Congress passed the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009. It passed with broad support from both parties and Obama is expected to sign it within a week or so. A lot of people are saying it will solve the credit card abuses. Some see it differently.
That’s the way I see it. It’s simple logic that if your ability to cover risk is reduced, you reduce your risk. Call me crazy, but my days working in insurance actuarials sorta gives me the idea credit card risk isn’t a whole lot different.
And, this is yet another example of the federal government controlling the private sector. Of course, if I call it what it is, people will accuse me of fear mongering. Again.
20
May
There is a site that is asking people “Which frontrunner is the worst liberal judicial activist?”. Now, naturally, this is a loaded question. If you’re not a screaming liberal, they all look equally bad. So, imagine my non-surprise when I get the results so far:
Now, this presents two situations to me. First of all, there is no clear “worst”. If it’s one of these three, you’ve got an activist judge that feels the Constitution is open to interpretation as they see fit. The second problem is if these votes represent mostly Republicans, as I imagine it does, then there is no ghost chance at all any organized resistance to his nominee will occur. People either have semi-mixed feelings about what they don’t like, or, they don’t have a clue what it is they are objecting to and are just clicking for the sake of showing disapproval of anything Obama does. If it’s the former, that’s good. If it’s the latter, that’s bad. Either way, there’s nothing Republicans can do to stop his nominee even if they are the worst judge on the planet. So, may as well figure some way to get a postive spin on it.
My suggestion? Find liberal issues the nominee has voted against and throw those out there in a very public light. It most likely won’t stop the process, but it would sew more discontent with people who perceive Obama as becoming more and more afraid to do what it is his liberal base expected him to do.
Personally, I don’t care who his nominee is. Obama’s replacing a liberal with a liberal. It’s not going to change the court one iota.
19
May
President Obama recently sent out a very clear message to companies receiving bailout money:
…”You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer’s dime”
This aggravated the governor of Nevada quite a bit.
The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reports over 400 conventions and business meetings scheduled to take place in Las Vegas recently have cancelled, translating into 111,800 guests and 250,000 “room-nights,” according to a statement from Gibbons. The cancelled events cost the Las Vegas economy over $100 million, not including gaming revenue, the governor said.
In an effort to get Obama to undo the damage done, Governor Jim Gibbons wanted to sit down and talk to Obama when Obama was in Nevada next week. Obama will be there for a fundrasier for Harry Reid. Now, this ain’t your average fundraiser. It will feature Cheryl Crow and Bette Midler. If you want to go, tickets are from $50 to $250. All of which will go to Harry Reid. And, it will be held at Caesars Palace. Obama will fly there from DC on Air Force One. Here is a pretty cool slide show of what his security detail looks like while he’s there. It’s a pretty big bunch. I imagine they get paid pretty well too.
And, I imagine, most all of it will be on the taxpayer’s dime.
18
May
OK, so we’re no sooner finishing Obama’s reform of the housing, banking, and automakers industries, than we’re apparently ready to do the same to the energy industry. Now, as with the other situati0ns, you’ve got two very different prevailing thoughts going apparently. On one side, is the keep it simple philosophy. In the other debates, basically their argument ( I’m on this side ), was that what had worked for 200 years seemed to be a good indication it would still work. Let the bad business models fail so that the good business models could thrive. We didn’t get that in any of the previous situations. Then there is the FUBAR line of thought that anything simple MUST not be working. Until it’s so complicated no one can understand it, it needs adjusting. Welcome to the energy debate.
A few years ago Al Gore and others proposed something called “cap and trade”. Or, “carbon credits“. California immediately jumped on the bandwagon. This rather repressive legislation helped spur the move of several businesses out of California. However, most states did not pass this type of legislation. So, Henry Waxman decided what was good for California was good for the rest of the country. This, now 946 page bill, is the culmination of Al Gore and the greens drive to eliminate the planet of greenhouse gases so that our climate will continue to do what it’s been doing the last couple of years, cool down.
Now, I’ve heard all kinds of nightmare stories over the cost of this bill. A lot of debate has been over a figure of $3,100. Greens say it’s a lie:
“If Boehner and McConnell had simply misstated the results of the MIT study, the Truth-O-Meter would have been content giving this one a False. But for them to keep repeating the claim after the author of the study told them it was wrong means we have to set the meter ablaze. Pants on Fire.”
Well, we’ll see what happens. Some folks just don’t care how hot it gets.
Of course, it’s always quantified with the “if you doubt me, you’ll die in hell” disclaimer. So, according to these peeps, the Republicans ( and per norm, ONLY the Republicans ), are lieing when they say it will cost at least $3,100 per family. However, a lot of other peeps are saying these figures are reasonable, if not low:
And,
And, in a piece that tries to be objective and present the cons of both sides:
• Due to lower industrial output as a result of higher energy prices, the costs of complying with required emissions cuts, and greater competition from overseas manufacturers with lower energy costs, Kentucky would lose as many as 23,000 jobs in 2020 and nearly 50,000 jobs in 2030.
