More about the unconstitutional bailout legislation

There has been a lot of interest in the constitutionality of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) and the TARP funds. I see a lot of Internet searches about this. George Will has a very good piece in the Washington Post about this topic:

By enacting it, Congress did not in any meaningful sense make a law. Rather, it made executive branch officials into legislators. Congress said to the executive branch, in effect: "Here is $700 billion. You say you will use some of it to buy up banks' 'troubled assets.' But if you prefer to do anything else with the money -- even, say, subsidize automobile companies -- well, whatever."

FreedomWorks, a Washington-based libertarian advocacy organization, argues that EESA violates "the nondelegation doctrine." Although the text does not spell it out, the Constitution's logic and structure -- particularly the separation of powers -- imply limits on the size and kind of discretion that Congress may confer on the executive branch.

One of the beauties of the U.S. Constitution is separation of the three branches of power: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. With EESA, Congress is giving the president unconstitutional powers by allowing him to write the specifics of the law, i.e. how the money is to be appropriated. That should be Congress' job!

Taxpaying citizens like you and I ought to be enraged by this! It's evident that we have a lazy Congress bowing to the demands of a fear-mongering President. And now the next two or more generations of Americans are to pay for the astronomical debt -- bought up by the billions by Communist China. The consequences of ignoring the Constitution is grave...

Not good for Obama: Even the NYT mentions 'Katrina' and 'Obama' in the same sentence

An NYT op-ed calls it Obama's "Katrina moment." Not a good sign at all.

As much as author Frank Rich gives readers a good run-down of the events leading to the current circus (with clowns Tim Geithner, Jay Leno, Edward Liddy, Chris Dodd, and President Obama himself), he ultimately shows his liberal side:

As the nation’s anger rose last week, the president took responsibility for what’s happening on his watch — more than he needed to, given the disaster he inherited. But in the credit mess, action must match words. To fall short would be to deliver us into the catastrophic hands of a Republican opposition whose only known economic program is to reject job-creating stimulus spending and root for Obama and, by extension, the country to fail. With all due deference to Ponzi schemers from Madoff to A.I.G., this would be the biggest outrage of them all.

Yes, beware of the evil Republicans and their rejection of massive government spending to create jobs! Of course, the truth is we don't need more government jobs. We need jobs in the private sector, and President Obama and his Democrats' spending binge does not help businesses create jobs.

More so, conservatives and Republicans are not rooting for Obama's failure! We all want a strong and free America. What we want to see fail are Obama's over-the-top spending bills! History has shown that we simply cannot spend our way out of this recession. Congressional Republicans have made their stand against these spending bills, but they are still passed because of the Democrats' majority.

Confused moderate-conservatives

Voter's remorse. Is that what David Brooks of the NYT is really saying?

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”

Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.

Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.

Obviously, Brooks is an Obama Kool-Aid drinker, probably getting all his news from fine media outlets like CNN and MSNBC. I'm sure he's a smart gentleman, graduated from University of Chicago and previously worked at several reputable media companies. But even an average American like Joe The Plumber knew Obama's agenda: wealth redistribution and social welfare. Is it really so hard to see through Obama's socialism soul?

And moderate-conservative? Come on, make up your mind. Be a real conservative, or just follow the liberal zombies.

Economy, preprare to be stimulated... or not

The bad news? The House passed the nearly $900 billion stimulus package.

The good news? Not one Republican voted for it. That ought to send a clear message.

Conservative talk show master Rush Limbaugh offers his version in the WSJ:

Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let's say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion -- $486 billion -- will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% -- $414 billion -- will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me.

"Then," he writes, "we compare." Sounds fair to me! After all, it is my money which Obama wants to spend. Shouldn't I have some say-so in how it's used?

Stimulus package not large enough?!

Maybe columnist Bob Herbert is trying to leave NYT and get a job at the administration:

If anything, the stimulus package is not large enough. Less than 24 hours after Mr. Boehner’s televised exercise in obstructionism, the heavy-equipment company Caterpillar announced that it was cutting 20,000 jobs, Sprint Nextel said it was eliminating 8,000, and Home Depot 7,000.

Calling Rep. Boehner's comments on TV an "exercise in obstructionism" is nonsense. He's done what other Democrats have done in the past coming out swinging against Bush and his policies. Just think about all the public criticism from Democrats about the Iraq war and unfounded accusations against our troops. And what about when Republicans raised a red flag about Fannie and Freddie? The list goes on...

