I'll bet you were thinking that I was going to say The Separation of Church and State. Well, maybe I will. But there are many things that separate us that shouldn't. I'm in a feisty mood today so I'm going to run through a few and say what I think.
The Separation of .....
Men and Women: Women are fantastic. But they are Americans. I don't care for "women's issues" when I hear it on the news. First, I don't need some 'journalist' telling me about women's issues. My state Senator received a letter from me on giving girls in the 6th grade a vaccine to help fight cervical cancer. She wanted to make it a state law that they be required to have this. The problem is that there isn't enough studies. They don't know the side effects of the vaccine, they don't know that it's a solution. I told her I was against it for those very reasons. She wrote back and said that it had failed to pass but she was re-introducing it because it's an important "women's issue". Now we're finding out the side effects. It's actually killing some, making others sick. Look at the advertising. A 30 second spot and 15 seconds of it is listing the disclaimers and conditions that can come from it. If someone I care about is suffering from cervical cancer or any other malady, I too am suffering because someone I care about is ill. Her suffering may be physically painful and it's her life in danger, but the loved one, me, is suffering because she is suffering. She has the painful part, but the loved ones difficulty is there as well. I would rather see a cure for all diseases, but while there isn't, I'm going to suffer, albeit in a different way, with the one that has the disease. I care about my daughters and don't want them to suffer needlessly because of a vaccine that has been rushed through under the guise of it being a "womens issue".
I believe that the job is how the pay ought to be determined and not the gender of the person holding the job. If a woman can't do the job, don't hire her. If she can, she should be entitled to the same pay as a man doing that job.
Women are special to me because I'm a man. But they are no more, nor no less an American than I am. They are not entitled to special rights or privileges.
Black and White: If you're white, good for you. If you're hispanic, good for you. If you're black, good for you, if you're brunette, good for you, if you're a redhead good for you, if you're blonde....well, if you're also female, call me, but good for you as well. Stop crying racism each time things go wrong for you. You've cried it so much it's getting difficult to determine which is racism and which is just because someone has a different belief on an issue. When Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson start talking, I immediately start wondering if it's really racism or if they are just trying to raise money for some other purpose. Yes, I'm sure there are racists still left. I see reports on the KKK and the skinheads. I've heard they are increasing. But they are the exception, not the rule. I mentioned in previous writing that I don't like the hyphenated American terms. I don't use them. My family came from Germany, Finland, Scotland, England and many other places. But that was 300 years ago. I'm an American. I'm not a European American. I'm an American. I have had family fighting for this country in every war since the French and Indian War. I was born here. Just because you and your neighbor don't get along, it doesn't make you a racist or them a racist. It only means that you and your neighbor need to work out an agreement to get along or avoid each other. If I can't use the "n" word, you can't use the "h" word. But they are words. It says more about the person using the term than it does about the person it's being used against. The civil war ended 144 years ago. It's time to move on from slavery. There are laws against discrimination. You shouldn't need Affirmative Action. You don't correct past history of slavery by discriminating against people that never owned a slave. The last slave died, I believe in the early 1970's. There are no former slaves left. Yes, I do remember the 60's. It wasn't right. But it's been changed legally, even if not in the hearts and minds of all Americans. It has changed in the hearts and minds of most Americans though. Once again, the bigots are the exception, not the rule. If you're wallowing in pity I suggest bending over, grabbing your bootstraps and yanking really hard and go about making yourself successful. Our founding fathers and ancestors did it. Yours did it too. It's time for you to do it. I have struggles too, and I'm working my backside off to get ahead. Why should you be any different?
Gay and Straight: If you're gay, and you're happy about being gay, then what's the problem? I don't need to know what's going on behind your closed doors. I don't go out in public and tell what goes on behind my closed doors. Yes, I disagree with the gay lifestyle, but it's not my call on how you live. It's my responsibility to choose how I live. I believe that it's wrong, but I'm not the sex police over you and other gay people. On the other hand, you're not entitled to special rights. You have the same rights that I do that are guaranteed by the Constitution. If you feel the need to throw your sexual preference in my face, you have opened the door for my opinion to be stated. We are all Americans and that is what matters. When you start asking to be represented on the job as a gay person, I have to wonder what job a gay person can do that a straight person can't do. If you need papers signed to visit your significant other in the hospital, do it now before either gets sick. Problem solved. Most don't care that you're gay. We're just tired of it being thrown in our face. You don't see me marching in a Straight Pride Parade. I don't ask for a national Straight day. I'm more concerned about the success of everyone in this country because they are Americans. Not because they are gay or straight.
Republican/Democrat: If you're a Democrat, good for you. I listen to your positions and I disagree with most of them. If you can't be tolerant of my opinion then I am under no obligation to listen to your opinion. I form my opinions based on my reading of the issues. If you want to discuss the issues, I'm happy to do so. I've never been one to hold back my opinions. I should point out that I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. I'm Conservative. I have no party. I'm mostly aligned with Republicans, but I identify myself proudly as a Conservative. If you can't honor a differing opinion, don't let the door hit you in the backside as you walk out. Don't tell me what I think. You're welcome to ask, but don't tell me. You're usually going to be wrong. I love it when a liberal says to me "you just think you're always right." How often do you say things or offer an opinion that you think is wrong? If you ever do, then my suggestion to you is that you rethink your positions. Might I suggest a Conservative point of view for you to adopt?
Church and State: Ok, I'll do this. It's really not that difficult. The Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. It does say that the Congress shall not make any laws regarding religion. They can't establish one, force people to be a part of one or dictate that you must avoid religion. However, it does not stop others that believe in God from being involved in government. If you have a problem with someone running for office that believes in God and admits it, then don't vote for him/her. There is nothing wrong with the government being run by a bunch of evangelists, nor is it wrong for it to be run by catholics, or any other person of a certain religion. What is important is that whomever is elected is ELECTED by the people who are legal citizens of this country.
Ahhhhh, I feel better now and I didn't even do the one on Illegal Aliens/legal immigrants.
You're welcome to comment.
Brett
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Michigan Democrat Violated Campaign Finance Law
Mark Schauer, former Democat State Senator and current Representative in the United States House has been found guilty of violating the Campaign Finance Laws in Michigan. Schauer's committee admitted to donating more than the $20,000 allowable for an individual to donate to the Senate Democratic Fund.
The SDF agreed to pay back to the Schauer committee $202,250 which then turned the money over to the state as part of the consent agreement. Schauers committee was fined $6,000. The Senate Democratic Fund paid a $10,000 fine. There were thirteen committee's investigated but nine were dismissed because they paid back the money to the original donors.
There are a couple of points, perhaps three, to this that I find odd.
A lawmaker violates the law and gets a $6,000 fine. He's accused and apparently admitted he's guilty of violating that law. I try to apply the same type of thing to the American people and what happens to them. So let's say a bank teller takes $500 from a customer who wants to deposit it into their account. The teller then writes a receipt for $500 but only deposits $400 into their account. If that teller does that ten times a day, that's $1,000 per day that she is taking away from the people that do business in that bank. When she's caught, is she asked to pay that back and pay a fine? Yes. But she's also charged with embezzlement or misappropriation of funds and does jail time. Or perhaps she gets probation with no jail time. Is she back on the job the next day? No. She's naturally lost her job and has a criminal record for the rest of her life.
