Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Seems like good timing for a basic blog rant. It’s been a tough couple of weeks and I’m cranky. Keeping the discussion on matters of politics a little review of the current situation seems in order.

Obamanation remains fixated on their, ‘let’s take over everything’ agenda. The central flaw in their quest beyond public disapproval and even outrage is similar to that of a typical spendthrift. They believe there is still money in the bank if they still have checks.

It’s amazing really. Politicians in both parties have frequently if not continuously committed the same financial sins for which they accuse others. Yet they have no shame for their own misguided actions or for political rhetoric employed as unemployment engulfs our nation.

By our votes we bestow upon them a public trust complete with perks for royalty yet we shed that anchor over two hundred years ago. And with the possible exception of the founding fathers those in public office have a two century record of malfeasance in office. If they were not directly involved with corrupt government they were willing participants by the fact of their incompetent objection.

As noted here elsewhere, notable Republicans like Palin, Romney and Scott Brown support McCain for re-election. Yet it is clear McCain is not a conservative. Which casts doubt on the credentials of the aforementioned.

Mr. Romney, who was supported on this blog since 2008, provided a less than convincing excuse for his endorsement. If McCain’s years of service and experience qualify him as the best choice for American leadership what does that say about his support of shamnesty during the second Bush 43 term? And then there’s Lindsey Graham with similar problems. The GOP has not turned the page toward conservative principles. How will they do that with barely half a year to go before the 2010 elections?

Yes, they are fiercely opposing the current liberal push for a totally out of touch agenda. But what else are they going to do? They believe this strategy against the Obamanation will translate to victory in November. What’s new about that? Sound like politics as usual just as much as the Dems failure on every level since the 2006 midterms.

The GOP fell from grace and have not returned in any meaningful way. The libs are apparently willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Worst of all, they have not drained the swamp. The culture of corruption is alive and well in Washington, DC and around the country in all levels of government.

The voters must drain the swamp in November 2010.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

editor’s note: The quality of this post has suffered as it is Friday and this month’s budget only allows for beer rather than top shelf single malt Scotch. Po’ Stanford. And no images were chosen for this post as none were available at the time of publication to fit the mood.

This is not political rhetoric or some lobbyist’s scheme to support a strategy not in the public interest. It is what this country has been missing lately. Plain, everyday, good old-fashioned American common sense.

An excerpt from a WaPo report on health reform provides a reasonable introduction to what’s wrong and why a step by step approach to reform the wise choice.

Their efforts suggest a return to the frenzied pace of last year’s health-care debate, which prompted more than $200 million in advocacy ads and broke records for lobbying. Companies and trade groups last year hired more than 4,500 lobbyists to influence health reform — amounting to about eight lobbyists for each member of Congress, according to an analysis released last week by the Center for Public Integrity.

Reacting to President Obama’s recent statements that he will move ahead with legislation, health insurance companies have enlisted hundreds of lobbyists in a full-court press against the proposed overhaul, which would force dramatic cuts and increased regulation on the industry. At the same time, insurers are pushing back against a separate bill approved by the House last week that would remove the industry’s antitrust exemption.

Assuming the article’s facts are straight, ‘eight lobbyists for each member of Congress’ should tell you all you need to know. But add to that all the talk of ‘agendas’ and what some POLS are obviously trying to do and it becomes clear there is little in the way of public interest included in this legislative nightmare.

For instance, by itself in the spirit of ’step by step’ do you suppose anyone would object to a ban on deals between drug manufacturers to keep generics off the market? That’s right. The only ones who would object are the drug manufacturers and their lobbyists.

Would anyone object to allowing insurance companies to compete across statelines? Sure, state and local POLS who claim their legislation protects the public by allowing only approved players to participate. Do you suppose any of the same political shenanigans are involved at the state level?

These are some of the cost-cutting ideas that may come from either side of the aisle and appear to have merit without benefit of reading specific legislative language that may render them less than ideal. But the point is without taking unthinkable risk with national debt and deficits in addition to what already exists, doing things step by step would remove the all or nothing pitfalls from what is otherwise just more politcal theatre.

Our nation needs to address health issues. But the manner in which it is being done currently does not resemble anything close to the word reform. You might want to tell your elected representative we should take a break, eliminate the insanity and take a common sense step by step approach to solving health issues.

