The Democrats are going to the dogs – the Blue Dogs, that is. And that’s bad news for both the liberal foxes trying to lead the Dems and the rabid dogs of the far right nipping at the heels of Republicans.
Don’t get me wrong. I think foxes are interesting to watch. We’ve got a few in our backyard that sit under the deck or in the azalea bushes waiting for a chance to ambush the squirrels fattening themselves at the bird feeder in preparation for winter. That’s what foxes do. They survive by preying on small, unsuspecting animals. They’re also known for stealing all the eggs from the henhouse, destroying the hope of future generations.
Rabid dogs can be equally dangerous. Driven by unreason, they act irrationally, spreading their deadly disease as they lash out in crazed hate.
Yes, it is good to see the Blue Dogs baring their teeth as they stand up to guard the henhouse from the foxes in their own party. Now, we need some “Red Dogs” to serve as the bark of reason and fend off the rabid dogs on the Republican side.
Hey, that could be my campaign slogan: Elect Joey, the bark of reason.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Your Tax Dollars Hardly Working
(Editor's Note: Since I am hard at work on what I hope will be the masterpiece of a lifetime, I am neglecting the blog. Instead of being a daily commentary, it's going to be more of a weekly event. Joey will continue to do his Saturday blog -- just to keep you posted on his congressional campaign, if nothing else. And we're hoping that Mom, who started this thing, will eventually get freed up enough to contrribute on a weekly basis too.)
On to the blog.
CNN is running a series about how the billions of stimulus dollars are being spent. It's been a bit of an eye-opener. This morning, for instance, it tracked down three projects being funded by our future tax dollars:
-- About $18 million went to set up and maintain the website that tracks the stimulus money. (I wonder how much the CEO of that company is making? And who does s/he know to get that gig?)
-- Nearly $200,000 went to renovate four bathrooms at a federal facility in Wisconsin. (I know plumbers aren't cheap, but this seems a bit ridiculous.)
-- More than $9,000 went to buy 20 mesh chairs for a federal office. (Hello? Did anyone in government ever hear of Office Depot?)
These projects, which are just the tip of the iceberg, raise some questions. Were they bid out in keeping with federal purchasing rules? Or is the stimulus money going to Friends (read "supporters") of Congress? Were the chairs made in the U.S.? Is that even a requirement for stimulus money since we're borrowing a lot of it from China? Exactly how many jobs were created, or even "saved," by these projects?
And, finally, were these projects necessary? Ah, that's the biggie. I don't know about you, but when things are financially tight at my house, the last thing we do is spend extravagantly on remodeling or go out and buy expensive furniture. No, we stick to the bread-and-butter things -- like groceries, gas for the car and utilities.
But then we have to get by on what we earn -- not on what we can take out of someone else's pocket.
On to the blog.
CNN is running a series about how the billions of stimulus dollars are being spent. It's been a bit of an eye-opener. This morning, for instance, it tracked down three projects being funded by our future tax dollars:
-- About $18 million went to set up and maintain the website that tracks the stimulus money. (I wonder how much the CEO of that company is making? And who does s/he know to get that gig?)
-- Nearly $200,000 went to renovate four bathrooms at a federal facility in Wisconsin. (I know plumbers aren't cheap, but this seems a bit ridiculous.)
-- More than $9,000 went to buy 20 mesh chairs for a federal office. (Hello? Did anyone in government ever hear of Office Depot?)
These projects, which are just the tip of the iceberg, raise some questions. Were they bid out in keeping with federal purchasing rules? Or is the stimulus money going to Friends (read "supporters") of Congress? Were the chairs made in the U.S.? Is that even a requirement for stimulus money since we're borrowing a lot of it from China? Exactly how many jobs were created, or even "saved," by these projects?
And, finally, were these projects necessary? Ah, that's the biggie. I don't know about you, but when things are financially tight at my house, the last thing we do is spend extravagantly on remodeling or go out and buy expensive furniture. No, we stick to the bread-and-butter things -- like groceries, gas for the car and utilities.
But then we have to get by on what we earn -- not on what we can take out of someone else's pocket.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Joey for Congress!
