Time for Tea!

The women over at Smart Girl Politics wrote this and I thought it deserved passing along:

The principles on which our nation was founded seem to be deteriorating daily. Our government, comprised of elected officials sworn to represent us, has abandoned its sovereign duty to the people. Our voices, already muffled by the roar of a liberal media, are falling on the deaf ears of an uncompromising Congress. In an economic crisis created in large part by irresponsible government interference, it seems our government’s answer is more of the same. If big government was the cause, how can bigger government be the solution?

In the 1760’s the British Government began to use taxation as a tool to suppress prosperity and limit the liberties of its people. Much like our own, the British government abused its power and submitted, not to the citizens, but to the special interests and political gain. On December 16, 1773, American colonists decided, as have we, that enough is enough. In a bold act of protest, the Sons of Liberty filled the Boston Harbor with more than 45 tons of East India Company tea.

The Boston Tea Party put into motion the events that would ultimately lead to the American Revolution and on July 4, 1776, our founding fathers would adopt The Declaration of Independence. This document not only announced our independence from Britain, but it asserted our unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In addition to these, the Declaration of Independence ensures our right to protect ourselves from a government that becomes destructive and to alter, abolish, or recreate a government that has ceased to fulfill the duties for which it was created.

In the shadow of failed bailouts that have been squandered away by greedy CEO’s and uncooperative labor unions, our government has passed legislation that will prove to be the largest and most costly expansion of government in history. With trillions of dollars gone and wasted, we have stood and watched the America we love slip away; the America that has flourished in a system of free market capitalism and thrived in a democracy centered around states’ rights, it is our duty to act. We will stand by and watch no more.

This Friday, all across this nation, “we the people” will be invoking the spirit of our forefathers and joining our voices in an effort to drown out the chatter of mediocrity. We will have a Tea Party of our own. In fact, we will have many. We will speak out against the infliction of a debt that will cripple future generations. We will protest the use of fear by our leaders to impose upon us their liberal agendas. We will respond to the threat of socialism that intensifies as wealth is seized and redistributed. We will reclaim our exceptionalism that sets up apart and provides every man, woman and child with the opportunity to achieve the American Dream . We will reject the class warfare and victim mentality that eats away at peace and prosperity. And once again, we will empower the people…and the people will prevail.

Here is the list of Tea Parties scheduled for Friday, February 27th. Look for your city and then try to go out! For more information on the parties look here at The Nationwide Chicago Tea Party site!

Northeast

• Boston – Friday, February 27, 2009 noon, The Barking Crab Restaurant, 88 Sleeper Street, Boston
• Hartford, CT – Friday, February 27, 2009 12:00pm – 1:00pm, State Capitol
• New York City – Saturday, February 28, 2009, 2:00pm – 3:00pm, City Hall Park, New York
• Philadelphia – Friday, February 27, 2009 12:00pm – 1:00pm, Independence Hall
• Washington D.C. – Friday, February 27, 2009 12:00pm – 2:00pm White House on the Lafayette Square Park side
• Pittsburgh – ***May be postponed due to rain *** Friday, February 27, 2009 12 pm – 1 pm, Market Square

Southeast

• Atlanta – Friday, February 27, 2009 12:00pm – 1:00pm at the Georgia State Capitol Building ~ Downtown Atlanta Washington Street Exit
• Fayetteville – Friday, February 27, 2009 12:00pm – 1:00pm, Liberty Point Resolves Marker, downtown Fayetteville, Hay Street
• Asheville, NC – Friday, February 27 from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm, Pritchard Park, Corner of Haywood St. and Patton Ave.
• Columbia, SC – TBD
• Greenville, SC – Friday, February 27, 2009 6:00pm, on the banks of the Reedy River and on the walking bridge just west of Main Street
• Orlando – Friday, February 27, 2009 12:00pm – 1:00pm on Lake Eola across from Panera Bread
• Tampa – Friday, February 27, 2009 12:00pm – 1:00pm, Federal Courthouse, 801 N. Florida Ave., Tampa
• Gainesville FL – Friday, February 27, 2009 2:00pm – 6:00pm, Ale House, 3950 SW Archer Rd
• Fort Meyers Beach – Friday, February 27, 2009 11:30am – 1:00pm Bowditch Park, 50 Estero Blvd., Fort Myers Beach
• Sarasota – Friday, February 27, 2009, 12:00pm – 1:00pm, Island Park and Marina Jacks, Bayfront Drive (41) and Ringling Blvd, Sarasota
• Nashville – Friday, February 27, 2009 12:00pm – 1:00pm Legislative Plaza
• Shelby County Alabama – Friday, February 27, 2009 12:00pm – 1:00pm, entrance to Eagle Point Neighborhood, Highway 280
• Jackson, Miss – Friday, February 27, 2009 12:00pm – 1:30pm, On the steps of the Capital Building in Jackson

Midwest

• Cleveland – Friday, February 27, 2009 12:00pm – 1:00pm Public Square in Downtown Cleveland, 1 Public Square
• Chicago – Friday, February 27, 2009 11:00am – 12:20pm at
  Daley Plaza Civic Center, 50 W Washington St.
• Lansing, MI – Friday, February 27, 2009 12:00pm – 1:00pm, State Capitol bldg
• St. Louis – Friday, February 27, 2009 11:00am – 12:00pm The Steps of Arch, Wharf Street
• Springfield, MO – Friday, February 27, 2009, 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm, Lake Springfield Park
• Kansas City – Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:00am – 2:00pm J.C. Nichols Foundation, 47th and J.C. Nichols Parkway K.C. MO
• Wichita, Kansas – Friday, February 27, 2009, 11:30am – 12:30pm, Farm Credit Bank Building, 245 N. Waco
• Omaha – Friday, February 27, 2009, 11:00am – 12:00pm, Douglas County Courthouse, 16th and Farnam St, Omaha
• Davenport, Iowa – Saturday, February 28, 2009, 12:00pm – 1 pm, Corner of Brady & Locust Streets, Davenport

Southwest

• Austin – Friday, February 27, 2009, 11:00am – 12 pm, Capitol steps
• Dallas – Friday, February 27, 2009, 11:00am – 12 pm, Victory Plaza at the American Airlines Center
• Fort Worth – Friday, February 27, 2009 3pm to 7pm at the Cowtown Bar & Grill, 7108 Camp Bowie Blvd, Fort Worth
• Houston – Friday, February 27, 2009 11:00am – 2:00pm, Fondren Green at Discovery Green Park, in front of Amphitheatre
• San Antonio – Friday, February 27, 2009, 11:00am – 12 pm, Alamo Plaza
• Oklahoma City – Friday, February 27, 2009, 11:00am – 12:00pm, State Capitol Steps, Oklahoma City
• Tulsa – Friday, February 27, 2009 11 am to 1 pm, Veteran’s Park, 21st & Boulder
• Phoenix – Friday, February 27, 2009, 10:00am – 11:00am, State Capitol, 1700 W Washington St, Phoenix
• Tempe AZ – Friday, February 27, 2009 noon, Tempe Beach Park, west of the Mill Avenue Bridge

Rockies

• Denver – Friday, February 27, 2009 10:00am – 12:00pm Colorado State Capitol Building – West side steps 200 E. Colfax Ave.