• Disposable household income would be reduced by as much as $2,500 per year in 2020 and up to $6,000 by 2030.
• The price of gasoline in Kentucky would increase between 74 percent and 144 percent in 2030. Electricity prices would increase by between 122 percent and 159 percent. Kentucky residents would pay between 99 percent and 142 percent more for their natural gas by 2030.
All of Kentucky’s largest manufacturing sectors would experience output losses.
Kentucky’s 1,865 schools and universities and 134 hospitals will likely experience an increase of up to 35 percent in expenditures by 2020 and as much as 123 percent by 2030.
Chemical makers, second only to the producers of transportation equipment among Kentucky’s leading manufacturing sectors, say the mandates proposed by President Obama would push U.S. jobs and investment offshore.
In recent testimony before a House Energy and Commerce Committee panel, Paul Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) argued that mandatory cap-and-trade would unfairly target U.S. manufacturers. “The industrial sector is not the problem,” he said. “In the U.S., the industrial sector’s (carbon) emissions have risen only 2.6 percent above 1990 levels while emissions from the residential sector are up 29 percent, commercial up 39 percent, transportation up 27 percent and electricity generation up 29 percent.”
Cicio asserted that “under cap-and-trade, the industrial sector pays twice — through the additional cost of carbon embedded in energy purchases and through the higher cost of natural gas and electricity.”
Then of course, there’s alternatives. This is what the picture might look like according to The Heritage Foundation:
Red states get hammered, no one will want to live there. Whitish states get rewarded. Now, one of the problems I have is Vermont would likely get rewarded. They don’t burn any coal at all. The reason they don’t burn any coal is because they import it all. They do however, supplement what they import by burning trees. Burning trees is OK, burning coal is awful.
Then there’s places like DC. Yet another rewarding place to be. They get some of their energy from Allegheny Energy. Allegheny will quickly inform you they are 95% coal. So why do these states get a pass?
The consensus with those against this Cap and Trade scheme is it will cost the average consumer $3,100. Now, gotta remember, that’s AVERAGE. This thing is designed to punish those in states producing coal and reward those living in states that don’t. So, you could be double that in Kentucky and Utah, and of course see no rate hike in places that use the coal like DC and Maryland.
Most economists I have looked at feel the expenses will go way beyond the initial cost to consumers. None of tried to argue this is economically cost neutral, or even close. What they are saying is we HAVE to do it because the world will boil if we don’t. Only problem is I haven’t seen much of an increase in temps since I was born. If you go back farther, and not that much farther where I live, it was actually much hotter for a long time ( 1860′s thru 1930′s or so ). Things cooled down for a while and people decided the next ice age was on the way in the 1970′s and 80′s. Then Al Gore bought a bunch of stock in global warming companies and decided we all needed to use his products whether we wanted to or not, or destroy the planet if we refused. Now, Henry Waxman has decided we don’t even get the choice. He’s going to fix the planet by cap and trade schemes.
Now, would someone please tell me how cap and trade actually reduces carbon output? Fact is, it doesn’t. It’s a tax. By making coal energy repressively expensive, the argument is people will switch to other means of electricity like solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, or something. We don’t have tons of acreage to get any solar worth anything, wind is not an option here, they would most likely be destroyed every spring. Try getting the environmentalists to let you build one more dam in this country. Nuclear I like. However, environmentalists love nothing more than to sue anyone trying to build one. I say build them and let the environmentalists move to France. But, it takes a long time to get a nuke going. Until then, we have to eat. People need to contact their legislators, especially in the Senate where California can’t dominate like they do in the House. If your state is red, you better be worried. You better be letting your Senators know you’re worried. I truly am.
Then of course, we could burn wood and make Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, and Obama happy.
Sometimes it gets real hard to figure this country out. Sometimes it doesn’t. The Gallup Poll started tracking the abortion issue in 1995. At the time, we had a pro-choice president. From 2001 until 2009, we had a very pro-life president. Since then, we’ve had a president who very strongly pro-choice. So, go figure this data from Gallup:
During the first pro-choice president’s term, Pro-choice dropped 8%. During the pro-life president’s term, pro-choice increased 2%. During the current pro-choice president’s term, pro-choice has dropped 8% already.
Maybe there’s something else out there affecting this issue, I don’t know. I don’t really follow it all that much. I just find it interesting that even on a hot topic such as abortion, people appear to change their opinions just to reject “authority”.
The story in this is that for the first time since Gallup has been doing this poll, more people are pro-life than pro-choice. That kind of surprises me as well.
