H/T Freedomworks

This is great! (language warning, includes the s* word a couple of times)

So... if it's not about job creation, what's the point? I suppose it's just another attempt to give the *appearance* of actually caring about the economy they are trying so hard to destroy.

Red State has a great "fact check" overview of the dems claims on jobs and the economy over the last few months.

On a lighter note, here's a funny video (from Harry Reid's opponent in the upcoming election) about the search for the missing stimulus jobs.

I came across this via @Mom4Freedom on Twitter and Carpe Diem. Milton Friedman on why capitalism and free markets are far better than any other system:

Here is the end of John Boehner's comments in the House prior to the vote on "crap and tax." He is absolutely right when he says the American people expect and deserve better than to have our so-called representatives vote on a bill that they haven't read (how could they? it was 1,200 pages plus a 300 page amendment filed at 3am the morning of the vote), that hasn't even been completely written (placeholders?!), against the will of millions who melted the phone lines to express their disapproval of this. They knew full well that this bill is against the will of the people, that's why they chose to vote on it on a Friday evening, just a few days before a holiday weekend. It's why the Democrats spent the day making deals for who would be "allowed" to vote against it as long as they could still pass it. They know this will be a make-or-break issue when the next election comes around, and it's not that far off.




I'm glad to see someone stand up for what's right. I hope to see more of that. I for one, am sick and tired of Congress and this administration blatantly ignoring us and treating us like we're utterly stupid. The TARP bill that no one seems able to track and that is quickly becoming a federal slush fund to bail out whoever they want, the stimulus bill that no one read (and that hasn't done a thing to stem the tide of rising unemployment), the omnibus bill with 8000 earmarks, takeovers of the banking and auto industry, now this, and coming soon, government-rationed healthcare for everyone. They lie to us on a regular basis and think it doesn't matter, and the MSM doesn't call them on it.

It's exhausting, but we can't give up. If we do, the progressives on both sides of the aisle win and American exceptionalism, American liberty as we have always known it, will no longer exist or will be much more restricted for the next generation. The next election can't come soon enough, but in the meantime, we need to keep standing up and trying to wake up as many Americans as we possibly can.

As for crap & tax, this is not a done deal. As I understand it, there are still a few days for representatives to change their vote. And it still has to get through the Senate, which will be more of a challenge.

~~~~~~~~
Question - if lawmakers can't be bothered to actually read the bills before passing them, then perhaps we ought to be exempt from following whatever laws are in the bills. After all, if they haven't read it they don't know for sure what's in there so how would they know if we're following it or not? Just saying.

The House is voting today on the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade bill (aka Cap and Tax because it represents a huge tax that will raise the cost of literally everything in this country). Please call the switchboard at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121, or click here to find the contact information for your Representative.

When I called this morning, the switchboard numbers were busy, but I got through to my Congressman and confirmed he is voting no. If you don't get through, please keep trying! This is big enough that I would go so far as to say it will be a make-or-break vote in terms of whether I would vote for someone in the next election.

First, here is a letter to the editor written by George Joseph, one of the dealers who has been told he is being shut down. Well, not just shut down, they are taking his business away, without compensation, and giving it (for free) to another dealer.

What am I missing here? This is outright theft and I just don't see how it can be legal or constitutional. Even in eminent domain the government must compensate you for property they take. I just can't believe this is happening in America, and what makes it particularly troubling is the way the government is so intertwined with these proceedings. The government has no place interfering in free market enterprise.

~~~~~~~~~~

Letter to the editor

My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.

We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.

I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.

HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?

THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY

This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.

This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.

HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.

Sincerely,

George C. Joseph
President & Owner
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu

I don't have much time to go into detail, but these are worth reading:

AP's Calvin Woodward Does Astonishing Fact Check on Obama

and here's the original article referenced above:

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

Don't answer that, it's quite obvious the answer is a resounding YES they do.