On the other hand, let's assume that she realizes that the bank examiner is looking into missing money. They are getting closer to finding out her scheme and that it was her. So, she returns the money. Do they drop the charges and give her a fine? No. She's charged, convicted and punished with a fine, probably restitution in addition to the fine and either jail time or probation, but she still loses her job.
This makes me wonder why a lawmaker that breaks the law is only given a fine and doesn't lose his job. Isn't this a double standard?
A second point. Michigan has been in a one state recession for five years. The legislature in Michigan thought it so bad that they decided to increase taxes massively in 2006, which is the same time that Schauer was violating the law. The government can't live within it's means so they increase taxes on the people that are struggling to pay their bills, yet, Schauer is collecting massive amounts of money and donating it illegally to a party. Where did this money come from? Who are the individuals? Are they in Michigan or outside of Michigan? My guess is that they are from outside of Michigan given the recession we've been in. With the one state recession we're in, isn't it a double standard for Schauer to vote to increase taxes on the citizens while taking more money from donors than the law permits?
Third point. Nine of the Thirteen committees caught gave the money back to the donors and avoided the fines. This is similar to a bank robber who gets caught and gives the money back to those they robbed and all is as if he never robbed the bank. Schauer however, didn't return the money to the donors. He was caught and still didn't return it to the people that donated it. Instead, he chose to give it to the government. The State. Those donors wanted to give their money to the Senate Democratic Fund, but because it wasn't done properly, their donation becomes a donation to the State of Michigan rather than to where they wanted it to go. I don't necessarily feel sorry for them because they apparently donated more than is allowable, but they didn't get the say in that. Mark Schauer decided the money was better in the hands of the State than in the people that made the donation. What do you call it when you give money to the State? Oh yeah, it's called TAXES. So these donors, that wanted their money to go one place, have really just ended up paying to the State. Mark Schauer confiscated their money. It really seems to be another form of tax.
Our elected officials are supposedly holding the public trust in their hands. When they violate the laws that they are sworn to uphold, they have violated the public trust and should not be permitted to hold that public trust any longer. Mark Schauer should be removed from office and not permitted to hold public office again. He's earned that penalty and should have to pay it.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
The SDF agreed to pay back to the Schauer committee $202,250 which then turned the money over to the state as part of the consent agreement. Schauers committee was fined $6,000. The Senate Democratic Fund paid a $10,000 fine. There were thirteen committee's investigated but nine were dismissed because they paid back the money to the original donors.
There are a couple of points, perhaps three, to this that I find odd.
A lawmaker violates the law and gets a $6,000 fine. He's accused and apparently admitted he's guilty of violating that law. I try to apply the same type of thing to the American people and what happens to them. So let's say a bank teller takes $500 from a customer who wants to deposit it into their account. The teller then writes a receipt for $500 but only deposits $400 into their account. If that teller does that ten times a day, that's $1,000 per day that she is taking away from the people that do business in that bank. When she's caught, is she asked to pay that back and pay a fine? Yes. But she's also charged with embezzlement or misappropriation of funds and does jail time. Or perhaps she gets probation with no jail time. Is she back on the job the next day? No. She's naturally lost her job and has a criminal record for the rest of her life.
On the other hand, let's assume that she realizes that the bank examiner is looking into missing money. They are getting closer to finding out her scheme and that it was her. So, she returns the money. Do they drop the charges and give her a fine? No. She's charged, convicted and punished with a fine, probably restitution in addition to the fine and either jail time or probation, but she still loses her job.
This makes me wonder why a lawmaker that breaks the law is only given a fine and doesn't lose his job. Isn't this a double standard?
A second point. Michigan has been in a one state recession for five years. The legislature in Michigan thought it so bad that they decided to increase taxes massively in 2006, which is the same time that Schauer was violating the law. The government can't live within it's means so they increase taxes on the people that are struggling to pay their bills, yet, Schauer is collecting massive amounts of money and donating it illegally to a party. Where did this money come from? Who are the individuals? Are they in Michigan or outside of Michigan? My guess is that they are from outside of Michigan given the recession we've been in. With the one state recession we're in, isn't it a double standard for Schauer to vote to increase taxes on the citizens while taking more money from donors than the law permits?
Third point. Nine of the Thirteen committees caught gave the money back to the donors and avoided the fines. This is similar to a bank robber who gets caught and gives the money back to those they robbed and all is as if he never robbed the bank. Schauer however, didn't return the money to the donors. He was caught and still didn't return it to the people that donated it. Instead, he chose to give it to the government. The State. Those donors wanted to give their money to the Senate Democratic Fund, but because it wasn't done properly, their donation becomes a donation to the State of Michigan rather than to where they wanted it to go. I don't necessarily feel sorry for them because they apparently donated more than is allowable, but they didn't get the say in that. Mark Schauer decided the money was better in the hands of the State than in the people that made the donation. What do you call it when you give money to the State? Oh yeah, it's called TAXES. So these donors, that wanted their money to go one place, have really just ended up paying to the State. Mark Schauer confiscated their money. It really seems to be another form of tax.
Our elected officials are supposedly holding the public trust in their hands. When they violate the laws that they are sworn to uphold, they have violated the public trust and should not be permitted to hold that public trust any longer. Mark Schauer should be removed from office and not permitted to hold public office again. He's earned that penalty and should have to pay it.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Another Politician About to Fall
The new Senator from Illinois, Roland Burris is the latest to use the words that all but guarantee he's about to lose his job. His quote is "I did nothing wrong." This will join other famous quotes by politicians.
"I am not a crook". Richard Nixon -Resigned.
"I have never, ever, done anything to betray the trust of the people of New Jersey. NEVER!!" Robert Torricelli Senator from New Jersey. -Resigned.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Bill Clinton, President. -Impeached.
There are other examples, but I think you get the idea. Once a politician says he's done nothing wrong, his days are numbered. Senator Burris is saying he won't resign. I expect his resignation soon.
So what did Burris do wrong? He apparently testified that he could remember no contact with Governor Rod Blagojevich but then a few days later in early February, sent a written amendment to his testimony under oath. It just came out last weekend that he had submitted the written amendment. His amendment said that he did in fact have three conversations with the ex governors brother, Robert. Then a day later, it was discovered that he had tried to raise money for the ex governors campaign.
This has been an eventful few months. The mayor of Detroit, indicted, convicted, sent to jail. The mayor of Baltimore is in trouble, the governor of New Mexico is involved in a Grand Jury investigation into pay for play. The governor of Illinois in a pay for play scheme. Then there are the Presidents nominees that have fallen by the wayside. As previously mentioned, Bill Richardson, Nancy Killefer for taxes, Tom Daschle for taxes, one that made it, Geithner, the Treasury secretary, taxes. The Labor Secretary nominee, Hilda Solis, taxes (but she may survive her nomination). Eric Holder, several things but mostly the pardon of Mark Rich (survived his nomination).
