Ethanol is ruining small engines

The ethanol controversy (more here) is heating up again as the EPA announced a mandate last fall to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline from 10% to 15% (more here). Despite the growing evidence that ethanol costs more, is not really environmentally friendly, drives up the price of food, and is actually ruining engines on vehicles (older than 2007). The ultimate slap in the face is that your tax dollars are being used to ruin your car (more here).

The recent revelation that ethanol ruins small engines (like lawn mowers and weed whackers) has created a niche market for “Boutique Fuel” – pure (no ethanol) gasoline for small engines. Of course, this comes at a pretty stiff premium (story here from Popular Mechanics).

Small-engine repairmen tell PM that ethanol mixed with gasoline is corroding and damaging chain saws, string trimmers and other outdoor equipment at an alarming clip. As a result, a new market is growing in U.S. hardware stores: Ethanol-free gas packaged in small cans that sell at a premium but promise to make your small engines last.

Repairman and small-business owner Rich Herder doesn’t mince words about the damage ethanol in gasoline is doing to the small engines in outdoor power equipment. “It’s the biggest disaster to hit gasoline in my lifetime,” Herder says. He owns McIntyre’s Locksmith & Lawnmower, a service business in Westfield, N.J. Founded in 1898 to refurbish saddles, the business today repairs more than 5000 machines a year—mostly pieces of outdoor power equipment, and many of them, according to Herder, damaged by the alcohol in today’s gasoline, known as E10 for the 10 percent of alcohol it contains.

Herder estimates that as much as 75 percent of that work is not due to normal wear and tear, but results from the use of ethanol, which can cause rust and carbon deposits inside the engine, dissolve plastic parts and more. And if repair shops like Herder’s are already busy, you have to wonder what will happen this summer when gas pumps begin dispensing E15 gasoline; the Environmental Protection Agency recently approved the fuel for cars built after the 2000 model year, but the fuel could hit small engines even harder than E10 does. But now, because of all that ethanol-based wear and tear, a nascent industry is starting up: Ethanol-free gas, distributed in cans for owners of small engines.

Deposits and corrosion aren’t the only reasons alcohol is hard on today’s small engines. The power plants are easily ruined by bad fuel because they lack the sophisticated computer-controlled ignition systems found in today’s cars and trucks. The alcohol can cause the fuel to ignite at the wrong time in the combustion sequence, ruining parts in the process. “The pistons are the first to go,” Herder says. “They look like they’ve been hit with a hammer.” Clearly the time for an alternative has come.

With congress in the pocket of agribusiness and the EPA mandating even more ethanol in fuel, the alternative is Boutique Fuels. Thank you government – BOHICA consumers!

The phenomenon of fuel-related problems has become so severe that the niche market for specialized fuel is growing fast. Tidily packaged little metal cans containing ethanol-free gasoline were just an oddity a few years ago; now they’re sold in hardware stores and by power equipment dealers, and people are taking specialized fuel seriously. There are at least three brands to choose from: MotoMix, from outdoor power equipment manufacturer Stihl USA, SEF from VP Racing Fuels and Truefuel from TruSouth. Of the three, only Stihl relies on an outside-contract chemical manufacturer to make its boutique fuel: Johann Haltermann, Ltd., a company that makes, among other things, precisely blended fuel for testing vehicles. Stihl was likely the first outdoor power equipment company to enter the boutique fuel market when, more than 20 years ago, it was so concerned about fuel quality in Germany that it introduced packaged fuel for its equipment sold in Europe.

The market for these fuels is still so new that there’s no generally recognized name for them. But regardless of whether you call this stuff—boutique fuel, packaged fuel or canned gas—it’s an end run around the gas pump. Sold as straight unleaded gasoline or blended with oil for high-rpm two-cycle engines in chain saws, blowers and string trimmers, it’s expensive stuff, costing anywhere from $5 to $8 per quart. Despite the high price, customers might be willing to pony up if it means seeing an engine or its components run for several trouble-free years rather than seeing the engine destroyed or damaged by ethanol—after all, avoiding just one ruined engine might be worth the cost.

Imagine that – pure gasoline at $20 – $32 a gallon. That works for me. I just love my government so much – BLECH!

Last minute deal averts government “shutdown” – FAIL

Congressional leaders and the regime cut a last minute deal to fund the federal government through the end of the fiscal year and avoid a government shutdown. With the democrats whining about “extreme” cuts, seniors being starved, and women being denied health care, the spineless republicans scaled back their budget cut proposals. Everyone involved has been patting themselves on the back claiming some sort of victory. BFD.

In a previous post I said that no one was serious about cutting the deficit. In case you were starting to believe the democrat’s “extreme” blather or the republican’s boasts of meaningful spending cuts, here are a couple of stories to bring this political kabuki theater of the absurd into perspective. While our political “leaders” were scrambling to avoid a federal shutdown, the federal government was spending outlandish and obscene amounts of your money (more here from CNSNews).

The federal government spent $142.3 billion on Thursday alone, according to the Daily Treasury Statement released at 4:00 pm on Friday afternoon.This $142.3 billion in spending took place on a day when the White House and congressional leaders were deadlocked over whether to cut between $33 billion and $40 billion in federal spending for the rest of the year.

To fund the $142.3 billion it spent on Thursday, the U.S. Treasury borrowed $132.8 billion during the day by selling new debt instruments—and almost all of these ($129.9 billion) were short-term Treasury bills that mature in one year or less.

By far, the federal government’s top expense on Thursday was paying off old debts that came due and that the government had a legal obligation to meet. During the day, Treasury reports, it paid off $130.75 billion in Treasury securities that had matured.

So in one day the government spent more than 3 times the paltry amount of “extreme” and “meaningful” cuts negotiated by the politicians. And the vast majority of that spending was servicing the debt. Yeah, that will get us out of trouble. This is like someone who makes $50K/yr, spends $90K/yr, and has $350K in debt saying, “Jeez, I need to save some money; I think I’ll skip lunch at McDonalds one day this week.”

And here’s another helpful little factoid (story here from CNSNews).

The federal debt increased $54.1 billion in the eight days preceding the deal made by President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) to cut $38.5 billion in federal spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, which runs through September.The debt was $14.2101 trillion on March 30, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and $14.2642 on April 7.

Since the beginning of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, 2010, the national debt has increase by $653.4 billion.

The next political battle will be when congress takes on raising the debt ceiling, which will be reached sometime in the middle of May. Two things you can bet on – the wailing & gnashing of teeth by the democrats and the spineless republicans caving in. They will raise it and the destructive spending will continue.

BOHICA!!

No one is serious about cutting the federal budget

This Friday is the deadline for congress to pass another continuing budget resolution to avoid a “shutdown” of the federal government (more here). The republicans are eager to impose budget “cuts” which the regime and the democrats characterize as “extreme” (more here). Of course this absurd political kabuki theater could have been avoided if the previous congress had done their job and passed a budget for 2011. Spineless republicans, who gained control of the House in the last election largely on the promise of fiscal responsibility, initially proposed $100B in spending cuts to the current budget and are now dialing back their proposal after being demonized by democrats and the state-run media. It appears that the magic number to reach a compromise is now around $33B. And just how significant is this figure? This story (from CATO) explains it:

Today the Cato Institute placed an ad in major newspapers highlighting specific spending cuts that policymakers should make to restore our country’s fiscal sanity and economic stability. Our public call for policymakers to demonstrate leadership on spending cuts comes in the midst of the on-going battle on Capitol Hill over funding the government for the remainder of fiscal 2011.

A graphic at the top of the ad measures the $61 billion in cuts that Republicans have proposed against fiscal 2011 estimates for total spending, the deficit, and interest on the debt. As the graphic shows and the ad notes, it is clear that “leaders and members of both parties are in deep denial about the fiscal emergency we face.”

There are news reports that Republican and Democrat negotiators are heading toward a compromise figure of $33 billion in spending cuts. Let’s put that figure in perspective alongside the GOP’s original proposal to cut a whopping $61 billion:

This is not serious

Record spending levels…trillion dollar plus deficits…mountainous debt…a weak economy…

What, Congress worry?

Kind of puts it into perspective, doesn’t it? And what about that government shutdown? Rep. Mike Pence (R-TX) sums it up nicely (more here):

“…if congress can’t cut $61 billion from the budget, the government should be shut down.”

Here’s a great idea: Shut it down. After all, it doesn’t shut down completely – just “non-essential” services. (Don’t you just love that phrase? If they’re non-essential, why do they exist in the first place?) People will still get their social security, medicare/medicaid, and welfare checks. Taxpayers will still pay their taxes. Better yet, lets give the entire government a 21 month vacation – just keep a skeleton crew in DC. Congress could meet with their constituents, campaign for the 2012 elections, schmooze with lobbyists, whatever; then come back and start fresh in 2013. Twenty one months free of government FAIL – imagine the savings to the taxpayer!

Leading advocate of obamacare – maybe NYC needs a waiver

Weener, Whiner, Whatever

Since Alan Grayson (more here and here) was landslided out of the House of Representatives, perennial runner-up Anthony Weiner (D-NY) has taken over the spot of Top Congressional Moonbat. (More on Weiner here, here, and here.) A passionate proponent of obamacare, Weiner could often be found on the House floor equating opponents of the massive government takeover of the health care system to Nazis, child killers, and the like. With the regime handing out over 1000 waivers to the obamacare boot-to-the-face (more here), it seems that Weiner now thinks that NYC would be better off without this hideous legislation he so passionately promoted (story here from the DC). Huh? WTF?

Rep. Anthony Weiner said Wednesday he was looking into how a health law waiver might work for New York City.

Weiner, who is likely to run for mayor of New York, said that because of the city’s special health care infrastructure, his office was looking into alternatives that might make more sense. Weiner is one of the health care law’s biggest supporters; during the debate leading up to reform, he was one of the last holdouts in Congress for the public option.

The congressman was trying to debunk Republican “myths” about the health care law during a speech at the Center for American Progress. He used the waivers as way to describe how flexible the law actually is and how “this notion that the government is shoving the bill down people’s throats” is not true.

“The administration needs to make this argument more forcefully,” he said. “A lot of people who got waivers were … people who are our friends.”

Oh, I see. Obamacare is wonderful for everyone else – just not you and your “friends.” The irony of this is just too delicious.

Senator “AirClaire” McCaskill – another congressional tax cheat

Being a member of congress is an important job – you’re “serving the public,” after all. In fact, this job is so important, so all-consuming, that it becomes easy to forget the little things – like paying taxes. Just ask Charlie Rangel or “Skipper” Kerry how difficult it is to comply with tax laws (they wrote) – especially when you spend so much effort to avoid them. So it comes as no surprise that yet another congress member has “forgotten” to pay her taxes. This time on a corporate jet owned by one of her husband’s companies. How much did she “forget” to pay? About $287,000 (story here).

