California gets a dose of W.H. strong-arm politics

What the federal government gives, it can also take away. The state of California is learning this the hard way as the Obama administration threatens to rescind stimulus funds if the California state government doesn't restore wage cuts to the unionized home health care workers.

Two things at play here: the intimate relationships between unions and Democrats and the White House's disregard for a state.

The unions in questions are the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and United Domestic Workers (not in the motherly sense). In fact, it was the SEIU which went to the W.H. to ask for a ruling on this matter.

This also shows the administration's disregard for a state. The wage cut is a necessary step in keeping California afloat as it's operating on IOUs already. These health care workers aren't the only ones affected by wage cuts. The state legislature passed a state law but looks like the W.H. has a problem with that. Does the administration truly have the state's interest in mind?

States which have accepted the stimulus money should take note. This money comes with strings attached -- many which aren't to the states' benefit. Be warned.

Nobody to blame but the Democrats

How many Republicans voted for the stimulus bill? None.

Now it's widely known that the multi-billion dollar stimulus bill contains verbiage to allow executives to keep their bonuses, it's time for the Democrats to be accountable.

The bill is 1,000 pages or so, and granted, some honest Democrats admitted they didn't read over the whole thing. But then there are lawmakers like Dina Titus (D-NV) who was either too embarrassed to admit to that, or she did in fact read every page and allowed the executive bonus provision to pass.

Either way, the Democrats and the Democrats only are on the hook for this. And now they want to pass a bill to tax these bonus recipients at 90%. Clearly, they admit to their incompetency by even drafting the CYA bill.

This is how our legislative branch works now? Take no time to review and debate a bill, pass it in a hurry, and if lawmakers don't like something in it just write up another bill to make things OK?

What a sorry state our Congress has become, especially those in power.

Gov. Palin says no to half of federal stimulus money

Gov. Palin of Alaska will refuse nearly half of federal stimulus money, standing firm to keep state government small. The state Democrats, of course, say her actions aren't for the sake of Alaskans, but for her Washington political ambitions.

I applaud Gov. Palin and other governors like her who doesn't want Washington to engineer their states' future!

Stimulus bill allowed executive bonuses

The fury over AIG executive bonuses is now snowballing towards the White House, Congress, and all those in between who'd voted for the stimulus bill. Apparently the infamous stimulus allowed for executive bonuses that so many are ticked off about. And the man who's receiving most of the finger pointing? None other than Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), who happens to be the top recipient of AIG political contribution (then Sen. Obama is #2). Sen. Dodd is being blamed for inserting the executive compensation clause into the stimulus bill, and believe it or not, he's blaming Obama for requesting it!

Oh goodie, in-fighting among top Democrats...

Anyone with a "D" next to their written names is staying as far away from this mess as possible. Nobody wants to be near Sen. Dodd, Tim Geithner, or even President Obama these days. What AIG CEO Edward Liddy went through recently is nothing compared to what's going to happen in the Hill.

There's been calls for Geithner's resignation. I'm sure these calls are going to turn into a chorus pretty soon.

Even Democrats are growing wary of Obama

President Obama and his team now has to worry about dissent within his own party. Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen may join the handful of Republican governors to reject the federal stimulus for the state's unemployed. (It's interesting that so far these defiant governors are all from the South.)

Then there's Sen. Byrd (D-WV) voicing his opinion about Obama's appointment of White House czars:

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

The scholarly Senator is absolutely right! Obama's actions are indeed cause for concern, a potential breach of the Constitution.

House Democrats on new spending spree

Here we go again... Hot on the heels of the $787 billion stimulus package, House Democrats are now proposing a $410 billion spending bill to "keep the government running."

More like to keep the government running up in debt.

I have an idea. How about let's just stop the government from running for a few months to see how things go? We may actually be better off that way.

The Socialist States of America

That's what America is turning into. The federal government is dangling a $150 billion gigantic carrot in front of the governors to lure them into becoming the big spending, big government monsters Washington has already turned into.