If we go back in the months prior to these past couple of months, there is the New York Governor who's admitted a sexual affair without being asked, and he replaced another Governor who was caught with hookers while fighting against prostitution.
All of the above are Democrats, although you wouldn't know that if you depended on the Press to give you their affiliation. In a recent report on CNN it was reported that media reporting on these events didn't name them as Democrats. A surprising revelation from the likes of CNN, who by the way, was one of those that didn't identify them as Democrats.
Then there was Caroline Kennedy that had to withdraw her name from consideration to replace Hillary Clinton due to a nanny problem, a tax problem, and a possible marriage problem. You have to give the Kennedy's credit. They don't get bogged down with one scandal, they roll them into a basket full.
This is going be an eventful four years regardless of which side you're on.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
"I am not a crook". Richard Nixon -Resigned.
"I have never, ever, done anything to betray the trust of the people of New Jersey. NEVER!!" Robert Torricelli Senator from New Jersey. -Resigned.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." Bill Clinton, President. -Impeached.
There are other examples, but I think you get the idea. Once a politician says he's done nothing wrong, his days are numbered. Senator Burris is saying he won't resign. I expect his resignation soon.
So what did Burris do wrong? He apparently testified that he could remember no contact with Governor Rod Blagojevich but then a few days later in early February, sent a written amendment to his testimony under oath. It just came out last weekend that he had submitted the written amendment. His amendment said that he did in fact have three conversations with the ex governors brother, Robert. Then a day later, it was discovered that he had tried to raise money for the ex governors campaign.
This has been an eventful few months. The mayor of Detroit, indicted, convicted, sent to jail. The mayor of Baltimore is in trouble, the governor of New Mexico is involved in a Grand Jury investigation into pay for play. The governor of Illinois in a pay for play scheme. Then there are the Presidents nominees that have fallen by the wayside. As previously mentioned, Bill Richardson, Nancy Killefer for taxes, Tom Daschle for taxes, one that made it, Geithner, the Treasury secretary, taxes. The Labor Secretary nominee, Hilda Solis, taxes (but she may survive her nomination). Eric Holder, several things but mostly the pardon of Mark Rich (survived his nomination).
If we go back in the months prior to these past couple of months, there is the New York Governor who's admitted a sexual affair without being asked, and he replaced another Governor who was caught with hookers while fighting against prostitution.
All of the above are Democrats, although you wouldn't know that if you depended on the Press to give you their affiliation. In a recent report on CNN it was reported that media reporting on these events didn't name them as Democrats. A surprising revelation from the likes of CNN, who by the way, was one of those that didn't identify them as Democrats.
Then there was Caroline Kennedy that had to withdraw her name from consideration to replace Hillary Clinton due to a nanny problem, a tax problem, and a possible marriage problem. You have to give the Kennedy's credit. They don't get bogged down with one scandal, they roll them into a basket full.
This is going be an eventful four years regardless of which side you're on.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Obama Failures Mount Up
This was not a good day for the new President. First, his own Democrats are squabbling between each other. Senator Harry Reid jumped the gun and announced there was a deal for the spending bill but didn't include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She hit the roof. Second, the Democrats delayed voting on the bill because they haven't had a chance to read it yet, which would be difficult since it's not printed yet.
Third, the economy is showing some signs that it is improving despite the spending bill not being passed yet bringing the question 'do we really need to spend $1.2 Trillion to get the economy rolling next year.
Fourth, Obama said that when the spending bill passes, Caterpillar will be hiring a portion of their laid off workers back. Unfortunately for him, the President of Caterpillar said it wasn't true.
Fifth, Obama's fourth cabinet nominee has decided to withdraw his name from nomination. Senator Judd Gregg decided that he wouldn't be part of the Obama administration after all. This has created a flurry of activity. Ten days ago, when Obama announced he was nominating Judd Gregg to be Commerce Secretary, Gregg immediately announced that he would recuse himself from the vote on the spending bill. Yet today, Robert Gibb the Press Secretary said that the writing was on the wall when Gregg said he'd recuse himself and not vote on the spending bill. This is ten days after that announcement. If Gibb is telling the truth, why did Obama bother to nominate him to begin with? If you'll remember, Gregg said that he'd already told Obama he would recuse himself from that vote.
Late last week, the White House announced that they were moving the responsibility for the Census from the Commerce Department to the White House. This would put Rahm Emmanuel in charge of the Census. This was a slap in the face to Judd Gregg. Several Democrats had complained about the nomination of Gregg because they didn't want a Republican in charge of the Census. This politicized the Census and by moving it to the White House, it further politicized the Census.
Democrats want to have an estimate of the people living in the United States. They tried this in 1990, but President George H. W. Bush was President, so that wouldn't work. They tried again in 2000, but the Republicans controlled the Congress and George W. Bush was just elected President. Now they want to try to institute estimates again in 2010. This is their best chance because they control both Houses of Congress and the White House right now. However, they have one problem and one potential problem.
Their first problem is the Constitution. The Constitution says "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." The Constitution requires an actual count, not an estimation. The second problem is only a potential problem, but a problem nevertheless. They may not control the Congress in 2010 especially with this massive pork included in this spending bill and the health care coordinator in it.
Watching the news tonight during the announcement of Senator Gregg's decision to remove himself from consideration Democrats that were interviewed were livid. Hillary Rosen and Roland Martin in particular. I believe that they are angry for several reasons. First, Senator Gregg has never lost an election. His taking the Commerce position, meant that a replacement had to be selected. Regardless of who the Governor of New Hampshire selected the seat would be in play next election. The Democrats would have a better chance with Gregg out, than they do with him in.
Second, it makes Obama look bad. This is, after all, the fourth nominee to withdraw from their nomination. Governor Bill Richardson had to withdraw from his nomination as Commerce Secretary because of a scandal he's involved in that is before a Grand Jury in New Mexico. Nancy Killefer withdrew because she hadn't paid some taxes. Tom Daschle removed his name from consideration for Health and Human Services Secretary because he didn't pay taxes. Another, Timothy Geithner, despite having not paid taxes, squeaked through with his nomination before all of these others came up.
Third, it appears that Judd Gregg was not a vetting problem. The Obama Administration had a problem with their vetting in all of the cases above, Richardson, Daschle, Killefer, and Geithner and may have yet another with their Labor nominee, Hilda Solis and also had a problem with Attorney General Eric Holder and possibly his deputy attorney general David Ogden. It appears that the Democrat partisans are upset that Gregg was clean as a whistle and decided to pull out due to policy reasons rather than having his own tax or legal problems as the Democrat nominees have had.
The Democrats, including Hillary Rosen and Roland Martin, have tried to say that Senator Gregg begged for the job of Commerce Secretary, but within half an hour of them accusing him of that it's come out that he didn't go after the job. The Democrats are imploding over this turn of events.
