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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (33706)	3/5/2009 12:47:08 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

They may be able to stifle the debate in Washington. If the debate about the pork is done at the average joe level then democrats will find themselves back in the minority.

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (33706)	3/12/2009 12:08:32 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Omnibus Passes with Republican Earmarxists’ Help by Connie Hair 03/11/2009 The $410 billion omnibus appropriation bill passed the Senate last night on a voice vote having reached cloture -- dashing a Republican-led filibuster -- mere minutes before by a vote of 62-35. Three Democrats voted against cloture and in favor of fiscal responsibility, and six Republicans voted for cloture. Had this monster bill not passed, Congress was poised to pass a continuing resolution funding the government through September but holding the 2009 budget at current spending levels while stripping out all earmarks. At least five of the eight Republicans sold out for the price of their own personal pork pet projects scattered throughout the over 9,000 earmarks in the bill, crossing over to vote with Democrats in favor of driving yet another stake through the heart of the nation’s economy by endorsing the majority’s out-of-control spending. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) voted for the bill and his 64 earmarks worth $114 million. Shelby's earmarks range from $800,000 for oyster rehabilitation at the University of South Alabama to $380,000 to the city of Tarrant, Ala., for streetscaping and walkways. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) had 65 earmarks worth $76 million. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) has zero earmarks yet also voted for the bill. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) voted for the bill and his $86 million in earmarks; Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) voted for her $74 million in earmarks; and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) voted for the bill and his $25 million in earmarks. Calls and emails to Shelby’s office for comment on his earmark spending spree -- the highest monetary amount by any Republican this go around -- went unreturned. This massive spending bill is the largest increase in regular discretionary spending since Democrat President Jimmy Carter’s disastrous tax and spend economic policies engineered a horrifying economic hat trick: double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and double digit interest rates. But Carter was a panty-waist compared to President Barack Obama, who after a mere 51 days in office is already well on his way to producing the same disastrous economic outcome it took Carter two years to accomplish. In earlier floor action in the Senate, the Democrat majority defeated an amendment offered by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) which barred the FCC from allocating funding to the effort by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) to back door the so-called “fairness” doctrine, now known on the Hill as the Durbin Doctrine. Democrats also voted to table an amendment offered by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) that would have re-authorized the E-Verify system that offers employers the means to verify a worker’s citizenship status. As it stands now, illegal aliens are not barred from those jobs Obama keeps telling you are going to materialize. Also tabled was the David Vitter (R-La.) amendment that would have struck down the automatic cost of living pay raises Congress receives. After the Senate vote, House Republican leader John Boehner renewed calls for the President to veto the omnibus spending bill. “President Obama should veto this bill, and if he does, Republicans stand ready to work with him to uphold his veto and pass a more responsible bill,” Boehner said. “A recession is not an excuse for politicians to spend taxpayers’ hard-earned money with reckless abandon. By vetoing this bill, the President can send a powerful message that he intends to keep his promise to fight for spending discipline and fiscal transparency at a time when such things have never mattered more to American families.” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), along with his diligent staff, has helped lead the charge in bringing to light the pork-laden earmarks in this bill. “Americans are suffering in this economy, but Washington appears to be recession-proof, with billions wasted on politicians' pet projects,” DeMint said after the bill’s passage. “Last year, as a U.S. senator, President Obama cosponsored my legislation banning all earmarks for this year’s spending bills. But we’re on track to have the second most earmarks in history, and only President Obama can stop this waste. I urge President Obama to keep his pledge and single-handedly stop more than 9,000 wasteful earmarks by promising to veto this omnibus bill.” “The 9,287 earmarks in the omnibus include tax dollars for tattoo removal, swine odor, midnight basketball, museums, bike paths, a “Totally Teen Zone,” and the controversial liberal advocacy group LaRaza,” DeMint continued. “Combined with the spending bills already passed last year, it will drive up the number of earmarks in Fiscal Year 2009 to a total of 11,914 at a cost of $28.9 billion.” The six Republicans who voted to invoke cloture which ended debate on the omnibus bill, thus ending the filibuster, were as follows: Alexander (Tenn.), Bond (Mo.), Cochran (Miss.), Murkowski (Alaska), Shelby (Ala.), Snowe (Maine), Specter (Pa.), and Wicker (Miss.) (see the complete roll call). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Connie Hair is a freelance writer, a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- humanevents.com Buddy provided this yesterday: Here's a breakdown of the top 20 earmarking senators and the value of their solo earmarks: 1) Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. -- $122,804,900 2) Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. -- $114,484,250 3) Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. -- $85,691,491 4) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. -- $76,899,425 5) Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. -- $75,908,475 6) Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska -- $74,000,750 7) Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa -- $66,860,000 8) Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. -- $53,133,500 9) Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. -- $51,186,000 10) Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii -- $46,380,205 11) Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. -- $39,228,250 12) Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. -- $36,547,100 13) Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt. -- $36,161,125 14) Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. -- $35,577,250 15) Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. -- $27,169,750 16) Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- $26,628,613 17) Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. -- $25,320,000 18) Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis. -- $23,832,000 19) Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. -- $21,952,250 20) Former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. -- $19,588,625 ...................... Wicker is probably pissed he got bought off so easily. But then his fellow Missisippi Senator is near the top of the list.

