Chapter 2: What Pres Hysteria Obama could learn from the very confident Pres Reagan!

As we recover from Pres Obama's budget, we look back at Pres Reagan's first day in office.

Reagan understood that the country needed an upbeat president who would tell them the truth but would not "spook" the markets.

By the way, the stock market has been dropping since the election and specially since the inauguration.

We have two kinds of people in the country.

On one side, we have "yes we can" screamers who jump up and down when they see Pres Obama.

On the other side, we have investors and entrepreneurs who are scared to death of Pres Obama's words.

We remember the very confident Pres Reagan this weekend! He inspired us rather than scare us with hysteria!

Pres BO won't say "victory" or thanks to Pres Bush and Sen McCain!

What would Iraq look like today if we had followed Obama and the Dems in 2006?

Pres Bush's courageous leadership brought Iraq to this point.

Sen. McCain's leadership kept Dems like Obama from pulling the plug in 2007!

We saw lots of profiles in courage from Bush and McCain.

We saw a lot of "telling people what they wanted to hear" from Obama!

Today, Pres Obama confirmed that Pres Bush was right.

He didn't say it. He just implemented the Bush-McCain policy in Iraq:

"He summed up America's achievement in Iraq thus:

"We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime -- and you got the job done.

We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government -- and you got the job done.

And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life -- that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible." (WSJ)

During the campaign, many in the left mocked Sen McCain about the 100 year war in Iraq.

Of course, McCain was simply talking about leaving a force behind.

Today, Pres BO implemented the Bush-McCain plan. We are leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq. As McCain said, Iraq will be like South Korea after the Korean War or Germany after WW2.

Do you think that any of the "yes we can" screamers will apologize to McCain or Bush?

As we posted before, BO was lucky to be wrong about Iraq.

Let's hope that he has better judgement in Afghanistan!

Robin Hood stole from the rich; Pres Obama will take from the middle class!

(The New York Post)

The markets are still a bit shell shocked from Obama Week # 5. See Markets Aren’t Easily Charmed! The investors are not impressed so far!

What else do you expect from back to back to back trillion dollar deficits?

The WSJ blows it up in The Obama Revolution (Paid for by the people):

"The first point to understand is the sheer magnitude of federal spending built into this proposal.

As the nearby chart shows, federal outlays will soar in fiscal 2009 to $4 trillion, or 27.7% of GDP, from $3 trillion or 21% of GDP in 2008, and 20% in 2007.

This is higher as a share of the economy than any year since 1945, when the country was still mobilized for World War II.

It is more spending by far than during the Vietnam War, or during the recessions of 1974-75 or 1981-82."

Beyond that, the federal deficit is shocking:

"These columns focus on spending, rather than deficits, because Milton Friedman taught us that spending represents the real future burden on taxpayers.

Nonetheless, the 2009 budget deficit is estimated to be an eye-popping 12.7% of GDP, which once again dwarfs anything we've seen in the postwar era.

The White House blueprint predicts that this will fall back down to 3.5% as soon as 2012, but this is based on assumptions about Washington that aren't going to happen."

I'm sorry. This is irresponsible, to say the least.

Of course, "the yes we can" screamers will blame it on pres. Bush!

What's new about that? Everything is Pres. Bush's fault!

However, the public, and specially the people who will pay for Pres Obama's liberal fantasy land, will not.

Get ready for a lot of tax increases, specially if you are a small business owner, i.e. the job creators:

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

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

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire

$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction

$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

2) Businesses:

$17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes

$24 billion - tax carried-interest as income

$5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine"

$61 billion - repeal LIFO

$210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform

$4 billion - information reporting for rental payments

$5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas

$3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs

$62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants

$49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties

$13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies

$1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers

$882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit

Total: $353 billion/10 years" (JTapper)

Again, only the rich will pay! Repeat: Only the "rich will pay"!

Wonder how many independents voted for Obama and expected him to triple Bush's deficits relative to GDP?

Can some Dems finally "grow up" about Iraq?

This is what the very liberal Peter Beinart wrote about the surge and the Iraq War:

"Bush took the path of most resistance.

He endured an avalanche of scorn, and now he has been vindicated.

He was not only right; he was courageous." (Admit It: The Surge Worked)

Beinart did not support the war. However, he is living in the real world.

At this point, success in Iraq is Pres BO's best friend!

It would be in Pres BO's interest to keep Iraq moving forward. Iraq is now a country that we can build a Middle East policy around.

Why are some Democrats still fighting the Iraq War?

I don't get it. It makes no sense. It makes no sense regarding national security either!

Max Boot has a great update about Iraq:

"The reasons to avoid a rush for the exits are compellingly outlined by Mike O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack in a typically incisive op-ed reporting on their recent trip to Iraq.

They note that many challenges still remain to be resolved — from holding another round of national elections to dealing with growing Arab-Kurd hostility in northern Iraq.

In light of all this, they write, “while President Obama’s apparent decision to withdraw the bulk of American troops by August 2010 is not necessarily a mistake, it cannot be carried out rigidly.

If all continues to go well, it should be eminently feasible; if not, the administration will have to show the strategic wisdom to slow down as needed to deal with problems.”

It’s hard to argue with that.

We can only hope that in foreign policy Obama will display more pragmatism and moderation than he has so far displayed in the domestic realm."

Unfortunately, Pres BO is tied down by an angry left that can not get beyond Bush.

However, the country needs to move on because success in Iraq is now a good thing for everybody, and specially Pres BO!

P.S. This is another example of how the left has tied down the Dem party: Senate Democrats Surprised by Obama Plan to Leave Up to 50,000 Troops in Iraq!

BO's war on "the rich" and business!

(Thanks to Gateway Pundit)

I'm sorry to break a few "yes we can" screaming hearts.

Here is the WSJ's sad truth about "taxing the rich":

"Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.

Consider the IRS data for 2006, the most recent year that such tax data are available and a good year for the economy and "the wealthiest 2%."

Roughly 3.8 million filers had adjusted gross incomes above $200,000 in 2006. (That's about 7% of all returns; the data aren't broken down at the $250,000 point.)

These people paid about $522 billion in income taxes, or roughly 62% of all federal individual income receipts.

The richest 1% -- about 1.65 million filers making above $388,806 -- paid some $408 billion, or 39.9% of all income tax revenues, while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income."

You can't finance Obama-economics by "taxing the rich".

However, you may do it by taxing a lot of us who don't make $250,000!

Get ready for the big tax hike!

P.S. Pres Obama has also declared "war" on businesses, i.e. our employers.

Who does Pres Obama think will hire people?

Someone at The White House should check out this editorial:

"His proposals reflect a stunning disregard for the impact of government policies on economic output and a clear preference for jobs created by government spending rather than private investment.

The president says he wants to eliminate the George W. Bush tax cuts "on the wealthy," a core promise of his campaign.

But those cuts help reduce the cost of capital in America, an essential tool to helping business out of this recession.

Raising the capital gains tax, as Obama proposes, will make private investment dollars even scarcer, as will hiking income taxes on those most likely to invest in the economy."

Are these the same people who ran against Bush's deficits?

Let us say it again.

Pres Bush's federal budget deficits were 3% of GDP over two terms.

The first Bush-Obama deficit will be over 10% of GDP.

The federal budget runs on a Oct 1-Sept 30 cycle. (4 months for Bush and 8 months for Obama!)

It reflects the checks mailed out last spring, the $750 billion TARP and the economic slowdown at the end of the year.

Again, Obama voted for "checks" and TARP. He was not an innocent bystander who learned about the deficits after he was inaugurated.

The first Obama deficit (2010) will be 10% of GDP.

Are you detecting a trend here?

Furthermore, Pres Obama has announced even more spending, from health care to taking care of whatever "your vote" desires!

It gets worse.

Pres BO plans to take care of the deficit by "taxing the rich" and ending the war in Iraq.

What's wrong with that strategy from our "articulate" president?

No matter what, we will have 50,000 soldiers in Iraq beyond 2010. Iraq will be like South Korea, a key foreign post with a major US presence.

Second, we are now sending 17,000 soldiers into Afghanistan. They are going to fight, i.e. spend money and unfortunately lives!

Most of all, there are not enough "rich people" in the US to pay for Pres Obama's fantasies.

Someone should pass "Good Luck On Deficit" to the president for some weekend reading:

"History shows the folly of this assumption — higher tax rates always bring in less money than forecast — which means that revenues from the "rich" will certainly come in well below expectations."

So get ready.

Each and every one of you will soon be "rich" so that President "Articulate" can tax your earnings!

We will soon be a nation of rich people, i.e. taxpayers!

Pres BO talks and the markets drop!

Does Pres Obama understand that he won the election?

Or that he was inaugurated about a month ago?

Why is this guy still campaigning?

Yesterday, Pres Obama came out and attacked Wall Street.

What happened? The markets tanked at the end of the day.

Peter Wehner has some thoughts for our "campaigner in chief:

"The markets — which are not seduced by charm, a million watt smile, and a nice turn of phrase — have reacted quite negatively to Obama’s plans, or in some instances (like banking policy) his failure to produce a plan at all.

As one person in the financial world told the Washington Post yesterday,

“Basically, the market’s giving you no vote of confidence on the Obama administration’s approach to solving the economic woes the country is facing.”

The gap between how Obama described the so-called stimulus bill and the actual legislation underscores my point;

contrary to promises of a new approach to politics, the bill embodied the worst of Congress (ramming through a 1,000 page bill, the most costly in our history, without a single member having read it) and the worst of the modern Democratic Party (using an economic crisis to fulfill a decades-old spending wish list).

There are costs to things like this.

At some point, reality intrudes, and it can be jarring."

The markets are not Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.

The markets just want some direction. So far, they are not reacting well to the "campaigner in chief"!

20 years of Jerry Jones!

It's hard to believe but Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys 20 years ago this week. He purchased the Cowboys, hired Jimmy Johnson and fired Landry.

I can still remember the weekend. Jones is the new owner. Landry is the ex-coach. And most Cowboys' fans were in a state of shock. After all, Landry had coached the Cowboys for 29 years!

The Dallas Morning News remembers the weekend: Jerry Jones' 20 years with Cowboys filled with ups and downs

How can we evaluate Jones' tenure?

The good news is that Jones won 3 Super Bowl titles. His early drafts produced Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith!

The bad news is that the Cowboys have not won a post-season game since 1998. Also, the Cowboys never replaced Aikman!

On balance, Jones has been a good owner. He is fan friendly. He took the team to the new stadium, perhaps the best football facility in the country. It has a ".....retractable roof and 60-yard digital scoreboard..."

What's his biggest shortcoming? He refused to hire a strong GM with a football background to run the field operations.

Nevertheless, I give him a B-plus. After all, how many owners in any of the four major sports have hung 3 big titles in their office over the last 20 years?

Yankees? Spurs? Patriots? Lakers?

There aren't a lot more successful teams than the Cowboys!

The speech: No mention of Mexico or our escalating commitment to Afghanistan!

We continue our review of Pres. BO's speech, i.e. 50 minutes of generalities and very few specifics!

Let me quote The Economist: Barack Obama, in his address to Congress, asks for sacrifice but skips the details!

Who said that such an articulate man needs details anyway?

Pres BO had one huge omission last night: foreign policy! Iran and Russia!

In fact, he flew over foreign policy.

Didn't Pres Carter want to be a domestic president, too? Didn't he get consumed with foreign affairs?

Foreign policy is like your kid in college. You never know when they will show up asking for money and a bag of laundry.

Overall, has Pres BO forgotten about Al Qaeda? Do you think that they forgot about us?

The NY Post has a good editorial:

"Nor did he mention - not even once - the source of America's still-potent enemy: radicalized militant Islamism.

But for a single reference to "al Qaeda," you might have thought America was threatened by bloodthirsty Quakers."

Afghanistan will be a major headache, too.

During the Bush years, the Democrats declared war on Afghanistan to show the US public that they were serious about terrorism, too.

"We took our eye off the ball" was the clincher line!

As President, BO is painfully learning that sending troops into Afghanistan is going to be a lot more complicated than he thought.

We need to hear more about Afghanistan. Why isn't Pres BO publicly calling on our allies to send troops, too?

Mexico is also a time bomb.

As of today, the US-Mexico border is one gigantic battle zone. Our border cities are impacted by the gunfights a few miles away.

