Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2025
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  

  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

    al qaeda barbarism big government blogging colorado congress corruption culture democrats denver economics economy elections environmentalism firearms freedom global warming gop gun control guns health care human rights humor iraq islam islamofascism israel journalism leftists liberty media bias military moonbats msm music obama politics presidential candidates republicans socialism soldiers spending terrorism war weather

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘democrats’

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Congressional junket paid for by bailout recipients

Posted by Richard on January 30, 2009

The National Legal and Policy Center, which is dedicated to "promoting ethics in public life," has asked the TARP Inspector General to look into a November Caribbean junket by Rep. Charles Rangel and five other members of Congress. The corporate sponsorship of this Congressional getaway clearly violated House rules and appears to be yet another example of "pay to play" (emphasis added):

The purported purpose of the Congressional trip was to attend the Caribbean Multi-Cultural Business Conference. The event took place November 6-9, 2008 on the sunny Caribbean island of St. Maarten at the Sonesta Maho Bay Resort & Casino, after Congress had approved the $700 billion bailout package in October.

The “lead sponsor” was Citigroup which contributed $100,000. Citigroup was certainly aware that it would be a major recipient of bailout funds. It was also aware that its fortunes had become increasingly reliant on Congressional actions. Citigroup should have also been aware that corporate sponsorship of such an event was banned by House Rules adopted on March 1, 2007, in response to the Abramoff scandal and the infamous golf trip to Scotland.

Taxpayers are now Citigroup’s largest shareholder after infusions of $45 billion.

NLPC President Peter Flaherty attended the St. Maarten’s event in order to document potential violations of law and House Rules. The sessions were lightly attended. The primary purpose of attending for most participants appeared to be to take a vacation.

In addition to Rangel, the other members of Congress who attended were Donald Payne (D-NJ), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI), Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Donna Christensen (D-VI).
…

NLPC’s Complaint reads, in part:

“When the TARP was presented to Congress, it was argued that the situation was dire, and that the failure of major financial institutions posed a systemic risk to our economy. The stated goal was to unfreeze credit so that banks can make loans to businesses and individuals. It was never contemplated that banks use their capital to buy influence on Capitol Hill by funding vacations for members of Congress.”

 Call me cynical, but I bet notorious tax-scofflaw Charlie Rangel and his cohorts contemplated exactly that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Treasury to be run by tax scofflaw

Posted by Richard on January 14, 2009

I seem to recall that the Obama transition team had a detailed questionnaire for potential appointees, some 16 or 20 pages long. One of the questions was, "Do you own a gun?" I wonder if there was a question like, "Do you always pay your taxes?" Because apparently, at least one Cabinet nominee would have had to answer no:

President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, failed to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for himself for four years and employed a housekeeper whose immigration documentation lapsed while in his employ.

…

Geithner disclosed to senators earlier in the day that he had failed to pay $34,000 in taxes from 2001 to 2004, a last-minute complication in an otherwise smooth path to confirmation. 

…

… He paid all of his income taxes on his IMF income, but made a "common mistake" on his tax returns with regard to self-employment taxes, Obama transition aides told reporters Tuesday.

"Common mistake," my ass. While doing consulting/contract work, he failed to pay some or all of his Social Security and Medicare taxes. Trust me, I paid self-employment taxes for over a decade and know whereof I speak. Failure to pay those taxes (or to pay the correct rate, which is twice that of wage earners) may be a "common mistake" among self-employed handymen, plumbers, etc., with a high school education (although I doubt it's all that common). But the paperwork isn't that complicated and the instructions are quite clear. Anyone who can't figure out what they owe in self-employment tax isn't qualified to be a bookkeeper, much less Treasury Secretary. It's unlikely that Geithner is that grossly incompetent, so I don't buy the "honest mistake" claim.

The news report I heard said the IRS audited Geithner in 2006 for two of the four years and billed him for the unpaid taxes, but waived penalties. I had one experience with the IRS claiming I owed additional tax (they disallowed a deduction), and they didn't treat me so kindly. Of course, I wasn't president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank at the time.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A senate hypothetical

Posted by Richard on January 7, 2009

Imagine there is a vacant Senate seat in a midwestern state, and the governor appoints a black man to fill the seat. The governor is under an ethical cloud, but hasn't even been indicted. He remains in office, performing all the gubernatorial duties every day, and he appears to have made the appointment in accord with state law. Imagine that the appointee appears to have a long and successful civic and political career, with a much stronger resumé and more experience in elected office than the senator he's replacing.