So Obama is asking his Cabinet to cut $100 million from his $3.6 trillion budget proposal. Wow, what a sacrifice. Can I just point out that $100 million is less than a dollar for every American?


In fact, it comes out to 33 cents for every American. On a budget that is equal to $12,000 for every American (and that's just the budget proposal, not including any of the other recent spending for TARP, stimulus pkg, auto bailouts, etc.)

So if you're asking to spend $12,000 and someone tells you no, that's too much, you need to trim it down... is cutting 33 cents going to make a bit of difference? Hardly. It's no more than a rounding error.

So congratulations folks, your share of the Obama budget proposal is now the ever-more-fiscally-responsible $11,999.67. What a joke.

Even if they cut $100 billion that still would only be cutting $333 per American, bringing the total to $11,667 per American. And to my knowledge, the administration is not considering cuts anywhere near as "large" as that.

This is just part of what the tea parties were all about. Our children deserve better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The press actually pressed Robert Gibbs on this one, reminding him that previously he blew off $8 billion in earmarks as inconsequential, but now we are supposed to believe that $100 million is huge.

Click here for more info and to find a tea party in your local area. Click here to socialize with other Tea Party Patriots.

If you're wondering what the tea parties are all about, it's primarily the out of control spending that has been going on for years and now is being taken to new levels of insanity. It's about being Taxed Enough Already. It's about restoring some sanity and responsibility to our government and reminding them that they work for us, not the other way around. It's about preserving freedom and liberty for our children (and grandchildren, and great-grandchildren), and not having them burdened by unprecedented levels of debt.

Here's a great summary of the economic crisis and a visual of the amount of spending we're seeing:




And insightful analysis of the current sad state of the tax code (it's over 60,000 pages!). The privacy issues raised here are concerning, I hadn't really thought of that aspect before.

Reportedly, many banks who were not in trouble were forced to take TARP bailout money back in the fall. The reasoning given was that this was to hide from the public which banks were actually in trouble. While I can see the logic in that, you can't have it both ways. You can't force a bank to take money it doesn't need and then turn around and say that because they "chose" to take TARP funds they are now subject to government control over executive decision-making for their firms.


Congress is framing all of these sweeping increases in power over banks (and other companies) as being directed at only those who were in trouble and ended up in a situation of needing government assistance (in which case, the argument goes, they "deserve" to have the government take over for the greater good). But this argument obscures the truth, which is that the government is seeking to control firms that are running just fine and only accepted TARP funds upon being forced to by the government.

It seems to me that the government ought to be jumping at the chance to recoup even a portion of what it has paid out. Instead, the Obama administration has actually threatened at least one bank CEO with "adverse" consequences if he continues to press to be allowed to repay the money (which he didn't want to accept in the first place).

So, they are forcing the profitable banks to keep their TARP funds. At the same time, they are screaming for AIG executives to return the portion of their TARP funds spent on bonuses. In the case of AIG, Chuck Schumer adamantly insisted that the money must be returned to "its rightful owners, the taxpayers." Nevermind that by "taxpayers" what he really meant was "the government." It's not like the government is actually going to give that money back to we the taxpayers, not the $165 million and not the trillions of our money (and that of our children and grandchildren) that they are now committing to spend.

But when other bank executives not only offer but plead to be allowed to pay their money back, their requests are rejected out of hand. Where is Chuck Schumer to insist that TARP money not needed by the firms who received it, be returned to "its rightful owners, the taxpayers?"

Meanwhile, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac plan to pay about $210 million in bonuses, but I don't see the same public outrage and grandstanding from Congress and the adminstration over those.

The goal appears to be assertion of more and more government control over the banks, and the economy in general.

At a recent meeting with bank CEO's, Obama threatened, "My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

In fact, Obama's administration is the reason for the "pitchforks" (at least with regard to AIG) in the first place. They have made every effort to stoke rage among the people and aim it directly at bank CEO's and other executives. They've had the help of Congress and allies such as ACORN, who organized the mob-tactic intimidation-force bus tours to AIG executive homes. In other words, the government is trying to use we the people as a weapon to be wielded any time they need to bully someone into doing what they want. We should not allow ourselves to be used like that.