Are we prepared for a wave of refugees from Mexico? What are we going to do about it?

Are we ready for a collapse of the Mexican government?

Last night, Pres BO skipped the details and gave us a nice pep talk.

We need details. At least, we need to know that Pres BO is on top of these potential problems in Mexico and Afghanistan.

2009: The "yes we can screamers" declare war on taxpayers, producers and anyone who creates wealth!

How in the world can anyone buy into all of this nonsense?

I guess there are two kinds of people in the world:

1) "yes we can" screamers. and

2) people who pay taxes.

I love this line from Tucker Carlson:

"And, like the masterful politician he is, Obama sprinkled the speech with enough sweeteners to trigger diabetes:

Massive new spending and deficit reduction at the same time.

Tax cuts for you, tax increases for people you’ve never met.

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

The end of cancer.

Literally: the end of cancer." (Promises, Promises)

Again, how can any fool buy into this?

There must be a lot of "yes we can" screamers in the world.

The WSJ has a great editorial this morning:

"Mr. Obama suggested he could finance all of this with a combination of a budget scrubbing plus a tax increase on a mere 2% of American taxpayers.

The President said his staff has already found $2 trillion in spending savings, and we look forward to those details.

As for those 2%, they are a lot poorer than they used to be and in any case there aren't enough of them to come close to paying for Mr. Obama's plans.

Despite the President's protests, the American middle class will eventually be asked to pay far more than they do now." (The President has only begun to expand the government. )

Memo to the "yes we can" screamers: Your taxes are going up!

Or should I say that the parents of the "yes we can" screamers will see their "middle class" taxes go up?

Beyond the speech, Pres BO and serious Democrats may want to check out Obama Needs a 'Not To Do' List By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR:

"Mr. Obama came to office without a conspicuous vision other than "bipartisanship" and a belief in the beneficent influence on America and the world of seeing a black man exercising the powers of the presidency.

He wields his party's shibboleths like one who sees them mainly as levers for delivering the goods.

His ideas about the exercise of politics, in fact, may be accurately reflected in the recent stimulus bill -- in office you supply the wish lists of those who put you there.

His will be a fascinating presidency to watch, not least because of his inexperience, his intellectual agility, and the crisis in which he finds himself.

But his presidency will get really interesting in a year or two, or six months -- whenever he finally realizes that everything he thought he wanted to do is irrelevant.

He'll then have to adapt an agenda for the world as it is, in which many childish things no longer have a place.

And, by the way, he kids himself if he believes he will be allowed, like FDR, to preside over a depression without being politically blamed for it.

The public is different now -- the world is different -- and he will own the "Obama depression" sooner than he thinks."

It won't be pretty. It won't be pretty when the "yes we can" screamers tell their parents that the rock concert will create deficits 3 times larger than those under Pres Bush!

President's speech was articulate but expensive!

(This is from American Thinker)

The good news is that Pres BO is very articulate.

The bad news is that the speech comes with a very heavy price. i.e. dollars!

Pres Obama has just dumped $800 billion, i.e. stimulus!

The House Democrats are working on another $450 billion. (House Dems propose new $410B spending bill...)

The UAW and car companies will be visiting The White House soon. Keep in mind that the unions went all out to elect Obama. They have a few checks to cash!

We are still waiting for Sec. Geither to tell us about the banks.

We just heard about a mortgage program that will cost money, too.

We heard about a bank bailout. We are not sure how much it will cost.

Did he really promise universal education through college?

Did he promise universal health care?

And Pres. Obama wants to cut the deficit to $500 billion by the end of his first term!

Here is my prediction: He won't cut the deficit. We will have a federal deficit relative to GDP of 10% in 2009 and 2010!

Let's hope that there is some kind of recovery to bring down those deficits to the 3% of GDP levels under Pres. Bush!

On foreign policy, he looks disinterested. Every president since FDR has had a major foreign policy crisis.

Nevertheless, we had just a few lines about it.

Eric Trager had a good review:

"Obama’s lack of interest in foreign affairs is starting to look dangerous."

I hope that our enemies are also planning to cut their budgets!

Let me share of a couple of my favorite responses to the very long speech, or should I say, the very expensive speech:

"The longer he talked, the more it sounded like a campaign speech.

That's not all bad; Obama is pretty good at giving campaign speeches--better, probably, than he is at anything else.

But I think most people understand that it's time to quit campaigning. Obama has won the office; now he needs to do something with it." (John Hinderaker)

Here is Matt Welch:

"Obama seems to have a difficult time shifting from campaign rhetoric–where drive-by mischaracterizations of political and ideological opponents are the coin of the realm–and governing, where a president in the midst of a crisis might just want to start talking honestly, instead of blowing smoke up the nation's collective arse about the 3.5 million jobs that will be "created or saved" (no really, think about it) as a result of his magic wand."

Again, what's the good news? He won the election!

What's the bad news? He needs to start governing and stop the "hope and change".

In essence, this was a dishonest speech. It had three big problems:

1) I "inherited a deficit".

Actually, he voted for TARP ($750 billion) and he just signed a stimulus. Add $750 plus $800 billion and you get the $1 trillion deficit that "he inherited"!

2) He tells us that we must spend our way of prosperity by raising taxes on the rich. Can you cite a single example of a country that "taxed the rich" and created prosperity? "Tax the rich" demagogues usually tax the middle class!

3) He is going to balance the budget, after he raises taxes on the rich and goes line by line! Why didn't he do that with the $800 billion that includes many "porky projects"?

Let's see how all of this looks like a year from now! Don't invest all of your hopes and dreams in Obama. BO is the next big bubble to burst!

Tuesday's show: A border war update with Alfredo Corchado, The Dallas Morning News!

We spoke today with ALFREDO CORCHADO of The Dallas Morning News.

Everyday, we read about the violence going across the border.

In fact, Texas has a contingency plan in the event that we start getting refugees from Mexico:

"Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry, said a multi-agency contingency plan is being developed, and it will focus primarily on law enforcement issues, including how to handle an influx of Mexicans fleeing violence.

"At this point, what we're focusing on is spillover violence," Cesinger told FOXNews.com Thursday.

"The immediate concern, if any, would be that."

The plan was tested a few days ago: Recent border violence tests spillover plan!

Click here for the show!

P.S. Darryl Boyne filled in for Adryana Boyne. We spoke about Pres Obama's abortion policies.

Is Pres Obama talking too much?

Tonight, Pres Obama will deliver The State of the Union Address. However, it appears that BO has been president a lot longer than 30 days.

Have you ever seen such a saturated president?

His face is here and there. He is a rock star. He is everywhere.

Gene Healy has a good post called The president talks too much:

"Today's president is a constitutional monstrosity: a national talk-show host with nuclear weapons.

When the president dominates the airwaves, promising to cure all manner of economic and social ills, that leads the public to expect a presidential rescue plan for anything that ails the body politic.

The predictable result is an executive branch that rides roughshod over congressional prerogatives.

The mortgage bailout Obama announced last week is a case in point, since the bulk of the plan, which has enormous repercussions for the U.S. economy, is being enacted without any action by Congress.

A less vocal, less omnipresent president might help us right the constitutional balance of powers.

Moreover, it's not clear that all this speechifying is doing the president himself much good.

After Obama announced his housing plan, one headline writer put it this way: "Obama Speaks, Market Listens, Sells Off."

When there's no escape from our national talk-show host-when he appears constantly above every gym treadmill-is it any wonder that we typically want his show cancelled just a few seasons in?

Is it any wonder we get sick of him?"

Slow down Mr. President.

Take a little time off. You may be better off if we didn't hear from you every other second!

Trust me! Most Dems are privately scared to death about BO's lack of experience!

Bill Clinton called him a "fairy tale".

Hillary Clinton said that he wasn't ready to be president.

Even VP candidate Biden warned us that BO would be tested and forced to make unpopular decisions.

Trust me. There are many Dems who are starting to come to terms with the fact that we've just elected a man who has never run anything.

Heather Higgins has these thoughts:

"We have elected a president who has no real business or investment experience.

His only notable for-profit venture was selling his book;

as a law professor, community organizer, and legislator, he operated in redistributionist worlds where wealth, garnered from contributions or taxes, is received and redistributed.

In those spheres there's a seemingly bottomless well of funds, but unlike the for-profit world there can be a disjunction between your customers and your funding.

At a non-profit, revenue comes from cajoling funders (who care about students or community residents, but who are not themselves the users of the non-profit's services);

in government, revenue is derived by forcing taxpayers - many of whom are not that legislator's voters - to pay more.

In those worlds, wealth isn't created; it's seen as a fixed pie, and some slice is taken from those who have and given to those who haven't."

The "yes we can" rock concert is over.

And most Dems know they voted for change and got inexperience!

Creepy porky stuff!

Maybe I'm wrong. Wasn't this supposed to be a "job creation bill"?

Let's look at some of the items in the stimulus bill:

"* $200,000 for “Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program,” pg. 283;

*Maine lobster earmark in the omnibus, pg. 173;

*$5.8 million earmark for the “Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate…for the planning and design of a building & an endowment,” pg. 232;

*and National Council of La Raza, $473,000 earmark from Sens. Bingaman and Menendez, pg. 212." (Malkin)

And there is more:

"- $1.75 million to acquire land for the Cape Cod National Seashore.

- $2.2 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in Geneva, NY

- $2.4 million for the Southeastern Poultry Research Lab in Athens, GA

- $42,000 for “Arbuscular Mycontizal Fungi” in Wyndmoor, PA

- $1 million for Corn and Soybean Research in Wooster, OH

- $1.8 million for the Honey Bee Lab in Weslaco, TX

- $1.8 million for Swine Odor and Manure Management Research in Ames, Iowa

- $443,000 for Beaver Management and Control in Mississippi

- $208,000 for Beaver Management and Control in North Carolina

- Several hundred thousand for “Blackbird Management” programs in KS, LA, ND and SD.

- $657,000 for Brown Tree Snake Management in Guam

- $1,049,000 for “Mormon Crickets” in Utah (I am told they are neither Mormon nor are they crickets)

- $162,000 for Rodent Control in Hawaii

- $209,000 to “Improve Blueberry Production and Efficiency” in Georgia

- $254,00 for the “Montana Sheep Institute”

- $413,000 for Tri-State Joint Peanut Research in Alabama

- $2.9 million for Shrimp Aquaculture in AZ, HI, LA, MA, MS, SC and TX

- $277 million for 2nd Avenue Subway

- $210 million for LIRR terminal in Grand Central"

It may be that we need each and everyone of these programs. However, shouldn't Congress have the courage to vote "up or down" on each one?

Secondly, how many jobs will be created?

It's time for someone to read this bill and analyze its "pork vs jobs" status!

What will Pres Obama say about Bill Ayers now?

Don Surber alerts us to Bill Ayers' latest remarks:

"“I don’t regret anything I did it to oppose the war.

It was — I did it to oppose the war.

I don’t regret it.

I don’t look back on those things and regret them, but I’m willing to rethink them.

And there are many things which I’m going to rethink.”

Of course, Ayers was a lot more than an anti-war critic.

Ayers tried to blow up a building and kill people.

Don is right:

"Bill Ayers remains an unrepentant terrorist. He trampled the flag to peddle his book.

Despicable."

Shouldn't Pres Obama say something?

New military campaign in Iraq?

We read that US and Iraqi military have embarked on a new military campaign:

"U.S. and Iraqi forces have launched a new military campaign they hope will put an end to a stubborn insurgency in restive Nineveh province, seen as a final holdout for Sunni Islamist militants, officials said on Sunday.

Brigadier General Said Ahmed Abdullah, spokesman for the northern province's military command, said local forces began searching homes and conducting widespread arrests on Friday as part of the new operation to oust al Qaeda militants." (Reuters)

We assume that Pres Obama approved this operation.

So much for giving our military a new mission in Iraq!

How will the market react to BO's second month?

We will find out more on Tuesday night. However, we learned this over the weekend:

"President Obama is putting the finishing touches on an ambitious first budget that seeks to cut the federal deficit in half over the next four years, primarily by raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy and by slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, administration officials said." (WashPost)

The article goes on:

".....White House budget director Peter Orszag:

"We will cut the deficit in half by the end of the president's first term."

The plan would keep the deficit hovering near $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011, but shows it dropping to $533 billion by 2013, he said -- still high but a more manageable 3 percent of the economy."

So a deficit of 3% of GDP is more "manageable"?