15
May
I have bemoaned over the last few years that Nancy Pelosi had one trick, and one trick only. “Bush lied”. Insert anything else you want, it just had to be preceded with “Bush lied”. A tsunami occurs, it’s because Bush lied. Pick anything you want. Eventually it morphed into the “Republican Culture of Corruption“. It wasn’t enough that Bush lied, now ALL Republicans lied. Time went by and the Democrats, fueled by “Bush lied”, “Republican culture of corruption”, and “change we can believe in“, swept the three branches of our government. Shortly before the last national elections, I pondered what the Democrats would do once they were in complete control and could no longer blame Republicans. Well, things have been kinda quiet other than Obama blaming Republicans for the financial meltdown. However, this week, Nancy Pelosi has gotten in some deep doo-doo. She decided she wanted to prosecute anyone who had anything to do in the decision making process regarding waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. Only come to find out, she was part of the decision making process, having been briefed as early as 2002. Now, in 2002, Democrats were being cast as weak on national security. So, I guess she felt it was to her advantage to keep her mouth shut. However, once we started get close to election time 2008, she turned up the heat. It became a platform of Obama’s. He singled out waterboarding as something he would outlaw once he was president, regardless of the fact it already was. So, what does Nancy do when confronted with her obvious deception?
You guessed it.
Pelosi Accuses CIA, Bush Officials of ‘Misleading Congress’ About Waterboarding
Asked if she was “accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of 2002,” Pelosi replied: “Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States, misleading the Congress of the United States. I am.”
Of the Republicans, Pelosi said: “They misrepresent every step of the way. They don’t want the focus on them. They want it on us.
Now, what this all boils down to, according to Nancy, is the CIA said they “could” use harsh techniques, not that they “would”. That folks, is her idea of someone misrepresenting themself.
What boggles me is that right on cue, the liberal masses jump right in line and provide her a smokescreen:
Poliblog’s not the only one, it’s all over the ‘net now. This is simply a GOP thing to distract from the harsh interrogations debate.
So, any attempt to attack Nancy Pelosi for lieing for years on this topic is simply point-scoring. That we can not discuss her, for that would be avoiding the actual policy issues. They are very certain of that.
That’s pretty remarkable to me since there is no interrogation policy issue at stake here. Waterboarding and the other harsh techniques were banned in 2008. They were done away about when Obama became a nominee. The policy issue at stake here is whether or not a new administration should go after a previous administration over policy issues. Nancy Pelosi is wanting to prosecute anyone who had anything to do with waterboarding all the way up to, and I imagine the ultimate target, Dick Cheney. That’s all that’s going on here folks. The waterboarding issue itself was settled a long time ago by a different administration.
So, now that we’ve got that clear, the issue of whether or not Nancy Pelosi should politically go after a previous administration using congressional powers to do so is what is being discussed here. It becomes cut and dry when the fact Nancy Pelosi was part of the previous administration she is now attacking. She was aware of harsh interrogation techniques and did nothing tangible about it. So, the issue now becomes whether or not she can target specific people she wants, since she’ll have to disqualify the committee she was on, the one that approved them in the first place.
Basically, it looks like her entire effort to exact political retribution against her political nemesis has fallen very visibly on its face.
And, you know what’s even more amazing? A lot of people don’t care. They are STILL arguing this is a debate over whether or not to justify using torture. And, ( follow the comments on Poliblog ) any effort to argue otherwise will be met with the harshest of retributions.
On August 1, 2007, Obama posted on his site a long list of what he would do as President. Part of that included:
…..This brings me to the fourth step in my strategy: I will make clear that the days of compromising our values are over.
Major General Paul Eaton had a long and distinguished career serving this country. It included training the Iraqi Army. After Abu Ghraib, his senior Iraqi advisor came into his office and said: “You have no idea how this will play out on the streets of Baghdad and the rest of the Arab world. How can this be?” This was not the America he had looked up to.
As the counter-insurgency manual reminds us, we cannot win a war unless we maintain the high ground and keep the people on our side. But because the Administration decided to take the low road, our troops have more enemies. Because the Administration cast aside international norms that reflect American values, we are less able to promote our values. When I am President, America will reject torture without exception. America is the country that stood against that kind of behavior, and we will do so again.
Waterboarding’s out, everything else is still subject to interpretation.
I also will reject a legal framework that does not work. There has been only one conviction at Guantanamo. It was for a guilty plea on material support for terrorism. The sentence was 9 months. There has not been one conviction of a terrorist act. I have faith in America’s courts, and I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.
Obama now supports indefinite detentions, a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions by Obama’s definition. However, as many have argued before, detaining terrorists is not dealt with in the Geneva Conventions in the first place. So, I’m all for Obama’s decision. However, I am curious as to how the rabid left wing will respond. As noted in the link in this paragraph, several considered Bush a war criminal for detaining terrorists indefinitely. I now expect them to start labeling Obama as such OR acknowledge how hypocritical they are. I’m not holding my breath for either response.
