Bush/Obama Jokers

Apparently there was one of Bush last year, but it didn't get the attention Obama's is. Bush's published in an actual magazine: Vanity Fair.

Grassroots Propaganda

There's an image of Obama circulating on the Internet in which he's made to look like the Joker from the latest Batman movie. Below the image is the word "socialism" in bold black letters. The image has also been posted on telephone polls and walls around Los Angeles. I chose not to post the image here.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/04/obama-joker-picture-pops-up-in-los-angeles-and-across-the-inte/

I haven't seen the latest Batman movie, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I don't know what the Joker does in that movie, or why someone would make a connection between that character and the current President. Is the author going for a physical resemblance, or is the Joker a socialist in the movie? I don't know. The article intimates that the Joker is more of an anarchist in the movie. It makes sense to me that a period of anarchy, or at least violent revolution, is likely at some time after socialism sets in, especially in a nation accustomed to the greatest freedom in human history.

I've only seen one scene from the new Batman movie, and in it the Joker is robbing a bank, and he or his partner in crime murders the driver of a bus that arrives to be the vehicle to whisk away the money being stolen from the bank. I don't know what happens to the Joker (I honestly don't). I hope good triumphs in the end.

Participatory Democracy

I believe it is too difficult to get involved in politics in this country. Politicians are demonized, and rightly so, because the game is so cutthroat. There are 535 jobs in Congress. There were 219 million people in this country of voting age in 2004. That means there is one person in Congress for every 411,165 people of voting age. That is a large pool to draw from for one job. The competition drives candidates to spend outrageous amounts of money and make outrageous promises to get elected. They then must go to Congress and bring huge amounts of money to their district so they will be re-elected. Sometimes, they are not re-elected, but it turns out that is does not matter. The cast changes, but the script stays the same.

So how can this be changed? Political office is viewed as a publicly ridiculed pursuit that requires nearly life-long dedication because of the competition for jobs. I would like to change this country, but not at such a high personal cost. I have other goals in my life besides becoming a politician. What if there were ten times more seats in Congress? In fact, how many seats were there in Congress 200 something years ago, when the country was founded, and how many citizens were there in the country then? Well some quick research tells me there were 132 electoral votes in 1792, which is equivalent to the number of seats in Congress, and that the total population in the 1790 census was 3,797,231. That averages out to 28,767 citizens per Congressional office. 411,165 divided by 28,767 equals 14.3. How much more participatory would our democracy be if there were 7,646 seats in Congress?

Right now there are a very small number of elite politicians who are paid, legally and illegally, exorbinant amounts of money to direct our country. Expand that group so that it is no longer such an exclusive club, cut their benefits and maybe their (legal) pay, and limit the amount of time one person can serve. Dilute the power one individual can have. Stop politics from being a profession, and return it to being a public service.

I am not posting links to the data I used because I am not confident in its absolute accuracy. I welcome anyone to find reliable data and post it. Even better would be to show the average total population per Congressional seat from 1792 to 2004 (or 2008 if the data is available).

The cost of your crappy healthcare in 15 years...

Second post in a row with foxnews as my primary source. I know they're not an unbiased source, but do unbiased sources exist anymore? There aren't many, and the vast majority of bias is on the other side, so please allow yourself to see a different perspective.

After 10 Years, Health Care Coverage Costs Turn Into Unfunded Mandate

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/years-health-care-coverage-costs-turn-unfunded-mandate/

According to an analysis by Republican staff of the House Ways and Means
panel, the deficit from the health care reform bill would be $760 billion by
2024, the end of the first 10 years of full benefits coverage. It would be
$1.6 trillion by the end of the 2020s.

The Republican projection takes the CBO estimates beyond the 10 years
the agency is restricted by law from projecting and shows that while the program
will cost about $1 trillion between 2011 and 2019, it will cost $2.2 trillion
between 2015 and 2024, not counting offsets to reduce the cost.
Put
another way, by 2019 the House proposals will be adding $65 billion a
year to the deficit, even with all the revenue raisers Democrats are now
proposing. The amount of deficit spending will continue to increase after 2019,
which would mean Congress is creating another entitlement.