I can’t count real well. OK, I can’t count at all. (I am learning my left from my right. Beat that, Bo Obama!) But I do know that those numbers the president and Congress are simultaneously throwing around and ignoring would keep all of the world’s dogs and cats fed for an eternity.
What gets me is that if Mom and Dad were having financial problems, we couldn’t go to the bank – or China, for that matter – for an unsecured loan. And we definitely couldn’t get the Waltons, Gateses and Kennedys of this world to dig into their pockets to give us, say, 5 percent of their taxable earnings.
Nope, we’d have to start cutting costs. Things like cable TV and the home phone (that would be good riddance – I hate the sound of that thing!) would be gone. We’d have to move someplace cheaper, and I’d probably get fewer, if any, treats. Unlike the government, we definitely wouldn’t be looking for ways to spend more money. Don’t get me wrong. I wouldn’t mind a posh new crate, more treats and a new Toyota Cruiser to ride around in.
I could argue that spending that money would help the economy by helping the companies that make those things, which would mean a few more people would have jobs so they could spend money at a few more businesses that could then hire a few more people until eventually that money trickled back around to us. I can just see Mom and Dad telling the student loan people, the landlord and all the utility companies that they can’t pay their bills because they have to spend their money on things that will help grow the economy. Oh, and they’ll pay their bills when it all trickles back down. Yeah, right.
Even I know you can’t spend your way out of debt. Hey, maybe I should run for Congress!
What gets me is that if Mom and Dad were having financial problems, we couldn’t go to the bank – or China, for that matter – for an unsecured loan. And we definitely couldn’t get the Waltons, Gateses and Kennedys of this world to dig into their pockets to give us, say, 5 percent of their taxable earnings.
Nope, we’d have to start cutting costs. Things like cable TV and the home phone (that would be good riddance – I hate the sound of that thing!) would be gone. We’d have to move someplace cheaper, and I’d probably get fewer, if any, treats. Unlike the government, we definitely wouldn’t be looking for ways to spend more money. Don’t get me wrong. I wouldn’t mind a posh new crate, more treats and a new Toyota Cruiser to ride around in.
I could argue that spending that money would help the economy by helping the companies that make those things, which would mean a few more people would have jobs so they could spend money at a few more businesses that could then hire a few more people until eventually that money trickled back around to us. I can just see Mom and Dad telling the student loan people, the landlord and all the utility companies that they can’t pay their bills because they have to spend their money on things that will help grow the economy. Oh, and they’ll pay their bills when it all trickles back down. Yeah, right.
Even I know you can’t spend your way out of debt. Hey, maybe I should run for Congress!
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
Here's my take on the good, the bad and the ugly when it comes to national news this week.
The Good: President Obama announced yesterday that he will nominate geneticist Francis Collins to be the next director of the National Institutes of Health. Collins led the government's Human Genome Project while serving as director of the NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute and is well-respected for his work -- in most circles.
But as I wrote in a previous blog, there are some scientists who take issue with Collins because he is an evangelical Christian. These people don't think anyone who believes in God is fit to run a government agency that deals with science.
The Bad: Our economy is still spiraling downward. Despite the billions of dollars we have borrowed and spent on "stimulus" projects, the national unemployment rate is now expected to hit 10 percent. The latest employment figures show 467,000 jobs were lost in June, and the jobless rate hit a 26-year high of 9.5 percent, according to the Associated Press.
To sell the stimulus package, the administration and Congress talked a lot about all the new jobs it would create across the country. Those promises have changed. Now all the talk is about the jobs the stimulus is "saving."
The Ugly: When it comes to efforts to change the nation's healthcare, things are getting pretty ugly. At first, it was just the Democrats fighting the Republicans. But now the Dems are fighting each other, according to an AP report. A group of Blue Dog Democrats are threatening the due date the president and congressional leaders had set for a "reform" package, making the case that more time is needed to craft legislation that tackles the real problems.
One of the concerns is paying for the massive changes many Dems have proposed. A solution bandied about this week is a "surtax on the wealthy." The suggestion is to levy a new tax on individuals who make $200,000 or more and couples who make $250,000 or more. But that would create a $150,000 "marriage penalty" that could throw the whole thing to the courts. (That reminds me of a "sale" I once saw in a clothing store. The item cost $2.50, but the sale let you buy three for $10.)
