Arlen, We Hardly Knew Ye

So, Arlen Specter has finally made the jump. He left the Republican Party this morning by announcing he would run for re-election as a Democrat. He has voted with the Democrats fairly consistantly since Obama was elected and the Dems have taken over the entire federal government. But the thing that bothers me the most is what he said about this possible switch just weeks ago. He knew full well that if he made this move it would mean that Obama and the liberals would be able to effectively ram through any legislation they wanted. And now he has shown his true colors. Here's what he said:

“I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role — a more important role — to play there. I think the United States desparately needs a two party system. It is the basis of politics in America. I think each of the 41 Republican Senators, in a sense, and I don’t want to overstate this, is a national asset, because if one was gone you would only have 40. The Democrats would have 60 and they would control all of the mechanisms of government.”

This was just over a month ago in an interview with "The Hill" newspaper. He seemed genuinely worried about this takeover. Didn't seem to want it to happen. Then, suddenly, he forced it on us. Truth be told, Specter realized that he was going to lose to former Rep. Pat Toomey in the Republican primary next year. Toomey is a popular conservative who had been heading up The Club for Growth, which is an economic think tank. So now they can go head to head in a general election. I wonder if there is an outside chance that there are Pennsylvania democrats that would consider taking him out in a primary.

Specter has nobody to blame but himself. He put himself in the position of being challenged on the right when he sided with two other Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, in voting for Obama's budget plan. There is some talk here in the Keystone State about recalling him. But, alas, it is not constitutional here. He would have to be impeached, and that's just not going to happen.

Addendum

While on the subject of Secretary Napolitano, I should have mentioned the she needs to bone up on the law. Earlier this week she was interviewed by CNN"s John King, and while discussing law enforcement issues regarding the Mexican border, she said "...when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not criminal per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well."

Here is the law: Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code states, “Any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers . . . shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.”

First offense is a misdemeanor, any subsequent charges are felonies.

Oh.....and GO CAVS!

Obama Administration Decides Racial Profiling Is Ok After All

It seems that Janet Napolitano, the new Secretary of Homeland Security, has given a spirited defense of the recently released "threat assessment" that her department released on April 7. The report is supposed to give the DHS a heads up about who they need to be watching as possible domestic terrorists. It included veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, due to them "facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities...", whatever that means. Those who do face these "challenges" are said to be potential members of terrorist groups or lone wolves out to attack the government. Veteran's groups, such as the American Legion, are upset with the secretary, and a meeting has been requested.

The really interesting thing about this report is it's sweeping assumptions. Guess who is among those that the report includes as suspect? Me! And you may also be considered a potential threat to the United States. Here is the quote right from the report itself:

"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration..."

So, being pro-life and one who would like to see a large part of government shifted from the federal level back to the state and local level, I am potentially dangerous to my country. An amazing stance for this particular administration to take. How many times have we been told by the Democrats that racial profiling is against the law? It's a horrible injustice wherever it occurs. You can't just make someone suspect based on an observation that you make about the person. Until now.

If you have a "pro-life" or anti-illegal immigration bumper sticker on your car, a VFW license plate holder, or a "Jesus Loves You" tee shirt, Big Brother may be watching you. Profiling? You better believe it!

Why The Left Hates Tea Parties

By now, we've all heard the crude and tasteless ways that CNN and MSNBC referred to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who attended last weeks Tax Day Tea Party's. At CNN, it was Anderson Cooper who allowed a guest to refer to them as "teabaggers". I'm pretty sure Cooper knew that this had sexually tainted overtures. And over at MSNBC, Rachel Maddow chuckled her way through a story about the Tea Parties, again using the same nasty terminology as Coopers guest. And both networks are just scratching their heads trying to figure out why their ratings are in free fall.

Here's a clue. While left leaning cable news and newpapers are calling the participants everything but thinking Americans, Fox News covered the events like they were newsworthy. For the day, Fox drew more viewers that CNN, MSNBC, and CNN Headline News....combined! Why? It might just be that ordinary citizens are paying more attention than the liberals thought. Maybe we're not all drowning in the Obama Lovefest that most news outlets are perpetuating. And it could be that we see through the nonsense that the President is serving up. Here's one of my reasons for attending.