Answer - there is none. The CT Atty General, who is personally going after AIG executives, can't name any legal right that the government has to go after them. He finally sputters, "Because they are undeserving of it."

Wow. If hearing a government official make a statement like that doesn't make you feel sick to your stomach, I don't know what will. Who the #$%& is he to say who deserves and does not deserve money that is contractually owed to them??



Not only that, the attorney general is more than happy to go after private citizens, but refuses to even consider going after any government officials who may be culpable. Our government is out of control.

Way to go, Cavuto!

It was bad enough when the government started throwing money at failing banks and companies with endless bailouts. It got worse when Congress and the President put on their show of feigned outrage over AIG bonuses when they themselves specifically made those bonuses possible, and then decided they had the power to nullify legally binding contracts and use the tax law as a weapon to target a specific group, retroactively. They showed no concern for the safety of AIG employees (the vast majority of whom had nothing to do with why AIG is now in trouble) and in fact did everything they could to stoke anger against "those greedy executives."

Now? Apparently the administration has decided they ought to just do away with the formalities of appearing to be separate and just start running the companies directly.


Tim Geithner asked Congress for unprecedented, sweeping powers to seize private firms, whether they received federal bailout money or not, if he deems them a risk to the economy.

Barney Frank wants the government to set the salaries of all employees, not just top execs, at companies that have received government money. (Right now, I think that means TARP, but who's to say next week it won't be any company who has contracts with the government or has contracts with people who have contracts with the government?)

And the Obama administration fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner (made his resignation a condition of receiving any further bailout funds). Call me crazy, but last time I checked, the hiring and firing decisions with regard to the CEO are the responsibility of the board of directors, not the president or any government official.

Apparently Obama & team sent both GM and Chrysler back to the drawing board to come back with better business plans. Really? Who in this administration has ANY business experience? They wouldn't know a good business plan if it bit them. I'm not saying that the GM or Chrysler plans were good or bad, I haven't reviewed them so I couldn't even offer comment on that. My point is - do we really think that a bunch of politicians / lawyers led by a former community organizer can possibly know better than executives who have been in the auto industry for years?

They're getting into the day-to-day operations as well - Obama (and your tax dollars) will guarantee the GM warrantees.

This is insane, and I can pretty much guarantee you it's not going to stop here. This is exactly the kind of thing conservatives warned of back when Bush & Pelosi said we just had to bail everyone out. Why? The bankruptcy code exists for a reason, and letting these failing institutions file for bankruptcy would have enabled them to restructure much of their debt and have a chance to emerge as a viable company again. All without spending billions of taxpayer dollars propping them up.

Mussolini once said, "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Considering recent events, I think that's a pretty accurate description of where we are. The lines between the private and public sector are not only blurred, but fading fast.

So much going on this week, so little time to blog about it all.

I wanted to make a few comments about the recent AIG bonus debacle though. First off, Geithner has already said that he will likely deduct the $165 million that AIG paid out in bonuses from the next installment of $30 billion that they plan to send to AIG.

Really? Another $30 billion huh? Shouldn't that be the real story here? That and the fact that some $58 billion of what we already gave them went to bail out other countries, and tens of billions more went to other U.S. banks?

And where is the outrage over bonuses at Fannie Mae?


Washington - if you don't want to reward the folks who have driven companies into the ground, how about letting them go bankrupt? Chapter 11 would allow them to reorganize. We shouldn't have the government bailing out private enterprises. No one is "too big to fail."

So back to my original point, if they're going to deduct the amount spent on bonuses from the next installment, then that essentially recoups the money and makes the whole bonus thing a non-issue in which Washington can quit talking about making taxes targeted to individuals and call off the mobs.

