Obama challenges lobbyists to legislative duel in weekly address

Well here we go with carbon taxes,socialized healthcare…more and more taxes and “the single largest increase in federal spending in the history of the United States, while driving the deficit to levels that were once thought impossible.”

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama challenged the nation’s vested interests to a legislative duel Saturday, saying he will fight to change health care, energy and education in dramatic ways that will upset the status quo.”The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long,” Obama said in his weekly radio and video address. “But I don’t. I work for the American people.”He said the ambitious budget plan he presented Thursday will help millions of people, but only if Congress overcomes resistance from deep-pocket lobbies.”I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight,” Obama said, using tough-guy language reminiscent of his predecessor, George W. Bush. “My message to them is this: So am I.”The bring-it-on tone underscored Obama’s combative side as he prepares for a drawn-out battle over his tax and spending proposals. Sometimes he uses more conciliatory language and stresses the need for bipartisanship. Often he favors lofty, inspirational phrases.On Saturday, he was a full-throated populist, casting himself as the people’s champion confronting special interest groups that care more about themselves and the wealthy than about the average American.Some analysts say Obama’s proposals are almost radical. But he said all of them were included in his campaign promises. “It is the change the American people voted for in November,” he said.Nonetheless, he said, well-financed interest groups will fight back furiously.Insurance companies will dislike having “to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs,” the president said. “I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy.”Passing the budget, even with a Democratic-controlled Congress, “won’t be easy,” Obama said. “Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington.”Obama also promoted his economic proposals in a video message to a group meeting in Los Angeles on “the state of the black union.”"We have done more in these past 30 days to bring about progressive change than we have in the past many years,” the president in remarks the White House released in advance. “We are closing the gap between the nation we are and the nation we can be by implementing policies that will speed our recovery and build a foundation for lasting prosperity and opportunity.”Congressional Republicans continued to bash Obama’s spending proposals and his projection of a $1.75 trillion deficit this year.Almost every day brings another “multibillion-dollar government spending plan being proposed or even worse, passed,” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., who gave the GOP’s weekly address.He said Obama is pushing “the single largest increase in federal spending in the history of the United States, while driving the deficit to levels that were once thought impossible.”

more about “Obama challenges lobbyists to legisla…“, posted with vodpod

Obama’s budget is the end of an Reagan era

The president’s ambitious proposal breaks with the conservative principles that have ruled national politics since Reagan.

Republican House & Senate Budget Cmte. Response to President’s FY 2010 Budget RequestThursdaySenate Budget Committee Ranking Member Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and House Budget Committee Ranking Member Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) held a press conference to discuss President Obama’s FY 2010 Budget Request. (This is a long video, but very informative.)

more about “ Republican House & Senate Budget Cmt…“, posted with vodpod

See @ c-span.org

Not since Lyndon B. Johnson and Franklin D. Roosevelt has a president moved to expand the role of government so much on so many fronts — and with such a demanding sense of urgency.

The scope of President Obama’s ambition was laid bare in the budget blueprint issued Thursday.

The budget would account for 24.1% of next year’s estimated gross domestic product, one of the highest percentages since World War II, and would raise taxes, redistribute income, spend more on social programs than on defense, and implement policies that touch almost every aspect of Americans’ lives — their banks, healthcare, schools, even the air they breathe.

Even more stark than the breadth and scale of Obama’s proposals was his determination to break with the conservative principles that have dominated national politics and policymaking since Ronald Reagan’s election as president in 1980.

“It changes the whole paradigm,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). “We’re going to have a government that helps people.”

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) took another view. “The era of big government is back, and Democrats are asking you to pay for it,” he said.

Obama’s budget plan asserts that in some areas, government can do a better job than private enterprise and do it for less. For instance, he argues, Washington can provide loans to college students just as efficiently and at lower cost than the private lenders who dominate the field.

And after years of steady growth in the share of the nation’s wealth owned by its most affluent citizens, Obama is calling for tax changes that would require high-income taxpayers to shoulder more of the load.

The question now is whether Congress will go along.

The question applies, in particular, to Blue Dog Democrats, members of the House and Senate who in recent years have won election from traditionally conservative and Republican areas by positioning themselves as moderate to conservative, especially on spending and the deficit.

Although Obama’s supporters enjoy a comfortable margin in the House, his $787-billion economic stimulus package passed the Senate only after a deal was struck with conservative Democrats and three moderate Republicans.