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (33706)	3/12/2009 1:16:55 PM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The White House Misfires on Limbaugh MARCH 12, 2009 By KARL ROVE Presidents throughout history have kept lists of political foes. But the Obama White House is the first I am aware of to pick targets based on polls. Even Richard Nixon didn't focus-group his enemies list. Team Obama -- aided by Clintonistas Paul Begala, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg -- decided to attack Rush Limbaugh after poring over opinion research. White House senior adviser David Axelrod explicitly authorized the assault. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel assigned a White House official to coordinate the push. And Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gleefully punched the launch button at his podium, suckering the White House press corps into dropping what they were doing to get Mr. Limbaugh. Was it smart politics and good policy? No. For one thing, it gave the lie to Barack Obama's talk about ending "the political strategy that's been all about division" and "the score-keeping and the name-calling." The West Wing looked populated by petulant teenagers intent on taking down a popular rival. Such talk also shortens the president's honeymoon by making him look like a street-fighting Chicago pol instead of an inspirational, unifying figure. The upward spike in ratings for Rush and other conservative radio commentators shows how the White House's attempt at a smackdown instead energized the opposition. Did it do any good with voters not strongly tied to either party? I suspect not. With stock markets down, unemployment growing, banks tottering, consumers anxious, business leaders nervous, and the economy shrinking, the Obama administration's attacks on a radio talk show host made it seem concerned with the trivial. Why did the White House do it? It was a diversionary tactic. Clues might be found in the revelation that senior White House staff meet for two hours each Wednesday evening to digest their latest polling and focus-group research. I would bet a steak dinner at Morton's in Chicago these Wednesday Night Meetings discussed growing public opposition to spending, omnibus pork, more bailout money for banks and car companies, and new taxes on energy, work and capital. What better way to divert public attention from these more consequential if problematic issues than to start a fight with a celebrity conservative? Cable TV, newspapers and newsweeklies would find the conflict irresistible. Something has to be set aside to provide more space and time to the War on Rush; why not the bad economic news? Here's the problem: Misdirection never lasts long. Team Obama can at best only temporarily distract the public; within days, attention will return to issues that clearly should worry the White House. Not even Team Obama can forestall unpleasant reality. And among those America now faces is Mr. Obama adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, eclipsing the $2.9 trillion added during the Bush presidency's entire eight years. Another reality is that Mr. Obama's fiscal house is built on gimmicks. For example, it assumes the cost of the surge in Iraq will extend for a decade. This brazenly dishonest trick was done to create phony savings down the line. Mr. Obama's budget downplays some programs' true cost. For example, his vaunted new college access program is funded for five years and then disappears (on paper); the children's health insurance program drops (on paper) from $12.4 billion in 2013 to $700 million the next year. Neither will happen; the costs of both will be much higher and so will the deficits. Mr. Obama's budget also assumes the economy declines 41% less this year and grows 52% more next year and 38% more the year after than is estimated by the Blue Chip consensus (a collection of estimates by leading economists traditionally used by federal budget crunchers). If Mr. Obama used the consensus forecasts for growth rather than his own rosy scenarios, his budget would be $758 billion more in the red over the next five years. Then there's discretionary domestic spending, which grows over the next two years by $238 billion, the fastest increase ever recorded. Mr. Obama pledges it will then be cut in real terms for the next nine years. That's simply not credible. Then there's his omnibus spending bill to fund the government for the next six months, laden with 8,500 earmarks and tens of billions in additional spending above the current budget. What happened to pledges for earmark reform and making "meaningful cuts?" In the face of our enormous economic challenges, top White House aides decided to pee on Mr. Limbaugh's leg. This is a political luxury the country cannot afford, and which Mr. Obama would be wise to forbid. Or did he not mean it when he ran promising to "turn the page" on the "old" politics? Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush. online.wsj.com