Fortunately, this adds one more no vote to the spending bill, but unfortunately, it doesn't take away from the 61 yes votes. There is hope, however. Many of the items that Senator Susan Collins and Senator Ben Nelson negotiated out of the spending bill have been put back in. So maybe, Collins and Senator Olympia Snowe will switch their votes back to No which would bring them back below 60 votes and kill the bill.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Third, the economy is showing some signs that it is improving despite the spending bill not being passed yet bringing the question 'do we really need to spend $1.2 Trillion to get the economy rolling next year.
Fourth, Obama said that when the spending bill passes, Caterpillar will be hiring a portion of their laid off workers back. Unfortunately for him, the President of Caterpillar said it wasn't true.
Fifth, Obama's fourth cabinet nominee has decided to withdraw his name from nomination. Senator Judd Gregg decided that he wouldn't be part of the Obama administration after all. This has created a flurry of activity. Ten days ago, when Obama announced he was nominating Judd Gregg to be Commerce Secretary, Gregg immediately announced that he would recuse himself from the vote on the spending bill. Yet today, Robert Gibb the Press Secretary said that the writing was on the wall when Gregg said he'd recuse himself and not vote on the spending bill. This is ten days after that announcement. If Gibb is telling the truth, why did Obama bother to nominate him to begin with? If you'll remember, Gregg said that he'd already told Obama he would recuse himself from that vote.
Late last week, the White House announced that they were moving the responsibility for the Census from the Commerce Department to the White House. This would put Rahm Emmanuel in charge of the Census. This was a slap in the face to Judd Gregg. Several Democrats had complained about the nomination of Gregg because they didn't want a Republican in charge of the Census. This politicized the Census and by moving it to the White House, it further politicized the Census.
Democrats want to have an estimate of the people living in the United States. They tried this in 1990, but President George H. W. Bush was President, so that wouldn't work. They tried again in 2000, but the Republicans controlled the Congress and George W. Bush was just elected President. Now they want to try to institute estimates again in 2010. This is their best chance because they control both Houses of Congress and the White House right now. However, they have one problem and one potential problem.
Their first problem is the Constitution. The Constitution says "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." The Constitution requires an actual count, not an estimation. The second problem is only a potential problem, but a problem nevertheless. They may not control the Congress in 2010 especially with this massive pork included in this spending bill and the health care coordinator in it.
Watching the news tonight during the announcement of Senator Gregg's decision to remove himself from consideration Democrats that were interviewed were livid. Hillary Rosen and Roland Martin in particular. I believe that they are angry for several reasons. First, Senator Gregg has never lost an election. His taking the Commerce position, meant that a replacement had to be selected. Regardless of who the Governor of New Hampshire selected the seat would be in play next election. The Democrats would have a better chance with Gregg out, than they do with him in.
Second, it makes Obama look bad. This is, after all, the fourth nominee to withdraw from their nomination. Governor Bill Richardson had to withdraw from his nomination as Commerce Secretary because of a scandal he's involved in that is before a Grand Jury in New Mexico. Nancy Killefer withdrew because she hadn't paid some taxes. Tom Daschle removed his name from consideration for Health and Human Services Secretary because he didn't pay taxes. Another, Timothy Geithner, despite having not paid taxes, squeaked through with his nomination before all of these others came up.
Third, it appears that Judd Gregg was not a vetting problem. The Obama Administration had a problem with their vetting in all of the cases above, Richardson, Daschle, Killefer, and Geithner and may have yet another with their Labor nominee, Hilda Solis and also had a problem with Attorney General Eric Holder and possibly his deputy attorney general David Ogden. It appears that the Democrat partisans are upset that Gregg was clean as a whistle and decided to pull out due to policy reasons rather than having his own tax or legal problems as the Democrat nominees have had.
The Democrats, including Hillary Rosen and Roland Martin, have tried to say that Senator Gregg begged for the job of Commerce Secretary, but within half an hour of them accusing him of that it's come out that he didn't go after the job. The Democrats are imploding over this turn of events.
Fortunately, this adds one more no vote to the spending bill, but unfortunately, it doesn't take away from the 61 yes votes. There is hope, however. Many of the items that Senator Susan Collins and Senator Ben Nelson negotiated out of the spending bill have been put back in. So maybe, Collins and Senator Olympia Snowe will switch their votes back to No which would bring them back below 60 votes and kill the bill.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
"The Same Old Failed Policies"
The President has a favorite saying. “The same failed policies of the past eight years that got us here.” He has variations on this. Such as “those that presided over the failed tax cuts of the past eight years”.
Well, I decided to look that up. In January, 2001 George W. Bush took over as President of the United States. In September of that year we were attacked. There were tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
I know that reading numbers is very boring but it must be done to see Obama’s distance from the truth.
The first quarter in 2001, the economy didn’t grow. The quarterly figures for growth were -0.48%. The second quarter was 1.23% growth. The third quarter was -1.39%. That was the quarter that included the September 11 attack. The fourth quarter was 1.58%.
In 2002 the four quarters in order were 2.7% growth, 2.19%, 2.37%, and 0.2%.
In 2003, the year of the second tax cut, the numbers were, 1.2%, 3.4%, 7.4% and 2.6%.
In 2004, it was 2.9%, 3.4%, 3.6%, and 2.5%.
In 2005: 2.9%, 2.6%, 3.8%, and 1.3%
In 2006: 4.8%, 2.6%, 0.7%, and 1.5%
In 2007: 0.04%, 4.78%, 4.75%, and -0.1%
In 2008: 0.8%, 2.8%, 0.5%. Fourth Quarter was a negative number, but not listed.
Look at the growth especially in 2002 following the 2001 tax cuts. Our financial center had been attacked in September 2001 and was shut down for over a week. Then look at the growth in 2003 and 2004 following the tax cuts of 2003.
During those eight years, we had two tax cuts, but we had ZERO spending cuts (much to the dismay of the Conservatives). Still the economy grew. The unemployment rate dropped during those years to 4.5% and maintained that until 2007 when it rose to 4.7%. It didn’t hit 5% until 2008. 5% unemployment is considered full employment. Just in the last six months did the unemployment hit 6% and now 7%.
The lack of spending cuts cost the Republicans the House and Senate in 2006 and the Democrats took over in January 2007.
Numbers don’t lie. So, Mr. President. The facts are presented above, and they include tax cuts, no spending cuts and the economy grew. George Bush inherited a recession and 7 months after taking over, the country suffered our worst attack on our own soil in the heart of our financial center. Yet the economy grew and grew better than it had since Ronald Reagan presided over our the longest period of growth in our history following our last severe recession.
I agree that the past eight years could have been better. Had there been spending cuts at the same time as we had all of this growth during the past eight years, the economy could have been even better. It was great as it was, it could have been unprecedented had Congress been better stewards of the purse strings. More importantly, however, is that the proof is well documented that tax cuts alone do work.
We could stand a little more truthfulness in dealing with this problem in the economy that we have right now rather than the rhetoric we’re getting from this White House. If you tell a lie often enough, people will begin to come around, but then when you look back at the facts from the past, you’ll find that regardless how often you tell the lie, it’s still a lie.