As a candidate, Obama often staked out positions so general or nuanced that voters often inferred that he agreed with them even though he had not quite said so. That approach broadened his appeal. And in his first five weeks as president, Obama largely continued that approach, signaling that he was willing to listen to all sides and using his choice of Cabinet members to strike balances among different interest groups.

That stage of his presidency appears to be ending. The budget outline suggests that Obama is ready to start spending his political capital — a recent Gallup poll found that 67% of Americans approved of the way he was handling the stimulus bill — and risk making enemies in the pursuit of ambitious policy goals.

The breadth of the budget has an advantage: Even if Obama achieves only part of his goals, that could leave a long record of accomplishment. But by proposing action on such a wide range of fronts, Obama also risks overloading the often cumbersome legislative machinery of Capitol Hill.

“I cannot remember a time when Congress had an agenda of this scope, size and difficulty,” said former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat who spent 34 years in the House.

He compared the magnitude of Obama’s agenda to that of Johnson’s Great Society, which launched a costly war on poverty and pushed through the most far-reaching civil rights laws since President Lincoln.

Obama has already demonstrated an ability to get Congress to break its institutional inertia. The economic stimulus was one of the biggest bills in history, and it made it through the congressional maze in record time.

In the new budget blueprint — a basic outline of the budget to be submitted to Congress in April — Obama has similarly left it to Congress to write the details of his healthcare initiative. But he wants it at the top of Capitol Hill’s agenda.

Read @ LATimes.com

Fairness Doctrine Alternative/ Broadcaster Freedom Act

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduces the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would allow Congress to take a stand against reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, during a speech on the Senate floor.

Tennessee Gets it’s Stimulus Money

I found some info on the stimulus money that the state of Tennessee is getting. Thought I’d post this article on where the money is going. See if you think it will stimulate the economy or grow government.

If it’s not Stimulating the Economy Then What is it Stimulating?

Christian Grantham over at Channel 2’s Nashville is Talking posted Tennessee’s portion of the Stimulus Package swag.  Keep in mind this is supposed to be spending that stimulates the Economy.  This is a joke – and a bad one.  The total amount Tennessee is to receive is $3,779,708,000 – almost $4 billion dollars to pump into the economy of the state of Tennessee.  Let’s see where the pork is earmarked to go …

The first $943,288,000 under the heading Fiscal Stabilization, whatever that means, is spent as follows:  $771,610,000 on Education and $171,678,000 on General Purpose.  How spending three quarters of a billion dollars on Education is going to stimulate the Economy is beyond me.  I know, I know … an educated populace is a prosperous one.  I even agree.  But the sky is falling, remember?  We have to pass the Stimulus now or Economic ruin is upon us.  How even $771 trillion spent on education over the next 5 years is going to do anything but prosper the Teacher’s Union is beyond me.  This is not stimulating the Economy anytime soon.  General Purpose sounds like the money is going into the state’s General Budget.

This is nothing more than Welfare for Tennessee instead of Tennesseans.  The state gets another $172 million dollars to spend on whatever it wants.  I wish we had checkbook transparency in Tennessee so we could know that money was spent in the Private Sector and thus be sure it was stimulating the Economy.  Government spending on Government is only Economically depressing as once the “Stimulus” funds are gone taxpayers still pick up the tab for the bureaucracy it created.  Two line items down, we’ve spent a billion dollars – so far no stimulus.

The next several line items are spending for various projects and we get a bit more specific.

The list of recipients is instructive:

• $771,610,000 on Education
• $171,678,000 on “General Purpose”
• $1,100,000,000 for Medicaid
• $10,200,000 for the Foster Care system
• $71,988,000 to mass transit capital grants
• $20,394,000 to “clean water” programs
• $57,814,000 to drinking water programs
• $97,467,000 to something called “weatherization”
• $59,065,000 to the state energy program
• $7,199,000 for immunization
• $2,614,000 for elderly nutrition
• $41,932,000 to child care
• $19,699,000 to the shadowy idea of “community services”
• $2,069,000 to the “temporary emergency food assistance program”
• $2,064,000 for emergency food and shelter
• $11,500,000 for vocational rehabilitation
• $174,210,000 for K thru 12 education
• $50,386,000 for school improvement
• $236,163,000 goes to the individuals with disabilities act

Under this expense Special Education gets $229 million and Early Intervention a mere $7 million.  Why does this sound like more payoffs to the Teacher’s Union and not an Economic Stimulus.  Again, leaving for the moment the ongoing expense of such programs after the Stimulus money is gone when taxpayers right here in Tennessee will have to pick up the tab for it.  I’m giving this an “F” in Stimulus accomplishment while noting that the program does manage to play well with other expensive Government boondoggle programs.