This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.
That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
The wiretapping will continue as it was in the past. I fully expect Russ Feingold to either apologize to Bush, condemn Obama, or publicly admit how hypocritical he is.
The pictures of torture will not be made public either. I fully expected people who had complained for eight years about the cloke of secrecy of the Bush administration to go nuts, but this is what they are saying so far:
So, they trash Bush for eight years over not being transparent enough, then when Obama does it, it shows “he is open to changing his mind”.
How long will it take before these people finally admit that what they elected is no different than what they hated for eight years?
- We’re still in Iraq and not going anywhere soon.
- We’re still in Afghanistan and no closer to resolving it.
- We’re still wiretapping whoever The White House sees fit.
- We’ve still got detainees in Gitmo.
- We’re still detaining prisoners indefinitely with no guarantee of a court appearance.
- The White House is obviously withholding “criminal” activity from the public.
- Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose.
- North Korea is building bigger missiles.
- Terrorists are sixty miles from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
I would expect Nancy Pelosi to defend all of Obama’s flip-flops and abandonded campaign promises, but she’s got her own issues to deal with right now. It appears that she was in on the wiretapping, the torture, and about everything else she has railed against for eight years. However, as with Obama, the left blogosphere that railed rabidly against any Republican that was sitting in the same country as the issues occurring are now contorting themselves into pretzels trying to defend Pelosi as well:
So, regardless of Nancy saying it was criminal in 2003, the fact she lied about whether she was aware of what was going on is “yawn“. And, although Russ Feingold sought to censure Bush over illegal wiretapping, he has been noticeably silent on Nancy Pelosi’s involvement in them. In fact, the entire issue has suddenly become moot since it’s obvious that Nancy was right smack in the thick of it, and Obama plans to continue doing it. Where is Feingold now?
The hypocrisy to protect Obama at this point is sickening. However, I don’t think people like Feingold and the rabid left can hold out much longer. Heck, I’m saving irresponsible spending, economic policies, and a whole bunch of other issues for later.
A lot has been made over the collapse of Fannie Mae. For a while, peeps kept insisting it was apparently a short term blip and that a huge infusion of cash would apparently make everything good. Other peeps, like me and a few others, have argued that unless they change the rules and allow Fannie Mae to operate on traditional lending practices, it will never survive. Well, that was nearly five years ago when the alarms started going up:
That started a path of two very divergent political careers that met in the 2008 Presidential Election. You had John McCain who said Fannie Mae was broken, and Barack Obama who said John McCain basically had no right to criticize Fannie Mae. In 2005, it became obvious Fannie Mae was in trouble as federal regulators basically took over Fannie Mae under accusations they were cooking the books to keep it solvent. Daniel Mudd took over in 2005. This is what he had to say during his introduction:
Take a real close look at who’s in the back row. Now, according to Mudd, he answered to, get this, the Congressional Black Caucus. Subsequently, from that point forward, Fannie Mae would not only pay Mudd $80 MILLION to steer it from federal oversight into conservatorship, but they donated lavishly to political candidates. The top recipients of the 2005 cycle included:
Kerry, John (D-MA) Senate $30,000
Daschle, Tom (D-SD) Senate $16,499
Bush, George W (R) Pres $12,745
Carper, Tom (D-DE) Senate $4,889
Dorgan, Byron L (D-ND) Senate $4,500
Frank, Barney (D-MA) House $4,250
Barney Frank would become Fannie Mae’s staunchest defender as things got messy. In the 2006 funding cycle, their focus shifted:
Allen, George (R-VA) Senate $16,450
Davis, Tom (R-VA) House $14,200
DeWine, Mike (R-OH) Senate $12,450
Burns, Conrad (R-MT) Senate $12,000
Johnson, Tim (D-SD) Senate $11,000
Pryce, Deborah (R-OH) House $10,500
Bachus, Spencer (R-AL) House $10,000
Blunt, Roy (R-MO) House $10,000
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) Senate $10,000
Then, in 2008, after regulators had seized Fannie Mae, and Fannie Mae was getting BILLIONS in TARP funds, their political donations, yes you heard that right, shifted once again:
Obama, Barack (D-IL) Senate $41,900
Dodd, Chris (D-CT) Senate $25,500
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Senate $19,100
Bachus, Spencer (R-AL) House $11,500
Bean, Melissa (D-IL) House $11,249
McCain, John (R-AZ) Senate $10,250
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN) Senate $9,000
Bennett, Robert F (R-UT) Senate $8,999
Davis, Tom (R-VA) House $8,999
Boehner, John (R-OH) House $8,000
Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) House $7,500
Reid, Harry (D-NV) Senate $7,500
As the financial crisis moved from the quasi-governmental sector into the private sector, the focus of the Obama administration jumped all over the private sector. Talk immediately focused on greedy CEO’s makign too much money, banks making bad loans, etc. etc. etc. According to Obama, it’s all bad in the private sector. Citibank, Wells Fargo, all bad. But, no one was saying a word about the bank that was donating to Obama. Fannie Mae suddenly got swept under the rug.