In a conference call with reporters, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill just disclosed that she failed to pay $287,000 in property taxes related to her co-ownership of a private aircraft. This scandal comes quickly on the heels of recent revelations that McCaskill improperly billed taxpayers for use of the same private aircraft, for which McCaskill reimbursed the Treasury $88,000:

In a conference call Monday afternoon, McCaskill revealed that after her own review of the plane’s records, she had not paid personal property taxes on the aircraft over the past four years.

“I have discovered that the personal property taxes on the plane have not been paid.  There should have been a reporting to the county of the existence of this plane.   There are people I could blame for this, but I know better. I take full responsibility,” McCaskill said to reporters, after revealing she had conducted her own audit of all 89 flights she had taken.

“This was a mistake, It should have been reported in Missouri.  It will be paid in Missouri today,” she said.

McCaskill said she would be sending a check for $287,273 to St. Louis County Monday for the back taxes she owed between 2007 and 2010.

It was a mistake and she could have blamed others but she didn’t. OK Claire, but what about this little detail?

Claire McCaskill registered her plane in Delaware, where no taxes are imposed. Then she moved the plane to Illinois, where she avoided paying taxes before she moved it to Missouri, where she ignored paying her taxes.

Oh yeah, then there’s this minor irritation as well.

Last week, McCaskill reimbursed the Treasury Department more than $88,000 after POLITICO reported she had used taxpayer dollars from her Senate office account to pay for nearly 90 flights on a private charter plane co-owned by McCaskill, her husband and other investors.

The purpose of one of the trips billed to taxpayers – a roundtrip flight between St. Louis and Hannibal in 2007 – was purely political in nature, a violation of Senate ethics rules.

McCaskill said that trip was charged to her office only by “accident.” But the Missouri Republican Party pounced — filing a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee this week.

McCaskill, who now faces an even more treacherous path to reelection in 2012, said the complaint is plainly “more about politics than it is ethics at this point.”

Ah yes, it was an “accident” and now the whole thing is “more about politics.” Let’s see if I got this straight:

• Husband’s company buys & registers corporate jet in Delaware – no taxes owed.
• Senator McCaskill (D-MO) uses jet and bills taxpayers – not bad, get the taxpayers to pay you for use of your jet.
• Ooops – senator gets caught and reimburses taxpayers $88,000 for improper use of jet.
• Jet ultimately ends up in Missouri where taxes are due but are “forgotten.”
• Ooops – senator gets caught and reimburses taxpayers $287,000 in forgotten taxes.

Yeah, looks like it’s all politics to me. McCaskill is up for re-election in 2012. The citizens of Missouri deserve better than this.

Stop calling it Obamacare!

For over two years the massive government takeover of the health care industry, passed against the will of the people, has been known as “Obamacare.” Politicians, pundits, news media, bloggers – for and against, have used this term. After all, who wants to call it The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), when one word is sufficient? And wasn’t this massive, economy-killing boot-to-the-face a shining legislative victory for our dear comrade leader and the democrats? It should have an appropriate moniker.

According to this story (from The Hill), at least one democrat now believes that the term is somehow “divisive” and shouldn’t be used.

House Republicans and Democrats started Friday morning’s debate over whether to defund last year’s healthcare law, and as part of this debate sparred over whether members should be allowed to call that law “ObamaCare.”

After two House Republicans called it “ObamaCare,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) asked the chairman whether these “disparaging” remarks should be allowed on the House floor.

“That is a disparaging reference to the president of the United States; it is meant as a disparaging reference to the president of the United States, and it is clearly in violation of the House rules against that,” she said.

Because Wasserman Schultz only asked if it would be appropriate to curb the use of the term “ObamaCare,” the chairman said he would not rule on a hypothetical. But he did urge members to “refrain from engaging in personalities or descriptions about personalities in general.”

Hey Debbie, if this is such a good piece of legislation, how can it be disparaging to call it Obamacare? You would think the dear comrade would want his name attached  to it. And where have you been for the last two years while everyone has been calling it Obamacare?

The indirect warning had no effect on Republicans. Rep. Denny Rehberg (Mont.), who sponsored the amendment to defund the law, said he refers to it as ObamaCare and said, “You would think he wants his name attached to his signature legislation.

“So we call it what it is,” he continued. “It is ObamaCare. It’s a travesty. It is big government. It is not controlling healthcare costs, and it needs to be repealed and today we’re going to try to defund it to the best of our ability. And if we’re not successful this time, we’re going to try again and again and again until we either have a Senate that’s willing to pass it or a president that understands that we cannot do this to the American people.”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) followed Rehberg, and within minutes also called the law “ObamaCare.”

It is what it is…

Dear comrade to propose even more deficit spending

Imagine this scenario: You get a brilliant idea that you can beat the odds in Las Vegas. You mortgage your home to the hilt, empty your savings accounts and your kid’s piggybank and drop it all on a single roll of the roulette wheel. Naturally, you lose everything. So, what now? Well, being broke you don’t have a lot of options. But if you’re a bureaucrat and you’re playing with someone else’s money, the answer is simple – double down. That’s essentially what our dear comrade leader will be suggesting in his upcoming State Of The Union (SOTU) speech. Because he’s, you know, focused like a laser on the economy (story here from the WSJ).

President Barack Obama will call for new government spending on infrastructure, education and research in his State of the Union address Tuesday, sharpening his response to Republicans in Congress who are demanding deep budget cuts, people familiar with the speech said.

Mr. Obama will argue that the U.S., even while trying to reduce its budget deficit, must make targeted investments to foster job growth and boost U.S. competitiveness in the world economy. The new spending could include initiatives aimed at building the renewable-energy sector—which received billions of dollars in stimulus funding—and rebuilding roads to improve transportation, people familiar with the matter said. Money to restructure the No Child Left Behind law’s testing mandates and institute more competitive grants also could be included.

“Targeted investments.” Isn’t that what his mega-”stimulus” was supposed to do? It’s clear now that the “stimulus” only stimulated trillions of new debt and was a total FAIL. It’s clear that the government only created government jobs while killing private sector employment. The regime’s economic “geniuses” predicted that unemployment would be around 7% right now, yet it continues to hover around 9.5% – higher than they predicted it would be without “stimulus.” With the national debt breaching $14T there’s nothing left to spend.

It is also anticipated that the dear comrade will propose “significant” budget cuts. We’ll just have to wait for the details to see how serious he is about this. I have my doubts.

While proposing new spending, Mr. Obama also will lay out significant budget cuts elsewhere, people familiar with the plans say, though they will likely fall short of what Republican lawmakers have requested.

In arguing that U.S. competitiveness is at stake, Mr. Obama plans to use his nationally televised speech to try to frame the spending debate with Republicans that is expected to dominate Congress in the coming months. “We seek to do everything we can to spur hiring and ensure our nation can compete with anybody on the planet,” Mr. Obama said Friday after touring a General Electric Co. plant in Schenectady, N.Y. He cited clean-energy manufacturing, infrastructure and education as keys to competitiveness.

Previewing the expected theme of his speech, Mr. Obama on Friday appointed GE Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt to lead a new President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Commenting on the new advisory panel, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said that unless its “first recommendations are to reverse the damage the policies of the last two years have done to the business climate, job creation and the exploding national debt, I fear it will do more to create good public relations for the White House than good jobs for struggling Americans.”

Republicans are casting the White House’s pivot toward competitiveness as an excuse for bigger government and more spending. They say a surge in federal spending and a $1.3 trillion budget deficit are impeding job creation, and dramatic spending cuts are needed immediately.

While House republicans are calling for $100B in spending cuts this year, I hold no hope that they have the guts to do what really needs to be done. Cutting $100B from a $4T budget (with $1.3T in deficit spending) is not significant. That’s 2.5% – pretty much a rounding error. It’s like trying to use a band aid when you really need a tourniquet.

UPDATE: I found this post over at Powerline pretty interesting. The graphic clearly shows the effects of massive government “stimulus” on job growth.

Yet if there is one thing we know with an empirical certainty, it is that increasing federal spending will not, on balance, create more jobs. Of course, whenever the government spends money someone is employed, or, at least, gets to cash a check. This is what Obama had in mind when he said–in a moment of supreme cluelessness–”spending equals stimulus.” What Obama apparently does not understand is that government spending consumes resources, often inefficiently, that could better be used elsewhere. Whenever the government wastes resources, the country grows poorer and job growth is suppressed. This, in crude terms, is why the ballooning public expenditures of recent years have not caused a boom in the job market.

It is blindingly obvious that spending does not equal stimulus, and increasing federal spending will not create jobs. There are two possibilities here. One is that Obama is one of the last people in America who have not figured this out. The other is that Obama knows his proposals are dumb, from an economic standpoint, but doesn’t care. The one thing that more government spending will accomplish is to slide more money to Barack Obama’s cronies and to various constituencies of the Democratic Party. Maybe that is all Obama ever wanted.

Good points.

AZ shooting coverage accelerates state-run media death spiral

It is clear now that the shooting rampage in Tucson, in which 6 people were killed and 12 wounded, was the act of a deranged individual. As yet no one knows exactly why he did this and we may never know. Unfortunately the equally deranged left (media, pundits, and members of congress) have seized on this tragedy to blame just about everyone on the right, including: the TEA Party, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, talk radio, FOX News, and George Bush. As more details emerge, the atrocious coverage by the state-run media will only serve to accelerate their death spiral (story here from AmSpec).

The attempt by many left-wing pundits and bloggers to try and blame conservatives for the Tucson murder spree is nothing short of obscene. But it’s also a mistake, I think, to try and divine “meaning” out of what is essentially a senseless and meaningless act of horrific violence.

The great Robert Stacy McCain has it exactly right: “The killer, Jared Loughner, is crazy.” Period. End of story. The notion that Loughner was motivated by conservative political thought or rhetoric is ludicrous and preposterous.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, ludicrous and preposterous notions often have a widespread following, especially in the Big Media.

The good news is that the old media empire is dying and a new media is rapidly emerging.

The old media is epitomized by the New York Times and its disgraceful editorial about Tucson. The new media is epitomized by a host of innovative startup publications and outlets, including: AmSpec, The Other McCain, Fox News, FrumForum, The Daily Caller, and Pajamas Media. May this new and more promising media live long and prosper.

In the face of declining numbers, the left wing state-run media have driven their customers away by cranking up the vitriol against main stream America. As a recent poll demonstrates, it’s not working (more here). This shameless attempt to politicize a tragic event perpetrated by an apolitical nutcase only demonstrates how out of touch these leftists really are. It severely damages what little remaining credibility they had and will likely drive even more clear thinking Americans to alternate media sources. The demise of the state-run media cannot come soon enough.

In related news:

Socialist senator Bernie Sanders (VT) exploits AZ shooting in fund raising letter (story here).

