Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (585214)	6/25/2004 8:37:41 AM
From: JakeStraw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Democrats Welcome Cheerleader for Terrorists Thursday, June 24, 2004 Left-wing Democrats pout and complain when Americans call them the blame-America-first crowd, but here's an excellent example of how they have earned this reputation. Out in La-La Land, El Cerrito Democratic Club announced that for its meeting this week it would "again welcome Markos Moulitsas Zuniga," this time to speak on "The Future of the Democratic Party: Does It Even Have One?" If you're lucky you've never heard of Zuniga. Remember the four American contractors murdered and dismembered by Muslim terrorists and left hanging from a bridge in Fallujah? He's the Democrat activist who cheered them on. "I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries," he wrote. "Screw them." American Journalism Review reported in its latest issue: "Moulitsas later clarified his remarks but stopped short of an apology, and a cyberspace furor ensued. 'Kos has been rather a weasel about first making the comments, then hiding them, then issuing a bogus pseudo-apology, and now--as if there were more to this than dumb statements on a blog that led to some angry commentary and e-mail--he's playing the victim,' [Glenn H.] Reynolds declared on InstaPundit." By the way, Zuniga, who apparently prefers to be called Moulitsas, was a paid consultant to this year's sore loserman, Howard Dean, and still is employed by Democrat congressional campaigns and pressure groups he refuses to name, according to AJR. John Kerry, however, yanked Zuniga's link. The future of the Democrat party: Does it even have one? Not if enough of its Markos Moulitsas

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (585214)	6/25/2004 12:48:52 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

That isn't a rebellion....it's democracy at work. Nussle has it all wrong......I would ask that each and every one of them think about us! M The chairman of the House Budget Committee, Representative Jim Nussle of Iowa, pleaded in vain for support. "I would ask that each and every one of us think about each other,'' Mr. Nussle said. "You've got to have a budget and you've got to have enforcement.''

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (585214)	6/26/2004 11:35:48 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

Bite the Hand, If You Dare nytimes.com HOW do Republicans opposed to big government stop themselves before they spend again? They had a much-anticipated opportunity in the wee hours of Friday morning, when the House voted on a bill supported by Republican leaders and the White House that imposed strict limits on future budgets. But Republicans joined with Democrats to defeat it. That vote has some conservatives seeking a novel and more personal method of restraint: booting dispensers of largesse from coveted jobs on the Appropriations Committee. One way of removing spenders comes from Trent Franks, a Republican congressman from Arizona, who last year proposed prohibiting anyone from serving on the committee for more than 6 years in any 10-year period. Mr. Franks called it a "preventative measure that will allow fresh idealism into the appropriations process." So far his proposal has gone nowhere in the House - few members want to lead the charge against the committee that doles out money to their home districts - but it has been endorsed by one influential Republican, Grover Norquist. He is the president of Americans for Tax Reform, which has persuaded 217 of the 435 House members to pledge not to raise income taxes. "Now that we've effectively blocked them from raising taxes, we want a way to limit spending," Mr. Norquist said. "Under the current system, once you get on the Appropriations Committee, you're permanently defined as a spender. By limiting those appointments to six years, you'd change the incentive structure because no one would be a spender for their entire career. You could be celebrated as a guy who fought against spending." An even more effective way to stop spending, Mr. Norquist said, is an idea he got from staff members of the Appropriations Committee (who understandably are remaining anonymous). Knowing the House's habit of setting a cap on the budget and then disregarding it, they suggested passing a rule requiring the chairman to step down if the final budget exceeded the cap. "At first the chairman wouldn't like being the one accountable, but in fact it would empower him," Mr. Norquist said. "Any time he walked into a room to negotiate with members of the House or the Senate who want to spend more money, he could say, 'You know and I know that you know that I'm not walking out the door and losing my job.' " Those arguments did not appeal to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, C.W. Bill Young of Florida. "Grover's heart is in the right place when he tries to control spending, but I can't be supportive at all of that proposal," Mr. Young said. "There shouldn't be any automatic exercise to change the chairman. But I can tell you there are many times when the chairman would like another job. It's very frustrating to be haggling over the budget." For Richer, at Least For Uncle Sam ANOTHER new way to cut federal spending emerged last week, although it's not one that many Republicans are likely to endorse. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that allowing same-sex marriage would slightly reduce the budget deficit every year for the next decade. Some opponents of same-sex marriage have complained that it would confer costly new benefits, Social Security payments to a widow or widower. But the budget office estimates that those costs would be relatively low. In heterosexual marriages, a wife typically outlives her husband by six or seven years (both because women are generally younger than their husbands and because women outlive men), but gay partners are usually about the same age and have a similar life expectancy. The extra Social Security payments would be more than offset by the income taxes that gays would pay because of the so-called marriage penalty, the budget office estimates, and there would be other savings because fewer gays would qualify for Medicaid and federal benefits once spouses' incomes were factored in. The net annual gain to the government would be about $750 million by 2011.