WE AMERCIANS DO NOT CARE ABOUT PORK BARREL SPENDING

The ‘Porky’ Trillion-Dollar Stimulus You Don’t Care About
 Friday, February 13, 2009
By Michelle Malkin

N.Y. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer took to the floor on Tuesday to sneer at public outrage over the trillion-dollar porkulus. “The American people really don’t care,” he said, about those “little tiny, yes, porky amendments.” He punctuated his derision by pinching his pointer finger and thumb together. Only the “chattering classes” worry about such trivial matters, Schumer scoffed.

 

Well, we are all “chattering classes” now. Congressional phones and fax lines have been ringing off the hooks all week with complaints from angry constituents across the country. And just two days after Schumer declared that no one cares, the taxpayer group Americans for Prosperity delivered 400,000 petitions to the Senate protesting the behemoth bill. Those petitions were signed before the latest details of the House-Senate conference report negotiations had been disclosed—and before any final legislative text had been made available to the general public.
 
If the stimulus plan were a Thanksgiving dinner entree, it would be a Turbaconducken—the heart attack-inducing dish of roasted chicken stuffed inside a duck stuffed inside a turkey, all wrapped in endless slabs of bacon. But according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s fantasyland “fact sheet” released early Thursday afternoon, “there are no earmarks or pet projects” in the final package.
 
Trust her no further than you could throw a pot-bellied pig. Despite the self-delusional declarations of Pelosi and President Obama that no pet projects exist, Hill staffers spilled the beans on several new set-asides tacked onto the bill. 
 
Thanks to Michigan’s Democratic Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, General Motors will receive a special tax break worth an estimated $7 billion to cover liabilities incurred when it accepted its $13.4 billion bailout from the Bush administration. The failing automaker has lined up for an addition $4 billion in bailout funds—at which time they’ll no doubt ask for another mega-tax liability waiver. The moochers’ cycle never ends.
 
Then there’s Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Railway to Sin City. Appointing yourself a Senate conferee has its perks. Roughly $8 billion in perks.
 
Reid, you see, needs to stimulate his re-election bid, so he haggled with President Obama to tuck in a teeny, tiny, yes, porky amendment for high-speed rail lines. Reid has his eyes—and paws—on a proposed Los Angeles-to-Las Vegas magnetic levitation train. He has already sunk $45 million in previous earmarks into his, yes, pet project. Wasn’t it earlier this week that Obama was lecturing companies not to travel to Las Vegas on the taxpayers’ dime? 
 
But I digress. Along with these not-earmarks, not-pet projects, there’s $2 billion for impeached Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s pet FutureGen near-zero emissions power plant project, $300 million for souped-up “green” golf carts for government workers, $30 million for “smart appliances” and $65 million for digital TV coupons. According to Hill Republicans, money for basic highways and bridges was cut by $1 billion from the House-passed level, but:
 
-- $9 billion for school construction was added back in (originally cut by the Nelson-Collins “compromise”);

-- $5 billion was added to the state fiscal stabilization fund (originally cut by Nelson-Collins), making it a grand total of $53.6 billion;

 

-- $1 billion was added back for Prevention & Wellness Programs, including STD education; and

-- $2 billion for neighborhood stabilization programs.
 
As I’ve reported previously, that “neighborhood stabilization” slush fund money will end up in the pockets of left-wing shakedown artists such as ACORN and the Massachusetts-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA), led by self-proclaimed “bank terrorist” Bruce Marks. There’s an additional $3.25 billion in HUD grants and Community Development Block Grants in the bill that will also inevitably find its way into the coffers of these housing-entitlement lobbying groups.

 
Another egregious not-earmark earmark that survived untouched: $2 billion for the National Parks Service championed by House Democratic conferee and Appropriations Chairman Rep. David Obey. A report by the GOP minority on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee revealed that Obey’s son, Craig, lobbied the panel and advocated for the stimulus plan on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association.
 
All told—and safely assuming the major spending provisions become permanently enshrined—the final price tag of this government hogzilla of all hogzillas over the next 10 years will be a whopping $3.27 trillion with a capital “T.”
 
Not, ahem, that you care.

HIGHER TAXES? EVIDENTLY IT MAKES ONE FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES

First we had Sen. Biden tell us, with a straight face, that paying higher taxes was patriotic.  Logically that means those of you who do not want to pay higher taxes are unpatriotic. But being a good policitican he will say that is not what he meant. 

I do not mind paying taxes, if I feel my money is being wisely spent.  And please please, if you remember anything, remember who controls the purse strings in our great nation; Congress does!!!  Do I think they are spending our money wisely?  Need I say No!!!

And NOW, Sen. Obama has stated that if we do want want to pay higher taxes, we are being selfish.  I sure wish he had said that a lot earlier in the campaign.

The One Speaks:

"The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."  Sen. Barak Obama (ABC News -Jake Tapper -  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html )

Shall we talk about being selfish?  Oh Let's do!!