Nobody is disputing the fact that job cuts are painful and detrimental to the middle class. Companies have to downsize in order to adjust to the economic meltdown. Also, consumers have to spend less. The big part of the proposed stimulus package is for the government to spend its way out of the recession. If that doesn't sound like crazy talk, I don't know what does.

Sure, the government can create jobs with infrastructure projects. These workers get paid by the government -- wait, by the taxpayers -- to build bridges, offer government services, etc. Then they get taxed on the income. So really, why not just have these workers pay themselves?

That's why tax cuts make sense. Let workers keep more of their hard-earned dollars. Let them decide how to spend that money, be it savings or buying or starting a new business.

Now do you see the stark contrast in methods? Critics like Herbert think tax cuts only benefit the wealthy, but in reality tax cuts benefit everyone except in different degrees. Allow me to ask this: Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? I know I haven't.

Herbert, of course, thinks that the government should provide all employment.

Bush was not wrong, writers are just not right

President Bush's farewell address didn't go well with many liberals. What else is new, eh?

Arianna Huffington unloads:

He was wrong about Iraq and Saddam and WMD. He was wrong to take his eye off the ball on Afghanistan. He was wrong about tax cuts being the answer to our economic woes. He was wrong about Wall Street being able to regulate itself. He was wrong about Katrina. He was wrong about torture. He was wrong about extraordinary rendition. He was wrong about warrantless wiretapping. He was wrong about Gitmo. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Calm down, Huffy! The only two things I may even agree with are Afghanistan and Katrina. However, he did own up to them and corrected the wrongs fairly quickly. Everything else -- Iraq, Saddam, WMD, torture, rendition, wiretapping, Gitmo -- well, America is kept safe since 9/11. I have to thank the President for that.

Gerard Baker, calling Bush "the epitome of ineptitude," among many other things:

Around the world the Bush name is synonymous with arrogance, ignorance, reckless insouciance, torture, violence and ineptitude. And those would be from America's friends. He leaves office with his country facing the worst economic crisis since (take your pick) Jimmy Carter or Herbert Hoover left town, two of his predecessors now firmly ensconced in the presidential Hall of Infamy.

Lots of SAT words there. Sure, blame the economy on him, too! Why didn't you write something when Bush's economic policies were making you tons of money in real estate and stocks? Please seek professional help for your Severe BDS...

And the President just can't catch a break, not even on the home front. Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), also the Judiciary Committee chairman, wants to investigate and probe the Bush administration:

First, Congress should continue to pursue its document requests and subpoenas that were stonewalled under President Bush. Doing so will make clear that no executive can forever hide its misdeeds from the public.

Second, Congress should create an independent blue-ribbon panel or similar body to investigate a host of previously unreviewable activities of the Bush administration, including its detention, interrogation and surveillance programs. Only by chronicling and confronting the past in a comprehensive, bipartisan fashion can we reclaim our moral authority and establish a credible path forward to meet the complex challenges of a post-Sept. 11 world.

Third, the new administration should conduct an independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities. Just this week, in the pages of this newspaper, a Guantanamo Bay official acknowledged that a suspect there had been "tortured" -- her exact word -- in apparent violation of the law. The law is the law, and, if criminal conduct occurred, those responsible -- particularly those who ordered and approved the violations -- must be held accountable.

I'm sure all in the name of civil liberty and accountability. Looks more like crucifying an outgoing president and his inner circle when Rep. Conyers enjoys the Democrat majorities in the Senate and House, and an incoming Democratic president. How about an investigation into Conyers' babysitter? Good grief. And this guy's the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

But of course, it's all about Bush and not anyone else...

Mideast peace process is elusive

All eyes are on Israel as its air force continues to selectively strike within Gaza to kill Hamas leaders. Yes, there are civilian casualties, but compared to how Hamas indiscriminately aims its missiles specifically at civilian targets, the IDF is doing its best in preventing collateral damage. Even more worrisome is the fact that Hamas' weaponry has seen significant upgrades recently, including Iranian-made Fajr-3 missiles with greater range. That new firepower threatens Israel's nuclear power plant in Dimona, also a site said to contain the country's nuclear warheads.