The more hilarious part is at the end of the article.

House Democrats say many savings will be realized by the reduction in illnesses
as a result of preventive maintenance.

What the hell preventative maintenance BS are they talking about? Preventative maintenance? Like the government telling you to eat and exercise so you can stay healthy?

Don't they already do that? And how's that working? Peopel are still fat, and getting fatter than ever. The food pyramid has been around forever, and the government's recommendations on what's 'healthy' tend to change. How reliable is that? You want that government in control of healthcare?

Realize this is such baseless, farcical, hindenburg flaming hot air that it will never EVER EVER EVER work to 'reduce costs.' EVER. As much as they may try, government can't prevent or control behavior, and they especially can't help illness. Who signs up for illness? The lines to enroll in cancer, and alzheimer's are pretty short. These things just HAPPEN. You can't 'maintain' your way out of them! And you DEFINITELY can't rely on this fairy tale maintenance to reduce future healthcare costs. Or how about difficulties caused by aging? Will preventative maintenance help that? Broken hips and bad knees from aging HAPPEN. But yet the democrats have figured how 'preventative maintenance' will help reduce healthcare costs.

Hope this fails.

The Healthcare Bill

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/15/tax-rate-hit-s-level-house-democrats-health-reporm-proposal/

This is disgusting.

The plan would honor Obama's campaign promise not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000. But it would break an Obama pledge that no one -- including the wealthy -- would pay higher taxes than they did in the 1990s. The pledge, as listed on Obama's campaign Web site, was: "No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s."

Democrats argue that high-income families fared well under President George W. Bush's two terms as their taxes dropped and their income ssoared, giving them the ability to absorb higher taxes. Republicans argue that the tax increases would hurt small business owners who typically paytheir business taxes on their individual returns.

The rich 'had it easy' in the 1990's so they should bear the burden of higher taxes now? Such an argument is so void of logic it's nauseating. What about those who weren't high earners in the 1990s but are now? Why should they "absorb" (get robbed by) higher taxes.

Why bother dancing around it anymore? This is socialism sneaking up onyou from the backside. Let's hope there are enough brains left in power to keep our pants up while it tries to strike.

This broken campaign promise will surely be forgotten when 2012 rolls around. And even if it isn't, as the numbers of those benefitted by these government redistributions of wealth continue to grow, the votes will be secured to perpetuate. But realize this isn't sustainable. Not even close. And we're a lot closer than you may think to the dangerous realization of it.

It's a terrible time in America, where the bleeding of the public donefor a long time by all politicians, be it democrat or republican, is being taken to a new, irreversible, and terrifying level.

Mission Accomplished?

I guess its all a question of how you define "disastrous economic collapse".

World has avoided economic disaster, Obama says

Text:

L'AQUILA, Italy (AP) -- Lasting worldwide recovery "is still a ways off," President Barack Obama declared Friday, but he also said at the conclusion of a global summit that a disastrous economic collapse apparently has been averted.

Obama said world leaders had taken significant measures to address economic, environmental and global security issues.

"Reckless actions by a few have fueled a recession that spans the globe," Obama said of the meltdown that began in the United States with a tumble in housing prices and drastic slowing of business lending. The downturn now threatens superpowers and emerging nations alike.

Obama urged national leaders to unite behind a global recovery plan that includes stricter financial regulation and sustained stimulus spending.

"The only way forward is through shared and persistent effort to combat threats to our peace, our peace, our prosperity and our common humanity wherever they may exist. None of this will be easy," Obama told a news conference at the end of the Group of Eight summit of major economic powers.

The president rejected suggestions that the summit fell short of expectations by failing to call for tough new sanctions on Iran for its crackdown on democracy advocates after its disputed presidential election.

"What we wanted is exactly what we got - a statement of unity and strong condemnation," Obama said. He said the leaders' declaration was even more significant because it included Russia, "which doesn't make statements like that lightly."

Obama said world leaders will reevaluate their posture toward Iran at a meeting in Pittsburgh in September of the world's 20 major industrial and developing economies.

He cited "the appalling events of Iran's presidential election" and said the world would "take stock of Iran's progress" and watch its behavior.

