14
Dec
A lot is being made of H.R. 4279, referred to as PRO IP. Depending on who you ask, it either makes felons out of anyone who listens to music on the internet. Or, it does nothing more than create more beauracracy in DC. After reading it, I tend to side with the latter. However, it does create a federal position to prosecute college kids downloading music whereas that was left to NIAA in the past. The bill is authored by John Conyers. Where are the Big Brother chants? I CAN’T HEAR YOU!
I’m gonna try something here. I have no clue how well this work. Supposedly I can embed and track this legislation. So, here goes:
In the meantime, the legislation technically modifies existing code. In other words, it’s not really doing anything that hasn’t been done other than staffing the enforcement of whatever it was in the past and raising the penalties. However, don’t take my word on that as it is confusing and vague. If you are concerned about this further invasion into your civil liberties that has gone almost entirely ignored, ask for clarification from the person who authored it. That would be John Conyers.
House Democrats pushed through a $50 billion Iraq war bill that would require President George W. Bush to start bringing troops home in coming weeks with a goal of ending combat by December 2008.
Now, this is where it gets really silly. Bush was already bringing troops home. Confused yet? Let Nancy clarify it for you:
“The fact is, we can no longer sustain the military deployment in Iraq,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “Staying there in the manner that we are there is no longer an option.”
But Nancy, they’re already coming home? So why the legislation? And why stick it in a defense appropriations bill? And, why guarantee something we do need will be vetoed because it tramples all over the US Constitution? ( Where IS the outcry? )
Bush will veto this, Harry doesn’t have remotely the votes to over-ride the veto, and we’ll have another waste of taxpayer time and money while the Senate argues over it and tries to figure someway to get their commitments covered.
All because Nancy Pelosi thinks she’s president.
Got me realy curious. If Hillary does win this thing next fall, will Nancy still think she’s president or will Hillary take her out?
Bottom line, this vote was a political stunt only. And quite frankly, I think it’s ill-advised on just about every front. But, that’s only IF the Republicans educate the public on why. If they don’t, and the media doesn’t care. Then Nancy gets exactly what she wanted even if this bill goes nowhere. My odds are on Nancy with that one.
During the last few years one of the main political footballs has been national security. Due to many Democrats’ strong anti-war rhetoric, the Republicans accused many Democrat candidates of being soft on security. And, the Democrats kept shooting back that they weren’t. Well, here’s what’s happening now that the Democrats are in charge of national security. Lindsay Graham inserted funding in the defense bill to the tune of about $3 billion for border security. It was approved by the Senate 95-1.
Then, something strange happened. In committee, the Democrats removed the funding.
Time to insert the very regular comments I make here:
- Where is Nancy Pelosi’s transparency?
- What is the point of the Senate even voting if Reid’s going to allow it to be dicked around with after the vote?
- The bill Bush will be given to sign will contain many other aspects of national security. Will he veto this because it fails to deliver what the DEMOCRATS promised last year?
- Why isn’t this on the headlines of ABC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN?
- Will Hillary claim she was swift-boated because her vote didn’t count?
- And of course, how will Keith Olbermann turn this into some Republican conspiracy?
This is getting so redundant it’s ridiculous.
Here’s where the congressional budget process has gone wrong the last twenty years or so for those that think Congress spends too much:
Now, the problem I have here is this is a two part issue that sums all the problems in Congress right now:
- Spending for Veterans was lumped in with a huge budget for HHS and other agencies. Nevermind any of the rest, HHS is MASSIVE. How does a person filter through all this stuff in a short period of time and pick out the parts that might be waste? The situation now is they can’t. Now, Bob Filner is pressuring Bush to pass the Veterans spending, claiming Bush promised not to veto it. But, they hid it in the HHS budget, which Bush never promised not to veto. So, this advertisement by Filner is flat out lying. However, it pulls at the political sensibilities the common person has by saying Bush is screwing the Veterans. This deception might work, might not. The way it could work is if Bush feels pressured to make sure he keeps true on his promise to pass the Veterans funding, thereby passing the HHS funding that is crammed beyond the brink with pork and waste.
- Without the abilithy of a line-item veto, Bush is stuck either vetoing the Veterans spending, which makes him look bad as Filner is already attempting. Or, he passes a budget crammed full of pork which makes him look bad. No win for the person signing this garbage.
Obviously, the answer to situations like Filner is presenting is a line-item veto ability by the person who signs the spending legislation. Then, that person would no longer be blackmailed by politics from people like Filner. They could pass all the funding and strike out the waste that could be presented at a later date. That would shut up the Filners real quick.