Seriously, whatever your opinion on the bonuses, these people are getting death threats and that is just wrong. Barney Frank continued to insist on getting a list of names. Senator Grassley suggested the executives "resign or commit suicide." And yet, the administration continues to fan the flames of anger at AIG, while skirting around their own culpability (Geithner knew about the bonuses well before this, Dodd put into the stimulus a clause protecting such bonuses, and both Dodd and Obama received significant campaign contributions from AIG, not to mention a number of other politicians.

Maybe they should pay those contributions back, you know, for the taxpayer.

Maybe Congress should give back the automatic pay raise they got this year. Where is the outrage over that? Who would argue that Congress has done an outstanding job deserving of a raise? Many deserving Americans aren't getting raises (or worse losing their jobs) due to the economy, but we can afford to pay Congress more every year no matter what?

WE the people are their bosses, and WE should determine whether they have EARNED a raise or not. It should have to be voted on by the people, not happen automatically because they decided they can't even be bothered to have a vote on it themselves.

We keep hearing from the Obama administration that the $410 billion omnibus spending bill now in the Senate is "last year's unfinished business" but the reality is that Bush wouldn't sign off on it so Pelosi held it until Obama took office. And Obama can't blame this one on Bush if he signs it, because it will be his signature on it, 8000+ earmarks and all, after he campaigned on "no earmarks." This "well, no earmarks NEXT year" just doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned. I am not interested in funding pig odor research, and if the folks living near said pigs would like to, they are more than welcome to fund such research themselves.

So I was surprised and relieved to read this WSJ op-ed by Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, arguing in favor of rejecting the pork-laden omnibus bill.



Excerpts:

The Senate should reject this bill. If we do not, President Barack Obama should veto it.

The omnibus increases discretionary spending by 8% over last fiscal year's levels, dwarfing the rate of inflation across a broad swath of issues including agriculture, financial services, foreign relations, energy and water programs, and legislative branch operations. Such increases might be appropriate for a nation flush with cash or unconcerned with fiscal prudence, but America is neither.

Our nation's current fiscal imbalance is unprecedented, unsustainable and, if unaddressed, a major threat to our currency and our economic vitality. The national debt now exceeds $10 trillion. This is almost double what it was just eight years ago, and the debt is growing at a rate of about $1 million a minute.

Washington borrows from foreign creditors to fund its profligacy. The amount of U.S. debt held by countries such as China and Japan is at a historic high, with foreign investors holding half of America's publicly held debt. This dependence raises the specter that other nations will be able to influence our policies in ways antithetical to American interests. The more of our debt that foreign governments control, the more leverage they have on issues like trade, currency and national security. Massive debts owed to foreign creditors weaken our global influence, and threaten high inflation and steep tax increases for our children and grandchildren.

The solution going forward is to stop wasteful spending before it starts. Families and businesses are tightening their belts to make ends meet -- and Washington should too.

The omnibus debate is not merely a battle over last year's unfinished business, but the first indication of how we will shape our fiscal future. Spending should be held in check before taxes are raised, even on the wealthy. Most people are willing to do their duty by paying taxes, but they want to know that their money is going toward important priorities and won't be wasted.

[T]he bloated omnibus requires sacrifice from no one, least of all the government. It only exacerbates the problem and hastens the day of reckoning. Voters rightly demanded change in November's election, but this approach to spending represents business as usual in Washington, not the voters' mandate.

The taxpayer protests of February 27th were just the beginning. The next one is scheduled for April 15th and will be held in cities across the country.

Michelle Malkin has more information here.

For any of you who may not be totally on-board with the government's new dictionary and would prefer a return to the old-school definition of "fiscal responsibility," there are several Tea Party USA events happening all over the country, many this Friday, February 27th.

For more information and to find one near you, visit the official #TCOT Tea Party site, or Michelle Malkin has more info also.

