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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DizzyG who wrote (60915)	3/11/2009 2:25:22 PM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224744

Obama says he accepts 'imperfect' spending bill Obama accepts 'imperfect' spending bill but says it must be end of 'old way of doing business' Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer Wednesday March 11, 2009, 1:04 pm EDT Buzz up! Print WASHINGTON (AP) -- Acknowledging it's an "imperfect" bill, President Barack Obama said Wednesday he will accept a $410 billion spending package that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign. But he insisted the bill must signal an "end to the old way of doing business." AP - President Barack Obama leaves the podium after making remarks on earmark reform, Wednesday, March 11, 2009, in the ... The massive measure funding federal agencies through the fall contains nearly 8,000 pet projects, known as earmarks and denounced by critics as pork. Obama defended earmarks when they're "done right," allowing lawmakers to direct money to worthy projects in their districts. But he said they've been abused, and he promised to work with Congress to curb them. "I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government," Obama declared. "But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change." In a sign of his discomfort with the bill, Obama planned to sign the bill quietly rather than in public. He declined to answer a shouted reporters' question about why. Running for president, Obama denounced the many pet projects as wasteful and open to abuse -- and vowed to rein them in. Explaining his decision, Obama said that future earmarks must have a "legitimate and worthy public purpose", and the any earmark for a private company should be subject to competitive bidding rules. Plus he said he'll "work with Congress" to eliminate any the administration objects to. But he acknowledged that earmarks have bred "cynicism", and he declared, "This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business." White House officials in recent weeks have dismissed criticism of the earmarks in the bill, saying the legislation was a remnant of last year and that the president planned to turn his attention to future spending instead of looking backward. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama wouldn't be the first president to sign legislation that he viewed as less than ideal. Asked whether Obama had second thoughts about signing the bill, Gibbs' reply was curt: "No." Obama's modest set of reforms builds upon changes initiated by Republicans in 2006 and strengthened by Democrats two years ago. Most importantly, every earmark and its sponsor must be made public. In new steps -- outlined in concert with House Democratic leaders Wednesday morning -- the House Appropriations Committee will submit every earmark to the appropriate executive branch agency for a review. And any earmark designed to go to for-profit companies would have to be awarded through a competitive bidding process. But perhaps the most tangible change may be Obama's promise to resurrect the long-defunct process by which the president proposes to cut spending from bills that he has signed into law. Under this so-called rescissions process, the White House sends Congress a roster of cuts for its consideration. Congress is free to ignore the cuts, but both Obama and senior members like Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., say they want to use it to clean out bad earmarks that make it through the process. But Obama declined to endorse a stronger process advocated by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others, that would have required Congress to vote on a presidential rescission earmark package. Senior Democrats dislike the idea even though many of them backed it in the early-to-mid 1990s. During his presidential campaign, Obama promised to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel-spending ways. Yet the bill sent from the Democratic-controlled Congress to the White House on Tuesday contained 7,991 earmarks totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the Republican staff of the House Appropriations Committee. The 1,132-page bill has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs. Among the many earmarks are $485,000 for a boarding school for at-risk native students in western Alaska and $1.2 million for Helen Keller International so the nonprofit can provide eyeglasses to students with poor vision. Most of the government has been running on a stopgap funding bill set to expire at midnight Wednesday. Refusing to sign the newly completed spending bill would force Congress to pass another bill to keep the lights on come Thursday or else shut down the massive federal government. That is an unlikely possibility for a president who has spent just seven weeks in office. The $410 billion bill includes significant increases in food aid for the poor, energy research and other programs. It was supposed to have been completed last fall, but Democrats opted against election-year battles with Republicans and former President George W. Bush.

To: DizzyG who wrote (60915)	3/11/2009 2:33:35 PM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224744

The Orwellian Presidential Bully Pulpit by David Limbaugh Does the following statement from Melody C. Barnes, director of President Barack Obama's Domestic Policy Council, strike you as a) patronizing or b) Orwellian? "The president believes that it's particularly important to sign this (presidential memorandum authorizing federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research) so that we can put science and technology back at the heart of pursuing a broad range of national goals." Your answer should be both a and b, especially when considered in conjunction with another presidential memorandum "aimed at insulating scientific decisions across the federal government from political influence." The president brazenly sermonizes against scientifically challenged conservatives while triggering federal funding of research that is scientifically controversial and preparing to impose cap and trade penalties on corporate America in deference to global warming junk science. While you won't hear much about this in the mainstream media, there is a meeting currently taking place in New York City that serves as an ironic backdrop for Obama's embryonic stem cell order. OneNewsNow.com reports that more than 70 scientists -- representing the views of tens of thousands more scientists -- are meeting at The Heartland Institute's second annual International Conference on Climate Change to make the case that politically motivated alarmism, not science, is driving climate change activism, which potentially threatens the sovereignty of the United States. At the conference, European Union and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus likened those pushing global warming hysteria to the communists of Old Europe, who refused to listen to opposing views. Their goal, Klaus warned, is to control the public. Sounds familiar. The Obama administration repeatedly implements policies that are in direct contradiction to its benign rhetoric, which is what I mean by "Orwellian." Consider its fiscal recklessness accompanied by promises of fiscal responsibility, including its staggering denial that it is promoting earmarks. Or its boasts of bipartisanship while shutting Republicans out of the legislative process. Or calling its plan to chill an employee's choice to opt out of union membership the "Employee Free Choice Act." But Obama's statements while introducing his embryonic stem cell executive order truly take the cake. He said: "But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans, from across the political spectrum and from all backgrounds and beliefs, have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research -- that the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided." It would take several columns to parse that statement alone, but just look at the misleading phraseology: "The majority of Americans … have come to a consensus." Assuming a majority favors embryonic stem cell research -- and even federal taxpayer funding for it -- is it not deceptive to imply that a majority constitutes a consensus? Of course, those who agree on a proposition always share a consensus among themselves, but doesn't "consensus" suggest that there is almost unanimity on the issue? The answer is yes. The Obama left repeatedly uses this type of language to manufacture the impression that only a fringe minority disagrees with the overwhelmingly accepted majority view. They declare a consensus when there isn't one and bully the true opposition from voicing their concerns. They do it with global warming, embryonic stem cell research, "intelligent design" theory and now Keynesian economics. They have plenty of help from the liberal lapdog media. They dutifully report that Obama is lifting a ban on embryonic stem cell research when there has been no ban on such research, only a restriction on federal funding for it. Nowhere do they acknowledge the genuine ethical objections to or the scientific problems that have been encountered in such research. Instead, they just portray opponents of federal subsidies for the practice as Luddites. While the left ridicules those who don't buy into their decreed "consensuses," they are the ones who suppress scientific inquiry and debate on various issues. They are the ones who suppress publication of facts that contradict their agenda. You'll rarely hear from them about the failures and hazards of embryonic stem cell research, such as a report that embryonic cells injected into a boy caused multiple brain tumors. You'll never hear them speak about the increasing successes of adult stem cell research, even though adult stem cell science is less expensive, more accessible, probably involves less cancer-causing risk, and is not ethically controversial. Beware; when the Obama left mounts its rhetorical high horse and tells us it is advancing science in furtherance of a consensus, it is most likely signaling that it is implementing a highly controversial, scientifically dubious policy whose opposition it intends to intimidate and silence with the formidable force of the presidential bully pulpit.