Secondly, remember Pelosi’s promise for a more transparent Congress? Wrapping the Veterans spending in with the Health and Human Resources spending and then whining about the Veterans spending ( which is a tiny fraction of HHS’s spending ), is pure deception folks. Be sure to remember that next fall. I’ll be taking a pop quiz next September.
Lastly, I don’t want to hear another single word about deficit spending that puts the blame solely on Republicans. This budget is purely the Democrat’s baby. And, it’s HUGE. The only thing that will keep the deficit from soaring wildly out of control ( like it wasn’t already ), is if Charlie Rangel gets his wish for much higher taxes on just about anything that could possibly be taxed.
Think about that next fall as well.
November 16, 2007 update: Congress passed the bill, Bush vetoed it as predicted, Congress failed to override it.
Dennis Kucinich’s bill to impeach Dick Cheney has made its way to the Floor. A lot is being made of it in the media. Naturally. However, the realities of the situation are not nearly as exciting.
It will die.
Guaranteed.
An impeachment process completely stifles Congress. Nancy Pelosi et al have things they want to do. If they allow this impeachment process to progress any further, they won’t be able to go around saying “…..that Bush has neglected“. So far, Nancy’s Congress has accomplished basically nothing tangible. She’s not given her presidential candidates anything to run with other than “what Bush has neglected”. If her Congress continues to the path it’s on now, that argument the Dems are using will be moot as anyone can easily substitute “….. that the Democrat Congress neglected”. An impeachment process will guarantee that. I really don’t think Nancy’s quite that stupid. John Conyers has already come out against it, I expect to see a whole slate of Democrats who voted for going into Iraq to do the same.
I won’t even get to the point that Kucinich can’t get meaningful legislation passed, much less something as meaningless as this.
I’m not much into mass email campaigns, but this one made sense to me and bears repeating. So, rather than sending a bunch of people not terribly interested in it, I’ll just stick it up here.
Here they go again — tax-happy Democrats are running out of ways to tax you — so they are turning to the Internet.
Last week, Senate Democrats effectively killed a bill that would permanently hold off taxes on your Internet access — a ban that expires on November 1.
Democrats said “further negotiations are warranted.” Further negotiations on what? Apparently your taxes just aren’t high enough.Make no mistake — Democrats want to construct brand new taxes on Internet access for Americans — a place that currently has no taxes.
Take action today to stop the Democrats’ plans:
1. Sign up at http://www.CostOfDemocrats.com to receive updates on the outrageous actions by Senate Democrats and what those actions will cost you.
2. Forward this email to five friends to help expose the Senate Democrats for what they really are — a liberal, tax-and-spend majority that will do everything in its power to force their extreme views on the American people.
3. Join Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell in the fight to keep the internet tax free by signing his petition here.
Imagine, every time you need to find directions on the Internet, order a DVD, shop for your groceries, or pay a bill online, you could be charged if the Democrats have their way.
This is Democrats latest attempt to massively increase taxes. The World Wide Web has greatly enhanced our country’s ability to connect and get the word out, and Democrats want you to pay for that freedom.
Regardless of the rhetoric, the facts are true. Want some historical president? Look at your, or someone else’s phone bill sometime. The internet is the last bastion of free speech, it needs to be left alone.
Is this what the people who voted the Republicans out wanted? Do they even have a clue why this is suddenly happening? I doubt it. Go ahead someone, prove me wrong. If you can’t, take it to Daily Kos.
22
Jun
The Senate passed its version of the Clean Energy Act of 2007 last night. I’ve addressed a few of the issues of it before. However, as with most all legislation, it got kind of changed along the way. So, here’s a recap courtesy of CNN:
An increase in automobile fuel economy requirements to a fleet-wide average of 35 mpg by 2020 from the current requirements of 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for SUVs and small trucks.
What you can expect is lip service here. “Fleet average” doesn’t include trucks, vans, or SUV’s. As such, manufacturers will have to roll out a hand full of hybrids to offset their traditional hotter selling lower-mileage cars. Big deal, they’re doing that already. I see very little, if any, impact this will realistically have.
Requires that half of the new cars manufactured by 2015 be capable of running on 85 percent ethanol or biodiesel fuels.
Ever prime your engine withe ethanol? Cars will already run on 85 percent ethanol or biodiesel. What happens is the manufacturers basically void all warrantees if you try. And, for the older cars that don’t real hot, ethanol can destroy your seals real quick. However, this legislation doesn’t address older cars at all. What it does is tell manufacturers that what they are doing now, they HAVE to do by 2015. Makes a lot of sense huh?