Sen. Obama  (D-Ill)  donated $240,000 (of $4.2million)  in 2007, or about 0.6 percent of $4.2-million claimed income

Sen. Biden,(D-MD)  donated $995 (of $320,000)  in charitable gifts in 2007 about 0.3 percent of  $320,000.claimed income

Sen. McCain (R-Az)  donated $105,467 (of $405,410) in 2007, or 26 percent of  $405,409  claimed income. (This does not include Cindy McCain's income, nor her charitable works, Operation Smile, the Craniofacial Foundation, Operation Halo, etc)

Gov. Palin (R-Ak)   donated $3,325 (of $166,080) in 2007, about 2.5 percent of $166,080 claimed income.

Given that Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama love their pork spending -- [Sen. McCain has not asked for a penny in pork barrel spending] (http://www.cagw.org/ ), it seems to be that they are very unselfish, and very patriotic with spending others money, and doing so by raising taxes, like so many in Washington, they know how to spend our money better than we do.

TAXE VOTING: (from Roni Deutch Tax Center  http://www.rdtc.com/Blog/archive/2007/11/29/tax-views-of-top-10-presidential-candidates.aspx )

Sen Obama's Tax Related Voting Record

• Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
• Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
• Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
• Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
• Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
• Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
• Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)

 

Sen. McCain's Tax Related Voting Record

• Voted YES on repealing Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on raising the estate tax exemption. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
• Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
• Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
• Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
• Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)

Remember to vote this Tuesday.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Who would have ever believed that an economist would be easy to understand.  Professor Williams reminds us of  that which Congress would rather we remain ignorant of.  And we should keep in mind when reading and listening to the news:  CONGRESS CONTROLS THE PURSE STRINGS!! 

 

STUBBORN IGNORANGE

by Dr. Walter E. Williams

 George Mason University, Dept. Of Economics

Dr. Williams' biography:  http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/vita.html

Here's what the U.S. Constitution says: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." How many times have we heard politicians, pundits and guardians of our news media say that President Bush cut taxes, or Obama is going to raise taxes? The fact of the matter is that presidents have no power to raise or lower taxes. They can propose tax measures or veto them but it is Congress that has the ultimate power to raise or lower taxes since they can, with a two-thirds vote, override a presidential veto. The same principle applies to spending. Presidents cannot be held responsible for budget deficits or surpluses. A president cannot spend a dime that Congress does not first appropriate. Given these plain facts, are politicians, pundits and media people -- who persist in talking about a president cutting or raising taxes, or creating a budget deficit -- ignorant, stupid or deceptive?

Did President Clinton create more jobs, or did President Bush? Let's look at it. In 1996, I landed a job at Grove City College team teaching a course with one of its faculty members, Professor Dirk Mateer. I would like someone to tell me how President Clinton created that job for me. Did he call the college president and say, "Hire Williams"? Did he give Grove City College, a private college, resources to hire me? He surely didn't call me up and say, "Williams, there's a job waiting for you at Grove City College." So what precisely do people mean when they say this president or that president created jobs? You might argue, "You're right when it comes to a president creating jobs, but Congress can create jobs through appropriating money for infrastructure such as highways and bridges."

That's true in one sense and false in another. You can see this by asking, "Where does Congress get the money to create the jobs?" They won't get it from the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus; they must get the money from taxpayers. That means if Congress collects $100 from a taxpayer for highway construction, he cannot use that $100 for some other expenditure that would have created a job. If Congress borrows the money for highway construction, it causes interest rates to be higher and therefore less job-creating investment. The bottom line is that Congress can only shift employment or unemployment but cannot create net new jobs.

Many politicians and pundits claim that the credit crunch and high mortgage foreclosure rate is an example of market failure and want government to step in to bail out creditors and borrowers at the expense of taxpayers who prudently managed their affairs. These financial problems are not market failures but government failure. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is a federal law that intimidated lenders into offering credit throughout their entire market and discouraged them from restricting their credit services to low-risk markets, a practice sometimes called redlining. The Federal Reserve Bank, keeping interest rates artificially low, gave buyers and builders incentive to buy and build, thereby producing the housing bubble. Lenders were willing to make creative interest-only loans, often high-risk "no doc" and "liar loans," in order to allow people to buy more housing than they could afford. Of course, with the expectation that housing prices will continue to rise, it was no problem for lenders and borrowers but housing prices began to fall, leaving some people with negative home equity and banks in trouble.

The credit crunch and foreclosure problems are failures of government policy. In fact, what we see now is a market correction to foolhardy government policy. Congress' move to bailout lenders and borrowers who made poor decisions will simply create incentives for people to make unwise decisions in the future.

 English philosopher Herbert Spencer said, "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."

                  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Presidents come and go, some in congress seem to remain forever.--JohnOh

I really like Junior Parker's version of this song, and speaking of taxes, next blog should be about that Congressman who always looks out for us: Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY),  Chairman on the House Ways and Means Committee.  He certainly has the Ways and Means to bend over the American Taxpayer. . .and he knows how too.   To Be Continued.