Leaders have made clear that for Iran to take its "rightful place" in the world, the country must adhere to international standards and behave responsibility, Obama said.

The president was next turning to more photogenic events: a meeting with the pope and a stop in Africa.

Obama, his wife and senior advisers met Pope Benedict XVI and exchanged gifts shortly before leaving Italy late Friday for Ghana. Obama and Benedict had spoken by phone but had not met before.

"It's a great honor for me. Thank you so much," Obama said as he met the pontiff.

Benedict asked Obama about the G-8 summit, eliciting Obama's assessment that it was "very productive."

The cameras clattered while that sat down at the pope's desk.

"Your Holiness, I'm sure you're used to having your picture taken. I'm getting used to it," Obama said.

Later in the day, Obama was to fly to Ghana on his first trip to sub-Saharan Africa as president, but second visit to Africa. He gave a speech in Egypt last month.

On a pressing issue back home, Obama acknowledged that his top legislative priority - health care overhaul - had encountered rocky going in Congress during his overseas trip, with opposition building among both Republicans and economically conservative Democrats.

But he said he still was confident of getting the measure passed before Congress begins its August recess.

Asked if that timetable was "do or die," Obama responded: "I never believe anything is do or die. But I want to get it done by the August recess."

On the world economy, Obama said that rising food prices mean millions more are falling into desperate poverty "and right now, at this defining moment, we face a choice. We can either shape our future or let events shape it for us."

"While our markets are improving and we appear to have averted global collapse, we know that too many people are still struggling. So we agree that full recovery is still a ways off." He said the world leaders felt "it would be premature to begin winding down our stimulus plans."

Earlier in the week, the 186-nation International Monetary Fund released an updated economic forecast, predicting that the global economy will shrink 1.4 percent this year, the worst performance in the post-World War II period. That forecast was slightly worse than the 1.3 percent decline the IMF predicted in April.

The international lending agency did see prospects improving for next year with global growth forecast to climb to 2.5 percent, up from an April projection of 1.9 percent.

Leaders at Friday's meetings also committed themselves to a $20 billion initiative to help farmers in poor countries boost production.

Asked about his appeal to fellow leaders for the aid, Obama said he talked about his father, who was born in Kenya.

"The telling point is when my father traveled to the United States from Kenya to study ... the per capita income of Kenya was higher than South Korea's."

Now, Obama said, South Korea is industrialized and relatively wealthy while Kenya, as well as much of Africa, is still struggling economically.

"There is no reason why African countries can't do the same" and rise out of poverty with modern and open institutions, Obama said.

On nuclear weapons, Obama said the U.S. and Russia must show they're "fulfilling their commitments" to lead global efforts to curb the spread. If the two superpowers show they can limit or eliminate these weapons, it would strengthen their moral authority to speak to other potential nuclear nations such as North Korea and Iran.

Obama said there is a need to build "a system of international norms" for nuclear weapons. With respect to North Korea and Iran, he said, "It's not a matter of singling them out ... but a standard that everybody can live by."

Six months in office, Obama said he supports a streamlining of summits - the G-8, G-20 and NATO - and attending fewer of those meetings. He said the United Nations is in need of reform, but international summits fill a gap left by a U.N. structure that doesn't leverage its power as effectively as it could.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

Funny how things turn out

I am posting this because it is in the WSJ, which means that you can only access it for seven days after publication without paying.

Before that article, just a quick blurb. Who wants to finance a small nuclear power plant with me? I think we could pay off the debt in about 15 years, and that is 45 years of selling (carbon-free) power. My quick estimation suggests this thing would produce 900M - 1B kWh/yr.



WSJ link

President Obama swept to office on the promise of a new kind of politics, but then how do you explain last week's dismissal of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin for the crime of trying to protect taxpayer dollars? This is a case that smells of political favoritism and Chicago rules.

A George W. Bush appointee, Mr. Walpin has since 2007 been the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees such subsidized volunteer programs as AmeriCorps. In April 2008 the Corporation asked Mr. Walpin to investigate reports of irregularities at St. HOPE, a California nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson. St. HOPE had received an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant, which was supposed to go for three purposes: tutoring for Sacramento-area students; the redevelopment of several buildings; and theater and art programs.
[The White House Fires a Watchdog] Associated Press

Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation For National and Community Service, was fired by President Barack Obama.