A requirement to produce 36 billion gallons a year of ethanol, as a substitute for gasoline, by 2022, a sevenfold increase over production in 2006. Ethanol would be made from corn and cellulosic sources such as prairie grass and wood chips.
That’s all fine and good, but where is this 26 billion gallons of ethanol going to come from? Are they going to subsidize corn farmer? Are they going to give incentives to other farmers to grow corn? The demand has been there for years, the profits not. I expect the price of corn to skyrocket without even making it to the pump.
Price gouging provisions that make it unlawful to charge an “unconscionably excessive” price for oil products including gasoline and give the federal government new authority to investigate oil industry market manipulation.
Price gouging is already illegal. This is nothing but rhetoric and pandering. The question this presents to me is by presenting an artificial demand for corn, will those price gouging standards apply to vendors as they try to compete to buy the required ethanol? I see a situation where companies will HAVE to have ethanol and it won’t be there. This will be very typical supply and demand, with demand far outweighing supply. When that happens, the product gets real expensive real fast. This legislation only applies to oil producers. So, the logic here is people can gouge corn, but not oil. See a business angle there yet? Can you say “futures”? I can.
New appliance and lighting efficiency standards and a requirement that the federal government accelerate use of more efficient lighting in public buildings.
Good idea. That’ll clean up all those old cars on the road real quick now won’t it.
Grants, loan guarantees and other assistance to promote research into fuel efficient vehicles, including hybrids, advanced diesel and battery technologies.
Great idea. This should have been done years ago. What’s that you say? It has been? It couldn’t have been, this is the Democrats response to Bush’s failed energy policies. That being the case, I guess it won’t resemble anything like the Department of Agriculture’s
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program. It’s only been doing exactly what this legislation demands since 2002. The Democrat’s answer to what they consider failed policies is doing exactly what they claim failed. Brilliant huh? Wanna bet MSNBC and CNN catch on to that one as well?
Support for large-scale demonstrations that capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants and inject it into the ground.
I’ve already had fun with this one. Richard Branson offered something like $25 million for a contraption that just sucks the bad stuff out of the air and pumps in the ground like nuclear waste. So, another guy immediately says he has something that will do just that. The Democrats say “Hey, if he can do that, all our problems are solved!”. So, they stick legislation in an energy bill to support an even bigger version of this carbon-sucking machine. Anyone ever read The Emporer’s New Clothes
This bill just sticks a bunch of promises and hopes that are already being researched and done now. What it doesn’t do, in the least bit, is address the immediate problem that will be a complete mess by 2012.
President Bush said he didn’t really like this legislation. He made that announcement in Alabama. At a nuclear plant. You know what those are. They provide about 20% of the nation’s energy and have had very few significant problems, for the last 25 years or more. Best I can tell, this tried and true, non-greenhouse emitting source of energy, was totally ignored in lieu of a bunch of promises and pandering that may, or may not, ever be used to deal with our future energy needs. At least they didn’t get the brilliant idea of adding taxes to help us deal with these high prices to fly.
Sounds like I don’t care much for this legislation, don’t it? I want something tangible, and I want it now. Fund the construction of about 100 more reactors NOW. Build more refineries NOW. When there is surplus electricity as oil becomes scarce, the private sector will move itself to the cheapest energy regardless of all this phony political pandering we’re seeing here that realistically does nothing while oil continues to erode the economy.
But, history will correct me if I’m wrong here. Bookmark this post and come back in one year and see what has changed and then we’ll discuss how wrong, or right, I am. At this time, I’m very confident I’ve got this PR stunt nailed.
Yesterday Bush vetoed the Iraqi pullout bill. In that bill, it had emergency spending for the military as well. That was both expected politically, and I expected it for bigger reasons. Spending will be done one way or another until a proper funding bill is presented. The war won’t stop just because a few loonies sabotaged it. The bigger issue in my opinion is Bush kept Congress from meddling in a military operation. The very last thing this country needs is 535 people with no real military experience or commitment trying to micromanage our troops in harm’s way. They have the right to examine what’s going on, to give guidance to the President, and pass laws affecting it’s funding etc.. What they do not have the right, per the Constitution, is to usurp the authority of the Commander and Chief as defined by the Constitution they promised to uphold. Every single person that voted for that bill IMO has voted to violate the US Constitution and should be forced to explain how it does NOT violate the separation of powers. Here’s the list of people who felt compelled to totally toss the Constitution aside and take over the military:
|
|
|
Now, I am curious, although I KNOW they would all flip completely out if I question the patriotism, which I’m not, I think they think they’re doing what’s best for the US, but, they’re letting their politics outweigh their logic. Now, treason is defined as aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States. If these people feel it’s best to surrender and walk away at a very defined date, then they have made the enemy’s job profoundly simple. Just hide and wait it out. That folks, is aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States. It’s a harsh word to use, but it’s a fact. I don’t question their patriotism, but I do question their priorities. Before I wrap it all up, think about the plight of another gallant US citizen from way back when:
….distinguished himself as a hero of revolution early in the war through acts of cunning and bravery in the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga, the Invasion of Canada (1775), the Battle of Valcour Island in Lake Champlain in 1776, the battles of Danbury and Ridgefield in Connecticut (after which he was promoted to Major General), and the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. He was wounded several times.