Thankfully, there are a few Republican governors with enough sense to tell Washington to "talk to the hand":

These Governors -- Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Butch Otter of Idaho, Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina -- all have the same objection: The tens of billions of dollars of aid for health care, welfare and education will disappear in two years and leave states with no way to finance the expanded programs. Mr. Perry sent a letter to President Obama last week warning that Texas may refuse certain stimulus funds. "If this money expands entitlements, we will not accept it. This is exactly how addicts get hooked on drugs," he says.

These governors deserve applause for thinking long term. The "free money" from the federal government may seem like sweet relief in the short run, but it's really a trap to make states more dependent on Washington. Just like an addictive drug, as Gov. Perry puts it succinctly.

Kowtowing to China

Seriously, are we this desperate?

Our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just short of begging Beijing to keep on buying up U.S. debt in order to finance President Obama's massive, high fat, high cholesterol pork plan.

Soon China will not only produce your TVs, computers, shoes, shirts, utensils, etc., but also American roads, bridges, school buildings, and broadband access!

House passes stimulus without GOP support again

The House passes the final stimulus bill, and again without the support of Republicans as well as seven Democrats. Now the bill moves to the Senate, and that's where things could get more interesting as Democrats hold a majority but still need a few Republicans' support in order to pass the bill.

Spending $900B without knowing the details

The 1,071-page stimulus bill is up for a final vote in Congress, yet it's unlikely that any Congressman and Senator would have the chance to read the whole document before taking action. In fact, these politicians even agreed to delay the publication of the bill on the Internet to be searched by everyone.

Obama's first press conference

The Leftosphere is reignited with pre-presidential passion after President Obama's first press conference where he addressed most of today's economic crisis. Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive says Obama "delivers ideological knockout to GOP":

At his press conference Monday, he shredded Republican arguments against the stimulus package and made the best case by a President in decades for affirmative government intervention in the economy.

“With the private sector so weakened by the recession,” he said, “the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs.”

Listen to Obama's remarks very carefully. Notice how he portrays the federal government as our savior? Yes, the private sector has weakened, but please don't falsely paint a rosy picture about the federal government's resources -- these resources come from private sectors! Without the private sector and individuals, the federal government is nothing.

Can the government really break the "vicious cycle"? It's doubtful that billions dollars more government spending will help. All that does is further sink America into debt that even our children's grandchildren won't see it paid off.

To me this press conference showed an agitated Obama attempting to rekindle his pre-White House celebrity status, doing what he does best: rhetoric talk.

The stimulus could ruin your health care

Betsy McCaughey of Bloomberg is raising a flag about health provisions in President Obama's stimulus bill:

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

So not only does Big Brother want access to all your medical treatment data, but it also wants control over how the doctors perform procedures and diagnosis. The scary thing is that although Tom Daschle no longer gets to be the HHS Secretary, his soul lives in this bloated bill.

Worse yet:

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Again, the ghost of Daschle appears, and he wants the government to be the brains of the health care provider instead of the doctor's. What is government health care like? Just look back to the debacle of Walter Reed Army Medical Center 2007 scandal. (Thankfully, things have improved there after the bad publicity.)

Sen. Arlen Specter, Obama Kool-Aid drinker

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is one of the few Republicans who voted for the stimulus bill. He takes his case to the American people with an article in the Washington Post. He starts off resonating President Obama's sense of urgency:

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

This is simply false. I think it's the Obama administration, the Federal government, that cannot afford not to take action to stimulate the government. The bill won't stimulate the economy much, but it sure will expand the government. The Republican Senators who voted along with the Democrats to support this bill are drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.

Lean, mean, talented Obama?

President Obama demands passage of the stimulus package. Now he's on the offensive, pointing fingers at Republicans for the "same old distractions." The leftosphere (the left-leaning blogosphere) is falling in love with Obama all over again because of his partisanship:

I will note that compared with the solid but lacking passion speech that the President gave earlier in the day at the Department of Energy, this speech truly demonstrated the enormous talents of the President. This was the Obama that spoke from the heart, not the cool, calm, collected one we often see and hear. This speech had cadence, it had fire in the belly, it had soul. He spoke to me as an American and as a Democrat. This is the real deal. This is how politics is played. To win by getting things accomplished.