Do they mean like the Bush "3% of GDP" deficits that they used to tell us about?

Of course, Pres BO will learn some painful lessons:

1) You won't even touch the deficits by ending the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. The total costs is US$ 190 billion, or less than 1% of GDP!

On the other hand, you may turn over Afghanistan to the Taleban or Al Qaeda.

You could also have a collapse of the gains in Iraq.

We recall what happened when the last time we let the Taleban run crazy in Afghanistan.

Can we say 9-11?

Can you say two US embassies blown up in Africa?

Can you say the USS Cole?

2) Raising taxes does not work. How many times do we have to learn that lesson? High taxes discourages investment and job creation!

Just ask Michigan and California.

P.S. In the meantime, it did not get any better on Monday: Major stock market indexes fall to 1997 levels!

How in the world did BO graduate from this corruption with his hands clean?

Chicago, and the reality of governing, have been BO's worst nightmares since November.

We've gone from the "yes we can" screamers to "who will get indicted in Chicago" next!

Here is a little memory lane: Before we learned of Rev Wright's rants, BO told us that he was in church every Sunday at 11am.

After the rants went public, he said that he missed a lot of services.

Incredibly, he missed everyone of Rev Wright's greatest performances!

BO was either deaf or lying about his church attendance!

My question is simple: How did BO grow up in this corruption without getting his hands dirty?

Today's WSJ editorial has an update on the Senator Burris affair:

"Never underestimate the capacity of Chicago politics for spectacle.

True to this form, Illinois Senator Roland Burris is now looking at multiple ethics investigations barely a month after arriving in Washington."

Is there an honest man in Chicago?

Why didn't we hear about anything about Chicago during the two year presidential campaign?

We heard about everything except BO's Chicago roots.

We heard about the Clintons!

I don't like the Clintons but Hillary Clinton was clearly mistreated by a media madly in love with BO.

The NY Times had front page "hit pieces" on John and Cindy McCain. They had glowing stories about Barrack and Michelle Obama!

Now, we are hearing about Chicago's corruption daily.

Where was the media?

I guess that's what happens when the news media flies every reporter to Alaska to investigate everything about Sarah Pallin.

They didn't find anything in Alaska, not even a past due book at a library.

They overlooked Obama's Chicago, a city that fights for "the most corrupt city in the country" title year after year.

Why didn't the news media investigate BO's friends, such as the recently impeached Gov Blago?

Didn't BO endorse and support Gov Blago with all of his energy?

Did BO just learn that Blago was corrupt?

How did BO enthusiastically support Blago's 2006 reelection? Everybody knew that Blago was knee deep in corruption!

I think that something in Chicago is going to bite BO.

I am not sure when or how.

However, get ready for a "Chicago surprise".

P.S. By the way, isn't Tony Rezko still cutting deals with Prosecutor Fitzgerald?

Tony is singing like a canary and BO must be wondering what the tune is!

Maureen Dowd hits Pres Obama?

Normally, I do not read Maureen Dowd of The NY Times.

After all, why should I read what a negative woman has to say?

Nevertheless, a friend sent me Maureen Dowd 's column about Pres Obama:

"Though he demonstrated in the campaign that he has a rare gift for inspiring the country with new belief in itself, Mr. Obama has not yet captured either the grit the moment requires or the fury it provokes.

He has not explained in a compelling way why Americans who followed the rules need to sacrifice more to help those who flouted the rules."

Then she unloaded on AG Holder!

Jennifer Rubin has a good post about the Dowd-BO feud called The Grinch Who Stole Hope:

"Much as it may pain the former community organizer, Obama’s job is not now to criticize, demean, rile and anger the public.

We thought he, better than most politicians in recent memory, understood the power of rhetoric to lift and inspire, but maybe that only worked as a campaign tactic.

Now there is no George Bush to kick around.

And the result seems to be a surly and depressive presidency.

Perhaps we were not the change we were waiting for after all."

We have huge problems. I'm not sure that Pres BO has the temperament for the office! He seems to be eager to blame his predecessor and attack Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli!

Memo to Pres Obama: Chill out. You have not even seen a real crisis yet. Wait until the Russians decide to drive their tanks into the Ukraine or Iran is weeks from having a nuclear weapon.

Beatriz and I at the Republican dinner!

Phyllis Schlafly, one of my favorite conservative ladies, highlighted a great Denton County Lincoln-Reagan dinner.

My wife and I attended the event.

Mrs Schlafly, the founder of Eagle Forum, spoke about many issues, from the pro-abortion Obama administration to the mindless stimulus program.

It was fun.

So far, the investors are not into "hope and change"

A few days ago, Pres BO signed the "stimulus" and told us it was the first day of the end of the crisis.

They cheered at "yes we can" land.

They didn't cheer in Wall Street.

The children are still doing the "yes we can" dance. The rock concert is rocking all night long.

The adults are a bit more concerned! They are trying to figure out how to pay the taxes that Obama's "hope and change" will translate into.

IBD has an idea and the chart above to make their case:

"Last Oct. 13, in trying to explain why the market had sold off 30% in six weeks, we acknowledged that the freeze-up of the financial system was a big concern.

But we cited three other factors as well:

• The imminent election of "the most anti-capitalist politician ever nominated by a major party."

• The possibility of "a filibuster-proof Congress led by politicians who are almost as liberal."

• A "media establishment dedicated to the implementation of a liberal agenda, and the smothering of dissent wherever it arises."

No wonder, we said then, that panic had set in."

See Fred Barnes:

"Obama the market killer.

The Dow opened at 8281.22 on the morning of Obama's inauguration.Today it opens at 7465.95.

That's a vote of practically no confidence in Obama's strategy for reviving the economy.

The numbers were worse on the biggest days of the Obama presidency.

The Dow fell 332.13 points on inauguration day, 381.99 points on the day Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announced step two in the bank bailout, and 297.91 points when the president signed the stimulus bill three days ago.

Financial markets are a bet on the future.

The market's view is that an Obamanomics-driven economy looks grim."

Barnes and IBC are not alone.

See Liz Peek's Stock Market Gives Obama’s First Month An 'F':

"My concern is that recent events have squelched that optimism among consumers, and that the nation’s mood is even darker than it was a few months ago.

Remember how Obama derided the “politics of fear?” He’s become its greatest champion."

Unfortunately, Karl Rove may be right:

"Barack Obama won the job he craved, now he must demonstrate that he and his team are up to its requirements.

The signs are worrisome. The world is a dangerous place.

The days of winging it need to end."

The market is very practical. It does not follow Dems or Republicans. It follows a leader.

So far, Pres BO has been a lot of campaigning but very little governing. It's time for Pres BO to pay attention to the investors rather than hear sob stories from ladies at town hall meetings.

P.S. We understand that the problems are difficult. However, they told us that they'd hit the ground running. They told us that they'd have a plan. So far, they've looked rather disorganized and sophomoric!

President Washington, the first and still the greatest!

Today, we celebrate President Washington's birthday. He was born on February 22, 1732.

George Washington is still the greatest of US presidents. I saw this the other day about his life:

"Historians agree that no one other than George Washington could have held the disparate colonies and, later, the struggling young Republic together.

To the Revolution's last day, Washington's troops were ragged, starving, and their pay was months in arrears.

In guiding this force during year after year of humiliating defeat to final victory, more than once paying his men out of his own pocket to keep them from going home, Washington earned the unlimited confidence of those early citizens of the United States.

Perhaps most importantly, Washington's balanced and devoted service as President persuaded the American people that their prosperity and best hope for the future lay in a union under a strong but cautious central authority.

His refusal to accept a proffered crown and his willingness to relinquish the office after two terms established the precedents for limits on the power of the presidency.

Washington's profound achievements built the foundations of a powerful national government that has survived for more than two centuries."

Washington could have been "president for life". However, he served two terms, respected the new constitution and set the example for every man who has followed him.

He was the first and the greatest. We should return President's Day to Washington's birthday. He deserves it!

30 years ago: Spirits having flown!

Between 1977 and 1979, The Bee Gees enjoyed an incredible run in the US and world charts. They had 6 consecutive # 1 hits and 3 top albums!

In January 1979, the Gibb brothers released "Spirits having flown":

"....(it) sold 16 million copies worldwide, and the album's first three tracks were released as singles which all went to no.1 in the US."

The # 1 hits were "Too much heaven", "Tragedy" and "Love you inside out".

"Reachin' out" was not released as a single but it should have been.

My favorite is still the title song:

What could "President Crisis" learn from "President Optimist"?

We are not sure what we are watching:

1) We may be watching the beginning of a rather long and hellish presidency.

2) We may be watching a bad start that will turn around.

It's too early to tell. However, my money on option # 1. We are watching a guy who has never run anything trying to do the most difficult job in the world.

Pres Clinton, the same one who correctly called candidate BO a "fairy tale", is advising Pres BO to cut out all of the negative talk.

In 1981, Pres Reagan inherited a far bigger economic crisis than the one today.

Today's economy is a stomach ache compared to 1981.

Today's 7.6% unemployment looks rather attractive to the double digit rates that we had back in 1982-83.

Today's interest rates and inflation are nothing compared to 1981.

So why all of the Obama "doom and gloom"?

What did Pres Reagan do?

He didn't blame Pres Carter in every other speech.

After all, we don't want the "relief pitcher" saying that the predecessor walked the bases loaded.

We want relief pitchers to get us out of the inning.

He didn't go around saying that he "inherited" anything.

By the way, Obama is a first rate cynic on saying that he is just a little "victim" who inherited a deficit.

Why? Because the 2009 federal budget deficit includes TARP and the new stimulus.

Obama voted for both, or approximately a trillion dollars.

Drop the "inherited" stuff. You voted for it!

Pres Reagan didn't scare us into passing a bill or face the end of the world.

Instead of playing the victim or blame game, Pres Reagan sat down with Dems. He got a huge number of southern and western Dems to go along with his proposal.

It's Reagan leadership versus Obama's meaningless "hope and change"! It's a grown up versus a "fairy tale"!

Pres Reagan was the great communicator. He was also the great optimist.

Unlike BO, who thinks that government will fix every problem, Reagan understood that the American people were the key to our success.

What should Pres BO do this weekend?

Drop the class warfare nonsense.

Get your act together. Stop winging it!

Watch a few Reagan videos!

You can't shoot monkeys anymore!

Like many of you, I subscribe to Rev ML King's words.

We recall that the great civil rights leader told us to judge people by the content of their character not the color of their skin.

Sounds good to me.

What's the big deal this week? What's cooking at the liberal plantation this week?

It started with the NY Post cartoon featured above.

Apparently, some people think that the policemen shot Pres BO.

Frankly, I interpreted the "dead monkey" as Dems not a particular Dem.

The monkey did not have Obama's face or famous ears.

How can anybody see Obama in that monkey?

Also, isn't it common for cartoonists to use "apes" to mock the other side?

It was very popular to mock Bush and to portray him as a chimp, ape or monkey! (You ape us, we will ape you!)

Again, let's check Rick Moran:

"The chimp does not resemble the president which is the usual practice for racist cartoons.

Besides, anyone with half a brain and who follows the news knows full well Obama did not write the bill.

The cartoon refers to the fact that the chimp was mentally ill hence, the idea that the person (people) who wrote the stimulus bill – Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid – should have their heads examined."

Who saw Obama in this monkey?

The same "race hustlers" who see race in everything.

Frankly, wouldn't "the race hustlers" be more useful if they would concentrate on real problems?

When will Dems get over "race" and start governing? We have a lot of problems and picking a fight over a monkey is rather silly.

For a little perspective, see It's Official and Who's A Chimp?!

BO's "double talk" in Canada is BS-101!

Let me salute PM Harper of Canada. He wins the "polite award".

To be fair, we would expect PM Harper to be polite to a guest in his country.

However, it's hard to believe that PM Harper and the Canadians can swallow so much BO "double talk", or BS as they say in Texas!

Captain Ed has a good post on Pres BO's trip to neighboring Canada:

"First Barack Obama promised that we would unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA to change trade across the Canadian and Mexican borders.

Then Canadian broadcaster CTV reported that Obama aide Austan Goolsbee secretly assured Canada that Obama had engaged in populist rhetoric to exploit the “protectionist sentiment” in the Midwest.

Obama at first said that Goolsbee had been “misquoted”, but then later acknowledged that he used “overheated rhetoric” on trade issues in order to drum up votes in the Rust Belt.