Socialism doesn’t work. It never has and no amount of good intentions will make it work. Now it’s time for the liberal E-mails that I normally get that spit and sputter, but don’t deal with the facts.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Well, I decided to look that up. In January, 2001 George W. Bush took over as President of the United States. In September of that year we were attacked. There were tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
I know that reading numbers is very boring but it must be done to see Obama’s distance from the truth.
The first quarter in 2001, the economy didn’t grow. The quarterly figures for growth were -0.48%. The second quarter was 1.23% growth. The third quarter was -1.39%. That was the quarter that included the September 11 attack. The fourth quarter was 1.58%.
In 2002 the four quarters in order were 2.7% growth, 2.19%, 2.37%, and 0.2%.
In 2003, the year of the second tax cut, the numbers were, 1.2%, 3.4%, 7.4% and 2.6%.
In 2004, it was 2.9%, 3.4%, 3.6%, and 2.5%.
In 2005: 2.9%, 2.6%, 3.8%, and 1.3%
In 2006: 4.8%, 2.6%, 0.7%, and 1.5%
In 2007: 0.04%, 4.78%, 4.75%, and -0.1%
In 2008: 0.8%, 2.8%, 0.5%. Fourth Quarter was a negative number, but not listed.
Look at the growth especially in 2002 following the 2001 tax cuts. Our financial center had been attacked in September 2001 and was shut down for over a week. Then look at the growth in 2003 and 2004 following the tax cuts of 2003.
During those eight years, we had two tax cuts, but we had ZERO spending cuts (much to the dismay of the Conservatives). Still the economy grew. The unemployment rate dropped during those years to 4.5% and maintained that until 2007 when it rose to 4.7%. It didn’t hit 5% until 2008. 5% unemployment is considered full employment. Just in the last six months did the unemployment hit 6% and now 7%.
The lack of spending cuts cost the Republicans the House and Senate in 2006 and the Democrats took over in January 2007.
Numbers don’t lie. So, Mr. President. The facts are presented above, and they include tax cuts, no spending cuts and the economy grew. George Bush inherited a recession and 7 months after taking over, the country suffered our worst attack on our own soil in the heart of our financial center. Yet the economy grew and grew better than it had since Ronald Reagan presided over our the longest period of growth in our history following our last severe recession.
I agree that the past eight years could have been better. Had there been spending cuts at the same time as we had all of this growth during the past eight years, the economy could have been even better. It was great as it was, it could have been unprecedented had Congress been better stewards of the purse strings. More importantly, however, is that the proof is well documented that tax cuts alone do work.
We could stand a little more truthfulness in dealing with this problem in the economy that we have right now rather than the rhetoric we’re getting from this White House. If you tell a lie often enough, people will begin to come around, but then when you look back at the facts from the past, you’ll find that regardless how often you tell the lie, it’s still a lie.
Socialism doesn’t work. It never has and no amount of good intentions will make it work. Now it’s time for the liberal E-mails that I normally get that spit and sputter, but don’t deal with the facts.
Your comments are welcome.
Brett
Health Care Rationing is Economic Stimulus?
The Senate has been debating for the past week the stimulus bill, which is really nothing more than a huge spending bill. I haven't heard any debate on the health care provisions in the bill. Did you know that there was a health care provision in the bill? There is. It includes rationinng of health care.
A new bureaucracy is created in the bill. It's called "National Coordinator of Health Information Technology". This new coordinator will track your medical treatments electronically with the goal of making it easier to transfer records to a hospital. However, it also sets guidelines for doctors to be sure they are doing for you what the government deems appropriate. Hospitals and doctors that are not "meaningful users" will face stiff penalties.
You should read this in the bill. H.R. 1 EH. This bill is not only dangerous to the economy, but it is also hazardous to your health. An example: If you're diagnosed with a disease, the coordinator will look at your disease, then your age and decide based on the number of years you're expected to live as to whether or not you're eligible for health care for that disease. Another example. If you're diagnosed with macular degeneration, you will not be treated until you go blind in that eye, then you can have the treatment to prevent you from going blind in the other eye.
The debate has ended on the bill in the Senate. A vote is expected on Tuesday on the bill, then it goes to conference between the House and the Senate to work out the differences.
This bill needs to be stopped or we will all be told by the government if and what we're eligible to be treated for if we get sick. It's not going to heal the economy and it will pick and choose what you may be healed of in the health care provisions.
You're welcome to comment.
Brett
A new bureaucracy is created in the bill. It's called "National Coordinator of Health Information Technology". This new coordinator will track your medical treatments electronically with the goal of making it easier to transfer records to a hospital. However, it also sets guidelines for doctors to be sure they are doing for you what the government deems appropriate. Hospitals and doctors that are not "meaningful users" will face stiff penalties.
You should read this in the bill. H.R. 1 EH. This bill is not only dangerous to the economy, but it is also hazardous to your health. An example: If you're diagnosed with a disease, the coordinator will look at your disease, then your age and decide based on the number of years you're expected to live as to whether or not you're eligible for health care for that disease. Another example. If you're diagnosed with macular degeneration, you will not be treated until you go blind in that eye, then you can have the treatment to prevent you from going blind in the other eye.
The debate has ended on the bill in the Senate. A vote is expected on Tuesday on the bill, then it goes to conference between the House and the Senate to work out the differences.
This bill needs to be stopped or we will all be told by the government if and what we're eligible to be treated for if we get sick. It's not going to heal the economy and it will pick and choose what you may be healed of in the health care provisions.
You're welcome to comment.
Brett
Friday, February 6, 2009
48 Hours to Socialism
The last 48 hours has been very telling of what we're in for during the next four years. Yesterday, the new President, Obama, decided and signed to have all trials stopped at Guantanamo Bay. The timing of this was interesting in that the trail of a man accused of the attack on the USS Cole was to start on Monday, February 9. That has now been stopped. To add insult to injury, the President then had the families of the victims of the USS Cole in to listen to them.
It's been 8 years since the attack on the USS Cole. That attack cost 17 of our sailors their lives. This was the final terrorist attack of the Clinton administration years and it happend in October of 2000. The terrorists were identified in December of 2000 and finally the trial was to start after an eight year long wait. Not now. Wouldn't it have been nice if the President had called the families to come and talk before announcing his decision? Some might even call it proper. A couple of the family members decided not to show up for the meeting saying that the decision had been made and he didn't care to hear why his son would not get justice. This was a severe slap in the face to the military and particularly the families of those that lost their lives to terrorism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's also been reported that the Obama administration is brainstorming on how to identify the war on terror without using the words "War on Terror" which they have not uttered even once since the election.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the United States Senate has reached a "compromise" on the so-called stimulus package. This is actually a spending bill. Normally, a compromise is the difference between group and the other group. The House passed an $819 Billion spending bill. The Senate, compromised by passing an $827 Billion Dollar spending bill. It seems to me that a compromise would bring the bill in somewhere between 0 and $819 Billion. But this is the United States Congress. They don't do things like normal people.
This package will end up somewhere around $1 Trillion in spending. Add the interest and we're looking at nearly $1.3 Trillion dollars. Obama may be upset that he inherited a $1.2 Trillion deficit, but I'm not sure how he can be upset, because when he puts his signature to it in another week or two, he'll have doubled the deficit in less than a month. Then we get the appropriations bill coming soon, another $1 Trillion added to that.