Federal spending in the Obama budget just passed, will create $9.3 trillion in deficits over ten years. It increases spending by $1 trillion over those ten years, and then doubles the publicly held national debt to over $12 trillion. As angry as I got at the irresponsible budgeting of George W. Bush, this is nearly treasonous. And they want us to believe that we don't have anything to worry about because Obama is gonna make the nasty rich pay for it all! So the rest of us can just sit back and enjoy the ride, right? Um, whoops.....

According to Obama's own numbers, this ain't gonna work. According to Brian S. Wesbury and Robert Stein, both economists with First Trust Advisors of Wheaton, illinois, if you raised the top tax rate from 35% to 100%, you still don't have enough to cover Obama's spending. And these are the people that he says will pay for his huge stimulus package, the bank bailout, and all the new spending he plans to do. So there is no way that taxing the rich is going to cover his needs. So, guess what? If you think for a minute that your taxes aren't going up, think again.

During his first address to Congress in February, the president said that "if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat, not a single dime." Before the warm fuzzy feeling left us, the president had signed a bill that would increase federal taxes on tobacco by 62 cents. There was no exemption for low income smokers, who make up the vast majority of smokers. He is putting into place a huge "cap and trade" tax on energy companies, and you can be sure that will be passed on to the consumer. So here is a tax that is charged to you on your energy bill. Again, no exemption for lower income families. Their taxes go up.....a lot!

Well, what about all the budget cuts the administration is going to be making? Are you kidding? They have already insulted us enough with the president asking his cabinet to cut $100 million out of their budgets. This is a budget cut of .0023%. It's like me saying that I need to cut back on my annual spending, so I won't buy a Snickers Bar this week. Ridiculous waste of press coverage.Obama says not to worry, there will be lots of "savings" in his budget. Here are some examples of Obama's savings assumptions:

1. The "temporary" stimulus spending will be allowed to expire. this includes all the spending on education and health care in the stimulus. How many times have you heard of a government program ending? Me neither.
2. Discretionary spending will be held to 2% annually after 2012, compared to 8% now. Words cannot express how big of a lie that is. Never has happened, never will.
3. The $632 billion "down payment" on universal health care will not be expanded. Stop. Please.


So, I believe that all of this is why we gathered to protest. We see what is coming. We see what our children are going to spend their lives paying for. We see that we have been sheep far too long. We know that the only way to stop it is to remove from office those that insist on taking us down this road against our will. And those who continue to bow at the altar of Obama because he isn't George Bush, are really going to have a hard time explaining to their children how they could have wished this horrible future on them.

Executive Hypocracy and the Talking Heads That Love It.

It's almost unbelievable, the crap that is coming out the Executive Branch. I am furious (as usual) about the boundless arrogance of the Obama Administration. It would be funny if not so dangerous. These people are absolutely out fo control with the "mandate" nonsense. The only mandate they have is coming from those who pull the puppet strings in Washington, in this case, the National Education Association. Obama and all Democrats in Congress continue to bow before the almighty dollars that come from these idiots, who claim to care about the education of our children. Nonsense....they couldn't care less about them, it's all about what power they can derive from the White House and Congress. That's all it's ever been about. Money.

The fine folks at the Department of Education have been supporting a program that enables disadvantaged inner city kids in the District of Columbia to attend private schools. The program is called the D.C. Opportunity Scholoarship Program. Created by Congress and the Bush administration in 2004, the program has been praised in every evaluation it has been put through. Students have seen growth in all areas that are examined by the Department of Education and several independant reviewers. Parents love it and are defending it as a lifesaver for the children enrolled. It was supposed to run through 2012. But guess what?

Democrats in congress tucked a provision into the Omnibus spending bill that effectively kills the program. Why? It works. It is giving the 1,900 kids who have been offered the scholarships a shot at getting out of the crime ridden public school and some hope for their future. Again, this is a successful education program that is making progress at moving at-risk, mostly minority, inner city kids a chance to get caught up and work at grade level after spending time in the D.C. school system where they have been educationally stifled. And it's the Democrats that want it killed. Sen. Dick Dubrin (D-Ill), had the funding for the program removed from the budget. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan agrees....the program has got to go. D.C. Delagate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, went as far as calling the students in the program "victim's" of political games. She vowed to have the program ended, saying that this Democratic Congress would not continue it.

