America Bankrupt: Real Or Fake?Aug. 30, 2010
Several reports have documented how much of a failure the "Stimulus" bill is. Not only did it borrow and spend $1 trillion in new debt only to see the unemployment rate rise to 9.5 percent (and going higher), the money was spent on projects so ludicrous they wouldn't make it into a bad Hollywood comedy script. The McCain-Coburn "Summertime Blues" report documented many of them (see list), including $308 million for a joint clean energy venture with . . . BP, $700,000 to study why monkeys respond negatively to inequity, $62 million for a tunnel to nowhere in Pittsburgh, $3.8 million for a "streetscaping" project that reduced customer traffic and caused a business to layoff two employees, and $193,956 to study voter perceptions of the stimulus. That voter study didn't reach enough voters. Our friends at Bankrupting America uncovered yet more incomprehensible spending and produced this "Real or Fake" test, as in are certain government spending projects real or fake? You couldn't make this up and be credible anywhere . . . except in Washington, D.C. The answers are sad, but true. At this rate, it won't be long before we're finacially bankrupt. We already are bankrupt in leadership.
To tell the truth: The "stimulus" bill put us deeper in debt with nothing to show for it but some humorous, but sad, stories.
Joe Biden Had It Right About Barack Obama, MostlyJun. 03, 2010
Then-Senator Joe Biden, running for vice president, had it right in October 2008, mostly. He said, in a near political death wish, that the "about to be elected" Barack Obama would face a major international crisis, because he was young and someone, somewhere, would "test" him. Remember this?
Another mistake: He said he was "brilliant."
But instead of a foreign country doing us harm, Mr. Biden must have meant a foreign company. That's right. He just "misspoke." Still, the president is being tested — and he isn't passing the test (see Dick Morris). Thank goodness it isn't a foreign country testing him although one wonders about the snickers of those who wish us harm. Certainly they are taking note and we should stay alert.
Of course, the president, as a candidate, brought all this on himself, claiming that government can do everything, from "fixing health care" to stemming the "rise of the oceans" (see Althouse Blog). As a liberal, I'm sure he believes in karma, and the irony of him not being able to fix the Gulf oil spill even as he railed that government could make New Orleans whole immediately after Katrina should not be lost on anyone. Is this the gang you want running your health care? (See The Daily Caller regarding HHS already missing the new law's deadlines.)
So, as it is, it's a foreign company, BP, doing us harm, putting the young administration in (a real) crisis. Thank goodness it's only a company. Let this be a lesson to the government-knows-best crowd.
It's only a foreign company, but President Obama's inability to deal with the crisis leaves a lot to be desired, more doubt about government takeover of industries, and adversaries licking their chops.
When Do Liberals Love Big Oil?Feb. 06, 2009
If it's not the liberal enemy number one, "Big Oil" certainly must be in the Left's top five. But yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw (D-35, Springfield) played not only played "Big Oil" cheerleader, but also Secretary of State in the Senate Finance Committee. Which leads to another question: When do liberals advocate military intervention? Senator Harry Blevins (R-14, Chesapeake) introduced SB 1545, which would force the Virginia Retirement System to divest of holdings in foreign companies that do business with Iran until it disarms it nuclear capabilities. Under U.S. law, American companies are barred from doing business with Iran, so there is no conflict there.
Senator Blevins had an expert foreign policy witness, who has advised the previous five presidents, and top pentagon officials and officers who clearly showed Senator Saslaw out of his depth. Saslaw kept asking how can lil' ol' Virginny, with $20 million worth of said investments, have any affect on Iran.
The expert said repeatedly, it isn't Virginia alone. It's 14 other states undertaking this measure, and about 30 other points in a comprehensive plan, almost all that the federal government must undertake. This was Virginia's piece, he said. Cumulatively, all 30-plus points would have an affect. Undaunted, the majority leader pressed him and deduced two points on his own, which he must think are brilliant:
1. We cannot divest of foreign companies doing business with Iran because about the only foreign companies that do business with Iran are oil companies such as BP and Royal Dutch Shell, and oil stocks are one of the few that are doing well. (Translation: Money over principle, always.)
2. The only way Iran will disarm its nuclear program is when Israel does it for them, citing its action against Iraq's nuclear plant in 1981 and a Syrian facility several months ago. (Translation: Better to put an ally's future at risk than for us to do the moral thing now.)
So, there you have it. Big oil bad, except when it's in the VRS investment fund; and military action good, but only if it's Israel doing the work we won't do. An interesting take, to say the least.