At the time, this guy was one of the most heralded patriots in the United States. No one would DARE question his patriotism. However, due to later commitments to other issues (namely a loyalist wife and bitterness over a missed promotion), Benedict Arnold would set a defined timeline for the US to withdraw troops from a contested location.
The only difference between what he did and what these people did is the location.
Additionally, what disturbs me about this vote is three of the people who voted for it are running for President. I really think people need to think twice about a potential President who does not understand, respect, or honor the very basic philosophy of the United States Constitution. That being the separation of powers. If they don’t respect it now, you can’t make the argument they’ll suddenly respect it if elected.
|
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
13
Apr
Yesterday the Senate passed a bill expanding stem cell research. That could be a big deal. I’m not all that excited as a ton of this research is already being done in the private sector where the long arm of federal restrictions and red tape don’t apply. However, people like Michael J. Fox felt differently and made sure some candidates with no experience in getting things done and certainly no research into the topic got elected. So, having made sure the Democrats took control, what’s the payback people like Fox got?
The bill was introduced by a Republican. The Republicans supported it 100%. Nearly half the Democrats voted AGAINST it. Those opposing stem cell research include:
| Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Clinton (D-NY) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) |
Inouye (D-HI) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) |
Obama (D-IL) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Wyden (D-OR) |
Now, Fox’s McCaskill did vote for it. But she couldn’t seem to convince her party leaders to back her up. Thanks the Republicans, it passed. It still has to make it through the House, and even less likely, has to be signed by President Bush. So, it’s probably going to die somewhere on the vine. However, I just can’t WAIT to see all the media headlines that have
“Obama supports banning stem cell research!”
or
“Clinton supports banning stem cell research!”
or
“Feinstein supports banning stem cell research!”
or
“Obama supports banning stem cell research!”
or
“Boxer supports banning stem cell research!”
Are you gonna hold your breath too?
8
Apr
Senator Ted Kennedy has once again proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he’s never existed in the real world. Besides deciding welfare is something everyone should enjoy, at the expense of employers and taxpayers, he’s now decided to shorten the work week to 30 hours a week. In essence, S.910 provides that any employee that works 30 hours a week for a year gets one week paid leave. Now, that standard has sort of been in practice, as decided by the private sector. However, that’s not good enough for Ted. So, what’s going to happen is full time people will get no more than what they get now, and part time people will work less than 30 hours a week as opposed to being able to work 34 to 39. I manage about 300 people. That’s the decision I’ve already come to, it’s a no-brainer. I imagine just about any employer, and only a few of those will be the big corporate giants everyone assumes when this debate is made, will be forced to make the same decision because when you provide a benefit to a class of people, they are all expected to receive the same benefits, by law. So, if you give a full time employee a week’s vacation per year, those receiving that benefit can be assumed to be in the same working class. Therefore, the argument could be made they receive the same retirement, insurance, and any other benefits anyone else receiving that benefit makes. As an employer, that gets REAL expensive, REAL quick. That part’s muddy if this bill passes. When in doubt, employers stick to the side of caution. The easy decision to make is part timers work less and get less money. Therefore, the working class stays the same, and the people making the least money will make even less. What’s annoying to me is the goof-ball legislation is already endorsed by several other Senators. Some names you should recognize real quick:
| Sen Akaka, Daniel K. [HI] | Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [DE] |
| Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] | Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] |
| Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] | Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] |
| Sen Dodd, Christopher J. [CT] | Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] |
| Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] | Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] |
| Sen Inouye, Daniel K. [HI] | Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] |
| Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] | Sen Levin, Carl [MI] |
| Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] | Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] |
| Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] | Sen Murray, Patty [WA] |
| Sen Obama, Barack [IL] | Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV] |
| Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] | Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] |
These people don’t believe in leaving the private sector alone apparently. This is actually a true partisan issue where the parties are defined as they historically had been pre-1980. Smaller government or larger government? That’s the root of the differences between parties regardless of social issues that come and go and can be interchanged between parties from one election to the next.