Mr. Walpin's investigators discovered that the money had been used instead to pad staff salaries, meddle politically in a school-board election, and have AmeriCorps members perform personal services for Mr. Johnson, including washing his car.

At the end of May, Mr. Walpin's office recommended that Mr. Johnson, an assistant and St. HOPE itself be "suspended" from receiving federal funds. The Corporation's official charged with suspensions agreed, and in September the suspension letters went out. Mr. Walpin's office also sent a civil and/or criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California.

So far, so normal. But that all changed last fall, when Mr. Johnson was elected mayor of Sacramento. News of the suspension had become public, and President Obama began to discuss his federal stimulus spending. A city-hired attorney pronounced in March that Sacramento might be barred from receiving stimulus funds because of Mr. Johnson's suspension.

The news caused a public uproar. The U.S. Attorney's office, which since January has been headed by Lawrence Brown -- a career prosecutor who took over when the Bush-appointed Attorney left -- had already decided not to pursue criminal charges. Media and political pressure then mounted for the office to settle the issue and lift Mr. Johnson's suspension. Mr. Walpin agreed Mr. Johnson should pay back money but objected to lifting the suspension. He noted that Mr. Johnson has never officially responded to the Corporation's findings and that the entire point of suspension is to keep federal funds from individuals shown to have misused them.

Mr. Brown's office responded by cutting off contact with Mr. Walpin's office and began working directly with the Corporation, the board of which is now chaired by one of Mr. Obama's top campaign fundraisers, Alan Solomont. A few days later, Mr. Brown's office produced a settlement draft that significantly watered down any financial repayment and cleared Mr. Johnson. Mr. Walpin told us that in all his time working with U.S. Attorneys on cases he'd referred, he'd never been cut out in such fashion.

Mr. Walpin brought his concerns to the Corporation's board, but some board members were angry over a separate Walpin investigation into the wrongful disbursement of $80 million to the City University of New York. Concerned about the St. HOPE mess, Mr. Walpin wrote a 29-page report, signed by two other senior members of his office, and submitted it in April to Congress. Last Wednesday, he got a phone call from a White House lawyer telling him to resign within an hour or be fired.

We've long disliked the position of inspectors general, on grounds that they are creatures of Congress designed to torment the executive. Yet this case appears to be one in which an IG was fired because he criticized a favorite Congressional and executive project (AmeriCorps), and refused to bend to political pressure to let the Sacramento mayor have his stimulus dollars.

There's also the question of how Mr. Walpin was terminated. He says the phone call came from Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, who said the President felt it was time for Mr. Walpin to "move on," and that it was "pure coincidence" he was asked to leave during the St. HOPE controversy. Yet the Administration has already had to walk back that claim.

That's because last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice, plus a reason, before firing an inspector general. A co-sponsor of that bill was none other than Senator Obama. Having failed to pressure Mr. Walpin into resigning (which in itself might violate the law), the Administration was forced to say he'd be terminated in 30 days, and to tell Congress its reasons.

White House Counsel Gregory Craig cited a complaint that had been lodged against Mr. Walpin by Mr. Brown, the U.S. Attorney, accusing Mr. Walpin of misconduct, and of not really having the goods on Mr. Johnson. But this is curious given that Mr. Brown himself settled with St. HOPE, Mr. Johnson and his assistant, an agreement that required St. HOPE (with a financial assist from Mr. Johnson) to repay approximately half of the grant, and also required Mr. Johnson to take an online course about bookkeeping.

Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, a co-sponsor of the IG Reform Act, is now demanding that the Corporation hand over its communications on this mess. He also wants to see any contact with the office of First Lady Michelle Obama, who has taken a particular interest in AmeriCorps, and whose former chief of staff, Jackie Norris, recently arrived at the Corporation as a "senior adviser."

If this seems like small beer, keep in mind that Mr. Obama promised to carefully watch how every stimulus dollar is spent. In this case, the evidence suggests that his White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A13