Senator Bernie Sanders – the socialist Senator from Vermont who we’re supposed to pretend isn’t a socialist because the Democrats get upset about us bringing up the entire ’socialism’ thing – has decided that the best way to handle last weekend’s attempted assassination of a Congresswoman (and the murder of six people, including a nine-year-old girl) is to send out a fundraising letter blaming the whole thing on the right wing.

Given the recent tragedy in Arizona, as well as the start of the new Congress, I wanted to take this opportunity to share a few words with political friends in Vermont and throughout the country. I also want to thank the very many supporters who have begun contributing online to my 2012 reelection campaign at w ww.bernie.org…

[several paragraphs' worth of Left-pornography]

…??In light of all of this violence – both actual and threatened – is Arizona a state in which people who are not Republicans are able to participate freely and fully in the democratic process? Have right-wing reactionaries, through threats and acts of violence, intimidated people with different points of view from expressing their political positions?

Sales of Glock pistols skyrocket after AZ shooting (more here).

Greg Wolff, the owner of two Arizona gun shops, told his manager to get ready for a stampede of new customers after a Glock-wielding gunman killed six people at a Tucson shopping center on Jan. 8.

Wolff was right. Instead of hurting sales, the massacre had the $499 semi-automatic pistols — popular with police, sport shooters and gangsters — flying out the doors of his Glockmeister stores in Mesa and Phoenix.

“We’re at double our volume over what we usually do,” Wolff said two days after the shooting spree that also left 14 wounded, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who remains in critical condition.

A national debate over weaknesses in state and federal gun laws stirred by the shooting has stoked fears among gun buyers that stiffer restrictions may be coming from Congress, gun dealers say. The result is that a deadly demonstration of the weapon’s effectiveness has also fired up sales of handguns in Arizona and other states, according to federal law enforcement data.

“When something like this happens people get worried that the government is going to ban stuff,” Wolff said.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families…

US Debt hits $14T: regime economic advisor – We need MORE!

The accumulated US National Debt officially reached $14 TRILLION at the end of 2010 (US Debt Clock). Since October 1, 2007 the government has added $5T in debt. Let me repeat that. In a little over 3 years our government has added FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS to the national debt (story here).

The latest posting today of the National Debt shows it has topped $14 trillion for the first time.

The U.S. Treasury website today reported that as of last Friday, the last day of 2010, the National Debt stood at $14,025,215,218,708.52.

It took just 7 months for the National Debt to increase from $13 trillion on June 1, 2010 to $14 trillion on Dec. 31. It also means the debt is fast approaching the statutory ceiling $14.294 trillion set by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last February.

The federal government would have to stop borrowing and might even default on its obligations if Congress fails to increase the Debt Ceiling before the limit is reached.

Some Republicans in the new Congress have said they’ll seek to block an increase in the Debt Ceiling unless a plan is in place to significantly reduce federal spending and unfunded government liabilities on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

So how do you think the regime wants to handle this? By increasing the debt ceiling of course.

White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee warned yesterday that it would be “catastrophic” if the U.S. Government were to default on its financial obligations.

“That would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity,” said Goolsbee of plans to block an increase in the Debt Ceiling.

Did it ever occur to these “geniuses” that maybe we should stop spending what we don’t have? That this whole thing is f**king insanity? Uh, no. Will the new republican majority finally put the brakes on runaway government spending? I guesss we’ll see but I’m certainly not hopeful. (more here)

During the midterm campaign, Republicans assured voters that they would put an end to the free-spending ways of Barack Obama and the Democratic majority. Now that they have taken control of the House, that fiscal discipline will be put to the test sooner rather than later. Republicans have to draft a budget for the remainder of FY2011 after Democrats failed to do so with large majorities, and that will also mean taking into account the rapidly-approaching debt ceiling. Will Republicans allow more borrowing or hold their ground on demanding deep cuts in government spending instead?

There are two problems here, one short-term and one long-term.  The national debt will rise above the limit increased last year by Democrats at the end of their spending spree in short order, and the question of defaulting on debt service becomes real and could create a lot of economic damage.  However, increasing the debt limit essentially puts off the inevitable, and it also allows Congress to procrastinate on the only long-term solution, which is to cut spending.  Refusing to raise the debt limit would force the federal government to stop spending or create a default, but much of that spending occurs through entitlements — which means that the only real way to meet the current debt limit in the short term would be to severely cut non-entitlement areas, which would probably require significant cuts at the Pentagon.

Look for congress to continue to kick the can down the road on this. They simply don’t have the guts to do what really needs to be done.

Corruptocrat Rangel creates legal defense fund – Wait, WHAT?

After getting his wrist slapped for years of corrupt behavior that would have sent the average person to prison, corruptocrat Charlie Rangel (D-NY) was given permission by the House Ethics Committee (oxymoron alert) to create a legal “defense” fund. Huh? WTF? Shouldn’t he have done this a couple of years ago when the investigations started? (story here)

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has created a legal defense fund to help pay attorneys’ fees following a lengthy ethics investigation that ended with his censure on the House floor.

The 20-term lawmaker has been given permission by the House ethics committee to create the Charles B. Rangel Legal Defense Trust, which is soliciting donations of up to $5,000. Rangel press secretary Hannah Kim confirmed the creation of the fund, first reported by the website Politics Daily.

Not only does he still owe legal fees for his corruption defense, but it appears that there are new investigations into his nefarious behavior. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is now investigating new charges against the 20 term corruptocrat.

In a statement, Rangel said the fund will help him “retain counsel for on-going activities related to the recently-concluded ethics investigations and other on-going matters” and to combat new charges brought before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by a conservative nonprofit group.
The FEC earlier this month opened a probe into allegations by the National Legal and Policy Center that the former Ways and Means Committee chairman improperly used funds from his National Leadership PAC to pay for his legal counsel in his ethics case.

“The repeated filings of allegations, no matter how unsubstantiated, by the National Legal Policy Committee, a politically-motivated right wing group dedicated to eviscerating civil rights and labor union protections, have led me to this action,” Rangel said in the statement.

Hmmm – “…right wing group dedicated to eviscerating civil rights and labor union protections…” Labor union protections? What the hell does that have to do with this? Probably a shout out to his union buddies for some “cash for the cause” I guess.

The fund is permitted to accept corporate donations, but may not accept money from federally registered lobbyists, Politics Daily reported. Former New York State Comptroller H. Carl McCall will serve as trustee of the fund.

“All contributions to the trust will be reported as required on a quarterly basis with the committee as well as the Legislative Resource Center for public disclosure,” Rangel said.

Yeah, probably like his public disclosures of 17 years of unpaid taxes and his use of 4 rent-controlled apartments.

“I am confident any continuing or subsequent investigations will find a similar lack of any intent to violate any rules or any actions designed in any way to personally benefit me or my family,” Rangel said.

Poor Charlie. He didn’t intend to violate any rules or enrich himself and his family. It just worked out that way.

Douchebag…

111th congress added more debt than first 100 congresses combined

On January 3rd the 111th congress will officially become history. The Wicked Witch of the West will cede the Speaker’s gavel to John Boehner and a republican majority will take control of the House of Representatives. According to this article, the 111th congress wasn’t exactly frugal – it added more new debt than the first 100 congresses combined.

The federal government has accumulated more new debt–$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census.

The total national debt of $13,858,529,371,601.09 (or $13.859 trillion), as recorded by the U.S. Treasury at the close of business on Dec. 22, now equals $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

In fact, the 111th Congress not only has set the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history, but also has out-stripped its nearest competitor, the 110th, by an astounding $1.262 trillion in new debt.

During the 110th Congress—which, according to the Clerk of the House, officially convened on Jan. 4, 2007 and adjourned on Jan. 4, 2009–the national debt increased $1.957 trillion. When that Congress adjourned less than two years ago, it claimed the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history. As it turned out, however, its record did not last long.

The $3.22 trillion in new federal debt run up during the 111th Congress exceeds by 64 percent the $1.957 trillion in new debt run up during the 110th.

Historically, according to the U.S. Treasury, the federal debt did not reach $3.22 trillion until September 1990, during the 101st Congress. Between the first Congress, which adjourned in 1791 leaving behind approximately $75 million in debt, and the convening of the 101st Congress, which occurred on Jan. 3, 1989, the national debt grew to $2.684 trillion.

During the Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) tenure as speaker, which commenced on Jan. 4, 2007, the federal government has run up $5.177 trillion in new debt. That is about equal to the total debt the federal government accumulated in the first 120 years of the nation’s existence, with the federal debt rising from $5.173 trillion on July 24, 1996 to $5.181 trillion on July 24, 1996.

In her inaugural address as speaker, Pelosi vowed that Congress would engage in no new deficit spending.

Not only did this hideous congress spend us deeper into the poorhouse, but they were responsible for some of the worst legislation ever foisted upon the beleaguered citizenry. Here are just some of the more devastating:

• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – $860B “stimulus” spendapalooza
• Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 – $410B more “stimulus” and pork spending
• Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act or Serve America Act – Huge expansion of AmeriCorps program
• Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 – Failed mortgage modification program
• Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) – Cash for Clunkers FAIL
• Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 – PayGo rules which were never followed
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – Economy crushing obamacare
• Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act – creates dozens of new bureaucracies for government control of the economy. The actual regulation has yet to be formalized.
• Healthy, Hunger Free-Kids Act of 2010 – Food police authorization.

They also extended unemployment benefits at least 3 times (to 99 weeks) which has caused 41 states to borrow billions to cover their unemployment obligations. All this “work” and they couldn’t even pass a budget (more here).

And while the state-run media tries to spin this as a good thing (example here), public approval of this congress sunk to historically low levels (more here).

All I can say is good riddance…

Senator writes letter to Santa – about global warming (BLECH)

Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who survived a recall effort earlier this year, is a serial moron (previous posts here and here). He has also captured the special Christmas Moron of the Week with this letter to Santa (story here from HuffPo).

Dear Santa Claus,

I am writing out of concern, because you may have to move from the North Pole due to the dramatic melting of Arctic sea ice. The Navy’s chief oceanographer says that by the summer of 2020 the North Pole may not have summer ice and other scientists project that an ice-free Arctic is possible as soon as 2012!

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that polar ice is melting because of greenhouse gas pollution and I am working hard to reduce these emissions. But there is probably nothing we can do in time to save the North Pole. I am worried about your safety and your ability to deliver billions of Christmas gifts if the ice cap on the North Pole no longer stays frozen all year. What will happen to your house, your workshop, the elves’ houses and your reindeer barns?

I want you to know that if you want to relocate to the beautiful state of New Jersey, I would be proud to assist you. But given the climate you are accustomed to, I will understand if you would like to relocate to the South Pole. Just be sure not to move to the Antarctic Peninsula or West Antarctic ice sheet, areas that are also experiencing rapid ice melt.

Please know that I will work to mobilize the U.S. federal government to assist when you relocate. I am sure we can both agree that on a warming planet, we need to do all we can to save Christmas.