Now, why in the world do you think this is happening? Could it be because the National Education Association hates all voucher programs? I'm barely able to keep this blog free of nasty words when I think of the idiots in Washington who claim that the children are all they care about...when it's the next election and who paid for what in the last election is clearly all they care about. The NEA gives campaign cash almost exclusively to Democrats, and who is about to trash this voucher program that works? Anything the boss wants. Even parents have been begging Norton and the Democrats to keep the program alive, but to no avail. They cannot turn their backs on the cash cow called the NEA. Doesn't matter that the kids are doing well. Doesn't matter that they will be sending these kids from integrated, clean, safe schools back into segregated rat holes that most adults would be afraid to enter. Screw the kids, I need my campaign coffers filled.

Barack Obama should be ashamed of himself. All this talk about how important public schools are, and he elects to send his daughters to private schools. And it's not about their safety. Obama and members of congress make damn sure their kids don't have to attend the local public schools, but they insist that you and I do. I understand that Secretary Duncan didn't send his kids to the public schools that he was superintendant of ! Hypocrites! All of them!

Abstinence Education vs Reality?

As expected, the arrival of the Obama administration has brought with it the long festering battle between pro-choice and pro-life forces (or as they would refer to each other, the pro-abortion and anti-choice forces). Both sides went at it again, but without much fanfare during debate on the democrats budget that passed recently. This time, it had to do with the concept of "abstinence education". This program got started in the late '90's, but was pushed hard by the Bush administration and conservatives in congress. Basically, it was a teaching tool that stressed to teenagers that it was in their best interest to wait to have sex until they were married. There were lots of other messages that were built into the course, including how to develop healthy relationships, personal responsibility, and decision making skills. What could go wrong?

Well, according to democrats in congress and liberal leaders in and out of government, the program is a miserable failure. I'm not sure how they reached this conclusion when most experts are saying it's too early to tell about success or failure on a large scale. There have been few studies that have made conclusions, and the Heritage Foundation has looked at the results. I'll talk about that first.

According to the report that was published by Christine C. Kim, a policy analyst, and Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, there were positive outcomes in 11 of the 15 cases that were studied. This means that there was a delay in the onset of sexual activity, reduced levels of early sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners among adolescents who participated in abstinence programs. There were an additional 5 cases where there was no significant impact.

These programs focused on various types of interactions with the students. Most of the classroom programs dealt with topics like the negative impact of teen preganacy, peer pressure, consequences of teen pregancy, and abstinence. The report stated that, "abstinent teens report, on average, better psychological well-being and higher academic achievement than those who are sexually active."

I understand that these results are based on what is reported by the teens themselves and are not always going to be 100% accurate. But it seems to me that there are only good lessons to be learned here by the studenst that are in absinence education. I don't necessarily believe in teaching "abstinence only", because that is closing your eyes to what is already happening in the real world that our kids live in. There should be a discussion of what to do if you do make the decision to have sex outside of marriage, the ways to keep yourself as safe as you possibly can. But it should be emphasized that there is only one sure way to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and that is abstinence.

However, the left is in a tizzy about abstinence programs. They believe that abstinence programs have no place in the classroom. Not even as part of sex education. NARAL Pro-Choice America's President, Nancy Keenan, recently praised congressional democrats for their work to totally defund abstinence-only programs from the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. I would expect nothing less from a pro-abortion organization, but what Keenan goes on to say really causes me to wonder if she lives anywhere near reality.

Keenan, in a press release praising the congressional action to make large cuts in abstinence education, said "Our teens need accurate information to stay healthy and protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and disease - and under the Bush era 'abstinence only' policy, they just didn't get it." What?!

Abstinence is the only proven way to protect yourself from "unintended" pregnancy. So to say that teens aren't getting accurate information is just ridiculous. They're getting information on the only 100% sure way to avoid disease and pregnancy. So much for the concern about the health of the child, they couldn't care less. Let's cut to the chase. The number of abortions performed in this country began dropping around 1990, from 25 per 1,000 women to 19.4 per 1,000 in 2005, the last year there are records for. That is the same time frame that saw an increase in the number of abstinence programs. It may have nothing to do with the numbers, or maybe it does. But NARAL and their supporters can't say that abstinence education has no value. That would be totally irresponsible. Kinda like the Obama administration backing the cuts.

Physician's Conscience Clause

Over the last few weeks I have been following the discussions around the Obama Administrations efforts to disallow conscience clauses for physicians. The controversy is over a law in some states that allows a doctor to refuse to perform abortions due to religion or conscience. There has been a huge push from conservative organizations and others to flood the Department of Health and Human Services with protest letters during the time when they allow public comment on upcoming legislation that involves their department. My understanding is that they were bombarded with comments opposing any federal interference in the current laws on the states books. But democrats don't seem to care. They want a physician to be forced against his ethics and morals to perform abortions on demand for any reason.