Oh, wait — that's not hypothetical, that's the news. 

Here's the hypothetical: Imagine that the Senate is still controlled by the GOP. Imagine that a bunch of white Republicans block the Senate chamber door and deny the black appointee a seat.

Can you picture it? Just imagine …

[No, I'm not rising to the defense of Roland Burris. He's rabidly anti-gun-rights and has worked for a national handgun ban (while owning one himself), and I'd rather not have him anywhere near a legislative body. I'm just struck by how once again different standards apply to Democrats. I believe this is example #694,371.]

On a somewhat related note, you might be interested in Dawn Trice's thoughtful column about "Magic Negroes" and "authentic" black men.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 7 Comments »

Not a good sign

Posted by Richard on November 7, 2008

The pundits, including many conservative pundits, are opining that Obama will "govern from the center." Sure he will. That's why he picked a hard-core leftist, rabidly partisan pit bull, Congressman Rahm Emmanuel, as his chief of staff.

Emmanuel made it quite clear after the 2006 election how interested he is in reaching across the aisle and ending the  partisanship in Washington: "The Republicans can go fuck themselves!"

I suspect a number of blue-blood country-club Republican politicians will be only too eager to go fuck themselves in order to demonstrate how bipartisan and cooperative they can be.

Oh, yeah — Emmanuel was on the board of Freddie Mac when it was creating our current financial crisis, and he helped Steny Hoyer manipulate the Congressional bailout plan voting so as to maximize the PR damage to the Republicans. (HT: Sweetness & Light)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

A dearth of honest reporting

Posted by Richard on October 27, 2008

I'm getting to it a bit late, but this October 9 column by Orson Scott Card (who is, by the way, a Democrat) deserves your attention. It discusses the source of the housing/financial crisis and the mendacity of the media in reporting it, and it's addressed to "the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America":

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" (http://snipurl.com/457to): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was … the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was … the Republican Party.

There's much more. Read the whole thing. The extent to which the vast majority of journalists are now promoting, protecting, cheerleading for, covering up for, and flat-out lying on behalf of Obama and the Democrats is shameful.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Steal a sign, get a pizza

Posted by Richard on October 22, 2008

Some lefty restaurateur in Michigan is rewarding anti-McCain hooliganism:

Break the law, get a pepperoni and cheese

Bring in a McCain/Palin sign and Salvatore’s Pizzeria, in Warren, Michigan will exchange it for a free pizza.

It seems owner, Diana Franzoni, is miffed that the McCain campaign pulled its resources out of Michigan. She is quoted as saying, “Health care is killing us. McCain gave up on Michigan, so you should give up on him.”

FOX 2’s Brad Edwards explains how that offer may have prompted some hungry bargain hunters to break the law. He reports that Franzoni estimates that since she put the bounty on the signs, she is receiving about 30 pilfered signs a day for at least the last couple of weeks, which equals 100‘s of filched signs — and pizzas.

What's next — key a McCain car, get a calzone?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Liberals helping the handicapped

Posted by Richard on October 19, 2008

Jack Justice of Albany, GA, spends his days in what's called an "adult day rehab" center. He's what I would describe as "mentally retarded" (which I learned as the correct term for such a condition).

The staff at the day care rehab center, like all good caring liberals, would no doubt chide me for using such a politically incorrect term, calling it insensitive and disrespectful.

But the staff had no moral qualms about taking Jack on a field trip to go vote. And marking his ballot for Obama, even though Jack wanted to vote for McCain:

ALBANY, GA (WALB) – There are allegations of voter fraud, as a Dougherty County family claims the vote of a mentally challenged relative was stolen.

They say the adult day rehab program where Jack Justice attends took him to vote, without the family's permission. What's worse is Justice says the person helping him wouldn't cast the ballot for his choice for President.
…

"They told me to vote for Obama, I said no I wanted to vote for McCain," said Jack Justice, a voter.

Jack Justice says the person helping him, selected Obama's name. His sister says the family is often asked to sign a permission slips for trips, but for this they were never notified.

"No permission slips, no nothing, he just came home and said he had gone," said Nancy Justice, Jack's sister.

We questioned election officials about the procedure, who say they recall the group coming in to vote and an aide was helping the individuals, but they must sign an oath that they'll cast the ballot however the voter prefers. 

The story doesn't indicate how many individuals were in this group. But I bet I can guess the percentage of Obama votes.