Where does Obama really stand, then?"

He is the master of the "double talk"!

In Texas, we call them "BS artists"!

Again, PM Harper was very polite.

However, it'd be nice to hear what he said in private about his "guest" from the other side of the border. I hope that he got every BO promise in writing! BO's promises have expiration dates!

The "let me tell you what you want to hear" Obama!

This is a good one from Jake Tapper:

"Are we supposed to act as if things politicians say during primaries are irrelevant and meaningless?

Are we supposed to just accept as fact that politicians say things in the heat of the moment that they don’t mean and thus we should should just collectively self-induce amnesia?"

The answer is yes, specially if you were so intoxicated with "change" that you packed up your bags and followed Obama.

Renegotiate NAFTA:

BO told the "union workers" what they wanted to hear a year ago.

I will call in the military and give them a new mission in Iraq:

BO told the "anti-war Dems" what they wanted to hear during the campaign.

Tax the rich:

BO told the "class warfare Dems" what they wanted to hear in the debates.

Question: What will this guy say to get your vote?

Everything.

Of course, it's different now that he is the President and will have to make decisions rather than just agitate crowds.

Let's see what he looks like in a year or so.

P.S. This is candidate BO during his "I am to the left of everybody" days:

They adore BO so much but they won't send troops!

Pres Obama struck out too. At least, so far he has!

I guess that all of those cheering crowds last summer were just a rock concert for Obama, the latest American Idol contestant.

Today, we got the bad news: US demands for Nato allies to send more troops to Afghanistan have been met with a cool response at a summit in Poland!

What in the world is all of this love and Obama-mania getting us?

Nothing, unless you think that love is enough to beat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot for NRO. This is today's post:

"With Obama in office, it is increasingly clear that Europe’s reluctance to send more troops to the world’s trouble spots had less to do with President Bush’s “cowboy” ways than with voting populaces that are effectively pacifist."

OK. Let the Euros dwell in pacifism. Let them think that US boys will fight in Afghanistan with Canadian and UK help.

At some point, and it's getting closer, US public opinion will ask a simple question:

Why should we defend such an outrageous group of ingrates? After all, who liberated Paris in 1944? Was it French poets or US soldiers?

As they say: Call the UN the next time that Iran sends a missile over Paris!

P.S. Speaking of Obama-mania, Charles Krauthammer's Obama's Supine Diplomacy is frightening:

"The Biden prophecy has come to pass.

Our wacky veep, momentarily inspired, predicted in October that "it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama."

Biden probably had in mind an eve-of-the-apocalypse drama like the Cuban missile crisis. Instead, Obama's challenges have come in smaller bites.

Some are deliberate threats to U.S. interests, others mere probes to ascertain whether the new president has any spine."

Now they tell us that the stimulus won't work!

Pres Obama and the Dems sold us the "stimulus" to turn the economy around.

Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell Mr. Bernake at The Fed.

This is his revised forecast:

"The “central tendency” of forecasts by the presidents of the Federal Reserve’s district banks and of governors on the Federal Reserve Board showed that they expected unemployment to reach 8.5 to 8.8 percent in 2009.

Last October, policy makers expected unemployment to top out at 7.1 to 7.6 percent.

Fed policy makers also expect the economy to shrink this year in a range of 0.5 to 1.3 percent, which mainly reflects deepening gloom about the severity of the downturn in the first half of this year.

Last October, most Fed officials had predicted that the United States would come out of the recession quickly enough to end this year with a small gain."

Our friend Bill Katz directed us to the last paragraph of the article:

"...Bleak economic data reflecting a sharpening slide in housing, trade, industrial production, spending and employment rates “more than offset” any potential impact from an economic stimulus plan, the Fed said, forcing it to cut its economic outlook."

I guess that $787 billion doesn't buy what it used to!

Thursday's show: A chat with Bill Katz

Today, we were joined by Bill Katz of URGENTA AGENDA.

Bill is one of the most interesting people in the blogsphere.

We discussed Pres. Obama's first month and a few other things.

Click here for the show!

Or click on the icon to the right.

We will keep the show available for the entire weekend.

Happy # 69 to Smokey Robinson, great songwriter and performer!

Smokey Robinson was born in Detroit back in 1940.

He recorded several hits with The Miracles and later as a solo artist.

He wrote The Temptations' "My girl"! (2nd video below)

The Beatles recorded "You really got a hold on me"!

Smokey was also a principal character in "The Motown Sound" that dominated the pop charts for such a long time.

What's my favorite Smokey tune? It's gotta be "More love":

"Let it be soon, don't hesitate

Make it now, don't wait

Open your heart & let my love come in

I want the moment to start when I can fill your heart with...

More love, more joy Than age or time could ever destroy

My love will be so sound It would take about 100 lifetimes

To live it down, wear it down, tear it down

This is no fiction, this is no act

This is real, it's a fact I'll always belong only to you

Each day I'll be living to make sure I'm giving you...more love....

As we grow older no need to fear

When you need me I'll be here

I'll be beside you every step of the way

A heart that's truthful & keeping you youthful with....more love...."

How can the economy be projected down after the stimulus?

Didn't we just pass a stimulus plan?

How can we have a forecast like this?

Fed Downgrades Economic Forecast for This Year

I thought that yesterday was the first day of the end of the crisis.

What about this shocker from the CBO:

"The huge economic stimulus package that President Obama signed into law Tuesday will result in “lower wages” for American workers, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The CBO analysis, dated Feb. 11 and sent to Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), says the $787-billion plan will increase employment in the short-term, but will run up deficit spending which will “crowd out” private investment in the economy in the long-term.

The analysis concludes that the stimulus will put downward pressure on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and wages after 2014."

It's beginning to look a lot like we were right. The stimulus was just a "Dear Santa letter" with no economic benefits!

Does BO want to be president or does he want to play one?

Do you get the impression that Pres BO loves being president but would rather let the governing to others? BO does not look like a guy who wants to get his hands dirty.

Let's look at Afghanistan.

Pres Obama decided to send an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan.

Again, I will support Pres Obama's war in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, it puzzles me that Pres Obama does not come out and talk clearly with the American people.

Abe Greenwald makes a good point:

"No one reaches for the snooze button more frequently than Barack Obama.

He has a genius for delaying confrontations with reality.

Earlier this week, the president approved 17,000 additional U.S. troops for Afghanistan, but today he’s found a way to blur the significance of the decision and keep alive the suspense about a proper troop “surge”:

President Barack Obama says the additional troops he’s ordering to Afghanistan are necessary to stabilize that country in advance of upcoming elections.

And he says just how many U.S. troops will be needed, and for how long, will become clearer after a review of the Afghan mission is completed.

The list of things that will become clear after a review is growing: the future of America’s commitment in Iraq; the fate of Guantanamo detainees; a system for trying non-state terror suspects; and the future of tough interrogations all come to mind.

Maybe after having invested so much in the festoonery of “The Office of the President-Elect,” Obama is not yet willing to relinquish his delicious on-deck status."

Bill Kristol hits the target with Obama Levitates :

"The country needs a president capable of exercising leadership at home and abroad.

Barack Obama has had a charmed career.

He's been the magnetic-levitation train of recent American politics, skimming over the surface at great speed without having to slog through the mud that slows down and climb over the boulders that trip up normal politicians.

But now he's president.

The charm is wearing off.

It's time for him to stoop to govern."

Tony Blankley posted this:

"I can think of four possible explanations for this almost unprecedented presidential detachment from the decision making of policies the president publicly declared to be vital to the country and his presidency:

1) He is a very, very big-picture man, and he delegates decisions even on the central points of vital issues.

2) For tactical reasons, he decided these matters were not worth using up political chits.

3) He is either hesitant or unskilled at management, and he let matters drift until it seemed too late to intervene personally.

4) Or his personality type leaves him surprisingly uninterested in things that aren't personally about him.

Whatever the reason, this level of presidential detachment from high policy decision making is dangerous in a White House that has so many czars and other senior players (the West Wing staff is reputed to be more than 130 -- about double the usual number) combined with emissaries and strong-willed Cabinet secretaries.

It may well lead to what has been called (regarding another country's government) "the immanent structurelessness to the running of the state."

Wouldn't it be nice if he could play the president on "The West Wing" TV show?

He'd be good at it.

Wouldn't it be nice if he could do "town halls" and chat with the Henrietta Hughes of the world?

Hug people with sob stories?

Tell people what they want to hear?

Unfortunately, it does not work that way in The Oval Office.

BO is the coach on the field.

Does this guy want to call plays and get in the QB's face?

Let's look at the first 30 days of Pres Obama's term.

Can anyone seriously look at me and say that this stimulus bill is a victory for Pres Obama?

He got his bill but at what cost?

He got no Republican support because he let Nancy Pelosi write the bill.

Why didn't he call John McCain and say "let's do a bi-partisan bill"?

No one loves bi-partisan bills more than John McCain.

How did he allow the Democrats to turn this bill into a "Dear Santa" letter of liberal wishes?

What about Sec Geither?

How do you allow Sec Geither to go out and make that presentation last week?

Didn't Pres BO know that Sec Geither had nothing to say?

I won't even mention the "tax problems" with Cabinet appointments.

What about the census?

Who was the "brain" that came up with that one?

What "brainy yes we can screaner" came up with something that stupid?

What would Democrats have said if Pres Bush had moved the census under Karl Rove at the White House?

Can you hear it? Police state? Dictatorship? King George?

Again, what "brainy yes we can screamer" came up with that one?

For more on the insanity of moving the census to the White House, check out Census and Censibility by Scott Johnson.

What about the silly incident with the Caterpillar CEO?

Jake Tapper has the rest of the story:

"President Obama today repeated the claim we asked about yesterday at the press briefing that Jim Owens, the CEO of Caterpillar, Inc., “said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off.”

Caterpillar announced 22,000 layoffs last month.

But after the president left the event, Owens said the exact opposite.

Asked if the stimulus package would be able to stop the 22,000 layoffs or not, Owens said, “I think realistically no. The truth is we’re going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again.”

Again, how does that happen?

Did Pres Obama make it up?

Or did one of his "brainy" advisers mess it up again?

Should Pres Obama be looking for new advisers?

It's true that Pres Obama's presidency won't be decided in the first 30 days. However, I don't think that this what the "yes we can" screamers were expecting a month into the Age of Obama.

Obama talks and the market drops!

Pres BO has not helped.

First, Sec Geithner struck out. Many investors put their faith on Geithner and he has bombed so far.

Again, nobody is expecting a miracle. We just need a plan, any plan.

Second, the "doom and gloom" has not helped.

Pres BO has been too negative about our recession. (Obama's Rhetoric Is the Real 'Catastrophe')

Third, many people are seriously concerned about the coming deficits. After all, you can't have deficits of 10% of GDP without consequences.

Is it fair to put all of this on Obama?

No but life is not fair!

Besides, no one is blaming Obama.

We understand that he inherited a bad economy. However, he has not helped himself at all.

This is what CHARLES GASPARINOO posted today:

"But the consensus building on Wall Street is that this president doesn't look to be up to the job of fixing the economy.

Talk to any investor, and he'll tell you how Obama's plan offers up nothing more than tired solutions, pork-barrel spending that will do little to reverse the economy's woes - and may make a bad situation worse."

It's the same old song. It's the same victim-hood.

Jennifer Rubin has it right:

"In the former realm reside the politicians, political pundits, and the MSM reporters.

In their world, Barack Obama is unblemished and riding “sky-high,” the stimulus was a political triumph, and the front page stories are the signing ceremony for the stimulus bill, Roland Burris’ potential perjury problems, and the prospects for new commerce and health and human services secretaries.

In the economic realm all of this is piffle.

To recap: the ABC Consumer Comfort Index hit its lowest level in over 20 years this month and the Rasmussen Consumer Index also hit rock bottom (the day after the stimulus bill passed).

Unemployment is at 7.6% and may well climb for at least another year.

Even before yeaterday’s 300 point drop in the Dow, the markets had been diving.

Since Election Day the Dow has plunged from 9600 to below 7600 (more than a 20% drop).

And gold prices are soaring, a continued signal that confidence in the dollar and U.S. economy is waning."

Dick Morris is right, too:

"Is the president capable of optimism after years of preaching doom, first in Iraq and now in the economy?

We are about to see if he can master a second language."