Sincerely,
Robert Menendez
U.S. Senator

I guess this dope didn’t get the most recent memo about the coming of a Mini Ice Age (more here). He also hasn’t been paying attention to recent news in Europe where they’re experiencing a second winter in a row of deadly cold and snow (more here). Since he’s a democrat, I’m thinking that his motivations for Santa moving to the US lie elsewhere. Like this:

• Corporate taxes on Santa’s workshop
• NJ state taxes on Santa’s workshop
• Demands to unionize his elfin workforce
• Regulation by the EPA for carbon emissions
• Regulation by the FDA for making unsafe toys (with small toxic parts)
• Regulation by the Labor Department for discriminatory hiring (elves only)
• Regulation by the Labor Department for minimum wage violations
• Regulation by the Labor Department for possible OSHA violations
• Health insurance mandates for obamacare
• Regulation by the Agriculture Department for maintaining a reindeer herd

I think Santa would be wise to stay right where he is. UGH…

Our temporary tax code

If there is one thing that is killing the economic recovery, it is the uncertainty of what is going to come from government. Businesses are sitting on upwards of $2T that could be used to invest in jobs and expansion. They’re not investing because they don’t know what bullshit tax and regulatory policy is coming next that could have a negative impact on their bottom line. According to this article (from the WSJ), a huge part of that uncertainty is caused by our temporary tax code.

Welcome to the world of the temporary tax code.

In the late 1990s, there were typically fewer than a dozen tax provisions that had just a limited lease on life and needed to be renewed every year or so.

Today there are 141.

Now Congress, taking up a deal worked out between the Obama administration and Republican leaders, is poised to turn the whole personal income-tax system into something of a temporary structure. The plan embraces a broad range of provisions—an extension of Bush-era rates, a new estate-tax formula—but for only two years. A payroll-tax cut in the bill is for a single year.

This means that if the compromise passes largely intact, the U.S. will have no permanent regime governing levies on salaries, capital gains and dividends, the Social Security tax, as well as a slew of targeted breaks for families, students and other groups. This on top of dozens of corporate-tax provisions that already were subject to annual renewal.

The level of uncertainty, unusual for developed nations, complicates planning and discourages hiring and investment, many economists and corporate executives say.

This uncertainty hits hardest in the worst of all places – small businesses, which generate the bulk of employment.

Small business is often looked to as a source of job growth. But the latest monthly survey by the National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business advocacy group, found that 75% of owners felt it wasn’t a good time to expand, and one in five said the main reason was doubt about policy environment, including taxes.

For smaller companies, tax uncertainty could be an incentive to expand overseas rather than in the U.S., according to Tom Duesterberg, president of the Manufacturers Alliance, a group representing medium-size firms. Companies “can’t wait until all these [tax] questions are resolved,” he says. “They are not going to wait until all that definitively happens. They have to deploy cash, please their shareholders and expand and grow.”

Probably the biggest impact has been with the Estate Tax (Death Tax). There was no Estate Tax in 2010 but that will very likely change as congress ponders several options.

Perhaps nowhere has tax uncertainty been felt more intensely this year than in the estate tax, always a controversial matter.

A 2001 law lowered its rate and increased the exemption in steps, with the tax lapsing in 2010 and then, unless Congress acts, returning in 2011 at a 55% top rate on estates of $1 million or more. The unusual hiatus coupled with a far more costly tax as soon as 2010 ended gave “just an unbelievable Alice-in-Wonderland aspect” to planning for certain well-to-do families, says Bruce Stone, a Miami-area estate lawyer.

Sales of a life-insurance policy commonly used for estate planning rose 22% in the first nine months from a year earlier, and their death-benefit coverage was up 30%. Though the policies can also be used for other purposes, part of the jump seemed clearly to be for hedging against the possible estate-tax jump in 2011.

In a few cases, the uncertainty drove people to ponder extreme measures to avoid a tax hit for heirs.

David Drouhard, a Washington-state farmer who is 56, received a diagnosis of advanced kidney cancer 14 months ago and faced a grim set of treatment choices. Most offered little chance of extending his life more than 18 months, although an immunity-boosting drug held out some hope. Mr. Drouhard says he worried that inaction on the estate tax would force his family to sell his wheat and alfalfa farm, now worth about $3 million, to pay taxes if he died in 2011.

After much deliberation, Mr. Drouhard decided to take the immunity-boosting drug, but with a caveat: “I said, ‘If we don’t see results from the first series [of treatments], I’m going to stop,”‘ he says. “I try to take care of my family, so why not go ahead and die instead of living another six months.” He has responded well to the treatment, but adds: “I think it’s wrong that you have to make that kind of decision.”

The compromise Congress is weighing this week would set a top estate-tax rate at 35% and the exemption at $5 million.

But this would be for just two years. Just as this year, a failure by Congress to act then would cause the tax to then revert to a top 55% rate and $1 million exemption, in this case in 2013.

Revamping the tax code should be job one for the coming congress and the regime. We’ll see if they’re really serious about economic recovery or just paying lip service to it. We should hold their feet to the fire.

Congress job approval rating in the toilet

A recent Gallup poll found that 13% of the public thinks that congress is doing a good job. I’m surprised that it’s that high – they must have oversampled inside the Beltway (story here).

Americans’ assessment of Congress has hit a new low, with 13% saying they approve of the way Congress is handling its job. The 83% disapproval rating is also the worst Gallup has measured in more than 30 years of tracking congressional job performance.

The prior low approval rating for Congress was 14% in July 2008 when the United States was dealing with record-high gas prices and the economy was in recession.

The current results are based on a Dec. 10-12 Gallup poll, conducted as Congress is finishing work on an important lame-duck session. The session has been highlighted by the agreement on taxes forged last week by President Obama and Republicans in Congress. The tax deal preserves the 2001 and 2003 income tax rates for all Americans for two years, revises the estate tax, extends unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed for a year, and reduces payroll taxes for American workers. It is expected to pass despite vocal opposition from some lawmakers.

Surprised?

Extending unemployment biggest boost to economy? Really?

With the failure of the “stimulus” package and unemployment hovering near 10% for almost 16 months, congressional democrats, statist pundits and our dear comrade leader are changing their message. According to Joe “Smartass” Biden the “stimulus” has worked but the regime just hasn’t been able to convince us stupid Americans of this. Now with the biggest tax increase in history on the horizon (if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire), the regime has cut a deal with congressional republicans to extend the tax rates for 2 years in exchange for a one year extension of unemployment benefits (more here).

To overcome the opposition of fiscal hawks to adding another $56B to the deficit, the regime has taken a new position – unemployment is actually a boost to the economy (story here from the American Thinker).Wait, WHAT?? So does this mean that we need more unemployment to recover the economy? Really?

President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Rachel Maddow, various economists dependent on government funding, and other die-hard Keynesians all proclaim that unemployment-compensation payments promote economic growth. Just yesterday, President Obama told Tampa station WFLA:

“It’s probably the biggest boost that we can give an economy because those folks are most likely to spend the money with businesses, and that gives them customers.”

In July, Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) said of this measure:

“It injects demand into the economy, and is job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name…”

Earlier this month, she repeated this mantra adding that unemployment benefits help “reduce the deficit” and that “history shows” tax cuts do not create jobs.

It is no wonder these ‘friendly fascists’ ardently defend these expenditures to the extent they do, considering that the number of unemployment-check recipients has quadrupled since Rep. Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker of the House. And since that date — January 4, 2007 — the unemployment rate has more than doubled and our national debt has ballooned by 59.6%.

Unemployment compensation falls in the realm of government-administered anti-poverty programs. While most people generally support the idea of this “safety net”, the details — how it’s funded, who qualifies, for how long, for how much, and other terms — are points of difference. Unemployment benefits are transfer payments, where government takes from A and gives to B. Transfer payments, whether constitutional or not, are a cornerstone of Obamanomics and currently comprise over two-thirds of all federal outlays.

In touting the macroeconomic benefits of unemployment compensation payments, Obama, Pelosi, et al. display ignorance regarding — or, at least, discount the importance of — production, the process of converting factors of production (inputs) into goods and services (outputs). Instead, their focus is misplaced on consumption and finding ways to increase our desire to consume. They act (and legislate) as if employment has no connection to production.

Just a reminder: these economic idiots have never held a real job in their entire lives. They have never run a business or managed a payroll. To think that government taking from working people and giving to non-working people is somehow an economic stimulus is not only specious, but downright dangerous.

Fundamentally, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and their ilk fail to understand wealth and how it is created. Our well-being depends on wealth. Wealth, as Mr. Tamny wrote, “results from the matching of good ideas and hard work with capital.” Capital comes from savings. Savings come from delayed consumption. The more government extracts from the private sector, the less we have to save, invest, spend, or donate. And, not incidentally, improvident spenders are more likely than penny pinchers to end up on the government dole. Redistribution of wealth via transfer payments, per Mr. Tamny, “fosters no new production, and with that, no subsequent demand.”

The policies to promote maximization of production are no mystery. It’s pretty straight-forward, really, if this government would quit meddling in markets and bashing business and focus instead on essential services, the safeguarding of production and private property being among them. On this, Peter Ferrara at American Spectator recently wrote:

“What actually drives economic recovery and growth is increased production, which results from increased incentives to produce, and reduced costs burdening production. That involves reduced tax rates, which allow producers to keep a higher percentage of what they produce. It also involves reduced regulatory costs and reduced costs of government spending…But Obama refuses to consider any of this because it involves reducing rather than expanding the power of government, and he is rigidly opposed to that ideologically… This doesn’t mean we should not extend unemployment benefits. It just shows that Obama and the Democrats have no understanding of how to promote economic growth and recovery.”

On one of Mr. Ferrara’s excellent points above, tax rates, it should be noted that the U.S. imposes “the second-highest overall corporate rate among industrialized countries.” Lowering taxes rates-permanently, not temporarily–on American businesses and income earners (read: wealth producers) would be a good place to start down the road to higher production and employment.

Left unmentioned in the article is the disastrous impact of extending unemployment benefits on state budgets (more here and here).

Powerful democrats help Chinese get “stimulus” money

Just in case you thought that the $814B “stimulus” was supposed to help the US economy and “save or create” (fund, lives touched, whatever) US jobs, here’s an article that might leave you scratching your head. While the content of the article is not terribly surprising (you know, sweetheart deals for companies and lobbyists who threw cash at congress and our dear leader), the source and negativity of it certainly are. It’s from MSNBC – a member in good standing of the regime’s Propaganda Ministry.