West Coast

• Seattle – Friday, February 27, 2009, 12:15pm – 1:15pm, Westlake Park, 410 Pine St. by the big arch
• Portland – Friday, February 27, 2009 9:00am – 10:00am Pioneer Courthouse Square @ the corner of Broadway & Morrison (in front of the STARBUCKS), 715 SW Morrison St
• San Diego – Friday, February 27, 2009 9-10 am, Just north of the Star of India on San Diego Bay
• Sacramento CA – Friday, February 27, 12 Noon, California State Capitol, North Steps, L Street, Sacramento
• Los Angeles – Friday, February 27, 2009, 9:00am – 10:00am, Santa Monica Pier
• Orange County – Friday, February 27, 2009, 9:00am – 10:00am, Huntington Beach Pier

Porkulus Poetry

My favorite political poetess is back with a new edition. Katy is back with more rhyming fun. This time she tackled the Stimulus Bill. (Porkulus, Spendulous, Generational Theft Act, or the Congressional Relief Action Project) It is smashing fun. (and in case you have missed her previous works – There is Barry Barry What’cha Doin and Twas the Night Before Election – 2008

So here it is straight from the author:

” Just Drink The Kool-Aid Up And Let It Roll ” by Katy, Durham NC

Reflections on the Stimulus Bill ~   ( To the tune of ” Easter Parade ” )

The Stimulus Bill! Doggonit!

Just heap more pork upon it!

You know they’ve said that we don’t even care.

With Pelosi and Reid behind it,

The Truth? You’ll never find it.

You know they really think we’re not aware.

What’s there? It’s hard to pin it

Who knows what’s really in it?

To read The Bill they’d miss vacation time

So coat it all with honey

And truly waste our money

It’s all ok ’cause it’s just on OUR dime.

They passed it with a flurry,

And did it in a hurry,

Can’t take the time to see what all it said

” You need to pass this Bill,

Or the crisis will deepen still “

What’s going on inside Obama’s head?

I’ll tell you what I do know

Recovery will be slow

And they’ll spend so much more than what they’ve got

Don’t think that things can get worse?

Just wait ’till they hit YOUR purse

And you’ll see CHANGE is not quite what you thought!

Let’s give out more school lunches!

Let’s dole it out in bunches!

Let’s plant grass at ‘ The Mall ‘, and don’t ask why!

ACORN- they really want it!

Pelosi- she sure can flaunt it,

While in her pricey jet she gets to fly!

Let’s socialize our health care!

Let’s hand it out! Let’s be fair!

It’s time to share our pieces of the pie

Shame on you for working

You know you should be shirking

It’s bail out time! See what this Bill will buy!

Let’s subsidize the lazy

You’re for it, or your crazy

Keep on spending- no limits THEY will find!

Let’s not create more tension

Just let go of your pension

You owe to those who are coming up behind!

Of course there’s ’ Gitmo Bay ‘

They go or do they stay?

Hey, what about the guy that bombed ” The Cole ” ?

Let’s let the guilty go

It’s not their fault you know

Just drink the Kool-Aid up and let it roll!

( Don’t think most of this last paragraph had anything to do with the Stimulus Bill? Most of the stuff in the Stimulus Bill didn’t belong there either! )

Something to ponder….

……” The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not ”

…….” I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them ”

…….” My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government “

- All three quotes are from Thomas Jefferson

And the scariest one of all……..

“We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.”

- Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959

Is your house going to be my house?

I am back after having family visiting for the past week. I decided to take a break from the weighty issues of politics for the time that they were here. But now they have gone and I am back to typing.

Mortgage bailouts are on the list of things that I just don’t fully understand. When the whole mortgage industry started going down we knew that foreclosures were going to be going up. This trend started with the demise of the Sub-prime loans and increased difficulty to get “Jumbo” loans. This part of the market started to have issues about two years ago. I know because I spent some time looking into these loans right as the banks started to cut back on offerings.

Personally a sub-prime loan, one with an ARM and a 3 to 5 year term was never an option for me. I have heard too many stories of people losing their homes at the end of the ARM due to massive increases in the mortgage payment to reflect the new interest rate. Maybe you thought you would move, perhaps thought interest rates might go down, and maybe you even missed the part in the contract that specifically told you what date your payments would increase and what your interest rate might jump too. I don’t know. But the risk to me is not worth it. A standard conventional loan was the best option for me. And as far as jumbo loans go all I have to say is that if you need a $600K loan on your home then you should have sufficient income to make the payments in the first place, AND assuming you were avoiding PMI that would mean that your home was actually $750K and you would have put down $150K. Now really if you could handle that then you should be able to afford the payments OR you should not buy that house.

So now I understand that some people have faced tough times at work and lost their homes. Now what is better to do though, put your home on the market, even potentially taking a loss on your home to sell it and downsize or to default on your loan and land in foreclosure?  The other problem in housing has been super inflation in certain housing areas. California and New York are prime examples. Home values are not reflective of what would be considered average income. If owning your home is the American dream then how do you explain my 1600 sq ft home that I rent in the Bay area would cost $900K. My larger, newer home in a great neighborhood in Alpharetta, GA sold for $225K. No wonder California is one of the top 5 states for foreclosures. When jumbo and sub-prime loans were super easy to get it was not hard for people to get in over their heads on a home loan. I do disagree with the columnist who suggests that just because they have a $700K loan that they are not poor. We are not considered poor, but we certainly do not need a loan that size. What we did though is choose to Rent instead of buying a home just because. Rent here is absurd as well, but when you couple that with what the person who owns the home paid for the home, rent is high to cover their mortgage. It is a no-win situation.

Owning a home is not the American dream. Having a house to live in should probably be the way it is worded. A shelter, a safe place to come home to. But not everyone should own their home. Live within your means. Don’t buy a $700K home because you think it is what you have to do. I will miss the mortgage deduction on our taxes, but not nearly enough to buy a home whose mortgage would be double my already high rent. And according to wordnet this is the definition of the American dream: the widespread aspiration of Americans to live better than their parents did. No where does that mention home ownership.

So now on to the bailout for foreclosures. Obama has shared his plan for a $75 billion mortgage foreclosure bailout. So we are going to help people who overbought. I do acknowledge that Obama did address that there are multiple facets to what created this situation – the lenders, the banks, the homeowners, etc. This is not solely the banks creation. People signed these documents. Taking advantage of the buyer is hard to assess. What were the lenders supposed to do, offer IQ tests to make sure that the home buyer was capable of understanding what they were agreeing to? That hardly seems like it would be acceptable or even possible. But how would you propose pre-qualifying people based on their ability to understand what they were doing?

While we are doing all this refinancing and assistance to the homeowners in question, will this have any impact or effect on their credit? It seems like they are going to be getting a freebie on a situation that was preventable. Should it be treated more like a credit consolidation where there is some impact on credit worthiness?

So back to my original question, if ultimately I am going to end up helping to pay for your bailout through tax increases does that mean that a part of your home will really be mine?

I know it passed but . .

In response to the statements from Obama at tonight’s press conference: Most economists, almost unanimously, recognize that even if philosophically you’re — you’re wary of government intervening in the economy, when you have the kind of problem we have right now — what started on Wall Street goes to Main Street, suddenly businesses can’t get credit, they start paring back their investment, they start laying off workers, workers start pulling back in terms of spending — that when you have that situation, that government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy . . . That’s why the — the figure that we initially came up with, of approximately $800 billion, was put forward. That wasn’t just some random number that I plucked out of — out of a hat. That was Republican and Democratic, conservative and liberal economists that I spoke to, who indicated that given the magnitude of the crisis and the fact that it’s happening worldwide, it’s important for us to have a bill of sufficient size and scope that we can save or create 4 million jobs. . . And I think that there was an opportunity to do this with this recovery package because, as I said, although there are some politicians who are arguing that we don’t need a stimulus, there are very few economists who are making that argument. I mean, you’ve got economists who were advising John McCain, economists who were advisers to George Bush — one and two — all suggesting that we actually needed a serious recovery package.

Taken from the ad placed by LOTS of economists:

“There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy.”

— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.