The Good: President Obama announced yesterday that he will nominate geneticist Francis Collins to be the next director of the National Institutes of Health. Collins led the government's Human Genome Project while serving as director of the NIH's National Human Genome Research Institute and is well-respected for his work -- in most circles.
But as I wrote in a previous blog, there are some scientists who take issue with Collins because he is an evangelical Christian. These people don't think anyone who believes in God is fit to run a government agency that deals with science.
The Bad: Our economy is still spiraling downward. Despite the billions of dollars we have borrowed and spent on "stimulus" projects, the national unemployment rate is now expected to hit 10 percent. The latest employment figures show 467,000 jobs were lost in June, and the jobless rate hit a 26-year high of 9.5 percent, according to the Associated Press.
To sell the stimulus package, the administration and Congress talked a lot about all the new jobs it would create across the country. Those promises have changed. Now all the talk is about the jobs the stimulus is "saving."
The Ugly: When it comes to efforts to change the nation's healthcare, things are getting pretty ugly. At first, it was just the Democrats fighting the Republicans. But now the Dems are fighting each other, according to an AP report. A group of Blue Dog Democrats are threatening the due date the president and congressional leaders had set for a "reform" package, making the case that more time is needed to craft legislation that tackles the real problems.
One of the concerns is paying for the massive changes many Dems have proposed. A solution bandied about this week is a "surtax on the wealthy." The suggestion is to levy a new tax on individuals who make $200,000 or more and couples who make $250,000 or more. But that would create a $150,000 "marriage penalty" that could throw the whole thing to the courts. (That reminds me of a "sale" I once saw in a clothing store. The item cost $2.50, but the sale let you buy three for $10.)
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Non-Elected Policymakers
We can get so caught up in campaign politics that we forget much of our national policy is shaped by people who are never elected. On average, every president gets to appoint a few thousand political employees -- and most of those are not confirmed by the Senate. For instance, none of the White House advisers closest to the president requires confirmation.
President Obama promised unprecedented transparency and an end to politics as usual when he named his advisers. How did he do?
Consider Nancy-Ann DeParle. After leaving her government job running Medicare for the Clinton administration, DeParle earned more than $6.6 million in the private sector since early 2001, according to a tally by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University. She accepted director positions at half a dozen companies suspected of violating the very laws and regulations she had enforced for Medicare. Those companies got into further trouble on her watch as a director. Several were investigated for alleged kickbacks or engaging in other illegal billing schemes, while others were accused of serious violations of federal quality standards, including one company that failed to warn patients of deadly problems with an implanted heart defibrillator.
Her current assignment? She's Obama's director of the White House Office of Health Reform. (Sourc: MSNBC)
Or how about Rahm Emmanuel, the White House chief of staff? Another revolving door, Emanuel was named to the board of Freddie Mac by President Clinton in 2000. During his brief tenure on the board -- he resigned in 2001 to run for Congress -- Freddie Mac misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors, according to an SEC complaint. The entire board was accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention," an ABC News report says.
Then there's Steve Rattner, a top Democratic fundraiser Obama tapped as his car czar. According to the Washington Examiner, Rattner's hedge fund, the Quadrangle Group, did business with New York City’s pension fund — an arrangement at the heart of recent federal convictions for illegal kickbacks. A short time after Rattner met with a consultant for the pension fund, the city invested in Quadrangle, and Quadrangle cut a check to the consultant, who has since pleaded guilty to taking illegal kickbacks.
The Examiner says Rattner and Obama's plan to selvage Chrysler was to give the United Auto Workers union 55 percent of the automaker while attacking secured creditors — who, in a regular bankruptcy, would be repaid in full — for resisting the deal. “The government exerted extreme pressure to coerce all of [Chrysler’s] constituencies into accepting a deal which is being done largely for the benefit of unsecured creditors at the expense of senior creditors,” these targets alleged in a federal complaint.
Keep in mind that the UAW’s political action committee spent $13.1 million in the last election cycle. Of the PAC’s $2.3 million in direct contributions to candidates and candidate PACs, more than 99 percent went to Democrats. The union’s PAC also reported $4.5 million in independent expenditures supporting Obama, plus an additional $423,000 opposing John McCain.