Sure, the step by step idea has been a GOP mantra for some time now. So if you are a liberal you naturally oppose it. But this post does not suggest all the GOP talk is correct. But there is no benefit to dismissing all the GOP or the Democrats say just to present an argument. The generic deals ban mentioned above may quite possibly be a Democrat’s idea. It seems reasonable. Step by step was proposed by the GOP. Another reasonable idea.

So let’s scrap these reform bills that are nothing more than political agendas. And do it right one piece at a time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

News reports out today regarding the Dems jobs bill and the vote of newly minted Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) raise questions. Brown is being described by some as a sellout. Others suggest he had no choice given circumstances in the state he represents.

You can view the roll call vote by clicking here. The questions about this vote should ask more than why did Senator Scott Brown vote for it. Why did seven other GOP members not vote?

Among those not voting was Senator Jeff Sessions. To this point Senator Sessions has been viewed as a positive force in the US Senate and that will probably continue. But the question remains. Why did he and six others not vote on this bill?

Voinovich and Bond voted ‘yes’ and are retiring. Collins and Snowe voted ‘yes’ and that is no surprise given they are RINOs. That suggests Scott Brown does not plan on being in the Senate long or is a RINO or both. If nothing else the last three statements are humorous. But only because the vote’s outcome is so pathetic.

The previous post on Romney, McCain and Palin is troubling. This post adds to that concern. Again, what the hell are Republicans thinking (or are they)?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

With some troubling news coming out of CPAC 2010 along with similar revelations about various ‘conservative’ philosophies and their proponents more reports suggest 2010 is still wide open.

The recent endorsement of John McCain by former running mate Sarah Palin was analyzed by some as the former Alaska governor being polite. But that argument fails given her unnecessary decision to ’stump’ and raise money for the veteran Senator from Arizona whose conservative values have always been in question. His maverick status being built more by a departure from conservative values than adherence to it.

Now this:

Romney backs McCain in Arizona Senate primary race

It’s like 2008 all over again: Mitt Romney is endorsing John McCain. This time, though, it’s not after a bitter presidential primary between the two GOP rivals.

With too many Republicans appearing more like their liberal counterparts in the Democratic party the wonder is how anyone can suggest a GOP majority after the 2010 elections. This blog features sidebar links for Palin and Romney. And past posts have called for support of both in past elections. For now those links and the supportive posts will remain. But the troubling trends being reported render all that subject to change.

What the hell are these people thinking? Enough noise was made by the public this year that even POLS with hearing impairments should have received the message. A return to basic common sense American values is long overdue and more necessary for survival than previously thought. If those connected to the GOP are as unresponsive as their political opposition from the other major party then one thing remains clear.

They are no better than those they criticize and have apparently improved upon the liberal trend of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s a suggestion for evaluating the soon to be televised (on Cspan) health summit hosted by the White House. You may recall President Barack ‘Mr Transparency during the 2008 campaign’ Obama was complicit in efforts by the Democratic party to exclude the Republican party from the business of crafting so-called healthcare reform legislation. Correction, that is now ‘health insurance reform.’

Just in case you forgot the following excerpt is provided as a reminder that much of the latest push in Congress and the White House for ‘reform’ has been behind opaque rather than transparent doors.

C-SPAN questions follow Obama

President Barack Obama might just wish he had opened even one health care meeting to the C-SPAN cameras.

The issue is starting to follow him around.

Once again Tuesday, he faced a question about it, from a high school student in Nashua, N.H., who asked him to grade the White House’s transparency efforts, given the fact that all the health care discussions have been behind closed doors.

Now that Obama has realized the mistake in hiding negotiations he expresses a ‘warning.’

President Obama warned lawmakers on both sides of the aisle Saturday not to turn the upcoming White House health-care summit into “political theater,” but rather “to seek common ground in an effort to solve a problem that’s been with us for generations.”

The ‘problem’ for the Dems is they have been trying to takeover healthcare for ‘generations.’

The standard rhetoric from the left now that they have initiated damage control for their lack of transparency is that the GOP is the party of ‘no’ and has no plans. The GOP counters with examples of their plans and a website to publish them. The right fears a setup or ambush by the left in this overdue suggestion of transparency. The left has the majority in DC as well as most of the cards yet have been unable to move their liberal agenda forward. It is reasonable to suspect all of this from both sides is politics as usual.

Everyone has an agenda including you and I. An agenda can be a good thing. But finding one in Washington DC that is good is next to impossible. Can politicians escape politics in this upcoming ’summit.’? Not likely.