Top Democratic fundraisers and lobbyists with links to the White House are behind a proposed wind farm in Texas that stands to get $450 million in stimulus money, even though a Chinese company would operate the farm and its turbines would be built in China.The farm’s backers also have close ties with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who, at the height of his hard-fought re-election bid this fall, helped blunt congressional criticism over stimulus dollars possibly going to create jobs in China by endorsing a proposal by the Chinese company to build a factory in his home state. Although his campaign received thousands of dollars in donations from the wind farm’s backers and Reid stood on stage with them at a campaign event they hosted, his office declined to answer any questions about the wind farm’s organizers or their plans for Nevada.

It is being planned by an unusual joint partnership between the U.S. Renewable Energy Group, a Dallas investment firm with strong ties to Washington and the Democratic Party, and A-Power Energy Generation Systems, an upstart Chinese supplier of wind turbines. Filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicate the Chinese are bringing financing and the turbines.

What the Americans are supplying is the local know-how and political clout in Washington, where decisions on how to distribute billions in loan guarantees, stimulus grants and financial incentives are made.

So the “stimulus” money for the US part of the deal is going to lobbyists, power brokers, Harry Reid and government apparatchiks. Yeah, that will certainly stimulate the economy.

The investment group’s public face is often Cappy McGarr, a wealthy Texas philanthropist, investor and longtime fixture in Democratic politics, who has given heavily to Democratic candidates across the country and was an early backer of President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Joining McGarr in Dallas is Ed Cunningham, a former executive for several large Western entertainment companies in China, a 2002 Democratic senatorial candidate and a former member of Obama’s national finance committee.

Two registered lobbyists with a long history of involvement in Democratic politics, G. John O’Hanlon and Moses Boyd, are the group’s anchors in Washington. O’Hanlon has been a party operative since the 1980s — a protégé of Democratic heavyweight Terry McAuliffe — and has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic causes. Boyd is a former senior Democratic Capitol Hill staffer turned lobbyist.

McGarr married into Democratic Party royalty — his wife’s uncle is legendary Democratic power broker Robert Strauss — and has made his own name as a big-time donor to the party and candidates across the country. McGarr and his wife, Janie Strauss McGarr, have given more than $375,000 to various Democratic candidates and political action committees since 2006, according to Federal Election Commission records. That doesn’t include the $50,000 he donated to Obama’s inauguration and $50,000 to $100,000 in donations from others that he “bundled” for the Obama campaign.

All told, these four and their spouses have given more than $1.8 million in campaign donations since 1990, with McGarr and his wife accounting for more than half of that.

“That would place them among the top 100 donors of hard money overall,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent research group that tracks campaign finance and how it affects elections and public policy.

The important question, however, is not how much they have given, Krumholz said, but “What does this buy them with each individual target of their largesse?”

Indeed. And in this case, the power brokers, U.S. Renewable Energy Group, will pick up a $245M “developer fee” – from “stimulus” money, not the Chinese. They invest little or no money of their own, grease a few palms in Washington, call in a few chits, and voila – $245M. Sweeeeeeet!

Looks like the Chinese have figured out how to do business in America. Find the right people, spread a little wealth, and grab some taxpayer money to fund a “green” business on US soil.

No more loud commercials – congress passes CALMA

It’s good to see that this hideous lame duck congress is really serious about the economy and other important issues of the day. You mean, like working on avoiding the largest tax hike in history by extending (or making permanent) the Bush tax cuts? Sadly, no (more here). But they are deeply concerned about your hearing. I mean, isn’t everybody sick and tired of those blaring commercials that make you dive for the remote during your favorite program? Well, congress has a cure for that (story here from the Hill).

The House by voice vote Thursday passed a bill sponsored by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) that would lower the volume of television commercials, sending it to President Obama’s desk for his signature.

The Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act would authorize the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the volume of advertisements to ensure they aren’t noticeably louder than the programs they interrupt, a problem that has annoyed consumers for decades. The bill passed the Senate in September and has been endorsed by Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.

“TV programs use a variety of sound levels to build dramatic effect. But advertisements have been neither subtle nor nuanced,” Eshoo said. “My bill reduces commercial volume, allowing them to only be as loud as the decibel level of regular programming. Consumers will no longer have to experience being blasted at. It’s a simple fix to a huge nuisance.”

The bill requires the FCC to develop regulations within one year that would comply with international standards for digital television while limiting the volume of TV ads. Broadcast stations, cable distributors and other video content providers who demonstrate the new rules would pose a hardship will be able to apply for a waiver to avoid the regulations.

“Most Americans experience the frustration of abrasively loud television commercials, with advertisers grabbing for our attention through this intrusive practice,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who sponsored the bill in the Senate. “While this is far from the biggest issue we face, it will mean one less daily annoyance in our lives.”

Up next for these Nanny Staters: too hot coffee, hot dog buns (that come in packages of 8 while hot dogs are 10 to a package), and cold french fries. I can’t wait for somebody to do something about those daily annoyances.

SHEEESH!

Defiant Charlie Rangel censured – BFD

Poor Charlie. After “suffering” through a 2 year “investigation” by the oxymoronically-named House Ethics Committee, he was found guilty on 11 of 13 charges ranging from tax evasion to failure to disclose financial assets on House disclosure reports. After a 333-79 vote for censure, outgoing speaker Nancy Pelosi quickly read through the “you’ve been a bad boy, Charlie” censure resolution. While most inside-the-beltway denizens seem to think this was devastating for poor Charlie, the rest of us know that this amounted to nothing more than a wrist slap (story here from ABC News).

Veteran Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., today became the first U.S. House member in 27 years to be censured after a long trial that resulted in him being convicted on 11 counts of ethics violations.

The censure, the highest punishment short of expulsion, is reserved for serious offenses and requires the member in question to stand before his or her colleagues while a censure resolution is read.

An amendment reducing the punishment to reprimand prior to the final vote failed overwhelmingly.

After the wrist slapping a defiant Rangel “apologized,” then proceeded to claim that he wasn’t corrupt and that the whole process was unfair and “very political.” His buddies in the House chamber gave him a standing ovation. Poor Charlie – he took it like a man.

Not satisfied with his performance on the House floor, Rangel proceeded to lash out during a press conference immediately following (story here from the Washington Post).

The disgraced lawmaker, defiant even in his moment of shame, scolded his accusers for treating him worse than “those that in the past have done far more harm to the reputation of this body than I.”

Rangel then went downstairs to offer more defiance at a news conference. “I leave here knowing that everyone knows I’m an honest guy,” he proclaimed, accusing his colleagues of a “very, very, very political vote.” The freshly censured legislator even offered a suggestion for newspaper headlines: “Rangel found not guilty of corruption and self dealing.”

Rangel, who will probably tap his leftover campaign funds to pay for 17 years of tax avoidance, is not the biggest loser in this sordid tale. No, the biggest loser is the House of Representatives itself and the rest of congress. With a reputation that hovers just below that of used car salesmen, this affair only reinforces the general opinion that congress is a swamp full of corruptocrats. Don’t expect them to do anything to change this anytime soon. It sure would be nice to see old Charlie in a tar & feather suit, though.

Meanwhile out in Texas, a judge just sentenced a phone prankster to 5 years in the big house. That’s right, a phucking phone prankster. (story here)

BOHICA – Here comes housing bubble Part 2

By now it’s pretty clear that the collapse of the housing bubble, created by foolish government policy, was largely responsible for the economic disaster we’re in. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed spectacularly after gorging on toxic loans which may ultimately put taxpayers on the hook for up to $1T. While they continue to suck up more taxpayer bailouts (more here and here) for their worthless portfolios, the government has not addressed the core issue of promoting home ownership for all (more here).

With Fannie & Freddie already overstuffed with bad paper, one would think that there just isn’t room to continue this horrendous home ownership for all nightmare. But we’re talking about the federal government here – there’s always room for more FAIL. According to this article (from the American), the government has been playing hide the salami behind the scenes by getting the FHA to pick up where Fannie & Freddie left off. BOHICA!

It is hard to believe, but it looks like the government will soon use the taxpayers’ checkbook again to create a vast market for mortgages with low or no down payments and for overstretched borrowers with blemished credit. As in the period leading to the 2008 financial crisis, these loans will again contribute to a housing bubble, which will feed on government funding and grow to enormous size. When it collapses, housing prices will drop and a financial crisis will ensue. And, once again, the taxpayers will have to bear the costs.

In doing this, Congress is repeating the same policy mistake it made in 1992. Back then, it mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac compete with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) for high-risk loans. Unhappily for both their shareholders and the taxpayers, Fannie and Freddie won that battle.

Now the Dodd-Frank Act, which imposed far-reaching new regulation on the financial system after the meltdown, allows the administration to substitute the FHA for Fannie and Freddie as the principal and essentially unlimited buyer of low-quality home mortgages. There is little doubt what will happen then.

Since the federal takeover of Fannie and Freddie in 2008, the government-sponsored enterprises’ (GSEs’) regulator has limited their purchases to higher-quality mortgages. Affordable housing requirements Congress adopted in 1992 and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administered until 2008 have been relaxed. These had required Fannie and Freddie to buy the low-quality mortgages that ultimately drove them into insolvency and will cause enormous losses for the taxpayers.

The latest regulatory change does not reduce the total losses that taxpayers will suffer from HUD’s policies; those losses, estimated at about $400 billion, are baked in the cake. But the higher lending standards now required of Fannie and Freddie should reduce future losses.

Not so for the FHA. While everyone has been watching Fannie and Freddie, the administration has quietly shifted most federal high-risk mortgage initiatives to FHA, the government’s original subprime lender. Along with two other federal agencies, FHA now accounts for about 60 percent of all U.S. home purchase mortgage originations. This amounts to more than $1 trillion and is rising rapidly. The administration justifies this policy by saying it is necessary to support the mortgage market, yet borrowers are once again receiving high-risk loans.

OK, so I guess there were no lessons learned from the first housing bubble. Let’s just continue these idiotic lending policies and see if we can achieve a catastrophic FAIL. Perhaps a total collapse of the US economy. Thanks to the Dodd-Frank fiscal irresponsibility bill (more here, here and here), this is a distinct possibility.

The Dodd-Frank Act, however, exempts FHA and other government agencies from appropriate standards on mortgage quality. This will give low-quality mortgages a direct route into the market once again; it will be like putting Fannie and Freddie back in the same business, but with an explicit government guarantee.

For example, thanks to expanded government lending, 60 percent of home purchase loans now have down payments of less than 5 percent, compared to 40 percent at the height of the bubble, and the FHA projects that it will increase its insured loans total to $1.34 trillion by 2013. Indeed, the FHA just announced its intention to push almost half of its home purchase volume into subprime territory by 2014-2017, essentially a guarantee to put taxpayers at risk again.

We simply cannot afford more FAIL like this.

Clueless congressman wants to extend unemployment for another year

The unemployment extension (to 99 weeks) mandated by congress is about to run out. With time running short during the lame duck session, at least one clueless congressman is proposing to extend unemployment benefits yet again – this time for a whole bloody year. Of course, there’s no mention of how to actually pay for it (according to PayGo rules) so it simply piles onto the already unsustainable deficit. BOHICA! (story here from The Hill)

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) introduced legislation Monday night that would provide long-term unemployed workers with benefits through the end of next year, with the program expected to lapse Tuesday.