There are those like Rosa Brooks of L.A. Times who criticizes Israel for trying to "bomb its way to peace." Never mind that Hamas terrorists started the whole provocation by launching rockets into Israeli towns. Although Brooks acknowledges Israel's right to self-defense and its superior military force, she thinks it's the Israeli politicians playing their game at the expense of rousing more Arab anti-Western sentiments:

Israel has no viable political endgame here: There's just no clear route from bombardment to a sustainable peace. But the damage caused by this new conflagration won't be limited to the Israelis and Palestinians. Israel's military offensive already has sparked outrage and protests throughout the Arab world. The current crisis also may destabilize some of the more moderate Arab governments in the region -- in Egypt, for instance -- where leaders now face popular backlash if they don't repudiate Israel.

And if you think that none of this really matters for us here in the U.S., you're kidding yourself. Arab and Islamic anger over Palestine continues to fuel anti-Western and anti-U.S. terrorism around the globe.

Unfortunately, there is no reasoning with Hamas. Its goal is to annihilate the state of Israel. How can Israel sit at a negotiation table when the other party wishes nothing but its death? Brooks is right in that Israel is in a lose-lose situation, but that doesn't mean it is doing something wrong. Peace in Mideast has been attempted many times but never came to fruition, not because of Israel's unwillingness, but rather because of the Palestinians' undying hostility and self-victimization.

Israel may not be able to bomb its way to peace, but those bombs are a sign that peace can still be achieved, even if through deadly deterrence.

The GOP big government (failed) experiment

Richard A. Viguerie writes a good piece in the L.A. Times about Republicans' path and acceptance of Big Government:

Over the last eight years, President Bush sought to tame Big Government and turn it to conservative ends. The administration experimented with the belief -- as expressed by Huckabee, Gerson and Kristol -- that Republicans and conservatives would do better by rejecting small-government conservatism and accepting Big Government. For generations, Democrats had bribed people to vote for them with one Big Government program after another, so Republicans did the same (No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, endless deficits and, finally, the bailouts). The results of the experiment are now in: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, President-elect Barack Obama.

Indeed. Look where the Republicans are now, and look how disgruntled the conservatives are. Is there hope in reversing the Big Government trend? History tells a pessimistic story, that often government does not shrink. It all boils down to indirect vote buying. The Republicans thought they could pull such Democrat-inspired moves to win voters, but the maneuvers backfired big time. Seriously, the Republicans have nothing even close to Democrats' social programs, so what makes them think they could compete against Democrats in government programs? (Okay, maybe President Bush came close.) Do Republicans want to blur the lines between them and the Democrats? I sure hope not.

The GOP should embrace Small Government once again as Ronald Reagan did. It's also a way for the new GOP to distinguish itself from the old and from the liberals. The party may not win the fight, but as Viguerie points out "if we do not fight, we guarantee defeat."

More chatter about Hillary as State Secretary

I agree with most of what Thomas Friedman writes in NYT, except his description of the effectiveness of Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts under President Bush: "Condoleezza Rice had a close relationship with Bush, but Bush had no coherent worldview to animate her diplomacy, so all her travels added up to less than the sum of their miles." On the contrary, Bush had a clear worldview, it was just one that many like Mr. Friedman doesn't agree with. Bush vowed to promote democracy around the globe, fight terrorists in any way, and if other nations weren't on board with us, then they weren't our friends. What's incoherent about that?

And it seems that Hillary is taking her sweet time in giving Obama an answer. Can't really blame her -- now she failed to become president, she's planning on what to do for the next few years.

Paulson, Bernanke grilled in the Hill

The House Financial Services Committee plans to hear testimony from Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke today about their U-turn decision in using the $700 billion bailout money. Originally the money was for rescuing bad mortgage loans, but now Paulson wants to alleviate the pain in consumer debts. He's even taking his cause to the media with an op-ed in the NYT.

Congress gave Paulson overwhelming power with TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), but now it realizes that things aren't improving much, especially with the doomsday talk from Detroit automakers and stock markets continue to plunge. Lawmakers now want some answers as to how Paulson's new focus would help the economy.

I really don't think Paulson and Bernanke know what they are doing. Either the scale of the problem is beyond their control, or they are just incompetent. Whatever the reason, I think the only sure way we know will work is through capitalism without government interference. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but it'll help with the recovery. I'm afraid that the government's help isn't really helping and will only prolong the pain.

Obama up, markets down

Are we seeing a correlation here? As Obama gathers even more steam in the last week and a half until election day, the global markets continue to slide in a downward death spiral. Investors are well aware of an Obama presidency and the policies that will bring. If this is any indication of the collective intelligence, I'm going to believe that the public is smart enough not to want a socialist America and will not cast the ballot for Obama. A few polls showing McCain and Obama in a tight race are starting to get more attention, and people are starting to discount those polls having Obama leading five or more points.