The public is not happy with the Obama agenda or Congress. It is quite possible the GOP prefers the Dems own this one, meaning Obamacare. If health related legislation is passed in Congress without GOP support and turns out to be the disaster expected they can say we told you so. The Dems want the GOP to have ’skin in the game’ by signing on to this legislation without benefit of participation in its crafting. Obama’s health summit is likely a maneuver with that in mind.

Once again you are on your own to evaluate what is really going on. The upside is November 2010 holds the key. Tell the White House and Congress what you think with your vote.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival (Michelle Malkin)

Criticism of the Tea Party phenomenon is limited to familiar rants. During last summer’s townhall meetings any attendees raising opposition to the liberal agenda were labeled as paid political thugs or racists or bigots clutching their bibles or guns. Frequently those dismissing the current public outrage over the growth of government, debt, deficits and taxes describe the opposition as mostly white. Yet you can likely compile a list of those opposing the current political climate featuring a significant number of non-white participants.

The race card is becoming quite the irrelevant insult largely adopted by the political left as are other complaints from liberals that characterize their political opposition as somehow inferior. A piece from Real Clear Politics sums up the situation rather well.

Palin and the Tea Party protests are also united by what is united against them: the liberal base. This is not the wave that brought Barack Obama to the White House. But this too is a people’s movement. It might not be liberals’ people. But grassroots activism it is indeed. And it has summed now to this convention, combining the second biggest political rock star with the hottest movement in American politics. That gets mainstream conservative voters, like my 7th grade girlfriend, to pay attention. This Tea Party might only be getting started.

Reference was made to some of the legitimate criticism or concerns about the Tea Party nation and all it represents. It is reasonable to evaluate developments and trends especially when they pose significant threats to established mechanisms within society. And politics is certainly no exception. Entrenched power structures like political parties have the most to gain or lose by success or failure of ‘movements’ like the tea parties.

The most important point to consider on this topic is not whether the tea party movement or its convention are good, bad, left, right or universal. That the message would be ignored by those in public office even when it represents a growing discontent across the nation beyond the movement itself demonstrates the reason for its existence.

To remove those from office who simply don’t get it or refuse to respond to the public they represent.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

you need to read the following….

An inconvenient question about the Mount Vernon Statement (Michelle Malkin)

Once again the economic media darlings weigh in. Paul Krugman deserves his lefty description. This is a man who would be a natural for NASCAR; circular motion always moving to the left. And like NASCAR races, each lap is a repeat.

In a column of his last week, Fiscal Scare Tactics, Krugman makes his case with something as appealing to liberals as bashing Bush. That is, bashing Bush. When they’re not bashing Bush they’re bashing Bush or something about Bush.

So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news. It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits, and projections of those deficits haven’t changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder.

To me — and I’m not alone in this — the sudden outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized.

‘…even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency’ is exactly the point, Mr. Krugman. For all the disdain elites and political power brokers have for ordinary citizens my fellow ‘commoners’ and I do understand clearly at least one element of this topic.

The following are some things that increase and rarely, if ever, decrease.

-The US national debt
-The US budget deficit
-Taxes
-the size of government
-the pay for those in government including elected representatives
-entitlements
-those receiving entitlements
-legislation that spends taxpayer dollars
-the amount of money borrowed by the government
And did I mention taxes?

Mr Krugman: Continuing to spend money we don’t have is a bad idea. And yes, it is an idea that is not new. That’s the problem. Not like their should be a learning curve on this issue. Spending what you don’t have is what caused much of our current problems. And the agenda(s) being pushed in DC are tantamount to the Madoff ponzi scheme.

Obama-speak, et al (translation): We are taking more of your money (tax dollars) to spend on things we want that will benefit you in the long run.

Like I said, a ponzi scheme to rival Madoff. And where is he currently residing?

And from another media darling comes the following:

This being a democracy, don’t the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don’t they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking “in the plain words of plain folks,” because the people are “suspicious of complexity.” Counseled Blow: “The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, ‘Mr. President, we’re down here.’ “

A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are “a nation of dodos” that is “too dumb to thrive.”

The key ‘economic’ word here being ‘agenda.’ And the attitude of those now governing toward those being governed is as much a part of an economic discussion as anything else. Since it is the dollars of those governed that those now governing plan tu use for their agenda. And the problem is, to pay for it, requires borrowing into the next millennium and continuing to pay for it long after that.

This is why liberals bashing the Tea Party citizens is an idea as bankrupt as their agenda. There is a piece at the Boston Herald from a ‘fellow’ at the Heritage Foundation that should make Mr Krugman cringe.

If spending jumps $12,000 per household, taxes must eventually rise. The president would make a large down payment on that with a $2 trillion tax hike on all Americans. Yet that would still leave the government running up $8.5 trillion in deficits over the decade, setting the stage for even larger and more damaging broad-based tax hikes later.

Ominously, economists close to the White House suggest that a value-added tax of 15 percent and 20 percent is eventually possible to finance Obama’s agenda.

By doubling the national debt over pre-recession levels, he’d push America toward a tipping point - where rising debt levels will become too large for global capital markets to absorb. This could trigger a financial crisis, an interest-rate spike and tax hikes.

And it still comes down to that nothing new concept Mr Krugman alluded to in his column. We cannot continue to spend what we don’t have. Everyone can understand that.

And to couple another item with Mr Krauthammers’ commentary comes the following brief item Charles Hurt at the NY Post. In a small amount of space Mr Hurt condenses the sanity of tea party nation those plain words for plain folks like us, down here, near the voting booth.

These people have come from all across the nation for the first National Tea Party Convention to denounce not just President Obama and the Democrats, but Republicans and all of Washington for getting infected with the same voracious and parasitic plague spawned by big-government liberalism.

Read the rest, it won’t take long and anyone can understand it. Even those lowly voters who have the audacity to raise a loud voice in opposition to leaders with a hearing problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Transparency and accountability have been a focus in the long battle to defeat liberal control of healthcare in the United States. While the antiseptic qualities apply, described in the phrase, sunshine is the best disinfectant, public demand to review healthcare reform legislation and have input is key. President Obama’s release of his budget proposal for 2011 which begins in October requires the same scrutiny and public focus.

Are you kidding me? A three point eight trillion dollar budget ($3.8 trillion) is not what the doctor ordered. Just as the Democratic party and their agenda is on life support so is the US economy. Given that the vast majority of federal budgets are entitlements and discretionary spending this budget number is preposterous. Like the stark reality being experienced by the unemployed and under-employed the White House and Congress need a wake up call.

The plan includes big increases in personal and business taxes, modest spending cuts and increased outlays for education, defense and jobs initiatives.

First of all, tax increases are nonsense in this economy. Second, modest spending cuts are equally ignorant. As for education, sure, it is important. But the simple fact that everyone will have to suffer includes education. So your college plans are postponed for a year or two. Join the Peace Corps or something. And why do we think education can only be improved by spending money. That hasn’t improved student or teacher performance yet.

Cutting more entitlements would certainly help paying for any defense needs. And who the hell needs a jobs bill now that needs to be paid for over ten years? $80 to $100 billion over ten years for government make work jobs? That’s ridiculous.

And enough with the future timelines for reducing spending, deficits and the national debt. Do it now. Right now, in this budget in this year turn the corner and halt the damage being done by government malfeasance. As an ending note to this post Lamar Alexander put it best in describing current politics in Washington.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), appearing on the same program, praised Mr. Obama for talking about spending and tax cuts, but said his ideas were flawed. “I’ll give the president some credit,” he said. “He’s in the right church but the wrong pew.”

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, following links to the WSJ articles is worth the trip.  And so is the following link.

Debt deluge: Here comes the $1.6 trillion flood of red ink (Michelle Malkin) 

Coakley will rightly get most of the blame should Brown actually pull off what once seemed to be an impossible victory. Yet much of the responsibility will have to rest with Barack Obama, who has guided his party so poorly that it is having trouble making an appeal to voters in Massachusetts.

To put it bluntly, the Obama White House has been politically inept in the last year. It has made serious miscalculations, and today it is paying a price.

The link above makes a good case for how the Obama administration cultivated the landscape allowing Scott Brown to harvest a strategy for victory in Massachusetts. And since Martha Coakley supported Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential campaign you have to wonder if Barry from DC allowed that to influence his response to this potentially devastating loss for his agenda.

One year into a four year term and that nasty tendency of liberals snatching defeat from the jaws of victory rears its ugly but welcome head again. Sound bites proliferating since Brown’s victory suggest the Dems will continue their pusuit of defeat in 2010. That may be rewarding for the American public as many incumbents may fall if they don’t retire first. Both major political parties run the risk of not learning lessons from public outrage. And term limits in the form of elections might usher in a new era in US policy and politics.

Good stuff.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

….the anniversary of President Obama’s Inaugural, and it’s worth recalling the extraordinary political opportunity he had a year ago. An anxious country was looking for leadership amid a recession, and Democrats had huge majorities and faced a dispirited, unpopular GOP. With monetary policy stimulus already flowing, Democrats were poised to get the political credit for the inevitable economic recovery.