• Burton Abrams, Univ. of Delaware
• Douglas Adie, Ohio University
• Ryan Amacher, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
• J.J. Arias, Georgia College & State University
• Howard Baetjer, Jr., Towson University
• Stacie Beck, Univ. of Delaware
• Don Bellante, Univ. of South Florida
• James Bennett, George Mason University
• Bruce Benson, Florida State University
• Sanjai Bhagat, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
• Mark Bils, Univ. of Rochester
• Alberto Bisin, New York University
• Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans
• Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
• Michele Boldrin, Washington University in St. Louis
• Donald Booth, Chapman University
• Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
• Samuel Bostaph, Univ. of Dallas
• Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University
• Genevieve Briand, Eastern Washington University
• George Brower, Moravian College
• James Buchanan, Nobel laureate
• Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
• Henry Butler, Northwestern University
• William Butos, Trinity College
• Peter Calcagno, College of Charleston
• Bryan Caplan, George Mason University
• Art Carden, Rhodes College
• James Cardon, Brigham Young University
• Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University
• Emily Chamlee-Wright, Beloit College
• V.V. Chari, Univ. of Minnesota
• Barry Chiswick, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
• Lawrence Cima, John Carroll University
• J.R. Clark, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
• Gian Luca Clementi, New York University
• R. Morris Coats, Nicholls State University
• John Cochran, Metropolitan State College
• John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago
• John Cogan, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
• John Coleman, Duke University
• Boyd Collier, Tarleton State University
• Robert Collinge, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
• Lee Coppock, Univ. of Virginia
• Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt University
• Christopher Culp, Univ. of Chicago
• Kirby Cundiff, Northeastern State University
• Antony Davies, Duquesne University
• John Dawson, Appalachian State University
• Clarence Deitsch, Ball State University
• Arthur Diamond, Jr., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
• John Dobra, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
• James Dorn, Towson University
• Christopher Douglas, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
• Floyd Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
• Francis Egan, Trinity College
• John Egger, Towson University
• Kenneth Elzinga, Univ. of Virginia
• Paul Evans, Ohio State University
• Eugene Fama, Univ. of Chicago
• W. Ken Farr, Georgia College & State University
• Hartmut Fischer, Univ. of San Francisco
• Fred Foldvary, Santa Clara University
• Murray Frank, Univ. of Minnesota
• Peter Frank, Wingate University
• Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University
• B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
• John Garen, Univ. of Kentucky
• Rick Geddes, Cornell University
• Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University
• William Gerdes, Clarke College
• Michael Gibbs, Univ. of Chicago
• Stephan Gohmann, Univ. of Louisville
• Rodolfo Gonzalez, San Jose State University
• Richard Gordon, Penn State University
• Peter Gordon, Univ. of Southern California
• Ernie Goss, Creighton University
• Paul Gregory, Univ. of Houston
• Earl Grinols, Baylor University
• Daniel Gropper, Auburn University
• R.W. Hafer, Southern Illinois
• University, Edwardsville
• Arthur Hall, Univ. of Kansas
• Steve Hanke, Johns Hopkins
• Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
• Frank Hefner, College of Charleston
• Ronald Heiner, George Mason University
• David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
• Robert Herren, North Dakota State University
• Gailen Hite, Columbia University
• Steven Horwitz, St. Lawrence University
• John Howe, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
• Jeffrey Hummel, San Jose State University
• Bruce Hutchinson, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
• Brian Jacobsen, Wisconsin Lutheran College
• Jason Johnston, Univ. of Pennsylvania
• Boyan Jovanovic, New York University
• Jonathan Karpoff, Univ. of Washington
• Barry Keating, Univ. of Notre Dame
• Naveen Khanna, Michigan State University
• Nicholas Kiefer, Cornell University
• Daniel Klein, George Mason University
• Paul Koch, Univ. of Kansas
• Narayana Kocherlakota, Univ. of Minnesota

• Marek Kolar, Delta College
• Roger Koppl, Fairleigh Dickinson University
• Kishore Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
• Deepak Lal, UCLA
• George Langelett, South Dakota State University
• James Larriviere, Spring Hill College
• Robert Lawson, Auburn University
• John Levendis, Loyola University New Orleans
• David Levine, Washington University in St. Louis
• Peter Lewin, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
• Dean Lillard, Cornell University
• Zheng Liu, Emory University
• Alan Lockard, Binghampton University
• Edward Lopez, San Jose State University
• John Lunn, Hope College
• Glenn MacDonald, Washington
• University in St. Louis
• Michael Marlow, California
• Polytechnic State University
• Deryl Martin, Tennessee Tech University
• Dale Matcheck, Northwood University
• Deirdre McCloskey, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago
• John McDermott, Univ. of South Carolina
• Joseph McGarrity, Univ. of Central Arkansas
• Roger Meiners, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
• Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University
• John Merrifield, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
• James Miller III, George Mason University
• Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University
• Thomas Moeller, Texas Christian University
• John Moorhouse, Wake Forest University
• Andrea Moro, Vanderbilt University
• Andrew Morriss, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Michael Munger, Duke University
• Kevin Murphy, Univ. of Southern California
• Richard Muth, Emory University
• Charles Nelson, Univ. of Washington
• Seth Norton, Wheaton College
• Lee Ohanian, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
• Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
• Evan Osborne, Wright State University
• Randall Parker, East Carolina University
• Donald Parsons, George Washington University
• Sam Peltzman, Univ. of Chicago
• Mark Perry, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
• Christopher Phelan, Univ. of Minnesota
• Gordon Phillips, Univ. of Maryland
• Michael Pippenger, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
• Tomasz Piskorski, Columbia University
• Brennan Platt, Brigham Young University
• Joseph Pomykala, Towson University
• William Poole, Univ. of Delaware
• Barry Poulson, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
• Benjamin Powell, Suffolk University
• Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate
• Gary Quinlivan, Saint Vincent College
• Reza Ramazani, Saint Michael’s College
• Adriano Rampini, Duke University
• Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University
• Mario Rizzo, New York University
• Richard Roll, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
• Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
• James Roumasset, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
• John Rowe, Univ. of South Florida
• Charles Rowley, George Mason University
• Juan Rubio-Ramirez, Duke University
• Roy Ruffin, Univ. of Houston
• Kevin Salyer, Univ. of California, Davis
• Pavel Savor, Univ. of Pennsylvania
• Ronald Schmidt, Univ. of Rochester
• Carlos Seiglie, Rutgers University
• William Shughart II, Univ. of Mississippi
• Charles Skipton, Univ. of Tampa
• James Smith, Western Carolina University
• Vernon Smith, Nobel laureate
• Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Univ. at Buffalo
• Dean Stansel, Florida Gulf Coast University
• Houston Stokes, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
• Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University
• Shirley Svorny, California State
• University, Northridge
• John Tatom, Indiana State University
• Wade Thomas, State University of New York at Oneonta
• Henry Thompson, Auburn University
• Alex Tokarev, The King’s College
• Edward Tower, Duke University
• Leo Troy, Rutgers University
• David Tuerck, Suffolk University
• Charlotte Twight, Boise State University
• Kamal Upadhyaya, Univ. of New Haven
• Charles Upton, Kent State University
• T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
• Richard Vedder, Ohio University
• Richard Wagner, George Mason University
• Douglas M. Walker, College of Charleston
• Douglas O. Walker, Regent University
• Christopher Westley, Jacksonville State University
• Lawrence White, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
• Walter Williams, George Mason University
• Doug Wills, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
• Dennis Wilson, Western Kentucky University
• Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
• Huizhong Zhou, Western Michigan University