Education mercifully peters out at long last with a final gasp of $10,994,000 for Education Technology, $669,000 for Education for the Homeless and $1,985,000 for School Lunch Equipment.  I’m excited to be able to finally score a couple of “Yes” votes.  Ed Tech and the Lunch Equipment will almost certainly have to be purchased from a Private Sector company thereby providing non-Government jobs and capital to the only people able to actually impact the Economy.  Education for the Homeless?  Not so much…

Another long list of non-stimulating expenditures follows.  HOME Investment Partnership Program gets $30,394,000.  $49,518,000 goes to Byrne Justice Assistance Grant.  Crimefighting gets stimulated with $9,770,000 for Crime Victims Assistance, $646,000 for Internet Crimes Against Children and $4,496,000 for Violence Against Women.  $9,600,000 for State Administration Grants for Unemployment Insurance would appear to be federal money to pay for overseeing a federal program.  It might help end a bit of unfunded mandates but it’s not stimulating.  $10,945,000 for Adult Workforce Investment Act and an additional $25,353,000 for the Youth version of the same sound unlikely to do anything but produce bureaucracy.  Dislocated Workers get stimulated to the tune of $19,777,000.  $2,472,000 goes to Community Service for Older Americans and Employment Service gets $7,426,000 which, if it is to help people find work may be stimulating but I wonder how the state’s Private Sector businesses doing the same thing will feel about their tax dollars going to create Governmental competition for them?  None of this is economically stimulating.

Our $3.8 billion in Economic Stimulus funds is finished up by our final entries.  Head Start, that powerful and ancient economic engine, gets $13,775,000.  $80,710,000 goes to the Public Housing Capital Fund.  That sounds too much like another Government program as opposed to actual construction work so we’ll vote “No”.  CDBG and Neighborhood Revitalization gets a “?” on the amount to be spent on it but it doesn’t sound promising.  And the final line item is … drum roll, please … $20,397,000 for Homelessness Prevention.

Our totals are quite interesting.  Of our total $3,779,708,000 – $1,246,017 goes to various Education programs, $1,100,000,000 goes to Medicaid leaving just $1,433,691,000 to spend on everything else.  Almost two thirds of the money is excluded from stimulating the Economy in just two general items.  Of the monies left, $771,282,000 also fails to stimulate the Economy, $662,409,000 falls under the “Maybe” category and only $12,979,000 has the appearance of true Stimulus spending.

This is why only 3 Republican votes could be squeezed out of Congress.  This is why hundreds of Economists, including Nobel Laureates, disagree with the President’s contention that Government must do something to fix the problem.  This is why the more people found out about the idea, the less they liked it.  This is the reason the President broke campaign promises to permit legislation to be viewed and debated before voting on it.  This is the reason millions of Americans believe the bill to be nothing but Earmarks and Pork and little or no real Economic Stimulus.

It’s also the reason Governor Phil Bredesen and the Tennessee Legislature should simply refuse to accept the money and send it back.  While failing in its stated intention to stimulate the Economy, it succeeds quite nicely at funding taxpayer unfriendly special interest groups and non-profits.  It succeeds handsomely at invigorating the growth of Government and bureaucracy.  In short, it is actually damaging to the Economy because it creates billions of dollars in federal programs which are left to taxpayers to pay for after the Stimulus funds run out.  Not to mention they must pay back the original money, with interest.  This is not stimulating to Tennessee or Tennesseans.  Our elected officials should understand this and refuse to accept such tremendous financial burdens in the name of fiscal responsibility. (But you know they won’t!)

Read at Conservablogs.com

State Governors Declare Sovereignty Over Obama’s Action

Now the governors of some states are refusing Obama’s stimulus package money!

Eleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama’s Action

State governors — looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the Obama “stimulus” plan — are saying they will refuse to take the money.  This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time.

In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of “hope” equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government’s authority over the states. These states — Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas — have passed resolutions reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limiting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.