The Republicans lost their majority in 2006 because they spent money rather than doing what they ran on, to be fiscally responsible. President Bush didn't veto the Republican spending bills over that six year period, so he took some of the heat for that as well. Obama, in less than a month is making President George W. Bush look like a penny pincher. The Democrats (and two Republicans, maybe three) are making the Republicans from 2001-2006 look like frugal people. However you look at it, we're just days from becoming a socialist country. Didn't Joe the Plumber warn us of this?
It is appropriate though that the liberals should do this on President Ronald Reagan's Birthday. Reagan lowered the top tax rate from 70% to 28% and brought us out of the deepest recession since the depression and created the longest peacetime growth in our history. 26 years later on Reagan's birthday, the liberals make a deal to take us back to the huge government transfer of money from free people to government and will extend this recession further possibly causing it to be the longest and deepest recession since the depression. Don't blame Republicans. You were warned during the campaign this was coming if you voted for Obama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, this item. Today it was announced that the handling of the Census in 2010 has been removed from the Commerce Department, where Judd Gregg was just nominated as Secretary, and handled instead by the White House. Could it be because Judd Gregg was just nominated and he's a Republican? It sounds as though Judd Gregg is just going to be a "token" in the Obama cabinet. I'm still trying to figure out why Gregg took the job and after this news, I now wonder why he doesn't remove his name from consideration. Perhaps Gregg is more than just a token. It could be that Obama needed at least one person that pays his taxes and for that, he had to get a Republican.
Brett
It's been 8 years since the attack on the USS Cole. That attack cost 17 of our sailors their lives. This was the final terrorist attack of the Clinton administration years and it happend in October of 2000. The terrorists were identified in December of 2000 and finally the trial was to start after an eight year long wait. Not now. Wouldn't it have been nice if the President had called the families to come and talk before announcing his decision? Some might even call it proper. A couple of the family members decided not to show up for the meeting saying that the decision had been made and he didn't care to hear why his son would not get justice. This was a severe slap in the face to the military and particularly the families of those that lost their lives to terrorism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's also been reported that the Obama administration is brainstorming on how to identify the war on terror without using the words "War on Terror" which they have not uttered even once since the election.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, the United States Senate has reached a "compromise" on the so-called stimulus package. This is actually a spending bill. Normally, a compromise is the difference between group and the other group. The House passed an $819 Billion spending bill. The Senate, compromised by passing an $827 Billion Dollar spending bill. It seems to me that a compromise would bring the bill in somewhere between 0 and $819 Billion. But this is the United States Congress. They don't do things like normal people.
This package will end up somewhere around $1 Trillion in spending. Add the interest and we're looking at nearly $1.3 Trillion dollars. Obama may be upset that he inherited a $1.2 Trillion deficit, but I'm not sure how he can be upset, because when he puts his signature to it in another week or two, he'll have doubled the deficit in less than a month. Then we get the appropriations bill coming soon, another $1 Trillion added to that.
The Republicans lost their majority in 2006 because they spent money rather than doing what they ran on, to be fiscally responsible. President Bush didn't veto the Republican spending bills over that six year period, so he took some of the heat for that as well. Obama, in less than a month is making President George W. Bush look like a penny pincher. The Democrats (and two Republicans, maybe three) are making the Republicans from 2001-2006 look like frugal people. However you look at it, we're just days from becoming a socialist country. Didn't Joe the Plumber warn us of this?
It is appropriate though that the liberals should do this on President Ronald Reagan's Birthday. Reagan lowered the top tax rate from 70% to 28% and brought us out of the deepest recession since the depression and created the longest peacetime growth in our history. 26 years later on Reagan's birthday, the liberals make a deal to take us back to the huge government transfer of money from free people to government and will extend this recession further possibly causing it to be the longest and deepest recession since the depression. Don't blame Republicans. You were warned during the campaign this was coming if you voted for Obama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, this item. Today it was announced that the handling of the Census in 2010 has been removed from the Commerce Department, where Judd Gregg was just nominated as Secretary, and handled instead by the White House. Could it be because Judd Gregg was just nominated and he's a Republican? It sounds as though Judd Gregg is just going to be a "token" in the Obama cabinet. I'm still trying to figure out why Gregg took the job and after this news, I now wonder why he doesn't remove his name from consideration. Perhaps Gregg is more than just a token. It could be that Obama needed at least one person that pays his taxes and for that, he had to get a Republican.
Brett
Thursday, February 5, 2009
UPDATE!
The nominee for Labor Secretary, Hilda Silis, seems to have two problems. She served on a board which is apparently against House rules, and her husband paid $6,400 in back taxes yesterday so as not to cause a problem for his wife's nomination.
The White House is saying that her husbands lack of paying taxes should not be held against her. These are taxes that he owed dating back 16 years. Her nomination hearing has been delayed.
In another matter, now that Leon Panetta's hearing is over for his nomination as CIA director, it's coming out that in addition to the speaking engagements and fees received following the $700 Billion bailout in September, he's also taken money and represented various firms for which the CIA has some dealings with.
This brings the total problems for Obama nominees to 7.
If you voted for Change you can believe in, apparently you've gotten it. Obama has changed problem nominations from 3 in 16 years to 7 in three weeks.
Brett
The White House is saying that her husbands lack of paying taxes should not be held against her. These are taxes that he owed dating back 16 years. Her nomination hearing has been delayed.
In another matter, now that Leon Panetta's hearing is over for his nomination as CIA director, it's coming out that in addition to the speaking engagements and fees received following the $700 Billion bailout in September, he's also taken money and represented various firms for which the CIA has some dealings with.
This brings the total problems for Obama nominees to 7.
If you voted for Change you can believe in, apparently you've gotten it. Obama has changed problem nominations from 3 in 16 years to 7 in three weeks.
Brett
We Were Warned!
During the campaign of 2008, we were warned about Barack Obama's associations. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Flegler, William Ayers. We were also warned about his attempts to abort children already born and Joe the Plumber brought to light the socialism issue and Obama's inexperience. These were ignored and Barack Obama was elected.
Obama's associations have come back to haunt him. He has now nominated Bill Richardson, Nancy Killefer, Tom Daschle, Timothy Geithner. Richardson dropped out due to a grand jury investigation into contracts being awarded to political supporters. Nancy Killefer dropped out due to not having paid some taxes. Tom Daschle dropped out due to not paying taxes. Timothy Geithner also didn't pay taxes, but he was confirmed before the others came to light. Now there are calls for him to resign. There are others that are surfacing. One that has been hinted at is his nominee for Labor Secretary.
The vetting process, which seems to be poor at best, continues to dog Obama. Now it's Leon Panetta who received over $700,o00 in speaking fees from Wachovia and Merrill Lynch, two principles in the meltdown of September. He was paid in October for his speeches. He apparently also was involved in some lobbying, although it may be indirectly. This violates Obama's new policy of no lobbyists.