Well, Obama’s poster child of how banks should be managed is back in the news:
Fannie Mae seeks $19 billion aid; uncertain about long-term financial sustainability
According to Fannie Mae’s own people, it may NEVER be financially viable again. In other words, it will be a permanent liability to the taxpayors. In bigger terms, it will be what they envisioned in 1977, with the Community Reinvestment Act. An entitlement program to help “certain” sectors of the US populatuion buy homes they otherwise could not afford with the tax money of those that can. And, according to the previous director of Fannie Mae, that would be whoever the Congressional Black Caucus decides.
And, I doubt it will change any time soon. Even though Fannie Mae is forecast to lose BILLIONS every year for the foreseeable future, they are STILL donating to political candidates:
Putnam, Adam H (R-FL) $10,000
Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) $10,000
Neugebauer, Randy (R-TX) $10,000
Miller, Gary (R-CA) $10,000
Enzi, Mike (R-WY) $10,000
Emanuel, Rahm (D-IL) $10,000
Cornyn, John (R-TX) $10,000
Collins, Susan M (R-ME) $10,000
Coleman, Norm (R-MN) $10,000
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) $10,000
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $10,000
Brown, Sherrod (D-OH) $10,000
Boehner, John (R-OH) $10,000
Blunt, Roy (R-MO) $10,000
Bean, Melissa (D-IL) $10,000
Bachus, Spencer (R-AL) $10,000
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN) $10,000
Mahoney, Tim (D-FL) $9,500
Roberts, Pat (R-KS) $9,000
Klein, Ron (D-FL) $9,000
Clyburn, James E (D-SC) $9,000
Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) $8,500
Biggert, Judy (R-IL) $8,500
Reid, Harry (D-NV) $8,000
Tiberi, Patrick J (R-OH) $7,500
Scott, David (D-GA) $7,500
Roskam, Peter (R-IL) $7,500
Reed, Jack (D-RI) $7,500
Murray, Patty (D-WA) $7,500
Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA) $7,500
Davis, Geoff (R-KY) $7,500
Barrasso, John A (R-WY) $7,500
Marchant, Kenny Ewell (R-TX) $7,000
Gerlach, Jim (R-PA) $7,000
Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) $7,000
Lynch, Stephen F (D-MA) $6,500
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $6,500
Wilson, Charlie (D-OH) $6,000
Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) $6,000
Frank, Barney (D-MA) $6,000
Barrett, Gresham (R-SC) $6,000
Velazquez, Nydia M (D-NY) $5,500
Pryor, Mark (D-AR) $5,500
Meeks, Gregory W (D-NY) $5,500
Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) $5,500
LaTourette, Steven C (R-OH) $5,500
Brown-Waite, Ginny (R-FL) $5,500
Baca, Joe (D-CA) $5,500
Smith, Gordon H (R-OR) $5,000
Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV) $5,000
Risch, James E (R-ID) $5,000
Reynolds, Tom (R-NY) $5,000
Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) $5,000
Pryce, Deborah (R-OH) $5,000
Nunes, Devin Gerald (R-CA) $5,000
McHenry, Patrick (R-NC) $5,000
McCrery, Jim (R-LA) $5,000
Matheson, Jim (D-UT) $5,000
Marshall, Jim (D-GA) $5,000
Hill, Baron (D-IN) $5,000
Heller, Dean (R-NV) $5,000
Foster, Bill (D-IL) $5,000
English, Phil (R-PA) $5,000
Durbin, Dick (D-IL) $5,000
Domenici, Pete V (R-NM) $5,000
Dodd, Chris (D-CT) $5,000
Childers, Travis W (D-MS) $5,000
Casey, Bob (D-PA) $5,000
Capito, Shelley Moore (R-WV) $5,000
Bond, Christopher S (Kit) (R-MO) $5,000
Moore, Dennis (D-KS) $4,500
Cazayoux, Donald J (D-LA) $4,500
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $4,500
Spratt, John M Jr (D-SC) $4,000
Miller, Brad (D-NC) $4,000
Melancon, Charles J (D-LA) $4,000
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $4,000
Johnson, Tim (D-SD) $4,000
Hodes, Paul W (D-NH) $4,000
Dorgan, Byron L (D-ND) $4,000
Castle, Michael N (R-DE) $4,000
Carson, Andre (D-IN) $4,000
Wexler, Robert (D-FL) $3,500
Tester, Jon (D-MT) $3,500