When the Constitution was being ratified during the 1780s, the 10th Amendment was understood to be the linchpin that held the entire Bill of Rights together. The amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The use of the 10th Amendment in conjunction with nullification garnered much attention in 1828, when the federal government passed a tariff that southerners believed affected them disproportionately. When the 1828 tariff was complemented by another in 1832, Vice President John C. Calhoun resigned the Vice Presidency to lead his home state of South Carolina in pursuit of an “ordinance of nullification,” which was no less a declaration of the sovereignty of each individual state within the union than the declarations now being made.

Calhoun was simply exercising what he recognized to be his state’s right to defend liberty within its borders by rejecting the dictates of an overbearing central government. While his efforts culminated in a tense affair referred to as the “nullification crisis,” which witnessed everything from threats of a federal invasion of South Carolina to an ongoing and near union-rending debate over national power vs. state’s rights, they also succeeded in turning back the tariffs that had been passed in spite of the Constitutional limits on federal power.

This time around, in 2009, appeals to the 10th Amendment are not based on tariffs but on unfettered government expansion in Obama’s “stimulus bill,” federal mandates on abortion that violate state laws, and infringements on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, among other things.

For example, Family Security Matters reports that Missouri’s “House Concurrent Resolution 0004 (2009) reasserts its sovereignty based on Barack Obama’s stated intention to sign into law a federal ‘Freedom of Choice Act’, [because] the federal Freedom of Choice Act would nullify any federal or state law ‘enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment’ and would effectively prevent the State of Missouri from enacting similar protective measures in the future.”

The resolution in Montana grew out of concerns over coming attacks on the 2nd Amendment, thus its preface describes it as, “An Act Exempting From Federal Regulation Under The Commerce Clause Of The Constitution Of The United States A Firearm, A Firearm Accessory, Or Ammunition Manufactured And Retained In Montana.”

New Hampshire’s resolution actually references certain federal actions that would be nullified within that state were they pushed by Obama’s administration, according to americandaily.com. Among these are “Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press, [and any] further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.

Regardless of the specific reason behind each of the resolutions in the 11 states, all of them direct the federal government to “cease and desist” in its reckless violation of state’s rights. In this way, South Carolina’s resolution is typical of the others issued to date:

“The General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, claims for the State of South Carolina sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution…

Be it…resolved that this resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as South Carolina’s agent, to cease and desist immediately all mandates…beyond the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally delegated powers.”

What these state assemblies and congresses have hit upon here is key to our entire conservative interpretation of the Constitution, for these states understand that the Constitution limits the federal government, not the people. Or to put it another way, it guarantees the freedom of the people by limiting the government.

Every conservative should relish the call for the federal government to “cease and desist all mandates that are beyond the scope of [its] constitutionally delegated powers.” In this way, we honor the Constitution that enumerates a number of our liberties yet also guarantees us other liberties that are neither enumerated nor denied in the document.

Liberals don’t respect the Constitution, and liberals in Congress don’t hesitate to propose legislation that would clearly violate it.  The current push to give Washington, D.C. a voting representative in the House of Representatives is a good example; even liberal Prof. Jonathan Turley told a Congressional hearing that this bill is patently unconstitutional.  But they press on with it.

Our Constitutional system of checks and balances is always thought of as enabling two of the three branches of the federal government to keep the third within its constitutional bounds.  But there is a fourth check, the states, which also have a Constitutional function.  It is to them this burden now falls.  The states can choose between allowing the federal government to impose untenable conditions on them if they accept the stimulus money, or to reject it.

These eleven states have the right to reject the stimulus plan.  And they must.

There is no other option. For this federal expansion will not stop unless we stand in its way with courage in our hearts and the Constitution in our hands.

Read at Humanevents.com

Global Warming or Global Governance?

Contrary to what is heard in the media, there is overwhelming evidence that the warming we are experiencing is natural, with maybe a small amount contributed by man’s activities. Nor is there any scientific consensus. 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide is causing…catastrophic” warming.

If you were to ask ten people on the street if mankind’s activities are causing global warming, my guess is that a majority would say yes. In fact, a Gallup poll conducted July 23-26, 2007 found that 63% believed that global warming is caused mostly by human activities. But is this perception of global warming based on fact or just misguided opinion?