This kind of change we could do without.
President Obama promised unprecedented transparency and an end to politics as usual when he named his advisers. How did he do?
Consider Nancy-Ann DeParle. After leaving her government job running Medicare for the Clinton administration, DeParle earned more than $6.6 million in the private sector since early 2001, according to a tally by the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University. She accepted director positions at half a dozen companies suspected of violating the very laws and regulations she had enforced for Medicare. Those companies got into further trouble on her watch as a director. Several were investigated for alleged kickbacks or engaging in other illegal billing schemes, while others were accused of serious violations of federal quality standards, including one company that failed to warn patients of deadly problems with an implanted heart defibrillator.
Her current assignment? She's Obama's director of the White House Office of Health Reform. (Sourc: MSNBC)
Or how about Rahm Emmanuel, the White House chief of staff? Another revolving door, Emanuel was named to the board of Freddie Mac by President Clinton in 2000. During his brief tenure on the board -- he resigned in 2001 to run for Congress -- Freddie Mac misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors, according to an SEC complaint. The entire board was accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention," an ABC News report says.
Then there's Steve Rattner, a top Democratic fundraiser Obama tapped as his car czar. According to the Washington Examiner, Rattner's hedge fund, the Quadrangle Group, did business with New York City’s pension fund — an arrangement at the heart of recent federal convictions for illegal kickbacks. A short time after Rattner met with a consultant for the pension fund, the city invested in Quadrangle, and Quadrangle cut a check to the consultant, who has since pleaded guilty to taking illegal kickbacks.
The Examiner says Rattner and Obama's plan to selvage Chrysler was to give the United Auto Workers union 55 percent of the automaker while attacking secured creditors — who, in a regular bankruptcy, would be repaid in full — for resisting the deal. “The government exerted extreme pressure to coerce all of [Chrysler’s] constituencies into accepting a deal which is being done largely for the benefit of unsecured creditors at the expense of senior creditors,” these targets alleged in a federal complaint.
Keep in mind that the UAW’s political action committee spent $13.1 million in the last election cycle. Of the PAC’s $2.3 million in direct contributions to candidates and candidate PACs, more than 99 percent went to Democrats. The union’s PAC also reported $4.5 million in independent expenditures supporting Obama, plus an additional $423,000 opposing John McCain.
This kind of change we could do without.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Joey's Take -- Clean Out the Dog House
I may be a dog, but even I know that these political animals running loose in the Beltway and state capitals need to exercise some control when it comes to their private affairs.
Yes, I know some of our founding fathers had their "indiscretions." But that was back before a vicious 24/7 news cycle demanded to be fed. Before media hounds sniffed out any scent of scandal. Back when sex and sensationalism were not the Kibbles 'n Bits of the press. When people understood what it meant to be a PUBLIC official and recognized that this couldn't be a lifetime career choice for that very reason.
Public service should never be a Gravy Train of self-indulgence. Rather, it should be a path of self-sacrifice. Commitment. Accountability. Yes, even in this era of Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Mark Sanford and John Ensign, integrity still matters.
But to get the leaders we need, we can't just run with the pack and vote for who looks good on camera or howls the loudest. We must look beyond the buzz words and the focus group-tested speeches to find the leaders whose actions speak louder than their bark.
It's time to clean out the dog house!
Yes, I know some of our founding fathers had their "indiscretions." But that was back before a vicious 24/7 news cycle demanded to be fed. Before media hounds sniffed out any scent of scandal. Back when sex and sensationalism were not the Kibbles 'n Bits of the press. When people understood what it meant to be a PUBLIC official and recognized that this couldn't be a lifetime career choice for that very reason.
Public service should never be a Gravy Train of self-indulgence. Rather, it should be a path of self-sacrifice. Commitment. Accountability. Yes, even in this era of Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Mark Sanford and John Ensign, integrity still matters.
But to get the leaders we need, we can't just run with the pack and vote for who looks good on camera or howls the loudest. We must look beyond the buzz words and the focus group-tested speeches to find the leaders whose actions speak louder than their bark.
It's time to clean out the dog house!