Pro-abortion organizations are fighting the battle as well. Planned Parenthood has been apoplectic about the idea that some doctors may find it immoral to perform an abortion. They, along with NARAL, believe that all doctors have the "professional duty" to perform the procedure, regardless of their beliefs.

Historically, all doctors swear by the Hippocratic Oath upon their graduation from medical school. Although it isn't as uniform today as it was in the past, the oath says alot about the ethics of the physician, according to Hippocrates, the ancient physician and author of the oath. In the original, the rookie doctors, in part, swore that:

"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone."

"I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a plessary (similar to a diaphram) to cause an abortion."

When a doctor treats a pregnant woman, he generally recognizes that he is now treating mother and child. I have to ask, how much more harm could they do then to stop the beating heart of either one of them?

Mr. President, I Hope This Isn't True....

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Obama Administration is refusing to accept the repayment of about $340 million from four different banks that are located in California, Indiana, Louisiana, and New York. This is the TARP money that they recieved from the Bush/Obama administrations over the last six months. Here is the confusing part for me. These were called "loans" when they were handed out. The purpose of calling something a loan is to indicate that it is to be paid back, sometimes with interest. These banks have decided that they can live without the bailout cash and want to pay it back.

Stuart Varney, of the Fox Business Channel, tells of a true story that was reported by his Fox News co-worker, Andrew Napolitano. According to him, the four banks mentioned above were smaller banks. But a large, prominent, and profitable bank was forced to take the bailout money from the Bush Administration. the government then bought a minority stake in the bank. Today, the CEO of that bank is ready to write a check to repay the loan. The Obama team says, "no", and they have threatened the bank with "adverse" consequences if the bank continues to try to repay. Why?

Obama is now making it clear that the idea here is not to get the money back, but to make sure that the government continues to have leverage and ability to make decisions on how the banks will be run. It's the same thing they are doing with GM and Chrysler. As long as they are in debt to the government, they can be controlled by the government. That's the game plan. Now they have extended loans to life insurance companies. Things are becoming a bit clearer. And I, for one, am getting nervous.

Do You Love Taxes, Too?

While reading the Heritage Foundation's website today, I came across this gem. It actually made me stop breathing....just before I laughed my lungs out! This is, without question, the boldest stroke of stupid I have ever seen regarding taxes. This comes from the, "Alliance for a Better Minnesota".

Too often, we forget that the taxes we pay go towards our roads and buses, funds breakthrough research at our colleges and universities, keeps our parks clean, and pays for our police, firefighters, and our teachers.
Taxes help pay for the services we need most--and it's time we said thanks.
While our tax dollars provide us with a lot, there is a widening gap between what the wealthiest Minnesotans pay and what average Minnesotans pay in taxes. We need to create a fair tax structure to make sure everyone is contributing their fair share.
Denise Cardinal, the Executive Director here at Alliance for a Better Minnesota, sent out the email below this morning asking Minnesotans to take a second to say thank you to all the government services that are paid for by our taxes.

Friend--
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
But the fact is, teachers, roads, and police officers don't grow on trees.
Taxes pay for the things we use and love -- like parks -- and things we need, like police. It's time we say thank you.
http://allianceminnesota.org/ThankYou
Join us to say thank you to all the government services that are paid for by our taxes. Sign our "Thank You" card to taxes, which we will share with state leaders as they address the state budget deficit in the next few weeks.
http://allianceminnesota.org/ThankYou
Safe neighborhoods, good public schools, and inspected bridges are just the start.
Take a moment to share with us why you appreciate all the government services you use every day.
Legislators need to hear that average citizens are willing to invest in these things -- the very things that help make our state great. A balanced approach to the state budget, which does not make drastic cuts to our most important basic services, like health care, education, and food stamps for low-income families, is essential to put our state back on the right track toward economic recovery and growth.
Please sign our thank you card and invite your friends to do the same.
Thanks for all you do,
Denise CardinalAlliance for A Better Minnesota

Alright, that's enough. Settle down and let's continue. Here are some other things we can thank taxes for...right out of the president's budget....

1.Thank you, taxes, for The Compton California Dance Theatre Foundation....$483,000 to keep "at risk" kids in the seats at the hip-hop dance theatre.