Additional economists who have signed the statement

• Lee Adkins, Oklahoma State University
• William Albrecht, Univ. of Iowa
• Donald Alexander, Western Michigan University
• Geoffrey Andron, Austin Community College
• Nathan Ashby, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
• George Averitt, Purdue North Central University
• Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay
• Timothy Bastian, Creighton University
• John Bethune, Barton College
• Robert Bise, Orange Coast College
• Karl Borden, University of Nebraska
• Donald Boudreaux, George Mason University
• Ivan Brick, Rutgers University
• Phil Bryson, Brigham Young University
• Richard Burkhauser, Cornell University
• Edwin Burton, Univ. of Virginia
• Jim Butkiewicz, Univ. of Delaware
• Richard Cebula, Armstrong Atlantic State University
• Don Chance, Louisiana State University
• Robert Chatfield, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas
• Lloyd Cohen, George Mason University
• Peter Colwell, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• Michael Connolly, Univ. of Miami
• Jim Couch, Univ. of North Alabama
• Eleanor Craig, Univ. of Delaware
• Michael Daniels, Columbus State University
• A. Edward Day, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
• Stephen Dempsey, Univ. of Vermont
• Allan DeSerpa, Arizona State University
• William Dewald, Ohio State University
• Jeff Dorfman, Univ. of Georgia
• Lanny Ebenstein, Univ. of California, Santa Barbara
• Michael Erickson, The College of Idaho
• Jack Estill, San Jose State University
• Dorla Evans, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville
• Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield
• Daniel Feenberg, National Bureau of Economic Research
• Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University
• Arthur Fleisher, Metropolitan State College of Denver
• William Ford, Middle Tennessee State University
• Ralph Frasca, Univ. of Dayton
• Joseph Giacalone, St. John’s University
• Adam Gifford, California State Unviersity, Northridge
• Otis Gilley, Louisiana Tech University
• J. Edward Graham, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
• Richard Grant, Lipscomb University
• Gauri-Shankar Guha, Arkansas State University
• Darren Gulla, Univ. of Kentucky
• Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge
• Richard Hart, Miami University
• James Hartley, Mount Holyoke College
• Thomas Hazlett, George Mason University
• Scott Hein, Texas Tech University
• Bradley Hobbs, Florida Gulf Coast University
• John Hoehn, Michigan State University
• Daniel Houser, George Mason University

• Thomas Howard, University of Denver
• Chris Hughen, Univ. of Denver
• Marcus Ingram, Univ. of Tampa
• Joseph Jadlow, Oklahoma State University
• Sherry Jarrell, Wake Forest University
• Carrie Kerekes, Florida Gulf Coast University
• Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
• James Kurre, Penn State Erie
• Tom Lehman, Indiana Wesleyan University
• W. Cris Lewis, Utah State University
• Stan Liebowitz, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
• Anthony Losasso, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
• John Lott, Jr., Univ. of Maryland
• Keith Malone, Univ. of North Alabama
• Henry Manne, George Mason University
• Richard Marcus, Univ. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
• Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University
• John Matsusaka, Univ. of Southern California
• Thomas Mayor, Univ. of Houston
• W. Douglas McMillin, Louisiana State University
• Mario Miranda, The Ohio State University
• Ed Miseta, Penn State Erie
• James Moncur, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
• Charles Moss, Univ. of Florida
• Tim Muris, George Mason University
• John Murray, Univ. of Toledo
• David Mustard, Univ. of Georgia
• Steven Myers, Univ. of Akron
• Dhananjay Nanda, University of Miami
• Stephen Parente, Univ. of Minnesota
• Allen Parkman, Univ. of New Mexico
• Douglas Patterson, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University
• Timothy Perri, Appalachian State University
• Mark Pingle, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
• Ivan Pongracic, Hillsdale College
• Richard Rawlins, Missouri Southern State University
• Thomas Rhee, California State University, Long Beach
• Christine Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology
• Nancy Roberts, Arizona State University
• Larry Ross, Univ. of Alaska Anchorage
• Timothy Roth, Univ. of Texas at El Paso
• Atulya Sarin, Santa Clara University
• Thomas Saving, Texas A&M University
• Eric Schansberg, Indiana University Southeast
• John Seater, North Carolina University
• Alan Shapiro, Univ. of Southern California
• Frank Spreng, McKendree University
• Judith Staley Brenneke, John Carroll University
• John E. Stapleford, Eastern University
• Courtenay Stone, Ball State University
• Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, UCLA
• Scott Sumner, Bentley University
• Clifford Thies, Shenandoah University
• William Trumbull, West Virginia University
• Gustavo Ventura, Univ. of Iowa
• Marc Weidenmier, Claremont McKenna College
• Robert Whaples, Wake Forest University
• Gene Wunder, Washburn University
• John Zdanowicz, Florida International University
• Jerry Zimmerman, Univ. of Rochester
• Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville

It’s Not Over . . . until 5:30

The world will not end or anything, but we will have a decision tonight. The Senate is voting today at 5:30 pm EST on the Stimulus Bill – the pet name I am most fond of at the moment is the Generational Theft Act.

Looking at Rasmussen polling, The latest national telephone survey (as of 2/4) found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure. Support has fallen in the last two weeks. Even among the Democrats. As of 2/9 62% of U.S. voters want the plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending. Going to the other extreme, 72% of voters oppose a stimulus plan that includes only new government spending without any tax cuts. The president has said that inaction on the rescue plan will lead to catastrophe. Voters are evenly divided on that point: 44% agree with him and 41% do not. 12% of voters say Congress is doing a good or excellent job, and 54% rate their performance as poor in a Rasmussen Reports survey released last week.

This alternative plan outlined here makes much more sense.

It has one (single, lonely, effective) plank. IMMEDIATELY CUT ALL PERSONAL AND CORPORATE INCOME TAXES IN HALF FOR ALL TWELVE MONTHS OF 2009.

No new government offices. No frisbee parks. No swimming pools.

The “lost revenue” to the government would amount to about $800 billion, equal to what congress is recommending. However, that lost revenue would remain with you, the person who earned it. So we got to thinking:

How would cutting our withholding in half effect our daily lives?

Thus, the TCOT CHALLENGE was born.

Below we’d like you to tell us what an extra 200, 300, 400 or more dollars a week would change in your world. What would you purchase? Where would you go? How would you invest it? If the government says that spending money drives this economy, what better way to reverse a down turn that pumping and immediate $60 billion into the economy every month. Hey, you earned it, why shouldn’t you decide how it should be spent. We want to know specifically, how would PORKULUS (the current stimulus plan) benefit you personally in 2009? And would TCOT Plan or PORKULUS benefit you more?

Here is an example of how one family would use their hard earned cash: http://michaelpatrickleahy.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-one-member-of-tcot-would-use-tax.html

After you let us know what you think–be sure to let us know what state you’re from–go to this link http://moveovermoveon.posterous.com/media-links and send this website to the media outlets everywhere, but especially Maine and Pennsylvania. Blog about it, tweet about it or link it on your Face Book. Help the north east main street media let their senators, Collins, Snowe, & Specter, know that we are very unhappy that they have chosen to compromise our future. It is, after all, “for the children.”

These three are the Republicans planning on voting for the bill. Please call them and let them know that you are against the bill. Sample scripts are available here if you need ideas on what to say.