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (33706)	3/23/2009 11:19:35 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

After Voting No, Republicans Tout Funds MARCH 21, 2009 By NAFTALI BENDAVID WASHINGTON -- Republicans railed against the Democrats' massive economic-stimulus and spending bills as fiscally irresponsible, but some GOP lawmakers are taking credit for projects in their own districts funded by the measures. "Washington needs to stop spending money that it doesn't have," Michigan Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra said in attacking the $410 billion omnibus-spending bill, which funds the government through September. But once it passed, he touted its benefits for his district, which stretches along Lake Michigan. "Safe and navigable harbors are economic engines that drive the communities that surround them," Mr. Hoekstra declared, announcing $3 million for harbor improvements. Stimulus Spending by State How some major areas of the stimulus will be shared among the states. Facing difficult economic times and looking ahead to 2010 elections, lawmakers are under pressure to show they are helping constituents. That is leading some Republicans, and even a handful of Democrats, to highlight funds in bills they voted against. "There is a political game going on here," said Leslie Paige, spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, a watchdog group. "On the national stage, you want to look like a good-government guy or gal. But at home, you want to get patted on the back and get a photo op." A number of lawmakers disputed this, saying it isn't surprising that a bad bill would contain some good elements. Even if a spending bill is wasteful, they said, that doesn't mean items for their district can't be worthwhile. "Not to be rude, but it's one of the dumbest things," Mr. Hoekstra said of the notion that there is a contradiction. "The only people who are supposed to get money in an omnibus bill are the ones that vote for it?...I don't see any inconsistency at all." Democratic Rep. Dennis Cardoza of California, who brands himself a "fiscally responsible legislator who delivers results for the Central Valley," opposed the spending bill. But when President Barack Obama signed it, Mr. Cardoza said he was "pleased to have been able to secure" nearly $25 million worth of projects. A staffer for Mr. Cardoza said the lawmaker voted against the bill not because of the spending, but because it gave the administration authority to overturn a rule that relaxed the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. GOP leaders took great pride in the fact that every House Republican voted against the $787 billion economic-stimulus bill and that all but 16 opposed the spending bill. They battered Mr. Obama and other Democrats, saying the spending bill increased outlays by 8% over the 2008 fiscal year. They also criticized its numerous earmarks, the special items inserted by lawmakers for their districts. Now many of the Republicans who opposed the bills are highlighting earmarks they inserted or other benefits the bills bring to their states. Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R., Calif.), who denounced the stimulus bill as wasteful, soon announced that it provided a $4.2 million grant for her district to prevent families from becoming homeless. "This funding will provide much-needed assistance," she said. Spokeswoman Jennifer May said the congresswoman considered the bill "misguided" and "bloated," but that Ms. Bono Mack's district was especially hard-hit by the housing crisis and the funding was crucial to keep families in their homes. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R., Fla.) voted against the spending bill. When it passed, he announced that he had "secured" $1.7 million in the legislation for a citrus-research project and a mental-health program. Questioned about this, Mr. Stearns issued a statement saying he opposed the bill because of its cost but would be shortchanging his constituents if he didn't seek money for them. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R., Fla.) also opposed the omnibus bill. After it passed, he announced that it included $570,000 for hybrid-fuel trolleys in Miami Lakes. "I am proud to have secured these federal funds to ensure that all residents of Miami Lakes can have easy access to parks, schools, shops and businesses," Mr. Diaz-Balart said. In an interview, Mr. Diaz-Balart said, "The omnibus was too much money, too much spending, too much borrowing, too much debt, and no accountability. Now, I have stuff in that bill, but I still voted against it. But what I have in there, I am very proud of." Rep. Howard Coble (R., N.C.) issued a news release on March 11 boasting that "six Coble earmarks" were in the omnibus bill, including $855,000 to extend an airport runway. Mr. Coble acknowledged he had opposed the spending bill. "I would be in favor of earmark reform," he said in the statement. "But as long as earmarks remain part of the legislative funding process, I would be doing a disservice to the people of the 6th District by not seeking funding for worthwhile projects." online.wsj.com See the chart and tables at: online.wsj.com