2. Thank you, taxes, for the Raphael Lemkin Center for Genocide Prevention...$452,000 to "educate world government leaders on genocide, genocide prevention, and response mechanisms." Good luck with that.

3. Thank you, taxes, for a program in Florida called, "A Child is Missing". These folks don't have any law enforcement capacity, but claim that they have worked "7,095 cases" of missing persons and have been "credited by Florida law enforcement agencies with 64 successful recoveries". Dang, that's almost 1%....open the vault! Well, we're kinda stingy here....only $500,000.

4. Thank you, taxes, for the hundreds of millions of dollars that I have read about in the time that I have spent reading through several congressional web pages. We are spending a huge sum of money on earmarks for at-risk youth, unemployed youth, underserved youth, under-educated youth, unsupervised youth, poor youth, hungry youth, homeless youth, socially disadvantaged youth, unhappy youth, bored youth, horny youth, youth without Playstation, youth without kites.....it goes on and on.

Every member of Congress is required by law to post on their website all of their requests for funding earmarks. As I said in a previous post, most of them have done that. But I noticed several have put them in programs that require you to download some reading software from the web. They know most people won't mess with it. Slick.

I am going to be posting the bills sponsored by the most conservative and liberal members starting tomorrow.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

I heard alot of buzz about this picture, but I thought it was probably just the fringe kooks trying to say that the president had "bowed in submission" to the Saudi King. But then I saw this picture. And then I saw the video. And then I heard the president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, try to expain it away.

This is the President of the United States bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia! In the Middle East this is seen as an acknowledgement that one is superior to the other. The president didn't do this for Queen Elizabeth II earlier in the week, nor did he bow to any other foreign leader he met with. Only the Saudi King. And that's not a nod of the head, either. That's a full blown bow of submission. Unbelievable.

I wouldn't be this upset if they just acknowledged it from the White House Press room. But no, Gibbs had to dance around it when asked by reporters. He clearly had no explanation. Did the president see something shiny on the floor? Was there a child peeking out from under the kings robe? No. Here is the official expanation from Gibbs...

"The president did not bow to the king. He was just doing a double handshake to a smaller guy."

Now that pisses me off.

New Feature!

I'm introducing a new feature for "The View From Here". I've been looking for a way to compare and contrast the direction that the Republicans and Democrats want to take our country. I have taken information from the website, GovTrack.us, and have compiled a list of the top 20 most liberal and conservative members of both the House and Senate. I am going to begin reporting here all of the bills that they write and introduce to their respective chambers. It will give us all an opportunity to see what it is that they stand for.

If you're interested in how the rankings were determined, go to GovTrack.us/congress/. I will be posting the bills as often as I can, and will continue blogging on current events as well. Write to me if you want to know whether your congressperson made any of the lists.

Get Ready to Say "Yes!" to National Service.

Congress is at it yet again. If there is a way for them to involve the government in our private lives, they'll find it. This time it's through H.R. 1444, the "Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act". This bill was introduced by Democratic congressman Jim McDermott (WA), and is working it's way through the House Committee on Education and Labor. It was sponsored by McDermott, Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), Christopher Van Hollen (D-MD), and James Moran (D-VA). If any of these are your congressmen, they should be spanked and sent to bed with no supper.

The whole idea for this commission came from President Obama. He spoke openly about it in the campaign. Now, admittedly, this is only authorizing the establishment of a commission. But it has the backing of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, so it may be on a slippery slope to becoming a reality. The commissions powers are limited to gathering and analyzing information and making recommendations to congress. This is where things get a little ugly.

The bill requires the commission to report on several specific things, most dealing with problems that currently exist in volunteerism. But, there are three of these specifics that caught my eye as I read the bill. The commission will report on:

5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

(9) The effectiveness of establishing a training program on college campuses to recruit and educate college students for national service.

Do you think that the commission, authorized by a Democrat controlled Congress, is going to come back and say that "mandatory national service" is a bad thing? Neither do I. And I'm not sure what they plan to do with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. You know, the one that prohibits involuntary servitude. Yeah, I believe that would apply to the U.S. government too. But at any rate, Congress is preparing to tell us what we have to do in our spare time. You don't have any spare time? Uncle Sam says, uh, yes you do. Or you better find some.