Baucus told The Hill Monday night he wants to move quickly on the measure and “will try every way I can to get this passed.”

Whether the bill is pushed through as a stand-alone or as part of a larger tax or other legislative package, the federal program that provides jobless benefits for those whose 26 weeks of state benefits have ended, up to 99 weeks in states with the highest levels of unemployment, will expire Tuesday, affecting 800,000 by the end of next week and 2 million by the end of December.

The bill, which isn’t paid for, is estimated to cost about $56.4 billion, slightly below other estimates of between $60 billion and $65 billion, or about $5 billion a month. The Baucus bill would cost about $4.33 billion per month.

Baucus isn’t the only brain-dead senator as there are at least 27 more who are pushing for this. No doubt there will be some squishy RINOs who will go along with this too.

Earlier Monday, 27 Senate Democrats called for a one-year extension of the program in a letter Monday to Baucus and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

“As our nation continues to battle high unemployment rates, we must act immediately to continue vital safety net coverage for those most in need,” the letter said.

Safety net indeed. This will stimulate nothing – it will only prolong the agony and add to the stunning deficit run up by this hideous congress. It will also add to state deficits as they are responsible for unemployment benefits as well (more here and here).

Again, trying to address a spending problem with more spending. If you really want to address this mess, you need to actually stimulate the economy. Here’s DaMook’s 6 point plan for the economy:

1. Roll back federal spending and employment to 2008 levels. Freeze it there for 3 years.
2. Repeal obamacare.
3. Repeal Dodd/Frank financial regulation.
4. Extend the Bush tax cuts at all levels – permanently.
5. Roll back EPA and other government lunacy regulation to pre-2008 policies.
6. After all of that is done, send congress home for a 1 year vacation and declare a 1 year moratorium on federal regulation.

Then we can start talking about shrinking the federal leviathan.

Senator “skipper” celebrates himself

December 13th – be there or be square! Senator John “Skipper” Kerry (D-MA) is planning a big celebration – of himself. Kerry, who was recently caught cheating his home state out of about $500K in taxes (story here), has rented the Boston Symphony for a combination celebration and campaign fundraiser. (story here from the Boston Herald)

Battle-weary Bay State Democrats are getting squeezed by U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry this Christmas, as the nation’s richest senator puts the arm on cash-strapped party donors to fill his campaign war chest — even though he’s not up for re-election for another four years.

“I think people feel very tapped-out,” said Phil Johnston, former Massachusetts Democratic Party chairman, who is helping to organize Kerry’s Dec. 13 gala. Johnston, who said he is seeing steady ticket sales, still expects a full house.

“It’s a mea- sure of John Kerry’s strength among Democrats that this event should be hugely successful,” he said.

The state’s senior senator — recently ranked the nation’s richest with $2.7 million in his campaign coffers and an estimated net worth of $239 million — is asking fellow Democrats to open their wallets yet again after they dug deep during a hard-fought election year. His extravaganza at the Boston Symphony — where tickets range from $75 to $4,800 — could be a tough sell as the party’s rank-and-file struggles through another Christmas in a tough economy.

“For Democrats, there’s a bit of fatigue — people have been giving aggressively,” said Democratic consultant Scott M. Ferson, president of the Liberty Square Group. “But we need John Kerry now more than ever. He’s one of the few (Massachusetts) Democrats left in a leadership position.”

Jeez, I wish I would have known sooner. I would have loved to go but I’m getting my nails done on the 13th. Drat!

Boston University pol-itical professor Thomas Whalen said the extravagant blowout — meant to celebrate Kerry’s 25 years in the Senate and 45 years of public service — could be a turnoff to struggling Bay Staters.

“The symbolism really works against him, which is typical of Kerry,” Whalen said. “It doesn’t exactly portray him as a man of the people. He could inadvertently tick off a lot of supporters given that a lot of people are going through a tough time.”

I guess I’ll just have to send a card to thank him for his 45 years of “public service.” Oh yeah, did I mention that he served in Vietnam too?

UGH…

Great idea: make congress part time

Every once in a while a politician actually has a great idea. It’s extremely rare but it does happen and here’s the proof:

Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal wants members of Congress to stay home more often.

“We used to pay farmers not to grow crops, let’s pay congressmen to stay out of Washington, D.C.,” Jindal said in an interview with Human Events. “Mark Twain said that our liberty, our wallets were safest when the legislature’s not in session.”

Jindal, himself a former congressman, said once elected, many lawmakers become entrenched in Washington and become the very people they once campaigned against.

“Make them part-time, give them term limits,” Jindal said. “Don’t let them become lobbyists. When they have to live under the same rules and laws they pass for the rest of us, maybe you’d see some more common sense coming out of Washington, D.C.”

As the system works today, he said, “you’ve got a permanent governing political class.”

Not sure about the “more common sense” part but they sure could do a lot less damage by staying out of Washington. Don’t look for this to happen anytime soon, however.

Inconvenient Truth: algore admits “Maybe that ethanol subsidy thing wasn’t such a great idea”

As Vice President, he cast the deciding vote in the senate on the first bill to authorize government subsidies for (corn based) ethanol production. The self-anointed Moses of the “green” movement claimed it would reduce greenhouse emissions and be good for farmers. Unfortunately neither of these claims have proven to be true and the taxpayers have been bent over in yet another enviro-boondoggle. Here’s what Slate magazine had to say about federal ethanol policy in 2005 (more here):

But the ethanol critics have shown that the industry calculations are bogus. David Pimentel, a professor of ecology at Cornell University who has been studying grain alcohol for 20 years, and Tad Patzek, an engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, co-wrote a recent report that estimates that making ethanol from corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel itself actually contains.

The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production—from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant—and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. But making that gallon of gas—from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining—requires around 22,000 BTUs.

In addition to their findings on corn, they determined that making ethanol from switch grass requires 50 percent more fossil energy than the ethanol yields, wood biomass 57 percent more, and sunflowers 118 percent more. The best yield comes from soybeans, but they, too, are a net loser, requiring 27 percent more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced. In other words, more ethanol production will increase America’s total energy consumption, not decrease it.

Now it appears that enviro-hypocrite algore has had a change of heart on ethanol subsidies – they are not such a great idea after all. He further admits that his support had more to do with politics than the environment (story here from the Daily Caller).

Former Vice President Al Gore has reversed his support of corn-ethanol subsidies. He even went one step further by admitting his original endorsement of them was nothing more than political pandering. Or at least, that’s what he told a green energy conference sponsored by the Marfin Popular Bank in Europe.

In a display of unexpected candor, Gore told the audience, “It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol…First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at the best very small.”

He continued: “One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”

Now, Gore is citing that as his reason for his complete reversal on ethanol. “The size, the percentage of corn particularly, which is now being [used for] first generation ethanol definitely has an impact on food prices,” said Gore. “The competition with food prices is real.”

This man continually proves that he is a sham and a phony on the environment. He wants you to walk or bicycle to work while he rides around in a limousine and SUVs. He tells you to reduce your carbon footprint while his mansions and private jets spew more carbon than a small city – while selling himself carbon credits. His interests in the environmental movement do not extend beyond Al Gore Inc.

He is, in a word, a douchebag…

The tax increase sucker play

Back in February our dear comrade leader created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (more here) to make recommendations on how to reduce the gargantuan economy-killing deficits imposed by the democrat-controlled congress and the comrade himself. While the commission is mostly bipartisan and actually contains some fiscal hawks (like Tom Coburn), one has to question how serious our comrade leader was about deficit reduction given that he appointed former SEIU chief Andy Stern as a member of the commission (more on Stern here and here). Stern can be counted as a sure vote against any recommendation that contains even a hint of fiscal restraint.

The commission is supposed to issue their list of recommendations next month and there have already been some revelations as to what we can expect. According to this story (from the WSJ), revenue (tax) increases will surely be part of the commission’s recommendations. This is certainly to be expected but will tax increases actually do anything to reduce the deficit? According to the article’s authors, they will probably increase the deficit because as history has shown, congress will spend any increased revenue – and then some.

The draft recommendations of the president’s commission on deficit reduction call for closing popular tax deductions, higher gas taxes and other revenue raisers to drive tax collections up to 21% of GDP from the historical norm of about 18.5%. Another plan, proposed last week by commission member and former Congressional Budget Office director Alice Rivlin, would impose a 6.5% national sales tax on consumers.

The claim here, echoed by endless purveyors of conventional wisdom in Washington, is that these added revenues—potentially a half-trillion dollars a year—will be used to reduce the $8 trillion to $10 trillion deficits in the coming decade. If history is any guide, however, that won’t happen. Instead, Congress will simply spend the money.

In the late 1980s, one of us, Richard Vedder, and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University co-authored a often-cited research paper for the congressional Joint Economic Committee (known as the $1.58 study) that found that every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results.

We’ve updated the research. Using standard statistical analyses that introduce variables to control for business-cycle fluctuations, wars and inflation, we found that over the entire post World War II era through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 of new spending. Politicians spend the money as fast as it comes in—and a little bit more.

We also looked at different time periods (e.g., 1947-2009 vs. 1959-2009), different financial data (fiscal year federal budget data, as well as calendar year National Income and Product Account data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis), different lag structures (e.g., relating taxes one year to spending change the following year to allow for the time it takes bureaucracies to spend money), different control variables, etc. The alternative models produce different estimates of the tax-spend relationship—between $1.05 and $1.81. But no matter how we configured the data and no matter what variables we examined, higher tax collections never resulted in less spending.

Surprised? I’m not. For decades the federal leviathan has grown in size, scope and power. The bureaucrats in DC have lost touch with reality because most of their policies only affect the little people as they have largely exempted themselves. Tax cheats abound – including the Treasury Secretary himself and the architects of tax and spend policy. This is not a revenue problem, it’s a spending problem.

We suspect that voters intuitively understand this tax and spend connection, which is why there is such hostility to broad-based tax increases. “Polls consistently find that a majority of Americans believe any new taxes will be spent by the politicians,” pollster Scott Rasmussen told us recently in an interview.

The grand bargain so many in Washington yearn for—tax increases coupled with spending cuts—is a fool’s errand. Our research confirms what the late economist Milton Friedman said of Congress many years ago: “Politicians will always spend every penny of tax raised and whatever else they can get away with.”

Precisely – a sucker play…

Tax cheats

Great post here. It simply illustrates what is wrong with our imperial government.

What's wrong with this picture?

Only one of these tax cheats will go to prison. The other three are present (and former) government officials.