Slaughter, Louise M (D-NY) $3,500
Larson, John B (D-CT) $3,500
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA) $3,500
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $3,500
Davis, Lincoln (D-TN) $3,500
Boren, Dan (D-OK) $3,500
Bennett, Robert F (R-UT) $3,500
Wynn, Albert R (D-MD) $3,000
Watt, Melvin L (D-NC) $3,000
Solis, Hilda L (D-CA) $3,000
Sherman, Brad (D-CA) $3,000
Renzi, Rick (R-AZ) $3,000
Murphy, Patrick J (D-PA) $3,000
Murphy, Chris (D-CT) $3,000
Moore, Gwen (D-WI) $3,000
Knollenberg, Joe (R-MI) $3,000
Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL) $3,000
Hinojosa, Ruben (D-TX) $3,000
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (D-SD) $3,000
Becerra, Xavier (D-CA) $3,000
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs (D-OH) $2,750
Udall, Mark (D-CO) $2,500
Sessions, Pete (R-TX) $2,500
Schultz, Debbie Wasserman (D-FL) $2,500
McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY) $2,500
Lewis, John (D-GA) $2,500
Leahy, Patrick (D-VT) $2,500
Gillmor, Paul E (R-OH) $2,500
Fossella, Vito (R-NY) $2,500
Ellison, Keith (D-MN) $2,500
Dingell, John D (D-MI) $2,500
Crapo, Mike (R-ID) $2,500
Bunning, Jim (R-KY) $2,500
Sires, Albio (D-NJ) $2,000
Shays, Christopher (R-CT) $2,000
Serrano, Jose E (D-NY) $2,000
Schwartz, Allyson (D-PA) $2,000
Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA) $2,000
Roybal-Allard, Lucille (D-CA) $2,000
Rogers, Mike (R-MI) $2,000
Rodriguez, Ciro D (D-TX) $2,000
Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND) $2,000
Pastor, Ed (D-AZ) $2,000
Napolitano, Grace (D-CA) $2,000
McCotter, Thad (R-MI) $2,000
McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) $2,000
Kilpatrick, Carolyn Cheeks (D-MI) $2,000
Kerry, John (D-MA) $2,000
Graves, Sam (R-MO) $2,000
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA) $2,000
Gonzalez, Charlie A (D-TX) $2,000
Feeney, Tom (R-FL) $2,000
Drake, Thelma (R-VA) $2,000
DeGette, Diana (D-CO) $2,000
Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) $2,000
Cardoza, Dennis (D-CA) $2,000
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) $2,000
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) $2,000
Arcuri, Michael (D-NY) $2,000
Ackerman, Gary (D-NY) $2,000
Ryan, Paul (R-WI) $1,500
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) $1,500
Hooley, Darlene (D-OR) $1,500
Boyd, Allen (D-FL) $1,500
Wolf, Frank R (R-VA) $1,000
Whitfield, Ed (R-KY) $1,000
Webb, James (D-VA) $1,000
Waters, Maxine (D-CA) $1,000
Thune, John (R-SD) $1,000
Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) $1,000
Tauscher, Ellen (D-CA) $1,000
Space, Zachary T (D-OH) $1,000
Smith, Adam (D-WA) $1,000
Sanchez, Linda (D-CA) $1,000
Salazar, John (D-CO) $1,000
Ross, Mike (D-AR) $1,000
Reyes, Silvestre (D-TX) $1,000
Pearce, Steve (R-NM) $1,000
Olver, John W (D-MA) $1,000
Nelson, Ben (D-NE) $1,000
Myrick, Sue (R-NC) $1,000
Mikulski, Barbara A (D-MD) $1,000
Michaud, Mike (D-ME) $1,000
McNerney, Jerry (D-CA) $1,000
Martinez, Mel (R-FL) $1,000
Levin, Carl (D-MI) $1,000
Lee, Barbara (D-CA) $1,000
Latham, Tom (R-IA) $1,000
Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) $1,000
Keller, Ric (R-FL) $1,000
Grijalva, Raul M (D-AZ) $1,000
Green, Al (D-TX) $1,000
Gordon, Bart (D-TN) $1,000
Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN) $1,000
Davis, Tom (R-VA) $1,000
Davis, Artur (D-AL) $1,000
Cuellar, Henry (D-TX) $1,000
Corker, Bob (R-TN) $1,000
Cole, Tom (R-OK) $1,000
Clay, William L Jr (D-MO) $1,000
Carney, Chris (D-PA) $1,000
Carnahan, Russ (D-MO) $1,000
Capuano, Michael E (D-MA) $1,000
Butterfield, G K (D-NC) $1,000
Burr, Richard (R-NC) $1,000
Tiahrt, Todd (R-KS) $500
Ortiz, Solomon P (D-TX) $500
Baker, Richard (R-LA) $500
Harkin, Tom (D-IA) $400
And of course, those candidates are more than willing to take it for the most part.