Obama got very lucky with Iraq. He may not be so lucky on the economy.

Corruption and the Dems of Chicago!

The Burris show is not going down well with some newspapers:

Buy-Buy, Mr. Burris - Washington Post

Tribune Editorial: Resign

When will the good people of Illinois have a chance to vote for their next Senator?

Beyond that, Rick Moran explores an interesting point:

"My friend Tom Elia at the New Editor raised this question in an email and it bears looking into.

The fact is, if this mess with Burris had been made public back on February 5 when the Illinois senator submitted his “corrected” affadavit to the Democratic Majority Leader, there is a pretty good chance that the Illinois senator would not have been able to vote on the stimulus bill in the senate on the 13th.

Why?

Because pressure would have been building – as it is now – for the

“lying little sneak” to resign his seat.

It seems surreal but Roland Burris has now changed his story about contacts with Governor Blagojevich’s henchmen about the senate seat at least 4 times – twice yesterday alone.

If he had been forced to resign in a similar time period that is shaping up now, there would have been no 60th vote on the stimulus bill in the senate, no cloture, and the bill would have been sent back to conference."

There is only one solution for this Illinois mess:

Let the people of Illinois select their next Senator after Mr. Burris resigns!

Pope to Nancy: Catholics choose life (even if you represent San Francisco!)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi left Washington quickly. I guess that she does not want to answer any questions about that "porky $30 million" going to her district. (How many jobs is that going to create?)

In Rome, Speaker Pelosi visited the Vatican and The Pope.

See Rocco Palmo's post on the conversation:

"His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Let me translate:

You can not support every form of abortion, including partial birth abortion, and call yourself a Catholic.

It's time for Nancy Pelosi to understand what being a Catholic is all about. See Pelosi's record on abortion!

Dear BO: Tell the Dems (not the Canadians) to change!

The "don't take my campaign pandering seriously" BO will soon be travelling to Canada.

Here are a few words about Canada.

They are a huge trading partner. We do a ton of business with Canada even down here in Texas!

They are a NATO ally actually fighting in Afghanistan.

France and Germany have "excuses".

Canada has soldiers fighting and doing a great job on the battlefield. I recently spoke with a young man back from Afghanistan. He told me that Canadians are outstanding soldiers and a valuable ally over there.

Naturally, Canadians are a bit skeptical about "hope and change" that rhymes with protectionism:

"As a presidential candidate stumping across the Rust Belt a year ago, Barack Obama drew cheers when he threatened to quit the North American Free Trade Agreement unless Canada and Mexico agreed to tough new worker-friendly standards.

But when Obama travels to Canada Thursday on his first foreign trip as president, he’ll leave that populist rhetoric at home." (Politico)

I guess that there is a time to be a populist, i.e. tell union workers what they want to hear!

And there is a time to be president, i.e. tell Canadians that you were just "kidding" back in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

In the meantime. The LA Times has a message for "hope and change":

"On Thursday, Obama will probably have to waste time reassuring Prime Minister Stephen Harper that Buy American doesn't mean "Don't Buy Canadian."

Instead, he should be explaining to members of his party that protectionism not only won't save jobs, it will make an already bad situation far worse."

Guess who is saying that Obama will be like Bush?

This is too funny. This is just great: Obama’s War on Terror May Resemble Bush’s in Some Areas

We will file this one under the "be careful what you wish for....you may get it" category.

Unfortunately for the "yes we can" screamers, The NY Times is just telling the truth:

"These and other signs suggest that the administration’s changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared — prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies."

BO's worst nightmare is another terrorist attack.

Let me repeat: BO's worst nightmare is another terrorist attack, specially one carried out by people released from GITMO.

So move over "yes we can" screamers.

Move over "hope and change".

BO is now responsible for our national security. Therefore, BO is going to imitate Bush.

Why? Because Bush kept us safe for almost 8 years.

Let's hope that BO can keep the streak going!

In the meantime, isn't it sweet to read something like this in The NY Times?

Tuesday's show: A chat with Daniel from Venezuela!

Today, we spoke with Daniel from Venezuela about the recent elections. Daniel has a great blog about Venezuela.

We reviewed Daniel's election analysis: Post electoral readings!

Last, but not least, Adryana Boyne will give us her end of the show commentary.

Click here for the show!

Has Chicago finally caught up with Dems?

So far, the Chicago scandal has been entertaining, a wonderful distraction from real world problems.

Is Chicago about to get really serious for Pres Obama and the Democrats?

Dick Morris has an interesting post today: RAHM'S 'RENT' IS JUST THE TIP OF ETHICS ICEBERG!

Emmanuel is also one of the voices on the Blago tapes. When will Prosecutor Fitzgerald start indicting politicians in Chicago?

What about Sen Burris? He has his own problems, too!

Neil Steinberg from Chicago is not holding anything back: Burris lied, and liars get fired!

Steve Kornacki is not holding anything back either: The Beginning of the End for Senator Burris!

Chicago has been a corrupt cesspool for years.

To be fair, corruption is bipartisan in Illinois. In other words, there are Republican governors in jail, too.

However, Chicago is a corrupt one-party town, as former Pres Nixon learned on election night 1960.

When will all of this Chicago stuff knock on Pres Obama's door?

I don't know the exact date but it's coming!

Why should we support something that won't work?

Again, we are very proud of Republicans for standing up and voting "no".

After all, why should I support something that won't work? By the way, it looks like the public agrees with us on this: 38% Say Stimulus Plan Will Help Economy!

Why should I vote for something that will drive up deficits to unprecedented levels?

This is a defining moment. Even Sen McCain, the most bipartisan guy in the world, didn't support the stimulus. (McCain's Vote Should Trouble Obama By WILLIAM MCGURN)

The New Deal didn't work. Obama's ideas won't work either, specially when the markets get wind of the deficits heading our way.

Dominic Lawson is right in talking about Pres BO:

"He illustrates with dreadful clarity George Santayana’s most-quoted aphorism: those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it."

When will "hope and change" call McCain for a job switch?

Today, The Wash Post is cautiously optimistic about the "stimulus" and quite concerned about the deficits ahead:

"The nation can't sustain trillion-dollar deficits without driving up the debt owed to private investors to dangerous levels that could undermine the nation's global economic dominance."

That's right!

This is why the "stimulus" is such an insane idea. Why blow $800 billion on something that may or may not have much of an impact? It's an awfully expensive "try" considering that there are so many other things on the table, such as the banks, the auto industry, etc.

The stimulus is like giving an aspirin to a guy who just broke his ankle. It may release a bit of the pain but he still needs an operation.

The Other McCain posted The fiscal trap of Hope today:

"The fiscal fantasies of Hope are about to slam head-on into the economic realities of the bond market.

Economic reality is an unmovable object, and liberals are about to discover that Hope is not an irresistible force."

It's going to be very nasty for Pres Obama.

I just hope that the "yes we can" screamers prepare themselves for a hellish presidency.

They have about 6 months of "everything is Bush's fault" or "I inherited this".

They may not even get 6 months! The public is in no mood for a president who wants to blame his predecessor.

They would rather see a leader, like FDR in '33 or Reagan in '81!

Do you recall FDR blaming Hoover or Reagan blaming Carter? In fact, Reagan and FDR "inherited" far more difficult economies than this one.

By Thanksgiving, this is going to be Pres Obama's economy, and specially the deficits!

When will Pres Obama call Sen McCain to switch jobs?

Can things get any funnier in Illinois?

Frankly, I am enjoying the Illinois Blago-Harris Show.

It's a lot more entertaining than Pres Obama driving up federal deficits to 7-8% of GDP.

Today, we learned that Sen Burris may have misspoken about his relationship with Gov. Blago.

This is how POLITICO describes it: Burris under an ethical cloud

When will any of this reach Pres Obama?

I guess that's the question.

How did BO grow up in that cesspool without getting dirty?

We don't know. Let's wait for Prosecutor Fitzgerald!

In the meantime, Chicago politics is one big mess, from former Gov Blago to the "one and only" Bobby Rush:

What's this nonsense about Obama creating jobs?

Our economic ignorance just keeps on showing.

We hear that the "stimulus plan" is going to create 3-4 million jobs.

Excuse me!

The San Diego Union-Tribune has a great editorial today:

"The most basic flaw is that many of its projects costing tens of billions of dollars cannot be started for several years, meaning they will yield no short-term stimulus."

This is not a stimulus program. It does not stimulate enough to have any kind of impact.

I agree with Salena Zito:

"You need a GPS system to figure the path this huge outlay of funds will take to excite economic activity for the next expansionary period."

What we need is for government to get out of the way and let the private sector bring us back.

Trust me. It will. I would rather give the private sector $800 billion of tax cuts and incentives!

At least, the private sector has a history of creating jobs, i.e. prosperity.

Where can you find any evidence of government creating jobs?

President's Day: Pres Hayes and Paraguay

Let's file this under the "we learn something new" everyday file.

This is a great story for today, our President's Day in the US.

Also, you may want to forward this one to a friend from Paraguay!

Pres. Rutherford Hayes was the 19th president of the US and the winner of the 1876 election.

What's the big deal about that? It was a hotly contested election settled by a congressional commission. Move over Gore v Bush!

Beyond that, Pres Hayes is one of those presidents that we don't read a lot about.

Why do they love Pres Hayes in Paraguay, a country way down in South America?

The answer is rather remarkable, according to this AP story:

"Forget Lincoln or Washington. Hayes — a one-term U.S. president who is undistinguished at home — has a holiday, a province, a town, a museum and a soccer team all named in his honor, thanks to an 1878 arbitration in which he handed Paraguay 60 percent of its land.

"If it weren't for Hayes, Paraguay would have a smaller territory than it has today," said Salvador Garozzo, director of the municipal museum in the town of Villa Hayes, capital of Presidente Hayes province."

That's new information for me.

So let's remember Pres Hayes and the wonderful nation of Paraguay with "Recuerdos de Ypacarai", a song about Ypacarai Lake.

This is one of my favorite songs from the Latin American repertoire.

This song is performed by Los Panchos, the greatest of all Spanish music trios:

Lots of kissing in Mexico City!

We had to laugh and enjoy this one: Mexico City Sets Kissing Record

I guess that 40,000 people showed up at some world record kissing contest.

Who would have believed that "El Zocalo", Lopez-Obrador's outdoor office, would be a "kissing place"?

Congratulations to all the "kissing couples". As you can see from the above picture, we like girls who kiss Cowboys in Dallas!

They selected "Besame mucho" as the theme song. However, I think that there is a better choice.

What's the all time kissing song?

It has to be Kitty Kallen's "It's Been A Long, Long Time", a song released in 1944. It became very popular with the soldiers and their sweethearts back home.

Isn't "Besame mucho" even older than Kitty Kallen's song?

Also, wouldn't Kitty's song be a good excuse to kiss and practice English?

"Kiss me once, then kiss me twice, then kiss me once again,

It's been a long, long time!

Haven't felt like this my dear, since I can't remember when,

It's been a long, long time!

You'll never know how may dreams I dreamed about you,

or just how empty they all seemed without you

So, kiss me once, then kiss me twice,

then kiss me once again,

It's been a long, long time!"

(Music by Jule Styne and lyrics by Sammy Cahn)

A very "porky" Congressional weekend for the Dems who voted and didn't read the bill!

We will be talking to Rick Moran on Tuesday's show.

We invited Rick to talk about an excellent post on the banking crisis: BLEAK CHOICES FACING GEITHNER IN TRYING TO SAVE THE BANKS!

We will also talk to Rick about this one just posted today:

"It will turn your stomach, at the very least.

With the economy falling down around our ears, these pork-loving, cynical, selfish bastards larded up a spending bill with some provisions that will easily make the Hall of Fame of Wasteful Spending.

A partial list:

$24 million for United States Department of Agriculture buildings and rent

$176 million for renovating Agricultural Research Service buildings

$290 million for flood prevention

$50 million for watershed rehabilitation

$1.4 billion for wastewater disposal programs

$295 million for administrative expenses associated with food stamp programs

$1 billion for the 2010 Census

$200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries

$650 million for the digital TV converter box coupon program

$2 billion for Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program

$10 million to combat Mexican gunrunners

$125 million for rural communities to combat drug crimes

$1 billion for the Community Oriented Policing Services program

$1 billion for NASA

$300 million to purchase scientific instruments for colleges and museums

$400 million for equipment and facilities at the National Science Foundation

$3.7 billion to conduct “green” renovations on military bases"

Anybody in the mood for pork? The Dems are in the mood for pork!