Another confirmation pending is that of a man name Ogden. Ogden has advocated for pornography, privacy rights for a 14 year old to prevent the parents of the 14 year old finding out and having any say in an abortion for the 14 year old. I have a bit of a problem with this nomination. I'm not sure he should be disqualified due to his clients as a lawyer. Everyone is entitled to counsel and it's the lawyers responsibility to advocate for his client to the best of his ability. It's implied in the stories that he has a belief in these issues and if so, then this is another indication of how far to the left Obama is taking his administration. If Ogden doesn't believe in these but was doing his job as a lawyer, I cannot find fault with that.
In a discussion on his front lawn with Barack Obama, Joe the Plumber listened to what Obama said about spreading the wealth and said that he thought it sounded like socialism. Obama spent the next couple of days defending himself, then making fun of McCain for calling him a socialist on many issues that McCain never stated. Now we're finding out how much socialism Obama is wanting to implement through the currently pending spending bill (it's not a stimulus bill).
All of these "missteps" are an indication of the lack of experience of Obama and his staff, which he chose, to do the vetting. It's ironic that when Joe the Plumber started making the news because of his one comment, the liberals immediately started investigating Joe the Plumber and discovered that he had a tax lien of approximately $1,500 which Joe the Plumber claimed he was unaware. A government worker in Ohio lost her job due to this investigation and making the results public. Yet, Geithner didn't pay $34,000 in taxes until he was nominated for Treasury Secretary. Daschle didn't pay his taxes totaling over $140,000 in taxes and interest (I haven't heard anything about penalties), until he was nominated for Health and Human Services Secretary. What was used against Joe the Plumber to discredit him is now being said to be an "honest mistake" by Daschle and Geithner.
We were warned about these things during the campaign. They are now coming home to roost and the willing accomplices in the press are making excuses for them. Let's compare to previous administrations.
George Bush had one problem with a nominee when he was elected. Linda Chavez apparently had an illegal alien living with her. She was scrapped for the Labor Secretary position.
Bill Clinton nominated Zoe Baird for Attorney General. She was dropped when it was discovered
that she hired illegal aliens for domestic help. He then nominated Kimba Wood. She too had illegal aliens and the added problem of not paying social security taxes on the help. We ended up with Janet Reno.
Two for Clinton and one for Bush. Obama has already doubled that in less than three weeks.
Just one word of caution. Don't ask "what next?" We may just find out.
Brett
Obama's associations have come back to haunt him. He has now nominated Bill Richardson, Nancy Killefer, Tom Daschle, Timothy Geithner. Richardson dropped out due to a grand jury investigation into contracts being awarded to political supporters. Nancy Killefer dropped out due to not having paid some taxes. Tom Daschle dropped out due to not paying taxes. Timothy Geithner also didn't pay taxes, but he was confirmed before the others came to light. Now there are calls for him to resign. There are others that are surfacing. One that has been hinted at is his nominee for Labor Secretary.
The vetting process, which seems to be poor at best, continues to dog Obama. Now it's Leon Panetta who received over $700,o00 in speaking fees from Wachovia and Merrill Lynch, two principles in the meltdown of September. He was paid in October for his speeches. He apparently also was involved in some lobbying, although it may be indirectly. This violates Obama's new policy of no lobbyists.
Another confirmation pending is that of a man name Ogden. Ogden has advocated for pornography, privacy rights for a 14 year old to prevent the parents of the 14 year old finding out and having any say in an abortion for the 14 year old. I have a bit of a problem with this nomination. I'm not sure he should be disqualified due to his clients as a lawyer. Everyone is entitled to counsel and it's the lawyers responsibility to advocate for his client to the best of his ability. It's implied in the stories that he has a belief in these issues and if so, then this is another indication of how far to the left Obama is taking his administration. If Ogden doesn't believe in these but was doing his job as a lawyer, I cannot find fault with that.
In a discussion on his front lawn with Barack Obama, Joe the Plumber listened to what Obama said about spreading the wealth and said that he thought it sounded like socialism. Obama spent the next couple of days defending himself, then making fun of McCain for calling him a socialist on many issues that McCain never stated. Now we're finding out how much socialism Obama is wanting to implement through the currently pending spending bill (it's not a stimulus bill).
All of these "missteps" are an indication of the lack of experience of Obama and his staff, which he chose, to do the vetting. It's ironic that when Joe the Plumber started making the news because of his one comment, the liberals immediately started investigating Joe the Plumber and discovered that he had a tax lien of approximately $1,500 which Joe the Plumber claimed he was unaware. A government worker in Ohio lost her job due to this investigation and making the results public. Yet, Geithner didn't pay $34,000 in taxes until he was nominated for Treasury Secretary. Daschle didn't pay his taxes totaling over $140,000 in taxes and interest (I haven't heard anything about penalties), until he was nominated for Health and Human Services Secretary. What was used against Joe the Plumber to discredit him is now being said to be an "honest mistake" by Daschle and Geithner.
We were warned about these things during the campaign. They are now coming home to roost and the willing accomplices in the press are making excuses for them. Let's compare to previous administrations.
George Bush had one problem with a nominee when he was elected. Linda Chavez apparently had an illegal alien living with her. She was scrapped for the Labor Secretary position.
Bill Clinton nominated Zoe Baird for Attorney General. She was dropped when it was discovered
that she hired illegal aliens for domestic help. He then nominated Kimba Wood. She too had illegal aliens and the added problem of not paying social security taxes on the help. We ended up with Janet Reno.
Two for Clinton and one for Bush. Obama has already doubled that in less than three weeks.
Just one word of caution. Don't ask "what next?" We may just find out.
Brett
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Daschle Out!!
The nominee for Health and Human Services, former Senator and Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle has withdrawn himself from consideration. His total tax bill was nearly $140,000, so far.
Timothy Geithner should also resign as Secretary of the Treasury. Same reasons.
Brett
Timothy Geithner should also resign as Secretary of the Treasury. Same reasons.
Brett
Killefer Out!!
Nancy Killefer withdraws from her nomination for the new post created by the new President, Barack Obama. She is a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury management and her husband is an economics professor. Her total tax bill, so far was just under $1,000.
Brett
Brett
More Pay for Play from Obama
Senator Judd Gregg will be joining the Obama Administration today as the new Commerce Secretary. This is to be announced today, about an hour from now.
Gregg is a Republican from New Hampshire. By choosing Gregg, the Republicans in the Senate will now be down to 40, assuming that Minnesota seats the comedian, Al Franken.
Gregg is widely considered a genius on the budget committee which is makes him a good pick for Obama. However, does anyone really think that the President will follow Gregg's advice? Obama is the most liberal man in Washington. Gregg is a very strong conservative. They have diametrically opposing viewpoints.
Apparently, one of the conditions for Gregg to become the Commerce Secretary was that the Democrat Governor of New Hampshire would appoint a Republican to replace Gregg. That seat is up for election in 2010. Gregg would have been a shoo in to be re-elected. I doubt his replacement will have the same advantage.
In Illinois, Governor Blagojevich was recently impeached and removed from office for pay to play in naming a replacement for Obama when he was elected President. Charges by the Justice Department are still pending on this very issue concerning Blagojevich.