The story does explain what recourse is available:

Election officials say the family's only option is to file a challenge to the election results. …

Yeah, right. That'll fix things.

You may think this is an unfortunate isolated incident, but one of the commenters to the story asserted otherwise:

This has been going on since the 1980's, and I'm glad it's finally coming to light. My mother worked for the Wisconsin State School in Madison, WI in the 1980's. The Democrat aides ordered absentee ballots for the long-term patients (many of whom were of age to vote but had the mentality of 4-5 year olds). When the ballots arrived, they checked the Democrat candidate(s) name, had the patient scratch a signature, and mailed it in. Thereby the aide had many votes herself. The patients weren't aware or understanding of anything that was going on. Like I said this has been going on since the 80's at the hands of Democrat activists. If someone wanted to find this out, I'm sure they could find a lot of it all over the country. It's DISGUSTING!

Disgusting. Despicable. Contemptible. Loathsome. Vile… I can't think of an adjective strong enough for the vermin who do this.

(HT: Pejman Yousefzadeh)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

Envisioning the worst-case future

Posted by Richard on October 15, 2008

In his latest Weekly Standard column, Fred Barnes foresaw a bleak future for advocates of liberty and limited government (as if it isn't bleak enough, with half the nation's Republicans embracing Keynesian economic policies):

Thanks particularly to the month-long financial crisis, Republicans are in extremely poor shape with the election three weeks away. This means the worst case scenario is now a distinct possibility: a Democrat in the White House, a Democratic Senate with a filibuster-proof majority, and a Democratic House with a bolstered majority.

If this scenario unfolds, Washington would become a solidly liberal town again for the first time in decades. And the prospects of passing the liberal agenda–nearly all of it–would be bright. Enacting major parts of it would be even brighter. You can forget about bipartisanship.

The specifics are grim: big tax rate increases, liberal court appointments, protectionism, the fairness doctrine, Canada-like health care, card-check and other pro-union measures, cap-and-trade… Read the whole thing. 

Stephen Green, after an admittedly large intake of wine, envisioned new threats to free speech and in particular to bloggers:

If (when?) Obama is elected, by my estimation there’s an at least even chance that the newly-reconstructed FCC will reverse course and attempt to apply the New Fairness Doctrine to blogs.

If (when?) it happens, I’ll break that law. I will break it with all due malice and in full knowledge of the possible consequences. I’ll shout “Fire Obama!” in a crowded theater. And then, for the first time ever, I’ll ask for reader donations. Because I’ll going to need them, lots of them, to pay for the lawyers.

Green went on to make a point that dovetails with something I've maintained for some time — the left views its opponents as evil enemies to be crushed by any means necessary, and they're willing and eager to use any means necessary. The libertarian/conservative side simply can't and won't fight on that level: 

Libertarians/Conservatives like “Jay” and myself underestimate liberals/progressives — and what we’re guilty of is projection. But when we’re drunk and honest, we have to admit: We’re effing pikers. To restate more plainly: We don’t want power, and don’t know how to wield it. We’re pikers.

Progressives have no such qualms. Given power, they’ll take more and they’ll exercise it ruthlessly. Look at the Democrats in Congress these last two years. In not even 24 months, they’ve sunk to depths it took the Republican Congress six or more years to sink to. Their unpopularity levels are even worse than the Republicans’ in 2006. And what will happen in November? The Democrats will win seats — because they know how to wield their power to deliver the goods to please their corrupt, greedy, grabby, needy base.

I hope Barnes and Green are too pessimistic, but it's not looking good. 

Green was concerned enough to blast email his many influential contacts (and me, too) with "My First-Ever Mass Mailing In Almost Eight Years of Blogging," which may lead to some kind of organization or movement, or something. Maybe not right now, but probably — if the polls turn out to be right this time. 

Stay tuned. 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

House can’t handle flood of emails

Posted by Richard on September 30, 2008

According to The Hill:

The House is limiting e-mails from the public to prevent its websites from crashing due to the enormous amount of mail being submitted on the financial bailout bill. 

As a result, some constituents may get a 'try back at a later time' response if they use the House website to e-mail their lawmakers about the bill defeated in the House on Monday in a 205-228 vote.

… 

The CAO issued a “Dear Colleague” letter Tuesday morning informing offices that it had placed a limit on the number of e-mails sent via the “Write Your Representative” function of the House website. It said the limit would be imposed during peak e-mail traffic hours.

“This measure has become temporarily necessary to ensure that Congressional websites are not completely disabled by the millions of e-mails flowing into the system,” the letter reads.