So now Mr. Broder tells us!

During the campaign, many of us wrote that candidate BO did not have any experience or significant accomplishments on his resume.

After all, how can you start your managerial career with the US presidency?

We were accused of being "mean", and even "racist".

Guess what David Broder, a well known Washington pundit, writes this morning:

"Predictably, President Obama has had a shaky introduction to his new duties.

Talented as he is, he had never previously been asked to assemble an administration, to identify prospective appointees, decide where they might fit, recruit them and qualify them for the confirmation process."

No kidding Mr. Broder!

Why didn't you print this during the election? I missed it!

We are still waiting for the world's "feminists" to praise the women of Iraq!

Charles Krauthammer wrote a good one about Iraq last week:

"There was no Election Day violence.

Security was handled by Iraqi forces with little U.S. involvement.

A fabulous bazaar of 14,400 candidates representing 400 parties participated, yielding results highly favorable to both Iraq and the United States. "

We will never get the "anti-Bushies" to admit that "maybe, perhaps maybe" Iraq has turned out rather well.

OK. So they don't like Bush!

Do they like what the women of Iraq just did?

When will the world's feminists praise what just happened in Iraq?

Probably never.

Today's feminism is not about promoting women's rights or getting 4,000 women to run for office in Iraq.

It's all abortion, abortion and more abortion.

Alicia Colon has a good one about the modern feminist movement:

"Visit the local NY NOW chapter and note that it supports the RHAPP legislation which makes abortion a civil right and allows non medical personnel to perform the procedure.

Where's the protection of our young daughters who would be able to get the medically unsupervised invasive procedure without their parents' permission?"

Again, it's all abortion over at the feminist headquarters.

This is why they hate Sarah Palin.

They hate Palin because she talks about her husband, her kids and just had a baby.

Is modern feminism about promoting abortion or women's rights?

The answer is that we are still waiting for the modern feminist movement to march and show their support for the "sisters" who just made history in Iraq.

I don't want to hear one Dem talk about the Bush deficits again!

(This graph is from Gateway Pundit)

By September, the Obama stimulus program, and whatever other "surprise" comes BO's way, will give us a massive federal deficit relative to GDP:

"The debt currently being run up by the Obama administration exceeds anything in our peacetime history in at least the last 5 decades...."

You can't blame Bush for this one!

The Obama economy is here. He voted for everything in this deficit. And he will sign another $800 billion!

Deroy Murdock has a good post today called Trillions from Heaven?:

"“Obama pledged to fix what he considers Republican governing errors, not double down on them,” Heritage Foundation fiscal analyst Brian Riedl wrote Wednesday.

“Adding the ‘stimulus’ bill to a realistic budget baseline yields a projected 2010–17 cumulative budget deficit of $8.4 trillion—2.5 times the size of President Bush’s deficits over the equivalent eight-year time period.”

Someone at The White House, and at the "yes we can screamer's" headquarters, should stop gazing at Obama and read David Brooks. What happens when you chat with the ghost of the future? He tells you awful things:

"The failure to generate a recovery led to a collapse of public confidence. President Obama’s promises of 3.5 million jobs now seemed a sham and his former certainty a delusion.

The political climate grew more polarized. That meant it was impossible to tackle entitlement debt. That and the economic climate meant it was impossible to raise taxes or cut spending or do anything to reduce the yawning deficits.

Federal deficits were 15 percent of G.D.P. and growing.

Far from easing uncertainty, the exploding deficits led to more fear. The U.S. could not afford to respond to new emergencies, like hurricanes or foreign crises.

Other nations sensed American overextension. Foreign debt-holders grew nervous. Interest rates rose.

Congress indulged its worst instincts, erecting trade barriers, propping up doomed companies. Scholars began to talk about the American Disease, akin to the British Disease of the 1970s."

At least Scrooge was smart enough to change his ways and pay for Tiny Tim's medical bills.

I fear that "hope and change" won't do that!

Get ready for very high deficits and whatever else comes with it!

P.S. Want to get more depressed, see An Unstimulating Stimulus (What the Democrats have wrought) by Irwin M. Stelzer.

It's "hope and change" with a big price tag!

Who would have believed that "hope and change" would end up costing so much?

A word about Beverly Eckert

On 9-11, Beverly Eckert was one of the many ladies at home talking to their husbands at the collapsing World Trade Center or aboard one of those jets.

We came to love Beverly Eckert and all of the other 9-11 widows. They became part of our family!

We loved their courage and commitment to their heroic husbands.

We loved their grace and how they handled the terrible tragedy of 9-11.

Beverly Eckert was killed in the Buffalo plane crash:

"A plane hijacked by fanatics tore Beverly Eckert's husband from her life on 9/11.

Now another plane, brought down on a cold winter's night near Buffalo, has torn the brave widow from ours.

The beloved Sept. 11 activist was on Continental Flight 3407 when it suddenly fell from the sky Thursday - killing her and the 48 others aboard, and one more on the ground."

She was on her way to Buffalo to attend a ceremony related to her husband at Canisius High School, a Jesuit school:

"Eckert, 57, was traveling to her hometown, Buffalo, to celebrate what would have been Rooney's 58th birthday.

They were high school sweethearts and tops on Eckert's agenda was presenting a scholarship at Canisius High School that she established in Sean's honor."

What an amazing story. What a sad story.

Will "hope and change" and the Dems start a "trade war"?

During the campaign, candidate BO told us that he wanted to "restore our image" around the world.

Wonder what they will think of "hope and change" around the world now?

The good news is that some of the silly "Buy American" provisions were softened.

The bad news is that there is still way too much protectionism in this bill:

"Major partners, including the European Union and Canada, say the legislation favoring U.S. steel, iron and manufactured goods for government projects could undermine pledges by the leaders of major economies not to resort to perfectionism during the world economic downturn."

What's the problem with this kind of "hope and change"?

It ain't hope and it's the wrong kind of change.

We live and operate in global economy. The export sector has been of the most active "job creators" in the US economy.

Will Pres Obama tell us about Sen Reid and the train between LA and Las Vegas?

Candidate BO made a lot of promises. I recall this one:

"Sunlight is the greatest disinfectent!... No more secrecy... And, when there's a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have 5 days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it." (GP)

I liked that promise.

Why should so much be done behind locked doors?

It was similar to Sen McCain saying that he would make the "authors of pork legislation" famous.

Guess what happened during the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills?

This is Bill Kristol:

"One of many highlights of the stimulus bill the Democrats just rammed through Congress is $8 billion for high-speed rail.

What makes this appropriation special is that there was no money for high-speed rail in the original House legislation. The Senate bill had $2 billion.

The legislation coming out of conference "compromised" on $8 billion.

How did this happen?

Well, some of that $8 billion, as the Washington Post reported Friday, seems intended for "a controversial proposal for a magnetic-levitation rail line between Disneyland, in California, and Las Vegas, a project favored by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

The 311-mph train could make the trip from Sin City to Tomorrowland in less than two hours, according to backers."

Reid of course played a major role in putting together the final bill."

Will Pres Obama tell us about Sen Reid? What about the $30 million going to Speaker Pelosi's district?

And will he give us 5 days to read the proposal on-line? It passed late on Friday. Will he sign it next Wednesday so that we can read it? Better than, will Pres Obama read it himself?

45 years ago this week: The Beatles on "The Ed Sullivan Show"

A couple of weeks ago, I posted about the Beatles' first big hit in the US: "I want to hold your hand" charted 45 years ago this month!

It's hard to believe but it was 45 years ago.

A few weeks later, Ed Sullivan introduced The Beatles to the largest TV audience in US history. (The broadcast drew an estimated 73 million viewers, at the time a record for an American television program...)

Everybody tuned in. It was like the Super Bowl of its time!

The girls tuned in to scream.

Boys like me just wanted to hear the music. Mark Goldblatt was one of those boys who tuned in!

The parents watched to see what their kids were so excited about.

Unfortunately, our family was not living in the US at the time.

I got to watch this on video years later.

It took my brother and I, a couple of pre-teens at the time, about 2 seconds to fall in love with the music of The Beatles.

It was a wonderful TV moment for those lucky enough to experience that Sunday night.

Have 45 years really flown by so fast?

Besides "I want to hold your hand", the first Beatles LP included a dozen great songs, such as Lennon-McCartney's "This Boy":

"That boy took my love away
Throught he'll regret it someday
This boy wants you back again
That boy isn't good for you
Thought he may want you too
This boy wants you back again
Oh, And this boy would be happy
Just to love you but oh my
That boy won't be happy
Till he's seen you cry
This boy wouldn't mind the pain
Would always feel the same
If this boy gets you back again
This boy"

It also included "All my loving", a great lead vocal by Paul:

"Close your eyes and I'll kiss you,

Tomorrow I'll miss you;

Remember I'll always be true.

And then while I'm away,

I'll write home ev'ry day,

And I'll send all my loving to you.

I'll pretend That I'm kissing the lips I am missing

And hope that my dreams will come true.

And then while I'm away,

I'll write home ev'ry day,

And I'll send all my loving to you.

All my loving I will send to you.

All my loving, darling I'll be true."

And "Not a second time", a great lead vocal by John:

"You know you made me cry

I see no use in wond'ring why I cry for you

And now, you've changed your mind

I see no reason to change mine

I cry, it's through, oh

You're giving me the same old line

I'm wond'ring why

You hurt me then, you're back again

No, no, no, not a second time"

Obama's rhetoric, NOT THE ECONOMY, is the our problem!

On Friday, the HOuse and Senate passed a bill that they didn't read.

Wonder what's on the bill? We will learn over the next few days.

BRADLEY R. SCHILLER is an economics professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, and the author of "The Economy Today" (McGraw-Hill, 2007).

On Saturday he wrote Obama's Rhetoric Is the Real 'Catastrophe' :

"Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous.

Repeated warnings from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future.

In fact, they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence that is restraining a spending pickup.

Beyond that, fearmongering can trigger a political stampede to embrace a "recovery" package that delivers a lot less than it promises.

A more cool-headed assessment of the economy's woes might produce better policies."

What's the consequence of all of this "gloom and doom"?

We get a lousy bill that will drive up deficits rather than create jobs. See what Veronique de Rugy wrote about this bill!

At some point, Pres BO will have to "talk up" the economy. He can't keep up "this doom and gloom".

Hooray for the House Republicans!

As expected, the bill was approved with no Republican votes.

Again, we are very proud of each and everyone of the Republican members in the House.

By the way, 6 or 7 Democrats voted no, too! They didn't want to vote for 1,073 Pages either!

My guess is that a few other Dems wanted to vote no, too. (Congressman: 'We all cast our votes with one hand and crossed our fingers with the other'... )

How can this be a stimulus bill when so much of the money won't have an impact in 2009?

According to POLITICO:

"Final estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, released Friday, peg the total cost at $787.2 billion, 74% of which will be pumped into the economy in 18 months and 91% by October 2011.

An estimated $287 billion would be distributed in the form of tax cuts, including a $116 billion tax break to offset payroll taxes for working families worth $400 per individual and $800 for couples.

Another $150 billion is targeted toward infrastructure, running from highway and transit construction to the expansion of broadband and new investments in renewable energy.

And for families who have lost their jobs, the bill promises increased unemployment benefits and a 10% increase in food stamp benefits."

Wasn't Republican House Leader John Boehner great? He kept the party together and said this before the vote:

Sorry to hear of Estelle Bennett's death

The Ronettes were my favorites of the "girl groups" in pop music.

They were Veronica (Ronnie) Bennett, her sister Estelle, and cousin Nedra Talley.

The girls grew up in New York and had huge hits, such as "Be my baby".

They had great harmonies, unusual hair and very good looks!

Today, we learned that Estelle passed away. Our sympathies to the family and the other two Ronettes.