Mr. Gore and his colleagues at the IPCC maintain that there is an increase in global average temperatures, due to man-made intervention resulting in a “greenhouse effect.” They also say that natural phenomena, such as solar variation, combined with volcanoes, had little effect on global warming from pre-industrial times until 1950, and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.

These conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. However, there are many scientists, some who have served on the IPCC panel, who have voiced disagreement with many of the findings of the IPCC. One noted biologist and ecologist Dr. Michael Coffman, Executive Director of Environmental Perspectives, Inc. and CEO of Sovereignty International, said in his presentation, Global Warming or Global Governance, “The global warming climate change issue is so important that people on both sides of the issue, including policymakers should be fully informed before policy is actually formulated. Tragically, that’s not happening in the global warming issue.” Coffman further says that what is being proposed by Al Gore and his colleagues is that man is primarily causing a global warming effect, but there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary put forth by prominent scientists from around the world.

more about “ Global Warming or Global Governance?“, posted with vodpod

Poll: Obama More Revered Than Jesus Christ

I just had to post this one! Here’s a mortal man that has only been in office 30 days and really hasn’t done anything yet, but is rated #1 above 2nd place Jesus Christ as their “hero”. The first thing that comes to mind when I saw this was: I remember what happened to the Beatles when they made the comment, “The Beatles are bigger than Jesus”……..their ratings plummeted. I hate to think what will happen to America because of this foolish choice of a man. Jesus Christ is above all of us…far above!

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — Americans named President Obama as their No. 1 hero, followed by Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King, in a new Harris poll.

Others in the top 10, in descending order, were Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, John McCain, John F. Kennedy, Chesley Sullenberger and Mother Teresa.

People were asked whom they admired enough to call their heroes. Those surveyed were not shown a list of people to choose from. The Harris Poll was conducted online among a sample of 2,634 U.S. adults by Harris Interactive.

This question was first asked in a Harris Poll in 2001. In that survey Jesus Christ was the hero mentioned most often, followed by Martin Luther King, Colin Powell, John F. Kennedy and Mother Teresa.

What Makes a Hero?
The public gives multiple reasons to explain their choice of heroes. Those mentioned
most often include:
• “Doing what’s right regardless of personal consequences” (89%);
• “Not giving up until the goal is accomplished” (83%)
• “Doing more than what other people expect of them” (82%)
• “Overcoming adversity” (81%), and
• “Staying level-headed in a crisis” (81%).

The biggest changes upwards on this list into the top 10 since 2001, apart from Barack Obama, were:

— George W. Bush was rated only 19th in July 2001, when he had been president for six months, and is now number 5 on the list.

— John McCain, who was not in the top 20 in 2001, is now number 7.

— Chesley Sullenberger, the pilot who landed his jet safely in the Hudson River, is ranked number 9.

Heroes who were in the top 10 in 2001 who have fallen sharply this year include:

— Colin Powell, who was number 3 and is now number 16.

— John Wayne, who was number 8 and has dropped out of the top 20.

— Michael Jordan, who was number 9 and is no longer in the top 20.

— Mother Teresa, who was number 5 and is now number 10.

Read entire article :Chicago Sun Times.

Obama Is Not Jesus Christ

Rick Santelli calls for Tea party on Floor of Chicago Board of Trade

Rick Santelli of CNBC calls for a Tea Party style even in response the current and former bailout/stimulus deals.

The floor of the Chicago Board of Trade erupts in support and boo’s when asked if they want to pay their neighbor’s mortgage.

He also offers a comparison of Cuba changing over from a individualist to collectivist society and the effect it has had on their economy.

He asks that all capitalists join him in July for a new Tea party on the shores of Lake Michigan.

Check out the video at CNBC.com

Three Republican Governors May Reject Stimulus Cash

Three Republican governors voiced concerns this week over acceptance of a dizzying conglomeration of bailout funding to their states from President Obama’s so-called stimulus bill, which includes a massive array of deadlines, mandates and consequences.  Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina have all made it clear that they strongly disagree with the Obama plan to saddle taxpayers with an additional $1.2 trillion of federal loan debt and spending that has very little to do with stimulating the economy.

Staffers for all three governors confirmed to HUMAN EVENTS yesterday that their experts are now doing the job Democrats in Congress refused to do and refused to allow Republicans to do before the vote:  they are reading the entire 1,100-page “stimulus” spending bill.