How is a promise from Obama to replace Gregg with a Republican not pay for play in naming Gregg to be Commerce Secretary? How is Obama not guilty of this and how is Gregg not guilty of the same pay to play and how is the Governor of New Hampshire not guilty of pay to play?
It seems that Governor Lynch of New Hampshire is not a favorite of the Democrats in Washington. They consider him too moderate for them. He may have made the decision to replace Gregg with a Republican (although probably more moderate than Gregg) anyway.
This is just another in a list of nominations by the new President that has a problem. Remember, Gregg was not the first choice for Commerce Secretary. That first pick was the Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson. Richardson had a Grand Jury problem though. It seems he's accused of ...you guessed it...pay to play where it concerns his political donors. Then there was the nomination of Eric Holder for Attorney General who was involved in the pardon of Mark Rich during the Clinton years, in addition to some other issues.
Next was the nomination of the Treasury Secretary, Geithner who is now head of the IRS despite not having paid taxes until he was caught as he was named the nominee for Treasury Secretary. This week, it was discovered that former Senator Tom Daschle also failed to pay over $140,000 in taxes. He's been nominated as Health and Human Services Secretary. He admitted his "mistake" when he was caught and has been apologizing all over Washington since it was discovered last Friday. It's very clear that these weren't honest mistakes. The only "mistake" was that they were caught.
Who can forget Caroline Kennedy who toured New York trying to drum up support to replace Hillary Clinton as the Senator from New York. She too had to drop out due to a "tax problem", issues with her marriage and a nanny problem. Of course, this run on tax problems for elected officials started with Representative Charlie Rangel of New York who "forgot" to pay his taxes on some rental property.
Obama has been President for three weeks. He's had a problem a week with people he's chosen, or those that have been chosen to succeed him in Illinois. It's ironic that the Tax And Spend liberals are the ones having the trouble with paying taxes. They've written the laws, voted on the laws implementing taxes, but can't seem to figure out or remember to pay their own taxes.
There have been problems with replacements for Senators. Clinton, Obama, Gregg and now a former Senator, Daschle who lost re-election several years ago. Not to mention the new Obama rule of no lobbyists, of which Daschle is a part of the problem as well. Of course, who can forget that Al Franken "discovered" he didn't pay over $70,000 in taxes just he began his run for the Senate and now, as I was writing this it's been announced that Nancy Killefer has dropped from consideration for "Chief Performance Officer" due to a "tax problem". Killefer was assistant Treasury Secretary for Management in the Clinton administration and her husband is an economics professor.
This underscores that the problems are created by government. Blago accused of pay to play in replacing Obama. Hints of pay to play with Governor Patterson of New York in the Kennedy situation replacing Clinton, but that was put on the back burner due to taxes, marriage and nannies; now a promise to replace a Republican with a Republican so that the replaced Republican can join the Obama administration. The pay to play could be eradicated by not allowing Governors to replace a departing Senator and instead, put it into the people's hands by holding a special election.
Three weeks and all of these problems. There are 208 weeks in Obama's term. At this rate, that's a lot of problems over 208 weeks.
Brett
Gregg is a Republican from New Hampshire. By choosing Gregg, the Republicans in the Senate will now be down to 40, assuming that Minnesota seats the comedian, Al Franken.
Gregg is widely considered a genius on the budget committee which is makes him a good pick for Obama. However, does anyone really think that the President will follow Gregg's advice? Obama is the most liberal man in Washington. Gregg is a very strong conservative. They have diametrically opposing viewpoints.
Apparently, one of the conditions for Gregg to become the Commerce Secretary was that the Democrat Governor of New Hampshire would appoint a Republican to replace Gregg. That seat is up for election in 2010. Gregg would have been a shoo in to be re-elected. I doubt his replacement will have the same advantage.
In Illinois, Governor Blagojevich was recently impeached and removed from office for pay to play in naming a replacement for Obama when he was elected President. Charges by the Justice Department are still pending on this very issue concerning Blagojevich.
How is a promise from Obama to replace Gregg with a Republican not pay for play in naming Gregg to be Commerce Secretary? How is Obama not guilty of this and how is Gregg not guilty of the same pay to play and how is the Governor of New Hampshire not guilty of pay to play?
It seems that Governor Lynch of New Hampshire is not a favorite of the Democrats in Washington. They consider him too moderate for them. He may have made the decision to replace Gregg with a Republican (although probably more moderate than Gregg) anyway.
This is just another in a list of nominations by the new President that has a problem. Remember, Gregg was not the first choice for Commerce Secretary. That first pick was the Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson. Richardson had a Grand Jury problem though. It seems he's accused of ...you guessed it...pay to play where it concerns his political donors. Then there was the nomination of Eric Holder for Attorney General who was involved in the pardon of Mark Rich during the Clinton years, in addition to some other issues.
Next was the nomination of the Treasury Secretary, Geithner who is now head of the IRS despite not having paid taxes until he was caught as he was named the nominee for Treasury Secretary. This week, it was discovered that former Senator Tom Daschle also failed to pay over $140,000 in taxes. He's been nominated as Health and Human Services Secretary. He admitted his "mistake" when he was caught and has been apologizing all over Washington since it was discovered last Friday. It's very clear that these weren't honest mistakes. The only "mistake" was that they were caught.
Who can forget Caroline Kennedy who toured New York trying to drum up support to replace Hillary Clinton as the Senator from New York. She too had to drop out due to a "tax problem", issues with her marriage and a nanny problem. Of course, this run on tax problems for elected officials started with Representative Charlie Rangel of New York who "forgot" to pay his taxes on some rental property.
Obama has been President for three weeks. He's had a problem a week with people he's chosen, or those that have been chosen to succeed him in Illinois. It's ironic that the Tax And Spend liberals are the ones having the trouble with paying taxes. They've written the laws, voted on the laws implementing taxes, but can't seem to figure out or remember to pay their own taxes.
There have been problems with replacements for Senators. Clinton, Obama, Gregg and now a former Senator, Daschle who lost re-election several years ago. Not to mention the new Obama rule of no lobbyists, of which Daschle is a part of the problem as well. Of course, who can forget that Al Franken "discovered" he didn't pay over $70,000 in taxes just he began his run for the Senate and now, as I was writing this it's been announced that Nancy Killefer has dropped from consideration for "Chief Performance Officer" due to a "tax problem". Killefer was assistant Treasury Secretary for Management in the Clinton administration and her husband is an economics professor.
This underscores that the problems are created by government. Blago accused of pay to play in replacing Obama. Hints of pay to play with Governor Patterson of New York in the Kennedy situation replacing Clinton, but that was put on the back burner due to taxes, marriage and nannies; now a promise to replace a Republican with a Republican so that the replaced Republican can join the Obama administration. The pay to play could be eradicated by not allowing Governors to replace a departing Senator and instead, put it into the people's hands by holding a special election.
Three weeks and all of these problems. There are 208 weeks in Obama's term. At this rate, that's a lot of problems over 208 weeks.
Brett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)