Collins, Susan M. (R-ME)
DC Phone: (202) 224-2523 Fax: (202) 224-2693
ZIP CODES: 04101, 04102, 04105

Snowe, Olympia J. (R-ME)
DC Phone: (202) 224-5344 Fax: (202) 224-1946
ZIP CODES: 04401, 04402

Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
DC Phone: (202) 224-4254 Fax: (202) 228-1229
ZIP CODES: 19102, 19103, 19104

Obama Love Fest

So maybe it was really the Democrat Retreat but it was a big love fest for Obama and even Pelosi. Man, she has him really into her. But I digress. So Obama took his first trip on Air Force One to go speak at the Democrats Annual retreat. His speech was a massive cheerleading, campaign style speech touting the benefits and need for the bill affectionately know by many as Porkulous or Spendulous. One of his key points being that the American people want this. This seems to be just a diversion from actual facts as seen in polls mentioned below:

The latest survey shows that only 37% of Americans favor the current bill. Two weeks ago, the support was at 45% and last week it was at 42%. That’s an eight point drop in just two weeks. The most interesting numbers are among the “independent” voters, who oppose the bill by a full 50% and favor it by only 27%. Furthermore, overall opposition to the bill has gone from 34% two weeks ago to 43% today – an increase of nine percent. For the first time, more Americans oppose the Democrats’ pork-laden vote-buying bill than favor it.  – Obama stated in his speech that there is a lack of earmarks in the bill, well that is only partly the case. The WHOLE bill seems to be one giant earmark being more of a Christmas wish list for the Democrats.

The Rasmussen poll also showed that more Americans favor a tax cut-only bill than favor what the Democrats have proposed. Such a bill enjoys a 45% approval to a disapproval of only 34%. Among “independents”, those numbers are 46% approval and 35% disapproval. Only Democrats still overwhelmingly approve of the Democrats’ attempt to load us and our children up with a trillion dollars’ worth of debt.

Supporting tax cuts is massive. Fifty-seven percent believe that tax cuts help the economy while only 17% believe they hurt. About the same number of people (56%) believe that they pay more than their fair share of taxes.

Here is a link to current stimulus information and is constantly updated.

The text of Obama’s  campaign style speech is below, in case you don’t feel inclined to watch the video. Not all the youtube videos included the praise and adoration of Pelosi and her cronies at the beginning either. I would also point out that when it came time to move onto the question and answer sessions – cameras were turned off. Transparent? No. Curious? Yes.

It’s great to be here with so many friends. I’m glad to see the House Democratic Caucus is getting by just fine without my Chief of Staff. I want to thank John Larson for inviting me here tonight. This is John’s first conference as Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, so we’re both new at this.

I want to acknowledge the great Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who has proven to be an extraordinary leader for the American people. I want to thank Nancy, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn and the entire caucus for your hard work in passing an economic recovery plan that is so desperately needed for our country.

You acted with a discipline that matches the urgency and gravity of the crisis we face. Because you know what’s at stake. Every weekend you go home to your districts and you see factories that are closing and small businesses shutting their doors. You hear from families losing their homes; students that can’t pay tuition; seniors who worry about whether they can retire with dignity, or see their kids and grandkids lead the better life that must be America’s promise.

So you went to work, and you did your job. For that, you have my appreciation and admiration. As we meet here tonight, we know there is more work to be done. The Senate is still acting. And after it has its final vote, we will still need to resolve differences between the House and Senate bills. I urge you to complete that work without delay.

Look, I value the constructive criticism and healthy debate that is a foundation of American democracy. I don’t think any of us have cornered the market on wisdom, or that good ideas are the province of any party. The American people know that our challenges are great. They’re not expecting Democratic solutions or Republican solutions – they want American solutions. And I have said that to those who have criticized the plan.

But what I have also said is – don’t come to table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped create this crisis.

We’re not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies that in eight short years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin. We can’t embrace the losing formula that offers more tax cuts as the only answer to every problem we face, while ignoring critical challenges like our addiction to foreign oil, the soaring cost of health care, failing schools and crumbling bridges, roads and levees. I don’t care whether you’re driving a hybrid or an SUV – if you’re headed for a cliff, you have to change direction.

The American people are watching. They did not send us here to get bogged down with the same old delay and distractions. They did not vote for the false theories of the past. They did not vote for the status quo – they sent us here to bring change, and we owe it to them to act. This is the moment for leadership that matches the great test of our time.

If we do not move swiftly to sign the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, an economy that is in crisis will be faced with catastrophe. Millions more Americans will lose their jobs. Home will be lost. Families will go without health care. Our crippling dependence on foreign oil will continue. That is the price of inaction.

This isn’t some abstract debate. Last week, we learned that many of America’s largest corporations are planning to layoff tens off tens of thousands of workers. Today, we learned that last week, the number of new unemployment claims jumped to 626,000. And tomorrow, we’re expecting another dismal jobs report on top of the 2.6 million jobs we lost last year.

For you, those aren’t statistics. They are constituents you know and families that you care about. Now, I believe that legislation of such magnitude deserves the scrutiny that it’s received, and you will get another chance to vote for this bill in the days to come. But I urge all of us to not make the perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary. The scale and scope of this plan is right.

So just as past generations of Americans have done in trying times, we can and must turn this moment of challenge into one of opportunity. The plan that you’ve passed has at its core a simple idea: let’s put Americans to work doing the work that America needs done.

This plan will save or create over three million jobs – almost all of them in the private sector.

This plan will put people to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges; our dangerously deficient dams and levees.

This plan will put people to work modernizing our health care system, not only saving us billions of dollars, but countless lives.

This plan will put people to work renovating more than 10,000 schools, giving millions of children the chance to learn in 21st century classrooms, libraries, and labs – and to all the scientists in the room today, you know what that means for America’s future.

This plan will provide sensible tax relief for the struggling middle-class, unemployment insurance and continued health care coverage for those who’ve lost their jobs, and it will help prevent our states and local communities from laying off firefighters, teachers, and police.

Finally, this plan will begin to end the tyranny of oil in our time. It doubles our capacity to generate alternative sources of energy like wind, solar, and biofuels in three years. It saves taxpayers billions of dollars by making federal buildings more energy efficient, and it saves the average working family hundreds on their energy bills. After decades of empty rhetoric, that is the down payment that we need on energy independence.

You know, there’s a lot about running for President that is difficult – I don’t miss sleeping in a different bed every night, or not seeing my kids as much as I’d like. But the best thing about being a candidate is that you get to see the country, and you get to know the character of the American people.

Over the last two years, I visited almost all fifty states. I’ve been in so many of your districts. I’ve passed through towns and cities, farms and factories. I know that people are hurting. I’ve heard their stories, and I’ve sensed their deep frustration. But I also know that these struggles have not diminished the strength and decency of the American people.

We hold within our hands the capacity to do great things on their behalf. It starts with this economic recovery plan. And soon, we will take on big issues like addressing the foreclosure issue, passing a budget, tackling our fiscal problems, fixing financial regulation and securing our country. We must not approach these challenges as Democrats – we must overcome them as Americans. That is why we must work in a serious, substantive, and civil way to build bipartisan support for action.

I promise you that my door is open, and my Administration will consult closely with you – the peoples’ representatives – as we take on pressing priorities like energy and health care; education and infrastructure.

Already, you have made a difference. I’m pleased that in my very first days in office, I signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to make sure that all of our daughters have the same opportunity as our sons. I signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program to provide coverage to 11 million children, and to make a down payment on comprehensive health care reform. I know it wasn’t easy – it was a long time coming, and I appreciate your hard work over several years on behalf of America’s children.

Tonight, I am confident that if we continue to work together, we can fulfill the promise of health care that is affordable for all Americans. We can create that new energy economy. We can provide a world-class education for our kids. We can unleash the talent, and innovation of the American people to compete in the 21st century. We can do all of that.

Now, we have a choice to make. Future generations will look back, and they will ask what we did when we confronted this crisis. What will they say?

Will they say that – once again – we failed to make the tough choices that lead to progress? Or will they say that this was the time that we came together, that we found our stake in one another as Americans, and that we voted for bold and aggressive action?

Together, we hold in our hands enormous responsibility. We also have an enormous opportunity.
We can write that next great chapter in American history. If we stay focused on the big picture; if we never forget the people who we are fighting for; if we represent the strength and dignity of the American people, then I know we can answer’s history’s call and renew America’s promise.