I spoke yesterday with Joel Sawyer, Sanford’s communications director.  “We have staff going through this bill line by line to see exactly what is there,” Sawyer told me.  “We are considering all of our options.”  When asked if Sanford would consider giving the people of South Carolina a tax holiday or tax cuts to stimulate the economy with any of the funding, Sawyer said, “We would consider that if it proves legal and allowable.  We’re not yet to the point of knowing if that’s an option.”

Sanford took a very public stance last November (“Don’t Bail Out My State“) suggesting a better solution than a bailout would be relief from the $425 million in unfunded federal government mandates South Carolina will have to pay this year.  Sanford is seriously considering refusing to accept the funding and its myriad consequences stemming from the vast expansion of state welfare and health care programs with temporary federal dollars.

Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) was furious at the possibility of missing out on his cut of the Democrat constituency pork payoffs at taxpayer expense, so he had inserted into the bill what folks inside the Beltway refer to as the “punish Mark Sanford amendment.”   As reported in HUMAN EVENTS, this highly-questionable rider would allow for a state legislature to accept the federal funding should a governor reject it, thus overriding state laws and constitutions in manner that probably violates the U.S. Constitution.  House Minority Leader John Boehner has requested the non-partisan Congressional Research Service assess the Constitutionality of that provision in the bill.

In Texas, Perry has decided to accept the funds while looking for wiggle room in ways he can spend the estimated $17 billion allotted to Texas.   In a letter yesterday to President Obama, Perry gave formal notice that Texas will, in fact, accept the bailout funds while Perry staffers told me they continue to pore over the bill “line by line.”

Perry told the President in his letter he will “use the funds to promote economic growth and create jobs in a fiscally responsible manner that is in the best interest of Texas taxpayers” and that he “remains opposed to using the money to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing costs long after the federal dollars have dried up.”

I spoke with Jindal’s staffers in Louisiana yesterday who told me the governor’s experts are also plowing through the gargantuan bill “line by line” in an effort to assess the impact to Louisiana taxpayers.

“We’ll have to review each program, each new dollar to make sure that we understand what are the conditions, what are the strings and see whether it’s beneficial for Louisiana to use those dollars,” Jindal told the New Orleans CBS affiliate.

Guidelines for the Bailout Money

The Office of Management and Budget yesterday released its “Initial Implementing Guidance” to agencies, states, contractors and grantees for disbursement of the funding.  This “initial” document, in itself, is 62 pages of scintillating reading.  This was my favorite part:

“When entering data in FPDS on any action (including modifications) funded by the Recovery Act, agencies must enter the Treasury Account Symbol (TAS) in the Description of Requirement field. The TAS code should be entered with TAS:: preceding the code and ::TAS following the code. The code itself should have spaces between the segments, i.e., Agency code (2 characters) would be entered followed by a space then the Account code (4 characters) followed by a space and then the Subaccount code (3 characters) which is optional and would only be included by those agencies utilizing this segment of the code.”

Who writes this stuff?

---

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.

Read at Humanevents.com

Criminalizing dissent and the 1st Amendment?

I don’t usually watch Democracy Now, but in this case this segment is worth watching. During the RNC last year these peaceful protesters were charged under Minnesota’s version of the Patriot Act for terrorism while protesting? Yes you read right! Peaceful protesting is not “terrorism”.

Criminalizing dissent? RNC protesters face felony terrorism charges

Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman talked to Luce Guillen-Givins who is one of the first people ever to be charged under the 2002 Minnesota version of the federal PATRIOT Act. Guillen-Givins and 7 other members of the group RNC Welcoming Committee — also known as the “RNC 8″ — were formally charged with conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism.However, criminal complaints filed reportedly do not allege that members of the RNC 8 personally engaged in any act of violence or damage to property. “Instead, authorities are seeking to hold the eight defendants responsible for acts committed by other individuals during the opening days of the Republican National Convention,” reports Democracy Now.“I think the significance is that this is one more step in the process of criminalizing dissent,” Guillen-Givins. “It’s the fact that we do have a right to protest. Any prosecution under a PATRIOT Act or any similar legislation infringes on those rights.”A full transcript of Amy Goodman’s interview with Luce Guillen-Givins is available here.This video is from Link TV’s Democracy Now, broadcast Feb. 18, 2009.

more about “Criminalizing dissent? RNC protesters…“, posted with vodpod

Read at Rawstory.com