A flood of millions of emails, almost all against the Paulson bailout plan, goes a long way toward explaining why the Democrats played to lose yesterday's bailout plan vote:

"Clyburn was not whipping the votes you would have expected him to, in part because he was uncomfortable doing it, in part because we didn't want the push for votes to be successful," says one leadership aide. "All we needed was enough to potentially get us over the finish line, but we wanted the Republicans to be the ones to do it. This was not going to be a Democrat-passed bill if the Speaker had anything to say about it."

During the floor vote, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Democrat Conference chair Rahm Emanuel could be seen monitoring the vote on the floor, and gauging whether or not more Democrat votes were needed. Clyburn had expressed concerns, says the leadership aide, of being asked to press members of the Black and Hispanic caucuses on a bill he was certain those constituencies would not want passed.

"It worked out, because we didn't have a dog in this fight. We negotiated. We gave the White House a bill. It was up to the Republicans to get the 100 plus votes they needed and they couldn't do it," said another Democrat leadership aide.

Emanuel, who served as a board member for Freddie Mac, one of the agencies that precipitated the economic crisis the nation now finds itself in, had no misgivings about taking a leadership role in tanking the bill. "He was cheerleading us along, mothering the votes," says the aide. "We wanted enough to put the pressure on the Republicans and Congressman Emanuel was charged with making it close enough. He did a great job."

The Democrats weren't about to take the lead in passing this hugely unpopular bill. They knew they could count on their allies in the media to make the Republicans look bad no matter what happened, as long as the vote was close. So they did their best to assume the role of disinterested bystanders. And judging by today's news coverage, they're mostly getting away with it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Roots of mortgage crisis

Posted by Richard on September 30, 2008

Ralph Reiland wrote a nice, succinct history of how we got into the current mess. The roots of the current crisis go back to Jimmy Carter's 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which gave poor people and minorities greater access to mortgage credit by punishing lending institutions that didn't meet "equal credit" guidelines.

In 1995, the Clinton administration greatly accelerated the flood of easy home loans by expanding both the carrots and the sticks.

One of the biggest sticks in the 1995 Treasury regulations involved letting left-wing advocacy groups essentially extort large pools of mortgage money from banks (along with hefty fees for the advocacy groups) in exchange for a satisfactory CRA rating.

The most successful of these radical left-wing groups was ACORN, today better known for its widespread voter registration frauds that have led to indictments in more than a dozen states. In the 90s, ACORN made a vast fortune extorting mountains of mortgage money from banks and parceling it out in the poor and minority communities over which it exercised influence (emphasis added): 

In addition to setting the stage for giving money for mortgage payouts to ACORN and other lending amateurs, CRA authorized those organizations to collect fees from the banks for their "marketing" of loans.

"The Senate Banking Committee has estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion so far has gone to pay for services and salaries of the nonprofit groups involved," reported Husock.

There's big money, in short, in "nonprofit" activism — and upward mobility. A guy carries a sign advocating "Change" in front of a bank and the government turns him into a salaried protester, credit analyst and dispenser of mortgage money.

"The changes came as radical 'housing rights' groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans," reports Investor's Business Daily, regarding the Clinton era. "ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama."

Change you can bank on.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

Demonizing and silencing gun owners

Posted by Richard on September 26, 2008

I wanted to post about this yesterday, but Blog-City was down for a long stretch. By now you've probably seen or heard about Rep. Alcee Hastings' smear of Gov. Sarah Palin. But in case you missed it, Hastings issued a warning to a National Jewish Democratic Council audience (emphasis added):

“If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,” Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida said at a panel about the shared agenda of Jewish and African-American Democrats Wednesday. … “Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through,” Hastings added as the room erupted in laughter and applause.

Stripping moose — did he mean skinning? In any case, his point is clear: hunters and gun owners are all dangerous racist bigots who will do who-knows-what to minorities.  

When they're not demonizing gun owners, Democrats are trying to silence and intimidate them. For instance, last week Obama himself suggested that his supporters get more confrontational:

In an appearance in Nevada, anti-gun presidential candidate Barack Obama told his followers:
 
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors.  I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican.  I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said. 

"And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.'  I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.'" (http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=8999386&nav=168XYT17)

Barack Obama has gone beyond lying about his long anti-gun record.  Now he is inciting his followers to lie for him and to be aggressive and confrontational with anyone who will not buy his lies.