As Peggy Noonan says in the WSJ, "Obama looks like a winner, but it's not over yet."

What's worse than an Obama presidency?

Mona Charen paints a bleak picture of an "Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime." Riding on Obama's surging popularity and the worsening economy (by the way, notice the correlation), the Democrats are within reach a super-majority in Congress, having enough seats to be filibuster-proof. If that scenario comes true, then the country will be looking at some very liberal changes in government which will trickle down into society, affecting the lives of everyone.

Democrats want bigger government, and obviously to support that you'd require more taxes. How else can government fund nationalized healthcare? How else can government give credit for college education?

These points seem lost to Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post, who writes:

...the Reagan-Thatcher faith in unregulated capitalism, to which every GOP presidential candidate was pledging allegiance just last winter, has collapsed? The doctrine of laissez faire has been so dominant, so pervasive over the past three decades that hundreds of Democratic politicians can deliver a paean to the market at the drop of a hat, but not a single Republican pol can plausibly defend government as a check on capitalism run amok, even at the drop of thousands of points in the Dow.

The truth is that laissez faire works. The credit crisis that's going on occurred because of government intervention in the first place! The government interfered with free market principles by passing legislation which created a subprime mortgage market. Any bank in its right mind would never offer loans to people who cannot afford to pay back. Yet the government forced banks to lend to subprime borrowers, then created Fannie and Freddie to back those loans, and look what happened...

The issue is beyond nationalizing banks and injecting trillions into the economy. Mr. Meyerson fails to point out that government was the problem, and now government still is the problem.

Ayers friend defends Obama

In the WSJ today, Thomas Frank says he is friends with Bill Ayers and that Obama shouldn't be attacked for the same association. In typical elitist fashion, he complicates the relationship with historical references to the Civil War and the culture wars.

I don't care if Mr. Frank is a friend of Ayers or even Usama bin Laden -- he's not running for president. But Obama is, and his past associations, especially with an unrepentant terrorist, should be examined and questioned.

What Mr. Frank fails to understand is that pundits aren't that angry about Ayers' past. What really bugs us is that he feels no remorse for his past crimes and has gone on the record about it. If Ayers had issued a public statement about being sorry for his past mistakes, then more folks would be understanding because, well, we all make mistakes.

Defending Palin's kind of patriotism

Thomas Friedman of the NYT has a problem with what he calls "Palin's kind of patriotism":

Criticizing Sarah Palin is truly shooting fish in a barrel. But given the huge attention she is getting, you can’t just ignore what she has to say. And there was one thing she said in the debate with Joe Biden that really sticks in my craw. It was when she turned to Biden and declared: “You said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America, which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that’s not patriotic.”

What an awful statement. Palin defended the government’s $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic.

Not so fast, Mr. Friedman! Palin was commenting on Biden's argument of paying higher taxes is patriotic. She never said paying taxes is unpatriotic. It's a shame that the author made an incorrect and unjust assumption to pen his op-ed column.

We all know that taxes are necessary in our society. But what does the government do with our tax money? Earmarks and pork legislation. Welfare programs for people who don't pay taxes. So paying higher taxes isn't patriotic. It's actually irresponsible in our democracy as we the people ought to hold our politicians accountable for every penny.

Palin Derangement Syndrome starts showing its ugly head

How can you tell if you've won an argument? When your opponent can only come up with remarks using words such as "dumb," "stupid," and "idiot." Once a person starts spewing out such words in any debate, you'd know that the person is losing ground and reaching for straws.

Enter Salon's Joe Conason and his piece titled "The dumbing down of the GOP." Let's see what he thinks of Palin...

"...devoid of qualifications..."

"...ideas make no sense..."

"...inability to string together a series of coherent thoughts..."

Did Mr. Conason forget to research who Sarah Palin is? Previously mayor of Wasilla, AK, now governor of Alaska, the largest state in the union, bordering Russia and Canada and rich in oil reserves. And to reach that point in her career, she ran a tight and popular campaign against incumbents of her own Republican party. And by the way, be reminded that Obama has never ran a real campaign in his political life (he pretty much won by default to become U.S. senator for Illinois) and since joining the Senate, started his campaign for presidency. Leftist columnists need to just stay away from any talk about qualifications and abilities when their candidate is Mr. Vote Present Community Organizer.

