Blog @ MoreWhat.com

A combination of typical misleading information, at least headlines, from the MSM, the political celebrity which is Gov Sarah Palin, Democrats and Republicans, the pork stimulus bill and an organization with a willingness to do anything for a drink. How can you not love a story like that? The jury here is still out on whether or not the opening line in the first piece below is correct or not. Are ‘most Republican governors’ pushing for pork in the massive Obamessiah pork package? On the one hand it would seem a needless slap at their own party with the recent House vote in which every GOP Congressman voted NO. On the other hand the most frequent abuse at the state level in politics (rather than government) is to please local constituents by stealing all the federal dollars possible. By the success found in that ploy one can only assume voters are too stupid to realize that money is also public revenue from their tax dollars. And it also steals from taxpayers in other states as it is part their money too.

The last sentence in the first piece below suggest Palin is going to Washington for pork. This post began with an interest in checking on the claims of the statement that ‘most Republican governors’ are targeting the pork. So go figure, if you’re starting to check governors and while Alaska isn’t the first state by alphabetical order who comes to mind when you think GOP governor? For others Palin might not be the first to come to mind but it was here and that was the first stop. The second piece below suggests with its title that ALL Alaska lawmakers question Palin’s focus. C’mon, when the terms Alaska and lawmakers (plural) are used together does it not suggest all of them? Oh no, you say, it only suggests more than one. Point is at least in that piece the author provides examples of those who do and those who do not. The best part is it begins with the leader of the political opposition in Alaska driving by the mansion and wondering why the place is not all lit up? Was he hoping it was so he could bash her on global warming or greenhouse gases or her carbon emissions? But it made him wonder if she’s focused? How absurd that is. And to anyone wondering, the piece itself says the legislative session started on January 20 and it is only the 31st. Criticism comes quickly in Alaska.

Questions abound with Sarah Palin’s weekend trip to Washington DC. You can guess what they are. The first paragraph in Gov Palin’s press release ‘Non-Partisan Events in the Nation’s Capital certainly suggests although mildly vague that the Governor and her legislature are pushing for federal pork. The one who rose to fame on her self-promoted maverick and reform reputation even with questions on the bridge that wasn’t too far but went to nowhere and connections to other scandalous politicians is now going to campaign for pork????

Her state of the state near the end of the post suggests they were successful in bolstering the state of Alaska and storing some cash for this rainy day. As asked below, what is their condition and do they need help? Along with other 49 states one has to expect all cannot be saved by the Fed. And it all ends up being tested amidst members of an organization who will do anything for a drink.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

GOP governors press Congress to pass stimulus bill

NEW YORK (AP) - Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama’s economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.

Their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama’s spending priorities.

The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, scheduled meetings in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state’s share of the package.

Alaska lawmakers question Sarah Palin’s focus

By ANNE SUTTON – 11 hours ago

JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Driving home at night from her Capitol office, the leader of Alaska’s House Democrats often passes the governor’s white-columned mansion and wonders why more lights aren’t on.

Rep. Beth Kerttula assumes Gov. Sarah Palin is out of town, though Palin’s staffers say so far their boss has been there for most of the legislative session that began Jan. 20.

Non-Partisan Events in Nation’s Capital

Governor Sarah Palin to Attend

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 09-12

Governor Palin to Attend Non-Partisan Events in Nation’s Capital

January 28, 2009, Juneau, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin is traveling to Washington, D.C. this weekend to attend a number of non-partisan functions while also visiting with her D.C. staff to continue discussions concerning the president’s stimulus package and Alaska dollars. The Alaska Legislature is working on a joint resolution urging the Obama Administration to pass a fair stimulus package, a point Governor Palin will stress while in the nation’s capital.

Governor Palin will first attend a dinner at the residence of Fred and Marlene Malek Friday evening. Fred Malek is a prominent business leader and the founder and Chairman of Thayer Capital Partners. In addition to his work in the private sector, Mr. Malek has had a distinguished career in public service. The governor is honored to have received the invitation and to have the chance to speak about Alaska and other issues impacting our state. A number of high-profile business and economic leaders are expected, as well as political leaders who will be making decisions on the stimulus package, including U.S. Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), Dianne Feinstein (D-California), and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan will also be attending. On Saturday, in addition to the official meeting with her staff, the governor will attend the Center for Strategic and International Studies luncheon, which is a pre-Alfalfa event. Governor Palin will attend the Alfalfa Club Dinner.

These non-partisan and high-profile events provide Governor Palin with the perfect opportunity to speak further about not only Alaska’s needs, but how Alaska should be allowed to develop its natural resources in order to contribute to America’s quest toward energy independence. In keeping with tradition, President Obama is also expected to attend the Alfalfa Club Dinner.

The governor will return to Alaska on Sunday.

Contrary to published reports, the governor will neither be speaking at the RNC Winter Meeting, nor attending it.

###

editor’s note: The Alfalfa Club is an exclusive Washington, D.C. social organization which exists only to hold an annual banquet on the last Saturday of January. The group’s moniker is reference to the plant’s willingness to do anything for a drink.

from Gov Palin’s State of the State Address:

At a time when other state legislatures are staring at multi-billion-dollar deficits, and when our federal government proposes a deficit in excess of a trillion dollars this year alone, we have all the cautionary examples we need in the virtues of living within our means. With less revenue, we have an obligation to spend less money.

With our share of federal funds and Congress’ stimulus package, our obligation is equally clear: we must ensure these public funds serve vital needs – as is the case of infrastructure for our gas pipeline, needed by the nation; and the Kodiak Launch Facility, adding to national defense. President Obama pledged not to let this stimulus package devolve into the past familiar scene of politicians lining up for obscure earmarks. This is reform at work.

The excerpt below raises the question of how well positioned is Alaska to meet the current fiscal nightmare?

Two years ago at this podium, I urged spending restraint. I asked that billions of surplus funds be deposited in state savings. This struck me as a simple precaution against, as I described it, massive single-year cuts down the road, if and when we faced tougher times. You legislators agreed, so we can now meet our challenge in a stronger position.