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (33706)	4/3/2009 11:53:06 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The Obama - Pelosi Administration is in trouble: ... Sixty percent (60%) of U.S. voters now have an unfavorable opinion of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, including 42% Very Unfavorable, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. A growing number of her doubters seem to be fellow Democrats. ... rasmussenreports.com

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (33706)	8/6/2010 10:10:05 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

An Argentinaville Stimulus? Wall Street comes to life with rumors of a back-door stimulus. AUGUST 6, 2010. It's August, so one expects the vapors to fill with humid and overripe rumors. But the ride given yesterday to rumors that the Obama Administration is planning an "August Stimulus Surprise" was remarkable even by the sodden standards of this summer. A wire service put out the story that Wall Street was abuzz that the Administration might lower Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's mortgage refinancing standards or trim mortgage balances for homeowners, thereby putting billions of dollars overnight into the pockets of benefiting consumers, thereby producing a "free stimulus," estimated by one Morgan Stanley analyst at $46 billion. And this stimulus "spending" would be achieved without a moment spent passing it through the Congressional appropriations process. A "slam dunk stimulus" is how the overheated Morgan Stanley commentator described it. The Treasury Department yesterday tossed cold water on the story. "The Administration is not considering a change in policy in this area," a spokesman said. We hope that stays true. People make jokes about the U.S. turning into Argentinaville, and a gambit like this would push us close. What's striking is that the notion got this much elevation. Serious mortgage analysts on Wall Street have been discussing it in postings all this week, with input not only from Morgan Stanley but also Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Barclays Capital, UBS and FTN Financial. You don't see this sort of firepower deployed unless the big boys think something real is afoot. Why would they think that? They would think that only if this Administration had created an atmosphere in which such notions could fester. For starters, there is the Administration's well-established faith in the power of stimulus spending. Its official spokesmen strongly dispute that the original $862 billion stimulus package hasn't worked, while its off-stage chorus in the punditocracy cries that the government should double down with a massively larger, new stimulus package. But with many vulnerable Democrats in Congress disinclined to campaign for re-election on yet more federal spending, naturally the political sophisticates on Wall Street would believe that the ever-clever Obama White House might design a back-door stimulus. A cynic might suggest the reason Fannie and Freddie were kept outside the financial reform bill was so they could be used as an in-house Appropriations Committee. The argument behind the "free stimulus" is that Fannie, Freddie and the Federal Housing Administration own or back about 37 million loans, and so the government "already owns the risk." If the mortgage agencies effectively forgive some of that debt, voila, the indebted homeowners have more cash to spend. Skeptical mortgage analysts were quick to point out that the government's two existing programs for struggling homeowners—HAMP for loan modifications and HARP for refinancings—have poor acceptance records. Their failure suggests that even a huge new forgiveness program is unlikely to work as hoped. An analysis this week by Credit Suisse, which calls the idea "too difficult to do properly," estimates the "stimulus" would be more like $10 billion to $15 billion. Set to one side that this would trash much of the discipline that has returned to banking. And set aside the suggestion under current stimulus theory that requiring contributors to the financial crisis to honor some of their debt obligations is less important than the hope that they will spend an alternative windfall on flat-panel TVs and iPads. For an Administration given to trumpeting "economic justice," any such transfer of taxpayer wealth from renters and homeowners to irresponsible borrowers would be a spectacle. And if it were done outside the appropriations process, the scheme would sound like the SEC's recent charge that Goldman Sachs illegally failed to inform one side of its famous securities deal. As noted in the editorial below, Nancy Pelosi is ordering her dispirited Democratic spear-carriers to return to Washington to whoop through bailout spending for teachers, whose unions ship more than 90% of their campaign contributions to these same Democrats. On the evidence, all this spending has mainly narcotized the Democratic base, while animating the GOP, which in this week's Missouri and Michigan primaries turned out by a two-to-one margin over Democrats. A back-door stimulus via Fannie and Freddie probably would have all Republicans and most independents camped out for a week to vote on November 2. Reason enough for the Obama Administration to assure the world that like August's thunderstorms, the "free stimulus" rumor was merely passing through. online.wsj.com