Thank you.

Going Going Gone

Well, it will be all be going, going, gone if this bailout gets passed the way it is written. Consider more details of what this MASSIVE bill contains. Things that you are not hearing in the media. If you go through and read the bill you will find all this, the general public does not ever actually look at the contents of the legislation so we miss seeing what all is actually happening in these seemingly innocent bills. This is from Roger King. He is a computer programmer from North Carolina who operates the website Politically Incorrect Facts.

Democrats would like us to believe the $825 billion dollar stimulus package is required to recover from the recession. In fact, this bill is nothing but a conglomeration of the spending packages they have dreamed about for the past few decades. The main stream media also seems to have forgotten to tell us that with interest this bill comes to over $1.1 trillion dollars. This debt amounts to over $9,000 per family in taxes.

According to the Wall Street Journal only 12% of the package could conceivably be regarded as stimulating the economy. Even if we accept Obama’s claim that this bill would save or create 3.7 million jobs, that would amount to a cost of $200,000 per job.

Alan Reynolds article $646,214 Per Government Job also tells us the stimulus package doesn’t even target the groups hardest hit by unemployment.

The December unemployment rate was only 2.3% for government workers and 3.8% in education and health. Unemployment rates in manufacturing and construction, by contrast, were 8.3% and 15.2% respectively. Yet 39% of the $550 billion in the bill would go to state and local governments. Another 17.3% would go to health and education—sectors where relatively secure government jobs are also prevalent. If the intent of the plan is to alleviate unemployment, why spend over half of the money on sectors where unemployment is lowest?

Although many of the expenditures are admirable, they certainly can’t be considered a stimulus by any stretch of the imagination.  Below is a partial list of the earmarks contained in this monstrosity.

• This bill would add from 244,000 to 330,000 new government jobs. These are jobs that will not add to the growth of our economy and would tend to kill many private sector jobs as dollars for these jobs are no longer available to companies.

Global Warming

• $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects Link
• $400 million for global-warming research Link
• $600 million for grants for diesel emission reduction (Page 119) Link

Government Upgrades

• $2.5 billion for the National Science Foundation Link
• $2.0 billion for the National Park Service Link
• $1.9 billion for the Energy Department for “basic research into the physical sciences Link
• $1 Billion for The Follow-Up To The 2010 Census (Page 49) Link
• $800 million for AMTRAK Link
• $650 million for the U.S. Forest Service Link
• $600 million for NASA Link
• $600 million for new cars for the federal government
• The Coast Guard wants more than $572 million for “Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements; They claim these funds will create 1,235 new jobs. Crunch the numbers and this brings the cost of “creating” each job to a staggering $460,000+ Link
• $400 million for a new Social Security Administration computer system Link
• $276 million to the State Department to upgrade and modernize its information technology Link
• $245 million to upgrade the information technology of the Farm Service Agency Link
• $227 million for oversight of the pork barrel spending in the stimulus (Page 11) Link
• $209 million for maintenance work for the Federal Agricultural Research Service Link
• $200 million for Dept. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles. Link
• $200 million to re-sod the National Mall Link
• $150 million for maintenance work at the Smithsonian Institution Link
• $44 million for repairs and improvements at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Department of Agriculture Link

Schools

• $66B on education, but they specifically exclude private K-12 schools from getting one dime of it. Link
• $17 billion for Pell Grants Link
• $13 billion in IDEA, Part B State grants to help pay for “the excess costs of providing special education and related services to children with disabilities. Link
• $13 billion in Title I grants “to provide extra academic support to help raise the achievement of students at risk of educational failure or to help all students in high-poverty schools meet challenging State academic standards Link
• $6 billion goes to college and universities link
• $3.5 billion for higher education facilities. Link
• $2.1 billion is for Head Start Link
• $1 billion for Technology Education Link
• $250-million for an after-school snack program. Link

Social Programs

• $87 billion is to be spent on Medicaid, a welfare program already costing roughly $400 billion per year Link
• $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax Link
• $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits Link
• $20 billion for increased food stamps, including lifting restrictions on how long welfare dependents can receive food stamp benefits. Link
• $6 billion program to “weatherize modest-income homes Link
• $5 billion is devoted to public housing Link
• $3 billion for health care prevention and wellness programs, such as childhood immunizations and other state and local public health programs Link
• $2 billion is to be spent on Child Care Development Block Grants, which provide day care. Link
• $1.7 billion is to be spent to help the homeless Link
• $1.1 billion for so-called federal comparative effectiveness research in regard to health-care services Link
• $1 billion goes for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program, to help low income families pay their heating bills Link
• $500 million to speed the processing of applications for Social Security disability claims.
• $200 million goes for senior nutrition programs, such as Meals on Wheels Link
• $200 million for AmeriCorps, to help satisfy “increased demand for services for vulnerable populations to meet critical needs in communities across the U.S. Link
• $120 million to finance part-time work for seniors in community service agencies. Link
• $100 million to reduce lead-based paint hazards for children in low income housing Link

MISC

• New Programs $136 billion of the bill is for unproven ideas—to start 32 new federal programs. Link
• $79 billion is to go the states to maintain their runaway government spending, particularly for such spendthrift jurisdictions as California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts Link
• $5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud. Link Community organizers, such as the left-wing lobbying group ACORN, would get their own new slush fund of up to $750-million. Link
• $4.2 billion provided to the Neighborhood Stabilization Fund, which provides the funds to local governments to purchase and rehab vacant housing due to foreclosure Link
• $2 billion for Superfund cleanup Link
• $1.2 billion for summer jobs for youth Link
• $1 billion to the controversial Community Oriented Policing Services COPS Hiring Link
• $650 million for digital TV coupons to help Americans upgrade to digital cable television Link
• $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Link
• $50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts to help “the arts community throughout the United States.
• $400 million for “habitat restoration projects” of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Link
• $246 million for Hollywood Link
• $200M for plug-in car stations (Page 31) Link
• $150 million for honey bee insurance
• $75 million for smoking cessation Link
• $10M for bike and walking trails (Page 65) Link

Here are some things to consider as well:

1. Tax Relief. Tax relief is predominately for people who do not pay taxes. “For individuals, the plan would cut taxes for most workers this year through a $500 tax credit that would be delivered by reducing paycheck withholding, a key proposal from Mr. Obama’s team. But to reduce the cost of the proposal, House lawmakers pared down that benefit so that higher-income workers are excluded. The credit would begin to phase out at $75,000 for individual taxpayers and at $150,000 for couples.”

2. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) is Obama’s top pick for Commerce Secretary. “Mr. Gregg’s appointment to the post could give Mr. Obama and his Democratic Party a victory in the Senate, clearing the way for them to pass legislation without fear of a Republican filibuster. It also would provide the administration a strong ambassador to the business community in Mr. Gregg, who devised the $700 billion banking bailout package last year.”  Is he really the best man for the job, or is Obama trying to undercut the Republican party?

3. Illegal aliens will be qualify for cash payouts. “The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don’t have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks.Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number, to qualify for the tax credits.

4. Expanding health care and Medicade coverage. “The new Medicaid Coverage for the Unemployed program is supposedly a temporary program to cover laid-off individuals via Medicaid. And the $30 billion COBRA coverage provision, provides assistance in paying for COBRA for individuals making up to $1 million a year. All of these short-term benefits, once granted, will be hard for any Congress, of any party, to take away.

1. Tax Relief. Tax relief is predominately for people who do not pay taxes. “For individuals, the plan would cut taxes for most workers this year through a $500 tax credit that would be delivered by reducing paycheck withholding, a key proposal from Mr. Obama’s team. But to reduce the cost of the proposal, House lawmakers pared down that benefit so that higher-income workers are excluded. The credit would begin to phase out at $75,000 for individual taxpayers and at $150,000 for couples.”

2. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) is Obama’s top pick for Commerce Secretary. “Mr. Gregg’s appointment to the post could give Mr. Obama and his Democratic Party a victory in the Senate, clearing the way for them to pass legislation without fear of a Republican filibuster. It also would provide the administration a strong ambassador to the business community in Mr. Gregg, who devised the $700 billion banking bailout package last year.”  Is he really the best man for the job, or is Obama trying to undercut the Republican party?

3. Illegal aliens will be qualify for cash payouts. “The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don’t have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks.Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number, to qualify for the tax credits.

4. Expanding health care and Medicade coverage. “The new Medicaid Coverage for the Unemployed program is supposedly a temporary program to cover laid-off individuals via Medicaid. And the $30 billion COBRA coverage provision, provides assistance in paying for COBRA for individuals making up to $1 million a year. All of these short-term benefits, once granted, will be hard for any Congress, of any party, to take away.

WOW. How much of that do you hear on the news at night? The no vote by the Republicans is not simply a partisan act. They are voting against something that the do NOT believe in. The way this stands now I would seriously question someone who did vote for it.

Move Over MoveOn

The post I promised with a specific way to get involved. The current stimulus bill is ridiculously loaded with programs and billions of dollars that will NOT create new jobs. The promise of cutting back on these things in Washington is not happening. We need to make sure that our elected officials in Washington know how we feel about the wasteful spending of OUR money. This will affect our grandchildren in ways yet to even be fathomed.

Here is what YOU can do:

Objective:  SECURE 100% “NO” VOTE ON S.1 BY REPUBLICAN SENATORS; COAX A FEW DEMOCRATS TO DO SAME; COUNTER MOVEON.ORG ATTACKS AGAINST REPUBLICAN SENATORS

In response to MoveON.org’s attack on the 5 Republican senators up for re-election in 2010 (listed below), and in light of the pending bill S.1. (aka the pork laden stimulus package), here are some suggestions

1. Blitz these 5 Republican senators and assure them that as long as they remain true to the basics of conservatism (smaller government, lower taxes, self-reliance & gun ownership) they will continue to enjoy our support.

2. Rally and encourage the remaining Republican Senators to vote against S. 1. Hold them accountable to vote for the conservative principles that we elected them to up- hold.

3. Seek out and encourage right leaning Democrats and Independents in the Senate that may be prone to vote against this bloated piece of legislation.

Details:
MoveOn.org, the liberal activist group funded by George Soros, is focusing an ad campaign to turn around 5 Republican Senators. They are using radio and television ads to encourage people to contact these Senators and tell them to vote for S.1. The targeted Senators are:
(1) Collins – Maine
(2) Snow – Maine
(3) Gregg – NH *
(4) Murkowski – ALASKA
(5) Grassley – Iowa

*Gregg presents a special problem as he is being considered for a position in President Obama’s cabinet. If he took it, it would leave an open spot that would be filled by a Democratic Governor thus insuring a 60 person majority. He must additionally be encouraged to turn this position down.

Plan of Attack:
1. Phones. As we did in Operation Melt the Phones in DC, we are going to keep up a steady stream of phone calls to these Senators offices and report back on the TCOT Action Project site what the senators are saying. This time, however, we want to also call their local state offices. Each Senator has several in their state and they should be pressured as well. The numbers are listed by state at the bottom of the page as well as a sample script. We recommend calling each of the Senators offices every day. We will be issuing daily talking points for you to question the senate aid about. Be polite, but assertive.

2. Faxes. This time we will add faxes to our blitz. Many out of state people wishing to send a letter to a senator were stymied by the Senate e-mail system not allowing them. We have posted fax numbers next to phone numbers for those wishing to use that method. A sample text is listed at the bottom of the page for use in drafting e-mails and faxes. Again, we would like each person to fax each office daily emphasizing that days talking points.

3. E-mail. If you live in the senators state, we encourage you to send daily e-mails to the senators giving them reasons to vote against this piece of legislation. Links to each Senator’s webpage are on the Phone/Fax list at the bottom of the page. Use the Fax/E-mail text suggestions to know what to say.

4. Blogging and local media. We do not have George Soros’ money. We will have to be more grassroots than that. We are wanting all conservative bloggers to post this Action Project on your blog and give your opinion or perspective on the talking point of the day.

5. We are also asking TCOT members to call their local talk radio programs, send letters to the editor and notify local media of what you are doing. Our hope is that some will be picked up as human interest stories and we can rebroadcast them over the internet. We have made an outline/talking points list available to you for your reference. Please use that list as a starting point. We are working to build this media list, so please report back whomever you talk to and how they reacted.

6. We are looking for people with video experience that will write and produce short videos that can be posted on youtube that counter the ads being run by MoveON.org. Please contact us if you are interested in this project.

7. We are looking to target moderate or blue dog Democrats in the Senate that could be swayed to our side. Please let us know if you find any Democrats on the fence about S. 1.

Above all else, be polite. Passion is encouraged, foul language is not. Be aggressive, but not abusive.

Resources:
Senate Phone/Fax numbers (with links to e-mail) can be found at: http://moveovermoveon.posterous.com

Sample phone script:
“Hello, my name is __________, and I am a member of a conservative social media group called Top Conservatives on Twitter. I’m calling today to find out how Senator _____ intends to vote on S. 1, the stimulus package. (write down and report back the response. If the answer is “Vote Yes”) I’d like to encourage him/her to vote against this piece of legislation because it is too large and will be ineffective in boosting the economy. I especially don’t like (the talking point of the day). Please let Senator ______ know that I would like for him to vote “NO” when this piece of legislation is offered.”

Sample fax/e-mail text (please copy and paste these to your e-mail):
To the Honorable Senator _________,
My name is ____________, and I am a member of a conservative social media group called Top Conservatives on Twitter. I am writing today to ask you to vote against S. 1, the pork laden stimulus bailout. This is a bill that is full of wasteful spending and will not effectively boost the economy. In its current form, the stimulus bill will be more expensive than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. It is a bill that is being marketed as an immediate response to a national emergency, but many economist have agreed that it will do nothing but prolong the recession. It reflects the “Christmas wish-list” of the Democrats most powerful interest groups more than the needs of the country. I urge you to keep the country’s best interest in mind, and not the desires of liberal interest groups, in mind as you vote against this bill.
Sincerely,
_____________________

Is Pelosi Crazy?

While at the YMCA tonight I was watching C-Span. Why I do not know, but they were playing Pelosi’s weekly briefing. I wish I could find a way to link the video other than linking to C-Span. Will keep trying, but here is the transcript from today. You lose some effect by not being able to see her face and her really odd expressions while she is talking. One of my most favorite parts is where she says, that Republicans across the country actually support this bailout! Is she nuts? Ok well here it is for your listening and reading pleasure:

As I said yesterday, one week and one day back, the President on the steps of the Capitol called for swift and bold action. He called for investments to create jobs. He called for cutting taxes to the middle class, 95 percent of the American people. He called for investments in innovation, in science, in education, in health care, and building infrastructure of America, including a modern grid to distribute renewable energy resources, which he called for investments in as well. One week and one day from his call to action, the House of Representatives passed legislation doing just that.

So we are very, very proud of the action taken by the House today. We look forward to the bill being taken up in the Senate, go to conference and have this recovery package signed into law before we leave for the Presidents’ Day break.

The next week, we can talk about what is on the schedule for next week if you wish. But we are very, very proud of what has happened in a mere week and two days since the President became the President of the United States.

I would be pleased to take any questions.