Damn! I miss Sarah Palin (Sister Toldjah) 

Many have been entertained by the shoe throwing incident that occurred during President Bush’s last official visit to Iraq. Regardless of your opinion or impression of the event one has to wonder about the fate of the shoe throwing ‘journalist.’

He is reported below to be in jail awaiting trial. He may be the only one who never laughed about the incident.

The only handy resource for displaying the sculpture in this story is from YouTube and presented below. No assurance for the validity or accuracy, etc., of this video is expressed or implied by this blog or this post’s author.

Shoe Sculpture Honors Iraqi Journalist
By VOA News
30 January 2009

Iraqis are paying tribute to the journalist who threw his shoes at then-President George Bush at a statue dedicated to the incident.

A large bronze sculpture of a shoe, accompanied by an ode to journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi, was unveiled Thursday in Tikrit.

Zaidi gained instant fame during a Baghdad news conference last month, throwing his shoes to express his anger at the U.S.-led invasion of his country. His act inspired thousands across the Middle East to carry shoes in rallies of solidarity.

He is currently in jail awaiting trial.

Tikrit is the hometown of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. After a Baghdad statue of Saddam was toppled in 2003, Iraqis displayed their disgust with him by hitting the sculpture with shoes and slippers.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters

Trackposted to Nuke’s, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, Political Byline, Woman Honor Thyself, Wingless - Alastair Crooke on Gaza & Hamas - living in the twilight zone!, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Screw the UN

Another in a long list of additions to the Obama Administration reinforces the concern that while Hillary Rodham Clinton was unsuccessful in becoming President she succeeded in establishing a third Clinton term in spite of the loss. Susan Rice is US Ambassador to the United Nations and was a member of the Obama Biden Transition Team as well as senior foreign policy adviser for their 2008 campaign.

It has been said of Obama that filling vacancies from the previous administration demonstrates a preference for persons with impressive resumes’ in both education and experience. This selection was no departure from that criteria or strategy. A Wikipedia account of Dr Rice states her father told her to ‘never use race as an excuse or advantage’ and that she was concerned her accomplishments would be viewed as the result of affirmative action. Her personal success is impressive. It is possible she hails from a family with above average means so affirmative action should be a moot point. But what if any is the role of nepotism?

Madeleine Albright is described in the same account as a family friend and mentor to Rice. She urged Clinton to appoint Rice as an Assistant Secretary of State in 1997. While she impressed many and certainly enough to be confirmed others felt she was inexperienced and inflexible. A few years in the Clinton Administration and then to the Brookings Institution. A common career path for unemployed public servants similar to former Congressman becoming lobbyists. Next up the Clinton Obama Wars and filling the Administration with former staff to appease the Clinton clan before the convention. Oh there’s no nepotism here. And this is not a criticism directed at Rice for it is the case with most if not all Obama selections. So how is that working or shaping up for the average citizen?

Regarding President Obama’s election UN Sec Gen Ban Ki Moon expressed ‘Our goals are shared. Together, the United States of America and the United Nations can look forward to a new era of strong and effective partnership, delivering results and the change we need.’ If you take that statement at face value avoid persons selling infrastructure in Brooklyn or vacant land in Florida. Moon had more to say. Earlier this week, he welcomed Mr. Obama’s election “with great optimism,” noting that the UN and US have many common goals. By his own admission and that of Obama and Clinton these goals include but are not limited to the following:

United Nations reform (which will never happen)

Climate Change (or the promotion of more gloom and doom)

The Darfur Peace Process ( which does not exist, resembles the climate change item and is as likely to fail as that in the Middle East )

Global Economic Crisis (his words, and something these spendthrifts no nothing about )

But what Ban Ki Moon and the rest of the posse at the UN were really interested in was this.

UN Launches $613 Million Appeal for Gaza
By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
29 January 2009

The United Nations is appealing for $613 million to help tens of thousands of people in Gaza recover from the three-week Israeli military offensive in the Palestinian territory. The money will provide life-saving assistance over the next six to nine months. The U.N. appeal was launched at the annual World Economic Forum in the Swiss alpine village of Davos.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is the first world leader to enter Gaza since Israel imposed a blockade on the Palestinian territory in June 2007. He describes his distress at what he saw.

And how does Moon qualify for the designation in the report above as a ‘world leader’? More to the point is what does the UN do besides make headlines and statements when they’re not collecting money and using it for who knows what? Could it be that aside from all the other conspiracy theories about the UN that they are quite happy with the Middle East conflict as another venue to work their craft of separating people from their money and giving it to their friends? If you object to that suggestion please explain why none of their ‘programs’ end in success or just end? Sustaining conflict in the world would be of benefit to them given their methods of operation.

So what does Dr Rice bring to the party?

26 January 2009 – There is no more important forum for effective cooperation among States that the United Nations, the new ambassador of the United States to the United Nations stressed today, following her first meeting with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

“I am looking very much forward to engaging in a cooperative, constructive fashion with my colleagues here in New York. I will listen, I will engage and I will work to advance United States interests, recognizing that in many, many instances, our national interests are best advanced when we are working hand in hand with that of others,” Susan Rice told reporters at UN Headquarters in New York.

Ms. Rice said she had an “excellent meeting” with the Secretary-General, covering a range of issues including climate change, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), UN peacekeeping, non-proliferation, Sudan and the situation in the Middle East.

“The United Nations is a vitally important institution. It has great potential. It still has room for great improvement,” she said, adding that she and Mr. Ban also touched on the challenge of making the Organization more effective and more efficient.

She recalled that President Barack Obama had wanted to place the US at the centre of the fight against poverty, and had stated that the MDGs – the globally agreed targets to slash poverty and other development challenges by 2015 – were now US goals.

Based on President Obama rescinding The Mexico City Policy, the liberal thirst for abortion and a press conference by the executive director of the UN population fund the crew must be drunk with sadistic pleasure over the spoils of a political victory. Here’s the damming evidence from the UN press conference in their own words.

“President Obama’s actions sent a strong message about his leadership and strategic vision to support causes that will promote peace and development, equity and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic empowerment of the poor in all regions of the world,” she said. With the resumption of United States funding, UNFPA would be able to maintain recent gains during the current financial crisis and provide support to women in the poorest countries of the world. United Nations Member States had repeatedly said that progress for all would not happen without progress for women. That meant making women’s health, rights and equality an international priority.

She also welcomed the decision of the new United States administration to revoke the Mexico City policy, which paved the way for a restored United States partnership with some of the world’s leading non-governmental organizations that provide family planning services around the world. Access to safe and effective voluntary family planning, as Mr. Obama had said, was one of the most effective ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies and empowering women and men to plan their families. If a woman could not take decisions about her own fertility, she could not make decisions about anything else in her life.

And the final expression of support for ’safe’ abortions as ‘family planning’.

To a question about family planning, she said that its importance was demonstrated by the fact that unsafe abortion was considered the second leading cause of death for African women. Women who did not have access to family planning would go to have unsafe abortions, which often led to death.

Translation:: The money is used to pay for abortions the ‘patient’ cannot afford which would lead to back alley practitioners who care less about the patient than the liberals care about the unborn child. And ‘family planning’ is liberal-speak for abortion. The only reason they support contraception is political. It gives them another pork item to support in legislation and lets them believe they have convinced you they are trying to do things the right way. Could it be any more pathetic?

So Dr Susan Rice will be doing the bidding of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Keep in mind both Clinton and Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy. Also notable is Obama’s weakness for ACORN and voter and campaign finance fraud as well as the Clintons’ scandal history including illegal transfers of sensitive technology via Chinagate. The perils of international politics grow larger. And the threat is not always from without but within.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

So much changes and so much stays the same. While visions of Chinagate danced in her head. Hillary Rodham Clinton figured the scandal was dead. Opponents claim with evidence to support. Obama is a third Clinton term with more espionage to thwart. Right outta the Gates warning of preparedness with who flung poo, Clinton seeks more with China as if selling secrets is not taboo.

A Clinton Administration via President Obama is not a suggestion off the mark based on staffing since The One assumed office. A little background refresher of only one chapter from the Clinton book of scandals raises serious questions about a new Secretary of State focusing on China after Chinagate.

Try to make the argument that this is not something about which we should be concerned. For those of you who voted for Clinton and/or Obama in the 2008 campaign and/or election, did you consider this before entering the voting booth, mailing your ballot, doing the driveby or letting ACORN vote for you?

There are reports available suggesting President Clinton supported transferring sensitive technology as a method to insure no single nation had military dominance over the others. Liberals are a nightmare even terrorists could appreciate…… and do.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Exhibit 1
From approximately 1994 to 1998, Bernard Schwartz, who was the chairman of Loral Space & Communication Ltd., became the single largest donor to the Democratic Party by making contributions totaling approximately $1.5 million to various Democratic Party entities, including President Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign.

Exhibit 1a
Congressional and other related investigations subsequently found that, when a Chinese rocket attempting to launch a Loral-manufactured satellite failed, Loral helped China to identify the cause of the failure, thereby advancing China’s missile program and threatening U.S. national security. Loral subsequently paid a $14 million fine relating to this transfer of sensitive U.S. technology.

Exhibit 1b
“The Amended Complaint alleges that Hillary Rodham Clinton devised, agreed to participate in and implemented this unlawful scheme, and that President Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore authorized, agreed to participate in, and also implemented the scheme.”

For the lazy among you…..

The Idiot’s Guide to Chinagate (from Newsmax)

Exhibit 2
This is the same Justice Department that has botched up the investigation of the theft of information on the W-88 warhead, that has refused to appoint an independent counsel to investigate campaign fundraising illegalities, and that continues to cover up vital information in defiantly refusing to release the LaBella and Freeh memos suggesting that crimes may have been committed in the Chinagate scandal.

Exhibit 2a
Is this the first time the Clinton administration has been involved in lawbreaking and corruption? Hardly. It has almost become a way of life: Travelgate, Filegate, Buddhist Temple fundraisers, illegal foreign campaign contributions, the compromise of high-technology nuclear secrets to China, not to mention perjury and obstruction of justice–the list goes on and on.

Exhibit 2b
On the one hand, there is the mind-boggling story of how the Clinton administration deliberately changed almost 50 years of bipartisan security policies–relaxing export restrictions, signing waivers to allow technology transfers, ignoring China’s violation of arms control agreements, and its theft of our nuclear secrets, opening up even more nuclear and high technology floodgates to China and others–thus harming U.S. national security.

On the other hand, there is the continuing coverup–the effort to hide from Congress and the American people the true damage that has been done to national security and the Clinton administration’s central role in allowing so much of it to happen on their watch.

A face only an anarchist could love.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for a “comprehensive dialogue” with China, extending beyond economic issues.

Secretary Clinton Tuesday said U.S. economic problems mean that people are losing jobs not only in America but also in China. So Clinton said that while the economy will always be a centerpiece of the U.S. relationship with China, the new U.S. administration wants it to be part of a broader agenda.

She said the Bush administration turned the strategic dialogue with China into an economic one.

Clinton did not mention what other issues she would bring up with the government in Beijing.

Human rights activists have called for renewed U.S. pressure on China to improve its human rights record and freedom of expression.

The French news agency said groups such as Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders, and veteran Chinese dissident Harry Wu expressed hope at a U.S. congressional hearing Tuesday that President Barack Obama will give China’s human rights problem a high priority.

The Associated Press quoted Defense Secretary Robert Gates as telling a Senate hearing Tuesday that the United States is ready to handle any foreseeable military threat from China.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.
Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Political Byline, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, Wingless - Cuba: Beautiful Country, People…Not so Beautiful System…, Rosemary’s News and Ideas, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Boehner: “This Was a Bipartisan Rejection of a Partisan Bill”

Washington, Jan 28 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement after the House advanced a trillion dollar spending bill authored solely by congressional Democratic leaders:

“This was a bipartisan rejection of a partisan bill. Families and small businesses across America are struggling, and they are counting on their leaders in Washington for ways to strengthen our economy. House Republicans want to work with congressional Democrats on legislation that fulfills the goal set by President Obama: crafting a bipartisan plan focused on job creation. Unfortunately, the trillion dollar government spending bill before the House today was not that plan, and a bipartisan coalition of Members rightfully rejected it. It is time for Capitol Hill Democrats to finally work with Republicans on a job creation package that lets families and small businesses keep more of what they earn and that is supported by the bipartisan majority that the American people expect on an issue so important.”

NOTE: No House Republicans voted for the legislation, while eleven Democrats crossed party lines to vote against it. Earlier today on the House floor, Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Ways & Means Committee Ranking Republican Dave Camp (R-MI) offered a House GOP economic recovery plan that will create 6.2 million new American jobs over the next two years, according to a methodology used by President Obama’s own nominee as Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, Dr. Christina Romer. House Democrats rejected the plan.
#####

from MoreWhat.com:

Much has to be done and there is a long way to go before many have confidence in the GOP but this week was a good start thus far. Other than the nagging problem of rubber stamping confirmations in the Senate.

Stanford Matthews

This Roll Call Vote and number 40 in the previous post deal with party line votes and the bailouts and stimulus legislation from the US Congress. It is refreshing to see members of the GOP stand strong and united on these two roll call votes. Before now, where have you been boyz and grlz. This is no cause for celebration but it would be nice if this marked the beginning of a return to conservative values from members of the GOP. And a special thank you to the 11 Dems here and 9 in the other roll call who voted ‘no’ to tragic spending of public funds. However that is tempered by a distrust of Washington that this and several similar outcomes will not make believers out of conservative voters. This must become a trend.

Spending us into oblivion with our own money and taxing us into oblivion in the future will not preserve the middle class Mr Obama!! Ya, the middle class term you love to invoke in political speeches. Some of us may have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night. That goes for the rest of you in Washington too!! These proposals are like the article featured on this blog in an earlier post and link from Bloomberg where the author states they are like booze for alcoholics.

Stimulate the private sector with tax cuts and incentives to expand business, increase jobs and help the consumers earn enough to spend. After that foster prudent business and investment practices and restrain politicians from destroying what is left and what we may produce. Stimulate the private sector as government hasn’t seen an idea it cannot screw up.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 46
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

H R 1 YEA-AND-NAY 28-Jan-2009 6:11 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year ending 2009

—- NAYS 188 —

—- NOT VOTING 1 —

Aside from the Roll Call Vote Results below from house.gov you might find the following format useful as well:

Gov Track Listing for Roll Call 40 (click here)

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 40
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

crossposted to:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

The debate and/or division among opponents and supporters of abortion may never end. That supposition is based partly on the near equal division in US politics demonstrated in the back and forth restoring and rescinding of the Mexico City Policy initiated in the Reagan years and named after the location of a UN conference on population where it was announced.

From the standpoint of ‘rights’ those who approve of abortion typically refer to it as a ‘woman’s right to choose’ and those reject it defend the rights of the child to live. In the Mexico City Policy debate those who oppose the policy say it not only denies money to NGOs who provide abortion but other contraceptive methods as well. And of course opponents of abortion who favor the policy typically indicate pro-choice advocates support abortion as a barbaric after-the-fact solution for irresponsible behavior and a failure to accept the consequences of their actions.

About the only thing the two sides agree on is encouraging a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies. Pro-life advocates maintain that better alternatives for unintended pregnancies include abstinence and adoption. Many pro-choice advocates would likely support the notion expressed by Barack Obama during the presidential campaign. ‘Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,’ he said. ‘I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.’

Below is a brief review excerpt from USAID on President Bush restoring the policy in 2001 shortly after taking office. After that is a link to President Obama rescinding the policy shortly after he took office. After President Reagan initiated it in 1984 President Clinton rescinded it in 1993, again, shortly after taking office. The trend is painfully clear.

Restoration of the Mexico City Policy Concerning Family Planning

“This policy recognizes our country’s long history of providing international health care services, including voluntary family planning to couples around the world who want to make free and responsible decisions about the number and spacing of their children.”

The White House
January 22, 2001

On January 22, 2001, President George W. Bush announced reinstatement of the so-called Mexico City policy that required non-governmental organizations to “agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.” The President is committed to maintaining the $425 million funding level provided for in the FY 2001 appropriation because he knows that one of the best ways to prevent abortion is by providing quality voluntary family planning services.

President (Obama) rescinds “Mexico City Policy” on Abortion

If one searches data on abortion recurring statistics may shed some light on the problem. A significant percentage of the abortions performed each year are not the patient’s first. As many as one out of five abortions in given years were the patient’s second or third. A not so surprising number of women reported inconsistent use of contraception as the reason for the unintended pregnancy.

Wikipedia history, etc., of Mexico City Policy

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senate roll call vote: Taxpayer funding of overseas abortions reinstated (Michelle Malkin) 

So what has the Senate done on this day January 27, 2009? Another confirmation of someone from the Obama campaign (payoff) who worked not only for Senator Ted Kennedy but also the Clinton Administration. So let’s do this for an Obama campaign staffer from the economic working group. The nomination confirmed by the Senate accomplished the following:

Daniel K. Tarullo, of Massachusetts, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of fourteen years from February 1, 2008

All but one Senator voted for this confirmation. Okay, two others did not vote but 96 voted ‘yes’. So to take some comfort that there was at least one senator willing to buck the trend said senator was evaluated. Here is an excerpt from the Republican Senator from Kentucky’s reasons for not voting for Geithner:

This is all the more unfortunate because America needs a strong and credible Treasury Secretary now more than ever. The most recent Secretary treated Congress with borderline contempt and hostility. He was not forthcoming with information or explanations, only marching orders. I do believe Mr. Geithner understands the important role Congress has to play in our economic policies, and until his evasive and unsatisfactory answers about his tax problems, I thought he would at least do a better job than Secretary Paulson at working with Congress. If Mr. Geithner is indeed confirmed, I hope he will follow through on his promises to be responsive and respectful to Congress.

Mr. President, for all the reasons I have discussed, I cannot in good conscience support this nomination. I yield the floor.

And the following excerpts are what he had to say recently on the bailout or stimulus package:

This crisis is too important to get wrong. None of the authors are economists, but they are pretending to do the work of these experts. What we need to do is to listen to the experts, come back and work together on a bipartisan basis to create a plan that will truly address the crisis unfolding before us. That is how Congress works best.

Sounds pretty good so far, but then,

Despite the advertised claims, this bill also is not a serious attempt to address our energy needs. More than 50% of our electricity is supplied by coal, but this bill does not do enough to advance technologies that will make coal burning cleaner and safer.

Carbon sequestration technology is vitally important to the future of coal. I am glad to see that the Chairman’s mark included language that would expand the research and development credit for carbon sequestration but this takes us only a short way towards our goal.

The future of coal must be clean coal. Through the adoption of new technologies we can reduce emissions and clean up the coal power process.

We can find a way to use coal to solve our nation’s energy problems while fulfilling our obligations to the environment. I realize that some of my colleagues would like to take coal out of our energy equation, but they have no viable alternative.

Based on an earlier comment from this same statement the fine Senator from Kentucky explained that people in his state need jobs. Kentucky has employed thousands in the coal industry and a 2004 estimate indicates an economic impact to the state of $9 billion dollars. So let’s see. What could be Senator Bunning’s motivation for bringing up ‘energy’ and ‘coal’?

Just when you think there’s a hint of reason in Washington you slap yourself for having the idea. And the GOP expressed concern over their plight since going lefty on spending the last few years. Where is the evidence they are mending their ways from their fall from grace or at least reviving conservative principles?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Stimulus stupidity alert: $75 million for smoking cessation (Michelle Malkin) 

President Obama takes another page from the Ahmadinejad (Columbia U) playbook. For the Iranian it was engage the opponent, your target, your enemy, the infidels. Attempt to persuade them you mean them no harm. For Ahmadinejad it was more a case of the trojan horse. For Obama it is more a case of the appeaser cowering to a sworn enemy of Israel and anyone who defends them. Falls nicely into place with that infidel thing. And just as nicely into Obama’s surrender strategy if you recall the campaign of 2008.

The only thing missing from Obama’s message below is ‘and they all lived happily ever after.’.. And we know the genre of writing from which that fantasy comes. Hope and change will not render it true. This Messiah would need to conjure a miracle or three for that to happen. Pleading shows weakness and no courage of conviction whereas strength through the projection of power and determination based on defending principle does. Count the number of times that appeasing the agenda of rogue nations has been successful in the past.

Russia was not requested to ‘tear down that wall’ during the Cuban missile crisis. Japan wasn’t asked to surrender right after they attacked Pearl Harbor. But President Obama tells the ‘Muslim world’ he intends ‘to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace.’ He tells people with no interest in peace with Israel that he will work on that. Is that what comes from a Harvard education?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

President to Muslim World: “Americans are not your enemy”

In his first interview with an Arab television station, President Barack Obama offered a bold change to America’s relations with the Muslim world.

“My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives,” President Obama told Al Arabiya. “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.”

In the interview, conducted in the White House map room, President Obama also expressed his commitment to tackling the Middle East peace process immediately.

“Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we’re not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we’re going to start now,” he said. “It may take a long time to do, but we’re going to do it now.”

The interview is part of the President’s broader outreach to the Muslim world, which includes a promise to make a major address from the capital of a Muslim nation.

Al Arabiya is a 24-hour Arabic-language news channel based out of Dubai.

US President Obama gives exclusive interview to Al-Arabiya TV

U.S. President Barack Obama says he will work to show the Muslim world that Americans are not their enemy.

In his first formal interview - granted to an Arab television network - the American leader said his job is also to show Americans that people in the Muslim world simply want to live their lives and make better lives for their children.

Speaking on Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television, Mr. Obama pointed out that he has lived in Muslim countries and has Muslim family members.

As for Islamist terrorists, he said their ideas are bankrupt. He said nothing they have done has ensured that a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education, or has better health care.

Mr. Obama also repeated his inaugural address pledge to extend a hand to countries such as Iran if they are - as he said - “willing to unclench their fist.”

He said the United States must be willing to engage in diplomacy with Iran and promised to lay out a general framework and approach over the next several months.

Asked about the president’s comments Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it is up to Iran to demonstrate some willingness to engage meaningfully with the international community.

As for the current standoff between Israel and Hamas, he said “the moment is ripe” for Israelis and Palestinians to achieve a lasting peace, but he added that all parties in the region must play a role in the process.

Mr. Obama said it is not possible to think of the Middle East without looking at the region as a whole, including Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan, for he said they are all interrelated.

He also said he plans to follow through on a promise to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital.

Economic Cures Are Like Booze for an Alcoholic:
Commentary by Caroline Baum

Fast forward one year, the crisis is still going strong, the villains are still under attack, yet something curious has happened: The policies and actions responsible for the economy’s illness are now being prescribed as cures.

The excerpt should be enough to get you to read the rest of the article. There will be no commentary on it in this post. The piece speaks for itself. No sense diminishing that with predictable praise.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Less than one month before the announced and ‘planned’ switch from analog to digitial for television signal transmission in the US the Congress is deciding in their divine wisdom that the February 17, 2009 deadline must be delayed. As Senate Democrats have worked hard to pass the legislation requested by President Obama to postpone the DTV transition until June, Republicans have been working on legislation of their own. Good luck finding evidence of a roll call vote on the topic at either house.gov or senate.gov. (at least at the time this post was being prepared) The delay would push the Feb 17 deadline to June 12. Some in Congress are worried that running out of coupons, millions on a waiting list and more money for the gov’t subsidy being tied up until the initial ones are used indicate many are not ready for prime time with digital converters.

Companies like AT&T and Verizon who paid $16 billion to license the soon to be vacated public airwaves used for analog broadcasts will have to have licenses extended and public broadcasting states the delay could cost them $22 million. The coupon program probably cost about $2 billion already and Congress is looking to spend another $250 million with this delay. Some reports suggest the switch was intended to open up the airwaves to accommodate public safety uses. So why did private companies spend billions to license the vacated space?

As commentary on this blog stated before this whole project is a mess and was handled poorly from the beginning. With the recent developments it appears those comments were not entirely off base. And these are the same people trying to convince you they have the answer for saving the economy with bailouts and stimulus packages. So how confident are you now of the chances that will be successful?

Here’s what else was found on this topic:

S.328
Title: A bill to postpone the DTV transition date.
Sponsor: Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV [WV] (introduced 1/26/2009) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 1/26/2009 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.MAJOR ACTIONS:

1/26/2009 Introduced in Senate
1/26/2009 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.

3 . National Digital Television Consumer Education Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.299.IH]
4 . DTV Converter Box Rebate Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)[H.R.508.IH]
5 . Digital TV Transition Fairness Act (Introduced in Senate)[S.25.IS]
6 . Digital Television Coupon Improvement Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.339.IH]
7 . DTV Delay Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate)[S.328.ES]
8 . To provide additional coupons for the digital-to-analog converter box program and to expedite delivery of coupons under such program. (Introduced in House)[H.R.661.IH]
9 . TV Converter Box Coupon Program Relief Act (Introduced in Senate)[S.300.IS]

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

January 23, 2009

ROCKEFELLER ANNOUNCES COMPROMISE ON DTV DELAY BILL

~Compromise Incorporates Adjustments to Aid Broadcasters and Public Safety Officials~

Washington, DC – This evening, Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, announced a bipartisan compromise to the DTV Delay Act introduced last week.

The amended DTV Delay Act will retain the extension of the digital transition date to June 12, 2009. Additionally, the agreement extends the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) auction authority to pay for the costs of the delay, reaffirms a broadcasters’ right to make the transition before June 12, permits the FCC to award vacant spectrum space to public safety officials, and fixes the converter box coupon program.

Senate consideration of the DTV Delay bill is expected next week. Senator Rockefeller inserted the following statement into the Congressional Record in support of the DTV Delay Act:

On February 17, 2009—less than one month from today—our Nation is scheduled to make the transition to digital television, or DTV. On this day, full-power television stations across the country will stop broadcasting in analog and switch to digital signals.

The way I see it, right now we have a choice. We can do the DTV transition right or we can do it wrong. Doing it right would mean that as many as 21 million households across this country do not lose access to news, information and emergency alerts. Doing it right would mean that every consumer who relies on over the-air television is aware of the steps they need to take to ensure continued reception and receive the assistance they need to prepare for the transition in their home. And doing it right means that no one across this land wakes up on February 18 to find that their television set has gone dark.

But the shameful truth is that we are not poised to do this transition right. We are only weeks away from doing it dreadfully wrong—and leaving consumers with the consequences. It is no secret that the outgoing Administration grossly mismanaged the digital television transition. The coupon program that was designed to help consumers defray the cost of converter boxes to ensure the continued functioning of their analog television sets has a waiting list of over two million. This number will multiply to millions more in the weeks ahead. Making a difficult situation even worse, we also face the frightful specter of converter box shortages.

On top of this, consumers are aware of the transition, but confused about its consequences. One study suggests that while recognition of the transition is widespread, an alarming 63 percent have major misconceptions about just what steps they need to take to prepare. Calling centers at the Department of Commerce and Federal Communications Commission are ill-equipped to deal with the avalanche of calls that are expected on February 17 and in the days and weeks after. Consumers will be on their own, forced to navigate through the messy rubble of a botched transition.

I believe we can and should do better. Doing better means more than cobbling together the failed efforts of the last Administration. Doing better requires more attention and more resources. But above all, it will require more time—to get the DTV transition right.

This is why last week I introduced the DTV Delay Act. I asked the Senate to delay the date of the transition from February 17 to June 12, 2009. This will give us the time we need to develop an approach that puts consumers first and provides them with the assistance they need.

In the interim, I have been working with the distinguished Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Senator Hutchison, to modify and improve the language of my earlier bill in an effort to broaden support and speed its passage.

I rise again today to introduce, now with my good friend Senator Hutchison, an amended version of the DTV Delay Act. This version incorporates adjustments to help manage the transition in affected communities, including a provision that makes clear that despite this date change the transition needs of broadcasters and public safety officials will be respected.

Let me be clear. This legislation is not perfect. But it represents a turning point—a start. The record will reflect that I have spent years advocating a different course. I voted against the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which set this hard date for the transition deep in the winter. I voted against this bill in both the Commerce Committee and during its consideration by the full Senate because it fell short of a real plan for minimizing consumer disruption. I voted against this bill because it failed to spend any resources building a national interoperable public safety communications network in the spectrum vacated by analog broadcasting. Voting “no” was by no means a popular thing to do. In fact, I was one of only three “no” votes in the Commerce Committee.

Last year, I introduced and the Congress passed the SAFER Act. This legislation provided the Federal Communications Commission with authority to extend analog television broadcasting so that essential public safety announcements and DTV transition could be viewed in the days following the February 17 transition. I now believe that this is not enough. It is a meaningful bandage, but the situation we face requires more intensive care.

Mr. President, the DTV Delay Act will not fix all of the problems associated with the transition. More work needs to be done to ensure that consumers are aware of the transition and get the help they need. But it gives us all the time to do the transition right. Time to develop a new plan, time to implement a new set of ideas to manage the transition, and time to make sure that in the switch to digital signals no American is left behind. Senator Hutchison and I are committed to making sure every American is able to manage the DTV transition without undue hardship. We are working on initiatives to be included in the economic recovery package. If we are able to make substantial progress on the administration of the transition this should be the last delay we have to seek. Barring unforeseen emergencies, we should not have another delay. I know the Obama Administration shares our commitment to getting this right so that we can avoid any further delays.

So we have a choice, we can proceed with the DTV Delay Act or weeks from today we can survey the wreckage of a failed effort to transition to digital broadcasting, complete with angry consumers, converter box troubles, and calling centers overwhelmed with consumer complaints. Worse, should a tragedy strike, we face the prospect of millions of consumers without access to television, without a lifeline for news and information that may be necessary to protect them from harm.

Again, we have a choice. And I know what I choose. I choose that we delay this transition because I believe we owe the American people a successful migration to digital television. Today will be the second time that the Majority Leader has sought consent on the DTV Delay Act. We simply can’t keep coming back again and again to delay as time is running out. We must act now because we will not have the ability to address consumer needs if we wait much longer.

I ask my colleagues to do the same. I warn those who would stand in the way, who dismiss my sense of urgency, that should they force us to keep to our current course, it is the American public who will bear the brunt of their opposition. We owe our citizens so much more than this. So I ask my colleagues to join me and support the DTV Delay Act.

###

And rightly so that some members of Congress would not vote to confirm a nominee for Treasury Secretary who evaded paying a substantial amount of taxes he owed. Adding to the problem is the failure in managing his personal affairs reflects directly on the nature of the position he was seeking. Those who dismiss his personal choices as a mere careless mistake or inconsequential action bring their own judgment into question. To only address the problem by beginning to resolve the issue upon being nominated for Treasury Secretary supports the notion that he knew exactly what he was doing and consciously made the wrong decision. And this is the man that they confirmed as Treasury Secretary.

So much for the claims that ethics has returned to government. This casts a pall not only on the nominee but those who nominated and confirmed him. The following Republicans voted to confirm Geithner for Treasury Secretary:

Corker, Cornyn, Crapo, Ensign, Graham, Gregg, Hatch, Shelby, Snowe and Voinovich voted to confirm. Bond did not vote. That’s 11. Do the math. And even if other votes changed in response to these votes being ‘no’ at least the right intentions would be recorded. Perhaps the most surprising and disappointing vote here is that of Senator Shelby.

Stanford Matthews
Morewhat.com

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111^th Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs —60

NAYs —34

Not Voting - 4

The video title as seen on youtube has been omitted. It is only fair if this story is true to present it for benefit of those who feel oppressed or offended by other similar stories with decidedly different outcomes.

Personally, I view it as understandable risk assessment that some find unpleasant. I call it a sign of the times, fair or not.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Imagine that.. Someone is interested in taking Bill Gates and his legacy, Microsoft, to task for laying off American workers. The complaint from US Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa ties the current financial crisis and the trend of increasing unemployment to companies who abuse the H-1B visa program of hiring foreign workers for American jobs.

Political life in Washington may be as fragile as anything else vulnerable to the impact of severe economic downturns. Where was all this angst over visas and foreign workers during the summer of 2007 when Congress and the White House tried to pass McCain/Kennedy shamnesty? There’s hardly a difference. A primary responsibility of the federal government is to defend its citizens from foreign attack. Whether that is from the typical source of armed forces of another country or countries, the sinister terrorism from radical groups without a well-defined geopolitical base or an economic invasion on our shores and borders from foreign sources the task is understood. You protect your own citizens first and once protected then and only then do you extend assistance to those who are not citizens.

One could say better late than never except these occasional expressions from elected officials are more often political in nature and for their vested interest and not yours. Senator Grassley is an elected official with some volatility. Similar to a company’s stock which responds wildly and unpredictably to changes in the market. But this recent press release and letter from the Senator does have some usefulness. To bring some attention to both inequities in the labor market as well as a renewal notice that immigration policies including visa programs and offshore outsourcing are by no means dead issues. With the election of the most liberal senator in the US to the Office of President of the United States you can bet the farm on the fact the issue of amnesty will rear its ugly again this year or next.

For Immediate Release
January 23, 2009
Grassley Works to Ensure American Workers are Priority

WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley today said that in a time of economic downturn, American workers must be a top priority for American companies. Grassley reiterated those words after he sent a letter to Microsoft urging the company to make efforts to retain qualified American workers during the recently announced lay-offs.

Microsoft employs thousands of people through the H-1B visa program. This temporary work visa program allows American companies and universities to employ temporary foreign guest workers who have the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor’s degree in a job category that is considered by the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services to be a “specialty occupation.” The purpose of the h-1b program is to help companies hire foreign guest workers on a temporary basis when there is not a sufficient qualified American workforce to meet those needs. However, the program is not intended to replace qualified American workers.

In October 2008, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released an internal report that found the H-1B program has more than a 20 percent violation rate. The fraud identified in the report included jobs not located where employers claimed, H-1B visa holders not being paid the prevailing wage, forged documents, fraudulent degrees, and shell businesses. In one instance the H-1B position described by the employer was “business development analyst.” However, it turned out that the H-1B visa holder would be working at a laundromat doing laundry and maintaining washing machines.

Grassley has been a leader in the effort to improve the H-1B visa program. In the 110th Congress, he introduced a comprehensive H-1B and L visa reform bill with Senator Dick Durbin that would give priority to American workers and crack down on unscrupulous employers who deprive qualified Americans of high-skill jobs. He has also asked questions of both American and foreign based companies about their use of the H-1B visa program.

Here is a copy of the text of Grassley’s letter

January 22, 2009
Mr. Steve Ballmer
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond , WA 98052-6399

Dear Mr. Ballmer:

I am writing to inquire about press reports that Microsoft will be cutting approximately 5,000 jobs over the next 18 months. I understand that the layoffs will affect workers in research and development, marketing, sales, finance, legal and corporate affairs, human resources, and information technology.

I am concerned that Microsoft will be retaining foreign guest workers rather than similarly qualified American employees when it implements its layoff plan. As you know, I want to make sure employers recruit qualified American workers first before hiring foreign guest workers. For example, I cosponsored legislation to overhaul the H-1B and L-1 visa programs to give priority to American workers and to crack down on unscrupulous employers who deprive qualified Americans of high-skilled jobs. Fraud and abuse is rampant in these programs, and we need more transparency to protect the integrity of our immigration system. I also support legislation that would strengthen educational opportunities for American students and workers so that Americans can compete successfully in this global economy.

Last year, Microsoft was here on Capitol Hill advocating for more H-1B visas. The purpose of the H-1B visa program is to assist companies in their employment needs where there is not a sufficient American workforce to meet their technology expertise requirements. However, H-1B and other work visa programs were never intended to replace qualified American workers. Certainly, these work visa programs were never intended to allow a company to retain foreign guest workers rather than similarly qualified American workers, when that company cuts jobs during an economic downturn.

It is imperative that in implementing its layoff plan, Microsoft ensures that American workers have priority in keeping their jobs over foreign workers on visa programs. To that effect, I would like you to respond to the following questions:

* What is the breakdown in the jobs that are being eliminated? What kind of jobs are they? How many employees in each area will be cut?

* Are any of these jobs being cut held by H-1B or other work visa program employees? If so, how many?

* How many of the jobs being eliminated are filled by Americans? Of those positions, is Microsoft retaining similar ones filled by foreign guest workers? If so, how many?

* How many H-1B or other work visa program workers will Microsoft be retaining when the planned layoff is completed?

My point is that during a layoff, companies should not be retaining H-1B or other work visa program employees over qualified American workers. Our immigration policy is not intended to harm the American workforce. I encourage Microsoft to ensure that Americans are given priority in job retention. Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect these American workers by putting them first during these difficult economic times.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
United States Senator

The following is an excerpt from Microsoft’s website on the testimony of Bill Gates at a Congressional hearing in May 2008

U.S. immigration policies need to allow American companies to hire the best talent. Gates calls on Congress to reform immigration policies to allow more highly skilled professionals to work for companies in the U.S. “At a time when talent is the key to economic success, it makes no sense to educate people in our universities, often subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, and then insist that they return home,” he said. “To address the shortage of scientists and engineers, we must … reform our education system and our immigration policies. If we don’t, American companies simply will not have the talent they need to innovate and compete.” Gates urges Congress and the White House to address this problem by extending the period that foreign students can work in the U.S. after graduation, raising the cap on H-1B visas, creating a clear path to permanent residency for high-skilled foreign-born employees and increasing the number of green cards. “The shortage of scientists and engineers is so acute that we must do both: reform our education system and reform our immigration policies.”

Funding for basic research should be increased. Gates believes basic research funding is an essential part of keeping American companies competitive and sparking new industries. “Even though we know that basic research drives economic progress, real federal spending on basic research has fallen since 2005,” he said. “I urge Congress to increase funding for basic research by 10 percent annually for the next seven years.” Gates said that federal funding for basic research supports the education of the next generation of scientists and engineers, and provides the raw material that U.S. companies transform into commercially successful products.

Here is one reaction by an elected representative obviously enamored by Mr Gates and a believer that the Darth Vader of IT brought worthwhile technology to the masses.

“Bill Gates has played a key role in our nation’s economic and technological growth for more than 20 years and I found his testimony today informative and compelling. I was most struck by Gates’ strong appeal to Congress to fully fund the America COMPETES Act. This new law makes a significant commitment to our country’s future by investing in math and science education and federal research. I will continue to vigorously advocate for funding of the America COMPETES Act,” said Rothman.

The excerpt below combined with asking government and the taxpayer to do his research for him are the things Bill Gates was really interested in.

I personally witness the ill effects of these policies on an almost daily basis at Microsoft. Under the current system, the number of H1-B visas available runs out faster and faster each year. The current base cap of 65,000 is arbitrarily set and bears no relation to U.S. industry’s demand for skilled professionals. For Fiscal Year 2007, the supply did not last even eight weeks into the filing period, and ran out more than four months before that fiscal year even began.

In summary the view from this blog is as follows. For regular readers the views here on Microsoft are known. As an example there are reports on another lawsuit against MS called ‘vista capable’ where customers are upset that hardware requirements for vista exceeded those stated or some such nonsense. While this blog detests the attitude of MS toward customers and the repeated crap software sold, if customers have not learned by now what they can expect from MS they deserve what they get. But that is not the central point of this post.

There was mention of funding research in the information provided. That’s nice. The question would be is it the taxpayer’s responsibility to pay for research or educating future employees? Is it fair for the private sector to benefit from those expenditures rather than fund their own research? There are technology transfer programs with the federal government whereby arrangements are made to move publicly funded research to the private sector. Is a fair monetary exchange made for those transfers? And for the last point is Senator Grassley’s latest expression of discontent to Microsoft just another politician trying to make points with voters?

As this post really relates to the current economic conditions and the mass frenzy to push bailouts and stimulus packages on the public dime something else needs to be said. Once government does something undoing it is nearly impossible and if it is possible there is much more pain and suffering involved than would have been present with precise and reasoned action. There is no need for speed since no one in Washington nor anywhere else can guarantee that any solution suggested will work.

If these spending programs are to be deployed then they should be done in such a way as they can be stopped on command and rather than huge outlays smaller amounts should be floated as test balloons to avoid even larger mistakes. The experience thus far with AIG and others in their arrogance to spend taxpayer money should be proof enough that planned spending will not work without deadly force as a protection. Just today CITI has decided to buy a private jet. Ya, they say it will not be paid for with bailout funds. Right. If you need bailout funds then you don’t have enough of your own money or you lied about needing bailout funds. In any event you don’t need to buy a private jet. Has this post made the point clearly?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com