Blog @ MoreWhat.com

The American public desperately needs to find time away from daily life distractions to focus on matters in the national interest, scope and concern. Those who voted for Obama need to follow up on their choice in the election just as much as those who did not can no longer simply wait for the next election and next contender.

Critical issues facing this nation did not go away just because there was a presidential election. It is good that those who voted, legally, participated in the election and attended to one citizen responsibility. But that is only one responsibility. To assume that the voting is done and things will take care of themselves as expected is nonsense. Those opposing Obama in the election should naturally continue to oppose his flawed and dangerous agenda. But those who supported him in the election are equally responsible to hold him accountable for doing the right thing.

That is not happening. There is plenty of evidence to suggest the new administration is moving in directions that will harm this nation. Even members of the Democratic party and their various left wing bases are becoming worried and uncomfortable about the course of the new President.

Below are some references you should read whether you are paying attention or not. And again it cannot be overemphasized there is a need for you to contact your elected representatives to express what concerns you. Or you can simply ignore it all until the worst happens and continue to dismiss posts such as this while your country is at risk.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Bailing Out of the Constitution

By George F. Will
Sunday, March 29, 2009; Page A15

It is high time Americans heard an argument that might turn a vague national uneasiness into a vivid awareness of something going very wrong. The argument is that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) is unconstitutional.

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

Obama’s Fuzzy Math

A trillion here, a trillion there . . .
by Stephen Moore
04/06/2009, Volume 014, Issue 28

In his press conference last Tuesday, Barack Obama said that America must reject the “borrow and spend” policies of the past in favor of a strategy of “save and invest.” Sounds good. So why is Obama proposing to borrow and spend more than any president in the history of the republic? Already in the first 45 days of his administration, the federal government has authorized more debt spending than Ronald Reagan did in eight years in office.

Then last week the Democrats’ own Congressional Budget Office found that the ten-year deficits of the Obama plan will be about $2.3 trillion higher than the $6.97 trillion the White House is projecting. This is the policy of the party that was swept back into power in 2006 and 2008 promising a return to an era of fiscal responsibility.

Follow the money: Enough about the AIG bonuses – focus on the banks’ billions

Sunday, March 29th 2009
New York Daily News
Michael Goodwin

Get ready to take out the AIG pitchforks again. This time, there is an important use for them.

Now that the hysteria over the $165 million in bonuses is cooling, two inquiries aim to find out what AIG did with the bulk of its federal bailout money. Given the $175 billion at stake, those pitchforks can help dig through the details of who is getting huge chunks of taxpayer cash.

It’s a twist on the adage to “follow the money.” Finally, probers are following the big money.

Against the billions that have vanished, and with more on the hook as AIG unwinds its trading portfolio, Washington’s outrage over the millions paid for bonuses counts as a trivial pursuit. And with the Obama administration seeking new powers to take over troubled companies, the handling of AIG is a test case for whether the government can be trusted with that power.

Financial manipulation alert: Did AIG bailout money secretly prop up banks? (Michelle Malkin) 

This entry was posted on Monday, March 30th, 2009 at 2:16 am and is filed under Public Affairs, Announcement, wordpress, disclosure, ethics, oversight, America, United States, Public. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.