Oh, please: the "enormous talents" of the President?! Since January 20, I haven't really seen much talent from the President except his ability to deliver speeches (but we'd already known that since the campaign).

Does he have a talent for party leadership? Not from what we've seen with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, marching to the beat of her own tune in the House, completely ignoring Obama's message of bipartisanship.

Does he have a talent for reaching across the aisle? Certainly, but the failure of his negotiation skills was exposed when the House Republican members stood united to oppose the stimulus package.

Does he have a talent for picking good cabinet nominees? Look at what happened to Bill Richardson, Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, Hilda Solis, and possibly more candidates.

The honeymoon is definitely over.

The action Democrats need, Obama's fear-mongering

That ought to be the title of President Obama's article in the Washington Post. The President laments:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

First of all, nobody is saying that tax cuts is the only solution to this crisis. The opposing Republicans just want more tax cuts -- let it be a significant part of the stimulus. The Democrats just want to spend, spend, spend.

Obama tries to re-ignite the flame of change during his campaign, but you know what? Season's over. Now he's in the White House so he better own up to the mistakes and criticisms. Obama is not delivering a message of change. Here he is delivering a message of fear.

Reid says he has enough votes

These past few days we have seen more hot air come out of the Democratic Senate leadership than me after eating five cans of beans.

Okay, so you've got enough votes, Sen. Reid. So go pass your precious spending bill. Just remember, there will be a reckoning in the 2010 election.

Let history be a lesson about government's impact on Depression

History is the best teacher, even in Economics. Let's not repeat what we already know.

Republican opposition to stimulus is Democrats own fault

All right, the ordeal about House Republicans' united front against the stimulus bill is getting more interesting now as columnists like E. J. Dionne are lobbying President Obama to abandon his bipartisanship efforts to win opposition support:

That's why last week's unanimous House Republican opposition to the stimulus plan was so important. For the most part, the Republicans escaped attack for rank partisanship. Instead, what should have been hailed as an administration victory was cast in large parts of the media as a kind of defeat: Obama had placed a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship and he failed to achieve it.

Worse from Obama's point of view, Republicans have used the stimulus fight to drive a wedge between the president and his loyal troops in Congress. Some Republicans argued that while the White House was trying to reach out, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants were insisting on a "partisan" bill -- even though the measure was largely based on the administration's own proposals.

The truth is that House Republicans appreciated very much the attention given to them by the President. Although their negotiations with the White House failed to produce a stimulus package they could support, they had only good things to say about the President's efforts in reaching across the aisle.

The root of the problem isn't with President Obama. It's with the House Democratic leadership, especially Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She pushed the bill forward without opportunity for more bipartisan debate. The bill is worth $900 billion in taxpayer money! She went to the press to pound on the Republicans' unwillingness to support it. In other words, while the President was working hard as a politician, Pelosi was running wild as a maverick.

That's the problem when a party hasn't been in power for so long and all of a sudden finds itself running multiple branches of government. Everyone is going to have a power and ego trip. If the Democrats are after some Republican votes, then they must resolve some internal issues between Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

Nationalized health care snuck into stimulus

The Democrat-owned stimulus package is nothing more than a $900 billion bribe for votes. It's low on tax cuts where money is put into people's pockets and high on large government spending. Paul Krugman of the NYT cannot wait:

The bottom line, then, is that this is no time to let campaign promises of guaranteed health care be quietly forgotten. It is, instead, a time to put the push for universal care front and center. Health care now!