Oh, the author manages to insult ex-V.P. Dan Quayle, too.

Maybe he is just jealous that more people were interested in watching Palin speak than read his online columns or his new book (#54,749 on Amazon's sales rank). 

House Republicans not to blame

The House rejection of the bailout plan sure has the left wound up and ready to fire. Take Thomas Friedman of the NYT, for example:

...I’ve been frightened for my country only a few times in my life: In 1962, when, even as a boy of 9, I followed the tension of the Cuban missile crisis; in 1963, with the assassination of J.F.K.; on Sept. 11, 2001; and on Monday, when the House Republicans brought down the bipartisan rescue package.

Oh, don't be so easily frightened! How can you compare what's happening in Wall Street to the Cuban missile crisis, the JFK assassination, or 9/11?! A tanking stock market and people losing their homes aren't even close to those national crises we'd endured.

Besides, what he fails to mention is the highly partisan speech given by Speaker Nancy Pelosi before the vote. Don't blame the House Republicans, Mr. Friedman. It was the Democratic speaker who injected partisanship into the ordeal. Everyone was onboard until the speaker ranted about "failed Bush economic policies."

And obviously Mr. Friedman doesn't quite grasp the role of a representative in the House. Otherwise he wouldn't have written

...We have House members, many of whom I suspect can’t balance their own checkbooks, rejecting a complex rescue package because some voters, whom I fear also don’t understand, swamped them with phone calls. I appreciate the popular anger against Wall Street, but you can’t deal with this crisis this way.

Excuse me? House members are elected to serve their constituents, and if the voters swamp them with phone calls to voice their opinion on a bill, then it's the House member's responsibility to reflect the will of his or her constituency. It's not about anger against Wall Street. It's about fairness in dealing with the problem.

Obama the media darling

We're all aware of the left-leaning bias in the mainstream media (MSM). We should be thankful that there are outlets such as FOX News, conservative talk radio, and crazy right-wing bloggers to balance the information out there.

Tony Blankley of the Washington Times writes an op-ed labeling the MSM as "straight out propagandists for the Obama campaign." And he's right. The major media are infatuated with Obama and have cast their votes for president. Obama is the product of MSM hype. He's a pop star and the MSM writes his songs and scripts.

Explaining the Wall Street meltdown

Neal Boortz explains it well on Townhall.com:

Right now this crisis is being sold to the American public by the left as evidence the failure of the free market and capitalism. Not so. What we’re seeing is the inevitable result of political interference in free market economics. Acme bank didn’t want to loan money to Joe Homebuyer because Joe had a spotty job history, owed too much money on his credit cards, and wasn’t all that good at making payments on time. The politicians told Acme Bank to figure out a way to make that loan, because, after all, Joe is a bona-fide minority-American, or forget about opening that new branch office on the Southside. The loan was made under politicial pressure; the loan, with millions like it, failed – and now we are left to enjoy today’s headlines.

It's a good read and it's something the MSM won't report on.

Predicting doom about Palin phenomenon?

Jon Friedman of MarketWatch warns that "the media live to build you up, then knock you down" about Gov. Sarah Palin. He seems to think that the Palin phenomenon was created by the media and the media will end it soon. This is hardly the case. Palin entered the spotlight and the media could not contain the enthusiasm and energy she has brought forth.

But that's not the case with Obama. His campaign is truly the work of media hype. How else can a community organizer-turned-senator with zero executive experience and ties to shady individuals, running against the Clinton political machine, end up where he is today? Reporters and news anchors followed him to Europe and the Middle East, to document his global popularity tour.

Mr. Friedman should worry about Obama and his campaign, if he is so concerned about the media frenzy.

Obama campaign now faces real challenges

Why is the Obama campaign suddenly losing its touch? Mark Cunningham of the New York Post offers a good analysis based on the campaign's makeup:

Barack Obama has never run a campaign against a real Republican. And his main strategist, David Axelrod, is way out of his areas of expertise.

Axelrod specializes in urban politics. He's run a bunch of mayoral races (usually in cities with lots of blacks), plus contests in true-blue states like Massachusetts and New York.

In another word, inexperience. Obama came into the spotlight after making an impressive speech in the 2004 DNC. His opponent during his senator race withdrew and later replaced by Republican Alan Keyes who had to establish residency in Illinois (from Maryland) just so the GOP had somebody. So really, Obama had never ran any major political campaign except this one, and Alexrod is starting to show his lack of strategic vision in this crucial time during the race.