I was watching protesters a few weeks ago as another state legislature was debating same sex marriage. One of the women was holding a sign that said, "Keep the government out of my bedroom!" She probably has no problem with them telling her what kind of car to drive, or how much of her paycheck she can actually take home with her. Nor does she care that her nieces and nephews are being burdened with so much debt that their standard of living will be less than their parents. Now they are preparing to tell her what she has to to fullfil some "national service" requirement. Stay out of my bedroom?

How about, "Stay outta my yard!"

Congress Allows Banks to Muddy the Water

Here we go again. Congress at it's finest. This time it involves the banking system, and how they report gains and losses. I know...boring. But it's another example of what they are trying to do to us. If you ever wondered what "mark-to-market" means, well, here ya go.

There is on orginazation whose responsibility is, believe it or not, to set reporting standards for banks and financial institutions. That means the bank has to report gains and losses based on rules set by the group, called the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB. These rules are rarely ever tinkered with, and if they are, it takes months of debate and public comment to be dispensed with first. Until now, that is.

It seems that all of the bad home loans that Congress insisted these banks make are coming back to haunt them. They have gone running to Congress to beg for changes in how they report their losses. With the bottom falling out of the housing market, and thousands of homes losing market value, the banks are showing huge losses on their balance sheets. They want that to go away. Who would invest in a bank with those kinds of losses? This is where it gets good.

The rule that is being changed is called "mark-to-market". It basically requires banks to value their assets based on their current market value. It doesn't matter what they paid for them when they bought them, nor does it matter what they may be able to get for them in a few years. All that matters is what it's worth now. And they have to roport whether there is a gain or loss on that asset. "Oh, no! We can't have people knowing how much our "distressed assets" are really hurting us, they might be able to make intelligent decisions as to whether we're healthy or not."

Well, Congress agreed with the banks. They insisted on relaxing the rule. No months of bothersome public comment or debate, the board allowed 15 days for comment and then took one day to review the comments. The new rules state that banks can use "significant judgment" when reporting the value of assets. In other words, they can value them based on what they think they will be worth down the road. If the fact that banks were able to hide these "toxic assets" is part of what led to this banking crisis we're in, how does this help? It allows them to say asset X is worth $100,000 today, but they think it will be worth much more in a couple years. So they can put it's value on the balance sheet at, oh, $250,000. Looks much better, huh?

Again, this is an example, albeit a boring and perhaps insignificant one, of what our elected officials are up to. Banks will still have billions of dollars of garbage loans. We just won't know how much. And good luck getting folks to dump their hard earned bucks into your bank stocks. Kurt N. Schacht, Mananging Director of the Centre for Financial Market Integrity of the CFA. said of the new rules, "Investors will not be willing to commit capital to firms that hide the economic value of their assets and liabilities."

Thanks, Team Obama. Transparency is such a breath of fresh air!

Congress: "Am I talkin' to me?"

Congressional Quarterly reports today that a number of high ranking members of Congress have missed a deadline that required them to disclose their ties to political actions committees.
The funny thing is that many of them sponsored the bill requiring the disclosure.

The purpose of the law was to allow the American people to see for the first time all contributions recieved by lawmakers from lobbyists and general donors. It is directed at "leadership PAC's". The law requires that any fund-raising committee must file as a leadership PAC “if the committee is directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled by a federal candidate or officeholder. Pretty clear to me, but not to some of those who wrote the law in the first place.

These PAC's are generally used to funnel money into other members campaign coffers. So the next time one member needs votes to get their pet project funded, they know just who to go to. Oh, but I'm sure that just doesn't happen.

One of the members who did not file was John Murtha (D-PA), who had an aide acknowledge the "oversight error", and then "corrected the mistake" after being contacted by Congressional Quarterly.

There are 91 others who did not comply with the disclosure law. Which leads me to wonder what would happen to the rest of us if we ignored the law and didn't report all of our earnings at tax time. Or we just said, "oops, I forgot!" Is there a penalty for these folks like there is for us when we break reporting laws?

Just wondering.

Republican Budget is Too Little Too Late.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) wrote an editorial to the Washington Post on Tuesday explaining the Republicans alternative budget. While I agree that something had to be run against the Obama disaster, this one isn't going anywhere. They put together something that they know the Dems would never go for. But they will tell the American people that they tried to do something!

In the editorial, Gregg reminded me why I left the Republican Party in the first place. I had to put down my spoon full of Cheerios when I read these words:

"The Republicans goal is to restrain spending and reduce the deficit while still moving forward on important issues such as health care reform, energy independence, and national security...Republicans believe that it is not possible to expand prosperity by expanding government, or by increasing the burden of spending, taxes, and debt."