Now his campaign is threatening radio and TV stations that air NRA-ILA ads about Obama's anti-gun record (emphasis in original):

As a staunch advocate of the First Amendment, I have to say that this is one of the scariest things I’ve seen since . . . well, since the last time Democrats used thuggery to try to squelch free speech.

Here’s the rundown. NRA does commercial highlighting Obama’s anti-gun record. Biased “fact-checking” site falsely claims that the NRA is being deceitful. Obama’s lawyer sends thuggish letter to networks threatening to try to get their license pulled.

Dat’s a nice broadcasting license you got dere. Sure would be a shame if anything was ta happen to it.

Xrlq thoroughly dismembered the Obama campaign's letter to radio and TV stations. And the "falsely" link in the Patterico quote above is to the NRA's response (PDF) to the WaPo claims regarding the ad. This morning, Instapundit posted a roundup of related stuff, plus the NRA ad in question. It's much like the radio ads airing here in Colorado, and none of the claims made in it were unknown to me — Obama's anti-gun history is pretty clear, extensive, and well-documented.

UPDATE: Don't miss that Gateway Pundit link in Instapundit's roundup, or Gateway's link to the St. Louis C of CC Blog. Democratic prosecutors and sheriffs in Missouri are suggesting that anyone who utters "false criticisms" of Obama may be arrested and prosecuted. Unbelievable!

What's next? Brown-shirted Obama youths disrupting McCain rallies and breaking heads? 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The speech Palin never gave

Posted by Richard on September 23, 2008

The New York Times of Israel (both in stature and ideology), Haaretz, did what liberal Jewish groups in the U.S. wouldn't do: let Gov. Sarah Palin speak. Haaretz published the speech that Palin wasn't allowed to deliver yesterday:

In the speech which Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was to have delivered at a Monday rally protesting the UN appearance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, she was to have said that the Iranian president "dreams of being an agent in a 'Final Solution' – the elimination of the Jewish people."

Her appearance in the rally in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza was cancelled in a flap between protest organizers and Hillary Clinton, who had also been scheduled to speak. Clinton aides were quoted as saying that they had been "blindsided" by the decision to invite Palin, which they called a partisan move. In the ensuing controversy, Clinton withdrew her participation, and Palin's invitation was rescinded. 

In the Bizarro world of today's Democrats, if Sen. Clinton and Gov. Palin both speak, it's partisan, but if Sen. Clinton alone speaks, it's not.

Palin's speech took a more high-minded approach (emphasis added):

Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.

Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!
Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime's dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran's behavior.

As I've said before, today's left is much less tolerant than today's right. 

And it's really sad that liberal American Jewish groups seem to be more left than they are Jewish.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

American Energy Freedom Day is coming

Posted by Richard on September 18, 2008

October 1 is being called American Energy Freedom Day because that's the day on which the current bans on oil shale and offshore drilling expire. Congressional Democrats are between a rock and a hard place on this one. That's why, as Investor's Business Daily noted, they hurriedly threw together an "energy bill" and rammed it through the House the other day:

The move won them misleading headlines declaring that Pelosi's Democrats had "eased offshore drilling ban" in what the press described as "a stark reversal." 

But Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the Republicans' Study Committee chairman, correctly called the bill "a sham" with no provision addressing the dire need for construction of new oil refineries, "no clean coal, no energy exploration in arctic Alaska, no nuclear energy and — if you read it — no exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf for energy in their bill." 

Behind this bill to drill that doesn't is radical environmentalist ideology.  "They look at our oil and gas reserves and see toxic waste sites," Hensarling quipped.  "Republicans look at our oil and gas reserves and see vast and valuable natural resources that will ease pain at the pump and lessen our dependence on foreign oil."

The bill appears to have no chance in the Senate and would almost certainly be vetoed if passed. IBD pointed out that this presents Republicans with a terrific opportunity, since an overwhelming majority of Americans favor more drilling: 

Republicans could take that Oct. 1 deadline and act like a winning football team — by running out the clock.  President Bush and Sen. McCain could lead the chorus counting the days to American Energy Freedom Day. 

Then once the clock has run out and the drilling ban is gone, McCain and other GOP candidates can spend the final month of the campaign basking in the credit they'd get from the American people — especially since oil prices are sure to drop in reaction to the ban's expiration.

There's just one complication: As is usually the case when the GOP is about to win one, members of their own party have tried to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Ten Republican senators have joined with ten Democrats (the "Gang of 20") to propose a "bipartisan compromise" that would cost $84 billion, increase energy taxes (which you and I will pay) by $30 billion, and only pretend to increase access to more new oil supplies. Colorado's Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer quite accurately described it as "40% tax increase, 10% energy and 50% snake oil."