We should bring back the tar & feather punishment…

Rangel convicted of ethics charges – wrist, meet slap

Convicted corruptocrat Rangel

After over 2 years of “investigating” the corruption scandals of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), the House Ethics (how’s THAT for an oxymoron?) Committee finally convicted him on 11 of 13 counts. Conveniently they didn’t announce this until after the election, so Rangel was re-elected for a 20th term by his brain-dead constituents. Apparently most of the voters in his district were unaware of his years of tax evasion, rent control violations, perjury and “ethics” violations. He seems like such a nice guy I suppose.

It was announced yesterday that the “ethics” panel has recommended a full censure for Rangel. Wrist, meet slap. Charlie had hoped for a lesser penalty and was at times defiant while trying to appear contrite. (story here)

The House ethics committee recommended on Thursday by a vote of 9-1 that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) be formally censured by the full House for 11 counts of violating ethics rules.

The panel also ordered Rangel to pay restitution of any unpaid taxes.

“We have worked together in this matter in a way that actually has been quite wrenching and we’re satisfied with our conclusion,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the panel’s chairwoman.Short of expulsion, censure is the most serious sanction the ethics panel can recommend. Only 22 House members have been censured in the history of the chamber.

A majority of the full House would have to vote to censure Rangel or lawmakers could opt for a lighter punishment. That vote likely will wait until after the Thanksgiving recess.

If the House votes in favor of censure, Rangel most likely would have to stand in the well of the House for a formal rebuke and reading of the censure resolution by outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). A reprimand would only require the House to formally adopt the investigative committee’s report on Rangel’s activities.

Before the committee made its decision, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) argued for a lighter punishment than censure and reminded the committee that Rangel received a purple heart and a bronze star for his heroism in the Korean War. Butterfield, who is under investigation by the ethics committee for failing to repay excess travel per diems, or another member sympathetic to Rangel could offer a resolution calling for a reprimand or lesser punishment.

“The facts of the case do not, do not warrant a censure in my opinion,” Butterfield said. “Even counsel has acknowledged that deciding punishment is difficult in this case. Censure is extreme and should be restricted to personal conduct in which the [lawmaker] received personal gain.”

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) cautioned his colleagues that punishing Rangel would bring more scrutiny to each and every member of Congress and the political donations they receive from corporations and individuals.

Looks like his corruptocrat buddies are worried about their own asses. Hey you clowns, we’re talking about this corrupt bag of shit standing before his “colleagues” and being told what a bad boy he is. That’s IT! Just a reminder for you: for tax evasion, the average citizen faces fines, penalties, property confiscation and prison time. This guy is going to skate with a slap on the wrist.

Welch then gave Rangel an opportunity to make some final comments about the matter to his constituents.

Seemingly on the verge of tears, an emotional Rangel paused for several seconds before responding.

He thanked Welch for the “awkward opportunity.”

“I don’t know how much longer I have to live but it will always be to help people, and I thank God for what he has given to me,” he said.

He apologized for any embarrassment he has caused and stressed that he would like the panel to acknowledge that he never sought any personal gain and is not corrupt. Rangel also lashed out the press.

“What the press has done to me and my family is totally unfair and they will continue to call me a crook and call me corrupt,” he said.

Rangel, the 80-year-old, 20-term House veteran, admitted some fault in his initial statement to the panel, but added: “I had no intent to evade or avoid the law.”

Awww – poor Charlie. He had “no intent to evade or avoid the law.” No Charlie, you put yourself above the law and that’s the problem we have with congress and the rest of the government. You don’t think the law applies to you.

Previous posts here, here, here, here, and here.

Wise advice on pork spending from Senator Tom Coburn

I have posted numerous times about Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). He is, in my opinion, one of the few voices of reason in congress. One of the current debates, both pre and post election, has been whether or not the republicans should refrain from “earmarking” (pork). Coburn and Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) have both come out strongly against the practice while some of their colleagues and almost all democrats still favor gorging from the pork trough. In this piece, Coburn dispels the myths of the pro porkers and explains why congress should forgo the practice.

As Senate Republicans prepare to vote on an earmark moratorium, I would encourage my colleagues to consider four myths and four realities of the debate.

Myths of the earmark debate:

1. Eliminating earmarks does not actually save any money

This argument has serious logical inconsistencies. The fact is earmarks do spend real money. If they didn’t spend money, why defend them? Stopping an activity that spends money does result in less spending. It’s that simple. For instance, Congress spent $16.1 billion on pork in Fiscal Year 2010. If Congress does not do earmarks in 2011, we could save $16.1 billion. In no way is Congress locked into to shifting that $16.1 billion to other programs unless it wants to.

2. Earmarks represent a very tiny portion of the federal budget and eliminating them would do little to reduce the deficit

It’s true that earmarks themselves represent a tiny portion of the budget, but a small rudder can help steer a big ship, which is why I’ve long described earmarks as the gateway drug to spending addiction in Washington. No one can deny that earmarks like the Cornhusker Kickback have been used to push through extremely costly and onerous bills. Plus, senators know that as the number of earmarks has exploded so has overall spending. In the past decade, the size of government has doubled while Congress approved more than 90,000 earmarks.

3. Earmarking is about whose discretion it is to make spending decisions. Do elected members of Congress decide how taxes are spent, or do unelected bureaucrats and Obama administration officials?

It’s true that this is a debate about discretion, but some in Congress are confused about discretion among whom. This is not a struggle between the executive branch and Congress but between the American people and Washington. Do the American people have the right to spend their own money and keep local decisions at the local level or does the federal government know best? Earmarks are a Washington-knows-best solution. An earmark ban would tell the American people that Congress gets it. After all, it’s their money, not ours.

4. The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility and authority to earmark

Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to do earmarks. The concept of earmarking appears nowhere in the enumerated powers or anywhere else in the Constitution. The so-called “constitutional” argument earmarks is from the same school of constitutional interpretation that led Elena Kagan to admit that Congress had the authority to tell the American people to eat their fruits and vegetables every day. That school, which says Congress can do whatever it wants, gave us an expansive Commerce Clause, Obamacare, and a widespread belief among members of Congress that the “power of the purse” is the power to pork. 

Beyond these myths, I would encourage members to consider the following realities.

1. Earmarks are a major distraction

Again, earmarks not only do nothing to hold the executive branch accountable — by out-porking the president — but take Congress’ focus away from the massive amount of waste and inefficiency within federal agencies.

2. This debate is over among the American people and the House GOP

If any policy mandate can be derived from the election it is to spend less money. Eliminating earmarks is the first step on that path. The House GOP has accepted that mandate. The Senate GOP now has to decide whether to ignore not only the American people but their colleagues in the House. The last thing Senate Republicans should be doing is legislative gymnastics to get around the House GOP earmark ban.

3. Earmarking is bad policy

In recent years the conventional wisdom that earmarks create jobs has been turned on its head. The Obama administration’s stimulus bill itself, which is arguably a collection of earmarks approved by Congress, proves this point. Neither Obama’s stimulus nor Republican stimulus — GOP earmarks — is very effective at creating jobs.

Harvard University conducted an extensive study this year of how earmarks impact states. The researchers expected to find that earmarks drive economic growth but found the opposite.

4. Earmarking is bad politics

If the Senate GOP wants to send a signal that they don’t get it and are not listening they can reject an earmark moratorium. For Republicans, earmarks are the ultimate mixed message. We’ll never be trusted to be the party of less spending while we’re rationalizing more spending through earmarks. The long process of restoring fiscal sanity in Washington begins with saying no to pork.

Coburn is spot on here. Yet some of his colleagues who were opposed to pork during the campaigns are now having second thoughts. In particular Mitch McConnell (R-KY), senate minority leader, appears to be maneuvering behind the scenes to resist a pork ban. This chinless and spineless douchebag represents everything that is wrong with the national republican party – everything that was rejected by the voters in the elections. (story here)

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is maneuvering behind the scenes to defeat a conservative plan aimed at restricting earmarks, setting up a high-stakes showdown that pits the GOP leader and his “Old Bull” allies against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and a new breed of conservative senators.

In a series of one-on-one conversations with incoming and sitting senators, McConnell is encouraging his colleagues to keep an open mind and not to automatically side with DeMint, whose plan calls on Senate Republicans to unilaterally give up earmarks in the 112th Congress, according to several people familiar with the talks.

While McConnell is not demanding that rank-and-file Republican senators vote against the earmark ban, he’s laying out his concerns that eliminating earmarks would effectively cede Congress’ spending authority to the White House while not making a real dent in the $1 trillion-plus budget deficit. And McConnell is signaling his concern about the awkward politics of the situation: even if the DeMint moratorium passes, Republican senators could push for earmarks, given that the plan is nonbinding and non-enforceable.

The lying rat bastard McConnell was vocal about his support for banning earmarks before the election. Seems like he didn’t get the message. He and his tin ear pro pork republican big spenders do this at their peril.

Jim DeMint is riding this issue hard and it could prove to be a make-or-break moment for the republicans.

DeMint believes that there is growing Republican opposition to earmarks, which have become a symbol of wasteful spending in the wake of the infamous Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” and the source of influence-peddling scandals that have rocked Capitol Hill in recent years.

“Sen. DeMint is working with several of his colleagues to unite Senate Republicans with House Republicans by banning earmarks,” said DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton. “Americans rejected business as usual this election, and the conference vote next week will show them Republicans got the message.”

Indeed, a number of observers both in and out of the Senate believe the vote will be close.

“I don’t know whether it will pass,” said one GOP insider. “McConnell is working against it.”

It’s unclear where the full GOP leadership team will come down on the proposal. With McConnell and Alexander as likely “no” votes, three other members — Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona, John Barrasso of Wyoming and South Dakota’s John Thune — have not declared how they will vote. Thune has been mentioned as a potential GOP presidential candidate in 2012, and voting against DeMint’s earmark ban could alienate conservative activists, though he has earmarked himself over the years.

Cornyn supports DeMint’s plan, and Kyl in recent years has taken a harder line on earmarks, signaling a potential split within the leadership over the issue. If the leadership further splinters, it could make it harder for senators like Inhofe to gain traction.

While he called DeMint, McCain and Coburn his friends, Inhofe said they have unfairly seized on a minuscule fraction of the federal deficit to make political hay out of so-called pork-barrel spending.

“And I say that knowing that I will be severely criticized only because people have been brainwashed on this issue,” Inhofe said.

No Inhofe, you douchebag, no one’s been “brainwashed.” You just don’t get it. Action speaks louder than words. Saying you’re for lower spending and smaller government while gorging from the pork trough exposes you for what you really are – a liar and a hypocrite. You and your ilk are the primary reason the public has such a low opinion of congress. Asshole…

Voters in CA & NY – We want more FAIL

While voters across the country more or less roundly rejected democrats and their failed socialist agenda on election day, those on the left and lefter coasts (NY and California) proved that they are gluttons for even more punishment.