Now, people with half a brain would pretty much figure out that if something they were doing that was supposed to make them money instead cost them a LOT of money, they’d quit doing it real fast. People with just a little more of a brain would look at who WAS making money with it and do it the same way. Then, there are community activists and socialists.
Expect to shell out another $19,000,000,000 real quick so Nancy, Harry, Barack, and the Congressional Black Caucus can feel safe in that Fannie Mae will continue supporting their causes. And, given who’s running it, the Congressional Black Caucus, expect it to continue making bad loans to people who should never have gotten one in the first place and then trashing the private sector for doing what it is the Community Reinvestment Act forced them to do. But, under no circumstances expect anything to be done about the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act.
Ever wonder how we have trillion dollar deficits? Here’s a good example. This was the original request:
The Presidential Helicopter is responsible for the safe, reliable transport of the President in administrative and contingency environments, worldwide. The VH-71 is being developed to replace the existing VH-3D and VH-60N helicopters, which currently serve as “Marine One”.
And here’s the result so far:
The VH-71 program is six years behind schedule, and its cost has grown from $6.5 billion to over $13 billion. Over $3.2 billion has already been spent on this program with no operational aircraft delivered. The Government Accountability Office has warned that future costs of the VH-71 are unknown, and the Congressional Research Service has raised the question if the current program should be cancelled. These high costs and schedule slippage have occurred because of challenging program requirements and an ambitious schedule. Instead of continuing to pursue the current program, the Administration proposes to cancel it, review requirements, and establish a new program. A new Presidential Helicopter replacement program will allow the Administration to take advantage of new technologies and develop a helicopter that is fiscally responsible while still meeting the President’s requirements.
Now, at this time, the Congressional Research Service is wondering if this program should be cancelled.
Well, DUH!
The recommendation is equally duh, find someone else to do it cheaper.
Could Congress have actually been this blind? Well, that’s any easy argument to make with what the CRS has put on paper and released to the world, six years behind schedule with no operational aircraft? Here’s what Lockheed is saying about the VH-71:
In January 2005, Lockheed Martin was awarded the contract to build the next-generation presidential helicopter to replace the aging fleet of H-3s and H-60s currently in use, which will start being retired in 2017. The VH-71 is based on the EH101 aircraft manufactured by principal subcontractor AgustaWestland……
Increment 1 aircraft began arriving in late 2007. Two test aircraft are in flight testing with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. Two test aircraft are undergoing mission systems integration at Lockheed Martin, NY. The first operational, or pilot production VH-71 made its initial flight September 22, 2008. The four test aircraft and one operational aircraft have flown a combined test flight total of just under 800 hours.
All Systems Integration Laboratories that support the VH-71 presidential helicopter program are fully functional at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, Lockheed Martin, Owego, NY and Agusta, Cascina Costa, Italy. Ninety-eight percent of Increment 1 mission systems software is complete, and Lockheed Martin has met or exceeded all key performance parameters for Increment 1 aircraft.
OK, the way I get it here doesn’t exactly jive with what the CRS is saying. First of all, seems to me 2009-2005 isn’t six. I don’t know how they came up with six years. But, if Lockheed was given the contract in 2005, they’ve had four years, not six, to do their thing.
The second problem I have is Lockheed states there are several flying right now. That’s a lot different than saying “no operational aircraft delivered”. Now, here’s why I dismiss this part to some degree. How safe is a concept aircraft that’s never been tested? If you were going to ride in this thing, how much testing would you want before you felt safe?
And, the part that bothers me most is Lockheed saying they are 98% done. In other words, you’ve incurred at least 98% of the expense at this time. If you ditch that 98% and start from scratch, you’ve wasted $13 billion. The CRS’s recommendation is to totally ditch what’s been spent and bid it out again. I think my recommendation would be to give Lockheed six months to deliver. If they can’t do that with the craft that are already flying, there really is a serious problem and maybe the VH-71 just needs to be ditched.
Now, I’ve defended Lockheed at this point. However, my biggest issue is, what in the hell do you do that costs $13 BILLION dollars and takes years to build that we’ve already been flying for fifty years in the first place? A helicopter’s not a new gadget, they’re older than I am. Sure, this one may be bigger and fancier, but I would assume all the newer and fancier gadgets already exist as well. It would just be a matter of fitting these new gadgets in a new box. So, I gotta question the $13 BILLION price tag. This is taxpayor money, I deserve detailed spending reports.