Q: Madam Speaker, I want to ask you about this vote yesterday. All Republicans, and even some of your fellow Democrats, say that they had to vote against it because of excess spending. They said that this didn’t stimulate the economy, excess spending that your lieutenants put into this bill. Given that, is it your fault in some ways that Barack Obama’s first vote was so partisan and not bipartisan?

Speaker Pelosi. Listen, we didn’t come here to be — I didn’t come here to be partisan. I didn’t come here to be bipartisan. I came here, as did my colleagues, to be nonpartisan, to work for the American people, to do what is in their interest.

The President’s agenda is reflected in this legislation. As I mentioned, some of the priorities that were there were creating jobs, cutting taxes, helping states through this difficult economic time and to do so in a fiscally sound way. People vote for what they believe in.

Clearly the Republicans did not believe in the agenda that I just described for you, and that is probably one of the reasons they voted that way. I think they probably voted their conscience, and they couldn’t support that.

But we are very, very proud of the product that came out of our legislative step one and look forward to working — we have reached out to the Republicans all along the way. And they know it. They were part of the original bill with some of the tax provisions were their suggestions. They had what they asked for in terms of committee markups. They had the vote on the floor that gave them plenty of opportunity to make change. They just didn’t have the ideas that had the support of the majority of the people in the Congress.

They won one — Mr. Platts won an amendment for openness in the process, and I think it was a valuable addition to the legislation.

I take credit for the great action taken by the Congress one week and one day since the President called for bold and swift action on the steps of the Capitol.

Q: … is if your principal opponents are not John Boehner or Eric Cantor. They were Rush Limbaugh or Matt …

Speaker Pelosi. I won’t speak to that. I am the Speaker of the House. I don’t get into that.

Q: Can you characterize the role that Obey played in crafting the bill and getting it through the House?

Speaker Pelosi. David Obey is a master at work. To see him craft legislation is a sight to behold. He and other chairmen played an important part in translating the agenda that the Obama Administration has presented to us into legislation. And we are all deeply in his debt for the masterful work that he did and doing so in a very short time frame.

Q: Speaker Pelosi, do you regret adding the tax cuts and taking out some provisions, like the contraception provision, because no Republicans — it didn’t get any Republican votes?

Speaker Pelosi. No. The fact is that — and you said, “Do you regret putting in the tax cuts?” The tax cuts were, especially the net operating loss carry back, were at the suggestion of the Republicans. They asked for it. We put it in the original bill at their suggestion, and it had its role to play. I think everyone will admit, more jobs are created by more on the investment side than on that side. But we shall see.

And as far as the contraception is concerned, we will have to have that in some legislation. It saves $700 million. But it was a distraction. It was a distraction, and therefore, we want to say, “Look, our economy is experiencing great difficulties. The American people, therefore, are, too. We need to act, and we need to act now.”

And the question before us is: Do you want to take the country in a new direction where many more people participate in the economic prosperity of our country? That we must act now, 500,000 people a month are losing their jobs. So rather than have a distraction at this time, I thought it was important to be in the bill because it is a savings. The bill was scored higher once that came out because it saved $700 million.

But I am very pleased with how that has proceeded. Yes.

Q: Madam Speaker, President Obama did make it very clear from the start of this process that he wanted a bill that would have broad bipartisan support. So was this a failure or at the very least a disappointment not to have a single Republican support it? And secondly, what is the President talking about in his statement last night about seeing this bill improve in the Senate?

Speaker Pelosi. I don’t think he said “improved.” He said “strengthened.”

Q: Strengthened.

Speaker Pelosi. So we will see what happens with this. This is step one in the process.

But, look, the President reached out before he came President, before he was even sworn in, to have a bipartisan meeting of the leadership, House and Senate. He met with House and Senate bipartisan leadership after he became President. He met with the Republican leadership. He met with the Republican Caucus. Before he walked into the room, the Republican leaders told their Members, before the President came into the room, don’t vote for this bill. So they had a decision that they made.

Now, each Member has to make his or her own decision about what they believe in. And I believe that this was a good bill for education, for renewable energy, for making us energy independent, for investments in innovation to keep us competitive in the world economy, for cutting taxes, for creating good paying jobs in the near term and with the time release to stabilize the economy over the longer term. They disagreed. They didn’t vote for it.

But you know what, when you can’t win on policy, then you turn to process, and then you turn to personalities. The fact is, we have a very important job to do. And again, the process is secondary to this. They had, again, they told me they thought the rule was fine. They had their opportunities for a substitute, for a motion to recommit, for amendments. This is very inside. Republicans in the country support this legislation, support this legislation. Whatever the tactics of the Republicans in Washington is another thing. But this isn’t about partisan or bipartisan. It is about being nonpartisan and acting in the best interest of the American people. And that is all I am about going to say on process.

Any other questions?

Q: … provisions in the bill according to the CBO, the spending provisions, not the tax provisions, aren’t going to spend out within 2 years: 52 percent will; 42 percent won’t. If the point of the bill is to stimulate the economy and to act swiftly and boldly, as the President said, why enact those provisions which will take 5 to 10 years to spend out?

Speaker Pelosi. I don’t agree with your basic premise. The fact is that 75 percent of this bill will be spent out in the first 18 months, and immediately, there will be a higher level of confidence in families, in businesses, in our economy, because of these infusions of investment. So, again, the White House has stated and we have insisted that at least two thirds of it go in the first 18 months.

Q: Two thirds or 75 percent?

Speaker Pelosi. Seventy five percent, 75 percent in the first 18 months.

And it is absolutely necessary. Again, 500,000 Americans are losing their jobs every month. If we don’t pass this legislation in a timely fashion, that will continue. The economy, at the rate that it is going, the continuation of the Bush years would have added 2 percent more to the unemployment rate. This bill will take us in a new direction.

Again, we are very proud of it. We look forward to seeing what the Senate does, come to conference, have this all done.

But our next order of business on the agenda is to pass the children’s health insurance program next week. The Senate today — we will pick up in the House the Senate legislation next week.

And so in addition to the celebration that we had this morning at the White House to end pay discrimination in the workplace and make it fair, and next week, we will make sure that health insurance is expanded to 11 million children in America. We are very excited about that. And then, following that, we will pass the recovery act and take our country in a new direction under the leadership of Barack Obama.

Believe me, it is so different to work on this legislation and then be there to see it signed into law, to change public policy, to make a difference in the lives of America’s working families.

Thank you all.

Porky Porky

There have been some crazy decisions being made over in the White House these days.

The ridiculous bailout bill passed the House. But kudos to ALL the Republicans who voted against it and big PROPS to the 11 Democrats who voted against. There are some seriously ridiculous things in this bill.  Roll-Call

And here is some of the totally absurd pork in this bill. Borrowed information from Michelle Malkin

What happened to reform and making sure that there was no pork?

Page 41: The Coast Guard wants more than $572 million for “Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements” They claim these funds will create 1,235 new jobs. Crunch the numbers and this brings the cost of “creating” each job to a staggering $460,000+

Page 23: $200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles.

Page 32: $1.5 billion (with a “B”) for a “carbon-capturing contest”

Page 64: $3.5 billion for higher education facilities.

Tom Jones notes another $200 million for DoD plug-in car stations and crunches the numbers: 53,526 plug-in cars = >$3700/car.

P. 45: “$25,000,000 is for recreation maintenance, especially for rehabilitation of off-road vehicle routes, and $20,000,000 is for trail maintenance and restoration.” ATV owners, rejoice.

P. 60: $400 million for HIV and chlamydia testing.

$600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million

$252 billion is for income-transfer payments — that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There’s $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren’t job creators.

As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.

Oh, and don’t forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That’s more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that “No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools.” Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.

Wow. The good news is so far the Democrats own this.