Chris at My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy totally demolished the five key parts of this plan in a must-read post, concluding:

This is a disaster. If it doesn’t pass the media and democrats will light up with “Republicans kill increased drilling”. If it does pass, the republicans lose an issue to beat Obama up. Even worse is if it gets stuck in committee. Here’s that scenario. Mr. Representative wanna-be, where do you stand on drilling? “I support the ‘American Energy Act’ sitting in congress. I’ll make sure it’s passed”. Bam. Good bye issue. Of course, when he wins and the dems keep control, it will never come up and we’ll be stuck with high oil and gas prices as Nancy Pelosi tries to save the Earth.

The other problem is that even if it passes, it won’t increase supply. Two years from now, people will be wondering what the heck happened to all that drilling they had heard was coming. They won’t remember that it provided no incentives for the states to drill. They’ll just blame those evil oil companies and their republican allies.

We have the chance to win with this issue. If we do nothing over the next 2 weeks, the ban ends and the democrats will have to vote to re-instate it. The gang of idiots needs to be stopped before they can disarm the only issue that the republicans can win with.

According to The Hill, the Gang of 20 has now decided not to introduce a bill until after the election, instead issuing a "statement of principals (sic) outlining their agreement on a host of divisive issues, including expanded offshore drilling." Which makes it clear that the gang — Republicans and Democrats alike — are simply gutless, unprincipled opportunists who put this sham plan together so they could talk out of both sides of their mouths to the voters back home (9 of the 20 are up for reelection). 

Call and/or email your senators and congresscritter and tell them to let the ban expire. Tell them we don't need new taxes or massive new porkbarrel spending, we just need Congress to stop blocking access to energy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Generous with other people’s money

Posted by Richard on September 16, 2008

Q: Why are wealthy liberal Democrats so eager to spend more of your money on the needy?

A: So they can remain in denial about how stingy they are with their own money.

Mark J. Perry's Carpe Diem — a site you should be reading regularly — has the most recent case in point:

The WSJ, Greg Mankiw and Tax Prof all reported on Joe Biden's tax returns (available here and summarized on Tax Prof). As Tax Prof (Paul Caron) points out: "Despite income ranging from $210,432 – $321,379 over the ten-year period from 1998 to 2007, the Bidens have given only $120 – $995 per year to charity, which amounts to 0.06% – 0.31% of their income (see chart below)."

Maybe Biden donates his used underwear to charity, like Bill Clinton.

Perry, the master of the graph that's worth a thousand words, offered this comparison of Sen. Joe Biden's ten-year average charitable contribution with that of others with six-figure adjusted gross incomes:

Joe Biden vs. Other Taxpayer Groups

I don't quite match the $100k-$200k group — of course, I only have a five-figure income. But Biden donates just a little more than a tenth of what I do. And less than 2% of what others with $200k+ incomes give.

I don't begrudge him his stinginess — it's his money, and he has every right to do with it as he pleases. But he has a lot of nerve calling people like me greedy for opposing higher taxes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

A spasm of hatred

Posted by Richard on September 9, 2008

Nick Cohen in Britain's Observer:

During the 1997 British general election, the late Lord Jenkins said that Tony Blair was like a man walking down a shiny corridor carrying a precious vase. He was the favourite and held his fate in his hands. If he could just reach the end of the hall without a slip, a Labour victory was assured. The same could have been said of the American Democrats last week. But instead of protecting their precious advantage, they succumbed to a spasm of hatred and threw the vase, the crockery, the cutlery and the kitchen sink at an obscure politician from Alaska.

For once, the postmodern theories so many of them were taught at university are a help to the rest of us. As a Christian, conservative anti-abortionist who proved her support for the Iraq War by sending her son to fight in it, Sarah Palin was 'the other' – the threatening alien presence they defined themselves against. …

…

Hatred is the most powerful emotion in politics. At present, American liberals are not fighting for an Obama presidency. I suspect that most have only the haziest idea of what it would mean for their country. The slogans that move their hearts and stir their souls are directed against their enemies: Bush, the neo-cons, the religious right.

…

In an age when politics is choreographed, voters watch out for the moments when the public-relations facade breaks down and venom pours through the cracks. Their judgment is rarely favourable when it does. …

Needless to say, read the whole thing. 

(HT: No Oil for Pacifists) 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »