Cincinnatus

All the Crap that's fit to Print

2010-03-22T12:12:00.000-05:00

Today, the New York Times compared the passage of ObamaCare to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. The Times implies that those people who protested the Democrat's heavy-handed unilateral attempt to create a new Constitutional right and to impose unconstitutional healthcare mandates on the American people to those racists that protested the efforts to guaranty the equal rights of man as defined by the Constitution to blacks and all other minorities. Only a fool or an idiot could agree. Republicans have been the primary protectors of equal rights for all, starting with Abraham Lincoln and punctuated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It has been Democrats that pay the lip service to Civil Rights while providing actual obstacles to freedom.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a true moment of true bi-partisanship. Republicans provided, on a percentage basis, more support for the legislation which confirmed to the world that this nation, and the people within it, were serious about the statement that all men are created equal. Let's compare for a minute which party was the biggest supporter of the act.

Vote totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71%-29%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

By party

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Compare these numbers to the unilateral imposition of unconstitutional one-party government we saw during the debate on ObamaCare.

Slaughtering the Constitution

2010-03-19T15:31:00.000-05:00

I felt I could provide some clarity on the Slaughter Rule being used to push Obama/Pelosi/Reid healthcare through the Congress.

The Slaughter Rule (a.k.a Deem and Pass, or as I call it Demon Pass) is a procedure being used in a new manner to pass legislation in Congress. Previously, the Demon Pass was used on the changed portion of a bill passing through Congress. A vote is taken on the passage of the underlying legislation, and certain changes to the legislation are deemed passed at the same time as that vote. This time, they are voting on the changes while deeming the underlying legislation passed. So, the underlying legislation (the Senate version of ObamaCare) is not being voted on by both the House and the Senate, the House is only voting on the changes while deeming the Senate bill as passed. At this point, the Democrats will submit the Senate bill to Obama for signature. Once he signs the Senate bill, it becomes the law of the land.

The changes to the Senate bill, which the House will actually Demon Pass, will go to the Senate for reconciliation. Reconciliation requires a simple majority of the Senate. Those items that are not strictly budget related can be challenged, and those not conforming to the "Byrd Rules" are ruled out of order by the Senate Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian's rulings can be ruled out of order by the Senate President (the VPOTUS). If the challenge stands, the changes can be enacted with a supermajority of 60 Senators.

Reconciliation can only be performed on an enacted law, so once the Demon Passed legislation is through the House, and the bill signed by there is little or no incentive to perform reconciliation on the newly signed law. The Senate would require supermajorities to enact those clauses of the reconciliation package that are challenged, of which there are several. So, reconciliation will probably be impossible to pass. The current Senate Bill will be the law of the land forever.

The only hope will be that the Supreme Court finds the process unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has been reluctant to hear such cases in the past, but they have done so, rarely, as I mentioned above.

This is whole process, in my opinion, clearly in conflict with the words and spirit of Article I of the Constitution, and also in conflict with the most recent precedent (mid-1990's) of the Supreme Court.

Send a Loud and Clear Message

2010-01-29T08:10:00.001-06:00

The voters of Massachusetts have spoken. The outcome of Scott Brown’s U.S. Senate victory is historic. Along with recent wins in New Jersey and Virginia, we are seeing a fundamental realignment of American politics. Local and nation-wide conservative activists and independent-minded citizens are uniting to tell politicians enough is enough. DuPage County candidates and elected officials need to hear the people.

Loud and clear.

American voters are moving toward common-sense conservative candidates, especially when they represent the core values of fiscal responsibility, and transparent good governance. Mainstream conservative values can win anywhere in the United States, and that includes Illinois, and that includes DuPage County. Brown’s victory is a lesson for politicians of all stripes that the days of Chicago-style politics is over.

I know we’re right.

With your money and your time, citizens are supporting conservative candidates all over the U.S. DuPage County voters should know that Republicans in DuPage County need a positive message of fiscal responsibility that resonates with the voters. Politicians must pledge to be transparent in all they do on our behalf. Republican candidates need to be strong. They need to work hard for your vote. I encourage all of you to vote in the February 2, 2010 primaries and support your local candidates.

Send your message.

Join the revolution.

For my analysis on the DuPage County Board Chairman candidates:

Debra Olson

Gary Grasso

Dan Cronin

Dan Cronin – Getting Things Done

2010-01-27T09:38:00.016-06:00

“DuPage County families are making tough decisions every day. Government must do the same."

- Dan Cronin

Dan Cronin is the only serious candidate in the DuPage County Board Chairman race. Dan’s long time service to his constituents, and his legislative abilities, have been acknowledged time and again. We see all of the local newspapers endorsing Dan. We see DuPage County legislators endorsing Dan. Pro-life groups. Education groups. (See list below) All have come forward to say that Dan is the man to lead DuPage County. The Chicago Tribune has declared Dan to be “among the best in the Senate.”

There’s a reason. His record.

Critics use a candidate’s record all the time. I did when I compared the words and records of Dan’s opponents.

I exposed Gary Grasso’s links to gambling and compared his statements about his alleged fiscal conservatism to the budget mess in Burr Ridge.

Debra Olson chose to make herself the queen of transparency and ethics. I show her actions and her words don’t necessarily align, especially in the areas of her receipt of campaign contributions from DuPage County vendors, her buddy-buddy relationship with ARAMARK, her vaporous 2010 County Board budget claims, and her asleep at the switch oversight of the DuPage County Water Commission. The list goes on and on. At best, her ethical lapses show she is a hypocrite.

As measured by the vehemence of the comments on the blogosphere, Cronin’s opponents certainly touched a nerve when they attacked him about his vote on a one-quarter cent sales tax increase. I laid out the reasons Dan voted for the sales tax increase, which came only after the same people who criticize him were unable to make the tough choices required to balance their own budgets and went crying to Springfield for help. They called to Dan for help, he helps, and they criticize him for his help. Those critics shouldn’t be allowed to have it both ways.

Lastly, I outlined my rationale for voting for Dan.

But what has yet not broken through the noise of the campaign is a snapshot of Dan’s record in Springfield. Dan is no sunshine patriot. Dan constantly fights Springfield, in Springfield, for the people of DuPage County. He did when the Republicans were in the majority. He continued the fight during the past few years when the Democrats completed their corrupt control of Springfield. Dan’s efforts keep DuPage County in better shape than our neighbor to the east, Cook County, and other counties in the state.

Fiscal Responsibility

On budget matters, Dan is a consistent voice for responsible government. Since 2004, I have found 37 instances where Dan has fought spending and tax increases. There are probably more.

Some highlights:

Dan sponsored the DuPage County property tax cap legislation to halt double-digit increases in annual real estate taxes. In 2009, Dan opposed FY2010 Quinn budget proposal that contained the largest tax increase in Illinois history, calling for 50% increases in personal income tax and taxes on employers, and raided the pension fund for $3.2 billion.

In 2008, he did the same thing on Blagojevich’s bloated FY2009 budget that again increased taxes, swept state funds for use by the governor, proposed selling the Lottery and other state assets, and increased spending on an already out of balance state budget.

In 2007, Dan opposed Blagojevich again when Blagojevich proposed a budget relying on a Gross Receipt Tax. Dan has fought against every Democrat budget proposal going back to 2004, where I stopped my examination, including a July 2004 proposal where he led the Senate Republicans in halting a new $300 million job killing tax. Dan has voted against all of the raids on the state pension fund proposed by the Democrats, while trying to implement common-sense pension reform.

Dan is pro-fiscal reform. In 2009, Dan advanced proposals that would have saved the state $3.4 billion in the first year alone through cutting waste, Medicaid and pension reforms and limited state-mandated education expenditures that passed costs to the localities. He sponsored the bill that instituted the Illinois Accountability Portal where taxpayers can track how their dollars are being spent. Dan supported the tax accountability act that requires a three-fifths majority vote by General Assembly to increase any taxes.

Education

Both sides of the aisle acknowledge Dan Cronin as the leader in Springfield on education issues. Dan is the current minority chairman and spokesman (and former chairman) of the Illinois Senate Education Committee, which oversees every key education issue in the state. As chief sponsor of the Chicago Public School reform, he demanded local accountability as well as improved standards for teachers, administrators and students. Dan secured millions in funding for new school construction in suburban districts. Dan is a strong advocate for new approaches to public education, including charter schools and alternatives to teacher certification to expedite the hiring of new, qualified teachers.

Transparency and Good Government Reform

Few people remember that Dan was the first legislator to call for the impeachment of Rod Blagojevich. Months before any other legislator, Dan was building support among his colleagues to impeach Blagojevich. Dan sponsored the impeachment resolution in the Senate. Dan sponsored the recall legislation to permit voters to remove elected officials from public office. Dan was out in front when he reformed the state eminent domain laws to protect private property owners from government intervention. Dan sponsored a Senate bill to limit contributions to political campaigns in Illinois, and created laws to improve security at schools, protect women and children from domestic violence, strengthen teen driving laws and reduce gun violence.

Dan’s opponents have whisper thin credentials. They make promises that have no way to keep. They are tied into special interests, and have broken their sacred trust to the people. Compare them to Dan’s accomplishments.

You can’t. There is no comparison.

Vote for Dan Cronin.

For my analysis on the other DuPage County Board Chairman candidates:

Debra Olson
Gary Grasso

Cronin Endorsements

Patti Bellock - State Representative, 47th District

Bob Biggins - State Representative, 41st District

Joe Birkett - DuPage County States Attorney

Fred Bucholz - DuPage County Recorder

Joe Cantore - Forest Preserve Commissioner, District 2

Kathryn Cermak-Durante - Addison Township Supervisor

Chicago Tribune

Clarendon Hills Doings

Tony Cuzzone - York Township Trustee

Daily Herald

Patrick Durante - Addison Township Republican Chairman

Jim Durkin - State Representative, 82nd District

Elmhurst Doings

Barbara Finn - York Township Trustee

Mike Formento - Milton Township Republican Chairman

Chris Heidorn - Milton Township Supervisor

Gwen Henry - DuPage County Treasurer

Paul Hinds - York Township Republican Chairman

Hinsdale Doings

Illinois Citizens for Life

Illinois Federation for Right to Life

Italian American Political Coalition

Chris Kachiroubas - DuPage County Circuit Court Clerk

Moon Khan - York Township Trustee

Gary King - DuPage County Clerk

Dan Kordik - York Township Clerk

Michael Kwasman - Mayor, West Chicago

John Millner - State Senator, 28th District

Pamella Moretti - Addison Township Clerk

Barbara Murphy - DuPage County Republican Chairwoman

Marsha Murphy - Forest Preserve Commission, District 1

Rachel Ossyra - Naperville Township Republican Chairman

Linda Painter - Forest Preserve Commissioner, District 3

Dewey Pierotti - DuPage County Forest Preserve President

Sandy Pihos - State Representative, 42nd, District

Michael Prueter - Lisle Township Republican Chairman

Randy Ramey - State Representative, 55th District

Ron Sandack - Mayor, Downers Grove

Dick Schroeder - York Township Highway Commissioner

Darlene Senger - State Representative, 96th District

Peter Siekmann - DuPage County Coroner

John C. Smith - Winfield Township Republican Chairman

Frank Soto - Mayor, Bensenville

Sun-Times Oak Brook Doings

The United Hellenic Voters of America

John Valle - York Township Supervisor

Deanna Wilkins - York Township Assessor

May Yurgaitis - Naperville Township Trustee

John Zaruba - DuPage County Sheriff

Debbie Olson – In Her Own Words

2010-01-26T06:10:00.004-06:00

Debra Olson mercilessly attacks and distorts Dan Cronin’s record. Why? So we don’t look at what Debbie does in DuPage on the County Board. It’s time to set the record straight.

“I am committed to smaller, limited government, long-term fiscal responsibility, restraint, and accountability, and have the record to prove it.” – Debra Olson to the Chicago Tribune editors

THE FACTS:

Debbie Olson and the DuPage County Board blew though tens-of-millions of dollars they had pilfered from the DuPage County Water Commission. There has been no accounting of where that money went.

Debbie Olson has primary oversight of the Water Commission as head of the County Board Committee on Public Works.

While her opponents demand the dismissal the General Manager of the Water Commission, Debbie Olson wants to “study the issue.”

Debbie Olson promised to hold public hearings on the Water Commission before the end of 2009, no such meetings have occurred and none are scheduled.

DuPage County was required to borrow $30 million because of this “oversight” that occurred on Debbie Olson’s watch.

“As a County Board Member, I have consistently voted to hold the line on property taxes and spending, and our budgets are balanced every year.” – Debra Olson, Illinois Review, 1/15/2010

THE FACTS:

In 2007, the DuPage County Board “Doomsday” budget showed tens-of-millions of dollars of deficit.

Debbie Olson did not, could not, and would not identify any budget cuts. Instead of showing leadership, she and other county officials went hat-in-hand to Springfield begging for a new revenue stream into county coffers.

Springfield responded with a one-quarter cent tax increase, much of which was paid for by NON-DuPage residents.

Now, Debbie Olson is attacking Springfield for providing the money. “We’ve all seen too much of Springfield-style government – overspending, overtaxing, playing politics and ignoring the real issues.” – Debra Olson, Illinois Review, 1/15/2010.

You can’t have it both ways, Debbie. Your attacks are just more of the shift, shuffle and blame we are sick and tired of seeing from empty-suit politicians.

“This month [December 2009] DuPage County, where I have served for the last 8 years, had its AAA bond rating reaffirmed because the County Board has been fiscally responsible.” – Debra Olson, Illinois Review, 1/15/2010

THE FACTS:

The 600-page 2010 budget, passed under the claimed leadership of Debbie Olson, is based on unrealistic budget assumptions. The current budget assumes sales tax revenues will significantly increase in 2010, in spite of the continued economic downturn and a state unemployment rate above the national average.

The 2010 budget assumes continued issuance of grants by Springfield despite the bloated and busted budget deficits in Springfield. There is no reason to believe these grants will be provided at levels equivalent to those from last year.

Even while knowing about the 2010 budget assumptions, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Debbie Olson said that she could probably find funds to spend more on human services in 2010, which would deplete any budget reserves that would be used in the event that revenue estimates are not achieved.

The budget contains no plan to find new or increased revenue streams.

The only budget cuts Debbie Olson has ever stated (again in the Chicago Tribune interview) has been for critical public safety employees like Jail Guards, Bailiffs, Sheriffs, Probation Officers and State’s Attorneys.

The budget contains no contingencies showing prioritized reductions that could be immediately implemented to achieve cost savings to cut spending if the revenue assumptions are not met.

Debbie Olson has never answered the simple question: “If you can’t or won’t identify any spending cuts, and you won’t vote for tax increases, how would YOU balance the budget.”

Any guesses why she won’t answer the question? Because she can’t.

“I have run a campaign on issues, I have nothing to hide, and my record is available for all to see online – my votes, my contributions, everything.” – Debra Olson, Illinois Review, 1/15/2010

THE FACTS:

Debbie Olson committed to posting all of her campaign contributions on her web site, saying in September 2009, “Because the reporting mechanisms are not yet in place, Olson is committing to putting all campaign contributions made to me [sic] since July 1, 2009 online on my [sic] campaign website within 5 business days of receipt.”

To date, neither Olson campaign web site lists any contributions whatsoever.

When challenged on her failure to live up to her self-imposed commitment, she is quoted as saying it is “too difficult” to do so.

For eight straight years and as of April 2009, as required by Illinois law, Olson filed a Statement of Economic Interest stating she had no business relationship with DuPage County. In October 2009, after declaring her intention to run for Chairman, she filed another statement saying she did actually do business with the County.

According to Illinois State Board of Election and DuPage County Board Records, Debbie Olson has received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from vendors doing business with the county.

One of her campaign coordinators works for ARAMARK, a major vendor for DuPage County that is under the purview of a committee chaired by Olson. Olson claims to have returned all of the campaign contributions received from ARAMARK, however, the Illinois State Board of Elections shows un-returned campaign contributions from an ARAMARK vice president. ARAMARK was the recipient of a favorable ruling during the negotiations for a county food service contract.

“Politicians promising to be all things to all people are what gets government in trouble.” – Debra Olson, Daily Herald 1/4/2010

Agreed.

For my analysis on the DuPage County Board Chairman candidates:

Gary Grasso

Dan Cronin

RTA Tax - A Tough Choice

2010-01-25T08:57:00.003-06:00

In 2008, DuPage County faced a several million dollar budget shortfall created by Mrs. Debra Olson and the DuPage County Board that would have severely impacted public safety and human service agencies in the county. Debra Olson, a member of the County Board for years, and currently running for the Chairman position, was unable to find a way to maintain these agencies at an acceptable level after having overspent on other projects. The residents of DuPage County were looking at staff reductions of critical personnel in both the State’s Attorney Office and the Sheriff Department, Bailiffs, and Probation Officers, those departments essential to the public safety.

To head off these layoffs and showing a great amount of responsibility, the State’s Attorney, Joe Birkett, and County Sherriff, John Zaruba, and a few other County officials reached out to Sen. Dan Cronin in Springfield to help find a new revenue stream for those critical departments. Even though it meant supporting a fare increase, Dan Cronin felt that the one-cent-on-four-dollars on public transportation tax (a sizeable portion of which is paid by residents NOT living in DuPage County) being debated in Springfield as part of the RTA Act would provide those critical public safety departments with the additional revenue that would allow them to continue funding those departments so they could most effectively serve the residents of DuPage County.

While Debra Olson was sitting on her hands doing nothing, Dan Cronin answered the call.

Cronin agonized over his vote since he was acting against his fundamental principles of low taxes and small government that he’s always followed during his time as a legislator in Springfield. Up until the County he loves was faced with increasing property taxes or cutting services, Dan was and remains a reliable vote against the outrageous spending and taxes we’ve grown to expect from the corrupt politicians in Springfield. Cronin obviously felt that the best interests of the County’s residents would be best served if he voted for the RTA Act, a consumption-type tax (if you don’t want to pay it, don’t ride the RTA). He listened to the arguments of the State’s Attorney and DuPage Sherriff, and looked at Debbie’s and the County Board’s inability to fill its impending deficit and took action.

Dan Cronin, along with his State Senate colleagues Kirk Dillard and John Millner, braved enormous political pressure and helped secure passage of the RTA bill in Springfield. Not every one of our DuPage legislators had the courage to make this tough choice. After Dan made the tough choice, Debbie and the County Board gratefully accepted the additional revenue provided by the RTA plugging a $20,000,000 budget shortfall they had no way to address other than drastic spending cuts or massive tax increases.

Not only was DuPage County able to avoid layoffs in the State’s Attorney Office and the Sheriff’s Department, the additional revenue stream provided by the miniscule fare increase, much of which was paid by non-residents, allowed the DuPage County Board to abate the property tax levy by $1,000,000, providing the residents of DuPage County with much needed tax relief while lowering the reliance on property tax to fund our critical programs and services. Without the revenue increase provided by the RTA, the DuPage County Board would have either had to raise taxes, cut critical services including those involved in public safety, or some combination of both.

Debbie takes all the credit for these rebates, while slamming Dan Cronin, the man who made them possible. What say you, Mrs. Olson? Aren’t you being a touch hypocritical?

It’s easy for a legislator to collapse under political pressure and other legislators in DuPage County did. Some County Board members, like Debbie Olson just stood by and watched, and now those same County Board members criticize Cronin for his vote. Why hasn’t Debra Olson ever been called on the carpet to explain why Cronin had to make this vote? Simply because she wouldn’t look to good if everyone knew Cronin had to cover her butt and she has worked hard covering up these facts.

It’s easy for weak local officials like Debra Olson to snipe about Cronin voting for tax increases when they themselves had no ideas on how to balance their budgets and maintain public safety in DuPage County. Cronin’s tough choice on the RTA Act was courageous and the right thing to do for the citizens of DuPage County.

I hate taxes, and I hate politicians like Debbie Olson who overspend in their areas of responsibility and go crying up the chain, in this case Springfield, for help. Dan Cronin made a tough choice. He was right.

For my analysis on the DuPage County Board Chairman candidates:

Debra Olson

Gary Grasso

Dan Cronin

Gary Grasso - You Gotta Know When to Hold ‘Em

2010-01-23T17:42:00.009-06:00

As I’ve already reported, for the past 60 days I have been doing independent research on the four Republican February 2, 2010 primary candidates for DuPage (Illinois) County Board Chairman, State Senators Dan Cronin and Carole Pankau, DuPage County Board member Debra Olson and Burr Ridge, Illinois mayor Gary Grasso.

I usually focus on a candidate’s statement and compare it to his record on any issue since it is the only thing we voters have to use when making our decisions. Differences ring alarm bells. I hate hypocrisy.

The Video Gaming Revenue Stream

"Dan [Cronin] said YES to installing tens of thousands of video gaming terminals throughout Illinois; a scourge that DuPage County and many municipalities resoundingly rejected."

- Gary Grasso

I am personally not against gaming in general. I group together revenues received from gaming as similar to revenues provide by consumption-type taxes. The citizens who voluntarily use the good or service provide the revenues from these types of taxes. If you don’t want to pay the tax, don’t use the good or service. I further am a strong believer of having decisions affecting people be made by government bodies as close to the individual as possible, if the decision is impractical to be made by the individual himself.

Mr. Grasso, and Mrs. Olson are both on record criticizing Sen. Cronin’s yes vote on HB 255. This bill allowed for increased video gaming in Illinois and had overwhelming majority party support in Springfield. The bill was easily going to pass the General Assembly and be signed into law by Gov. Quinn. As we in Helliois® are well aware, decisions made in Springfield are normally not in the interests of the citizens of this State. Sen. Cronin insisted that provisions be added to the bill that allowed decisions about video gambling be made by the localities instead of the corrupticrats in Springfield. Sen. Cronin insisted on these important local control provisions in advance of his vote. Without Sen. Cronin’s efforts, video gaming decisions would be made at the state level.

So we see hypocrisy on two levels. Firstly, Mrs. Olson’s vote against video gaming in DuPage County is entirely appropriate. If her constituents don’t like her vote, they can vote her out of office. Curiously, it was Sen. Cronin’s changes to the video gaming legislation that she and Mr. Grasso so hotly criticize that allowed Mrs. Olson to cast that very vote. Without Sen. Cronin’s efforts, video gambling decisions would have been made in Springfield instead of Wheaton. This wise application of local control, insisted to by Sen. Cronin, headed off the need for cities, counties and other municipalities to litigate a decision made in Springfield if a locality did not want video gaming within its boarders.

Gambling Gary Grasso

According to documents filed with the Illinois Gaming Board, Mr. Grasso is part of a consortium, Calumet Gaming, LLC. Calumet Gaming was dedicated to getting the prized last Illinois casino license, and was in the running until outbid by another company who bid about three times the other bids being offered. Calumet Gaming had interests in the Empress Casinos in Joliet and Hammond, IN.

Grasso, Bass and Williams, P. C., Mr. Grasso’s law firm’s website proudly states, “Finally, we also represent the commercial interests of our corporate clients, in connection with a variety of real estate ventures, gaming projects, and other business transactions.”

Coincidentally Calumet Gaming, the Capital Gaming Group, Grasso, Bass and Williams and the Mayoral office share a common address, 760 Village Center Drive, a mixed-use facility in Burr Ridge. Burr Ridge, a major portion of which resides in Cook County, funded part of the Village Center from municipal funds. A company owned by Pat Harbour, a major Grasso contributor, who recently held a large fundraising event at Harry Carey’s to benefit the mayor, also provided additional funds for the Village Center project.

Mr. Grasso’s and Mrs. Olson’s attacks on Sen. Cronin are hypocritical at best, and in Mr. Grasso’s case a giant conflict of interest at worse. You be the judge.

A Burr under the Saddle

“Mayor Grasso believes government is too large…”

- Grasso campaign literature

Several of Mr. Grasso’s quotes and pieces of campaign literature tout his work as mayor of Burr Ridge. A recent campaign brochure from the Grasso campaign, and approved by Grasso says, “Mayor Grasso wants zero based budgeting…” So we need to roll the videotape and see exactly what Mr. Grasso has DONE in Burr Ridge, it’s not enough to believe what he says.

Arguments can certainly be made Burr Ridge has been improved during his tenure as mayor. At what cost?

We see for starters that Mr. Grasso is more than willing to enter into “public-private” partnerships to build a commercial mixed-use space and a police station in downtown Burr Ridge. In fact, he does so with his major campaign contributors, and supports the Village by renting space for his gambling interests in the same building. Remember, a sizable chunk of Burr Ridge is in Cook County. While no allegation of inappropriate behavior is made here, others may say we see the typical pay-to-play antics we have come to know and love from the Cook County/Chicago machine. I think it’s safe to say that all residents would prefer to not even see the hint of impropriety here in DuPage.

Looking at the budget of Burr Ridge on its city website shows that the village is running a one million dollar deficit this year, and has about two million dollars of deficits projected for the next five years. The budget report indicates a budget surplus in fiscal year 2008-9 was wiped out by lower than expected revenues, and for the seventh year in a row, the sales tax revenues had been overestimated. The Equipment Replacement and Stormwater Management Funds were not funded as previously budgeted. Given the track record of overestimating revenues, what gives anyone any confidence that the outlying years budgets will not be even deeper in debt than the already projected deficits?

In a press release from September 2009, Mr. Grasso states, “… inefficiencies, waste and neglect in government led to unprecedented deficits” Perhaps he was talking about the finances of Burr Ridge instead of Springfield. It appears both were bitten by the same bug.

Inconvenient facts for "Gambling" Gary Grasso.

For my analysis on the DuPage County Board Chairman candidates:

Debra Olson

Dan Cronin

Cincinnatus Supports Dan Cronin for DuPage County Board Chairman

2010-01-21T14:54:00.010-06:00

" DuPage County families are making tough decisions every day. Government must do the same."

- Dan Cronin

For the past 60 days I have been doing independent research on the four Republican February 2, 2010 primary candidates for DuPage (Illinois) County Board Chairman. The candidates, State Senators Dan Cronin and Carole Pankau, DuPage County Board member Debra Olson and Burr Ridge, Illinois mayor Gary Grasso are in a knock-down-drag-out fight in the primary. Located just outside Chicago, DuPage County has an electorate that is still fairly conservative, although following recent national and state trends, the county has become more liberal over the past 20 years. Since the electorate is still leans conservative, the primary winner should handily beat the Democrat candidate, Ms. Carole Cheney, in the November General Election.

With a hat tip to Tip, the issues are local. Like municipalities everywhere, DuPage County is worried about fiscal issues and the opacity of its government.

Mrs. Transparency.

Mrs. Olson chose to make transparency in government a centerpiece of her campaign. My research of public records indicated that over the years, she has accepted significant contributions from over a dozen contractors and vendors doing business with the county. I have written many posts on the local blogs outlining my criticism of Mrs. Olson because she brought up the issue of Ethics as the centerpiece of her campaign, and the shear hypocrisy of her claims compelled me to blog. I will do so until she satisfactorily answers the ethical questions surrounding her.

ARAMARK had lost a bid for the county food services contract. In an unusual and virtually unprecedented sequence of events, the winning bid of a different vendor was stopped by the County Board. A new round of bidding was ordered. ARAMARK still lost the bid, but significantly, around the time of the rebid, ARAMARK made campaign contributions to Mrs. Olson. One of its vice presidents currently serves on Mrs. Olson’s campaign committee.

In a scandal revealed just last year, the DuPage Water Commission was found to have depleted its funds. The funds were inappropriately transferred to the County General Fund. Those funds were promptly spent by the County Board to cover its burgeoning operating expenses. DuPage County was required to borrow $30 million to cover the shortfall in the coffers of the Water Commission. And who was the County Board member that chairs the Public Works Committee that has primary oversight responsibility over the Water Commission? Debra Olson. And who was a member of the County Board that voted to spend the misappropriated money? Olson, again. When asked if the General Manager of the Water Commission should be fired for letting this misappropriation happen, Sen. Pankau, Mayor Grasso and Sen. Cronin all said yes. Mrs. Olson said a task force should be set up to “study the issue.”

Where would you get the money?

Mrs. Olson says she was the fiscally responsible candidate in the race. Leading the attacks, she berates Sen. Cronin as fiscally irresponsible, pointing to taxes Sen. Cronin has voted for while in the Illinois General Assembly. Close examination of the voting record indicates that Sen. Cronin has been a spending hawk. NONE of the criticism aimed at Sen. Cronin is about his spending habits. All of the criticism revolves around taxes.

So we are then compelled to look at Sen. Cronin’s record on taxes. Sen. Cronin has never voted for an income or property tax, in fact, he sponsored the property tax cap legislation passed in Springfield that save property owners in DuPage County tens of millions of dollars. Sen. Cronin has fought Governors Rod Blagojevich and Pat Quinn tooth and nail over income tax increases.

Sen. Cronin has voted for consumption taxes. All his votes for these consumption taxes were made after he ensured that DuPage County would receive new, significant revenue streams from these taxes. It was just these new revenues funneled into DuPage County that allowed the County Board to cover the deficits they were racking up, including the shortfall left by the Water Commission fiasco that had Mrs. Olson at its heart.

Mrs. Olson touts the cuts in spending made by the County Board, and the property tax reduction the Board recently rebated. She should be given credit for voting for a $30 million County Board budget decrease. Close examination of this budget cut shows that it rolls the budget back to 2006 levels. What must be realized that the budget had increased by that amount since 2006, during her tenure on the County Board.

If Sen. Cronin had not found and channeled money into the County Board coffers, the current County Board budget would be $70 million out of whack. What would Mrs. Olson have cut to balance the budget? So far, all we've heard is she would cut critical public safety personnel like State's Attorneys, prison guards, bailiffs and sheriffs.

One thought on consumption taxes, they are one of the necessary evils that provide revenue to provide government services. From my point of view, consumption-type taxes are preferable to income or property taxes. If you don't like 'em, don't consume the product or service being taxed. At least then the individual has responsibility; those using those goods or services being taxed pay for those services, while those that do not consume do not.

Philosophically, do you attack spending or taxes first? I think that government needs to go after spending with a battle axe, taxes will fall as a result of decreased government spending. This line of thought embraced by Sen. Cronin.

Rolling craps.

Mr. Grasso was a non-starter choice for me. Both he and Mrs. Olson have railed against Sen. Cronin for his vote to allow video gaming decisions to be made at the local level, instead of being dictated by the corrupt government in Springfield. I have no problems with gaming in general, and I certainly have no problems with local choice of gaming. Those decisions should be made by those as close as possible to the people potentially affected. Indeed, while I don’t necessarily support it, I think Mrs. Olson’s vote against video gaming in DuPage County is entirely appropriate. If her constituents don’t like her vote, they can voter her out of office. Curiously, it was Sen. Cronin’s support of the video gaming legislation that she and Mr. Grasso so hotly criticize that allowed Mrs. Olson to cast that vote.

Mr. Grasso heads a consortium, Calumet Gaming, dedicated to getting the prized last state casino license. Mr. Grasso’s law firm’s website proudly highlights that it represents gaming interests across the U.S. His attacks on Sen. Cronin are hypocritical at best, or a giant conflict of interest at the worse. You be the judge.

Mr. Grasso touts his work as mayor of Burr Ridge. Indeed, Burr Ridge has been significantly improved during his tenure. At what cost? Looking at the budget of Burr Ridge on its city website shows that the village is running a one million dollar deficit this year, and has one million dollar a year deficits projected for the next five years. Inconvenient facts for "Gambling" Gary.

Panning Pankau?

Close examination reveals that Sen. Pankau's County Board record meets or exceeds Mrs. Olson's. Sen. Pankau's tenure at the County Board has many accomplishments, without all of the controversies surrounding her time in office, unlike Mrs. Olson. Sen. Pankau is an attractive candidate because she is a budget hawk and she benefits from experience in the State Senate, she was high on my list for my vote. Mrs. Olson must be worried about Sen. Pankau since Mr. Olson has thrown so many attacks her way. I'm sure Mrs. Olson is worried that Sen. Pankau may split off some of the women's vote that Mrs. Olson so desperately needs to remain competitive in this race and this must be why Mrs. Olson has attacked Sen. Pankau so vociferously.

The problems I see in Mrs. Olson and Mr. Grasso record and behavior left me with a choice between Sen. Cronin and Sen. Pankau. I ruled Sen. Pankau out because of the time I spent looking at their legislative records. Sen. Cronin’s is orders of magnitude superior.

Finally, Cronin

Sen. Cronin not only fought spending in Springfield and programmed critical revenues to DuPage County, he has led the fight on several other issues that should be considered by the voters. Sen. Cronin was the lead sponsor of the resolutions leading to former Gov. Blagojevich’s impeachment. Sen. Cronin was out front on this issue, months before anyone else in the General Assembly got sick of the slime ball that is Gov. Blagojevich. Compare this to the ethical lapses in Mrs. Olson’s record.

Sen. Cronin is the leading expert on education issues in Springfield, and is recognized as such on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Cronin led the fight to reform the Chicago Public School system. He led the fight to bring accountability and improved standards for teachers, administrators and students in Illinois, and is a strong advocate for new approaches in public education such as charter schools and alternate teacher certification to expedite the hiring of new qualified teachers.

In addition to the things I have mentioned in this rather long post, the list of Sen. Cronin’s accomplishments goes on and on.

Cincy says

Voters are struggling with a trade-off between conservative principles and the slate of candidates they are presented. The choice between this particular batch of candidates can be difficult since they all have strengths and weaknesses. I am not God, nor a Father Confessor, it is hard to judge a candidate's heart. I can only use their records. When facing a tough choice on a ballot, I always fall back on a saying from Mr. William F. Buckley: "Always vote for the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate." Politics requires tradeoffs.

As I write this, most of the loyal DuPage County Republicans, the Chicago Tribune, Daily Herald (a newspaper historically very friendly to Olson) and the Pioneer Local (the local Chicago Sun Times newspapers) all agree. They endorse Sen. Cronin.

I agree. Vote for Dan Cronin.

For my analysis on the DuPage County Board Chairman candidates:

Debra Olson

Gary Grasso

Dan Cronin

Will the TeaParty Movement Electorally Fail?

2009-12-28T12:54:00.012-06:00

In this post, written immediately after the first wave of TeaParties, I gave my initial impressions of the TeaParty Movement. I participated in some of the initial organizing of the nation-wide TeaParties so I was able to look at the movement from within and without. Not long after, I gave my thoughts on the what then looked to be the first steps of integration between the TeaParties and the GOP.

Seven months later, I have not seen any visible effort to integrate the GOP political establishment with the grassroots conservative movement. If TeaPartiers are waiting for someone to start something, somewhere, don't hold your breath.

My initial impressions of GOP pick-ups in the 2010 Federal elections are achievable. I believe the GOP can pick up 51 seats in the House, and at least six seats in the Senate. But the clock is ticking, and two-sided arrogance, or perhaps incompetence, stands in the way.

Since the Spring of '09, the conservative movement has solidified. We need to only look at Rasmussen to see that the nation is firming up along the conservative line. The TeaPartiers can have a positive effect on elections, as shown in the NY-23 election. But unless conservatives swing into political action, governmental change will not be maximized.

While conservatives were able to effectively support the conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, over the liberal Republican DeDe Scozzafava, they were unable to push Hoffman over the top in the special election. Why? Simply stated, it was possible for conservatives to post a win, but the effort to support Hoffman came only a few weeks before the election. Tactically, the TeaParty effort was superb, but from a strategic standpoint, it took far to long to organize behind Hoffman. By the time TeaPartiers had rallied, early voting and absentee balloting had started, and given the small margin of victory for the Democrat, those critical lost days may have cost Hoffman the election.

TeaPartiers are great at providing a last minute boost to fundraising and volunteer support. Rarely have we seen so few organizers raise more cash more quickly for a candidate. But last-minute efforts are not enough. Campaigns start months in advance of election day. Most candidate campaign staffs will start their master campaign schedule at election day and work backward to determine the master plan. It takes months, even years, to organize and run an effective campaign. The best political campaigns are (or at least should be) a thoroughly planned marketing effort. Bob McDonnell worked months to win the Virginia governor race. Wisely, McDonnell choose early to make a modern social media outreach, and was able to capture TeaParty support.

But the TeaParty movement cannot wait for candidates to seek them out. I contend that TeaPartiers do not want to wait for candidates, they to be part of the process right now. What stands in the way?

The Republican establishment has not yet embraced the TeaParty Movement in any significant way. Only a few elected officials interact with the TeaParty Movement. After speaking to a few Congressman, most are just now realizing the potential benefits of the TeaPartiers. The Congressmen are struggling on how to reach out to the TeaParties and integrate them into their campaign effort. Part of the struggle is that few, if any, sitting politicians can stand up to the withering idealogical scrutiny of these activist conservatives.

William F. Buckley's policy was that he would always support the most conservative electable candidate. He wisely recognized that idealogical purity has a place in elections, but in no means should be the only place in an election. My take is that TeaPartiers are repeating the NY-23 mistake, waiting for the perfect candidate while sniping at all others including those selected by the Republican Congressional and Senate Campaign Committees. Because of TeaParty complaints, the RCCC and RSCC have seen that supporting candidates in primaries may not be the best use of their assets, and are taking a more hands-off approach to the primaries because TeaParty leaders (if such animals exist) are constantly complaining about the candidates selected by these committees. But, as professional campaigners, it was essential for the RCCC and RSCC to get their organizations in order so they can swing into action early in the electoral process.

NEWS FLASH: 2010 election campaigns started months ago.

In Illinois, the primary election is February 2, 2010. As of this writing, there are 32 days before the election. As a new movement, it is incumbent on the TeaPartiers to get on board the train. Right here. Right now. We cannot wait for the professional GOP machine to reach out to us.

Whether we like it or not, at this moment in time, the GOP is the only game in town when it comes to providing infrastructure assets and the pool of most conservative electable candidates. Inter-TeaParty confusion and bickering is today having what may be a detrimental effect on maximizing conservative gains in 2010. I feel conservatives are spring-loaded to act, but are waiting for someone to pull the trigger.

Significant efforts are being made to plan new TeaParties across the U.S. While this should continue, local organizers should take a moment from their TeaParty planning to decide who should be supported locally. Spend some time figuring out how to support them. And then reach into the campaign with a plan on how you will support them.

The sclerotic political establishment is struggling on how to integrate you into their efforts. A local TeaParty can provide funds to your selected candidates (don't forget your local and county candidates), and more importantly you can supply volunteers. Imagine for a moment 200 TeaPartiers, instead of attending a TeaParty, instead descending on local neighborhoods, coordinated by a candidate's campaign, blanketing the precincts with door hangers. In one day, 200 people can walk a typical Chicago suburban Congressional district, while interacting with a large percentage of voters in places like shopping centers and grocery stores.

In order to be effective, the TeaParty Movement must accept a long-term strategic approach to influence the GOP. We cannot let this current election cycle pass if we want to stop the liberal assault on our freedoms. If we fail to act now, the movement may lose steam before it becomes truly influential. We must act now and support those Buckley-type electable candidates that are running hard in their primaries and November election bids. We cannot wait.

(The author of this post has given up on the TeaParty movement for this election cycle and is working for a candidate in a local county election.)

AlGored

2009-11-24T11:15:00.004-06:00

For years, I have been telling anyone that would listen that the global warming models are horrific. I have first hand knowledge of such modeling from my bygone days as an engineer, where similar models are used to predict behaviors of structures and materials and very complex systems. Such models are totally reliant on "boundary conditions" which are a series of assumptions that are made to define the environment in which you are modeling. Long explanation made short, if your boundary conditions are wrong, your model will never be able to correctly predict behavior. If your measured data is hosed, you can never check the accuracy of your model.

There is an easy check to see if you are in the ballpark with a model. If the element you are modeling actually behaves in the real world in the way the model predicts (say a structure under load and the stresses and deflections you measure during tests), you can have decent confidence level that your model can be used to predict other non-tested situations.

Moving on to global warming. The climatologists use the historical data to provide insights into the boundary conditions that are inputted into the model, then use the data again to check and see if you are modeling reality. Fudging the data changes the boundary conditions and the milestones that are needed to check the accuracy of the model. You can now see why corrupting the data, which the CRU scandal is exposing, has a twofer affect on the accuracy of the model.

Once you have created a climate model, running it allows the predictions of the model to be checked against past historical climate data. I have challenged several people to point me to one study where any of the dozen or so commonly used climate models accurately represents PAST behavior. Reiterating, not a single model I know of currently being used predicts the PAST, which has, and correct me if I'm wrong here, already happened. This being the case, the model doesn't have a chance in the world of being used to confidently predict the FUTURE.

So CRU is fudging the numbers being used to create a model, then fudging the numbers (again?) trying to show the models they use are accurate. Being kind, these people show a considerable lack of judgement, honesty and integrity. And let's not even go into their heavy-handed attempts to marginalize anyone bold enough to question their behavior.

One final thought; a comment I use to frustrate global warming fanatics. What is the perfect climate you are trying to create, and why? Who is to say that the climate of today is better or worse than that of the Jurassic era (where life flourished), or the Ice Age (where Homo Sapiens really took off), or whenever? Perhaps the climate is changing (questionable though that assumption may be) to be even more beneficial to mankind that it currently is. I can never understand the God-like understanding these people think they have.

The bottom line is I think these people, through their own arrogance, ignorance or political agenda, are simply trying to impose their view on others in the typical elitist manner always used by the left. I further think that they are really trying to achieve perfect weather and have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to climate. I suggest they move to San Diego.

A Day to Rejoice

2009-08-12T09:41:00.004-05:00

Dear friend,

Happy Cost of Government Day! Today, August 12, is Cost of Government Day (COGD), the day of the calendar year when the average American worker has earned enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government on the federal, state, and local levels.

COGD falls 26 days later than last year's date, and it's 23 days later than the previous all-time high of July 20, in 1982. There are numerous reasons for this explosive growth in government spending including TARP, the so-called Stimulus, and the big three auto "bailouts." If Congress and the President had not pushed for TARP, Americans would have celebrated COGD on July 25 rather than on August 12.

As your Congressman and Senators hold their town hall meetings this recess [questions to ask], you should ask them why you needed to spend 224 days working to pay off your share of government. You should also ask them if you've already spent this much time working to pay off government, why would you possibly want to spend additional days working for a government takeover of healthcare?

View the COGD report at www.CostofGovernmentDay.com and arm yourselves with the data to ask your representatives the necessary and hard questions about the astonishing growth in government. The report contains a state-by-state breakdown so you can find out how your state ranks by visiting www.CostOfGovernmentDay.com.

Onward,

Grover Norquist

The Healthcare Bill Town Hall Meeting Guide

2009-08-07T07:31:00.004-05:00

In order to assist interested parties seeking to read and review the health "reform" legislation (H.R. 3200) introduced by House Democrats, the Republican Conference has compiled a list of important page numbers and provisions in the 1,018-page "America's Affordable Health Choices Act:"

Page 19 - Section 102(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government

Page 30 - Section 123 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the "Health Benefits Advisory Committee") to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase-and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion

Page 74 - Sections 202(c) and (d) protects Members of Congress with existing federal employee coverage (as defined in Section 100(c)(6) on page 9) from joining the government-run health plan offered through the Exchange

Page 116 - Section 221 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage

Page 139 - Section 245 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill-however, the bill includes no requirement for individuals to verify their citizenship or identity before receiving taxpayer-subsidized health benefits

Page 167 - Section 401 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase "bureaucrat-approved" health insurance-the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central promise of then-Senator Obama's presidential campaign

Page 183 - Section 412 imposes an 8 percent "tax on jobs" for firms that cannot afford to purchase "bureaucrat-approved" health coverage; according to an analysis by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions "at substantial risk of unemployment"- with minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts

Page 197 - Section 441 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar "surcharge," more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama's senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs

Page 331 - Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors' existing coverage

Page 425 - Section 1233 makes end-of-life care consultations eligible for Medicare reimbursement

Page 501 - Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain's National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000

Page 835 - Section 1802(b) includes provisions entitled "TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES" to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi's promise that "We will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the House," and the President's promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000.

The Law of Pies

2009-08-04T08:37:00.008-05:00

Let's say you have six people over for dessert, and you have a delicious cherry pie. You slice it up into six pieces, serve it up with coffee and everyone is happy. Now let's say six more people suddenly drop by. You can slice up the existing pie into twelve tiny, unsatisfying pieces where nobody is happy, or you can bake another pie for the six newcomers. You have now bumped up against the Law of Pies.

Apparently, lawmakers do not understand the Law of Pies. You cannot satisfactorily feed six more people unless you have additional pie. You cannot just redistribute the pie you have to more people, you need more pie. The same is true for government spending.

Whether or not you agree with the spending on TARP, Auto Bailouts, Stimulus, Cap and Trade, ObamaCare, and the countless other spending priorities of the liberal agenda, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that there is insufficient Federal revenue to slice up to handle all of these new and expanded spending programs. There just ain't enough pie.

Liberals would say that the answer is simple, "Let's tax the taxpayers more and increase the Federal revenue." Nice try. There is a glaring problem with this approach, the Law of Pies stands in the way.

By taxing more, are we really increasing the size of the pie? Show me one main-stream economist (liberal or conservative) that does not agree with the proposition that if you take disposable income from people in the form of taxes, they react by investing and spending less money. The decrease in spending results in a decrease in the national GDP (the overall measure of the value of transactions in goods and services). So, while the Federal pie gets bigger, the GDP pie gets smaller at approximately the same rate. The size of the overall pie remains the same. Remember the reason for wanting the Federal pie to get bigger? It was so more people can eat the Federal lemon meringue. And like our example above, we end up trying to feed 12 people at the Federal dessert party with an overall GDP pie that formerly served six.

In the 1970's, Art Laffer proposed that "[t]he basic idea behind the relationship between tax rates and tax revenues is that changes in tax rates have two effects on revenues: the arithmetic effect and the economic effect." Simply stated, the arithmetic effect says that as tax rates go down, revenue goes down, and as tax rates go up, revenue go up. Superficially, this seems to make sense to everyone and it is the primary justification used by liberals when establishing tax policy.

Laffer's breakthrough is the concept of the economic effect. Laffer explained that if tax rates are lowered, people will act in their best self-interest. They will earn, invest and spend more money since the government would not be raking it in the form of taxes. This growth in consumer wealth, under the right conditions, increases the amount of money subject to taxes and, under the right circumstances, may actually INCREASE the amount of revenue to the government. The overall GDP pie gets bigger, and government receipts go up. Laffer's theory has been tested three times in modern history. Tax rates were lowered in the mid-20's, the early-60's and the mid-80's. All three intervals were times of significant growth in government revenues. Only profligate spending by legislators cause problems resulting in a deficit and its cousins, inflation and recession.

In 1993, Kurt Hauser, a San Francisco economist, offered an idea now known as Hauser's Law. Based on decades of data, Hauser observed that no matter what the tax structure, no matter how high or low the tax rates are, Federal revenue is about 19.5% of the national GDP.

Surprising?

Not really. The rises and falls in GDP correspond to the rises and falls of the amount of money subject to taxation. If more money is available to be taxed, the government will have increased revenue, as the GDP falls, government revenue falls. This observation is way more than just a restatement of Laffer's ideas.

Hauser's Law sends a strong message to legislators. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is, the government will generate revenue of about 19.5% of GDP. If legislators choose policies that decrease GDP, there will be less overall Federal revenue. If they choose policies that increase GDP, there will be more Federal revenues (Let's not even talk about fiscal policies of spending more than you receive, or the priorities of those expenditures.).

The long-standing economic assumption of Laffer and others is that people act in their own best interests and that GDP will rise and fall as a function of the environment established by the government. It is clear that the more money that remains in people's hands results in more money available for government to tax, and the higher the available Federal revenues. If spent wisely, sufficient revenues are available for the necessary operation of government.

People like investors, and businessmen, entrepreneurs and inventors create wealth. It is these people, spurred on by innovation and consumer spending that control the size of the pie. Government does not create, it redistributes. Government does not bake pie, it slices up what is available. Government consumes pie, and consumes it with a voracious appetite.

Legislators must realize that no matter what the tax rate, they will have only about 19.5% of GDP in Federal revenues to spend. Any policy (on taxes or other priorities) politicians make that reduces GDP (like the Nixon Wage-Price controls and the Obama Cap and Trade proposal) shrinks the pie and ultimately hamstrings politician's ability to push their political agenda, no matter what it is. The bigger the agenda, the more revenue needed and the more economic growth must be stimulated. Our lesson here is that if you want government to spend money, you must want the government to create an environment of incentives that spur economic growth.

There is absolutely no evidence that Obama and the Democrats in Congress have an understanding of these simple economic concepts.

Democrats are feasting on a large menu of their own creation (whether or not you agree with the selections), and it would seem they demand a piece of your pie for dessert. They obviously don't know they need to get in the heat of the kitchen and bake more pie. They need to limit the amount of people at the party, as well as institute pro-growth initiatives. It's the Law of Pies.

Am I Blue? Yup.

2009-07-29T11:01:00.011-05:00

The Blue Dog Coalition defines itself as, "The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public." So where exactly do the sleeping Blue Dogs lie when it comes to the ratings of the American Conservative Union and the Americans for Democratic Action, respectively the prominent conservative and liberal ratings organizations?

Each organization selects a number of votes considered to be of paramount importance to their constituencies. They then track the votes of all members of Congress. Each organization uses 100 as the "perfect" score, with the ACU defining the "perfect" conservative, and the ADA doing the same for the "perfect" liberal. Using the latest published data (ACU, ADA), for those members of Congress present during the 2008 legislative session, we can calculate the bona fides of the Blue Dogs.

Blue Dog ACU Lifetime Rating ADA 2008 Rating

Altmire, Jason (PA-04) 26.00 80.00

Arcuri, Mike (NY-24) 2.00 90.00

Baca, Joe (CA-43) 16.44 90.00

Barrow, John (GA-12) 41.00 75.00

Berry, Marion (AR-01) 36.81 75.00

Bishop, Sanford (GA-02) 32.30 90.00

Boren, Dan (OK-02) 54.25 65.00

Boswell, Leonard (IA-03) 27.52 95.00

Boyd, Allen (FL-02) 35.53 75.00

Bright, Bobby (AL-02) New NA

Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18) 28.50 85.00

Carney, C. (PA-10) 24.00 85.00

Chandler, Ben (KY-06) 26.50 85.00

Childers, Travis (MS-01) 41.00 NA

Cooper, Jim (TN-05) 24.17 60.00

Costa, Jim (CA-20) 25.25 80.00

Cuellar, Henry (TX-28) 38.10 80.00

Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03) New NA

Davis, Lincoln (TN-04) 52.54 80.00

Donnelly, Joe (IN-02) 36.00 70.00

Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08) 26.00 75.00

Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08) 12.00 80.00

Gordon, Bart (TN-06) 28.76 80.00

Griffith, Parker (AL-05) New NA

Harman, Jane (CA-36) 22.23 95.00

Herseth Sandlin, S. (SD) 41.11 70.00

Hill, Baron (IN-09) 24.50 75.00

Holden, Tim (PA-17) 40.23 85.00

Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01) New N/A

McIntyre, Mike (NC-07) 51.50 85.00

Marshall, Jim (GA-03) 47.14 70.00

Matheson, Jim (UT-02) 42.75 55.00

Melancon, Charlie (LA-03) 46.22 80.00

Michaud, Mike (ME-02) 16.00 90.00

Minnick, Walt (ID-01) New NA

Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05) 20.00 75.00

Moore, Dennis (KS-03) 17.10 80.00

Murphy, Patrick (PA-08) 8.00 85.00

Nye, Glenn (VA-02) New NA

Peterson, Collin (MN-07) 45.41 80.00

Pomeroy, Earl (ND) 23.08 85.00

Ross, Mike (AR-04) 38.00 85.00

Salazar, John (CO-03) 27.00 85.00

Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47) 3.33 100.00

Schiff, Adam (CA-29) 8.56 90.00

Scott, David (GA-13) 23.92 95.00

Shuler, Heath (NC-11) 5.92 75.00

Space, Zack (OH-18) 16.00 80.00

Tanner, John (TN-08) 41.49 80.00

Taylor, Gene (MS-04) 66.11 75.00

Thompson, Mike (CA-01) 11.38 90.00

Wilson, Charles (OH-06) 12.50 80.00

Average 29.00 80.89

Unfortunately, even while there is some overlap in the issues used by each organization to rate Congressmen, each organization uses a different set of votes to do its calculations, and therefore it is difficult to directly compare ratings. But both sets of numbers allow trends to be identified. A Representative such as Jim Matheson, representing the relatively conservative second district of Utah comes in somewhere in the middle of the road in both ratings, while Loretta Sanchez, representing the relatively liberal Orange County stands out as a die-hard liberal in both ratings. Just for comparison, John McCain carries an 82.3 ACU rating and a 15.00 ADA rating, and while in the Senate, Barack Obama had an 8 ACU and 95 ADA rating.

We now know that Obama deserved his extremely liberal rating as we witness his attempt to overhaul the Constitution and change the American experiment to a collectivist path. Looking at the corresponding ratings numbers for the Blue Dogs, we see they are much more closely aligned to Obama than they are to McCain. While a small number of Blue Dogs are undoubtedly in the center of the political spectrum, as a group we must call them liberal and it is arguable that they are aligned closely to the center of America.

Paraphrasing Rep. Peter Roskam, the Blue Dogs are really just traditional Democrats by another name. The numbers seem to agree.

Update: The Wall Street Journal agrees.

Piece of Cake

2009-07-29T08:03:00.003-05:00

I invite you all to stare awhile at this slide that was prepared by the Joint Economic Committee Republicans. Even if this chart has been exaggerated, as Democrats claimed while censoring the franking privileges of Congressional Republicans, if one-half of the chart is true, a new burdensome bureaucracy will have been created that will drain your tax dollars.

Like the Cubs, ObamaCare is a loser

2009-07-28T15:45:00.003-05:00

Roskam: Facts Suck the Oxygen out of the Democrats' Healthcare Bill

What's Good for the Goose

2009-07-28T14:13:00.001-05:00

If ObamaCare is good enough for us, it's good enough for Congress and Federal Workers

Last week, I heard a Congressman discussing healthcare with one of his constituents. He pointed out that the Democrats in the House have repeatedly defeated Republican attempts to require Congress to have the same health plan as required by ObamaCare.

See how your health plan matches up with the Federal employee benefit plans .

Now you know why the amendments have been defeated.

Call your Congressman and demand that Congress lives up to the requirements of ObamaCare, just like the rest of us. Better yet, while you have him on the phone tell him to vote NO to socialized medicine, H. R. 3200.

Back to the Farm

2009-07-10T07:32:00.003-05:00

For the next couple of weeks, I will be unable to post except for the odd short post, like this one. I am remodeling the house I am moving to, and it takes too much time to get the plaster dust off me to research and write. See you in August, sooner I hope.

Once Around the Block

2009-07-02T08:08:00.003-05:00

I read the news so you don't have to.

John Stossel looks at how much better off we will be under ObamaCare, reinforced by Carol Platt Liebau.

Chip Reid and Helen Thomas (!) take on Robert Gibbs about the most transparent administration in galactic history. (by our friend @mkhammer) Today, Helen doesn't let up.

NRO calls Obama a "big fat liar". I think they are being too kind.

Iraq is doomed.

The Norks launch more missiles. We need missile defense.

Job Losses Rise in June as Unemployment Reaches 9.5%. Did you ever wonder what the real unemployment rate is when you include those who have given up looking for work? 16.5%.

Of course, check out my Tribute to the 4th of July.

4th of July Tribute

2009-07-01T14:27:00.006-05:00

When the House of Representatives passed Cap & Trade, I thought we might all need a little something uplifting.

Here is my attempt to put a smile on your face. Enjoy!

Cap and Trade - The Numbers

2009-06-26T08:09:00.006-05:00

On Fox and Friends Friday morning, Steny Hoyer, Democrat majority leader of the US House of Representatives, claimed the real cost of the 1200 page monstrosity known as H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey "The American Clean Energy and Security Act," (commonly known as Cap and Trade) would cost each American household $175 and would create American jobs.

Do not believe this assertion.

Numbers are the ultimate refuge of scoundrels, especially politicians. This $175 per household cost was generated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), sure enough. But you need to dig through the dry, dense prose of CBO report to understand exactly what the number means.

Undoubtedly, you will hear Democrats trumpeting this number all day, damped only by the news of Michael Jackson's death. The CBO number represents only the day to day operating costs of the program. The CBO number is only a snapshot in time, with the snapshot taking place in 2020, before the full impact of the Cap and Trade program hits America. The full impact of the Cap and Trade carbon restrictions take place AFTER 2020.

Worse yet, the CBO analysis does not include the effects of increased prices of fossil fuels. You know those increased fuel costs that energy utilities, oil companies and any manufacturer using energy or plastic in their products, will be passed directly to YOU, the consumer. From the CBO report:

"The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

So when the Democrats crow about the low cost of instituting Cap and Trade, they are not including the actual energy costs that you will pay as a result of this outlandish scheme to collectivize yet another part of the American economy, they are only telling you how much it will cost to administer and run that program.

One of the most broad economic analyses of Cap and Trade was performed by the Heritage Foundation. This conservative think tank analyzed the economy with and without the carbon tax being imposed by Cap and Trade. Heritage found that in the year 2020, where the CBO analysis shows $175 per household costs to only operate the program, the total economy would be depressed by something in the order of $161 billion, or roughly $1870 per household of four. This is the estimated increased cost of the energy you will be forced to pay. When all of the restrictions imposed by the Cap and Trade bill are fully enforced in 2035, Heritage estimates the household costs to be in excess of $6800 per year.

But there's more. Some areas of the US rely more heavily on fossil fuels to generate power, and those wide open spaces of the midwest and west mean that people and goods must travel large distances in cars and trucks. CBO estimates have been averaged over the entire nation, as is the Heritage number cited above. However while performing its analysis, Heritage was prescient enough to consider the geographical effects. Those areas more reliant on fossil fuels will have higher costs, while those areas serviced by wind, solar and nuclear power (currently a very small percentage of consumers because of the onerous environmental regulations surrounding these alternate technologies) will pay less. So if you live in areas with coal fired electrical plants, or areas where you need to drive a long distance to get to work or transport goods, expect to pay more.

If you don't believe the Heritage analysis, let's look overseas. Britain has had these types of taxes for a few years. The Taxpayers Alliance, a British think tank, estimates the current cost to British consumers is an additional $1300 per year. And in Spain, where government instituted regulations forced non-market driven green technologies into the country's economy, two "regular" jobs have been lost for each "green" job created, and those "green" jobs cost the Spanish taxpayer $1 million per job.

The Republicans have offered an alternative to the Democrat Cap and Trade proposal with little or no real costs, but there has been paltry little coverage in the MSM.

So today, you are going to hear a few things from Democrats. One is that Cap and Trade is relatively cheap. Another is that Cap and Trade is a job creating bill. Here are the numbers, you decide.

ObamaCare - The Real Numbers

2009-06-15T11:17:00.003-05:00

One may wonder exactly who are the "uninsured." The uninsured can be broken up into three major categories, those who are currently eligible for some government program for which they have not signed up (e.g. Medicaid), those people who have family incomes of over $75,000 who could afford a good healthcare policy if they so wished, and people who have entered and continue to live in this country illegally.

Let's look at the numbers:

U. S Population: 307 million
Total Uninsured: 47 million
Not enrolled: 14 million
Earning over $75k: 10 million
Illegal Immigrants: 9.4 million

Using these numbers, one sees that there are 13.6 million people who are currently uninsured, or 4.4% of the citizens of the US. It is up to you to decide if the $1.4 trillion estimated to be required for an overhaul of the healthcare system is cost effective.

Once Around the Block

2009-06-11T23:55:00.006-05:00

June 12, 2009

Today is Digital Television Conversion Day.

The indispensable Charles Krauthammer, on The One.

Progressives must control the language. No matter how you slice it, it is government controlled healthcare, not a "Public Option," by Hugh Hewitt, while Karl Rove lays out the tactics to stop this horrific plan for ObamaCare.

Where in the world is little Sammy bin Laden? Panetta says Pakistan.

Obama just makes stuff up.

What If Israel Strikes Iran? John Bolton explains, and it ain't pretty.

My own exploration of the Republican energy/environment plan.

"If You Think Health Care is Expensive Now — Just Wait Until it’s Free." Analysis by the Cato Institute. (.pdf download)

AP: Norks may be prepping another nuke test.

Should Obama create a balloon czar? How ill Sotomayor rule?

Let There Be Light

2009-06-11T08:38:00.026-05:00

Republicans offer a common sense alternative to Cap and Trade

If you are "The One," when you say something, it must be so. President Barack Obama has touted the Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade legislation to be the centerpiece of his energy and environmental policy. Democrats claim Waxman-Markey provides a market based solution to the perceived problems in energy and the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. This scheme, cooked up by Obama and the Democrats in Congress, will do little more than drain the American economy and have a negligible effect on the environment.

Rasmussen reports that only 24% of Americans have even a remote idea that Cap and Trade refers to energy and environmental legislation. Fewer still understand the ramifications such legislation would have on the American economy while having little impact on global warming. Painting with a broad brush, Cap and Trade involves the Federal government establishing limits on an emitted substance (the Cap) which then issues allowances that various entities pay to obtain. Those entities can then use the allowance to "pay" for the right to emit the substance, or they can exchange the allowance with others (the Trade). (More information here) Since we are all too aware that all additional costs associated with any product or service are passed along to the consumer, Cap and Trade is nothing more than an elaborately hidden price increase, or tax, on all those who light their homes, drive to work, or use any plastic product.

Waxman-Markey will set off a trade war. It has been called by George Will the new "... Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930" which "ignited reciprocal protectionism that suffocated global trade and deepened the Depression." Will calls, "The cap-and-trade legislation passed recently by a House committee is Smoot-Hawley in drag: It contains provisions for tariffs on imports designated "carbon-intensive" -- goods manufactured under less carbon-restrictive rules than those of the proposed U.S. cap-and-trade regime. Eco-protectionism is a recipe for reciprocity." Goodbye American jobs.

Ultimately, the pressure of the caps are intended by their proponents to drive companies and individuals toward alternate energy sources. Nice try. There are very few sources of energy that can come close to meeting our existing and future needs for energy. Only fossil fuels (oil and natural gas) and nuclear power are currently technologically feasible to meet the demands of a modern economy. Fossil and nuclear fuels supply the U.S, with over 91% (70.4% and 20.7% respectively) of its electricity needs, with hydroelectric power coming in a distant third with 5.6%. The technologies involved to make a serious change in current power distribution (wind, solar, alternate fuels) are tens-of-years away from being able to make a significant dent in these percentages. Let's not even talk about transportation which is almost entirely dependent on oil.

Because of special interests, a regulatory labyrinth exists at all level of government that have prohibited for decades the construction of new refineries or nuclear powerplants. Those same special interests prohibit expansion of proven U.S. fossil fuel reserves (20.97 billion barrels of oil and 5.977 trillion cu m of natural gas) which makes us ever more reliant on imports from overseas. Our annual fossil fuel imports (about 3.5 billion barrels of oil and 31 billion cubic meters of natural gas) puts hundreds of billions of dollars into the hands of governments and tyrants who may not necessarily have our best interests in mind. Our direct competition with other emerging economies like China and India for overseas oil sources drives up the price of oil. These emerging economies also are not encumbered by overburdening environmental regulations that allow their products to undercut ours in price. (Statistical source: CIA World Factbook and Energy Information Administration)

The Democrats' answer to the worst recession in decades is to introduce what amounts to a national energy tax that will lead to higher energy prices and further job losses. Cap and Trade would cause gas prices and home utility bills to rise and deal American families an even greater economic hardship. Congress should be making every effort to leverage our proven reserves of fossil fuels and to take advantage of the new technologies in nuclear power generation. Sadly, the opposite is true. Instead, the Democrats offer thousands of dollars in extra energy costs and the potential loss of millions of jobs for an energy policy that will do very little to convert our national energy consumption and clean up our environment.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have cobbled together some of the better ideas on energy and the environment into "The American Energy Act." (.pdf download) This proposal is an "all of the above" approach that reduces the energy dependence of the nation and keeps more jobs here at home, all while providing for a cleaner environment.

Regulatory hang-ups are addressed. The proposal reduces red-tape and cost caused by the Environmental Protection Agency arising from having to endlessly identifying impacts and alternative locations for energy projects. It ensure proper environmental review while and curtailing the lawsuits that are designed to slow down and obstruct American energy policy. While ensuring people a day in court, expedited judicial review is required and all court cases are filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent "forum shopping".

Oil and gas reserves are expanded. Revenue generated by the sale of new oil and gas leases are invested in renewable and alternative sources of energy and also provides for tax incentives for energy conservation. Development of America’s alternative fuels is encourage by repealing the current prohibitions on government purchasing fuels derived from sources such as oil shale, tar sands and coal-to liquid technology. Utilizing the vast coal reserves of the U.S. the plan also encourages the use of clean coal technology by allowing federal agencies to enter certain long-term contracts and loan agreements.

Oil refinery construction is increased by streamlining and accelerating the permitting process. The bill also instructs the President to convert at least three closed military installations for use as a refineries, including at least one suitable refinery of biomass to produce biofuel.

The Republican proposal establishes a goal to bring 100 new carbon-emission-free nuclear reactors online over the next 20 years. It does do by installing a new regulatory and permitting regime. This plan also address nuclear waste storage by reversing recent funding and regulatory decisions concerning Yucca Mountain located deep in the Nevada desert.

American ingenuity is tapped with a competition to advance R&D, pilot programs and commercial application of new and innovative energy technologies. a $500 million prize goes to the first U.S. automobile manufacturer to sell 50,000 economically feasible, fuel-efficient vehicles that get 100 mpg. Tax credits for the production of renewable electricity, like wind, solar, biodiesel and biomass are established, made permanent or expanded.

The bill provides tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who improve their energy efficiency. It also extends tax credits for using energy efficient appliances and energy efficient upgrades made to existing homes, a tax credit for individuals who purchase a new energy efficient home and a tax credit for energy efficient commercial buildings, home energy audits and smart meters.

This Republican energy and environment plan is bold, broad and forward looking. It is grounded in what can be done, not on a Rainbow and Unicorns approach favored by Obama and the Democrats. We don't want or need a national energy tax. We don't want or need the loss of jobs to countries who use lower priced energy. We want to reduce our dependence on dictators and tyrants who hold the oil leach. We want to harness our own resources, including the ingenuity of the American people. The House Republicans have given us a great starting point.

Republicans, what took you so long?

Once Around the Block

2009-06-11T07:30:00.003-05:00

June 11, 2009

Gates said it would cost $50 million to house the GITMO detainees in the US, but Obama is paying Palau $200 million to house 17 Uighurs.

Obama is trying terrorist Ahmed Ghailani in New York. Will he be released if found not guilty? Obama won't say.

Two dozen things you should know about nationalized healthcare.

Oil price leaps to year's high, $250 per barrel possible?

Wednesday, interest rates rose to the highest level in several years. Is this the beginning of a double-dip recession? (Free Financial Times subscription required.)

And the Academy Award goes to...

What grade would you give Obama in history? Victor David Hanson provides the background.

Cal Thomas on Government 'Fixes' vs. Personal Responsibility

You gotta love an article that mentions Smoot-Hawley, by George Will

Judd Gregg, the most reliable fiscal conservative in the Senate, speaks out on Pay-Go.

Once Around the Block

2009-06-10T08:39:00.002-05:00

June 10, 2009

Brookings: Cap and Trade Would Reduce GDP by 2.5 Percent

Hugh Hewitt on the care and feeding of Government Motors

Jon Voight, Hollywood American

Newt on the auto bailout scandal

One of the happy warriors speaks: Art Laffer on the upcoming economy

Charles Krauthammer lauds FoxNews

Chuck Norris endorses John Kasich for Ohio governor

@mkhammer - Report: Obama Unloads Uighurs to Palau at $12 Million a Pop

Don't You Just Love It...

2009-06-04T11:16:00.008-05:00

... when a plan comes together?

From National Review Campaign Spot:

Less an Expiration Date Than Ignoring the Consequences of Policy Changes

Barack Obama, on the campaign trail last year: "That's why I'm going to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, and start rebuilding the middle class by helping companies create jobs here."

Yet here we are, and things are turning out differently:

Microsoft Corp. Chief Executive Officer Steven Ballmer said the world’s largest software company would move some employees offshore if Congress enacts President Barack Obama’s plans to impose higher taxes on U.S. companies’ foreign profits.

“It makes U.S. jobs more expensive,” Ballmer said in an interview. “We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S.

From ARS Technica:

Out of the $2,973,322 in contributions Microsoft made, $2,124,186 went to the Democrats, while only $844,586 was given to the Republicans. This comes out to about 71.4 percent and 28.4 percent, respectively.

Kudos to Microsoft for its wise decisions, I'm sure this will go over with those employees that get furloughed.

The Real Truth

2009-06-04T10:26:00.005-05:00

Barack H. Obama speaks in Egypt where he gives up principles of the United States, its moral clarity and its best ally in the region, Israel - Obama gets a standing ovation. George W. Bush gives a speech in Baghdad, and liberates 50 million Muslims during his tenure in office - Bush gets a shoe.

Once Around the Block

2009-06-03T07:49:00.003-05:00

June 3, 2009

Transparency in government we don't need.

We can't have 'em, but its okay that Iranians have nuclear plants.

Weenie.

Birds of a feather? Obama and Ahmadinejad to visit Egypt.

Why would the "most ethical, bipartisan, transparent Congress ever" rush ObamaCare? WSJ: Democrats don't think their bill can stand public inspection.

Stay strong, conservatives!

So, as I understand it, taxpayer supported employees of GM will lobby the Federal Government. Anyone see a problem with this?

Barry Obama, meet Sammy bin Laden. And Mr. President, you'd better check with TOTUS because you weren't even close.

Mrs. Pelosi's Excellent Chinese Adventure

2009-06-02T21:51:00.011-05:00

Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-Mars) and five other fiscally responsible Congressmen recently took a tax-payer sponsored trip to China to promote environmental responsibility. We of course remember China as the country that for a month prior to the Beijing Olympics shut down many factories and restricted use of many vehicles to clear the air in order to avoid humiliation during the Games but still remained under a thick blanket of smog. This is also the same China that arranged an exemption from the Kyoto Protocols claiming they are a developing nation while having the third largest economy on Earth.

While in China, Pelosi addressed her Chinese hosts. "Indeed, protecting the environment is a human rights issue," she said. "We hope to send a clear message that transparency, accountability, enforcement and respect for the rule of law are essential if we are to protect our planet."

Pelosi's trip came just days after the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill that would establish a mandatory program for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The bill requires factories, refineries and power plants to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and six other greenhouse gases by roughly 80 percent by mid-century. Concurrently, the Obama administration ordered regulation of such emissions by cars and trucks. Pelosi promised the Chinese that U.S. climate legislation will pass this year the Congress this year. To accomplish these goals, Pelosi said, "Every aspect of our lives must be subject to inventory" in the fight against man-made global warming.

Pelosi is also reported to have enjoyed the food.

Why Some Democrats Support Illegal Aliens

2009-06-02T14:59:00.006-05:00

Some of you may remember that on July 8, 1947, a little over 60 years ago, witnesses claimed that an unidentified flying object (UFO) with five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and cattle ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico. This is a well known incident that many claim has long been covered up by the U.S. Air Force and other federal agencies and organizations. However, what you may NOT know is that in 1948, approximately nine months after that historic day, the following people were born:

AlGore
Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
Bill Clinton
Howard Dean
Nancy Pelosi
Dianne Feinstein
Chuck Schumer
Barbara Boxer

I certainly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you. It did for me. No wonder they support Congressional legislation to aid illegal aliens!

Once Around the Block

2009-06-02T10:09:00.005-05:00

June 2, 2009

Obama picked up the tab for the tickets, we picked up the tab for the rest.

Don't call it 'socialism'! Let's call it Collectivism instead. Make sure you read about the typo first.

Let 'em go 12 rounds. Obama v. Gingrich

The Feds can't organize a two car funeral let alone a car company: Fannie Motors But then again, GM management can't do it either. It's only costing taxpayers about a half-million dollars per GM employee.

Life in Hellinois. The Blago vacuum cleaner sucks in Durbin, too.

The Republican party should reach out to conservatives. What a thought, huh?

A conservative Father's Day present. Do you know what it is?

Some in Congress are getting the message about Cap and Trade.

When you find a conservative in Hollywood, you should read his stuff.

A Modest Proposal

2009-05-29T13:43:00.002-05:00

I would like to benefit from your experience by running the idea past you to see what you think.

I would like to help drive a one or two day event to discuss federal tax policy. I propose the main session to be a face off between Neal Boortz and Steve Forbes to discuss Fair v. Flat tax proposals, describing what are they, their benefits, etc. The event would be offered to CSPAN, and also streamed live over the internet, with questions taken from the internet and put before the panelists. A moderated live blog would gather the questions, also questions received via Twitter. I was thinking about someone like Saul to moderate the event. I would hope the RNC would participate to coordinate and fund advertising and marketing of the event, which I propose to be held just about anywhere other than inside the beltway. I do not see this any other RNC input other than getting to word out to the faithful.

Side sessions:

How to legislatively implement a new tax structure in place the current tax code, specifying what Ways and Means actions would be required. I know Peter Roskam who serves on Ways and Means, I could probably pester him to participate, and I am sure there are any number of legislators, lobbyists and legislative aides that could make the session worthwhile.
How to politically package and present a new tax structure to the electorate. Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, Frank Luntz, Karl Rove

I would like to also make this event part of an effort to unite the Tea Party movement, the top conservatives on Twitter and the blogosphere, and the RNC. It would be nice to get these disparate groups united and focused on the 2010 elections.

Do you think this event would fly, and do you have any idea who would sponsor such an event, perhaps in conjunction with several others, with monetary support from various conservative organizations.

Contact: frank.canzolino@gmail.com Twitter: @FrankCanzolino

We Have Clearly Lost Our Way

2009-05-27T10:12:00.007-05:00

The Rule of Law and unambiguously defined constitutional principles dictate the actual administration of government.

Evidence of our lost freedoms is everywhere. We see local condo boards telling mothers they cannot display Service Stars for their kids serving in the military. We see municipal “preservation” boards telling homeowners what kind of shutters and paint colors they can use on their houses. State governments, county governments, regional governments, taxing authorities; endless multiple, overlapping, contradictory, levels of government; and any number of expensive, non-productive, confusing levels of bureaucracy through which you and I must slog on a given day. Lawmakers and unelected bureaucrats at all levels of official interactions are picking away at what little individual freedom we have left.

Every person in America is swimming in a deep and fetid pool of laws, codes and regulations created by individuals so arrogant they presume to know what is good for you, the individual. People who are so power hungry they will do anything to maintain their control over the agenda. And the biggest, smelliest pool, with the meanest critters is found in Washington, DC. There is no bigger threat to our freedom than the Hydra-headed monster that swims there.

I am no Constitutional scholar, and I did not even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I can say that I see a direct assault on our way of life with more freedoms being lost on a daily basis. Hundreds of thousands of pages of US Code of Federal Regulations, tens of thousands of pages dedicated to just taxes, each word created and endorsed by special interests. Is it any wonder we are confused, mad and upset? I refuse to believe we are fighting a hopeless battle.

ONE WORD: BETRAYAL

A political battle took place in the latter part of the 18^th century. The Framers waged a great debate between those interests demanding a strong Federal government and those requiring power be devolved to states and individuals. Ratification of the Constitution was no slam-dunk. Led by famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry, who worried about an imperial presidency and excessive Federal power, several states withheld their ratification vote. It wasn’t until an agreement was reached to include Madison’s Bill of Rights to the document immediately after the Constitution ratification, that several states provided their votes. Arguably, the greatest achievement of the Framers was the balance struck in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

That classic battle continues to be waged today, as competing interests and successive Legislatures and Executive Administrations fight to gather and exercise power. The election of the Democrats to Congress in 2006 accelerated the Federal Government’s grab for power as a weakened George W. Bush refused to veto legislation. Now with Barack Obama as president, we have seen the government reach into virtually every aspect of American life.

The Obama administration has interfered with the rights of states to govern themselves, and the property rights of bondholders. Through tax policies, Obama and his cohorts in Congress are redistributing hundreds of billions of dollars while racking up trillions of dollars of debt. And is the irony lost on anyone that Obama’s recent speech at the National Archives took place in front of phony copies of the founding documents of this nation while the actual documents were hidden from view?

“Americans are increasingly out of synch with the liberal Washington establishment. But what are they getting from their leaders in Washington?”

- Newt Gingrich

We are getting much more than just a stick in our eye.

Congressmen and the Obama Administration are betraying their oath of office with each new law, regulation and action enacted that restricts the right of the individual in the pursuit of our natural rights.

Our liberty and rights are the underpinnings of governance in the United States.

WHAT TO DO?

We are starting to see the backlash.

Tea Parties have sprouted up all over the country. Hundreds of thousands of average citizens are voicing their displeasure with their government.

The National Council for a New America was formed by prominent Republicans who have launched a nation-wide listening tour.

Several states across the country have introduced “sovereignty resolutions” to reiterate their 10^th Amendment rights:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Top Conservatives on Twitter act as a social media exchange of information and ideas.

The switchboards and email in-boxes at the House, Senate and White House are awash with messages from angry constituents.

How do we unite these disparate organizations under one coherent plan to take back the government and return the power to the citizens, as the Framers intended?

Let’s unite behind the “sovereignty resolutions” and broaden that effort to have state legislators call for a Constitutional Convention. Conservatives of all stripes can unite behind such an effort. We will learn to work together with our state and Federal legislators. Even if a Convention call fails, we will send a powerful message to liberals in the Congress and the administration that we have had enough.

Update: 5/29/09 7:40 AM - Local officials stop prayer group in someone's home.

Contact: frank.canzolino@gmail.com Twitter: @FrankCanzolino

Obama Assaults the Rule of Law

2009-05-18T14:43:00.007-05:00

Shredding the Constitution

According to the Constitution, the Federal government has few powers. The Constitution only allows the Federal Government the only the execution of specific powers enumerated within the document, and leaves all other powers to the states, or the individual. One basic principle of the constitution prohibits the Federal government from telling a state how to govern its citizens. One example of a basic power that falls to the Congress is described in Article I, Section 8 that establishes a uniform law of bankruptcy across the U.S. (Congress defines the law in Title 11 of the U.S. Code).

Our constitutional law instructor president apparently has forgotten his lesson plans, or has made a conscious decision to ignore those basic tenants of the Constitution he sees inconvenient. Two recent examples of overreach by the Obama administration:

CALIFORNIA BETRAYED

California faces a $21 billion budget deficit. Its state government is working feverously to avoid bankruptcy. After months of bi-partisan effort, an agreement was finally reached by the duly elected officials of the citizens of California that trims healthcare costs and lowers wages of state employees, helping reduce costs and deficits.

Then the Obama administration got physical.

Citing a quietly inserted clause in the hurried passed stimulus package, Obama officials alerted California that it would be ineligible for $6.8 billion of federal funding. The stimulus package prohibited cuts in state funding to cities as a condition for receiving Federal funds. The Obama administration alerted California officials that it was interpreting this provision to mean that California state officials could not trim the wages of any state employee and still receive stimulus funds.

Attempting to receive clarification and find compromise, California officials, headed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, called the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, the agency tasked with oversight of these particular types stimulus funds. Surprisingly, and inappropriately, a third party was on the call, representatives of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Their own state employees had torpedoed California officials.

The Obama administration in a sop to a labor union, had preempted the decision making process of elected California state officials on how best to accomplish state goals, a clear violation of constitutional principles.

By the way, the SEIU contributed $33 million and countless workers to the Obama 2008 election campaign.

THE WHEELS ON THE BUS GO ROUND AND ROUND

After years of mismanagement, a shrinking economy has dealt a deathblow to Chrysler. After receiving $4 billion in Federal bailout money to tide the Chrysler over while it reorganized, the current owner, Cerberus Capital Management, refused to inject any further funds into the company. Neither could a new owner be found to assume Chrysler’s liabilities. This drove the struggling automaker into bankruptcy. In order to qualify for any additional Federal dollars, the Obama administration dictated that Chrysler undergo an arranged bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy proceedings, established by the Constitution, and governed and uniformly applied by U.S. code, say that those individuals and institutions holding secured credit (normally bonds) are the first to be paid. Bankruptcy law is clear and settled, its roots running back to the Magna Carta.

The White House-sponsored and negotiated settlement established that Fiat receives the company at virtually no cost. The United Auto Workers (UAW) receives about 50¢ on the dollar for the money it had invested, and secured bondholders are paid out only 30¢ on the dollar. The Treasury department has been quoted as saying that the UAW is an important component to Chrysler’s recovery. No argument there. But should the long established and well-litigated property rights of the bondholder shoveled aside?

The UAW contributed $4.9 million dollars to the 2008 Obama campaign and provided it with countless volunteers.

Chrysler's secured creditors may well have funded the bus under which Obama has thrown them.

A NEW THEORY OF GOVERNMENT

Centuries of settled law are now being questioned. Obama sends a new message to the world, “If you lend money to one of my favorite interests, I will wipe you aside with government intervention if I wish.” Is it any wonder that foreign governments are looking to replace our currency and reducing their investment in our country?

We are now seeing an Obama administration that no longer considers the rule of law to be the paramount consideration. Instead, Obama considers the rule of law just one consideration in his deliberations on how to proceed with his presidency. This is a nation founded under the rule of law, not by the rule of men. Obama has forgotten.

We are in danger of becoming a society no longer governed by dispassionate law, but by passionate men who provide payback to their political supporters. We are now being held at the mercy of Obama’s political objectives.

Obama shreds the Constitution by trumping the decisions of the states. Obama shreds property rights for his brand of “social justice.” He makes a mockery of bankruptcy laws. Politicians, on a whim, will now rewrite contracts. Obama, and his Congressional supporters, ignore the Constitution.

The Framers were so keenly aware that overpowering government was possible that in the first article of the constitution define the powers of government. The Framers felt so strongly about limited role of government that they immediately passed first ten Constitutional amendments to further define those limits.

Obama feels no limits. The Federal Government will tell us what to think, how to behave, how to live. Call your Congressman and stop this agenda. The insidious control being exercised by Obama and the Congress are stealing the single-most important thing we have in the U.S. – our freedom.

Contact: frank.canzolino@gmail.com Twitter: @FrankCanzolino

Balancing the Budget – The Hellinois Way

2009-05-18T14:24:00.007-05:00

Guest post by Nick Primrose Twitter: @npwrites

As Illinois gets closer and closer to a vote on raising the income tax 50%, I can’t help but shake my head when I hear Governor Quinn, Speaker Mike Madigan, and Cook County President Todd Stroger use draconian budget tactics to scare citizens into supporting the tax hike. Much like what you will hear from Congress, the only way some politicians see to surviving these economic times is by raising revenue (i.e. raising taxes, higher fees/fines, and adopting new ‘sin’ taxes). Whenever you question this thought the immediate response is what we see today in Illinois, ‘doomsday’ budgets and draconian cuts.

Todd Stroger said the 1.75% county home-rule sales tax was responsible for keeping sick people in hospital beds and criminals off the streets, anything less would ruin this harmony. Governor Quinn released his ‘doomsday’ budget on May 18^th citing massive teacher cuts, reducing funding for public transportation, and cutting countless other government services. All of these scare tactics seem to work too well, and most likely we’ll see the newly increased Cook County sales tax live on and a 50% income tax hike in Illinois.

I’m here to tell you that this is nothing but a smart political move on behalf of the Democrats, the one party that has consistently utilized this tool. In reality raising taxes only furthers the agendas of Stroger and Quinn by giving them more money to spend on non-essential government services.

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

How do I know this? I’ve read through the Illinois budgets from fiscal year 2008, 2009, and proposed 2010. In every one of those budgets there is countless amounts of wasteful spending, increased spending, and non-essential spending that could be cut to meet revenue. However year after year politicians in Chicago, Springfield, and Washington are allowed to spend because the typical citizen is oblivious to where the money is going. This is a perfect reason for further transparency in the budget process from Federal to local levels of government.

Chicago’s own Barack Obama is/was trying to create a new level of transparency by putting stimulus spending online, but he seems to have fallen short on that effort. Many state and local governments have seen savings by adopting transparency and accountability sites. Kansas, Texas, and Missouri have all created online databases for everyone to search spending. DuPage County in Illinois has seen success from their database and Cook County looks to adopt a similar check register soon.

When spending habits, checks written, and funds transferred are open to the public, then politicians start to reign in their spending. Politicians are held accountable for every dime that is spent whether it is $50 at an office supply store or thousands of dollars on travel. Last week, HB35 passed both houses to create an accountability portal in Illinois. This is a great step towards allowing citizens to act as a spending watch-dog in the state – but it is only the first step of many more towards fixing the corruption and out-of-control spending in Illinois and the Federal government.

Update: 5/19/09 9:15 AM See what Laffer and Moore say about Quinn in the Wall Street Journal

Waiting to Exhale

2009-05-14T08:15:00.017-05:00

Obama and the Democrats in Congress must be hyperventilating

Emissions exchange, more commonly known as Cap and Trade, is a scheme where a government sets limits on a substance (the Cap) and issues allowances to entities that permit the entity to emit a specific amount of the substance. That entity may either use the allowance or exchange, for profit, all or part of the allowance (the Trade) to a second entity that may then use the allowance as it sees fit. That second entity may elect to either cash-in the allowance to cover those emissions that exceed the Cap, or speculatively hold and trade the allowance to another entity. A handful of emitted substances (e.g. nitrogen oxides, methane, carbon monoxide) are normally considered to be the pollutants covered in a Cap and Trade system.

You’re quite familiar with carbon dioxide (CO₂). Let’s start with an experiment. Breath in. Hold it. Now breath out.

What you just inhaled is 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases. When we exhale we’ve used about 4% of the oxygen and increased the CO₂ by about the same amount. CO₂ is a common substance and is nothing more than the inevitable byproduct of combustion. Fires make it, and so do living animals in the normal course of their conversion of food to energy. In mid-April the Environmental Protection Agency issued a ruling that considered CO₂ to be a pollutant. The addition of CO₂ to the list of commonly considered pollutants has set off a firestorm.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reviewed the EPA ruling. The CBO questions the underlying methodology used by the EPA used to add CO₂ to the listing of pollutants (the GHGs mentioned below):

“In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is a concern that EPA is making a finding based on (1) "harm" from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects, (2) available scientific data that purports to conclusively establish the nature and extent of the adverse public health and welfare impacts are almost exclusively from non-EPA sources, and (3) applying a dramatically expanded precautionary principle. If EPA goes forward with a finding of endangerment for all 6 GHGs, it could be establishing a relaxed and expansive new standard for endangerment. Subsequently, EPA would be petitioned to find endangerment and regulate many other “pollutants" for the sake of the precautionary principle (e.g., electromagnetic fields, perchlorates, endocrine disruptors, and noise).”

Also note that the CBO explicitly warns that adding this common substance, CO₂, opens Pandora’s box. Other common irritants (e.g. noise) might be considered a pollutant. We might agree with this when we are at a stop light with the blasting stereo of the car next to us.

EPA would have the authority to fine “polluters”. Radical, activist environmental groups would be able to sue the government if the EPA failed to regulate a pollutant or a polluter. Bizarre lawsuits would be the norm. Perhaps an environmental group based in California would sue an Ohio manufacturer because icecaps are melting (let’s forget for a minute whether or not the icecaps are melting) in Alaska. These frivolous lawsuits would take years of litigation to resolve.

The CBO also warns of a significant cost impact to consumers, and all businesses across the country:

“Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the CAA for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities. Should EPA later extend this finding to stationary sources, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulatory programs such as New Source Review.”

(Emphasis mine, CBO analysis of Cap and Trade, .pdf download here)

Currently snaking its way through Congress, the Waxman-Markey proposal for Cap and Trade is the front-runner for government action. Waxman-Markey uses the EPA guidelines for its listing of pollutants and sets an arbitrary 15% reduction of the “greenhouse gases” by 2020. The CBO also analyzed the potential costs of Cap and Trade in this type of proposal:

“The price increases caused by a cap-and-trade program would impose additional costs on households. For example, without incorporating any benefits to households from lessening climate change, CBO estimates that the price increases resulting from a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions could cost the average household roughly $1,600 (in 2006 dollars), ranging from nearly $700 in additional costs for the average household in the lowest one-fifth (quintile) of all households arrayed by income, to about $2,200 for the average household in the highest quintile.”

The Heritage Foundation performed a more detailed analysis of the many effects of a Cap and Trade proposal:

Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $7.4 trillion,
Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1,900,000 jobs,
Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation,
Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent,
Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent,
Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500, and
Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.

If the Waxman-Markey proposal was only a Cap and Trade proposal for greenhouse gases, it would be bad enough. Additional provisions contained in Waxman-Markey are sufficient reasons to be highly critical of this proposal. In addition to Cap and Trade, Waxman-Markey introduces a new renewable electricity standard, a new low carbon fuel standard, and an appliance efficiency mandate that will be extremely difficult for manufacturers to meet with currently available technology. Cap and Trade really just becomes one more way for the Federal government to interject itself into another aspect of the US economy and the life of Americans.

So who is most harmed by this unprecedented control of the economy? You know as well as I that any business compliance costs will be passed along to the consumer. These consumers are people who drive, people who light their homes. People who use ovens, refrigerators, computers, lawnmowers, fireplaces. Virtually every element of our lives becomes within reach of intrusive government.

Cap and Trade is nothing more than a thinly veiled tax on every American and a heavy=handed power grab by the poobahs in DC to control our lives. It is the most regressive of taxes, falling disproportionately on lower income individuals. It expands the nanny state that allows the Federal government to control many of the aspects of your life.

Take a deep breath. Then call Congress.

Update 5/15/09 12:20 AM: Yet another reason to say no to Cap and Trade, inconclusive data on global warming. (h/t: @stix1972)

Update 5/15/09 8:00 AM: If you do not believe me, her is what Democrat Charlie Rangel, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, was quoted in the Thursday evening Congress Daily as saying:

"Whether you call it a tax, everyone agrees that it's going to increase the cost to the consumer," said Rangel. "At the end of the day ... if there's nothing there to repay [consumers] for their financial expenditures, it might be difficult to fight Republicans who call this a tax."

Update 5/15/09 10:00 AM: Indiana Says 'No Thanks' to Cap and Trade

Update 5/20/09 9:45 AM: Over at National Review, Jim Manzi provides the best cost-benefit analysis I have seen to date on Cap and Trade.

Update 6/1/09 9:25 AM: Martin Feldstein agrees.

Contact: frank.canzolino@gmail.com

Our Wimpy Government

2009-05-12T12:49:00.004-05:00

When do Obama and the Congress think they’ll pay taxpayers back, Tuesday?

Yesterday, in my post Vampire Economics, we explored the outlandish spending, and resultant debt, that Congress and the Administration have racked up the past few months. If all the commitments recently made by the Democrat controlled Federal Government were actually executed with Treasury dollars, the taxpayer liability would be roughly $15 Trillion. Current projections of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the US are $14.5 Trillion. The committed spending exceeds by about $500 Billion the entire US GDP amount, one-fifth of the annual spending of the entire world.

One part of those $15 Trillion in commitments is the Obama budget of $3.5 Trillion dollars. Yesterday, the Administration issued a statement saying that tax revenues to the US Treasury are expected to be much less than Obama originally estimated. This $1.8 Trillion shortfall means that for every single dollar spent by the Federal Government on budgeted items (which do not include bailout or stimulus packages), about 50 cents will be borrowed. And all of the remaining commitments of about $11.5 Trillion will need to be borrowed.

Now sit down, because that is just chump change.

There are other promises by the Federal Government that we haven’t yet discussed. Ready? Medicare and Social security requires an additional commitment of roughly $105 Trillion (about seven times GDP).

Where in the world does the Obama Administration and the Congress think they are going to get sufficient money to pay for all of this spending?

There are only a limited number of places that the Federal Government can fund programs:

Increase Revenue/Decrease Spending

Growing the economy increases GDP, in effect making the pie bigger. Economic growth increases real wages, which increases the tax revenues collected by the Treasury. This is one of the underpinning tenants of supply-side economics (which says that if taxes are cut, the economy grows because people have more real wealth). Thirty years of relatively sustained economic growth is explained by restrained spending and low taxes (hat tip to Art Laffer, Jack Kemp, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and the Republicans in the Congress in the 1990’s).

Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose to pay for their profligate spending by spurred economic growth. However, most of the assumptions being used appear overly optimistic. The assumptions are not called overly optimistic just by conservative economists, but also by liberal economists and economists from the Congressional Budget Office and Obama’s own White House advisors.

Government spending takes money from the private sector, where investment can be efficiently used by businesses to increase real wealth, and channels money to public programs that are, at best, inefficient at adding to the wealth of the country. And we all know there is no such thing of a collectivist Government program the Democrats and the Obama Administration do not like.

There are no serious spending cuts being proposed by this Democrat Congress and Administration That is, except for spending on military programs such as missile defense and other weapon systems. It is especially ironic that Obama pulls the plug on military spending. What is more “shovel ready” than a currently operating production line? Think about that next time you hear about a road construction or other infrastructure project being held up by the EPA permitting process.

To increase Government revenue, Obama has proposed to “tax the rich.” Above, I mentioned the increasing budget deficit because of decreasing tax revenues during this economic downturn. If Obama were to take every dollar from the “rich” he would not even make a dent in the indebtedness of the US. How long do you think Obama will keep the rich floor at $250,000 as he scrambles to pay for his collectivist agenda? Pretty soon, he may even have to tax the roughly 41% of the population that pay no taxes whatsoever, let alone the “rich.”

Head to the Bank

You borrow money all the time. When you buy a house or a car. When you use a credit card. Intelligent and responsible use of debt is beneficial to the individual, and also to the Government. However, you know that if you borrow too much money you can be quickly overwhelmed by your debt.

The cost of servicing just the debt incurred from US spending will rise from about $200 Billion per year now to over $725 Billion per year in 2019. This is just the INTEREST on borrowed money to cover budgetary spending, and not the actually spending itself.

Take your seats again folks. This three-quarters of a trillion dollars in interest cost DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SPENDING FOR ENTITLEMENTS LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE.

Far too many of our current spending plans and commitments are based on borrowed money. Not only will economic growth be stifled by the spending itself, but by the increased debt load of the interest on the borrowing.

We can already see the effects of our planned increased borrowing. China is already balking at buying our Treasuries as we begin printing more money and issuing more debt. Printing additional money dilutes the value our currency, and as investors no longer want our devalued currency, the US is forced to increase the interest rates offered on our Treasury bonds. Increased interest rates cause the US to pay even more money to service the debt that these securities have been offered to cover.

The cycle feeds on itself and more and more of the world’s investors will lose faith in the US.

Is it any wonder that other nations have joined China’s call to move the standard international currency from the US dollar to another instrument?

It looks like the Obama and Democrat plan is to pay for that burger on Tuesday. In the year 2050. Or beyond. Do you think you will even be able to afford a burger today with Obama and a Democratic Congress?

Contact: frank.canzolino@gmail.com

Vampire Economics

2009-05-11T10:13:00.006-05:00

Obama has enough deficit spending to bring life to the dead.

At the time of this writing, the current federal public debt stands somewhere north of $11.2 Trillion dollars, yes, with a “T”. In February of 2009, the Congress established a debt limit of $12.104 Trillion, yes, with a “T”. According to the numbers released by the White House today, the budget deficit will top $1.8 Trillion (yes, with a “T”) this fiscal year alone, and will require Congress to raise the official federal public debt limit.

Gross domestic product (GDP) includes the market value of all final goods and services in a year, and is a basic measure of economic performance of the US. GDP is currently estimated to be somewhere around $14.5 Trillion for 2009, but that number may be somewhat lower as a result of the current recession.

In the very near future, the amount of the public debt, and the service on the interest of the debt will soon equal the total GDP of the US.

Using data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office and analyses from the Wall Street Journal, we can investigate the obligated expenditures and guarantees of the US government. If we add together every program that has been obligated by the Federal Government, the taxpayer liability will be about $15 Trillion, yes, with a “T”. This enormous number is equal to one out of every five dollars spent on goods and services IN THE ENTIRE WORLD.

Here’s a quick breakdown on the heavy hitters of what you, the taxpayer are on the hook for from your elected officials:

$3.5 Trillion (yes, with a “T”) of expenditures, which includes:

$168 Billion Bush stimulus

$787 Billion Obama stimulus

$366 Billion Mortgage backed securities insurance

$300 Billion Aid to mortgage borrowers

$290 Billion CITI guarantees

$173 Billion AIG guarantees

$ 29 Billion Bear Sterns bailout

$ 15 Billion GM bailout

$700 Billion in TARP guarantees (of which $600 billion distributed)

$7 Trillion (yes, with a “T”) in Federal Reserve guarantees

The following guarantees have been established, but it is not anticipated that any taxpayer losses will occur, but who can guarantee that?

$2.8 Trillion (yes, with a “T”) money market guarantees

$300 Billion Corporate financing guarantees (e.g. GMAC, Chrysler Finance)

Expenditures and guarantees total roughly $15 Trillion, yes, with a “T”. These are the commitments we made ONLY during the past 12 months. Remember, that while George W. Bush participated this profligate, irresponsible spending, all of these commitments were made after the Democrats assumed complete control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 election.

We have seen a flattening of some of the indicators associated with the current recession. The free-fall in the markets is temporarily reversed. The freefall in new unemployment claims is slowing.

Is there any doubt that the recession has slowed when you look at how much money has been thrown at this problem? With this kind of money you know there will be waste. With this kind of money you know there is spending on unnecessary programs. This is not Voodoo Economics, it is Vampire Economics. With this kind of money the dead can be resurrected. But are we going to kill our children under the weight of debt?

Contact: frank.canzolino@gmail.com

President Janus

2009-05-07T09:37:00.014-05:00

Obama can look to the past to see the effects of his policies.

Janus was the Roman god of gates, doors and doorways (janitors keep them in good order), and of beginnings and endings. Janus is typically depicted as having two faces pointed in different directions. A gift from Saturn, those two faces allowed Janus the ability to see the future and the past.

It is only fitting that President Obama was inaugurated in January. Like Janus, Obama has two faces. Unfortunately, the face pointed to the future is unable to learn from the lessons seen by the one pointed to the past.

Obama releases the secret CIA interrogation memos, yet claims nobody will be affected. Does the backward-looking Obama remember the Church commission of the 1970’s that emaciated our intelligence services? Cannot the forward-looking Obama see that he will lose the confidence of some of his most valuable assets? CIA officers will no longer feel the President has their backs. Presidential advisors will no longer be able to provide confidential advice without fear of future retribution when political situations change. It must have been foggy the day Obama looked back.

Obama’s backward-looking face sees that while lobbyists may exercise undue influence over lawmaking, they also provide a resource for policy advice. He must have observed this during his years as a “community organizer” and legislator. Yet he proclaimed he would “tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over.” This silly prohibition on lobbyists would needlessly rob him of a valuable resource, and box him into a corner when he inevitably had to waive, at least 15 times, his own promises to fill his staff. I guess that backward-looking face was blindfolded.

Looking to the past, Obama could see the crippling effect of excessive deficits and profligate pork-barrel spending. He only had to look back 30 years to see it. He must have seen something because he went so far as to say there would be a strong series of checks and balances in place to eliminate wasteful spending. Yet he has spent enough to run trillion dollar deficits, as analyzed by the CBO and GAO, for as far as the eye can see. Have not the tired collectivist solutions of the past he proposes been tried and shown to fail? What does the forward-looking face see that the rest of us do not?

Obama must have looked at the past performance of the DC school system. With eyes wide open, he enrolled his daughters in the Sidwell school, a fine private institution. He could also see, if he bothered to look, that some students in that school were there on DC school vouchers. An undisputedly successful program, DC school vouchers allowed disadvantaged students to attend this exclusive school. Yet Obama refuses to come down strongly in favor of the voucher program, instead recommending continued funding only until the currently enrolled students graduate. This seems like a solution from Solomon. But unlike Solomon who would never have split the baby, Obama positions stops new students from escaping the failed DC educational system, and those schools that rely on voucher funding for their existence will be forced to close. I guess that forward-looking face only sees the NEA and its support in 2012.

Today, Obama will honor National Prayer Day with a proclamation and a day of private prayer. The National Prayer Day has roots in the founding of the US, and since 1952 has been a public reaffirmation of the role of faith in our lives. Backward-looking Obama would see this, if he opened his eyes. But forward-looking Obama does not want to offend his ACLU supporters. Obama wants to have it both ways. What he fails to realize that by trying to not offend anyone, he offends almost everyone.

Consistent with our typical understanding of two-faced, President Barack Obama always wants it both ways. But Janus is about looking forward, and looking back. Janus is about beginnings and endings. Now that we are at 100 days, really just the beginning. Will Obama ultimately fail because he does not see, learn or understand the past? Hopefully, the scales will fall from his eyes, learning from the past as he plots our course to the future.

Somehow, I doubt it.

Contact: frank.canzolino@gmail.com

Congressional TeaParty

2009-05-06T13:17:00.006-05:00

Does the GOP gets it?

By now, you have heard that several prominent Republicans have formed a new organization. The National Council for a New America has a stated goal of uniting “leaders from across the country to begin a dialog about how to meet our common challenges and build a strong country through common-sense ideas and solutions that will help every American.” The effort, spearheaded by House minority whip Eric Cantor, intends to bring together party leaders, a panel of prominent experts, and citizen activists in an informal setting for a robust debate. The first such town hall style meeting was held on May 2, 2009 in a suburban DC pizzeria. Cantor was joined by Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, more citizens than the number of Senate Republicans, and several pepperoni pizzas.

Rep. Cantor should be applauded for his efforts to revitalize the GOP from the bottom up. Prediction: Cantor does not fall into the camp of those Republicans who think it is only necessary to simply “re-brand” the GOP. You know as well as I do, that the “brand” is not the problem. The GOP is in the classic position of what happens to every political party after a butt-kicking. The party flounders for a while, struggles to regain its footing, then finds its voice as a leader emerges that leads it out of the darkness.

Optimist that I am, I know it is just a matter of time before the Republicans assume the leadership role. Almost every poll shows that core American values align more closely with those of the Republican party than those of the Democrats. The most recent Rasmussen polls confirm this. It shows that Republicans outpoll Democrats in the Generic Congressional Ballot Republicans are trending upward with Americans as Obama and the Democrats reveal their true collectivist stripes.

Synergy

Some argue that the best use of the TeaParty momentum is to focus on local level politics. Others promote third parties as a place to throw support. By all means, we need to win municipal and state elections. It is from these local levels that our national politicians and leaders are born. The true long-term viability of the conservative movement resides with these local leaders. But I see in a unique circumstance to rebuild the party, and to clip years off the normal cycle for conservatives to regain power.

In my last post, I posit that the TeaParties may be the first step in a groundswell of conservative governance that fights the collectivist trends we see in America. I think that now, today, this minute is the time for TeaParty conservatives and the GOP to join forces.

Huge barriers exist, and it is incumbent that that the true leaders on both sides step forward to break down those barriers. That’s what leaders do. They recognize an opening, marshal their forces and exploit the opportunity.

I propose that the National Council for a New America and the Republican Conferences in both the Senate and the House adopt a "TeaParty Model.” The TeaParty Model can be loosely defined as a confederation of local leaders who are given local level responsibility to generate local level enthusiasm for a national goal. The hundreds of TeaParty organizers showed this could be accomplished in a short period of time with limited resources to a huge effect. TeaParties generated active participation of over half a million people, and from their workplaces and homes, the support of multiple millions more.

Now is the time for outreach. Outreach from the GOP to the TeaParty activists. Outreach from the TeaParty activists to the GOP. With the infrastructure in place at the GOP and the new ideas and enthusiasm of the TeaParties, a powerful force for good in American politics can be created. The TeaParties have showed the way. The TeaParties have shown us the theme around which to unite. Together activists can stop the creeping collectivism of the Democrats in Congress and the Obama Administration.

Here is how it can work:

I propose that the GOP sponsor town hall meetings similar to the one the National Council for a New America just held. These town halls are held during the same week, and preferably on the same day in every congressional district in the US. High profile districts get high profile nationally recognized speakers. Where possible, the events are coincident with election/re-election campaign announcements.

The organization of each meeting is the titular responsibility of the Congressional District’s House of Representative member. In those districts without Republican representation, the highest ranking local Republican spearheads the effort. While the Member is responsible for making it happen, he is tasked with working intimately with a TeaParty activist who, using the experience and contact lists from the Tax Day TeaParties, actually coordinates the event. The Member provides input and support, but the activist sets the agenda.

No pissing contests allowed.

The GOP provides technical (e.g. webcasts, message boards, points of contact) assistance and provides the technology. The GOP would also provide financial assistance. The TeaParty activists frame the issues and the debate. They provide the enthusiasm and the motivation for the individuals.

I think the time is ripe to integrate GOP and TeaParty activists. Barack Obama went from a junior second tier liberal Senator to President in just 20 months. There are 19 months until the 2010 Congressional elections. We have time to move wisely and make major gains in the House and Senate.

Is Cantor taking the second step on the road to recovery? Contact him and let him know. He may well be taking that second step, but only time will tell.

Contact: frank.canzolino@gmail.com

We Must all Hang Together

2009-05-05T16:18:00.007-05:00

First, I wanted to thank Chicago Bungalow for inviting me to sit on the stoop for a while. I was just passing by, and asked if CB had any idea what the Tea Party movement was all about, and where it was going from here. We got to talking.

The Tea Party movement is something I could never have done myself. There is no way I have the skills and the contacts to get it off the ground. I doubt that I could get 350,000 people across the US to attend the 500 or so Tea Parties that took place around Tax Day. We owe a debt of gratitude to the original organizers that got this movement going. They have shown us one way to move forward as Americans become more vocal in their dissent of the current policies being implemented in DC.

I did some data entry for the organizers. We exchanged emails. I began to ask them questions: “What are you trying to accomplish?” “Where do you want the movement to go after the first wave of Tea Parties takes place?” “Are you reaching out to elected officials?” I never really received an answer that made sense to me, when I received an answer at all.

Perhaps the original organizers and the many participants never asked themselves these questions. Perhaps they never considered a plan on where they wanted to go. The spontaneity of the Tea Parties may actually explain their success as people acted on their widespread frustration with the establishment. I think the organizers and the participants were unprepared for their success. However, after a few weeks, the big questions remain unanswered. The participants of the Tea Parties still don’t have a cause around which to rally.

Don’t look to the Fourth Estate for an exploration of the Tea Party Movement in any reasonable depth. The Main Stream Media (MSM) missed the boat completely. Watching the MSM coverage, with the notable exception of FoxNews, you would think that Tea Party participants were right-wing whack jobs who are consistent with President Obama’s views he outlined at a fund raiser in San Francisco: "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

What nonsense. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I can tell you first-hand that the Chicago Tea Party was anything but a confluence of bitter people. Businessmen, mothers, construction workers, students, kids, blacks whites. You name it and they were there. You would have been hard pressed to find a demographic not represented in Chicago all of whom were protesting in a serious but good-natured manner. From my experience, the only bitter person may have been Susan Roesgen, the CNN reporter who embarrassed herself with her obviously biased reporting of the event.

The questions I asked the Tea Party organizers still hang out there, waiting to be answered. Let us start with the most fundamental question: What are the Tea Parties trying to accomplish? If you ask x-number of people, you will get at least x+1 responses. You will hear a litany of complaints about spending, taxes, bailouts and gun control, abortion and politically correct education. But while there are problems associated with all of those things, the REAL problem is none of those things.

Oink, Oink

Local guy, Jonathan Hoenig, managing member of Capitalistpig Assent Management, LLC, spoke at the Tax Day Tea Party in Chicago’s Federal Center (Video, Text). Hoenig outlined the problems in America, and precisely defined that feeling about the direction of America you have in your gut, “It has been described as socialism, fascism or communism. In various contexts, all are true, but let's refine it. From loans to the automakers to the bailouts for the banks, the taxation, spending and control, the primary philosophy that's powering the country now is collectivism.” That’s exactly it.

The root problem that all of the Tea Party organizers and participants are concerned about is the creeping adoption of the philosophy behind those that are haphazardly instituting change in America.

The most recent election may be about a lot of things, but I do not recall it being about the abrogation of our individual rights. In your gut, you feel that your fundamental beliefs are under attack, the way you live your life is no longer mainstream, and the way you earn your living is somehow immoral. You feel that your connection with the future generations of Americans is somehow severed.

Every element of American life is under attack: from without (terrorism, international courts of law, the UN, our allies and our enemies), and from within (spending, taxes, unions, special interests, fat-cat lawyers and your elected officials). Everything you felt were sure things in your life no longer are; your safety, your job, your income, your home, your upward mobility, your retirement. All of these things are now uncertain.

As Hoenig said, “over the past few years, America has gone from a country that “was the once land of ‘rugged individualism,’” to a country where “the ‘will of the people’ is implemented by force, not by voluntary trade.” Not only are our individual rights under constant attack, so is the republican form of government which was created to protect our individual rights.

We now live in a country ruled by the soft tyranny of self-appointed masters of the universe.

Professional politicians, jurists and opinion makers have slowly marshaled the power formerly held by individuals. In the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers proclaimed individual rights to belong to the individual, not the group. In the Constitution, the Framers enumerated the limits of government to prohibit infringement on those rights.

On a daily basis we are ill-served by our elected politicians who have been entrusted to honestly represent us, lied to by a MSM that has Constitutionally protected status to assist with their duty to report, and betrayed by the organizations that were formed to protect our rights.

The Tea Parties were held on Tax Day, but they were not about taxes. I will hazard a guess about why the organizers worked so hard to make the Tea Parties a success. I will risk saying that I know why the participants from all over the U. S. descended on 500 locations.

All were expressing their deep frustration about the arrogance of opinion-makers who are creating a series of events that are overtaking our civilization and our culture. All were dismayed about the behavior of their elected officials. All of them want the Tea Parties to be the first step. They want to stop the power grab that they see on a daily basis: by the President, by the Congress, and by the Courts.

Is it naïve to believe that the Tea Parties are that necessary first step? If not, we shall most assuredly hang separately.

(h/t: @ChicagoBungalow, @OrinocoPat)

Contact: frank.canzolino@gmail.com

Twitter: @FrankCanzolino