Kimberley Strassel points out in the WSJ:

It began one week after the swearing-in, when Nancy Pelosi whipped through a big expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Schip bill was Democrats' first stab at stealth expansion, unveiled in 2007, though vetoed by George W. Bush.
...
Under "stimulus," Medicaid is now on offer not to just poor Americans, but Americans who have lost their jobs. And not just Americans who have lost their jobs, but their spouses and their children. And not Americans who recently lost their jobs, but those who lost jobs, say, early last year. And not just Americans who already lost their jobs, but those who will lose their jobs up to 2011. The federal government is graciously footing the whole bill. The legislation also forbids states to apply income tests in most cases.
...
The "stimulus" also hijacks Cobra, a program that lets the unemployed retain access to their former company health benefits -- usually for about 18 months. The new stimulus permits any former employee over the age of 55 to keep using Cobra right up until they qualify for Medicare at age 65. And here's the kicker: Whereas employees were previously responsible for paying their health premiums while on Cobra, now the feds will pay 65%. CBO estimates? Seven million Americans will have the feds mostly pay their insurance bills in 2009.

Thanks to Strassel for shedding light on this. It further illustrates the Democrats' nationalization agenda disguised as a bill to stimulate the economy.

Liberals on the offensive after House passage of stimulus bill

Let the finger pointing begin! Oh where do we start...?

Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones provides a strategy:

(1) Take stock. He certainly isn't going to stop reaching out to Republicans — to ditch the central premise of his campaign after one negative experience would be preposterous. But he can acknowledge that the output is the same. If he doesn't reach out to the Republicans, he will get slammed for being partisan and get zero votes for his priorities. If he does reach out to Republicans, he will get thanked for his efforts and get zero votes for his priorities (as we've seen). Either way, Republicans remain an unhelpful, recalcitrant bunch.

As a conservative, I'm glad the Republicans in Congress are standing firm. Even as a liberal, however, you've got to admit that this is the best way for the opposition party, having no control in the legislature, to play the political ball game -- even Kos acknowledges it. Let the Democrats "own" it. I'm sure it's how the Democrats would've done if they were the minority. Also keep in mind that there were 11 House Democrats who joined the Republicans in voting "no."

(2) Lowball. Next time, instead of reaching out to Republicans with a serious attempt to include their priorities (30 percent of the stimulus in tax cuts), Obama should start lower (10 percent?) and negotiate up. His bipartisan credentials will only be burnished by the fact that he went through the process of wrangling with the opposition and adding pieces it supports bit by bit.

Good idea. Negotiations 101.

(3) Stand strong when necessary. Obama should be less willing to ditch important provisions that Republicans oppose. They'll oppose the final bill regardless. And remember that there are the members of the Democratic caucus that need to be greased, too. MSNBC's First Read wrote today, "We've been hearing chatter from congressional Democrats that they'd like the president to act as concerned about winning their support as he acts when it comes to the Republicans." If Obama cuts too many progressive priorities from a major bill because the Republicans demand it, he will have an even bigger mess to deal with.

Unfortunately, history has shown that tax cuts work better and faster to stimulate the economy. It's evident in JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush's administrations. Republicans will oppose Democrats' massive spending bills and Obama can stand as strong as he'd like, but history and facts are on the Republicans' side.

(4) Finally, play the PR game. Did Big O forget that he's the guy with the soaring popularity recently elected with a mandate for change? And that Republicans, who have a popularity rating under 30 percent if polling is to be believed, got their tails kicked in November? Make some hay out of this situation in the media. Obama should take to the microphones and explain exactly how far backward he bent over to make this bill one that everyone could get behind. Make the Republicans look bad. Make them think twice about unified opposition next time. So what if it turns into a war of the words — who is the public going to sympathize with, Obama or John Boehner? (Especially considering the public is strongly behind massive stimulus.) Obama doesn't have to create bipartisanship by kowtowing to GOP demands. He can create bipartisanship by making people terrified of opposing him.

Interesting idea, but the honeymoon has ended. After voting for Obama and cheering among millions at his rallies, people are back to reality of facing the prospect of losing their homes and their jobs. Sorry folks, but Mr. President cannot help you pay the bills. He's a popular president, all right, but ultimately he'll be judged by his actions, as with past presidents.