of a federal government that they dream about. The money would then flow from the cow's teats (love that word) and all of "The Rich" could be done away with. Don't try to wrap your heads around the fact that most of the Democrats in Congress are card-carrying members of "The Rich." As I've said before and will say again, irony is a notion that eludes the Left.

Thankfully, President Bush, that lame-duck who keeps spanking the Democratic donkey, has promised that Madame Comrade Speaker won't get away with this. Further indicating that the hysterical Ms. Pelosi is losing her tenuous leadership grip, some Democrats are worried about the long-term effect of sticking it to the targets singled out in this bill.

Only by voting can we help our gal Nan not "help" us.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell & Real Clear Politics (Vote for it there!)