In NY (results here) the republicans picked up 5 House seats but 21 incumbent democrats, including corruptocrat Charlie Rangel, won by mostly wide margins. They elected corruptocrat Andrew Cuomo for governor, although his challenger Carl Paladino was certainly no prize, and both democrat senators were re-elected. In the state legislature dems retained their huge majority and it looks like they may gain control of the senate for the first time since the ’60s.

California voters elected Jerry (Moonbeam) Brown as governor and re-elected Barbara Boxer to the senate. Inexplicably bucking a nationwide trend against incumbency, every incumbent (republican and democrat) retained their seat in the House races. The real kicker however, came in the form of the adoption of Prop 25 and the rejection of Prop 23. The passage of Prop 25 essentially provides an overwhelmingly democrat legislature an open checkbook with the state budget (with its $20B deficit). Prop 23 would have suspended the state’s draconian carbon emission regulations, which have been driving businesses out of the state, until unemployment (currently at 12.5%) reaches 5%. What the hell are these people thinking??? Roger Simon (from Pajamas Media) has this to say about the election:

Is the Golden State hopeless and headed for bankruptcy?  After the 2010 election, it doesn’t need a forty-plus year resident like me to state the obvious — and how!

Yes, last Tuesday, running counter to most of the rest of country, the citizens of one of the most beautiful and bountiful pieces of real estate on Earth, not to mention many of the globe’s most innovative companies, simply stuck their heads collectively in the sand and said: Bring it on!

Now sure, Whitman and Fiorina weren’t the greatest campaigners since Harry Truman. But come on — look at the alternatives.  Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer were already proven adherents of economic catastrophe.  They have neither the will nor the motivation to turn things around.  They were both elected with the unstinting support of the very unions whose bloated pension plans created the current intractable financial crisis in the first place. Bankruptcy looms.

Call it bankruptcy or call it shmankruptcy, you either can pay your bills or you can’t.  California, which has already suffered the ignominy of paying many through IOUs, is heading for a situation where no one will take its IOUs.Now — and here is the nub of my piece — whatever you do when this happens, do not allow anyone to bail us out. Not one penny.  Not the federal government, the Heart Fund, the Community Chest, the World Bank, UNICEF, or even George Soros. Do not take up a collection in your places of worship or set up a food bank.  And above all, do not make California into some giant state version of General Motors.  It didn’t work for the auto company and it will not work for us.

The only solution is for California to suffer — and to suffer badly.  The citizens of this state need a serious beat down. This was the place where Jane Fonda popularized “No gain without pain.”  Well, time for the pain.  Remember the “Summer of Love”?  Time for the “Summer of Tough Love.” And the Winter, Fall and Spring as well.

And here’s a look at both states from Fred Siegel at the City Journal.

…another division is likely to compete for center stage in the next two years: the split between, on one side, California and New York—two states, deeply in debt, whose wealthy are beneficiaries of the global economy—and, on the other, the solvent states of the American interior that will be asked to bail them out. This geographic division will also pit the heartland’s middle class and working class against the well-to-do of New York and California and their political allies in the public-sector unions.

While most of America turned toward the Republicans in this election, Democrats strengthened their hold on California and New York. In California, they won all the statewide offices and even made gains in the legislature, prompting the Orange County Register to describe the Republicans as having been reduced to “almost total irrelevancy in Sacramento.” In New York, Democrats similarly swept all the statewide offices and may have held on to the state senate, too, though three contests are still too close to call. Those three races are all that stand between New York’s GOP and a similar irrelevancy.

The mood in much of the rest of the country was quite different. In the nation’s interior, Republicans gained ten governorships and may have picked up as many as 20 state legislatures. In traditionally blue Minnesota and Wisconsin, both houses of the legislature are now in Republican control. This sets up what could be an ugly fight in which a Tea Party–inflected national Republican Party, encouraged by its strength in the interior states, forces California and New York—now heavily dependent on federal subsidies—to reduce their spending sharply. The coastal giants would no doubt respond by threatening defaults, which could affect the credit standing of the entire country, since many of the bonds are held by foreign investors. The upshot would likely be a high-stakes conflict about free trade, globalization, social class, race, illegal immigration, and public-sector unionism.

Given the mood of the rest of the country and the popularity of reformers like NJ Gov. Chris Christie, how likely will it be that the rest of us want to bail out CA and NY? Especially when their citizens have brought this upon themselves?

Not me – how about you? Let them fail…

Boehner’s tears of a clown

With the republicans winning a majority in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) will take the gavel as Speaker of the House from the Wicked Witch of the West in January. At a NRCC presser following the election Boehner got emotional as he described how becoming Speaker fulfills his quest for the “American Dream.” BLECH. This piece (by Nick Gillespie at Reason Magazine) rightfully rips Boehner a new one on his tears of a clown.

In one of the most shameless displays of political narcissism in recent memory, presumptive Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) choked up on Election Night when it became clear that he was gonna get to bang the big gavel come January 2011. Of course he started crying! His longtime goal of “chasing the American Dream” (i.e. securing a big boy chair in Congress) has been realized like Gollum finally getting his bony paws on the one ring to rule them all. It’s powerful stuff, getting misty when you’re describing just how great it is to get where you’re goin’ to, especially when the destination is Washington, D.C. (gotta love how Boehner implies sacrifice on his part to enter Congress, where he’s been hanging out since the early ’90s). He wasn’t bawling when he described how shitty the past decade has been for regular Americans, that’s for sure. And he somehow failed to apologize for the GOP majority’s huge role in killing the budget as we know it back when President Bush was, well, president.

Compare his victory speech with Florida’s Marco Rubio, the Senate-elect son of Castro-era refugees from Cuba. Rubio masterfully – and with muy emotion – depicted his victory as the fulfillment of his father’s dreams and himself as an agent of the future. In short, it wasn’t about him or his petty ambition. It was about something much greater and grander than that. That’s the stuff of tears, friends, where you recognize the people on whose shoulders you stand and promise to pay it forward to the next generation. It may all be bullshit, but roses never smelled so sweet.

Gillespie goes on to explain that this isn’t the first time Boehner has shed false tears when speaking about an issue. Apparently this is part of Boehner’s shtick, a lounge act if you will. The best one is here:

And then there’s his celebrated meltdown during the TARP vote, when he urged his fellow GOPpers to vote for the shit sandwich that was TARP. Because, you know, the whole economy would get flushed down the toilet if Congress didn’t enact a bill in, what, 72 hours? Come on, Hank Paulson said so and he was even smarter than Timmy Geithner wasn’t he? TARP was the fiscal equivalent of  The Patriot Act and had to get rushed through a hysterical legislature if it was going to get passed at all. Jeebus H. Christ, we’re all just so lucky the economy survived that first no vote! But there’s Boehner, a mix of Capt. Queeg and a used-car salesman, pushing for action action action and even stooping to red-faced tears to close the deal.

I’ve eaten servings of Skyline Chili (make mine a 5-way) that inspire more tears and more patriotism. And fewer trips to the bathroom.

It seems to me the message is clear: Whenever Boehner cries, somebody’s about to get screwed. And it ain’t Boehner, the No Child Left Behind advocate whose pathetic Pledge to America pledged only to spend about a plugged nickel less than the Democrats.

Write on, Nick. Boehner is part of the establishment republican country club – the ones Jim DeMint warned the newbies about (more here). These guys aren’t interested in saving the country, their only interest is in saving their own asses.

I’ve got news for establishment republicans. The TEA Party may not have run the table in this last election but they did pretty well and more important, they learned from their mistakes. They’re not going away and if you don’t get the message, you’ll be out on your asses in 2012.

Sound advice for newly elected in congress from Sen. Jim DeMint

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) is no favorite of the country club establishment republicans in the senate. He has openly defied them on many issues, especially when it comes to earmarking (pork) and government spending. Along with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), he is one of the very few voices of reason in the senate. After yesterday’s elections, he will likely have a few more allies to help set the agenda.

In an open letter to the newly elected senators and representatives published in the Wall Street Journal, DeMint offered some advice on how not to be co-opted by the establishment republicans.

Congratulations to all the tea party-backed candidates who overcame a determined, partisan opposition to win their elections. The next campaign begins today. Because you must now overcome determined party insiders if this nation is going to be spared from fiscal disaster.

Many of the people who will be welcoming the new class of Senate conservatives to Washington never wanted you here in the first place. The establishment is much more likely to try to buy off your votes than to buy into your limited-government philosophy. Consider what former GOP senator-turned-lobbyist Trent Lott told the Washington Post earlier this year: “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”

Don’t let them. Co-option is coercion. Washington operates on a favor-based economy and for every earmark, committee assignment or fancy title that’s given, payback is expected in return. The chits come due when the roll call votes begin. This is how big-spending bills that everyone always decries in public always manage to pass with just enough votes.

In other words, stick to your principles and avoid being sucked into the business as usual vortex. According to DeMint, here’s how that’s done:

• First, don’t request earmarks. If you do, you’ll vote for legislation based on what’s in it for your state, not what’s best for the country. You will lose the ability to criticize wasteful spending. And, if you dare to oppose other pork-barrel projects, the earmarkers will retaliate against you.
• Second, hire conservative staff. The old saying “personnel is policy” is true. You don’t need Beltway strategists and consultants running your office. Find people who share your values and believe in advancing the same policy reforms. Staff who are driven by conservative instincts can protect you from unwanted, outside influences when the pressure is on.
• Third, beware of committees. Committee assignments can be used as bait to make senators compromise on other matters. Rookie senators are often told they must be a member of a particular committee to advance a certain piece of legislation. This may be true in the House, but a senator can legislate on any matter from the Senate floor.
• Fourth, don’t seek titles. The word “Senator” before your name carries plenty of clout. All senators have the power to object to bad legislation, speak on the floor and offer amendments, regardless of how they are ranked in party hierarchy.
• Lastly, don’t let your re-election become more important than your job. You’ve campaigned long and hard for the opportunity to go to Washington and restore freedom in America. People will try to convince you to moderate conservative positions and break campaign promises, all in the name of winning the next race. Resist the temptation to do so. There are worse things than losing an election—like breaking your word to voters.

The only other thing I could think to add would be this: Get the job done then get the hell out. Entrenched incumbency is becoming a liability and the voting public (except democrats) are sick of it.

DeMint wrapped it up by saying this:

When you are in Washington, remember what the voters back home want—less government and more freedom. Millions of people are out of work, the government is going bankrupt and the country is trillions in debt. Americans have watched in disgust as billions of their tax dollars have been wasted on failed jobs plans, bailouts and takeovers. It’s up to us to stop the spending spree and make sure we have a government that benefits America instead of being a burden to it.

Tea party Republicans were elected to go to Washington and save the country—not be co-opted by the club. So put on your boxing gloves. The fight begins today.

And yes, it will be an uphill battle with the republican establishment. Given the strength of the TEA Party and the mood of the country, it may take another election cycle to get rid of business as usual.