Now, I know what a lot of you are thinking, since Obama just took office, this is yet another example of the Bush culture of corruption. Well, not so fast. First of all, this contract was awarded in January 2007. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats had taken control of the House that year. So, although the original bid was a Republican responsibility, as of 2007, practically the day the contract was signed, it’s been a Democrat responsibility. In other words, not one penny was spent by the Republicans on this baby. The Democrats could have killed this thing before it even got started. They didn’t. So, given that the Congressional Research Service reports to Congress, it would seem some Congressmen ( and women of course ), would have been aware of the issues surrounding the VH-71 for two years. No one said a word basically. Now, Obama has declared the federal budget be cut one half of one percent, and suddenly this helicopter is made very public.
When something like this happens, I love to follow the money trail. Here’s some facts that may or may not mean something to people. Let’s start with lobbying. Congressional Research Service says this thing is six years behind schedule, so let’s go back six years and start. In regards to being a heavy hitter, here’s Lockheed’s rank in total lobbying over the last six years:
| Year | Rank |
| 2003 | NR |
| 2004 | NR |
| 2005 | NR |
| 2006 | NR |
| 2007 | NR |
| 2008 | 13 |
| 2009 | 5 |
Seems to have jumped quite a bit once Nancy and the Dems took over the spending for Congress. Wonder who got the benefit of all that extra cash? Probably not who you’d assume. Certainly wasn’t who I expected:
| recipient | recipient type | Donations |
| Congressional Black Caucus PAC | PAC Profile | 55,000.00 |
| Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) | Politician Profile | 30,000.00 |
| Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) | Politician Profile | 18,000.00 |
| John Boehner (R-Ohio) | Politician Profile | 17,500.00 |
| National Republican Senatorial Cmte | Party Committee Profile | 15,000.00 |
| Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte | Party Committee Profile | 15,000.00 |
| Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte | Party Committee Profile | 15,000.00 |
| National Republican Congressional Cmte | Party Committee Profile | 15,000.00 |
| Republican National Cmte | Party Committee Profile | 15,000.00 |
| Norm Dicks (D-Wash) | Politician Profile | 14,500.00 |
| Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) | Politician Profile | 14,000.00 |
| Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) | Politician Profile | 14,000.00 |
| Jack Reed (D-RI) | Politician Profile | 12,000.00 |
| Tom Udall (D-NM) | Politician Profile | 11,500.00 |
| Doc Hastings (R-Wash) | Politician Profile | 11,000.00 |
| Roger Wicker (R-Miss) | Politician Profile | 10,000.00 |
| John D. Dingell (D-Mich) | Politician Profile | 10,000.00 |
| Solomon P. Ortiz (D-Texas) | Politician Profile | 10,000.00 |
| Robert E. Andrews (D-NJ) | Politician Profile | 10,000.00 |
| Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) | Politician Profile | 10,000.00 |
The Congressional Black Caucus PAC? The Congressional Black Caucus so far has gotten more than the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee combined. Apparently Lockheed Martin, for some strange reason, feels it’s more important to pander to a race oriented organization than a national party. For a while it worked for them. However, apparently Obama wants to put an end to that relationship ASAP. First the F-22 was cancelled, and now it looks like the $13 BILLION helicopter is gone.
Now, where this gets kind of weird for me is if somehow, the VH-71 is saved, it will have the appearance that special interest groups intervened. That special interest group would be the Congressional Black Caucus, and they would be fighting against a black President.
Washington sure makes for some strange politics.
Bottom line, I think Lockheed Martin is pandering to who they perceive to be in charge in DC. The appearance is probably as bad as the reality in this circumstance.
A lot was made of Arlen Specter’s jumping ship and declaring he was a Democrat. His logic was the Republican Party left him. A lot of people, including myself, figured a deal had been struck between Specter and the Democrat leadership, which at this time would be Obama and Reid. Sure enough, both came out declaring their support for Specter:
Obama went even further:
Specter immediately returned the favor by voting against Obama’s budget, and more curiously, endorsed Norm Coleman over Al Franken. This led to a rather goofy explanation from Harry Reid:
Paybacks were immediate. The Democrats, over the promises of both Harry Reid and Obama to allow Specter to retain is seniority, stripped him of 29 years of seniority and ranking positions on several committees, particularly the Senate Judicial Committee, of which he’ll now be the least senior, and have the last questions for the new Supreme Court Justice nominee.
More importantly, in the long run, all this gave the original Democrat favored primary candidate reason to reconsider his position. He immediately became a lot more active, and enthusiastic, about being a candidate next year. If he’s reading the rather overt signs coming out of DC, he’d probably get the idea that Obama and Reid’s, ergo the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, would be lukewarm at best, if at all. Which is kinda fun since the DSCC still touts Specter on their front page:
According to Specter, the Republicans left him. Now, it seems, the Democrats have as well. I’ll be interested to see how much Obama stumps for the man he praised last week come primary time in Pennsylvania.