I literally laughed out loud when I heard Obama was hosting a "fiscal responsibility" summit. What a joke. He and his friends in Congress just spent more in one month than we've spent on the entire Iraq war, and now they want to talk about being fiscally responsible.

Well, they may be talking about it, but they sure as heck aren't doing anything about it. Unless, well, hmm... let me think about that. Perhaps when Obama tells us he's getting away from the "failed policies of the past" what he really means is the "failed dictionaries of the past." Because, from the looks of things, the term "fiscally responsible" in his new-fangled dictionary is the exact opposite of what I think most of us have generally thought it to mean.


So maybe what we really need to do is just get with the program and get ourselves a new dictionary. The old one would have said that fiscally responsible means:

- saving money, and living within your means
- not spending money you don't have
- not borrowing money you know you can't afford to pay back
- not stealing money from your children

Ha, that is SO yesterday. FAIL.

The NEW dictionary defines fiscally responsible as:

- borrowing money you don't have to spend on things you don't need and can't afford
- stealing from your children to spend on things you don't need and can't afford
- spend, spend, spend, spend, spend
- when you run out of money, take out a new credit card in your children's name
- just keep spending and all your troubles will just float away...

Yep, if that's the new definition, I think this administration has it NAILED. The proof of their fiscal responsibility is everywhere.

Here are just a few examples:
House Approves $410 Billion ‘Omnibus’ Spending Bill
Obama Proposes $634 Billion Fund For Health Care
Obama Will Unveil $205.5 Billion War Spending Through 2010
Housing bailout at $275 billion
Detroit auto bailout could cost $100 billion

That's well over another $1.6 trillion on top of the $800 billion for the recent "porkulus" bill. Wow, so much of other people's money to spend, so little time. Just imagine how much they can spend in the next 47 months! Oh yeah, and don't forget $700 billion for TARP 1 (yeah, I know that was Bush but it was also Pelosi / Reid) and who knows how much for TARP 2. The fun just never ends when we're busy being "fiscally responsible!"

How do they propose to pay for all of this? Well, aside from the ever-popular printing presses, there's the off-chance that China might actually still loan us money, and in addition to that, tax increases. Because nothing stimulates an economy like hiking taxes on the backbone of the economy - small businesses. You know, the ones that employ a large percentage of Americans? That will pull more money out of the economy, force businesses to lay off more employees and making a bad situation much worse.

So there you have it. Spending like there's no tomorrow and crushing small business is the new "fiscally responsible."

Link to video in case it doesn't work.

So, for the touted $8/week ($400 for the entire year) we're supposed to receive in tax "relief," every household in America is now on the hook for an additional $13,000 of debt to pay for this so-called stimulus bill.

Does it make sense to pay $13,000 to get $400? If it does, I have some quarters I'll be happy to sell you for $8 each.


Keep in mind, this is in addition to the $27,000 per household we are already in debt for the existing deficit and the recent bank bailouts, bringing the total PER HOUSEHOLD to $40,000.

I don't know about you, but I can't afford that.

The video breaks it down by tax bracket, and based on that it looks like the lump sum debt is roughly 20% of household income without interest (ranges from 8% to 45%). Including interest, it's 37% of household income on average (ranges from 16% to 84%). So, including interest, it could take you anywhere from 2 months to 10 months salary to actually pay off your portion of the debt if everything you made went just to that. That's insane.

It's very much like a person facing bankruptcy deciding they are going to solve their financial woes by taking on huge loans.

This is only going to result in shrinking businesses, more lost jobs, higher taxes, high inflation, and ultimately a declining overall economy.

Here's a great overview of what's happening from an economic standpoint, from the Center for Freedom & Prosperity. It shows how Obama's spendulus plan will just repeat Bush's mistakes, grow government, and fail to boost the economy. Federal spending (and the corresponding debt) increased significantly under Bush, and Obama proposes to increase it even more. Change is going to be the only thing left of our paychecks when he's finished.