Twelve months later, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has fallen further and faster than any recent President’s, Congress is despised, the public mood has shifted sharply to the right on the role of government…

A report from WSJ before the results of the Taxachusetts special election to fill the vacancy left by Ted Kennedy is linked above and points to what still rings true after Scott Brown won.

What has been discussed since the ‘little known’ Republican state legislator became the first GOP Senator from MA in decades is what it may mean. Some are concerned he will represent another moderate or RINO from the Northeast like Snowe or Collins. Others say that beyond confirming the voting public is angry at the White House and Congress this election is not a game changer. And this blog suggested in a forum entry on this site that Scott Brown’s victory is less than a two year window for the GOP to hold a typically blue state seat.

What appears to be the most significant lesson of this event may fall on deaf ears within the GOP. Contrary to some reactions this event does not guarantee anything for conservatives and even less for the GOP. For some in the GOP to accept this as a vindication of criticism toward them, think again. The Republican party still has much to do to prove they are worthy of victories in the 2010 midterms.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Senate candidates - not content with battling over health care, homeland security and bank taxes - can’t seem to stop bickering over who exactly that desk in Washington belongs to.

“This is not Ted Kennedy’s seat. It’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s your seat,” declared Republican state Sen. Scott Brown at a rally yesterday in Quincy.

The title of the piece above emphasizes the ‘exciting’ factor of the special election in Taxachusetts to fill the vacancy in the US Senate. Ted Kennedy held the seat for almost half a century. Scott Brown states the seat belongs to the people not the Democrats. Vicki Kennedy, Ted’s widow, voices a similar sentiment. One thing for sure, MA AG Martha Coakley is no Ted Kennedy. But Vicki Kennedy endorses her for the people’s seat.

Vicki Kennedy’s words would seem more sincere had she not endorsed anyone. Just like Caroline Kennedy’s apparent tendency to stay out of the fray in politics would have appeared more genuine had she not endorsed anyone, including Barack Obama, in the 2008 election.

It is reported that Martha Coakley avoids references to Kennedy or Camelot in her campaign. Perhaps the only thing she has done correctly from the beginning. With Scott Brown leading in the polls heading into Tuesday’s duel at the ballot box one thing seems clear. The bloom is off the rose for Camelot and voters of all stripes are angry.

Had the Democratic party not abused their Congressional majority by not only shutting out Republicans from any serious negotiation on legislative matters, etc., but ignoring public dissatisfaction with the state of healthcare reform and the failure to promote job growth this election may have been a slam dunk.

Sure, anything can happen and usually does in politics. And neither party has a monopoly on bad decisions. But right now the Democrats are in the majority and with that distinction comes the blame for poor performance.

A trend by the voting public to place one party in the White House and the other in control of Congress was commonly viewed as ignorant. Maybe that trend is looking smarter to the pundits these days. After all, the complaint was nothing would be accomplished under those circumstances. But given the track record of both parties having them do nothing or being forced to find common ground may be in the best interest of our nation.

Maybe the voting public is smarter than the credit given them by the pundits. The answer may come on January 19th in MA.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A stunning poll showing state Sen. Scott Brown ahead of Coakley wrecked Obama’s week. After all, Obama’s dream of overhauling the nation’s health-care system could hinge on the Democrats holding 60 seats in the Senate to keep Republicans from filibustering the bill to death. A Brown win would also allow the GOP to bring Obama’s entire agenda to a halt.

Reason enough for conservatives and independents to vote for Scott Brown. Given the reluctance of many Congressional Democrats to vote for Obamacare it is good reason for liberals to vote for Scott Brown too. The pressure placed on Democrats by their party, including Obama, Reid, Pelosi and others, to vote the ‘party line’ is nothing more than extortion in an election year. No different than the bribes offered Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

The debate has never been about healthcare reform. Those supporting Obamacare expecting reform will not get it. The singular reason for Dems passing this legislation is to give President Obama a political victory for his agenda to include in the State of the Union address with the hope of saving his first year in office. That’s an expensive campaign item taxpayers will have to fund. With no guarantee of benefits in the future or at least not for the first four years. Conveniently placed well beyond the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Again, reason enough to vote for Scott Brown no matter who you are or what you want. At the very least Brown offers a chance to remove the flaws from healthcare reform legislation and present an honest bill.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: Health Care Debate is Now Officially Underway (a text version)