Friday, July 3, 2009
Reflections on the Fourth
Tomorrow we celebrate our independence from one of Europe's biggest colonial powers. Yet today, our leaders want us to become just like Europe. Whenever someone pushes for change -- in healthcare policy, environmental debates, education, social issues -- they point across the Atlantic and say, "We need to copy them. They have all the answers."
Ironic, isn't it?
What these European wanna-bes don't understand is that Europeans don't want us to become "just like them." Job's brother is here this week from Europe, and he has been impressing upon us what America means to the rest of the world. We are the brash, adventure-loving, devil-may-care cowboys who dared break with tradition -- who stood up to a king and his imperial army -- to shrug off the status quo, to fight for our rights, to find our own way and to fashion a new civilization in the wilderness.
It's been 233 years since our ancestors shook their fists in the face of a king. It was a gesture that not only gave birth to a nation but revived the ideal of democracy.
Since that time, the world has come to recognize the U.S. as a champion of freedom. The world needs us to be a global leader -- not a follower of Europe.
Happy Fourth of July!
Ironic, isn't it?
What these European wanna-bes don't understand is that Europeans don't want us to become "just like them." Job's brother is here this week from Europe, and he has been impressing upon us what America means to the rest of the world. We are the brash, adventure-loving, devil-may-care cowboys who dared break with tradition -- who stood up to a king and his imperial army -- to shrug off the status quo, to fight for our rights, to find our own way and to fashion a new civilization in the wilderness.
It's been 233 years since our ancestors shook their fists in the face of a king. It was a gesture that not only gave birth to a nation but revived the ideal of democracy.
Since that time, the world has come to recognize the U.S. as a champion of freedom. The world needs us to be a global leader -- not a follower of Europe.
Happy Fourth of July!
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Democrats by the Numbers
With Al Franken the undisputed senator from Minnesota, the Democrats now have a filibuster-proof Senate. The last time that happened -- in the wake of Watergate -- they passed a bunch of procedural measures, like lowering the filibuster-breaker from 67 to 60. They also put us on the metric system and then slowed us down to 55 mph.
We all know how those last two went. We're still buying gas by the gallon and cruising the interstates at 65 mph and then some -- unless you're on I-66 during traffic times or a presidential motorcade.
Before the Dems let their numbers go to their head, here are a few numbers they need to seriously consider. A new Gallup poll shows "a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being 'too liberal,' from 39 percent to 46 percent. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party's losses in that year's midterm elections," according to a CNN editorial.
Another Gallup poll shows that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative, 35 percent moderate and only 21 percent liberal. "This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004," according to Gallup.
The numbers also are telling when it comes to President Obama's hurried push to change healthcare. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released this morning, 51 percent of people surveyed say they favor the president's healthcare plan, with 45 percent opposed. But when questioned more closely, most of the people surveyed are concerned that their healthcare costs would go up if the president's proposals are passed. And only 20 percent think their families would be better off under the Obama plan.
So before the Dems spend trillions more that we don't have on public insurance programs or a Hawaiian bank partially owned by a Democratic senator, they may want to chew on some of these numbers for a while. But in the meantime, don't put it past them to pull a few more procedural shenanigans to give themselves even more power.
We all know how those last two went. We're still buying gas by the gallon and cruising the interstates at 65 mph and then some -- unless you're on I-66 during traffic times or a presidential motorcade.
Before the Dems let their numbers go to their head, here are a few numbers they need to seriously consider. A new Gallup poll shows "a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being 'too liberal,' from 39 percent to 46 percent. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party's losses in that year's midterm elections," according to a CNN editorial.
Another Gallup poll shows that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative, 35 percent moderate and only 21 percent liberal. "This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004," according to Gallup.
The numbers also are telling when it comes to President Obama's hurried push to change healthcare. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released this morning, 51 percent of people surveyed say they favor the president's healthcare plan, with 45 percent opposed. But when questioned more closely, most of the people surveyed are concerned that their healthcare costs would go up if the president's proposals are passed. And only 20 percent think their families would be better off under the Obama plan.
So before the Dems spend trillions more that we don't have on public insurance programs or a Hawaiian bank partially owned by a Democratic senator, they may want to chew on some of these numbers for a while. But in the meantime, don't put it past them to pull a few more procedural shenanigans to give themselves even more power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)