So let's remember The Ronettes with "Be my baby" and "Walkin' in the rain":

"The night we met I knew I needed you so

And if I had the chance I'd never let you go

So won't you say you love me

I'll make you so proud of me

We'll make 'em turn their heads

Every place we go

So won't you please (Be my be my baby)

Be my little baby (I want it only say)

Say you'll be my darling (Be my be my baby)

Be my baby now (I want it only say)

Ooh, ohh, ohh, oh

I'll make you happy, baby

Just wait and see

For every kiss you give me I'll give you three

Oh, since the day I saw you I have been waiting for you

You know I will adore you Till eternity

So won't you please (Be my be my baby)

Be my little baby (I want it only say)

Say you'll be my darling (Be my be my baby)

Be my baby now (I want it only say)

Ooh, ohh, ohh, ohh, oh

So come on and please (Be my be my baby)

Be my little baby (I want it only say)

Say you'll be my darling (Be my be my baby)

Be my baby now (I want it only say)

Ooh, ohh, ohh, oh (Be my be my baby)

Be my little baby (I want it only say)

Ooh-oh-oh-oh, ooh-oh-oh-oh (Be my be my baby)

Oh-oh-oh, oohh... (I want it only say) Oh, oh, oh, oh, oooohh..."

"I want him and I need him

And someday, someway

I'll meet him

He'll be kind of shy

But real good lookin' too

And I'll be certain he's my guy

By the things he'll like to do

Like walking in the rain

And wishing on the stars up above

And being so in love

When he's near me, I'll kiss him

And when he leaves me

I'll miss him

Though sometimes we'll fight

But I won't really care

And I'll know it's gonna be alright

'Cause we've got so much we share

Like walking in the rain

And wishing on the stars up above

And being so in love

Johnny No, no he'll never do

Bobby No it isn't him too

They would never

No they'd never, never, ever love

Walking in the rain

And wishing on the stars up above

And being so in love

Oh oh, where can he be? Oh oh

I've been wishing and hoping

Where can he be?"

Happy Valentine's Day: I hope that your wife still loves when you are 64!

By next fall, my wife and I will have an empty house and the chance to go out again like we did years ago.

Unfortunately, all of our old "dancing places" are now closed. I recall a great place for Sunday night dancing! It was great! It's also history!

We will have to find new ones!

Anyway, we are getting older.

In my case, I just hope that my wife puts up with me "When I'm 64".

Happy Valentine's Day to all of you, no matter how far away you are from '64"!

"When I get older losing my hair,

Many years from now,

Will you still be sending me a valentine

Birthday greetings bottle of wine?

If I'd been out till quarter to three

Would you lock the door,

Will you still need me,

will you still feed me,

When I'm sixty-four?

You'll be older too

And if you say the word

I could stay with you.

I could be handy mending a fuse

When your lights have gone.

You can knit a sweater by the fireside

Sunday mornings go for a ride.

Doing the garden, digging the weeds

Who could ask for more?

Will you still need me

will you still feed me,

When I'm sixty-four?

Every summer we can rent a cottage

In the Isle of Wight,

if it's not too dear

We shall scrimp and save

Grandchildren on your knee

Vera, Chuck, and Dave

Send me a postcard, drop me a line,

Stating point of view

Indicate precisely what you mean to say

Yours sincerely, Wasting Away.

Give me your answer, fill in a form

Mine for evermore

Will you still need me

will you still feed me

When I'm sixty-four?"

Where is the media? No one has read this bill!

What have we come to?

We have a 1,000 page bill and no one has read it.

Where is the media? Where are all of those investigative reporters?

How can any of these legislators vote on this bill if they haven't read it:

"Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted on Thursday that none of his Senate colleagues would "have the chance" to read the entire final version of the $790-billion stimulus bill before the bill comes up for a final vote in Congress.

“No, I don’t think anyone will have the chance to [read the entire bill],” Lautenberg told CNSNews.com."

Where is the media? Watch out Michelle! The media is going to take your husband away for the Valentine's Day weekend!

Thursday's show: A chat with Rick Johnson about his new book

Today, we were joined by Rick Johnson of Better Dads!

We discussed various topics, including his newest book, The Power of a Man.

Click here for the show! Or click on the radio icon to the right!

P.S. We closed the show with Adryana Boyne's commentary.

Remembering the 1982 recession with a song!

As we have written, the current recession is indeed difficult. It hurts all of us!

However, it's not anywhere close to what we lived through in 1982-83.

Before you fall for the "Obama-nonsense" that this is the worst recession since The Great Depression, The Civil War or the arrival of the Mayflower, please consider a few details:

"The economy entered 1982 in a severe recession and labor market conditions deteriorated throughout the year.

The unemployment rate, already high by historical standards at the onset of the recession in mid-1981, reached 10.8 percent at the end of 1982, higher than at any time in post-World War II history.

The current recession followed on the heels of the brief 1980 recession, from which several key goods industries had experienced only limited recovery.

Housing, automobiles, and steel, plus many of the industries that supply these basic industries, were in a prolonged downturn spanning 3 years or more, and bore the brunt of the 1981-82 job cutbacks.

Unemployment rose throughout 1982 and, by September, the overall rate had reached double digits for the first time since 1941.

A total of 12 million persons were jobless by year end—an increase of 4.2 million persons since the pre-recession low of July 1981.

Unemployment rates for every major worker group reached postwar highs, with men age 20 and over particularly hard hit."

I was working and living in Mexico in 1982.

Mexico was severely impacted by the US recession, too. There were serious devaluations and the "expropriation" of the private banks.

Most of Latin American was hurt too.

P.S. This is a song about the world economy released by Paul McCartney in 1982. We call it a "pre-euro" tune. Nevertheless, it reflects just how difficult things were back then:

Dear Mr. Selig: It's time to put Hank Aaron on the top of the list!

Our family arrived in Wisconsin as the Braves were leaving Milwaukee. Therefore, I did not have a chance to fall in love with the Braves.

I came to respect Aaron because my brother and I checked the box scores daily.

He was one of the most consistent players of his time.

He was on top of the NL stats week after week.

I never got to see him play, except in an exhibition game in 1971 when the Braves made a stop in Milwaukee.

A few years ago, I recall reading an article about Aaron:

"Aaron played MVP-caliber baseball for so long, it became like wallpaper: always there and unsurprising.

Imagine that you're 6 years old in 1955, heading into first grade.

You're just discovering baseball and with it, a skinny, young player in Milwaukee named Aaron who is quickly establishing himself as one of the best in the game.

Fifteen years later, you're graduating from college and he's still registering the best year in the league."

On top of that, he did it with class!

He did it with the kind of class that made you love everything that he did on and off the field.

ARod's news is the last straw. I won't even comment on Tejeda.

It's time to put a big asterisk on many of the guys on the 500-homer club.

Let's go back to:

Aaron, Ruth, Mays, Frank Robinson and Killebrew on the top of the list.

And let's put big asterisks on Bonds, Sosa, and the rest. I don't have a problem with Griffey because there is no bad stuff about him.

I like Commissioner Selig.

He has done a very good job during a tumultuous period of baseball history.

Again, Mr. Selig has a chance to save the game and the business of baseball: It's time for baseball to inject some asterisks!

The Dallas Mornings News got it right on the "stimulus"!

The Dallas Morning News was one of 3 newspapers kicked off "The Hope and Change" airplane in 2008.

We don't know for sure why "hope and change" objected to our local newspaper. The DMN supported Sen McCain for president in 2008 and Pres Bush for election (2000) and reelection (2004).

We know this.

"Hope and change" and the "yes we can screamers" will not like today's DMN editorial regarding this thing called a stimulus proposal.

Let's review some of the highlights:

"Unfortunately, the nearly $800 billion framework finalized Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators lacks the right mix of shock and awe.

The several hundred billion dollars in spending is not sufficiently targeted.

It's spread across almost every level of government, like a stored-up wish list of projects.

Congress still is not relying enough on tax cuts.

The Senate improved on the House's limited amount, but even that got it to only about 40 percent.

A deep reduction in the payroll tax workers and employers pay would have been a smarter way to rev up consumer spending and grow jobs.

Money from this massive bill doesn't get into the economy fast enough.

Less than half the discretionary spending is projected to reach projects in the first two years, and too much of it smells permanent, not temporary.

We need spending that will stimulate the economy now."

That's right.

Want to stimulate the economy?

Let people keep their own money and spend it,

Of course, that means that people spend their money.

Today's Dem party is all about spending your money!

As we wrote before, this is a spending bill intended to reward those groups that turned out to support "hope and change".

Let's call it the political equivalent of a "finder's fee"!

After all, how many jobs is ACORN going to create?

P.S. Here is another example of this "scam" called a stimulus package:

"FOXNews.com readers pored over the package and found a host of expenditures that might not pump money in any time soon.

What follows is a list of some of the more fascinating -- if less stimulating -- items in the bill:

--$100 million for the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program

--$200 million to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program

--$300 million for "Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs"

--$900 million for the IRS for the "Limitation on Administrative Expenses"-- $1 million for the Railroad Retirement Board for administrative costs

--$2 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Act

--$50 million for Health and Human Services to carry out injury prevention programs

--$1.1 billion for studies on the effectiveness of different medical treatments

--$200 million to upgrade labs and facilities for the Department of Agriculture "to improve workplace safety and mission-area efficiencies"

--$10 million for urban canal inspection

--$16 billion to pay for student financial aid

--$1 billion to pay for the U.S. Census

--$600 million to pay for a fuel-efficient federal auto fleet

--$650 million for the Digital Converter Box Program to help the constantly delayed transition from analog television

--$485 million to the Forest Service for "hazardous fuels reduction and hazard mitigation activities in areas at high risk of catastrophic wildfire"

--Up to $1 billion for "summer activities" for youths as old as 24

--$40 million for the occupational research agenda-- $3 billion for the Centers for Disease Control wellness programs and vaccinations

--$410 million for Indian health facilities

--$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstrations"

A federal budget deficit like no other!

Pres Obama, the Dems and the rest of us, will freak out in about 7 months, if not earlier.

Our federal budget runs from Oct 1st to September 30th!

Get ready for the mother of all federal budget deficits:

"Perhaps you recall the deficit wails from the Reagan years, but the peak deficit was only 6% of GDP in 1983.

In the Clinton years we were told taxes had to rise to reduce a deficit of merely 3.9% of GDP.

CBO estimates the 2009 deficit will reach 8.3% of the economy, not including the stimulus or bank bailout cash.

Toss in those, and analysts at the Strategas Group estimate the deficit could hit nearly $2 trillion, or 13.5% of the U.S. economy.

We aren't deficit scolds, but these levels are uncharted territory, especially if any economic recovery is weak because the spending doesn't stimulate.

The new spending means new federal debt in the trillions of dollars over the next few years, which will test the limits of America's credit-worthiness.

To the extent that taxes rise to pay for it all, the U.S. will become less desirable as a destination for the world's capital.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve will try to inflate away this growing debt, but the world's bond vigilantes will get a vote on that.

We recognize this bill is going to pass as early as today.

But Americans need to understand the vast expansion of government they are getting -- and who voted to pass it." (WSJ)

And we haven't even discussed about the banks, Medicare and Social Security.

The Dems have spent the last eight years talking about Bush's deficits and how Bush doubled the national debt.

Again, look at the chart.

Bush's deficits never crossed the 4% of GDP barrier!

How will this kind of deficit impact Pres Obama?

It will be a very "boring" presidency.

Pres Obama won't have any money to initiate programs or do much of anything.

Pres Obama will spend the next four years saying:

No we can't!

Remembering Pres Abraham Lincoln (1809-2009)

Abraham Lincoln was born 200 years ago.

We will naturally have many celebrations across the land. We should. Lincoln was a great man. The Lincoln monument was the highlight of my visit to DC many years ago.

It's hard to pick a favorite quote from Lincoln. I like this one from the 2nd inaugural speech, about a month before his assassination:

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

Where in the world is this lady's family?

The "Pres Obama Show" was in full display yesterday in Florida.

On one hand, Pres Obama is doing the victim game.

Here is the good news: Pres BO is good at telling people what they want to hear.

What's the bad news?

The Obama bubble and personality cult is going to burst.

It will take a lot "yes we can" screamers down with him!

Pres. Clinton was right: This is a fairy tale!

It may be that this lady in Florida needs help.

I am not going to mock her situation or minimize her tragedy.

Here is my question: Where is her family?

Why is Pres Obama now the savior of everyone with a tragedy?

This is a dangerous personality cult that will blow up in due time.

How can any president fulfill these irrational expectations?

We saw this kind of nonsense during the campaign. We are now seeing it during the presidency.

Sorry. We don't elect presidents to hear sob stories.

We elect them to nominate a Treasury Sec who makes a strong case before Congress.

Sec Geithner flopped yesterday.