Now you tell us! Let's look at the last eight years. Has the congress restrained spending? Have they reduced the deficit? Well, gosh, no to both of those. If it's "not possible to expand prosperity by expanding government", have you reduced it's influence? Oh, another no? I got it! You've reduced the burden of spending, taxes, and debt! Right? Pretty lame record, congress. I know that Sen. Gregg was there and participated in it himself. The deficit and the debt skyrocketed under George W. Bush with the help of both Democrats and Republicans. Government was expanded immensely with huge increases in defense and social spending, just to name two categories.

I just hate the hypocracy. But, as I say, we keep sending 'em back, thinking somethings going to change. I'll have more to say on the Obama budget next time.

Who's In Charge Here?

I'm not one to jump on bandwagons. That said, I find myself breaking with many of my conservative friends when it comes to dumping responsibility for all of our current financial woes on Barack Obama. We didn't get here overnight, and Republicans share some of the blame for where we are. And yes, that includes George W. Bush. Period.

But the Obama victory was supposed to bring something new to Washington. Nearly every speech he gave during the campaign contained the phrase "bringing transparency to Washington". The idea, I suppose, was to tear away the curtains and break down the doors that the evil Republicans had put up during the Bush years, shining new light so that we, the people, could finally see our government at work. No more back room deals. No more hidden agenda's. No more spending tax payers money without clearly defining what is was being used for. Whoops....

According to McClatchy News, the Treasury Department has yet to shed much light on how any of the massive programs designed to rescue drowning banks and financial institutions are working. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money started flowing six months ago, and Treasury still has no mechanism in place for congressional oversight. In a statement, the department said that, "transparency and accountablility are central to ensuring that taxpayer funds are spent wisely." Uh-huh. I think all Americans would agree.

But the Government Accountablility Office said in a report that they have similar concerns as to whether Treasury is working hard enough to let the rest of us know what we're paying for. In the report they say, "Treasury continues to struggle with developing an effective overall communication strategy for the TARP program." In other words, they ain't telling us everything. And it's been six months.

One of the things I will be constantly harping about on my page is that Americans have allowed our elected representitives to become lifelong employees. They do not fear losing their jobs, like many of us do. They feel entitled to re-election. They forget a very basic tenent in our governmental sturucture. That is, that they work for us.

We, the people, have allowed our government to run rampant. We have allowed them to spend us into a debt so deep that we, and our children, will be working to pay it off for decades. We have allowed them to work behind closed doors, because we can't handle the "truth". That's right....we did it to ourselves. We have the power to decide who leads this country. And we have failed in our own oversight. Letting a congressman or senator serve for 25, 30, and even 50 years is just plain wrong. They forget who they work for. They don't ask our opinion anymore, they just tell us that they know what is best and then proceed to do it.

It's how we got into the housing and banking mess we're in. The Clinton administration decided that it would be great if more people in the U.S. could be homeowners. So they told the Congress to make it easier for banks to loan to people who they previously recognized as not having the credit or ability to pay. Democrats in the House, led by Barney Frank, loved the idea and gave it their full support. In the Senate, Chris Dodd led the way. They loaded up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and away they went. There were new "programs" to help folks who were high credit risks to pay for their new homes. Banks were given the green light to tinker with the edges of resposibility and just get these people financed. And that's what they did. Problems started when the new homeowners found out that they had mortgages that cost them more every year. Oh-oh! Guess they should have read the fine print! Or maybe asked questions! Now many of those houses sit empty. Foreclosures are through the roof. Who's to blame? We are. All of us. Yes, including those homeowners.

Now Barney and Chris get on television and say it's all the banks fault. Those crazy bankers are nothing but crooks! Just ask congress! But those are just two elected officials who watched this whole thing spark and burn. We dropped the ball, you and I. We had no idea that any of this was going on. We didn't ask our representitives questions. We didn't watch what they were doing. We just kept sending them back over and over. Now look what they have done to us.

I'm not an advocate of term limits. We already have them. It's called the vote. Let's not forget who is in charge here. We are. We have the power to hire and fire. but we need to pay attention to what they do and how it affects us. Hold them accountable. No more promises of accountability with no way to check them. Open the curtains.

So...transparency has come to Washington. Are you watching?