Larry Kudlow has a good question: Is Tim Geithner Ready for Prime Time?

What should Pres Obama have said to this lady?

Here is my suggestion:

"Lady, I feel bad.

Where is your husband? Where are your children?

How can you live in this condition with your family's knowledge?

How can any responsible son or daughter allow their mother to live like this for two years?"

Pres Obama should have used the opportunity to shame "MIA husbands" and family.

Didn't we see this in New Orleans and Katrina?

Do you recall how old people were left behind? Where were their sons or family?

P.S. Again, we need to help people. Our church, like many other churches, has programs for the homeless and for people in dire need.

I have personally worked in church programs and visited homeless shelters.

However, people need to help themselves and it starts with family not a visit from Pres Obama's staff!

In this video, we see Pres Obama doing a good Oprah. On the right hand side of the same video, we see the market dropping fast in reaction to Sec. Geithner's pathetic presentation before Congress!

The Geithner bust!

Yes, I wrote that he was a pretty good choice.

Frankly, he is still a pretty good choice, although I have my questions about his income tax issues.

How in the world happened to Sec. Geithner?

The reviews have been awful:

For Geithner’s Debut, a Lukewarm Reception - Jackie Calmes, NY Times

Geithner Can’t Find Gun, Let Alone Silver Bullet - David Reilly, Bloomberg

Why Markets Dissed the Geithner Plan - Andy Kessler, Wall Street Journal

What happened?

The answer is obvious.

The Obama administration doesn't have a clue about a solution.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing, except that we were led to believe that the Obama administration had been working on a plan since mid-November.

Also, we were told that Mr. Geithner was indispensable.

Furthermore, Pres. Obama raised expectations on Monday night's press conference.

Again, no one has a clue.

P.S. Perhaps, the "yes we can" screamers will be a little bit more sympathetic about what Pres Bush and Sec Paulson went through at the end of 2008.

We have a huge crisis and it requires a lot of time and patience.

Pres BO's "doom and gloom" plus Sec Geithner's lack of details equals bad day in the stock market!

As posted before, I think that the stimulus program should be shot down.

However, I am a lot more open to TARP.

Why? Because TARP is about the banking system. And we need a sound banking system!

Therefore, I was looking forward to Sec Geithner's presentation today.

As Peggy Lee sang:

"Is that all there is, is that all there is

If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing

Let's break out the booze and have a ball

If that's all there is...." (Is that all there is?)

The stock market had a similar problem. It dropped significantly today!

Again, is that all there is Sec Geithner?

We have been waiting for this presentation since November.

Is that all there is?

David Malpass has a quick reading of Sec Geithner's problem:

" In his effort to sell the spending programs, President Obama has been highlighting the negatives in the U.S. outlook.

The market’s default assumption is that conditions will get worse for quite a while. Geithner didn’t dispute this.

I think the administration should attack head-on the Great Depression analogies and the claims that the U.S. is a bankrupt nation.

It has to decide that it is planning for recovery, not a drawn-out nationwide debt-restructuring program.

Otherwise, the downward momentum is self-fulfilling, causing needlessly high unemployment."

Translation: too much doom and gloom from The White House!

James Pethokoukis has a great line: Geithner: From Indispensable to Indecipherable

The Economist is not impressed!

CNBC is not crazy about it either!

The Wall Street Journal was brutal:

"Judging by the hissing in financial markets, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's opening act as Rescuer in Chief yesterday was a bomb.

What everyone saw was Geithner at the Improv, a routine with a few good lines but a lot of material that needs more, well, practice."

Memo to Pres Obama: We need specifics! The election is over.

It's time for the campaign talk to end.

It's time to shut down "Oprah Obama" and starting acting like Pres. Obama!

It's time for Pres BO to start acting like an executive on top of the situation rather than someone reading from a teleprompter.

What was Pres Obama doing in Florida today? What is this guy running for?

When are we going to stop the campaign speeches?

As for Geithner, I am very disappointed that he didn't have any more specific details.

We understand that this is uncharted territory.

We understand that it's difficult.

At the same time, it would help if Sec Geithner came across more confidently.

It'd help if Pres BO would stop the silly analogies to The Great Depression. So far, this is not even as tough as the 1982 or 1975 recessions.

Again, the campaign is over. The investors want specifics rather than "gloom and doom" speeches!

Tuesday's show: More on the stimulus proposal

Kyle Godfrey of the Yellow Limes blog joined us to review the stimulus proposal in the US Senate.

We reviewed some of the surprises in the bill:

HEALTH CARE SCARE: WHAT'S BURIED DEEP IN THE BILL?

I guess that's what happens when you write a 700 page bill!

We can't expect these guys to read the bill.....can we?

Adryana Boyne also joined us with her commentary.

Click here for the show! Or you can click the show icon to the right!

Pres "Free Lunch" will send you the bill eventually!

President "Doom and Gloom" and "Free Lunch" kept it up last night.

He gave long and very long answers that were right out of the campaign teleprompter.

Every answer had a common theme: It's Bush's fault and it's really Bush's fault!

Can someone tell this guy that he won the election?

Why is Pres Obama desperately pushing this package when his party currently control both houses? He does not need a single Republican vote to make this happen!

The answer is that most Dems are scared. They are getting flooded with phone calls, too.

Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times. He points out that support is eroding as people read the proposal. (Debilitating Details)

The public is going to get really mad when they learn, as many have already learned, that ACORN is going to get money. (Stimulus bill funds ACORN despite its history of corruption)

Just curious: How many jobs will funding ACORN create?

After all, how many people signing up Mickey Mouse to vote do we need to stimulate the economy?

So far, Pres BO is enjoying the usual "honeymoon" that new presidents get.

In fact, he is more popular than the proposal itself.

You can not survive in business when the salesperson is more popular than the product or service.

Why is this proposal losing support? Because it defies common sense.

You can not spend this kind money without consequences.

Eventually, taxes will go up or inflation will make an unsolicited appearance.

Some of us are old enough to remember the last time that inflation paid a visit to our wallets, circa 1980-81!

It was awful. Remember 20% prime rates? 15% inflation?

For a little more, check out There's No Stimulus Free Lunch By GARY S. BECKER and KEVIN M. MURPHY:

"Nor can one ever forget that spending is not free, and ultimately it has to be financed by higher taxes."

Moral of the story: There is no "free lunch", specially when "President Hope and change" is inviting you!

Hot Air 101: Didn't Obama vote for the "deficit" he claims to be inheriting?

Today, Pres. elect Obama spoke about the deficits inherited.

Unfortunately, every dime of deficit that Obama inherited was approved by Obama:

"Yet while Obama stressed that he'll inherit the $1.2 trillion deficit — and on Tuesday called the Bush administration irresponsible for adding to the national debt — he didn't identify any Bush-era policy that he'd reverse to reduce the deficits and mounting debt." (Just as Obama begins, huge deficit could hamper plans)

John Hinderaker got it right:

"Obama's attacks on the Bush administration were equally silly:

"First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt, then, you know, I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history.

I inherited the deficit that we have right now and the economic crisis that we have right now."

Right.

And that's why his first act as President is to double or triple the deficit?"

Great. BO voted for everything in the budget, including proposing a $800 billion package. However, he continues to say "I inherited the deficit".

Everybody is watching Mexico and hoping for the best!

Outgoing CIA Director Michael Hayden has just reported the top 10 threats to the US.

Look who is # 2 on that list?

"2. Violence in Mexico:

"Our good friend and neighbor Mexico had this horrible surge in violence that may cause -- in fact has caused -- us to talk with our Mexican friends, in more meaningful and deeper ways, to discover ways that we can cooperate against what we now view to be, and has always been, a common problem. ...

"What you've got is President Calderon, very heroically, taking on drug cartels that I think everyone agrees threaten certainly the well-being of the Mexican people and the Mexican state, and taking them on in a very, very progressive way.

Now, it is not quite the same thing as Colombia, where you had a politically motivated movement, the FARC, merging with narcotics organizations.

Here it is largely in the business of crime but the effects could be just as dangerous, certainly to the well-being of the Mexican people.""

Who would have believed that 2 years ago?

The CIA's Top 10 list of the world's trouble spots does not include Iraq but Mexico is # 2!

Why is there so much concern about Mexico?

It starts with the Mexican army. We salute the bravery of each and every Mexican soldier who is defending his country. At the same time, we recognize that Mexico can not win this war without huge help from the US, i.e. The Merida Plan approved by Pres Bush!

The current war is debilitating the Mexican army to a dangerous point:

"The drug-related murder rate in Mexico doubled in 2008 from just one year before, and as the violence escalates, the power of the drug cartels has destabilized Mexican authority to the point of threatening national security." (Mexican Drug Cartels Armed to the Hilt, Threatening National Security)

We are not happy to write this but it won't be pretty in Mexico for the near future.

For example, The U.S Consulate in Juárez is warning U.S. citizens to avoid the Valley of Juárez and to consider the risk in visiting Juárez due to rising drug-related violence!

The violence is all over: Mexico sends more police to airport after assaults!

Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and ex-deputy assistant secretary of defense.

Today, he calls on the US to stand with Mexico in HELP MEXICO BEAT THE NARCO-GANGS :

"In fact, by all accounts the federal government, politicos, the military and police are under the gun - literally and figuratively - by criminal gangs dealing in meth, cocaine, marijuana and heroin.

The public is ruthlessly intimidated.

Despite this, the Obama administration and Congress may be wavering on continuing to give Mexico help fighting the growing danger to that country's stability - and by extension ours.

That'd be a big mistake.

This is a serious threat."

Here is the relevant question: Is the Obama administration ready to see Mexico as a national security threat?

Or will Democrats continue to blame NAFTA for Ohio's economic woes? Does Nancy Pelosi understand how the "buy American" provision in the "stimulus" proposal hurts Mexico, one of our largest trading partners?

Here is the potential consequence of a Mexican collapse: Are you ready for thousands of Mexican refugees showing up at the border? How can we deny asylum to political refugees?

P.S. Someone at the Obama White House should read Enhanced role expected for U.S. in drug cartel battle By ALFREDO CORCHADO:

""Mexico is not a narco state, but we're witnessing a giant criminal apparatus operated by drug traffickers," said Arturo Yañez, an author and security expert at the Autonomous University in the state of Mexico.

"If Mexico is not a failed state, it sure is acting like one.""

What's on this stimulus program? Why the urgency?

According to Pres Obama, it's now or never.

Frankly, I'd prefer to do nothing than to pass a bill that includes all of this. On Monday, Captain Ed posted this list:

"$39 billion slush fund for “state fiscal stabilization” bailout

$5.5 billion for making federal buildings “green” (including $448 million for DHS HQ)

$200 million for workplace safety in USDA facilities

$275 million for flood prevention

$65 million for watershed rehabilitation

$200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries

$650 million for the DTV transition coupon program

$307 million for constructing NIST office buildings

$1 billion for administrative costs and construction of NOAA office buildings

$100 million for constructing U.S. Marshalls office buildings

$300 million for constructing FBI office buildings

$800 million for constructing Federal Prison System buildings and facilities

$10 million to fight Mexican gunrunners

$1.3 billion for NASA (including $450 million for “science” at NASA)

$100 million to clean up sites used in early U.S. atomic energy program

$10 million for urban canals

$2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars

$1.5 billion for carbon capture projects under sec. 703 of P.L. 110-140 (though section only authorizes $1 billion for five years)

$300 million for hybrid and electric cars for federal employees

$198 million to design and furnish the DHS headquarters

$255 million for “priority procurements” at Coast Guard (polar ice breaker)

$500 million for State and local fire stations

$180 million for construction of Bureau of Land Management facilities

$500 million for wildland fire management

$110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

$522 million for construction for the Bureau of Indian Affairs

$650 million for abandoned mine sites

$75 million for the Smithsonian Institution

$1.2 billion for summer jobs for youth

$412 million for CDC headquarters

$500 million earmark for NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD

$160 million for “volunteers” at the Corp. for National and Community Service

$750 earmark for the National Computer Center in MD

$224 million for International Boundary and Water Commission – U.S. and Mexico

$850 million for Amtrak

$100 million for lead paint hazard reduction."

We can debate each and everyone of these proposals on their own merits.

It may be that we need $100 million for lead paint hazard reduction. Why not have an up and down vote?

It may be that we need $800 million for Amtrak.

Better question: How many jobs are any of these expenditures going to c